I suspect you can guess their unanimous answer – women are incapable of love — which is pretty much what you’d expect men who hate women to say about women and love. Some highlights:
Fairi5fair thinks women are monsters; he just can’t figure out which kind:
Women are just incapable of love period. The thrill of being able to use her pussy to get free shit is what women mistake for “love”. …
They are cold, grasping, selfish, and heartless parasites. They have no souls. They are all vampires. Undead zombies lurching from meal to meal.
Wait, so are they vampires or are they zombies? I think I can handle either one by itself, but if they are both at the same time we’re doomed!
Goldenfetus seems to be smoking something powerful:
Yes, they are less capable of love than men, or totally incapable.
One possibility I’ve considered is that in a natural … environment male ‘love’ (platonic) would be reserved only for other men, while women would be viewed as property or objects of reproduction whose value was derived from fertility and subservience without any basis in ‘love’ reciprocation. If so, I would identify feminism as the factor that misled men into extending this love, disastrously, to females – tricking them into believing that females have souls and are like males.
Loving a woman is like trying to pet a toilet, water a sandwich, or plow a parking lot and then wondering why you aren’t getting results. The defect (of understanding) lies with the man loving an object incompatible with love, rather than in the female whose nature precludes reciprocity.
Arctic thinks it’s all about the Benjamins:
Love to a woman is a man who is their servant 24/7 365 a day. …
The idea of love involving sacrifice to a female is as foreign as periods are to men. Why should she care about a relationship involving sacrifice on her part, when she is taught all her life to exploit men for her own uses? Sacrifice herself for a mere man? WHY? Why, when beta males are selling their souls to sniff her crotch? …
[I]ts safe to say the idea of women being in love begins and ends at the ATM of her committed male asset.
The Accomplice agrees:
Women do not seek love or companionship. Their main objective is to find a man of the highest status possible (Richest men, the toughest guys, most popular guy etc) who will protect them, provide for them and satisfy their selfish desires. … [T]he majority of women are too weak physically and mentally to do these things on their own, hence why they always chase after men …
A women’s idea of love is all hypergamy, nothing more.
Superion goes all Evo-Psych on us:
Women are incapapble of love is the great, horrible secret that society has tried to hide from men since the dawn of time.
Women are physically and mentally weaker than men.
In order to survive and pass on their genes they need the resources of the strongest and best providing male available.
To do this, women rely on beauty and guile to trick a male into being her slave.
Women do not love.
For men, love is a self-delusion.
We trick ourselves into wasting our resources on one particular female.
This makes no sense so we tell ourselves we’re in love to justify it.
Such an unromantic bunch! Maybe this will cheer them up.
Not reallly the appropriate response to someone else getting cancer.
Those of you who aren’t regular readers of the comments here may not appreciate the true genius of David K. Meller, an excitable and exclamation-point-loving MRA I’ve mentioned once or twice in my posts, but who shows up in the comments here with some regularity – ending each comment with his trademark “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!”
Men, by and large, are a wonderful sex! We are more intelligent than women, more creative, at least in the areas outside the home. We are, also, as a rule, physically stronger as well …
He claims to love women, too – though not feminists, whom he seems to consider something other than human:
Women ARE people, and often wonderful people at that! Feminists, on the other hand, AREN’T! …
Women are people, and properly raised, educated, and loved,, are beautiful, charming, and lovely!
Despite his alleged love of women – at least the non-feminist ones – he often says utterly horrible things about them. The examples are too numerous to catalogue. But let me draw your attention to one rather telling comment of his I found recently on The Spearhead.
In the midst of a discussion of Sharon Osbourne’s now notorious comments about a woman who cut off her husband’s penis, Meller offered the following musings on the subject of women and cancer. I am having trouble finding much love of women in them:
It is .. possible that the breast cancers (not to mention ovarian and vaginal cancers) have a psychosomatic aspect to their development. … The feelings of vicious sadism, brutality, and callous indifference to another’s pain in such harpies must inexorably work on the molecular, genetic, and cellular level to generate consequences! I hope that you girls find these consequences as hilarious as I do when you annoy me with your next women’s health campaign against cancer!
Maybe women don’t strictly speaking, DESERVE cancer, but it will be hard for me to stop laughing at them …
Isn’t the thought of cancer-ridden women going under the knife amusing? Isn’t thought of women losing part, or all, of a sexual organ that is precious to them FUNNY? The pain women experience when recovering from surgery (and radiation or chemo, which is almost as bad) is still less than the agony which that poor man underwent when he underwent castration at the hands of a deranged, sadistic, and vicious she-weasel (my apologies to weasels)!
