Categories
block that metaphor crackpottery creepy demonspawn empathy deficit entitled babies evil sexy ladies evil wives men who should not ever be with women ever misogyny MRA post contains jokes post contains sarcasm reddit vaginas

Men’s Rights Redditors agree: “The most important thing any society can do is properly regulate its p*ssy supply.”

Unregulated pussy supply
Unregulated pussy supply

So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit, they’re having yet another invigorating and insightful discussion of economics. Not micro- or macroeconomics. Pussyconomics.

Stalgrim starts off the discussion with a call for more affordable, er, pussy:

Stalgrim 19 points 16 hours ago We need to lower the value society puts on owning a pussy. Some men are so thirsty right now that they're willing to end their lives to be with a woman who's willing to use them until she finds something better and we have women so soulless that they treat men as nothing more than unpaid employees and are willing to walk out on them for someone "better".

The pussy is too damn high!

Demonspawn, a noted pussyconomist, explains the importance of having a well-regulated pussy market:

Demonspawn 9 points 15 hours ago We need to lower the value society puts on owning a pussy. The most important thing any society can do is properly regulate it's pussy supply. Today's society is the result of an unregulated pussy market enhanced with government mandated/replaced male support of women.

When another Redditor claims that the pussy market is already heavily regulated, what with prostitution being illegal and divorce laws and all that, Demonspawn gently corrects these common misunderstandings of pussyconomical thought.

Demonspawn 6 points 15 hours ago Perhaps you don't understand what the pussy market is: Men supply value (goods, services, etc) women supply pussy and reproductive potential. Prostitution is regulation. It sets a cap on the market for the value men must supply in order to obtain sex. Making divorce work such that men are still required to supply value while women no longer supply pussy is not regulation. It's pretty much inversion of the market.

“Perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is.”

“Perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is.”

“Perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is.”

Mammotheers! Your challenge for today is to see how many times you can work “perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is” into conversation. BONUS POINTS if you precede this comment with the words “au contraire,” or, even better, “au contraire, mon frère.”

The charming 5th_Law_of_Robotics suggests that we may be headed for pussypocalypse, pussyconomically speaking.

5th_Law_of_Robotics 3 points 8 hours ago I've heard concerns that we're rapidly approaching peak-pussy. I dismiss those as alarmist. Surely when we get near that point some sustainable alternative will have been developed. /perhaps some sort of corn based solution exists . . . permalink save parent report give gold reply [–]Demonspawn 1 point 2 hours ago I've heard concerns that we're rapidly approaching peak-pussy. It's more like a pussy bubble. The government that has been artificially increasing the price/value of pussy collapses and we return to a more natural market.

I’m honestly a little baffled by this discussion. My own pussy supply is quite stable. Except sometimes when it gets bored and bites me.

My pussy supply.
My pussy supply.

H/T r/againstmensrights

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

132 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bluecatbabe
bluecatbabe
6 years ago

News to Men’s Rights Redditors: “Inversion of the market” does NOT mean “something that annoys and scares me personally and is therefore evil.”

I remember the day my twin pussies and their two siblings were supplied – on our bed, by their mother Roxy, who definitely wanted us to be involved.

For a while there was a thing like a bone china teacup handle protruding from Roxy’s rear end. Couldn’t for the life of me think what it was or what I ought to do about it. Then after a few heaves, it turned out to be the tiny tail of firstborn kitten, Twiglet. All Roxy’s kits were breach.

Michelle C Young
6 years ago

Prostitution sets a cap on the market for the value men must supply in order to obtain sex? Whaaaa?

Is this guy actually saying that because prostitutes exist, gold-digging women will have sex with poor men, instead of going for the rich ones?

This whole thing just… It makes no sense.

ikanreed
ikanreed
6 years ago

“We care about universal equality.”
“Women aren’t human beings, but instead property that’s gotten away from us.”
“GamerGate is about ETHICS”
“Feminism isn’t an inclusive movement”

Wait, what was that middle one again?
“Gamergate is about ethics?”

How does this movement have any serious adherents anymore?

Michelle C Young
6 years ago

I think they’re just complaining about anything, just as an excuse to complain, because they’re all so cranky from the chronic diaper rash they have from not bothering to wipe their behinds “thoroughly,” unless they have a hot date.

The thing about diaper rash, though, is that you have to stay on top of it. You can’t just wipe on a Saturday night, and think the rash will go away and never come back. You have to wipe consistently, in order to first beat the rash, and then keep it at bay.

