Strange bedfellows or just pussy power?

Now, it is my contention that feminists are blaming men for something they're really doing to themselves and each other.

Take the question of monogamy, for example. Feminists would have us believe that the marriage scenario with the woman as a submissive doormat was down to a male agenda. But who is it that really wants marriage? Who is it that really wants monogamy? I don't see feminists arguing for free love and promiscuity. On the contrary, they see depictions or expressions of female sexiness as demeaning.

Feminism is remarkably close to Christianity in its attitudes towards sex. God says sex is evil, but tolerable within marriage, as long as the man's on top and no one enjoys it etc. The last part is a necessary concession to Mother(fucker) Nature. God realises, no doubt, what Tom Waits so brilliantly expresses as 'You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but it always comes roaring back.' You can't stop people fucking each other, and even if you could, you wouldn't want to. You'd be cutting yourself off at the knees, so to speak. 

Anyway, the gurus of femi-dingbat-ism are also somewhat anti-sex, decreeing that it's demeaning to women and even damaging to their physical and psychological health if practised in excess, for example for money. They also realise sex ain't going away and that, more importantly, they want a good servicing themselves from time to time as well as kids down the line, so like the silly old God of religion, they have to find a compartment where it's tolerable. Feminists will tell you that sex is ok within a loving relationship. Love makes sex beautiful and uplifting. Feminist hysteria against prostitution, pornography and all promiscuous behaviour would seem to reflect a view that sex without love is dangerous and evil. Note, if you will: Love being exclusive and monogamous. Compare with the Christian notion that sex outside marriage is sinful and evil. Note, if you will: Marriage here being exclusive and monogamous. Hmm...

Strange bedfellows, feminism and religion.

An interesting little aside: Note that the same people who regard gender roles as a social construction don't seem to see romantic love as one. Funny, that. Nature is full of evidence of biological gender, but love is hard to see there. Unless you're a Christian. Hmm...

Strange bedfellows indeed, feminism and religion.

If feminism was what it claimed to be, then you'd think that it would fight against the straightjacket of monogamous marriage and similar exclusive relationships. People owning each other, having exclusive claims on each other is hardly conducive to independence, is it? But feminists don't like to share their lovers with their lovers' other lovers any more than any other western women do. Nor do they take at all kindly to promiscuous women. Women who do express their sexuality freely, unchastely, immodestly face the harsh judgement of their sisters. They're dismissed as victims of abuse. They're ignored on the basis of 'false consciousness.' They're showered with insults for treading on a sister's territory.

Evolutionary psychology has a good explanation of monogamy. When you produce one egg a month for as long as stocks last, you're going to be pretty selective about who gets to fertilise it. You're going to be looking for good genes in a potential mate. Having found that mate, you're going to want to monopolise him until he's fertilised an egg (at least), which means competing against rival females who'd do the same. Discrediting them - calling them filthy sluts on the basis of promiscuity, for example - is just part of that strategy.

Males on the other hand, who produce zillions of spermatazoa, are hardly served by monogamy in terms of getting their genes reproduced. Why keep pumping sperm into the same hole before you know it's even fertile? It makes much more sense to 'carpet bomb' and secure some hits that way.

The two women I'm currently fucking don't like the situation one iota and want it changed. Their strategies are different. One pouts and appeals to my sense of gallantry.

TAMARA: (making a face that says, 'I'm only a poor weak little woman. Be kind to me.') I know I don't have the right to ask it of you, but I'm asking anyway.

She's actually very dignified about it. I almost hear an orchestra start up in the background.

The other one creates a poisonous atmosphere, which is hard to get away from, as we're practically neighbours.

CINDY: (making a face that says, 'I do have the right to sexual exclusivity no matter what you say because I'm a woman and that's just the way things are.') Fuck you how could you I'm sick of the sight of you get out come back I'm not finished that bitch you bastard fuck you.....

It takes all my strength of will not to get sucked into either one of these pussy traps. I'm convinced that women have used this awesome emotional power throughout the ages to impose monogamy and shape the society we live in. I don't blame them. It's in their genes.

So here's the scenario: Sisters are empathic and supportive to each other as long as they're doing things according to a feminine code of conduct, but mercilessly damning as soon as one of them steps out of line. This code of conduct, uncriticísed and fully supported by feminism, closely resembles Christian virtue. In fact, I can't tell the difference.