[F]or every man who is abused and tortured by his woman, it almost warms my heart that the same hatred and spite characteristic of the female human(?) sets THEM up for a similar fate down the road, as that bitterness, vicious sadism, and bloodthirstiness so characteristic of those who would LAUGH AT the suffering caused by a “woman” committing such a vicious crime predisposes them toward cancer, and (I hope) a similar fate!
Karma is always there, girls, and it is a bitch!! HA HA HA HA HA…LOL!
PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
David K. Meller
That “PEACE AND FREEDOM!!!” always gets me.
This being The Spearhead, Meller’s comments garnered more than a few upvotes. Not as many as he usually gets, admittedly, but some.
At some point I will do a Best of David K. Meller post, highlighting some of his “best” comments here. He is one for the ages.
You’ve all seen the famous quote attributed to German religious leader Martin Niemöller:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Now one embittered “Nice Guy” on Tumblr who goes by the name joetomcollins has written his own version, with feminists as the Nazis, rapists as the communists, and, well, just read it yourself:
When the Feminists came for the Rapists,
I remained silent;
I was not a Rapist.
When they locked up the stalkers,
I remained silent;
I was not a stalker.
When they came for the Players,
I did not speak out;
I was not a Player.
When they came for the men who they got bored of,
I remained silent;
I wasn’t some one they were bored of yet.
When they came for me, the nice guy,
there was no one left to speak out.
So, yeah. Let’s think this through a little bit. When Niemöller made his now famous remarks, he was expressing his own sorrow for not standing up to Hitler when he started arresting Communists. So is joetomcollins suggesting that he – and we – should have stopped “the feminists” from going after rapists and stalkers?
Joetomcollins doesn’t say, but he does have a lot more to say on the evilness of feminists and stuck-up women in general:
[I]f I’m going to be the bad guy no matter what I do… might as well get it the fuck out the way right up front.
I might as well ENJOY being the villain.
The FemeNazi messsage is LOUD AND CLEAR!
I am an average normal guy. I am never going to be good enough.
Especially in NYC where you only personalities you get are native “rats” who have learned to survive to being ruthless, and Type “A” psychopaths who come here to conquer everything.
Dude, if you don’t like the people in New York, then maybe, just maybe, you should move out of New York. It’s a high-pressure place and, well, you don’t seem to respond well to pressure, let’s put it that way.
He continues on with a refrain that I suspect will sound awfully familiar to a lot of you:
Man hasn’t had the ability to choose his woman for at least the last 150 years. The woman chooses the man. ALWAYS.
Now even showing interest is offensive to the FemeNAZI.
We aren’t talking about DOING anything but telling someone you think they are attractive. If a guy YOU liked rejected you, he would be Satan incarnate, but when a woman rejects a guy…
“HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER!!!”
“HOW DARE HE THINK HE WAS GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!!!!!”
… and we’re supposed to nod sheepishly and apologize for bothering you as we leave with a smile.
When I read shit like this I have to wonder: who exactly are you approaching, and what exactly are you saying to them? I’ve made some awkward passes in my day, but I’ve never gotten this response from anyone.
Could it be that you’re a dick? Your post seems to suggest that you are — an angry, self-obsessed dick almost completely lacking in self-awareness and empathy.
I mean, seriously, comparing your inability to get laid to the fucking Holocaust? Your bad luck with women to the murder of millions? Douche move, my man.
If you embrace your dickhood, as you seem to want to do, and become much more straightforward about your sexual desires, instead of trying to hide behind a nice-guy facade, you might actually get laid more often than you’re getting now. But you’re not likely to get a lot of repeat customers. And for good reason: no woman wants (or deserves) to be saddled with all your bullshit.
So let’s assume, for the purpose of argument, that you’re not a full-blown dick; you’re just a horny young guy on a sexual losing streak lashing out at women for your own failures. Let’s assume you are willing to work on actually reducing your dickishness. (Readers: All I ask is a little temporary suspension of disbelief.)
