(Hat tip to Superglucose.)
No. No. No. No.
We’ve been over this ad fucking nauseam. This degrading-ass stereotype that men are horny beast manchildren, interested only in food and sex and toys, their entire decision-making process taken over by their dicks, has been debunked fifty thousand times at least. And yet, somehow, like a vampire or a superhero or a Dalek, it refuses to motherfucking die.
I know how absolutely bizarre it seems to you, Daisy Doucheforbrains*, but men are not actually automations controlled by their cocks. Recent scientific research has suggested that, as strange as it seems, men have developed what could be termed primitive “emotions” and may even have the capability to develop strong feelings for people who– get this– are not on their favorite football team.
Seriously, Daisy Doucheforbrains, do you look out your shitcocking window? Because I do! And I will tell you what I see:
I see a socially awkward virgin who has turned down casual sex because he wants his first time to be meaningful.
I see a man who spent most of last night being snuggled by his ex-fuckbuddies while he cried about his ex-girlfriend, whom he still loves, getting a new boyfriend.
I see a guy who had three girlfriends, who all knew each other and wanted to have group sex, and broke up with two of them because he wanted to pursue a monogamous relationship with the third.
And that is literally the people who are in my apartment right now.
Imagine what the rest of the motherfucking cuntsucking cockbreathing world must look like.
Who the fuck even wants a relationship with someone who has to be bribed into having a relationship with them with sex? I mean, what the everloving hell? I would like to think I mean more to my partners than a hyper-advanced Fleshlight. Daisy Doucheforbrains might disagree, but in that case I hate to imagine her relationships:
“Hey, honey, we’re breaking up. I just got this sexbot. Realistic body heat and it moans and writhes and talks dirty and realistically contracts its vagina in orgasm. It has bigger tits than you and it never gets a headache! How cool is that?”
That is not how human fucking relationships work.
I cannot say how sick and tired I am of this objectifying, misandric, sex-negative, slut-shaming idea that relationships are some kind of trade, and sex is the currency of the realm, and how fed the fuck up I am with Daisy Doucheforbrains for spreading this shit.
A guy buys a girl drinks or dinner, and she pays him in pussy. A guy is exclusive with a girl, and she pays him in pussy. A guy makes a romantic gesture, and she pays him in pussy. Marriage is a guy making an investment in a single pussy, which will pay him dividends of sex every month. Growing up and getting a good job is necessary to be able to afford a higher grade of pussy.
This whole system is based on the idea that women don’t like sex and certainly can’t seek it out for its own sake. If a single woman fucks a dude because she likes his strong forearms and soft blue eyes, the entire system tumbles. It’s like if people started paying a hundred bucks for Skittles out of the sheer joy of spending money.
(Bonus rape-culture: if women don’t enjoy sex really, then it is almost impossible to tell if a woman is consenting to sex without asking for explicit consent every two minutes. In the real world, thankfully, women who are enjoying themselves generally make their enjoyment… obvious.)
I don’t know about Daisy Doucheforbrain’s sex life, but I have to say that mine resoundingly disproves this notion. With bruises. And marks. And screams. And occasional waking of the neighbors (sorry, Greg the Long-Suffering!).
Some women– and some men, this is a people thing not a gender thing, are you listening Daisy Doucheforbrains?– don’t like casual sex. You know what? There is an easy thricedamned solution to that. Don’t fucking have casual sex! Don’t suck ’em, don’t fuck ’em and don’t motherfucking chuck ’em. It is not that hard. I spent the first seventeen years of my life not having casual sex, you can do it too.
But don’t run around ruining it for the rest of us by your close-minded and fuckwitted insistence that no women enjoy it, and that we’re all having it as a failed attempt to get TWOO WUV AND RAINBOWS AND BABIES AND SPARKLES FOR EVA AND EVA, and that men are so stupid that they think women are easily replaceable by porn.
Because pornwill not cuddle you at night, and porn will not make you soup when you’re sick, and porn will not remember that cute story with the soap bubbles about you when you were two, and porn will not comfort you when you cry, and porn will not cheer your successes, and porn will not grow old with you, and porn will not give you a single one of the good things in a relationship except the orgasm, which you already fucking knew how to do for yourself anyway unless you’re a pissfool excuse for a wankstain.
Men care about those things too! Men are human fucking beings! I cannot believe, in two-thousand-hellfuckingbound dickdroppings-eleven, that I am explaining this.
Seriously, fuck that shit up the ass with rusty barbed wire and no lube.
How about this?
If I have sex with you, it’s because you get my pussy wet. If I continue to have sex with you, it’s because the sex made me feel good. If I kiss your cheek and hold your hand, it’s because that makes warmfuzzies fill my heart. If I talk with you until four AM when I have classes at 10:30 the next morning, it’s because I enjoy the electricity of intellectual connection sparking between us. If I buy you dinner, it’s because I love seeing the look on your face when you take that first bite of fried chicken. If I steal your comic books, it’s because you have good taste in books.
