Monty Python has a famous series of sketches featuring a confused Robin Hood wannabe named Dennis Moore, who ultimately (spoiler alert) ends up stealing so much from the rich that he renders them poor. Confronted by this fact, Moore (played by John Cleese) is momentarily dumbfounded. “Blimey,” he says. “This redistribution of wealth is trickier than I thought.”
Over in the Red Pill Subreddit one fella is having a similarly difficult time trying to understand what’s gone wrong with what he sees as the proper distribution of, well, pussy.
Yep, we’re back in the land of pussyconomics again. (Technically, macropussyconomics.)
Things might be a little easier to understand, Red, if you were to actually think of women as human beings and not simply as walking, talking pussy banks.
Feminists don’t see “pussy” — or sex in general — as a female asset, much less women’s “biggest asset in the marketplace.” They see sex as an activity that men and women and others can do with one another and mutually enjoy, if they’re into that sort of thing. They don’t see “slut shaming” as a devious way to drive up the “cost of pussy.” They see it as a retrograde practice that’s shitty for women and generally makes sex worse for everyone.
I know this is all a bit radical to believers in old-school pussyconomics. But as hard as it may be to believe, Red Pillers, asking you to regard women as human isn’t just, you know, some perverse demand feminists have come up with just to be mean to men. It actually makes understanding the world a bit easier.
This will definitely be on the final exam.
H/T — TheBluePill
BONUS PICS OF CATS IN WHEELBARROWS
I mean, I couldn’t really let these go to waste.
[This content has been removed due to copyright infringement]
ALSO A WOMBAT
AND ORANGUTANS
AND PUPPIES
AND THE OLD SWITCHEROO
Marriage was not set up so a man could have a woman. I wish these tools would look into the history of marriage, but they’re not ones to let facts get in the way of a good tantrum.
@David – I need something to make me giggle amongst all the GG BS. This is perfect. Also, I want someone to write a book on pussynomics, just so I could more fully follow their attempts at logic. It’s the perfect amount of ridiculousness combined with their desperate attempts to sound intelligent that it never fails to make me laugh.
Wait, if marriage used to mean ‘every man has a woman and every woman has a man’, isn’t that a kind of socialist redistribution of marriage wealth? Is he even reading what he’s writing?
Then what? You’ve got a dangling if statement dude, your sentence does not compile. This bothers me.
As for the rest, it’s wrong even on its own assumptions. The assumption is that dudes will want to have sex with any woman who offers the least “cost,” and therefore will not have sex with any woman who offers a higher “cost,” thus forcing that woman to have a lower “cost” to compete.
But it completely ignores logistics! A woman in New York couldn’t possibly be competing against a woman in Chicago or Los Angeles. At least, not while teleportation is unavailable. The real world analogue is that the cost of living varies wildly in different places in a stable way. The effect could only be local. Also, according to these jokers, a single woman’s capacity for sex is very small, so she could only effect local pricing for so long. And also, low pricing of a good or service makes the demand higher and more widely available. So how is it that low priced sex is only a market for 20% of dudes? If a woman only has sex with Alpha McAlpherson, then her “cost” is “high” and your race-to-the-bottom theory of pussynomics is refuted.
It doesn’t work on its own terms. Literally the only reason the market approach to sex still exists is because it lets bitter men blame women for their bitterness.
@Puddleglum:
Pretty sure theres a common idea of wanting the actual real-world government to somehow regulate and redistribute women so that every man gets one. It’s all just a big facade of bafflegab to cover a very simple idea: “I want to have sex, but nobody seems to want to have sex with me. This makes me sad, confused, and angry.”
Such a steaming pile of wrong. So much wow. This dude not only doesn’t understand what marriage is or what it’s actually FOR, he also doesn’t understand how nature (I almost wrote “manure” by accident) works.
And above all, he doesn’t understand women. Obviously, he hasn’t met very many, or talked to them for any length of time, otherwise he’d know that 80% of them are certainly NOT sleeping with just 20% of men, much less due to some imagined breakdown in the significance of marriage. Believe it or not, we tend to judge “slutty” dudes pretty harshly ourselves. Not because they’re dudes, but because they’re bad risks. We often ask ourselves whether someone with a bedpost full of notches would be worth even seeing again, never mind marrying. We talk amongst ourselves about who’s a player, a cheater and a user, and tend to avoid sleeping with guys like them because we’d be likely to catch something gross…among other ramifications. We tend to look out for our friends and warn them about shitty guys, if we can. Because that’s what feminism is about, at its base: women (and thoughtful men, too) looking out for other women’s well-being, and not just their own. Shaming a woman for sleeping with a shitty man is putting the shoe on the wrong foot.
That’s not the only thing he’s got dangling out there by its lonesome.
Even in some hypothetical past where there was a woman for every man, a lot of those women would be regular looking and would also age. How can that be his ideal??
