Friday, September 3, 2010

Some Women Think Pandora Can Just Close the Lid...


...and make everything go back to the "good ole days," in which sex was bait to lure men into commitment, rather than the current hook up culture of female sexual "empowerment."

Dalrock exposed this foolish delusion found on this post, Sexual Revolution and Feminist: Wrong. Grandma: Right.

Through countless trials and tribulations of our own and those of our readers we have come to realize that the only way in which the female population is going to regain power over this city of boys (we refuse to call them men) is to no longer give them what they want. Yep, that’s right. NO MORE SEX. Seriously.

Just think about it. What if every single woman out there stopped having sex. No more one night stands. No more casual hook-ups. No more f*ck buddies. No more ex-sex. No more let’s start having sex and if it’s good then attempt to backtrack into a relationship. The boys of New York would have to start working for it!

My initial response to this idea? Hah! Pandora's box has already been opened. It is done! The demons of unrestrained female sexuality has been unleashed and they are wreaking havoc on Patriarchal civilization. Too late, ladies.

If you won't give up the milk, men are not going to suddenly be impelled to buy the cow, they'll just find another ready and willing cow giving milk away for free.

But Dalrock took them seriously for a moment, and decided to outline the scenario of what would happen if these ladies were to try and enforce this sex cartel...to restrict the availability of pussy to raise it's overall value.

Hilarity ensues:

Lets say these women are serious, and decide to form a union (a form of cartel). They will need a suitably union sounding name if anyone is going to take them seriously. I propose: Women Holding Out for Relationship Equity. But there are other women having sex with bankers out there, so we need to identify them as well. These women aren’t in it for the money, but for the pure enjoyment of the sex and the ability to exercise their sexual power. Lets call them Sisters Lusting for Unlimited Titillation. To save space, I’ll refer to each group via their acronym in the rest of the post.

So lets say the WHOREs call a city wide sex strike. Do you think the SLUTs are going to take this lying down? Of course not! They’ll just enter into a backdoor agreement with the bankers and continue as usual. In addition, not all of the WHOREs will honor the strike. Some will claim they will honor the strike (lie) and then secretly cheat on the agreement. Thats right: lying cheating WHOREs. So if you are a banker, you have all of the SLUTS and lying cheating WHOREs you can handle. This naturally will bring the golddigging WHOREs to their knees.

What the golddigging WHOREs need is a method to enforce the strike. Labor unions use a combination of social pressure and legal protection to achieve this. However, the WHOREs are not in a good position to try to shame the SLUTs, so they probably won’t get enough social sympathy to enforce the strike or have the laws changed. After all, most of the WHOREs were in all likelyhood SLUTs until very recently, and as I mentioned earlier many of them are actually lying cheating WHOREs. More importantly, feminists have been very successful in creating an aversion to shaming SLUTs. Not too long ago shaming SLUTs was commonplace. But now as a blogger with a diverse audience I for example wouldn’t consider using slut shaming language, even to make a point. Many ordinary women have come to see an insult to sluts as an insult to all women.

It is important to note that not all women are golddiging WHOREs, lying cheating WHOREs, or SLUTs. There is another category which is often overlooked in the manosphere. These women understand that marriage is something much more than a vulgar economic transaction, and they take it very seriously. Unfortunately as we saw in the beginning of the post, these women can end up paying a price for the actions of the SLUTs and the WHOREs.

Well done, Dalrock!

16 comments:

Laura Grace Robins said...

By such a protest they continue to think of men as boys, in that they have no self-control. I think there are quite a few men out there that would rather be sexless than to pair up with the modern woman. A real hoot would be if they stopped handing out sex like candy and the men still didn't marry them!

"The boys of New York would have to start working for it!"

If they got what they wanted, if their strike worked and they got their marriage...the above attitude will carry forth and she will continue to think her husband has to deserve sex from her, that he has to "work for it". Simply being her husband is not enough, he will have a list of duties/reactions that he is suppose to maintain or none tonight.

curiepoint said...

That attitude is already in place Laura, whether they succeed in their strike or not. I have known a lot of women, including my ex-wife, who used sex as a tool...a crowbar, to be precise...to get what she wanted, or if she thought I had been a good little boy and had done what he was told. In this respect, they will still treat their husbands like little boys; scold and "ground" them by witholding sex when their expectations aren't met, and rewarding them with a gold star when they tow the line.

I always find it funny when a woman uses the words "be a man". When they start being women, then we will be men for them. But, they better understand one fundamental fact:

You will be women, but you will be our women.

If not, you get the keys to the street.

Laura Grace Robins said...

With that said, I don't blame men one bit for 'cheating'--there I said it. My sistas will really hate me now. While not the right thing to do, I just don't see what they are supposed to do. It's real simple to keep a man happy (as opposed to a woman). Respect. Respect that materializes in all sorts of ways. And it is not something that is conditional.

I have been to a few Christian woman blogs recently (really feminists in my view) and they talk of about how a husband has to earn his wife's respect (it's conditional), which then translates into sex, etc. It is certain key phrases and idea
that tips you off to a feminist nature, despite how traditionalist or Christian they claim.

Re: "be a man". It's hard to be a man when a woman is also competing for the spot. "be a woman", is right.

dalrock said...

Thanks for the link, and glad you liked it!

I really like the image of Pandora's box. That is a good way to put it.

One of the comments on that original blog really blew me away. I linked to it in the comments section on my blog, but here is the quote:

We do not like being taken advantage of by slobs who fart and roll over after they come and do nothing to make sure us women are satisfied in bed and in a relationship.