Strange bedfellows, feminism and religion. But maybe not so strange after all. They both serve the real feminine agenda: monogamy. Perhaps they're just two fancy words for pussy power.

So let me get all this straight in my tiny mind: You tie yourself down with rules about monogamy, chastity and modesty (and shrilly demand that everyone around you respects them and adheres to them), then wonder why you don't feel free. It must be the fault of men, The Patriarchy, glass ceilings and all the other bogus shit. Anyone or anything but you yourself. You're looking anywhere and everywhere but in the mirror.

Religious dingbats often defend their hocus pocus with the argument that 'His ways are greater than ours.' You just have to accept things, and if they don't make sense (which they don't), then it's because logical reasoning has no value in the face of some dusty old crap that a bunch of dingbats wrote down in the year dot. It's in the book, so it must be true. I say, fair enough. Just keep it out of my neighbourhood.

Feminists just change the subject. They want us to accept their non-reasoning and nonsense without discussion. And it's in my neighbourhood.

I say no. Let's change the subject back.

This was the fucking gospel according to Professor Ron.

Sister solidarity and its downside

In my last post I drew attention to a phenomenon I referred to as 'the feminine regiment'. Feminists bang on about some bogus patriarchy conditioning them and keeping the sexes in stereotypical roles, but it seems to me that the strongest influence on women is peer pressure. If women really do want to work as auto mechanics, play drums in rock bands and fly jumbo jets, then I contend that the thing holding them back is not male discrimination or even fear that men will look at them in a funny way (which is pretty fucking scary, I grant you). No, it's a fear of other women's disapproval.

Female peer pressure works both ways. It's a solidarity thing. My observations have led me to believe that women expect empathy from each other in a way that men don't necessarily. Being a woman seems to involve a sort of code of sisterhood by which one knows what the other's going through (and expects this) by virtue of shared womanhood. It's something about the womb, the cradle of life that they have in common.

Men are more individualistic. Knowing you have a cock and balls in common with other men doesn't make you feel all warm and brotherly towards them. It makes you wonder who's got the longest cock and the biggest balls. One woman saying about another, 'I don't think she ever did anything for another person in her life' is fighting talk, insulting the object of the criticism by casting doubts on her empathy, and thereby her femininity. The same statement about a man has no such impact. Not being burdened by feelings for others could be interpreted as a masculine strength, even the source of a competitive edge.

Real women care. They're sympathetic to each other and kind to small furry animals. Real men don't give a fuck. They keep each other at arm's length and eat small furry animals as a mid day snack.

The sisterly feeling has a negative counterpart. If a sister doesn't live up to the code, she's ostracised as a pariah. It's like all that sisterly love and solidarity turns to a river of piss.

Tamara knew about Cindy before we fucked and does a mild little song and dance about it, but knows she can't really make any demands. But when Cindy finds out about Tamara, there's hell to pay. Not that she knows Tamara, or learns her name. She's only aware that there's another woman on the scene, which I haven't attempted to conceal. I've never promised her anything. In fact, I've made it clear that I don't do monogamy, so I cordially invite her to take the charge of 'infidelity' and insert it where the sun don't fucking shine. She does this, as far as I can tell, after some door slamming. She's practically smoking with rage, but I'm not really the object of it. No matter how treacherous and immoral she considers my behaviour to be, she doesn't really expect better. I'm a man. That sort of explains everything. Her girlfriends will comfort her, stroke her ego, tell her she deserves better than that asshole. But it's the other woman that gets the real scorn. "I'm so pissed off that her. That slut! How could she do this to me, to another woman?" The girlfriends will shake their heads and wonder the same. They will reduce the unnamed other woman to the level of pond life. Even worse, they'll feign pity, casually diagnosing her promiscuity and lack of solidarity as the result of abuse or neglact in her upbringing.

Liberation must be difficult when you've got the wrath, indignation and disapproval of all womankind poised to make you a leper for challenging norms and stepping out of line. No wonder feminists would rather blame men, The Patriarchy, glass ceilings or any other bogus shit for their conformist timidity. Their sisters wouldn't forgive them for telling the truth.

Debunking the feminist mythology

Time to debunk some good old mainstays of radical feminist mythology. These myths exist to support the idea that the woman is a victim, no matter what she does or doesn't do.