Skidmarks on underwear are a mark of diaper-rash to come, or else it already exists on the behind of the underwear’s owner.

So, next time some MRA starts making asinine complaints that make no sense at all, just check their diapers… I mean underpants, and see if they have a rash.

Someone alert Desitin. They could market to MRAs and make a fortune!

leftwingfox
6 years ago

I take it 5th_law_of_Robotics and Demonspawn are taking the piss out of pussy economics? I than think of a truly horrible interpretation of Demonspawn’s argument (i.e. welfare-raging), but outside snark, the only possible interpretation I can think of for 5th_law’s comment is this:

Bina
Bina
6 years ago

The only pussy supply that matters is the kind that meows and purrs. Around my place, I need it to catch mice. And since my two are spayed, there won’t be any lowering of the value anytime soon.

Oh wait…that’s not what these dorks are on about, is it?

Kevin K
Kevin K
6 years ago

Well, it’s pretty clear that the posts were written by bored students in a macro-economics class, for which said students will be receiving a “D”.

Fred_the_Dog
6 years ago

It never ceases to amaze me that these men don’t really get that they are talking about body parts. What about, for example, handconomics? Sometimes I could really use a third one.

Michelle C Young
6 years ago

When I was in high school, a guy made a comment about my pussy. I just looked at him blankly, and replied, “Oh, no. I don’t have a pussy. My landlord doesn’t allow pets.”

I then went on to tell all about the “fake cat” my dad had purchased, to give us the heart-healthy benefits of petting something furry. It was literally a tubular pillow, with a fake-fur covering, but you know, it was soothing to sit with it on your lap and pet it.

Still, noting beats real pussy.

I didn’t understand his reaction until a few years later, when someone kindly explained the slang to me. Frankly, I think the MRA’s hatred of cats is intimately connected with their hatred of women, a.k.a. “pussy.” If vaginas had been dubbed “canines,” the English speaking MRAs of the world would have decried dogs, and touted the value of those alpha pussy-cats.

Cassie's Major Domo
Cassie's Major Domo
6 years ago

“So over on the Men’s Rights subreddit…” are rapidly becoming the most terrifying collection of words in the English languish.

Cassie's Major Domo
Cassie's Major Domo
6 years ago

Perhaps we indeed do not understand what the pussy market is. I made some word substitutions to the subredditors to clarify, and it does begin to make a bit more sense (although still not actual sense):

We need to lower the value society puts on owning a cat. Some people are so thirsty right now that they’re willing to end their lives to be with a cat who’s willing to use them until it finds something better and we have cats so soulless that they treat people as nothing more than unpaid employees and are willing to walk out on the for someone “better.”

The most important thing that any society can do is properly regulate its cat supply.

Today’s society is the result of an unregulated cat market enhanced with government mandated/replaced human support of cats.

ej
ej
6 years ago

I think they’re upset that their old forms of currency (money, home, protection, etc.) are no longer valid. Women have figured out how to get those things on their own and most of us aren’t willing to trade sex for them any more.

aebars
aebars
6 years ago

“It’s more like a pussy bubble. The government that has been artificially increasing the price/value of pussy collapses and we return to a more natural market.”

*rolls eyes*

For crying out loud; just what the fuck is it with these fucking idiots.

chaltab
chaltab
6 years ago

I already own three and that’s plenty.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

Corn based alternatives? So he’s planning to take a corn cob, hollow out the middle, and then…

That seems unhygenic.

freemage
freemage
6 years ago

Michelle C Young | October 3, 2014 at 8:45 am

Prostitution sets a cap on the market for the value men must supply in order to obtain sex? Whaaaa?

Is this guy actually saying that because prostitutes exist, gold-digging women will have sex with poor men, instead of going for the rich ones?

This whole thing just… It makes no sense.

It always depresses me slightly when I can actually follow an MRA discussion, because usually it’s pretty vile. This is no exception.

He’s referring to the notion that, if prostitution is legalized, then lower-income men will be able to always negotiate a bare-minimum price for sex. There’s actual research that supports this–in countries where legalization has occurred, sex workers often report lower incomes and standards of living, because there are more women who are willing to resort to sustenance sex-work, since they don’t have to worry about being arrested. This is further enhanced by the fact that the cops often decide to also pass on enforcing the remaining laws regarding trafficking and so forth (and, of course, they just continue to outright ignore complaints of rape by sex workers).

