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.
Ah… maymaym has used GWW as an inspiration to “explore” aspects of male subdom, and why it’s not as well regarded as it might be.
Zie did this by adopting the idea of “male disposability”, and did some creepy highlighting of some pretty stupid statements (…feminists will insist that these kinds of restrictions in those kinds of societies are the ultimate form of objectification. You lock up your possessions to make sure they will never be lost, or stolen, or harmed.Honestly, if I were a guy on a battlefield, I might appreciate being objectified in that way. I think if I was going to be an object, I’d rather be a sexual one, or somebody’s prized possession, than an object that can simply be thrown in the trash or smashed into pieces in the service of somebody else’s purpose.)
As to zir desire to be in the BDSM scene… zie’s got an evangilist complex, and (from reading zir posts, and various posts I’ve seen about zir), zie likes to top from the bottom, and want to do it not just his partners, but the whole scene.
I also think zie thrives on the way these abuses play out. 1: Zie gets reviled, so zie can play some subby mind-games, and 2: a lot of people are validating it, so there is no reason to stop; in fact there are lots of reasons to continue.
It’s a scary cycle, and one which fosters more abusive behaviors as time goes on.
That highlighted bit is interesting, as it’s the classic misogynist response to women who complain of harassment, “I’d love to have all sort of female attention”. While negating the important aspects of it (the lack of agency, and that it comes from people whom one hasn’t invited to be attentive)
Pussy juice? Let me try. Ahem. Butt curry! Dick cheese!
Speaking of dick cheese, that creep can go fuck a Hot Pocket.
You owe me a new set of sinuses, Brittersweet.
What’s the difference between “expatriate” and “emigrant”?
Can someone explain to me the concept of topping from the bottom? Cuz masochist but not exactly inclined to be submissive.
Hugs to seranvali. How can people be so willfully horrible?
Ah, the typical priviledged ignorance that for women, it’s not an “either/or”. It’s an “and”.
If you are regarded as an object, even a sexual one or somebody’s prized possession, than that means you can simply be thrown in the trash or smashed to pieces in the service of sombody else’s purpose. Becasue you are an object. And the somebody whose prized possession you are can smash you into pieces and throw you in the trash whenever they choose.
That’s not even touching the assumption that the original poster will, of course, be a prized possession. Cos if he’s going to be sexually objectified, he will, of course, be a 10. So not one of those invisible, ugly women. Oh, no, he’d be “prized”. Ugh!
Privilege
Also, the fact that you might not find your harassers attractive at all.
The scenario where a non-attractive woman who continously follows, flirts with and sometimes outright sexually harasses a poor man is actually pretty common in pop culture. It would hardly be that common if men everywhere couldn’t imagine that they’d ever find female attention unwelcome, because in that case people would merely be puzzled by rather than laugh at said scenario.
titanblue – But of course. I think most people would assume that they would be the better off — cold readings about your supposed past lives always will cast someone as nobility, as royality, someone important, even if a person was more likely to be a serf or a regular farmer or a slave or similar.
argenti: Cloudiah — I had some dweeb tweet me by my legal first name, but it isn’t impossible to find if you’re any good. Except ages ago I sent pecunium on the task of finding everything he could about me — with my full legal name and plenty of info to work from. He found my resume.
This is in part because your name isn’t unique, but isn’t so common as to be a huge raft of responses (and I don’t have lexis/nexus access at the moment; not without asking someone else to use their account). Since you are moderately careful, and there is background radiation to cover you someone has to know enough about you to not really need what they can get from free search tools/resources.
What’s the difference between “expatriate” and “emigrant”?
An expat is someone who is away from their country of identification/loyalty. The easiest example of the obnoxious expat (for a USian [Hi Mr. Al!] is the person who grew up in New Yorker who is away from NY, but never out of it. All things (from the museums, to the bagels to the quality of the panhandlers) will be filtered through the lens of, “it’s better in NY”.
To a lesser degree the ExPat who is away because something has alienated them from their country, or because they developed ties they can’t sever (say fell in love while doing a semester abroad: I have a friend who did that, and there is a wonderful travel agent from the Netherlands who is in Quito because she fell in love with someone when she was travelling in Ecuador).
Those can be very interesting people, because they haven’t left their country of origin for reasons of being unhappy, but because something attracted them more than going home pulled them. They often have very good insights about both their parent culture, and the cultures they move to, and interesting thoghts on the human condition as it relates to how people in various places solve their problems with each other (the friend who moved from one place, to marry a dual-citizen of two other places, and has now lived in both those places; and has been rearing children who are native speakers of both languages now is one such).