And…
If you have sex with me, it’s because I get your cock hard or your pussy wet. If you continue to have sex with me, it’s because the sex made you feel good. If you kiss my cheek and hold my hand, it’s because that makes warmfuzzies fill your heart. If you talk with me until four AM when you have classes at 10:30 the next morning, it’s because you enjoy the electricity of intellectual connection sparking between us. If you let me steal your comic books, it’s because you love to watch me laugh and squeal and cry as I read them. If you let me buy you dinner, it’s because you lost your wallet.
Our relationship isn’t a trade, it’s a synthesis. We both get the same thing out of it: we trade sex for sex, support for support, friendship for friendship, love for love. Reciprocity, not barter. Love, not a marketplac.e
*Daisy Doucheforbrains has a real name, but I have decided that this moniker suits her far better.
Thing of Things 
Did this guy really put “fall in love” in scare quotes? Jesus, I hope not. He’ll give the rest of us curmudgeons a bad name.
Of course men fall in love. I have to pity the man who thinks otherwise. Also, love is not a sexual strategy, at least not at the proximate level.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Regnerus is also the dude behind the infamous Regnerus study* which purports to show that being raised by same-sex couple is bad for kids.
It does this by contrasting (a) children raised by both of their biological parents, who were married when the child was born and did not divorce prior to the child turning 18, with (b) children who had at least one parent who had at least one romantic or sexual relationship with a member of the same sex at any point prior to the child turning 18.
I’ll let that bit of delightful methodology sink in.
Mark Regnerus is not a competent and unbiased researcher, is what I’m saying.
*Officially the New Family Structures Study, but everyone calls it the Regnerus study.
LikeLiked by 5 people
Oh, it sounds like he is quite competent at what he does. It’s just that what he does is not exactly research.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Eh, passably competent, maybe. If he was quite competent, he’d have figured out a way to skew his results that was less blatant.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Good point.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He has also stated that acceptance of gay marriage as legitimate will empower boyfriends and husbands to demand open relationships—just as acceptance of gay sex as legitimate has empowered them to demand* anal sex—and that while this may be spun as empowering for women, it “sure doesn’t feel that way.”
*Technically he didn’t say that men demand anal sex, but he said that it’s prevalence has increased, and that this is not actually desirable for women despite how it’s being spun, so I think the implication is obviously there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like, as in dudes in a relationship banging other men? Only 1/20 men would even want to do that.
LikeLike
I think the idea is something like:
acceptance of gay marriage -> acceptance of relationship styles more common among gay men -> acceptance of open relationships -> normalization of open relationships -> pressure to engage in open relationships
A beautiful combination of “all gay people are promiscuous”, “all men are opportunistic horndogs” and “all women are monogamous simpletons”.
LikeLike
Yeah, that’s nuts, obviously; but I think one of the reasons this line of thinking is so popular is because it has a fairly plausible-sounding cousin. It goes something like this:
“Our traditions form a web of mutual responsibilities and obligations that are the foundation of our society. Undermining one tradition weakens the entire web; usually not enough to destroy it outright, but enough to make it easier to break other traditions. The notion of marriage as being between a man and a woman is a venerable tradition. Breaking it will make it a lot easier to break other traditions — such as fidelity, chivalry, civility, and who knows what else.”
As far as I understand, this is the basic conservative message; it applies to anything from marriage to porridge.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’re awesome, Ozy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
(Bonus rape-culture: if women don’t enjoy sex really, then it is almost impossible to tell if a woman is consenting to sex without asking for explicit consent every two minutes. In the real world, thankfully, women who are enjoying themselves generally make their enjoyment… obvious.)
Obvious but obligatory comment: This is hardly the only reason one might think that.
LikeLike
While the statement “all men want is sex” is clearly wrong, and can be disproved by a single example, that doesn’t necessarily prove that the desires of heterosexual men and women are exactly complementary. There seems to be little date on the prevalence of asexuality, but if at least somewhat trust Kinsey reports – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Prevalence – it’s 14-19% among unmarried women, and 3-4% among unmarried men. If asexuality isn’t a binary switch, but a continuous random variable distributed somewhat normally, this data doesn’t really show (way too many confounders, and the whole methodology isn’t all brilliant either), but subtly hints that it could possibly be the case that an average heterosexual woman experiences less sexual desire than an average heterosexual man. This, of course, implies none of the following stupid ideas: all men only want sex, no women want sex, any randomly selected woman wants sex less than any randomly selected man, or any other bullshit like that. What it does however imply, is that there’s no perfect way to arrange heterosexual monogamous couples so that everyone’s desires are satisfied; there will be trade-offs. And whenever we have interpersonal trade-offs, there is an opportunity for market-like structures to arise, although far from being as straightforward as portrayed in the linked article. That, however, only applies if the premise about different distributions of sexual desire levels is true, for which I don’t have enough evidence to claim it – only to suggest that it may conceivably turn out to be true.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Another possible explanation is that men’s and women’s libidos differ in the circumstances that trigger them, rather than in strength. Perhaps women are more aroused by what one could broadly term “relationship-relevant” conditions (emotional attachment, romance, familiarity) and men are more aroused by “relationship-neutral” ones like appearance. That would explain why more women not in relationships would consider themselves asexual, and there’s independent evidence that it is, in fact, the case, such as the differing content of male-marketed and female-marketed erotica.