Note the key word in that last paragraph–“sustenance”. This has nothing to do with women who rationally choose to engage in sex-work because they view it as fun, or somehow preferable. It’s simply the only thing available to them to put food on the table. It’s a desperation tactic, and regarding it as ‘consensual’ requires ignoring the economic coercion going on.

So this scumbag is basically figuring that he can take advantage of poor women more easily. It’s shitbags like him that got me to reconsider my position on legalization. (I still support it, but only after we actually have a functional social safety net that prevents women from reaching the point of choosing between streetwalking and starvation.)

lacerta viridis
lacerta viridis
6 years ago

“Your challenge for today is to see how many times you can work “perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is” into conversation.”

I accept this challenge, and have informed the cat who’s been yowling at me to feed him for the third time today that he clearly doesn’t understand what the pussy market is and how easily I could replace him with a less-greedy kitty.

(Not that I ever would, obviously; he’s far too cute. I’m just dread-gaming him.)

tinyorc
6 years ago

Kevin K:

the posts were written by bored students in a macro-economics class, for which said students will be receiving a “D”.

I think this is extremely generous. I doubt either of these geniuses so much as half-watched a TED talk on macroeconomics, let alone sat in an actual classroom.

lacerta viridis
lacerta viridis
6 years ago

On a less-flippant note, this whole ‘omg pussy pass/pussy power’ MRA thing always confuses me and pisses me off, because they seem to do this weird thing of conflating ‘women I personally want to have sex with’ and ‘all women everywhere’. Even if you do accept their weird creepy ‘having a vagina gives you SO MUCH POWER because men want to get to it’ hypothesis, it STILL only applies to a small subset of women. Do they honestly think an 85 year old housebound woman also has ~too much power~ because she has a vagina and omg pussy market? Where does she fit into this? Or a severely disabled woman who can’t speak or walk without assistive tech, or a woman who weighs 400lb, or women with penises rather than vaginas, or pretty much ANYONE who doesn’t fit into their adorable little ~HB8+ category? Do MRAs not even think of those people as women, or do they just forget they exist?

Emmy Rae
Emmy Rae
6 years ago

Just weeks ago on this very site I read about how the value of pussy was at an all time low! I put everything in pussy and I can’t wait to sell it all at this new high and sit at home eating bonbons, laughing at the fools who thought the pussy market was too volatile to make a good investment! Your economic advice is always sound, David.

NonServiam
6 years ago

A lot of these guys like to talk economics, and I suspect a lot of them are pretty libertarian. Given that, why can’t they just accept that the market decided that they aren’t a desirable product? The invisible hand won’t even touch them.

Oh, is it dehumanizing to talk about men as consumer products? Wonder how bad being dehumanized is. :/

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

I think they’re upset that their old forms of currency (money, home, protection, etc.) are no longer valid.

Except that they were never valid. Marriage-as-economic-transaction (at least in the sense that men exchange money for sex and women exchange sex for financial security) is almost completely ahistorical. The whole concept arose from the observation of a weird correlation between the availability of birth control and out-of-wedlock births and the attempt to explain this. The Brookings Institute put out a paper with the following, completely unsupported assertion:

The only circumstance that would cause women to engage in sexual activity was a promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy. Men were willing to make (and keep) that promise for they knew that in leaving one woman they would be unlikely to find another who would not make the same demand…

But women who wanted children, who did not want an abortion for moral or religious reasons, or who were unreliable in their use of contraception found themselves pressured to participate in premarital sexual relations without being able to exact a promise of marriage in case of pregnancy.

You can read the whole thing, including the almost total lack of cited references, here: http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/1996/08/childrenfamilies-akerlof

The context of this statement is that marriage rates declined because the stigma of out-of-wedlock birth declined, and so the incidence of “shotgun marriages” went down. That kind of makes sense? But there’s no evidence provided for it, and certainly no evidence provided that the stigma of out-of-wedlock birth arose because of a sex/marriage economic transaction. This whole model is based upon a just-so story surrounded by smoke and mirrors.

Kevin K
Kevin K
6 years ago

@NonServiam

The invisible hand won’t even touch them.

I see what you did there.

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

Women just cannot be a low enough cast for these guys. That’s what they’re whining about.

Anarchonist
Anarchonist
6 years ago

Just weeks ago on this very site I read about how the value of pussy was at an all time low! I put everything in pussy and I can’t wait to sell it all at this new high and sit at home eating bonbons, laughing at the fools who thought the pussy market was too volatile to make a good investment! Your economic advice is always sound, David.

