Today, some practical advice for the straight men from the MGTOW subreddit. The topic? Female orgasms and how not to give them, a subject on which your typical MGTOW has vast experience.
A fellow called ironmanknowsjoe sets the tone for the discussion:
A man doesn’t have to give a woman anything. That includes orgasms.
Our old friend fiend DangZagnut sets forth his philosophy of sex:
If she doesn’t cum it’s her problem.
When a woman doesn’t orgasm, she is explicitly telling you her vagina is broken, and she feels bad, and should feel bad. She’s an incomplete woman, and it’s entirely her fault for being some kind of freak. This is an excellent time to hold her down, nut in her, and tell her female orgasms don’t matter.
Remember: when looking to MGTOWs for advice on sex, or on anything really, just make sure to do the exact opposite of whatever they recommend.
It’s not my job to make her orgasm, it’s my job to make me orgasm.
if she doesn’t, it’s her problem, she can break out the power tools when I’m done or whatever makes her happy. …
If I don’t orgasm, I don’t blame her. Her job is to lay there like a starfish with a bored expression on her face, while I do all the work. If she wants to orgasm during intercourse, she should fantasize about someone else, it’s not like I’m not doing the same.
I don’t know why these guys love to explain just how bad as sex they are.
An anonymous commenter has similarly strict rules about orgasms.
The female orgasm is literally the most selfish and pointless thing in the world.
First, it has ZERO biological purpose and socially, dating and sex is already all about women.
How so?
A man has to make himself datable (physically and financially) then he has to approach a woman. Then he has to pick a place, entertain her all night and pretend to give a shit about her mindless nonsense, then he has to pay for the date and then, if he did all the “right things” he gets to have sex.
This is such an old-fashioned way of dating that I can’t help but wonder if he’s been on any dates at all in the past twenty years. Or ever.
This should be the part that’s for the man, but NOPE, he still has to now worry about pleasing her and if he fails in his final task of making her orgasm, he’s labeled as some kind of failure.
Fuck that. You take me out on a date and pay for my dinner and make me laugh and I’ll worry about making you orgasm.
As if. You’re not going to have an orgasm with this dude this way either. He would probably spend the whole date complaining that you were emasculating him by paying.
There’s really no way to win other than to think and act the exact opposite of whatever MGTOWs say.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
@ full metal ox
Never! Sex should be like assembling Ikea furniture. You bluff your way through it.
Ok, it might end up taking longer than you thought, it doesn’t quite look like you imagined, and you have a few bits left over. But you can chill over vegan meatballs afterwards.
There’s edgeplay, and then there’s just being edgy about playing on people.
@Alan Robertshaw: love the glimpse of “Early Tinder,” especially after wading through that…ugh…verbiage earlier (honestly, I don’t know how the dark lord keeps his sanity after immersing himself in such drek, but I digress).
In the pic, is it just one cat, or are there 2 (maybe the other guy’s holding a dog–kinda hard to tell from the pic)? Also, is it just me, or does the one prospective groom look like Teddy Roosevelt?
As to the…er…hum, body of the text, there aren’t words enough to describe how loathsome I find them. Otoh, nice of these entities to give me the 411 on just how inept & clueless they are re sex.
@Alan Robertshaw:
Funny you should use that metaphor:
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/IKEAErotica
And presenting a squirrel…nutting in…the world’s most patient Bernese Mountain Dog:
If two people having sex are to only care about their own orgasms, wouldn’t masturbating save everyone a lot of hassle? Though I assume that would also cut out the validation of having got to inflict yourself on another person.
This kind of reminds me of some sort of sex education material that was included in a calendar they gave us at school when I was in my teens. It was supposed to be giving you the facts in a hip and cool way, and it caused some stir since some instances deemed it inappropriate or whatever. There was a line about how there’s no point in having sex if there’s no feeling* involved, since if there’s none, then you’d be better off doing push-ups, at least you’ll get more fit.
Then again, I don’t think people who think of orgasms as a job would respond well to that kind of advice.
* I assumed this didn’t mean you have to love everyone you have sex with, just that you shouldn’t rush into sex just for the “achievement”.
There doesn’t seem to be much point in having partnered sex at all unless you’re helping each other experience something that cannot be experienced solo. Most people want something more than just a release out of their sex, usually some combination of intimacy and fancy sensations and partner assisted orgasms. Most people reciprocate with sexual services, but usually you do have to at least reciprocate with something.
MGTOW seem to favor this (convenient for men) traditional view where simple intercourse is seen as good enough for the man, and therefore it “should” be good enough for the woman too. It’s not really seen as one person serving the other, just two people selfishly rubbing their genitals on something soft.
