Over on Random Xpat Rantings the terrible excuse for a human being who calls himself Xplat sets forth an intriguing proposition: for men in search of sexy times, having money is the equivalent of a woman having tits.
In other words, it’s not absolutely necessary for a man to have big bucks to garner the attention of the opposite sex, just as it’s not absolutely necessary for a woman to have something in the tit department in order to garner the attention of men, but it helps. A lot.
Oh, by the way, the title of the post in which he sets forth this theory is “ALL women are inherently gold diggers down to their pussy juice.”
Let’s let him explain, in his own icky way:
Women know their value. They know they can trade their value for their benefit. In [South-East Asia] this is not a dirty little secret. It’s not even an open secret. It’s just a fact of life. Money is part of the equation, blatantly and openly. …
Money-and-power-and-social-status is exactly equal to breasts. It can be a cause of sexual attraction in and of itself, and can maintain a relationship when there is nothing else being offered.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure when someone is literally interested in nothing about you except your money, you’re not actually in a “relationship” with that person.
Women aren’t men with vaginas. Their sexual attraction triggers are different. It’s not just that they fuck for food. Not JUST a matter of pragmatic sales of a service. Actual attraction is ALSO involved.
I like big bucks and I cannot lie?
Now, of course Xsplat here is challenging the common PUA gospel that men shouldn’t rely on money to win over their “targets” but rather on being cool and caddish and, you know, going to places where there’s a good chance a lot of the women will be pretty drunk.
Manospherians hampsterbate about this with a zillion “ya buts”. Ya, but you don’t NEED money. Yup, and girls don’t NEED tits.
Having tits is better and more attractive anyway, and girls with tits can get more and better quality men.
Having money is better in exactly the same way. You don’t see many flat chested Penthouse centerfolds, nor are there many broke romance novel heros.
Well, I don’t know much about romance novels, but from what I hear there’s a shitload of slash fiction about two dudes named Sam and Dean who basically live out of their car.
It’s not the case that SOME girls are gold diggers.
It’s just a matter of all the gold diggers mining for gold in different ways.
And of course all of this turns out to be a justification for Xplat’s own use of his relative wealth, as a western expat living in Southeast Asia, to exploit impoverished women for sex.
For me sex is about ecstatic intimacy. Money helps to get more intimacy with a greater percentage of girls, and higher quality girls. I choose to allow egoic esteem to include finances. Money is not cheating. Money helps to skin the cat. Money is not separate from my fantastic ethereal self. Money is part of what I am; part and parcel of what I am to a woman.
That’s got to be one of the creepiest and most delusional excuses for sexual exploitation I think I’ve ever run across in the three years of doing this blog.
Dominatrix brain bleach:
http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/a9/1e/aa/a91eaaaffaf225ed348d6e9e5fac5989.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5c/85/dd/5c85ddb57dc6214e70940b7c6cf41a69.jpg
http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/14/e8/eb/14e8eb239a12bde101a093763b9de3ac.jpg
Along with a hefty dose of warning everyone in the vicinity who might not have noticed this toxic attitude. Blech.
PVC Sphynx is the best! 😀
🙂
I can see Katiekins doing the leather look, if she could be bothered.
RE: CassandraSays
I love it when people in the scene argue that if someone is scaring you by invading your space and attempting to cross your boundaries then you must not be a real dom, and they were just testing you.
Uh, yeah, right. Pretty sure disabled doms or doms who’ve survived violence might be a little less easy about people doing that. It really says something about exactly WHO they expect to be ‘real doms.’
RE: Cerberus
And I’m glad to say I was part of the outcry that made sure he wasn’t invited back as a presenter the following year.
Who was this chucklefuck so I can avoid him?
RE: neuroticbeagle
AAAAAH! That second image is TERRIFYING! D:
Sounds like some of these losers think “dom” means “Cyberman”.
Nah, it just means “Gorean warrior”.
I think I’d prefer to hang out with a Cyberman than some Gorean dude.
At least the Cyberman would smell better.
First of all, I saw the stuff in this thread about M*yM*y and all I can say is… wow that was a weird experience. I’m used to people getting a bit nasty when I argue with them on the Internet but that was zero to YOUR LIFE IS FORFEIT in absolutely record time. I appreciate all the MBZers who sent support my way. 🙂
Secondly, I’m going to sorta kinda defend the “topping from the bottom” thing. I’ve seen scenes where the bottom was really vague about what they wanted before a scene but very particular about what they wanted while it was going on, and the top was really flustered and frustrated by that, and the experience was unpleasant for both of them.
*However*, the solutions to this are clearer negotiation beforehand, tops getting better at communicating during the scene, and maybe the two of them just need to find more compatible partners. The solution is not for the bottom to just shut up and let the top do whatever they want.
True!
And whatever else they do, I’ve never heard of the Cybermen being interested in sex.
PLEASE DO NOT ENLIGHTEN ME IF SUCH FANFIC EXISTS
:: waves hello at Cliff, and sends further waves of support ::
Oh, dear, MayMay has a series of posts about consent. They’re about as awful as you’d expect. It’s like watching a toddler attempt Olympic hurdles.
::waves::
Hi Cliff!
Well, the thing is the abusers are able to better hide in the, “kink” community because people are people.
What happens is the community makes a big deal of consent, but it’s about playing with the dynamics of power imbalance, which can make it harder to see when someone has crossed the lines. It’s also possible (speaking as someone who trained in a field where the tricks, and tools, needed to do this were taught), to strain someone’s sense of what they can say
“no” to.
If the dom knows there is a thing the sub is interested in, but fears, that’s a powerful tool in breaking down the ability to refuse. It can be presented as a ‘test’, “just keep going, see how much you can take. I won’t go too far, you can trust me”.
Then, by stopping well short of the line, and taking time to make sure everything is ok; and doling out rewards for being brave, by putting the sub in a place of wanting both to please, and to prove themselves, the dom can, so long as they don’t rush it, move the sub into a place where refusal isn’t seen as standing up for one’s limits/boundaries, but failing to live up to the subs desires/’potential’.
And all of that can be done in public, because the parts which are actually abusive look like someone being attentive, and careful, and nurturing.
The friends I know in the scene (and who’s parties I catered) had rules about who could come. There were off-site meetings; where rules were talked about, and non-sexual cuddling was done; in part to defeat any of that sort of, “I’m always in charge” bullshit”.
That, and we’d bounce their ass if we saw any mindgames we didn’t like, but I know that’s just one small part of the scene.
RE: Cliff
Secondly, I’m going to sorta kinda defend the “topping from the bottom” thing. I’ve seen scenes where the bottom was really vague about what they wanted before a scene but very particular about what they wanted while it was going on, and the top was really flustered and frustrated by that, and the experience was unpleasant for both of them.
I would buy that… except surely there are tops who were really vague about what they wanted before a scene as well, and then got uber-specific, but there’s no negative term for them. (Except maybe ‘bad communicators.’) What bugs me about the term is that there doesn’t seem to be a reverse for tops.
RE: Kittehs
It exists. Believe me. It exists.
Cassandra: Yep. My first experiences of the community involved walking in going “hi, my name is Cassandra and I’m a domme” and having not one but multiple much older men go “no you’re not, you’re actually a sub, and you want to submit to me, right now”.
…No, these were actual doms, and they were nasty scary dangerous people.
I’ve seen people try to pull that shit. I’ve seen it in the kink context, and in the, “guru” context. It’s weird how people try to power trip their fantasies (that they want someone, and they are Alpha Dogs, dominant over everyone; so all they need to do is say, “submit” and people will), onto others.
I might’ve mentioned I had a partner who was seeing someone who thought like that. My reaction to being told I was prey… and he was going to replace me, and put her in his “pack”, was not what he expected. It’s possible he was capable of being a nasty person, but he wasn’t prepared to have it called right then; and in a way tailored to attack his core view of his place in the universe.
I really don’t like that sort of person, I don’t like them when they are manipulating my partners in ways that will affect my relationships, and I sure as fuck don’t take being threatened gently.
LBT – I think the term for that situation is also “topping from the bottom,” if the bottom objects.
…ouch. Point made.
There does tend to be a “person that sees themselves as an irresistible force meets immovable object” aspect to those confrontations, where it’s clear that it’s never occurred to the aggressor that someone might stand up to them. Which makes me worry about what’s happened when they’ve tried the same thing in the past.
CassandraSays – Is it one of the ones about how really, we’re all abusers in some way, and it’s just inevitable that you’re going to violate someone’s consent sometimes? Seems like a lot of looking around and going “we all are, right? right? it’s not just me, guys?”
*hurls more metaphysical support bombs at Cliff’s lovely head*
@ Cliff
Yep. Maybe I’m just naturally cynical, but when I see someone attempting to reframe violation as OK and as being about how someone feels after the fact, my first instinct is that they’re trying to find a way to get away with violating someone by persuading the person not to complain about it later. The stuff that Maggie Mayhem was saying about him reinforces that impression.
LBT-
He’s one of the two douchebags of the rope manual website Two Knotty Boys.
Still remains one of the rapey-est doms I’ve had the displeasure of meeting. Saw him this year doing nazi cosplay for some random ass scene that I’m sure has edge-play-blah blah blah, but I’m pretty sure the main reason he was doing it was so he could hang out in the lobby in full nazi regalia as a giant fuck you to anyone who’d care about that being triggering or upsetting.
Actually his twitter conversation with Maggie was the creepiest part of all this. It’s not often that you get to see an abusive relationship playing out in text like that without being directly involved, but that conversation made the hair on the back of my neck stand up.