Emmy Rae wins roughly 1/4 Internets with this comment.

Why 1/4? Because the recent increase in pussy value has led to an increase in the price of internets*, I cannot afford my usual rate of 1 internets.

*Both porn and cat videos are to be found there, and since the price of pussy is at an all-time high now, it’s safe to say that the demand for internets is following lead.

Then again, I’m not quite certain how things really work in the pussy market theory. Perhaps I just don’t understand what the pussy market is. And thank God for that.

Leah
Leah
6 years ago

Damn, every time I Redditors can’t dehumanize women any further, a new standard is set.

Emmy Rae
Emmy Rae
6 years ago

MRAs in Econ 101:

Prof: [normal economics stuff]
MRA: When do you think the price of pussy will drop to normal levels again?
Prof: Do you mean cats? That depends on breed, if you’re getting them from a shelter, etc.
MRA: No, you know pussy. The price has skyrocketed in my lifetime and I’m not sure I’ll ever be able to pay.
Prof: Uh, like a fleshlight? I think the price of sex toys is actually dropping as they are sold more widely. This isn’t really appropriate for the classroom.
MRA: But like, with women. Why has the government messed up the price of pussy?
Prof: You know what, the services of your own hand are free. You fail this class. Stay away from all women.

Lea
Lea
6 years ago

These guys get turned on by A Handmaids Tale.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

Perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is. Men supply value (goods, services, etc) women supply pussy and reproductive potential.

What the hell kind of household did Stalgrim grow up in, exactly? 1-dad-1-mom nuclear family where dad worked, paid for things, and sometimes fixed the gutters, and mom stayed home doing nothing, waiting for dad to do sex to her or for her newest child to be born?

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

Also, my pussies came free with the man. 3-for-1 deal, like. Am I doing economics wrong?

NonServiam
6 years ago

@Kevin K

I totally nicked that line from a Tumblr post. It made me giggle for 5 minutes, but I claim no originality.

proxieme
proxieme
6 years ago

I think that the fundamental flaw with the thought processes of most of these guys is that they view every human interaction as a transactional, zero-sum exchange rather than making room for wild stuff like relational interactions and (gasp) mutually held, warm emotion.

It’s sad, really.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

A lot of these guys like to talk economics, and I suspect a lot of them are pretty libertarian. Given that, why can’t they just accept that the market decided that they aren’t a desirable product? The invisible hand won’t even touch them.

That was my thought too. They’re so libertarian but then all of a sudden they want to regulate the “pussy market” because it’s not working out for them?

I shudder to think at what regulating the pussy market entails. Did the OP just link to the philosophy of rape subreddit?

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
6 years ago

The thing that prompted the Brookings paper, and which prompts a lot of wangst in economic circles about “the decline of marriage,” is a moral panic over young black women having children out of wedlock. There was a youtube video indirectly linked by another WHTM article about (iirc) two months back, which laid out the economic model of sex/marriage with sketches that portrayed trendy middle-class white people. Few people actually care about a decline in marriage among trendy middle-class white people. It’s poor black people who get everyone up in arms. Oh noes! Poor black women are having kids and collecting welfare! We all know the drill.

There is good evidence, collected by actually asking poor unmarried black parents about their motives, that poor black men want to get married! So do poor black women! So why don’t they? The trend seems to be that poor black women want children (and so do black men) but there are few available men (because: racially unbalanced incarceration rates), and those that are available are generally out of work. It would be economically irrational for a woman to marry, and surrender government assistance, if her partner isn’t financially stable.

This is the opposite of the MRA pussy market line: it’s the women who are declining marriage, and must be persuaded to tie the knot.

The usual Republican/libertarian solution to this is to cut off the government benefits. That’ll force them to get married! We see hints of this in Demonspawn’s rant (the bit about the government replacing men) although MRAs seem confused about why they want women to be financially dependent upon men. It doesn’t seem like they want to marry women. Of course, this action would simply degrade the economic condition of poor women, and it’s not clear that this would actually increase the marriage rate. We see that married people are generally better off, financially, than unmarried people, but the direction of causality is not as clear as it may seem. It may be that marriage does not cause financial stability, but rather that financial stability encourages/allows marriage.

If the direction of causality is financial stability -> marriage, rather than the reverse, cutting off government benefits would not create more marriage. If one wants increased marriage rates amongst poor minorities, the solution would be decrease unemployment amongst poor minorities. But that would be difficult – the cause(s) of unemployment in poor black neighborhoods are not actually clear, so resolving them is a problem.