Reading your account of your romantic failures, and bearing in mind that most straight men don’t get this sort of response from the women they approach, there are several possibilities:
either you are exaggerating the alleged awfulness of the rejections you’ve gotten, or
there is something desperately wrong with your approach — perhaps you’re cornering women in elevators at 4 AM, or otherwise transgressing their boundaries in inappropriate ways — or
the women you are approaching are, you know, bitches.
You really only have two choices here: you can spend the rest of your life wallowing in bitterness at women, or you can reconsider your approach. Find some woman you are friendly with – one you are not obsessed with fucking – and explain to her what’s going on, and ask her where you think you’re going wrong. If it’s your approach, learn to better respect people’s boundaries and read their body language; some women don’t want to be bugged by anyone when they are, you know, on the way to work. If it’s your selection of women, select different women.
And stop posting tirades on the internet about how women are a bunch of evil Nazis out to oppress you and your poor lonely penis. You know how, when you jump into cold water, your genitals shrink in horror from the cold? Something similar happens to the vaginas of most women when they read shit like you just wrote.
The dude at What Men Are Saying About Women – you may recall him as the inventor of the MRA two-dot period – remains my favorite illiterate MRA blogger. To be fair, the illiteracy is really just the icing on the cake of his ridiculous opinions. In a recent post he wrote about a new study that purports to show that there is more sex in countries with greater gender equality. (Probably true; the study itself, probably bullshit.)
Here’s the two-dot blogger trying to make some sort of point about it all:
Feminists have always promoted shagging as some type of recommended behaviour that should be allowed at random without limitation or indeed have any limits attached to it. Probably explains why most of the feminist mangina sites have little tags like “I support Porn” or “I support BDSM” as they would heartily agree that the promotion of free sex on demand would allow them unlimited access especially if there is a feminist female involved. Brainwashing does apparently have it positive side..
What surprises me the most is the lack of information concerning sexually transmitted diseases of all types. Those nasty disease like HIV or those others that munch your body at random. Not really something you want to be told after a night of debauchery with some slut feminist ( they promote themselves to be sluts now) willingly spreads her legs for some horizontal tango..
So apparently having more sex is bad because feminists..
And then you get AIDS..
And sentences should always be ended with not one but two periods..
The other day we took a look at a Redditor who calls himself AntiFeministMedia. He does not seem to like the ladies very much. Indeed, in some of the posts of his I quoted, he went so far as to say that women are animals, not humans, and suggested that men should pretty much have the final say in anything involving reproduction (as clearly the women have been doing a terrible job of it).
So one might wonder: why have ladies at all? This is a thought that has crossed the mind of AntiFeministMedia more than a few times. And he’s got some ideas about how it could be done.
As he points out in this comment, men have known all along that ladies is trouble. But now, thanks to superior male brains, we finally have the technology to do something about it. Today, fleshlights! Tomorrow, the womb!
Men have known women are the problem right throughout history, and to deny it just goes to show how ignorant and stupid you are.
Religion’s, culture’s, all have there warnings about women.
And all these things will be known again. The dots will be joined, and its my hope that after this current fuck up of allowing feminism to take root, men will never allow it again.
I actually think its time men went foreward alone. We have the hi-technology now to clone little boys into the future, soon we will have female androids with artificial wombs. Identical to women in almost every way, except for the animal nature…
If men didnt have to live in this human-female environment, but instead was guaranteed in having his sexual needs met, and his genes live on into the future, there would be a lot less conflict of all kinds.
This two-party system of male and female has served its purpose (in the most brutal way), we are rapidly approaching a time where things could be radically different.
Cloning science and female androids may just solve that woman problem for us.
I wouldnt advocate killing women, certainly not, but a gradual fade-out, allow women to live out their natural lives, while we transition to the new technology.
No need for anything as unpleasant as killing, no. Just the elimination of one gender by the other through a little “fade-out,” like they have in the movies. Nothing objectionable about this, not at all.
If you’ve followed any of these links back to the original comments, you’ll see that AntiFeministMedia, like most truly original thinkers, has gotten some resistance to his ideas — even from the normally forward-looking thinkers of the Men’s Rights subreddit. And a few downvotes!
Well its nice to hear her comment that western women themselves have been complicit in foreign wars and the rape of native women by soldiers, so that companies can obtain gold and other precious metals for Ipads and moble phones which women seem to like so much.
Oh you evil women with your iPads and mobile phones! We men are of course immune to the devilish allure of computer technology. Indeed, I’m typing this blog post on an old Smith-Corona Galaxie Portable Typewriter.