Obviously that would not mean men are incapable of emotional attachment or women are incapable of being attracted to strangers. If nothing else, it’s impossible that the neurology of desire could be completely inverted by sex, any more than the genitals themselves are. Sexual selection may have turned oranges into tangerines, but it couldn’t have turned them into apples.
LikeLike
One mitigating factor is responsive/receptive desire — that is, the tendency to become aroused by expressions of lust and sexual behavior (rather than feeling horny out of the blue). So, some people who experience little or no spontaneous desire can still have a satisfying sex life.
@ stillnotking
Aroused by familiarity? Now you’re really describing women as aliens of some sort 😀
LikeLiked by 2 people
There does seem to be a fair amount of *suggestive* evidence that estrogen-brains respond to sex and romance differently from testosterone-brains. Which, these differences are not at the Mars/Venus or *different species* level {insert reference to individual variation}, but as a person who was once one kind of brain and later the other, yeah the difference is there.
For example, I was kinda iffy about my new g/f, exactly until the first time we fucked. After that, wow, the flood of emotions was overwhelming. Her smell became intoxicating.
It’s really nice. Mad cuddle-power.
Old testosterone-me seldom felt quite like that. I didn’t like being that person.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Agreed with the general idea of this thread. Saying everything men do in relationships is payment for sex is idiotic, but you can get similar conclusions with more reasonable assumptions.
For instance, say that for most men, living without sexual simulation is highly unpleasant. A relationship has a lot of plusses other than sex, but also a bunch of minuses, so for a lot of men the availability of sex (or quality of substitutes) outside of relationships might be decisive in whether to be in a relationship. If women on average value relationships and sex differently, you would see things like gender population ratios and the availability of porn influencing the amount of non-relationship sex.
(It’s worth pointing out that this is an unrecognizable steelman of the linked article, which is every bit as simplistic as the original post would lead you to believe)
It’s important that progressives not flinch from considering such possibilities, or else if anything toxic comes out of these dynamics, who’s going to address it?
LikeLike
Have you got a holodeck you’d like to share with the class?
🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Myself, I find a my imagination combined with a Hitachi to be sufficient sexual simulation. YMMV.
LikeLike
” There seems to be little date on the prevalence of asexuality, but if at least somewhat trust Kinsey reports – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#Prevalence – it’s 14-19% among unmarried women, and 3-4% among unmarried men. ”
I’d think that men would be less willing to admit to bisexuality, or at least, less willing to extrapolate that they are bisexual from any homoerotic fantasies they might have than women are. I agree that there is some difference between male and female sexuality, but I don’t know if that’s it.
LikeLike
“I cannot say how sick and tired I am of this objectifying, misandric, sex-negative, slut-shaming idea that relationships are some kind of trade,”
In other words, it is prostitution, but shitforbrains is too chivalrous to call it that.
Ozy’s Law! This is as misogynist as it is misandrist, in complimentary ways. It makes men out to all be johns and women out to all be whores. You get there in succeeding paragraphs.
“This whole system is based on the idea that women don’t like sex and certainly can’t seek it out for its own sake.”
This is the poison that keeps on killing. It’s dehumanizing as hell, and it also leads to some really bad remedies. A certain percentage of false rape accusation can be traced back to internalized slut-shaming. Aside from the undeniable damage an FRA does to the victim of it, it damages the accuser too – what a horrible compromise to come to to deal with one’s own dehumanizing self-loathing.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am usually very skeptical of claims that evildoers really harm themselves by being evil, especially when the harm is in an area that’s difficult to measure. It seems like wishful thinking to me–we just don’t want to believe that someone can have a fulfilling life being evil, and we’d prefer to believe that the evil suffer for being evil. It’s a secular version of believing in an afterlife with judgments.
LikeLiked by 3 people
“I am usually very skeptical of claims that evildoers really harm themselves by being evil,”
Me too, but I don’t count crime victims arm-twisted to suit prosecutors to be evil exactly – wrong, yes, and weak – but not truly evil.
LikeLike