Categories
all about the menz alpha asshole cock carousel are these guys 12 years old? citation needed disgusting women evil old ladies evil sexy ladies mansplaining marriage strike men who should not ever be with women ever MGTOW misogyny post contains sarcasm sex

Men Going Their Own Way agree: "The economic of Sex for women is at 0%"

The price of ladies is plummeting!
The price of ladies is plummeting!

Some thoughts on the economics of sex from the fellas over at MGTOWHQ.com.

It’s not looking good for the ladies, at least according to the guys who’ve decided they’re totally over women, honest, but who somehow can’t stop talking about how totally over women they are, honest.

A fellow called TheShaman offers some thoughts on the complete worthlessness of women after they hit the proverbial “wall” somewhere shy of age 40 and are suddenly transformed from swans back into ugly ducklings. He starts off with an idea cribbed directly from good old Warren Farrell before moving on to more advanced Cock Carousel Theory (CCT):

A woman, traditionally, would have used her youth and beauty as a down-payment to a man, to secure his loyalty so that he would stay with her for what could be as long as 50 years of Post-Wall woman.

Nowadays women squander their SMV wealth on bad boys, giving away all their value to Alpha Fucks, and then expect that Beta’s to provide the bucks to settle their massive debts. Especially women in the West- all of the sweetness once expected from women is gone- no ability to cook, no desire to please, no willingness to make a man’s life better. These cock carousel riders only feel like settling down and getting married when they have maybe 1-3 years of decent youth left to her.

A woman truly only has, maybe, 20 good years to her. Afterward, she becomes an aging monster, increasingly bitter over the fact that her best years are behind her.

Women- NEVER BUY.

Not all of the assembled MGTOWers are willing to agree with TheShaman’s radical proposition – that is, that women ever have any value.

As Hank Moody sees it, women are worthless long before they hit the wall:

The economic of Sex for women is at 0%. Its over for cunts, the cat is out of the bag. No sane man will pay for some used slut.

Wallkeeper, meanwhile, reminds the fellas that they’re the real prize. Hooray for fellas!

men must realize that we’re the prize, women are just a sexual fantasy, an accessory, a luxury.
a man can live without sex and without women, a woman cannot live without men.

In return for these valuable insights, I would like to offer all Men Going Their Own Way some concrete suggestions on where exactly they might go. How about one of these lovely islands, all conveniently devoid of women and other humans?

 

127 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
idledillettante
7 years ago

To clarify to the regulars: I’m sorry if I offended anybody by bringing up the topic of surname changes. I wanted to use it to exemplify how marriage (contrary to the MGTOW fairy tale) has been (and in many ways) still is about men.

I don’t want anybody to feel self-conscious for choosing to change their names when they married; that’s obviously personal and should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. After all, it’s your name; and I have no idea whether or not I’ll change my name if I marry or not. It would depend on what name it is and a bunch of other factors, like everyone described above.

It’s a kind of traditionalism, to be sure; but I don’t think it makes anyone a “bad feminist” to change their names when they marry. If I implied or stated that to anyone (including Wetherby), I apologize. I also don’t think it makes a woman a “bad feminist” to stay home and raise her children instead of work a paying job, or that feminism is somehow incompatible with domesticity or traditionally feminine work. In fact I think any ‘feminist’ who thinks that is the actually bad feminist in the bunch.

And Wetherby – It’s not the content, it’s the mansplaining. I’m sure there were plenty of good reasonable reasons your wife changed her name… in fact, you explained them at length. But to do so you kind of had to hold her up for discussion and evaluation to the rest of us; so that you could discuss something you didn’t do and a thing which men aren’t expected to do.

You said your wife’s strong-willed, and I don’t doubt that; but to start speaking on her behalf robs her of agency, and puts you in the driver’s seat of explaining why she does things. I’ve no idea whether she knows we’re talking about her; or whether she’s cool w/ what’s being said. And that would seem to put her in an unfair position.

FWIW I hope we can see past this disagreement, because I realize I was a little too harsh with you above. There’s probably loads I have to learn about feminist thought before I can write it like DF.

-Caroline.

Wetherby
Wetherby
7 years ago

And Wetherby – It’s not the content, it’s the mansplaining.

But I don’t think that I was “mansplaining”. For me, the term pretty much requires an element of condescension for it to be valid, and I genuinely don’t think it’s present at all in my original post.

And while it’s all too clear both from your original response and this follow-up that you were divining it in some form, it absolutely wasn’t intended on my part – as was recognised by the people who came to my defence even before I had a chance to read your original response.

I’m sure there were plenty of good reasonable reasons your wife changed her name… in fact, you explained them at length. But to do so you kind of had to hold her up for discussion and evaluation to the rest of us; so that you could discuss something you didn’t do and a thing which men aren’t expected to do.

…but which I said in my original post I’d have been quite prepared to do, had things panned out not especially differently.

Indeed, had my wife not been so determined to ditch her third surname, I’d have actively considered adopting it myself – the regulars here will know that we’ve spent much of our married life questioning traditional roles (just to cite one example, because I can work from home and she can’t, I’m the primary childcarer), so this wouldn’t have been a particularly huge stretch on my part.

You said your wife’s strong-willed, and I don’t doubt that; but to start speaking on her behalf robs her of agency, and puts you in the driver’s seat of explaining why she does things. I’ve no idea whether she knows we’re talking about her; or whether she’s cool w/ what’s being said. And that would seem to put her in an unfair position.

But you in turn are putting me in an unfair position, not least by just cherry-picking the bits of my post that annoyed you instead of reading the whole thing properly and thereby realising that I don’t comfortably fit the pigeonhole that you were determined to force me into. Or at least picking up a strong hint that there might be some chafing involved.

Quite aside from anything else, people post about their significant others all the time round here, including the vast majority of the regulars. It’s one of the reasons this is such a friendly and welcoming space: our offline lives aren’t considered off-topic.

FWIW I hope we can see past this disagreement, because I realize I was a little too harsh with you above.

I’m very happy to – and am equally happy to acknowledge that you said as much even before my original response. Which in retrospect I should have acknowledged at the time, so apologies for that.

1 4 5 6
%d bloggers like this: