Category Archives: sex
Hey ladies! Better not read today’s post, as it’s only for ALPHA DUDES and would-be ALPHA DUDES. For while I was out looking for Man Boobz material I happened to run across some excellent and not-at-all ridiculous advice from a dude called FISTO on how ALPHA DUDES can use sex to totally control the ladies.
This advice is so totally ALPHA I feel I can only dispense it in small doses, so here are a few tips. Only after you have totally mastered these tips to totally master the ladies should you even consider reading the rest of the post I got them from. (Also, to be serious for a moment, it’s also fucked up and possibly triggery, so you may not even want to read my post.)
So I’ve been reading a bit more in the Evo Psych literature — some of the alleged classics in the field that most Manospherians seem to have either read or absorbed by osmosis. I’m learning a lot about the dubious “science” underlying many of the Manosphere’s most cherished beliefs.
But I’m a little worried for my own intellectual safety, because I see so much clear evidence around me that reading too much Evo Psych can turn one’s brain to mush.
Consider the example of rmaxgenactivepua, the Evo-Psych-addled gentleman who writes the blog “Rejecting Modern Women: Pickup & Advanced NLP & Charisma Behaviourial Conversational Strategic Technologies.” Specifically, consider the recent post of his that asks the grammatically confusing question: “Is It Possible For Women To Be A Healthy Promiscous [sic] Woman?”
I’m just going to quote the whole damn thing because, yikes:
To definitively answer that question, is a woman biologically designed or hardwired to be promiscous
Are there any biological co-factors which support a womans ability to be promiscous?
A womans vagina is a massive breeding grounding for std’s, making it highly unsuitable & dangerous for sleeping with multiple men
Women have a highly short period of fertility. only 10 years of fertility, less if theyre in bad shape
Women have a limited amount of eggs
Plus women dont have the emotional blocking abilities of men
The real kicker is, women are only capable of having one mans child at a time
If women were meant to be polygamous, they’d be able to carry multiple children of multiple men
Making it ludicrous to assume women are polygamous, it’s laughably ridiculous to assume women are polygamous when theyre own biology isnt even capable of reproducing polygamously
Men on the other hand are designed from the ground up to impregnate millions of women, they reproduce over millions of sperm a day, & can impregnate 100′s of women
In fact one man, men are so efficient at reproducing with hundreds of women, one man could repopulate an entire civilisation if he wanted to, thanks to his production of millions of sperm
One woman on the other hand, couldnt populate her own ass, let alone a shoe box or a cat litter tray …
Proving a woman isnt anywhere near designed to be a slut, FACT
Well, yeah, I guess if you make up a rule that states women can’t have sex for pleasure with multiple partners unless they’re biologically capable of giving birth simultaneously to children sired by all these different partners, then women aren’t designed to be “sluts.”
Then again if you can simply make up your own rules like this, you can prove pretty much anything. If I decide that men can’t be polygamous unless they are simultaneously holding their breath underwater and on fire, I guess I’ve proved that men can’t be sluts either.
Oh, and while it’s true that a cis man with healthy sperm could (in theory) repopulate an entire civilization, there are some women who are giving men a run for their money in this department.
So the Red Pill subreddit, as you may recall, is a place for dudes to discuss the devious and possibly not altogether ethical or even consensual strategies they’ve come up with to … have sex with anyone they want. But their real goal is not just to have sex, but to control other people’s opinions and thoughts of them doing so. They want to silence all critics, and then even demand praise for their morally reprehensible or at least morally questionable actions.
Woah. It feels like my brain was just taken over for a second. Did I even write that? I don’t think I did. I swear I’ve read most of that paragraph before.
Oh yeah. That’s where it came from. I must have been possessed.
The Red Pill subreddit, where lying to women to get them into bed is perfectly acceptable but a woman having consensual sex is a reprehensible, narcissistic slattern with a gymnastic hamster for a brain.