1. Sex as a social construction

This is the idea that sexual roles are entirely nurtured, with little or no relevant biological influence. But just see how visible sex is in nature, both as physique and behaviour. When one sex produces one gamete a month, and the other several million a day, it's hardly surprising that biological sex influences behaviour, choices and social structures amongst humans. Now, I'm a social constructivist too, so I see the point of liberating oneself from the primordial slime. We don't have to remain filthy, grunting troglodytes (although it has its appeal at times). But we didn't consciously invent sex and sexual roles any more than a peacock invented its tail or a male baboon decided it wanted a big ugly red ass. The primordial slime's part of us, so liberation has a personal, individual element that no one else can do on your behalf, although they might be able to help you with it.

That's why I'm here. To help. Amongst other things.


2. The Patriarchy

This is a dingbat buzz word for the social system she sees as having been designed and built by men, solely for the benefit of men. This is a social construction that's easily debunked: How could the hand that rocks the cradle have no influence? Are we to believe that the female throughout history has been nothing but a mindless incubator with no free will and no capacity for making choices? And that she suddenly woke up - in terms of the history of civilisation - sometime last week and realised that she might have a bit of leverage here?

WOMAN: Civilisation springs from my womb! Well, fuck me....

PROFESSOR PLANET: Exactly.

WOMAN: Hmm... There's an angle here somewhere, but I just can't seem to put my finger on it.

PROFESSOR PLANET: I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Now, if women seem to be perpetuating some ovine role that this 'patriarchy' has bestowed on them - and I agree that they do - whose fault is that? Mine?

I used to be married, so I lived with one. Did she read women's magazines and doggedly follow fashion for my benefit? Did she shy away from any physical, technical or practical task just to give me the pleasure of doing it? Even when I sucked at it and couldn't be bothered? Did I tell her to leave that shit to me? Hardly. On the contrary.

SLIGHTLY PUSSY WHIPPED PLANET BACK THEN: You could do it yourself. After all, it's called 'do-it-yourself' for a reason. Otherwise it would be called 'get-some-sucker-to-do-it'.

WOMAN: (giving me a look that says 'you fucking asshole you never do anything for me I'll cry in a minute and make your life a misery and forget fucking me for the next five days'). Don't start... I mean it, don't start...

Whose opinion was she really concerned about while buying designer furniture, dressing the kids like fashion mannequins, telling me what to wear, do and say in other people's company? Mine? Other men's? No fucking way!

Women perpetuate their own socially inhibiting bullshit collectively. Keeping up with the Joneses is about keeping up with Mrs. Jones. Fretting about what the neighbours think is fretting about what Mrs. Neighbour thinks. All the hair dye, cosmetics and accessories of the feminine uniform are about living up to the standards of the feminine regiment she's still marching in, because she lacks the courage to turn heel and stop giving a fuck. We all know it, but we pretend we don't. We've been raised to be gallant and humour her. If we're doing something sexist, it's treating her like a fragile flower and letting her get away with the easy option. The best thing we can do for equality is to ask her if she really wants it.

WOMAN: Yes.

Well take it then, for fuck's sake!

Pussy's in the well

So, I've been doing this dingbat called Tamara. 'Servicing' is more the term for it, as her entire contribution to the sex act consists of lying still long enough to let Mr. Willy park in Mrs. Hole and attempt a three point turn. Oh, and she bites her lip and whimpers a bit. That's exciting.

She's a journalist, and as journalists do, she asks questions.... and sometimes writes down the answer.... and sometimes writes something else down if she didn't like the answer. Questions like, 'How can you defend something that's so openly demeaning to women?' She's referring to an advertisement that 'portrays women as sex objects', which she regards as part of some great 'pornification of western civilisation' or some such hysterical drivel.

While we were fucking, I asked her, "Is this demeaning to you?" She just moaned and bit her lip. "I'd better stop," I said, stopping. "I'm thinking of you as a sex object right now. As a matter of fact, I'm thinking of someone else." She bit my lip and moaned.

All this gets followed by the breakfast of champions. Eggs over easy and some mild matyrdom. She's Joan of Arc in a bathrobe, with one titty hanging out, until she gathers it together.

