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.
The best part of that one is the little comic comment when you mouse over.
Sticks and stones can break my bones, but words can make me think I deserve it…
RE: Kittehs
to dig up some good old Aussie insults, he’s a two-bob drongo and about as much use as a fart in a thunderstorm.
These are great insults. You come from a proud, glorious nation, Kittehs. And thanks for the reassurance. Like, I know I won’t have to do this for much longer, but I still HATE that I’m doing it.
straight men (who could be described as women-fetishists)
O_o
o_O
Soooo, if straight men are women-fetishists… and gay men are men-fetishists… what are bi people? And what about the classic, “I’m straight, but phwoar, would I left [X] be an exception!”
domme lesbians—who have those traits of immaturity react when they realize they’re not the center of their target-identity fetish’s sexual world;
There are lesbians who are shocked when they realize many women aren’t into other women? Where were these lesbians raised, Amazonia?
dominants (who could be described as submissive-fetishists)
Um. I’m a sub. That doesn’t mean I can ONLY get off with a dom. I mean, Jesus, sometimes I’m just not in the mood for kinkery, okay? I probably have ‘kinky’ sex less often than ‘vanilla,’ and it’s a freaking spectrum, not a black/white thing. So why would a dom ONLY be able to enjoy sex with a sub? That doesn’t make any… AAAAAAH I HAVE STARED INTO THE ABYSS AND IT HAS STARED BACK!
And yeah, seeing as how, right now, I’m living on disability, and (when I’m not sick) have a MUCH easier time keeping myself alive being a warm body than I do as an artist, I really don’t feel like I can talk.
Though that reminds me, I totally posted another Spookathon story! I’m really dismayed about how slow and brainbreaky I’ve been on this one. : Oh well…
RE: Kittehs
I’m a couple of yards away from a shelf-full of books on kayaking, and now I shall never be able to look at them the same way.
My husband INSTANTLY responded with, “Oh yeah, SWAB that poop deck.” I informed him that kayaks do not have poop decks for swabbing, and he told me not to ruin his fun.
RE: Cliff
“I won’t be part of the capitalist system, so I won’t work for wages” – hey, good for you if you can make it work. (Although even this seems to frequently involve mass amounts of unexamined privilege as far as who’s able to make this choice.)
Ah! Yes! Thank you for putting it into words so succinctly.
I mean, would I like to make a living wage as an artist? Sure. But I’d also probably take rejoining the workforce (as long as the job wouldn’t send me into another loony daycare stint) over being on disability.
I know a few couples where both partners are doms. Sometimes they don’t do BDSM play with each other but have submissives outside the relationship; sometimes they’re not active in BDSM at all but still identify as doms; sometimes they play with each other because kink roles aren’t always etched in stone.
Also, this whole thing of “dominants are horrible monsters who prey on submissives, also I’m a submissive and why won’t anyone play with me?” is breaking my brain sideways.
LBT:
Uber-Fetishists!
My husband INSTANTLY responded with, “Oh yeah, SWAB that poop deck.” I informed him that kayaks do not have poop decks for swabbing, and he told me not to ruin his fun.
But telling men to swab their own poop decks is MISANDRY!
… semi blockquote monster?
Hubby’s bi. He just replies that he’s AWESOME.
Also, his birthday was Thursday! Happy birthday to him!
I will admit, back in the days when I was first getting my head around various social-justice things…. When talking about sexuality, I would occasionally refer to any non-bi/pan sexual orientation (so gay, or straight) as a ‘plumbing fetish’, and thinking I was being clever. I stopped for pretty much the reasons noted up-thread–my use of the word ‘fetish’ was Not Helpful, and abusing the language in the process.
Does that mean that asexuals are fetish-less?
… or, depending on the type, a [certain person]-fetish? O_o
Single-target fetish?
Demifetishists? (Never liked the term demisexual, sounds like someone’s got a thing for Demi Moore.)
Greyfetishists wouldn’t work because AARGH Fifty Shades of Dreck.
Rogan, wish Mac a belated happy birthday from us. 🙂
He’s correct about bi = awesome. After all, Louis’s bi, so I’m not gonna argue!
Demisexual’s weird. And YES. That’s what I ended up thinking when I heard the term for the first time! “WTF, there’s a sexuality specifically for having the hots for Demi Moore?”
What I dislike about both demisexual and grey-a is the inference that there’s something missing. Demi, half, glass half empty, glass half full? Grey, well, washed out, lacking colour, whatever. I know that’s just the inference I draw, but they don’t seem at all positive to me, apart from the “Isn’t that just what lots of people are anyway? Since when does “sexual” mean indiscriminate/no emotions/roots like a rabbit?” puzzlement I feel about the terms.
kittehs – I honestly don’t know why the terms are like that. Can’t I just call myself asexual, without all of those special names? Most other groups don’t have to.
Greyfetishist makes me think the person is really into pointy-headed aliens. I guess the movie “Paul” is the ultimate porn for them, or old X-Files episodes.
A friend and I did at one point jokingly describe ourselves/other people as being HotCelebrity’sNameSexual…I’ll just go ahead and slink out the door quietly now.
@ Kittehs
I once got drawn into a conversation where an asexual guy was insisting that all sexual people wanted to make him have sex with them, which I’m guessing could have been a perspective based on trauma but…no? Like, um, trying not to TMI too much, but I’m pretty damn picky, so the chances of any random dude falling into my “yes please!” group are pretty slim. And also being sexual does not equal being a rapist.
Any time I’ve tried to read AVEN and sites like that because I was trying to understand more about asexuality I’ve come away with the impression that the “I don’t quite get it” feeling is REALLY mutual, because the way people there talk about sexual people doesn’t match anyone I know.
I hope it didn’t sound like I was comparing your situation to M^ym^y’s, LBT, because I don’t think that they’re similar at all. I apologize.
Cassandra, yeah, AVEN just leaves me going “Huh? This isn’t me” and, well, wondering just what the pressure is. I dunno if I’ve been extraordinarily lucky, or if things are that different here from the US, but I’ve never been pressured with the “You must date!” or “You must fuck!” stuff. I’ve had the odd random nitwit doing the “But what if you want baybeeeeees” thing, but that’s about it. “I am not interested” has always been enough to shut people up who stickybeak about my private life. I s’pose it’s just “my experience is not your experience”.
I can’t fathom the whole attitude there to what being sexual means, at all. I’ve spent most of my life assuming I’m a heterosexual woman who happens to have fallen for a man and lost any potential interest in others, end of story. It never occurred to me that that’s radically different from millions of other people. Yeah, sure, lots of people have casual sex, or lots or relationships, but it’s not like that’s a condition of being a sexual person.
I’m stealing that as HotKing’sNameSexual. 😉
@ Kittehs
I wonder how much of the pressure issue is age? I feel like young people get a lot more of the “you should want to fuck all the time (but if you’re a woman and you actually do it you’re a slut, psych)” stuff than older people. For women once you pass a certain age the pressure is more “why u no make babies” than about sex specifically, though for men I’m not sure that the idea that they should want to fuck everything that moves ever goes away.
I’m glad to know I’m not the only person who found AVEN head-scratchingly odd. Funny that it has that effect on people who ID as some variety of asexual as well as on people who ID as sexual. Reading it made me feel like based on the way they’re framing sexual people pretty much everyone would end up being some variety of asexual, unless they’re Gene Simmons.
Shit, Gene Simmons would be a good reason to identify as asexual!
Good point about the age thing; plus, I was twenty in 1983, nearly a generation away. Yeah, the double standard seems to have … what, hardened? The pressure to do it seems greater, and the harassment for girls/women if they’re perceived as having had sex has found more, and more toxic, expressions. That context certainly makes the ewwwwness of it all for asexual people clearer, especially if they’re young and haven’t reached a place where they can tell others to go take a running jump.
[Content note: sexual abuse]
I personally like to call myself demisexual. All it means to me is that I don’t really find myself attracted to people who I don’t have any emotional connection with, not that my sexuality is “incomplete” or “half-sexual” as the word unfortunately connotes.
Also, part of my sexual abuse when I was younger was being pressured into sex acts with other people – as if I wasn’t allowed to have a say. (Fortunately it was all non-contact.) To this day, I feel very uncomfortable when someone makes some kind of suggestion that I am obligated to have sex with someone. But my perspective is shaped by trauma and anxiety. And most sexual people I know aren’t assholes towards others when it comes to sex.
It certainly rings true in my experience – the bulk of the sexual harassment I faced was when I was 12-15.
There’s something incredibly depressing about how common it is for people’s worst experiences of sexual harassment to have been when they were 16 and under. Proves that it’s about power as much as it is about sex.
Argh!
(Insert The Scream face here)
Hmm, why would BSDM clubs not make an effort to make themselves more accessible to children? Truly, I am baffled by the fact that places where sex sometimes happens in public would not be particularly child-friendly.
Wow. I really have no words.
[Content note: transmisogyny, sexual harassment]
Adding to that, in my experience, the sexual harassment I got when I was that young was often about making me “become a man.” I was too “girly” for a lot of people, I guess. And while my memories aren’t perfect, I’m pretty sure that I was criticized for being a “pussy” when I put my foot down and told them I wasn’t ready for sex.
On a related note, it’s a good example of why the TERF argument that trans women and girls have male privilege is complete bullshit.
(vagina dries up, clit falls off, labia crumble to dust)
Yes, I should say so. UGH.