NOTE: I found this quote through the always helpful Blue Pill subreddit.
Ladies! Here, fresh from the MensRants subreddit is A Man With Whom You Do Not Want To Be Friends. Or acquaintances. Or anything, really. To be honest, you probably don’t even want this guy to spot you at a distance from the window of a speeding train. Much T.M.I. in this quote:
Dude, I would seriously suggest you start masturbating. A lot. Preferably not in public.
And try not to bother any actual women for a while, at least until you can start conceptualizing of them as something more than objects (like candy or books) that have been set out for you to use as you please.
Also, your “mad and furious master?” “Mad and furious master?” Did you really just write that? I think you mean your boner. If you want to get fancy, your libido. What are you, Heartiste? Can none of you idiots write about sex without getting all purple prosey on us?
Oh, Heartiste, sometimes I can’t help but wonder if you’ve been trolling us all along. I mean, what kind of master pickup guru is this squicked out by vaginas?
Eating a girl out anytime during the first few weeks of dating is beta. When you eat a girl out, you telegraph your incredible horniness for her. Men normally do not want to go down on women and bury their mouths in that fetid, humid mess unless they find her so overwhelmingly hot that they can’t help themselves.
So over on The Spearhead, the fellas are discussing journalist Daniel Bergner’s sexy new sex book What Do Women Want?: Adventures in the Science of Female Desire. It’s a book that challenges many conventional wisdoms, both scientific and popular, about sexuality and, as Salon puts it, portrays female sexuality as essentially “base, animalistic and ravenous.”
In a post ostensibly about the imminent arrival of female Viagra, our dear friend JudgyBitch weighs in on yet another subject about which she knows shit: the reasons that women who are not her might not want to have sex with their husbands:
Loss of libido in women, excepting rare medical conditions, in my opinion, is a direct result of not seeing men as emotionally complex beings. If you’re married, at some point, your husband probably stood in front of you and promised to love you forever. Rejecting him physically is a very wounding thing to do. It hurts. Sex is one of the most important, intimate ways married couples show that they love one another. Refusing to have sex with your husband is telling him, in a very painful way, that you don’t love him. That you don’t care for him or about him.
Huh. If I hadn’t seen her on video, thus confirming her status as an adult human female, I would have a hard time believing that it was an actual woman saying this and not some horny, creepy teenage boy in the process of trying to manipulate his girlfriend into “going all the way.”
Oh, but she’s got more:
I guess the only way to justify that is to think of men as emotionless. It doesn’t hurt men to be rejected because they don’t feel anything to begin with.
Really? The only way to justify saying “no” to your husband when you don’t want to have sex with him is if you convince yourself he’s emotionless? But women should just force themselves to say “yes” to sex when they don’t want to and simply endure what follows?
That’s the ugly little reality behind female viagara. Will it actually boost women’s libido? Who knows. What difference will it make, though, if women are going to continue to see men as less than completely human? That’s the real problem.
Does anyone know where to get irony meters at a reasonable price? Mine just leapt off the table, ran around the room screaming, and exploded.
On Slate, daddy blogger Andy Hinds guiltily wrestles with his sexual fantasies, wants us all to watch
In Slate, writer Andy Hinds has provided us all with one of the most cringe-inducing “unsolicited penis updates” since our old friend Paul Elam filled us in on which “fuckmuffin” body parts make his Little Elam happiest.
Hinds starts off by assuring us he’s one of the feminist Good Guys, a stay-at-home-dad who respects the heck out of the ladies:
Unsurprisingly, our old friend “The Thinking Housewife” is aghast at the notion of women serving in combat. What is a little surprising is why. In one of her many recent posts on the subject she offers this unique take on the subject:
There are so many unexamined consequences of the full integration of women into the military that one barely knows where to start, but one of the obvious places is with the fact that the Armed Forces will be increasingly in the business of population control.
Yes, that’s right: women in combat means women using birth control. The horror!