JOAN OF ARC IN A BATHROBE: Look, I know you see other women, and I wouldn't...I mean, I'm OK with that.....

This is of course a huge relief. I'm not sure I could survive her disapproval.

JOAN OF ARC IN A BATHROBE: ....as long as I don't have to hear about it. Just....I don't want to know, OK?

She gives me the sort of teary look that pierces the hearts of lesser men and makes them start promising all sorts of shit they're not going to keep. Concede one millimetre here and the pussy's ready to whip you into monogamous drudgery, accompanied by a yawn-inducing discourse about commitment, plus the prospect of her stinging disapproval, day in, day out, till one of us dies or can't stand it any longer. Miaow! Pussy's in the well. Do you dive in like a champion, forfeiting your nuts in the process, or do you suddenly remember a pressing appointment you're already late for?

Bye now!

Answering pertinent questions

Now, I thought this was a very pertinent statement by a feminist called Boadie MacLeod.

BOADIE: Damn, I missed my opportunity to tell off Ron.

RON: (aside)That's because they expelled me from their page before I could answer. (To Boadie) But, as you see, you didn't entirely miss your chance.

BOADIE: Let me quote him contradicting himself: "The nuclear family and its institutional facilitator, monogamy, serve primarily female interests... Volountary prostitution is actaully a very smart strategy, because it's a way of maintaining freedom from economic dependence on one man through for example monogamous marriage."

Oh, so marriage is such a great arrangement for women that some of them are willing to prostitute themselves in order to avoid it?

YOU'RE A TOTAL FUCKING DUMB ASS RON!

For this to be a contradiction, I'd have to be implying that all women are the same, that they all want the same thing at the same time, and that they only have one means to achieve it.  A very one-dimensional view of women, that I don't share and have never espoused. I see all humans - whether they have cocks or cunts - as possessors of a free will, with varying preferences and choices of strategy for achieving what they want.

OK, they're often a bit fucking bovine - or even ovine - about it, blindly following the leader until someone asks 'Who's the leader?', then finding out that the leader's following some figment of their own imagination. I'll deal with religion and its brand of dingbats in a later blog entry.

Anyway, back to the point. Men can be monogamous and jealous (like gorillas) or promiscous (more like chimpanzees), just as they can battle/compete or negotiate/cooperate. Women have the monogamous nuclear family as an option (if and when they want children, for example). Prostitution is one of several choices that can give independence, especially if children aren't wanted (yet, ever, whatever), and it happens to be one of the most lucrative. At one time, I met many young women working in escort clubs, using prostitution for example to supplement a day job or finance college. I had no reason to believe it wasn't an active choice that empowered them, as they didn't seem to have more or worse problems than other people I knew. 

Is human diversity a contradiction? Only if one sees people as automotons without free will. Does Boadie, I wonder? Or does she just assume that I do? Why? Whom or what does she assume me to be? Some MRA bogey man, perhaps.

Marriage is possibly a great arrangement for many women, and many men. Women seem to want it, and it would seem to serve certain feminine interests. But there are compromises. It doesn't come for free. Imagine being married to some hairy asshole with no intellect, who only thinks about money, cars and sport. Since that describes at least 75% of the men I know, I'd probably be looking for a lucrative alternative to monogamy if I were a woman.... I'd be a pug fucking ugly woman, so I'd end up settling for less, but if....if... 

Well, I hope this cleared up that little misunderstanding, although I'm not holding my breath.

As for "YOU'RE A TOTAL FUCKING DUMB ASS RON!" well, all I can say is, I also have a tiny little penis. But I'm still here. Ha!

Debunking for dingbats

I feel it's necessary at this point to debunk a couple of misunderstandings about what I'm doing here. Not because I need anyone to understand 'The True Me' or some such tear-drenched psycho-dingbat-babble. It's more to give the reader some useful tips about how to read. Yes, how to fucking read. And yes, that was inflammatory. Why am I being inflammatory? Good question. Smart of you to ask. Smart for a dingbat.

You may well have formed an opinion about that, or weighed up a few possibilities. Did my mother drop me on my head when I was a baby? Am I bitter at women because of some rejection or injustice in my past, or just generally bitter at everyone because I'm an unsuccessful, ugly git with a small penis? Am I a little pussywhipped motherfucker with some cunt of a she-devil in my life, venting my pent up anger and frustration here because I'm too weak to be assertive in real life? You don't know. Do I know? Form an opinion. Amend as necessary. Or don't. Whatever. Just try to be more interesting than drying paint, less predictable than the force of gravity about it.