It’s way easier to pass along this just-so story. Not a lot of people stop to ask for evidence, and it makes a punchy slogan.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

I shudder to think at what regulating the pussy market entails. Did the OP just link to the philosophy of rape subreddit?

I think it’s more abolishing spousal and child support + government aid, so that women (and children) will starve to death if they don’t enter into a completely dependent relationship with a man and never leave. See: “government mandated/replaced male support of women.” Creepy insecure entitled predatory assholes are so afraid of being alone that they need to have the power to destroy women’s lives as insurance against it.

cassandrakitty
cassandrakitty
6 years ago

So Viscaria is using her boyfriend for his pussies (multiple)? I don’t think that’s allowed by the rules of MREconomics. There may be some sort of fine.

I’m trying not to think about what this theory indicates about the families they grew up in. Does Mom know that they’re describing her family role in these terms?

NonServiam
6 years ago

For any lurking MRA – I’m not actually supporting the idea of human relationships working as a capitalist free market, or any other market. That would be ridiculous. Things happen or they don’t. If you’re mean, they are less likely to happen/work. Sorry bout ya.

Viscaria
Viscaria
6 years ago

If they’re going to levy some sort of pussy withholding tax, they’re welcome to have my pussies from 4:30 -6:30 am daily.

weirwoodtreehugger
6 years ago

I wonder does Stalgrim think one only owns a woman’s vagina and not the rest of her body or is a woman just nothing but a pussy to him? I’m sure it’s probably the latter but it just calls up disturbing images of an MRA with a box of disembodied vaginas hidden in the back of his freezer. He sounds like a straight version of Jeffrey Dahmer.

Shaun DarthBatman Day
6 years ago

5th Law of Robotics has to be writing satire…
And I laughed. I’m still laughing.

Pithy Pseudonym
6 years ago

“Pussy Supply” is the greatest Prince song never written.

cloudiah
6 years ago

5th Law was probably being snarky there, but he is a confirmed anti-feminist and basically runs a sub that obsessively monitors /r/againstmensrights. He also has a habit of picking one AMR or SRS member to follow around Reddit replying to all of their comments, even if it’s just “What a cute puppy!” in /r/awww or something. In other words, he is completely pathetic.

Pithy Pseudonym
6 years ago

“Perhaps you don’t understand what the pussy market is.”

To the contrary. My understanding is that the Pussy Market is located next to the Hammock District.

opium4themasses
opium4themasses
6 years ago

I am still caught up on the use of “thirsty”. Maybe they don’t understand what the pussy market is.

All I can say is that if you find yourself dealing with them, urine trouble.

M. the Social Justice Ranger
M. the Social Justice Ranger
6 years ago

“He’s referring to the notion that, if prostitution is legalized, then lower-income men will be able to always negotiate a bare-minimum price for sex. … So this scumbag is basically figuring that he can take advantage of poor women more easily.”

I’m sure that you’re spot on, but he claims that prostitution is “Regulation” and he’s arguing for more regulation… Unless he meant that it would be regulated if it was deregulated (legalised)? And he’s talking like a Rand-worshipping free marketeer, but he’s after more regulation instead of less while aiming for the same end result… Bloody hell, even knowing what his goal is, trying to follow this dumbass’ train of non-thought just makes me think of the Underpants Gnomes. Question marks everywhere.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

Squick. Especially so when you dig down and realize that these guys internally translate any “no” that a woman might give into a price that must be paid to make that woman say “yes,” be it gifts, dates, or affection. That’s where their “pussy bubble” comes from.

kirbywarp
kirbywarp
6 years ago

@ M.:

I’m convinced “regulation” refers to limiting the contexts under which a woman can refuse sex. They view prostitution as “I pay this much money and get guaranteed nookie,” which they think means that non-prostitutes will therefore have to “charge” less (expect less before finally saying “yes”) or not get any of that sweet man money/jar opening.

Mewens
Mewens
6 years ago

This string of genital-flavored “economic” exchanges would come across as crude joshing in nearly any other context. That’s kind of what I love about the MRA / PUA / etc. self-identifiers for these subreddits – they completely remove the awkward feeling that comes when you realize that the absurdists aren’t self-conscious (and thus not absurdists at all). You get to jump straight to the pointing and gawking.

fruitloopsie
fruitloopsie
6 years ago

Boy, I wish I wasn’t allergic to cats 🙁
http://youtu.be/48bIZoOQSUI

1 2 3