Categories
$MONEY$ alpha asshole cock carousel alpha males beta males evil women hypergamy misogyny MRA oppressed men pussy cartel sex that 80%/20% bullshit the spearhead vaginas

American women: Monopoly capitalists of the vagina?

Men are tired of masturbating with the dead hand of capital!

Most manosphere misogynists lean to the right. But every once in a while I’ll run across an MRA who considers himself a man of the left. Today, while perusing the Spearhead, which generally appeals to some of the more reactionary MRAs and MGTOWers, I ran across a most intriguing example of the Manosphericus lefticus.

“Davani” describes himself as “a socialist and a supporter of women’s rights,” explaining that

the last thing I want is some kind of uneducated, barefoot-and-in-the-kitchen woman who I can’t even have a conversation with on any intelligent topic.

But Mr. D is a most unusual sort of socialist-feminist indeed. You might call him a Socialist of the Penis. Or, rather, a Socialist for the Penis. As he explains,

I am all for egalitarian culture (e.g., expanding women’s rights), but only if the women themselves are egalitarian. In the US, much more so than anywhere else, they are not.

So what exactly is wrong with these American women, in Davani’s mind? Well, he reports sadly,

The women here are very shallow, and use their rights to penalize, rather than include, the majority of “average” men who don’t make the cut in terms of their looks. Susan Walsh, the author of “Hooking Up Smart,” reports that on US college campuses, 80% of the girls have sex with 20% of the guys.

Oh dear, not this again.

In effect, giving American women contraception enables them to jump on the sex carousel but not with most guys — only with a small number of ‘alpha males’ at the top. This is the problem right here. Moreover, this is at no cost to themselves, because they can abort any pregnancy, while discriminating against the “lesser” males.

Davani is outraged by this blatant elitism on the part of women. He would prefer a far more egalitarian form of pussy distribution – from each, according to her pussy; to each, according to his penis’ needs.

[I]n other countries, women wouldn’t use contraception to essentially eliminate 80% of the guys. Family planning would benefit BOTH the guy and the girl. The girl isn’t looking to hook up with the top athlete or celebrity, she’s also very interested in other, regular guys, who have other good qualities, even if they don’t necessarily pass the “looks” test.

But in America, alas, women have become monopoly capitalists of the vagina.

American women are more shallow and discriminatory in their preferences than most other women, and this has to be taken into account. “Feminists used to get support from men by promising we’d all be getting laid for free” — in a normal society, yes; in this country, only the 20% at the top would be getting laid for free in this context.

So, false advertising, as well.

To the barricades, men! Vive la penislution!

445 replies on “American women: Monopoly capitalists of the vagina?”

To kitteh’s unpaid help: It was a wrong attribution. The Sexual Revolution, per se, was derived from The Pill and the Second Wave, separated by roughly ten years. What I’m talking about is an earlier phenomenon, which you can find discussed under The Playboy Philosophy, where women, without any selfish desire for their own pleasure or bourgeois concern for their own well-being, were supposed to find a mystical joy of “surrender” to a superior being who owed them neither love, loyalty, nor any guarantees in return. Fortunately, a part of this dreary period did overlap The Pill. The Sexual Revolution was part of the Second Wave, and consisted of the simple assertion that women could have sex for pleasure, without any mystical surrender or one-sided, doglike loyalty at all. That’s the part that the MRA’s and their female prudes are hissing like geese over to this day.

Thanks, reymohammed. I knew the era of the Beats you mentioned was before the Second Wave and sexual revolution, it was more the issue of a similar criticism being leveled at it than the ideas being similar I was thinking of. I didn’t know about the whole superior being garbology (gag) but had more in mind the matter of women ending up pressured for sex and told they’re wrong for not ‘putting out’. Sigh. Different ‘reasons’ will emerge for why we’re wrong if we do and wrong if we don’t, but the whole blame game is depressingly similar down the years.

If that reads rather incoherently I plead late night posting! 😛

” My comments are entirely about being approached, as in hit on, by strangers”

That was not stated enough clearly in the comment. If so, then I will not take exception to that comment.

“Then it should be equaly obvious that your momentary arousal is your problem to deal with and that its childish to dump your issue into the lap of a complete stranger and pester them to deal with it.” well of course it is

“Just because it’s assumed in almost any contact via dating sites that sex will eventually happen if things work out that doesn’t mean that it’s reasonable or polite for the initial approach to be of the “wanna fuck” variety, or that that’s at all the same thing as an assumption that sex will eventually be on the menu. ” No that is not what I meant.. That is message that doesn’t refence sex is problably some expression of romantic/sexual interest.