Calling me a male rights activist is just laziness. It implies I'm on some kind of mission. As in wanting to change or fix something, increase awareness about some issue (excuse me while I throw up), make the world a fucking better place (excuse me, I just threw up again). What the.....Jesus Christ, there's puke everywhere.... Change what? Fix what? What issue? What world?

I'm not on a mission, dingbat. This is a project. It's something I'm doing. Why? Because I can. It amuses me. Male rights activism strikes me as a bunch of moaning men. "Oh, she wrongfully accused me of rape...", "Oh, oh, she got custody of the kids...", "Oh, oh, society won't let me be a real man anymore..." Someone should bitch-slap those whiny fuckers. You're citizens. Claim your rights. Don't piss and moan like feminists. I got accused of being destructive to the cause (puke). I know nothing about any damn cause. Show me it, I'll shit on it.

I don't feel any bitterness towards women. I love women. I even love feminists, and actually fuck one on a regular basis. She's crap at it, but our political pillow talk's sometimes mildly stimulating, as is the phrase 'I'm fucking feminism', which might occasionally spring to mind during the act itself. Feminists are like anyone else: sometimes charming, sometimes stupid, generally misinformed and often quite dull between the sheets. It's their ideology I find absurd, bogus, funny, entertaining etc. The enemy isn't women, wimmin, the femin-ine or femin-ists. It's femin-ism.

If I shoot wide of the mark and target women, wimmin, the feminine, feminists, whiny men or other dingbats, well, I suppose you could call that collateral damage. Do I care? No.

Behind enemy lines 2

Oh dear, oh dear. Professor Ron's been too confrontational again. The only other conclusion is that the feminists and their hangers-on are just too sensitive to play with. The tiniest scrape to their ego and they're banning you from the sand pit. Come on!

Anyway, I found a  hilarious group of dingbats called Wipeout sexism on FB, whose motto is 'Feminism is the radical notion that women are people.' It's on a par with ideas like 'the world is ruled by space aliens', except that these feminists are self-appointed guardians of political correctness and try to get things they don't like censored. They don't like The LAD Bible, and they certainly don't like No Means Yes and Yes Means Anal, for example. Pointing out that they were serving as a reference library for such links and thanking them for it probably offended them. Linking to Nighthawk Plaza with the words, "I think you're going to hate my blog, and I think I'm going to like that," probably didn't help. But of course, people who go in for censorship are notoriously difficult to provoke into a discussion about censorship...or anything else, for that matter. They censor. They delete things. What they can't delete themselves, they try to get others to delete. It's what they do.

I thought I'd fare better with Women And Girls Should Rule The World, Men And Boys Should Serve. Not really a feminist coven, I thought. More of a dominatrix thing. It seemed like fun, so I didn't think they'd mind me joining the game and doing a little deconstruction. There are entries like:

"Describe your thoughts on this picture in detail."

My comment: "The woman in a passive role again. Yawn."

Another one:

"In detail, what you think/notice?"



My comment:

"NAKED MAN: At last, a woman with some pep. Trouble is, she looks like a drag queen. Now, where's that sheep...?"

 

 

...after which I linked to Women mostly suck at sex...if they suck at all.

 

 

Blocked, banned, shunned, excluded.... Not even a funny reply to quote here.

 

 

This is a difficult project.

The kind of help that hurts a bit.

I managed to infiltrate the dandiest little feminist group on Facebook. The fun lasted about half an hour, before I got evicted again. I joined a discussion about prostitution, which I will expand upon in a later blog entry. I also posted a link to this blog, which led to the following exchange (and my expulsion). Notice particularly the pertinent questions I didn't get to answer, plus the intriguing comment: "i found his blog on why women are crap at sex fascinating." This meeting of minds could have produced real dialogue, and possibly a genuine intellectual breakthrough in the field of communication between men and women, even men and feminist dingbats. Oh well.. 

Joe Graff You're not helping.

38 minutes ago · 1

Ron Plantagenet That's a shame. I'm here to help, even if it's the kind of help that hurts a bit.

