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:
The pussy is too damn high!
Demonspawn, a noted pussyconomist, explains the importance of having a well-regulated pussy market:
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.
“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.](https://i0.wp.com/www.wehuntedthemammoth.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/peakpuss1.png?resize=512%2C308&ssl=1)
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.
Damn, every time I Redditors can’t dehumanize women any further, a new standard is set.
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.
These guys get turned on by A Handmaids Tale.
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?
Also, my pussies came free with the man. 3-for-1 deal, like. Am I doing economics wrong?
@Kevin K
I totally nicked that line from a Tumblr post. It made me giggle for 5 minutes, but I claim no originality.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
To really know Demonspawn, you have to read his TRP “field reports.” (Filtered through The Blue Pill sub.)
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.
5th Law of Robotics has to be writing satire…
And I laughed. I’m still laughing.
“Pussy Supply” is the greatest Prince song never written.
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.
To the contrary. My understanding is that the Pussy Market is located next to the Hammock District.
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.
“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.
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.
@ 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.
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.
Boy, I wish I wasn’t allergic to cats 🙁
http://youtu.be/48bIZoOQSUI