So there is some aspect of privilege (the “expat” can go home), but it’s more a sense of mindset, the expat is away from one place, but not fully in the other).
I am, in some ways, an expat of Calif.
auggzillary: I didn’t realize “expat” was a thing. Is it a legit phrase, or is it just a racist version of emigrant?
It’s a real word. I think its origin is either the wars of the latter reformation (say the period of the Marian Exiles), or the wars of Napoleon.
Ex Patriate = one who is out of their country. It implies a lack of permanence to the removal (though many expats for love aren’t ever going to move back, “home”, but they do maintain close ties, and may never sever the political one’s. Many still vote, and are attentive to the local issues of their hometowns/states/regions).
It also gets applied to people who are relocated to other countries for their work (Singapore makes a huge amount of money by being favorable to “expat workers”. Who aren’t, I think, allowed to stay for more some number of years, but don’t have the same sort of difficult work-visa requirements as a result. They just need a company with offices to assign them there. I am not certain on that, it’s just the impression I’ve gotten from the people I know who have worked in Singapore).
Or you may find that ExPat comes from the British Empire – Brits would, for example, use it to refer to a Brit living in India.
ALL women are gold diggers? What about nuns?
Ah, nuns, the ultimate gold diggers. Who has more money than God?
RE: Seranvali
I don’t want to interfere but I would suggest having a little chat with Anonymous.
I thought Anonymous were, like, the UR-trolls. But jeez, I’m glad they were able to help you. Being trolled about cancer, that’s awful! At least the online people I got trying to grief me were people I already knew, and they kept their distance.
RE: Argenti
Can someone explain to me the concept of topping from the bottom?
Honestly, I’ve mostly seen it to mean, “This sub is asking me to do things, and that’s terrible.” It’s a complain that a sub or a bottom isn’t acting as submissive and groveling as expected or earlier discussed. Not gonna lie, not a big fan of the phrase; I’ve NEVER heard of an equivalent for a dom, except for ‘service topping’ which seems to be a neutral term.
RE: pecunium
I’ve always been well aware that being in the armed service would be the second-worst profession for me in the history of ever, but I’d still choose it over being someone’s sexual object, which is the first-worst. At least as a soldier, I’d be allowed to VOTE.
Also, thanks for the expat/emigrant explanation! I was wondering that myself.
RE: Alice
cold readings about your supposed past lives always will cast someone as nobility, as royality, someone important, even if a person was more likely to be a serf or a regular farmer or a slave or similar.
Yeah, I’ve always found that amusing. I don’t believe in reincarnation, but I’d be sorely surprised if I was anything but ordinary.
I know I posted this before, but kitties and shoes! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p504qAPPCds&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Also, submissive in kink doesn’t mean someone isn’t aggressive. In fact, the stereotype tends to be that people live an opposite role in sexual vs non-sexual aspects. (Not saying stereotypes are completely accurate)
Perhaps we need to feed the troll enough that he gives up.
About the BDSM subculture, I find some (most) communities tend to exaggerate some of the more sexist aspects of western culture. I do like meetings ng the long-term stable relationships where kink is a piece of their lives, but that underneath it all they just have a human relationship.
Still, I have a feeling this guy alienates others. He probably gets more eyerolls than hugs at public gatherings.
I’ve only ever heard the word “ex-pat” used in reference to leaving your home country for work. Specifically, if you have a set amount of time (typically years) that you will be spending in another country to do your job, you are on an ex-pat. If you are planning to relocate permanently to that new country, whether it’s for work or not, then it is not an ex-pat (and neither are you). I didn’t realize that there were additional ways to use the word until today.
Breaking news in the Steubenville case: school superintendent, principal, and two coaches are facing charges.
@cloudiah Very cool. Maybe adults in these cases will consider the victim in the future. I hope. I really hope.
topping from the bottom is a way for someone to guide what’s happening, even though (in theory) the dom is in charge.
It’s one of the things which makes the, “power-brokers are subs” tropes harder to accept.
If we accept that consent is required to play safely, and the person in the sub role is willing to take very active control of what is/isn’t consented to, then they can be in charge of what happens to them; sometimes to the point the “dom” doesn’t have a whole lot of free choice in the nature of the play.
Paris, in the 1920’s was famous for it’s community of American Ex-patriates.
Temporally I was wrong about the time of origin for the word, Merriam Webster tells me it’s from France in 1760
The Beatles? No, wait, that was just fame….
********
On latest Steubenville news: Yes, please, more of this, America, thank you kindly.