36 minutes ago

Joe Graff Really? Unpack that a bit. I'm curious. You're here to help? What exactly is the problem that you're here to solve?

34 minutes ago · 1

Ron Plantagenet I was raised by feminists. Feminism helped me to be independent of women by making demands like 'Iron your own fucking shirt.' I'm a masculist: I want to help women liberate themselves by confronting them with demands on their sense of independence.

29 minutes ago

Darius Paulauskas Interesting ;)

26 minutes ago

Joe Graff Let me see if I have this straight. You're here to help women liberate themselves. You intend to do this by demanding that women be independent in the same way that you were by your feminist guardians as a child ("take care of your damn self," "don't ask for special treatment," etc.) Am I on track here so far? I don't want to respond to you until I'm sure I understand you correctly.

25 minutes ago · 1

Ann Tagonist Ron is banned.

23 minutes ago · 2

Joe Graff Oh well. So much for that. I had a feeling that I was going to enjoy that ... ;-)

22 minutes ago

Darius Paulauskas Is it not to early? I wasn't quite sure what exatcly he was on about.

22 minutes ago

Ann Tagonist Read the blog he posted.

21 minutes ago

Darius Paulauskas Got it.

19 minutes ago

Eric M Hodge Thank you, Ann Tagonist. MRAs are the most annoying shitheads in the world.

17 minutes ago

Clare Phillipson i found his blog on why women are crap at sex fascinating

15 minutes ago via Mobile

Some thoughts on women's liberation

Believe it or not, I used to call myself a feminist. How can this be? Did I change my tune? Did I have a hole in my head, or have I got one now? Did I cross over, like some Darth Vader of sexual politics, to the dark side?

No. I want the same thing I did then. I just lost some of my naivety. 

I feel it's in my interests to help women liberate themselves (from their own inhibitions and victimhood, not some spurious discrimination), because all the women I know are simply too predictable, conformist and dull. I miss women who can give me some intellectual feedback and not just the same vitriolic scorn, the pouting and sulking. I admire that women feel things. They could teach many men a thing or two about that (and have done). But I miss women who can control and use their feelings, instead of being in the grip of their feelings.

But you don't help women liberate themselves by extending a hand and talking about equality. The effects of that are almost comical. Talking to professional victims about life (or anything for that matter) is like talking to hypochondriacs about illness. How dare you even presume to enter a world where you know nothing, and they are the experts? Even if you can get a word in edgeways past 'Nobody knows the trouble I seen....' you will, at best, only get stung and scorned. You may respect them and consider them your equals, but you are mistaken. To them, you are not their equal. They look down on you from a great height, simply because you will never, never know what it's like to be a woman, a victim of biology. 

One should never be lulled into sympathy at that point. One should never make the mistake of conceding to the argument that women have it worse than men and always have, just because they're women. Confirming them in their victimhood doesn't help them (or you) at all. On the contrary, it's the very heart of their problem: A self-fulfilling prophecy by which we let them be inferior because they seem to want it so much. Contradicting them is just as hopeless.

FEMINIST DINGBAT: I can't do anything. I'm useless and worthless. I can't boil an egg without burning it.

PUSSY WHIPPED DICKHEAD JERKOFF: I think you're very clever and intelligent and able, daaarling. My egg was fine.

FEMINIST DINGBAT: Are you patronising me, you patriarchical slime? I'm only good for boiling eggs and being your servant, because that's how you see me. Don't you think I can do anything else? I could be on the board of a public company if only you'd buy me one. Buy me one! I want one! Now!

FAIRY GODMOTHER (closely resembles Vivane Whatshername-Dingbat from the EU): Give her what she wants, or we will! 

PROFESSOR PLANET (waking up): Oh Jesus Christ, what a fucking nightmare....

We've held doors and rolled out red carpets for too long. We've fought the battles, taken care of business, done the rationalising and the satirising and consequently still have to indulge females who lag way behind any postmodern or even modern intellectual development. For all intents and purposes, the world may as well still be flat.

It's not really my problem, except that they're too dull to fuck.

We'll help them best by ignoring them, leaving them to stew in their own juice. As my mother said to my father in an earlier paradigm: Iron your own fucking shirt. So I say to the pampered woman: build your own house, start your own company, fix your own wheels, dig a hole and fill it up again. If anything, it's more efficient than screaming.