What I read in most of these rants – I mean, deep thoughts is “Waah! The world doesn’t work the way I want it to! I have to actually deal with other people who have different needs and desires from me and weren’t born to cater to *my* desires and *my* needs! Waaaah! If only the world would conform to my fantasy of it, then the world would be great! waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!”
Sometimes, I worry about my own attitude to women and whether someone would say I’m treating them as people or objects – I’m a regular visitor to, for example, blogs on Tumblr that don’t exactly show women in the most unsexualized way, you understand. But the level to which these people think that women are some commodity to be traded and distributed seriously puts things into perspective.
I hope that’s not meant to convey that objectifying behavior is actually OK as long as it’s less terrible than TRPers on Reddit.
haiku:
wat wat wat wat wat
this is just oh my glob wat
wat wat wat wat wat
~ by cloudiah
Strawberry Haiku:
* * * * *
* * * * * * *
the twelve red berries
~ Richard Brautigan
I’ve been thinking about dissolving my humungous vagopoly into many smaller holdings. But only if it receives the right economic stimulus package.
Maybe because you don’t understand feminists. Or what an “asset” is. Or marketplaces. Or much of anything, really.
I’m getting really sick of these up-to-the-minute Ladybits Index updates. The “current price” never seems to vary:
Under 25: infinity
Over 25: zero
Here’s a hint, redpillers: if a “commodity” can say no to you, if a “commodity” does not have a universally agreed-upon value, if a “commodity” has feelings and thoughts and opinions, if you have zero “assets” of your own to offer (other than being a colossal self-absorbed wanksicle)…then you’re not dealing with a free market model. You’re talking about human trafficking.
Oh look, another embittered, entitled jerkass who doesn’t have the slightest clue as to what feminism actually is. Like liberals are to conservatives, feminists are to the manuresphere: A convenient straw enemy whom they can blame for everything they personally don’t like, no matter how contrived and conflicted.
Reality shows? Feminists did it! Boring talk shows? Feminists did it! Slut shaming? Feminists did it! Slutty behavior? Feminists! Traditional gender roles? Feminists! The erasure of traditional gender roles? Feminists! The Big Bang? Feminists… oh, wait, that was actually a good thing for our existence… hmm… The eventual destruction of our universe? Feminists!
Feminists, feminists, feminists. It’s kind of silly how much time and energy these clusterfucks have wasted on hating something they don’t even have a passing understanding of.
Don’t worry about posting this, David. Hilarious stupidity like this is a welcome distraction from the #GamerGate terrorists business that makes me want to puke.
Yeah, need a break from the GG awful. Although I’m still laughing about random dude who bills himself as a “wonderful” person calling me a “bitter c***” because I disagree with GG. No misogyny here, move along.
Eh, I’ve been trying to find one of these fabled slutty guys. Every guy I go on a date with immediately falls in love with me, it’s terrible. I’m just trying to have some fun and new experiences, why are guys failing to live up to their horribly insensitive stereotype NOW? 😛
Oh noes am I depreciating pussy? Sorry guys, my bad. Does it help that I am over 25? This pussyconomics stuff is so confusing.
It really warms my heart to see twerps get all worked up and confused over things that don’t actually exist outside of their own imaginations, like pussy economics. How could feminists not do this thing that would increase their imaginary thing in this other imaginary thing? It just doesn’t make any sense!
What do you want to bet this guy and his upvoters are FYGM libertarians when it comes to *actual* economics? But as soon as they’re lacking in something, then they want “redistribution” (sorry for using their dehumanizing analogy system).
It’s essentially just whining. As someone on the Blue Pill said, those idiots always seek others to blame for their problems, so of course it can’t be their fault that they don’t get any sexual contacts – it’s the fault of the evil librul feminazi social system!
Oh, the wheelbarrow pictures! Many sweetness.
“Feminists don’t see “pussy” — or sex in general — as a female asset, much less women’s “biggest asset in the marketplace.” They see sex as an activity that men and women and others can do with one another and mutually enjoy, if they’re into that sort of thing. They don’t see “slut shaming” as a devious way to drive up the “cost of pussy.” They see it as a retrograde practice that’s shitty for women and generally makes sex worse for everyone.”
Eh. Now you’re just being contrary for the sake of it, David… 😉
Pussy inflation
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Qk3cPS_XVI8/T4gFVzM1owI/AAAAAAAAC7Q/jmWo_3EdDmI/s640/small-big-cat-pictures-1.jpg
Welp. Bury me where you find me, for I am dead. Of cute.
Policy of Madness: When put like that, I honestly don’t know. Perhaps I implied it accidentally, and perhaps that means I’m a bigger part of the problem than I realize.
@davidknewton
Are you part of the problem? I don’t know you. That’s a question only you can answer.
Do you want to no longer be part of the problem? The first step is realizing that you are and formulating the desire to be otherwise, but that’s not the last step. Actual concrete actions must be taken at some point. If your reference to “blogs on Tumblr” was about porn (even soft-core porn) then that’s a topic that is beyond my expertise so I can’t help you. If that were my problem, I might start googling things like “ethical porn” and reading up.