The word RELATIONSHIP is a 4 sylable word that a lot of dumb guys just don’t understand. It is more than calling a women when you want to get your rocks off. It is more than coming over, grabbing our boobs and saying you are horny and pulling your pants down. We do not find this sexy or attractive. We want men who treat us right, buy us things and take us to go skiing.


Sounds to me like those dumb guys have women like her pretty well figured out. What more could they have to learn?

Fidelbogen said...

"We want men who treat us right, buy us things and take us to go skiing."

There. She said it: "Buy us things."

I cannot see that any irony was intended here. I am forced to conclude that she is serious.

Sometimes there is no point in wasting clues upon the clueless, if you consider that they are clueless for a REASON.

Kick them out into the cold. They deserve no better. And under no condition should you grab their boobs -- ever!

Anonymous said...

"We want men who treat us right, buy us things and take us to go skiing."

There's a word for that....prostitution. The problem? No man wants to pay high prices for low-quality pussy.

Sorry "sistah", your pussy card's been punched out. Nobody's buyin you shit. I can get much better without the faggoty skiing trip.

Anonymous said...

Withholding sex until he learns, like a dog to 'sit', 'roll over' and 'play dead'? Any woman who does that should be kicked to the curb without delay if she won't change after being confronted over such unacceptable behavior.

With the court system totally biased against men, marriage is looking more and more like a loser's game.

Anonymous said...

I don't see anything wrong with negotiating sex. Why should men be caught up in the mental emotional vacuum of dealing with women's feelings only to have sex also drawn into this navel-gazing?

This would also expose female methods to manipulate men. Temper tantrums, childish pouting etc would be exposed at last.

angalarc said...

Haa, good one dalrock, I didn't get it at first, I was thinking where did he come up with this, until you shortened it to WHORE and SLUT so that made it even more funny.

Anonymous said...

"We want men who treat us right, buy us things and take us to go skiing."

Obviously this SLUT is a member of the WHORE cartel.

Xamuel said...

If necessity is the mother of invention*, then a sex strike would be the mother of the invention of ultrarealistic sexdolls.

(* Hey, isn't the old saying "necessity is the mother of invention" sexist?? Why haven't the PC gatekeepers stricken it from the lexicon yet??)

Curiepoint said...

Well, no it isn't considered sexist, anon...at least not by the conventional wisdom held by women. Motherhood is a buit-in excuse for all manner of thought and behavior. It is considered pure and unassailable, and when the word is invoked, whatever is attached to it automatically becomes sacrosanct.

It's so sacred in fact, that fatherhood is an ideal that wallows in the mud, compared to motherhood. Fathers are pack-mules and wage slaves, while mothers create life.

I don't buy it, but try to dissuade a modern woman of the notion.

Laura:

I find it absurd that these Christian women's blogs should talk about how husbands must earn their wives' respect. If she didn't respect him, then why marry him in the first place? All the love in the world is not enough to sustain a marriage, or even a courtship. If that respect is not there with which to begin, then everything that is built upon the foundation of love is going to crumble.

I could live with the thought of never having love. Indeed, I can even live with someone's hatred of me. But to live without respect is an abomination to me. I can even live with having to prove that I am worthy of it...one time. I don't ever expect to spend my life at it.

Laura Grace Robins said...

Curie,
It's funny you mention how respect is most important. That was the point of my "Submitting Love" Post. That love to a man is respect. Respect is the action that leads to love.

http://fullofgraceseasonedwithsalt.blogspot.com/2010/06/submitting-love.html

Anonymous said...

Men should have zero tolerance for this "witholding sex" nonsense that some wives apparently engage in. I cannot believe that there are women who actually do this. And husbands who tolerate it. How incredibly demeaning, for both parties.

My tip for husbands. This works. If your wife tries this nonsense on, simply refuse to give her any affection. Refuse to touch her at all. Works like a charm.

David Collard

Solomon II said...

Here's the comment I left on the site:

This is great, but I think the ladies here are forgetting one important flaw in their genetic makeup: Every woman thinks she's special - a unique little snowflake - and doesn't realize that there are literally millions of equally nice, equally attractive, equally fun women within a 100 mile radius of the pedestal she places herself on.

Us guys know this though. The best of us have three or four "totally unique snowflakes" in rotation. The worst of us nail them one at a time.

As long as American woman continue to overvalue themselves, all a guy has to do is keep up the "holy shit, you're not like any woman I've ever met before" act and he can watch those panties slide right off her soft thighs.

Even those participating in the Man Ban will eventually give it up, so all a man has to do is offer a relationship long enough to get some ass, then split. If the process takes a few months longer, so be it. We'll just start the process with multiple women in varying stages, so that the "harvest" is as plentiful as it ever was.

No sex until marriage is the only thing that will work. But there's no way a generation of women who can't even make it to class on time when their daddy is paying their tuition will ever be able to keep their legs closed.

American women are not worth the investment. Men know this. You can call us "little boys" all you want, but it's hard to understand what you're saying with our dick in your mouth.

Put out or get out. Sorry, it's all most of you are worth.

Anonymous said...

The emnity between the sexes is a direct result of our divorce/custody/support laws.

Men resent the legal position they are in, and resent women because of it.

Women feel entitled to be in that position, and revel in their legal status over men because of it.



The inevitable result is a birthrate that is too low to sustain the civilization. We can handle on generation like this, and even two. But not three...........it will be a free fall and something (Islam?) will rush to replace it.


These women (Dating a Banker Anonymous) feel that getting a ring on their finger from a banker will allow them to lead incredibly sheltered lives and have legal power (to steal) from some rich schmuck they have hoodwinked into marriage. They are frustrated that they are being played by these men, who do well know the score, as these women's "born-on-dates" get ever nearer to expiration.

The whole situation is pathetic.



The meek really will inherit the earth if we dont get these laws changed.