Or just keep screaming. I can't hear you anyway.

Women mostly suck at sex...if they suck at all

It strikes me that I've never really fucked a woman who was any good at it. And I've fucked enough to have come across it at least once or twice. I mean, if you'd thrown a die a hundred times and still never gotten a six, you'd be starting to wonder what was wrong with the die and not just with your own luck. Long before that, you'd be wondering if there was a six on it at all. Unless you were stupid.

But no one seems to be talking about how naff women are at sex. It's like no one expects them to be good at it. Having a hole and getting it filled up with cock seems to be the sole requirement for the female, as opposed to the male who's the one doing the filling and is expected to be inventive and adventurous and dynamic, sensitive to her needs and a storming barbarian by turns, all depending on what she wants, if she even knows what that is, which she often doesn't.

I'm here to tell you that having a hole and just getting it filled up with cock is a sadly inadequate approach. OK, you understand anatomy. You know where it goes. Uh, uh, sister. Sorry, not enough. Maybe you change places and ride the man. Slightly more dynamic perhaps, but not enough. It's not just the physical chugging, up and down, back and forth. We don't need women for that. My hand can do it better than you can. For thousands of years, men have been making do with Mr. Fist, with each other's assholes, or even with the relative luxury of a sheep or other domestic animal whenever women's cunts were in short supply.

Are you better at it than a sheep? That's my question, the next time I log on to a dating site. That would be worth knowing, as I could save time, effort and expense by simply cutting out the ones that perform like a plank of wood with a hole drilled in it.

Now, I've done my bit. As I've said before, I have a small dick, which I make no bones about...ha ha ha, what a pun... but what the dick can't do the mouth makes up for, in more ways than one and blah blah blah. I can pretty much talk a woman to orgasm, then just press a few buttons to get the jukebox playing. But I've never heard decent sex rhetoric from a woman. Not once.

Moaning, 'Ah, ah, aaaah!' is something that lets us know you're actually alive, but so what? Just communicating that you're enjoying it is banal and academic. I know you're enjoying it, because I've got a fucking master's degree in it, but what the fuck's that supposed to do for me? 'Fuck me!' is a start, but try expanding on that. Investigate the colourful vocabulary of the dirty bitch and practise on yourself, then it might come more naturally to you when Mr. Cock's doing his thing. Whatever you do, don't talk about love. That conjures up images of cuddly toys, soft woolly things etc., and then you might just as well be a sheep again, willing 24-7 at a moment's notice (if one lives in the country)without the slap up dinner and the whole bogus seduction routine.

Maybe you actually sieze hold of it with more than two fingers (I kid you not, I've had bitches practically looking for a pair of tweezers to use). Get your nails cut at the very least. Maybe you even go down, but for fuck's sake, don't bother if you have to hold your nose.

Those were my best tips for the time being. I hope they help. Don't give a shit if they don't.

You ain't seen nothing yet, b-b-b-baby, no you ain't....

Luxembourgian EU Commissioner and feminist dingbat Viviane Reding is going to launch a legislation proposal on 8th March this year which, if passed, will impose quotas for the percentage of women on the boards of public companies. Read her earlier bullshit here:

FEMINIST DINGBAT: Women are much clearer than men: they talk less, have short and efficient meetings and see no need to discuss things until midnight.

Women may well be much better than men at many things, if not all things. They just seem to be rather slow at proving it. They're not on the boards of companies, presumably for the same reason that they're not digging holes in the road or changing the oil on your car: They're not really into it. If women really are so much better and more efficient than men, why do they need legislation to compete with us? Why not on their own merits?

Of course, what makes this whole scheme really bogus is the idea that 'equality' can be created or improved through discrimination. It's a contradiction in terms. It's nothing to do with real equality, which is about equal rights and equal opportunities. Feminist dingbats like this Reding woman are confusing equality with equal representation. If there's 'inequality' on boards because there are less women, does that mean there's also inequality in the nursing profession or at your local auto workshop? And if the solution to this 'inequality' is quotas in the case of company boards, does that mean that quotas are the solution everywhere where the sexes aren't equally represented? If not, why not? Chew that shit over.

Of course, feminist dingbats like this Reding woman don't like to get into that discussion. They talk less, have short and efficient meetings and see no need to discuss things until midnight, especially if their arguments don't make sense and they're losing the discussion.