Exactly my thought. Especially considering that their idea of sex (laying there like a starfish…?) seems like a total waste of time. Why don’t you just go and fuck a fleshlight instead of another human being!?
Having said that. I wish I could believe that none of these people actually ever had sex with a live woman. But sadly I don’t… I’m curious about sex and have an unhealthy interest in reading online comments so I had the displeasure to read a sad amount of sexual accounts (and ideas people hold about sex) that were not fundamentaly different from the vile shit these dudes are spouting – not as obviously misogynistic, just infuriatingly, arrogantly ignorant about women.
Okay, this entire thing, that whole thread, is so wild and over the top, I just feel like none of the people in that thread, actually believe any of the sh*t they wrote.
Not that people like that don’t exist or don’t think that way, but people like that don’t tend to be gleeful and bragging about it. There is definitely an element of trying to be as shocking as possible, while standing around shooting the sh*t with the”boys”, either for sh*ts and giggles, or for internet acclaim, of some kind.
Is there such a thing as “non-virtue signalling”? Is “vice” signalling a thing?
For what it’s worth, I’ve long grown wary of the kind of language where you “give” a woman orgasms, like she has relatively little agency on the matter.
Reportedly, some men make it a matter of personal pride to give their partner the most mind-blowing orgasms ever, whether she wants it or nor*. Since some women don’t orgasm easily (or at all, or don’t orgasm easily from the kind of stimulation their partner can/will provide), the end result is social pressure to orgasm, awkwardness, shame about poor orgasm function, faked orgasms etc.
If I had a partner, I’d consider it my business to “help her pursue orgasm”, as I’d put it. Or rather, presumably she’s want to experience all kinds of sexual pleasure, including but not limited to (assisted) orgasms. I certainly know I do. I don’t orgasm that easily either, and it’s not necessarily something I’d want to focus on in partnered sex.
*I’m half joking, but controlling your partner’s orgasms in this manner is actually a (somewhat niche) type of BDSM play called “forced orgasm”. In this context specifically, I feel it very appropriate to talk about “giving” someone orgasms. Of course, forced orgasm play is only feasible with someone who orgasms easily and gets off on being forced to orgasm.
Sounds great to me, I always end up with ‘extra’ screws..
@Lumipuna:
Not to mention that surprise—at least some people with clitorises have a refractory period, and continuing to abrade away at the raw sensitized tissue of someone who’s done for tonight is no favor.
@Full Metal Ox
Steady on there! Let’s not get too extreme.
If all your date partner talks about is “mindless nonsense” to you, isn’t that partly on you? Try to date someone you have interests in common with! If you don’t do that, chances are she’s as bored by you as you are by her.
I feel like there are a few important words missing here, such as “emotionally”, “socially”, and “non-murderously”.
Jesalin wins the entire internet.
I’ve dated in every decade from the early 1970s to the early 2000s. This dating expert — isn’t. Pick a place? Entertain me all night? Pay for the date? WTF.
@Alan Robertshaw, @ObSidJag
That photo is priceless. I eyeballed the guy with glasses and a cat, put myself in the place of an unmarried young woman at the turn of the twentieth century who liked to read and had an adventurous spirit, and said to myself, Well…maybe.
As for the other guy holding some sort of animal, my boyfriend’s guess about the identity of the creature was, “Bear cub.”
@Lakitha K Tolbert
As far as I’m concerned, every word these guys write (including “the” and “a”) is virtue signaling. It’s just that their virtues are hatred, yelling, and attempting to shock their readers.
@ Lakitha K Tolbert
Short answer, yes.
The original meaning of virtue is more akin to ‘character(istic)’ or ‘value’. It doesn’t have any inherent positive or negative connotation.
And in the sociological meaning of ‘virtue signalling’ that’s how the word is used.
So wearing a swastika is virtue signalling in the original technical sense.
It’s only the colloquial use of the term that implies someone is trying to look good.
@ Alan
I assumed the colloquial use was specifically about “woke” people trying to look good.
Virtue signalling with a swastika is trying to look good for a different definition of good, but people doing that don’t call it that because virtue signalling is something Other People do.
Unless you plan to have A baby there is also ZERO biological need for a man to orgasm. Why do these idiots even argue like that? Women don’t need to orgasm? Well the female orgasm does increase the likelihood of pregnancy actually, but expecting them to know anything would me too much.
I mean these dudes are aware that being shitty in bed Leads the woman to not want to sleep with them?
Male orgasm also doesn’t matter if she is on birth control…. yikes these sociopaths are definitely not having sex anyway, I guess. They just fantasize too much about it, but in a horrible way. The hell is going on with men like this.