How come it’s the right leaning/Libertarian types who are always crying for pussy redistribution, while leftist Manginas like myself espouse free market principles when it comes to casual sex and relationships? I believe it’s because these dudes are frauds who call themselves libertarians simply because they’re mad with the world for not getting them everything they believe they’re entitled to.

You know why you’re not getting laid boys? It’s because no woman worth her salt would put up with sniveling, whiny, petulant little boys such as yourselves. Think about this next time you blame a woman you have never met for being hypergamous.

Yeah, I’m so confused at all this goalpost-moving I’m not even sure what sport we’re playing.

“Talacris, what exactly is the point you are trying to make”

I don’t think there is any point anymore. TKUH has explained that she was referring to complete stranger men approaching women in public for sexual purposes, and not in sex clubs &c.

Or maybe the point is that context should be stated more clearly.

Hmm. Talacaris, it is possible that you overlooked the part of strangers approaching, because this kind of behaviour does not happen to you.

Talacris, what exactly is the point you are trying to make?

That words, when properly arranged can form coherent sentences. Also, that coherent sentences /= coherent thoughts. Everyone please applaud our guest lecturer Professsor Talacris for so deftly explaining these issues. We’ll be right back after these messages.

This broadcast was brought to you by the letter S. The Letter S Foundation would like to take this time to wish dualityheart a short labour and a healthy baby.

talacris: This is a serious question. Why is it you were the only person to make that misunderstanding?

Perhaps it’s not that context wasn’t present, but that you did/chose not to see it. Since other people pointed to the context, and you denied their impression; requiring the OP of the comment to tell you everyone else got it right, I think that might be it.

Talacaris: the entire converstation was about strangers, about men looking on any woman who takes their fancy as a potential sex vending machine, not a human with her own life and own occupations and no interest in random men hitting on her.

Go fuck yourself with that rolled up sandpaper, you disingenuous piece of shit.

pecunium: Of course it was an experiment in willful contextomy. T the interesting part is the reactions. Rather than a short clarification like (context clarif.: stranger men in ordinary public places), It is assumed that II go justhitting on random women in the street.

And that is something I’ve seen here before: To make the worst possible interpretation of a problematic statement. Or simply: To attribute to malevolence what can reasonably by stupidity.

“And that is something I’ve seen here before: To make the worst possible interpretation of a problematic statement. Or simply: To attribute to malevolence what can reasonably by stupidity.” which i obviously did myself.in the original reply. Maybe non-charitable interpretions feeds the same reaction in others….not really good reasoning , but I think I can sense a point somewhere

talacris: So you admit to being a dishonest sack of weasel vomit? This isn’t really a surprise, but it’s nice to have you on the record as not being possessed of honest argument.

I’ll also point out the lack of self-reflection (stipulating that this is an honest comment):

And that is something I’ve seen here before: To make the worst possible interpretation of a problematic statement. Or simply: To attribute to malevolence what can reasonably by stupidity.

You are imputing malevolence to, It is assumed that II go justhitting on random women in the street.. when in fact it’s quite possible to think you might do such a thing of stupidity.

Moreover, you ignored (and admitted you ignored) the “short clarifications”, in lieu of pursuing your own agenda.

Then you complain that you weren’t treated with the most gentle of kindesses, while conveniently ignoring that people have memories, and your little dick-dance here isn’t the first time you’ve tried to waltz us ’round the floor.

@ Talacaris
“There are the occasions that men—intellectual men, clever men, engaged men—insist on playing devil’s advocate, desirous of a debate on some aspect of feminist theory or reproductive rights or some other subject generally filed under the heading: Women’s Issues. These intellectual, clever, engaged men want to endlessly probe my argument for weaknesses, want to wrestle over details, want to argue just for fun—and they wonder, these intellectual, clever, engaged men, why my voice keeps raising and why my face is flushed and why, after an hour of fighting my corner, hot tears burn the corners of my eyes. Why do you have to take this stuff so personally? ask the intellectual, clever, and engaged men, who have never considered that the content of the abstract exercise that’s so much fun for them is the stuff of my life.” Melissa McEwan

And FYI I don’t buy it.

Melody: Yes, I know that at shakesville, they don’t really like dishonest arguments or concern trolling, so I would never do this stuff there (or at NSWATM, for other reasons) But here, where trolls abound in hordes, it is more of a playground to experiment with weird reasoning. and intellectual dishonesty.

talacris: Melody: Yes, I know that at shakesville, they don’t really like dishonest arguments or concern trolling, so I would never do this stuff there (or at NSWATM, for other reasons) But here, where trolls abound in hordes, it is more of a playground to experiment with weird reasoning. and intellectual dishonesty.