You know, I almost hope that feminist dingbat Reding gets her legislation through, thereby actually legitimising sexual discrimination by law. I will feel vindicated....nay, actually obliged to practise misogyny and male chauvinism on principle, if only to counterbalance the injustice and real inequality the legislation will cause by actually dissolving the principle of equal rights. I will feel obliged to discriminate against women, diss them, call them cunts and bitches and all manner of colourful epithets in order to defend equal rights. Being dissed and shunned and called cunt is but a small price to pay for extra rights and preferential treatment, wouldn't you say?

If you think there's discrimination now, you ain't seen nothing yet, baby.

I started this blog with a song quotation, and I'll end with another.

Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.

Tits and a cunt ain't enough. Next!

I like Roosh V, here ranting about the hopelessness and lacking sex appeal of Danish women. As someone with approximately one thousand years of experience with Denmark and Danish women, I'm laughing out loud and breaking my neck nodding. OK, he's a bit of an asshole about it, but that's misogyny for you: the pot calling the kettle black. He's also American, for better or worse, which warrants a few pinches of salt, i.e. creative interpretation of his use of words and concepts. But funny as fuck, nevertheless.

You see, I know Danish women. I've fucked them, sucked them, fertilised their eggs, raised their spawn with them, put up with their crap, listened to their bitching and then divorced them. They're lovely, but needy and clingy. Then they wither, until only their needs are left, and you try to remember what it was that's now missing from the other side of the scales, the thing that made you want them at the start, that used to balance out all the neediness and clinginess, but isn't there any more......oh, yeah, they were young and lovely once. Now they're not. They could still be sexy, if they put their minds to it, but if the sexiness was based entirely on youth and loveliness, well, that's gone too, leaving you wondering what other attributes still warrant sharing living space with one of these women.

Such attributes could be an open mind and a free spirit. It could be her not worrying what the neighbours might think and just dropping the whole monogamous drudgery of the same tired dick in the same tired hole until one of us fucking dies. I mean, that attitude in itself could be sexy enough to want to fuck. I could stay with that kind of personality. Personality is the key here.

Anyway, it seems that a lot of Danish women are actually basking in Roosh's criticism, believe it or not. They're flattering themselves with it, interpreting it as evidence that Danish women have become oh so strong and oh so independent and oh so intimidating that all the little men are fightened away and can't get a hard on any more.

Wrong! Where are all these strong, broad-shouldered, independent women? I don't know a single one. All the women I know rely heavily on men for anything that might break a nail or give rise to unseemly beads of sweat on the delicate feminine brow. Compare with most of the men I know, who gave up the equivalent sensibilty years ago, who were brought up not to shy away from any role on the strength that it might be too feminine. I'd love to meet this mythical, independent woman who doesn't give a fuck. The closest I've come are the prostitutes who trade for exactly what they want - no more, no less - without snivelling about it. Respect for that. I'd fuck one if I could afford it.

It is alarmingly hard to get and maintain a hard on in Denmark. Not because the women are strong and intimidating. They're not. They just moan a lot, and that ain't strong, and it ain't sexy. And not because the dick really wants 'submissive' and 'obedient'. It doesn't. These are just two sides of a silly myth that feminists keep alive by saying it again and again, probably to explain away a lack of sexual interest in them.

FEMINIST DINGBAT: I've frightened all the men away, because I'm so strong, and they only really want a passive servant.

REALISTIC PROFESSOR: Wrong! We're just yawning, because you're so fucking dull.

Ironically, it's actually a kind of passivity about their own sexual role that makes these dingbats sexually uninteresting and not worth the effort to flirt with, let alone seduce. They think feminine looks, tits and a cunt are enough, so they'll be fighting them off without actually doing anything to warrant sexual attention. Wrong! These attributes come two a penny.

If I have to think of someone else anyway, I might just as well use my right hand. It doesn't get jealous or want a conservatory built or think I don't love it enough because I can't read its mind or some other bogus shit. But it's not that my right hand's uncomplicated, that I prefer it. I don't mind 'complicated' if the sex is worth it. The fact is, my right hand's as boring as hell. Yet still, it seemingly faces no competition! How can this be?

Women: Liven up, for fuck's sake!