Oh dear. The Spearheaders are talking about the Slutwalks again. The discussion may be the worst on the subject that I have run across so far. Some of the lowlights:
They’re high functioning children with sexual power and they don’t want you to forget it. They’re outraged that just because a young woman dresses and acts in a sexually provocative manner, that she might receive unwanted attention from young men that don’t appeal to her.
She should be able to dress like a street whore and abuse alcohol to the point of delerium and they feel compelled to lecture us on how that doesn’t mean this is an advertisment to be sexually harrassed, sexually assaulted or heaven forbid raped. …
They want the “RIGHT” to dress as sexually provocative as they want to without being constantly annoyed by lowly beta males. They’d prefer you not “sexually victimize” them, unless you’re hot and they’re into you, then it’s totally OK. …
Remember this: She didn’t bother to get dressed up for the likes of YOU. Her hope was a worthy athelete or Hollywood star might notice her and talk to her; not some weak, pathetic loser …
“We’ve got the sexual power, the power of consent, the gate keeper of the holy vaginal crevice. See our bouncing propped up cleavage, our long legs and glorious ass protruding from those heels? You want it don’t you?
….ha, ha, ha…you can’t have it because I SAY SO! Because I have THIS power over you, lowly little man. Bow down to me and beg me a little, I might even let the others see me talking to you, without calling the cops.” …
This isn’t feminism, it’s flaunting female sexual power in the faces of men.
You’re seriously complaining that woman have the “power of consent!?” EVERYONE has the power of consent. No one male or female is obliged to have sex with anyone they don’t want to. That’s, you know, rape. It bothers you that women are the “the gate keeper[s] of the holy vaginal crevice?” Who the fuck else should be the gatekeeper of a person’s vagina other than the person whose vagina it is? The mind reels. But apparently the 50+ upvoters of this piece of abhorrent nonsense aren’t bothered by any of this.
While perusing FB last week I came across the newest deviation of this mentality which is going topless. … And they want to cry about rape? They need to cry but only because people said enough is enough and started to belt them on their asses.
Women need to be controlled and on a very, very short leash. They’ve been given every right, every option, every opportunity to be something and what do they do with it? Abuse and manipulate it with reckless abandonment and incessant demands.
I wouldn’t worry too much about these Slutwalk sows.
They have no redeeming features. None.
They cannot figure out that if you dress like a whore, you deserve to be treated in a disrespectful manner. Even conservatively dressed mentally retarded women can figure this out and conduct themselves with more propriety and intelligence than these Slutwalkers … .
Rape is now the extra tax women charge men if some how their unsatisfied with whatever arrangement was made before or after any encounter in or outside of marriage.
Demirogue (in a second comment) complaining that “overvalued pussy is all [women today] have to offer and only to certain men.”
Anonymous age 69 explaining that “rape laws were intended to protect women of good character, from being sexually violated,” not “to protect promiscuous sluts .”
And more, much, much more. Many of the worst (including most of those quoted here) have many dozens of upvotes. Go read the thread yourself, if you think you can stomach it.
There are no arguments to rebut here; I can only repeat the basic message that the slutwalks are trying to convey: no one deserves to be raped, no matter what they are wearing or how much consensual sex they engage in. Even if they show some cleavage or prefer athletes and/or rocks stars to so-called beta males.
We gave them the vote and they STILL won't shut up about it!
Apparently, all that time I spent studying history in college and grad school was a complete waste of time. Because once people die, nothing about their lives or the events that happened during their lives matters. At least according to merlin34 in Reddit’s Men’s Rights subreddit, who recently set forth this cogent argument as to “Why feminists should SHUT THE $^%# UP about women’s suffrage in US/UK.”
The 19th Amendment of the US Constitution was ratified in 1920, before that year’s election. At the time, the voting age was 21. Any woman who was denied the right to vote would have had to have been born before Election Day of 1898. Today, she would be 113+ years old. That means dead.
In the UK, it was in 1928 that women were granted equal voting rights to men, again at the age of 21 (although women over 30 were given the vote 10 years earlier). Any woman denied the right to vote based on sex in the UK would be over 105 years old now. There’s still probably some around, but not a lot, and not for much longer, and they weren’t denied the right to vote for long.
What does this have to do with anything? It means that feminists using the “women weren’t allowed to vote, wah” or “black men got the vote before women of any color” canards should SHUT UP, because the list of those actually denied the right to vote based on sex is rapidly diminishing. In another ten years, none will remain.