Because nothing says,”I deserve to be taken seriously” like intellectual dishonest.

Weasel vomit, sack of.

As to TotY, not likely… We have Varpole Butthurt, Diogenes the Naïf, the Return of Brandon, Dr. Pell, Esq., Ph.D, and any number of trolls who seem to be honest in their efforts.

You are, self-admittedly, just wanking in public to have a laugh. Doesn’t even rate a nomination.

“Of course it was an experiment in willful contextomy.”

So, as pecunium said, you’re a lying sack of weasel vomit. You know perfectly well I was – we all were – talking about being hit on by strangers and yet you pretended to think otherwise, or tried the “I know your life experience better than you do” mansplaining. All of which says you’re a worthless oxygen thief, because you think the reality of our lives is something for your so-superior self to play games with. And for what? To prove what? To justify your pathetic self? To pretend that hitting on strangers is just fine? To get some attention nobody would give you face-to-face because you radiate “pompous wanker” vibes? You need to get a life. Going around playing the schoolground bully on the internet doesn’t count. It just marks you as a loser.

Because I am myself, I had to go check whether weasels can vomit. It wouldn’t make sense to call talacaris a sack of rat vomit or pigeon vomit, but, no fear, it appears that mustelids can vomit. (And if your ferret is barfing you should take it to the vet.)

I know everyone’s going to rest easy now. 🙂

Thank you, Nepenthe. Carnivores can all vomit. Equids cannot. I have had pet rats and never saw one do it, but I never thought to check if they could.

“As to TotY, not likely… We have Varpole Butthurt, Diogenes the Naïf, the Return of Brandon, Dr. Pell, Esq., Ph.D, and any number of trolls who seem to be honest in their efforts.” Not likely, especially not Sir and Venereable Dr. Pell who is obviously in it for shits and giggles like almost all trolls here. Do you ralley think someonelike Meller is for real.

“You are, self-admittedly, just wanking in public to have a laugh. Doesn’t even rate a nomination.” Well how man self-confessed trolls do you have except me and Simon (well his trolling went a bit ugly after a while). Don’t you think it is better that you are honest about your dishonesty? And if they have such opinions for real, they are per definition not trolling.

“talking about being hit on by strangers and yet you pretended to think otherwise, or tried the “I know your life experience better than you do” mansplaining”

The first, because it is willful ignorance the reply is not about your life experience at all
. It is more a like reply to a straw (wo)man.

Hmm… I don’t think weasel vomit is as incoherent as that last post. Granted, I’ve never encountered any, but I’m assuming that it’s fairly similar to cat vomit, ’cause of the carnivore thing.

Cat vomit is far superior to anything this latest troll produces. I’d go so far as to say it’s far superior to him, full stop.

Even so, I do indeed think a shadow remains; women generally are harder on men, in terms of looks, than men are of women.

Oh, absolutely. Just like women generally make more money than men do for the same work, and men generally suffer more during childbirth.

/snark

Maybe non-charitable interpretions feeds the same reaction in others….not really good reasoning , but I think I can sense a point somewhere

Psst–it’s under your hat.

Yes, weasels can vomit. Ferrets are a type of weasel and… they can puke with the best of them.

Approaching random women with the sole purpose of having sex with them doesn’t work. Approaching someone who’s interesting, bringing up a mutual interest and building a relationship with them, based on that and other mutual interests may work a lot better. However, that takes time and energy, as well as regarding the sex dispenser as a human being, which is extreme misandry. Tut tut, sex dispensers!

Duality: Best wishes to you for a speedy labor and a healthy baby!

Reyhmohammed: Rodents can’t vomit. It’s why there are several rat-poisons which are nothing more than emetics. If your kid gets into them; rather then the rats/mice you are being pestered with, they puke.

It’s messy, but almost never more than that.

It never stops to amaze me how men think life somehow owes them a woman, and women OWE THEM SEX. And how it is so ingrained in their thinking that they don’t even recognize this is the foundation of their arguments. If you’d ask them straight out “Does life owe you a woman?”, most of them would never admit to being so entitled, because it sounds crazy. Also, they can sense that the next question would be “Which woman?” For which there is no good answer if you don’t want to publically deny a womans right to choose if she wants to have sex and with whom. And still. It goes on and on.

I would agree that women have an almost-monopoly on vaginas. You see, most people in possession of vaginas are, in fact, women. And people have a right to use their body parts as they see fit. Sex organs are not public property.

This… This isn’t complicated.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.