Naturally, the comments are also a delight. OThompson says:
You can also tell them that Suffragettes were often domestic terrorists.
It isnt just feminists though is it, its any woman you get into an argument with.
If its not ‘women wernt allowed to vote’, its ‘rapists get off scott-free’. They ignore the context. When did universal sufferage for men go ahead in the UK? 1918?
Most women are ignorant of most of these issues, but they are happy to just parrot all this stuff because that makes them victims, and so they get privileges they arent really entitled to.
They dont care wether what they are saying is out of date, or that most men didnt recieve the vote untill very recently either, they only care that the female gravy train of victimhood keeps rolling on.
Is the Female Gravy Train of Victimhood anything like Soul Train? Because that would be awesome.
On the ironically named Happy Bachelors forum, the regular poster who calls himself khankrumthebulgar – and whose real name is Randall Joseph Shake — has been complaining about those of us who’ve pointed out that much MRA and MGTOW rhetoric sounds all too similar to the rhetoric of Norwegian terrorist murderer Anders Breivik. In response to Hugo Schwyzer’s post on the topic at the Good Men Project, he wrote:
This smacks to me of extreme desperation. As they are trying to draw us into a response. They should hear Crickets chirping. … they are in need of traffic, controversy some off the wall unhinged response. When they receive none, it simply means we will not waste the oxygen to answer these absurd and insane accusations. No evidence exists that the MRA or MRM is in any way connected to the Norwegian gunman. IF we were there would be dozens of dead Feminists by now. There is none, hence this is a weak and pathetic attempt to incite violence and is irresponsible on their part. …
If such violence were to happen. After such outrageous accusations, it is Hugo Schwyzer and the Good Menz Project who is financially liable for stoking and promoting extremism in the hopes of generating a violent response. The blood will be on their hands not ours.
You will notice that this argument is identical to that of Angry Harry: if an extremist commits an act of terrorism or violence, don’t blame him or his extremist ideology; blame the people who pissed him off. Taken to its logical extreme, this specious argument would mean blaming the Jews for the Holocaust; after all, they’re the ones who got Hitler so worked up in the first place.
It seems to me that if you don’t want people to associate you with terrorists, you should probably stop talking like terrorists, referring casually to “dozens of dead feminists” and trying to blame the enemy in advance for any violence that comes from your side.
Also, you should probably stop making comments like the following, which were posted in response to Amanda Marcotte’s recent post on Misogyny and Terrorism. The first one, from spocksdisciple, a board moderator, fantasized about a violent backlash that would put women in general and feminists in particular in their supposed place:
[T]he backlash against feminism and it’s misandry will be both awe inspiring and terrifying at the same time.
Modern radical feminism is doomed, any woman sprouting these kinds of statements after the backlash won’t last very long, people and especially men are growing angrier everyday and all these whining losers in the feminist movement is doing to kicking a sleeping bear even harder.
Feminism is so done that women will be lucky if any man bothers to even look at them other then as a piece of meat, the days of the 19th century are going to come back where women either know their place or they’ll suffer the consequences of their actions and arrogance, big daddy gov’t isn’t going to be around to protect the rights of women to act like bitches.
And you probably shouldn’t talk about burning down buildings with people inside them, as khankrumthebulgar (that is, Randall Joseph Shake) does in this comment:
Feminists will be treated like the French Nobility was during the French Revolution. There will be a payback to these Evil Bitches. … As to the Good Mangina Project, they are our enemies. Burn the building to the ground with them in it.
Is he literally talking about burning down a building, or is he speaking metaphorically? In the wake of a tragedy that involved a man literally gunning down the children of his leftist and feminist enemies, khankrumthebulgar’s comments are indefensible either way.
Let me reiterate: these are posts from men who are angry that people have linked them in any way to the Norwegian terrorist. Are they really this lacking in self-awareness, or are they so used to talking in an environment where violent comments about feminists are so common and accepted that they don’t even realize the irony?
I don’t know, and I don’t care. I just wish that those in the MRA and MGTOW movements who are bothered by this kind of talk – and I know there are some who are – would actually step up and declare this sort of shit out of bounds. I’m not holding my breath.
Note: The Happy Bachelors forum is members-only, so the links to the forum won’t work if you’re not a member. Here are screen shots of all the forum comments mentioned in this post, in order. Click to see the full-sized image. I edited several of the comments, but indicated all removed material with ellipses. As you will see the edits did not change the meaning of what was said.
khankrumthebulgar gives his real name
khankrumthebulgar on Hugo Schwyzer (just the portion of the comment that is from him; the rest quotes Schwyzer’s post).
Happy day! Susan Walsh has drawn another diagram! Loyal readers of Man Boobz will recall the last time that Walsh, a would-be relationship expert who blogs at Hooking Up Smart, tried her hand at diagram making. It wasn’t pretty. In an attempt to sketch out the economic costs of sluthood, Walsh cobbled together an extravagantly convoluted mess of a flow-chart based on little more than a few bad assumptions and what she insisted was common sense.
Back in the old “leave it to Beaver” days, Frost argues, virtually all men and women paired off efficiently with partners who exactly matched their level of hotness, as charted on the infamous ten-point scale beloved of pickup artists and other such creatures. Fives married fives, nines married nines, and even lowly ones were able to find true love and hot ugly sex with others as unfortunate as they were. As Walsh puts it, attempting to make all this somehow sound vaguely scientific:
This system worked pretty well in achieving equilibrium with respect to SMV (sexual market value).
Naturally, neither Frost nor Walsh offer any evidence that any of this was true. Which only makes sense, since it, er, wasn’t.
Let’s set that aside for a moment and move on to our current fallen state, post-sexual revolution. Now, apparently, a small minority of hot dudes score all the chicks, from nines on down to threes. Everyone else spends their lonely nights alone with their hands and a choice of vibrator or fleshlight.
Here’s where the diagram comes in. It’s a doozy:
From "Hooking Up Smart."
Now, Walsh doesn’t actually explain how she knows this (or, rather believes it, since it clearly is not true), or why exactly she thinks the sexual revolution is to blame. But Frost does, sort of. With the sexual revolution, he argues,
the social convention of monogamy starts to break down. Women are free to do what they want, and they quickly realize that the men they can persuade to have short-term sexual relationships with are much, much more attractive than the men willing to marry them. Attractive men are free to eschew marriage, and instead maintain a harem of rotating friends-with-benefits and one-night stands. Super-attractive men (professional athletes, rock stars, bloggers) can spend every night with a different coterie of young, attractive women, railing lines off their ass cheeks and banging them senseless.
Sounds great for men. And not too bad for women either, who get to shag NHL players and bloggers instead of their ho-hum husbands.
Wait a minute. “… and bloggers?” Bloggers are now the alpha males? I wish I’d known this sooner!
But every woman who elects to join a harem, must necessarily leave a lonely man behind in the great mating scramble. … The men at the bottom are left to their RPGs and porn.
So there you have the effects of the sexual revolution on men: Great for the few, awful for the teeming masses.
Well, there’s a certain logic to that argument. It’s just not, you know, true.
Walsh and all the manosphere dudes who’ve convinced themselves that 80% of men have been left sexless have it backwards: as a handy FAQ at the Kinsey Institute points out, only about 10 percent of men don’t have sex during any given year. The average frequency of sex ranges from more than 100 times a year for those in their teens and twenties to about 70 times a year for those in their 40s.
But what about the ladies? Frost explains that they suffer too, especially those unfortunate enough to be mega-hotties. Frost seems to base this conclusion almost entirely on the sexual history of one Betty Draper. This seems a very small sample size to me. Also, she’is fictional. But that doesn’t stand in Frost’s way:
What about the top woman? The ultimate hottie? Previously, she had the top man all to herself. She literally could not have asked for anything more, assuming as I do that women naturally gravitate toward sleeping with the one man who is their best option at a given time, while men are only as faithful as their options. Suddenly, her man is beset by hussies, plying him with offers of cheap sex. How does Betty Draper feel about the breakdown of monogamy in her world? …
Now [the top women] must choose between sharing, or settling for a man far below her previous catch. Meanwhile, uglier women can choose between monogamy with a man far above her previous level, or a shared slice of one of the top men. She is unequivocally better off, as the hotter women are unequivocally worse off.
Frost concludes:
The Sexual Revolution harms attractive women, and unattractive men. It benefits unattractive women, and attractive men.
Betty Drapers of the world, unite!
Naturally, none of this is the fault of men. It is, Frost and Walsh apparently agree, the fault of all those mid-level bitches slutting it up with the top men. It’s all their fault that the ladies at the top and bottom are getting left high and dry.
Indeed, it’s high time that the hottest hotties stood up for their rights, Frost argues in a second blog post:
It never seems to occur to the hot girls of the world that the sexual revolution is the cause of their troubles. Without it, the best that a top man could do is find a top woman, and devote his life to her. In our present dystopia, he can find that top woman, and rip her heart and soul to pieces by maintaining a harem of flings on the side.
If it wasn’t for the legions of female 7′s and 8′s throwing themselves at the male 9′s, the female 9′s could have their men all to themselves. But in the world as it is, they will always be competing with the omnipresent availability of cheap and easy sex.
Were the hot women to regain their hot pride, sluts and feminists alike would quake in their boots:
The greatest fear of the feminists is that desirable women like yourselves will wake up the lies they’ve been fed, embrace their feminine modesty, and cast the harsh light reality on of the fat, shrill, used-up slutwalkers and middle-aged divorcees.
What of the not-quite-hotties? Walsh has some harsher advice for all those “mediocre sluts” out there riding that alpha asshole cock carousel. She writes:
For less attractive women, an objective assessment of market value is essential. That can only be realized by evaluating which men are interested in dating you rather than banging you.
In other words: mid-level ladies, you’re still losers. Eventually, you asses will get fat, your skin will get wrinkly, and the alpha assholes will grow tired of banging you. So what are you poor gals to do? Walsh offers this grim assessment:
These are the hard truths of the Post Sexual Revolution era. There are a few winners, and many losers. It is difficult to see how equilibrium can ever be regained. For now at least, your only option is to think carefully and realistically about your personal life goals. Make sure the choices you’re making get you closer to them.
(Confidential to Susan Walsh: You do know that using terms like “equilibrium,” like you’re some sort of sexual economist, doesn’t actually make your bullshit true?)
Given that everything in Frost and Walsh’s posts here is such unmitigated bullshit, I think I have some better advice for women of all hotness levels (if they haven’t already figured this out for themselves): stop taking relationship advice from a woman who wants you to hate yourself.
And speaking of bad choices: those smileys? Oy. Strive for elegant simplicity, not tacky clutter.
NOTE: Chuck on Gucci Little Piggy has written a response of sorts to this post. I’ve replied on his blog here. But there is something distressing going on there: Someone has posted several rude comments there under the name “Man Boobz.” THAT PERSON IS NOT ME. If any of you are responsible, STOP IMMEDIATELY. I’ve asked Chuck to ban that person and delete the comments.
EDITED TO ADD: Chuck changed the name of the commenter to “not man boobz.” That makes sense to me.
In this episode of Man Boobz Super Fun Time Video Party, Tiny Bunny and Small Dog make an excursion to NiceGuy’s MGTOW Forum, and consider the view of one fellow there who feels women should be restrained so that they don’t all become sadists and sluts. Also, there is a discussion of ice cream.
Here’s the original comment from the forum. (I edited it a bit for length and clarity in the video.)
All women are instinctively sadists and sluts if they are not restrained by the society.
Present feminism has given complete freedom for women and has completely restrained and shunned all men.This present feminism invokes and encourages the very basic instinct of a woman – It encourages her how to be a slut & how to be a sadist.
One better e.g. that I can give is – If a woman beats her lover/husband with a machete and fills his body with oozing blood whole mob(which includes all men) cheers her with claps & encourages her to give the more brunt of it(click here).Or even if a woman kills a man in public she is seen as if she has done a heroic act in media,courtrooms & in public.Even if she is guilty of that serious offence she is acquitted.Like this there are many e.g. which I don’t even need to give.
Present feminism is a failed ideology,just look what it has given – there are single mothers,prostitutes,drug addicts(teenage girls & boys brought up by single mothers),recession for men,disjoint families ,higher divorce rates,depression,increasing violence among teenagers due to lack of care during their crucial childhood years,immoral porn culture which also encourages homosexuality,oppression of men,etc…
If soceity puts some restrain on women then definitely women can be beneficial to the soceity with their feminine touch.Restraining women is necessary to teach them discipline & such disciplined women are really good to soceity.In fact this should be the principle of feminism & we men would had undoubtedly embraced such kind of feminism.But what I said above is seen as offence in present feminism which preaches every woman to oppress men & treat them as slaves.
There was actually one more paragraph of this. Just more of the same.
