Category Archives: sluts
Vaginamoney is the root of all evil
Women receive regular vaginamoney checks from the government.
Is it wrong that I love the perpetually incoherent Christian J. – the self-proclaimed Male Renaissance Agitator behind What Men Are Saying About Women – as much as I do? If it’s wrong, I don’t want him to be right! Fortunately, he’s never right about anything.
Here, to celebrate today not being tax day, are some tasty quotes from some of his most recent posts. (He really churns those suckers out.)
Vaginamoney is the root of all evil:
You have to wonder how the opposite sex can easily make the claim about how “Strong” and “Independent” they are when in actual fact the majority of those making that claim are either receiving child support, vaginamoney as well as copious handouts from the state, their very own standby sugar daddy is on call 24/7. One who has been trained to behave like a defacto ATM, specifically trained to drip feed cash when required, without asking too many inappropriate questions and to hide when anyone or anything approaches..
Come on and take a free orifice ride:
[W]hat do women actually bring to the table besides their genitals and reproductive ability. Why do they now increase and expand their value as human being rather than relying on the state for enforcement of their will and they free ride their orifice affords them..
(That one was so incoherent, even by Christian J. standards, that I’m thinking there must be a typo in there somewhere. Maybe “now” should be “not?” Obviously the “they” near the end should be a “the.”)
[W]hile the slut feminist hoards continue with their manufactured bastardry, the response will be tailored to nullify it..
Too many slut feminists spoil the broth:
How many times have you heard those slut feminists and their cowtowing (sic) white knights and manginas claim that all the MM and men in general want to do is put women back into the kitchen. …
They make that claim whenever any mention is made regarding all those anti male laws and sexist actions that governments have introduced to nobble men, take away our fundamental human rights and turn us into third class citizens, whose sole activity is to be forced to act subserviently, like a slave, to the opposite sex. …
Now just think for a moment about the fact that women can’t even cook anymore, they are totally useless in the kitchen … They have problems even making a sandwich, even that task is beyond their capability, a proven inability. So why would any man want to “Put women back into the kitchen”, it just doesn’t make any sense. It’s just stupid..
“Nobble?”
All you need is love. Also, misogyny, and a side order of homophobia.
Love is in the air! On The Spearhead, WF Price has penned a piece with the intriguing title: “What’s Wrong with Wanting to be Loved?” To that I would answer: nothing.
Let’s see what lovely sorts of things Price has to say about the subject:
[S]till we have people whining about “misogyny.” Young feminists whose most important concern is the ability to have sex entirely free of consequences, and who shamelessly raise their voices for the right to kill their children in the womb. Lesbian gender feminists who wreck families for profit and sex. Male feminists who boast about fathering children and shuffling their responsibilities onto some duped cuckold, and who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls.
Huh. Not sure how exactly this bit of nastiness is supposed to advance the cause of love.
(Also, I think that last bit – the line about those “who malign their fellow men for a crack at college girls” – is supposed to be a reference to … me, and the talk I gave on Monday at Northwestern, to which he has added his own little fantasies, like he did in his original, highly fictionalized, post on the subject. The man is obsessed.)
In the comments, Spearhead readers offered their own thoughts on the topic of love.
Revver started things off with this lovely thought:
Having seen and heard a great majority of women, being “unloved” becomes lighter and lighter a burden with each passing year.
How easily they make themselves look like fools.
Opus spat forth an opus; here’s an edited version:
Women judge men by pre-selection.
If you have been dumped, then a member of Team Vagina has deemed you unworthy, so as in Snakes and Ladders you start from the bottom again. There is simply no point seeking female solace, because the woman will see that you do not seek her, and thus, offended, accuse you of unsolicited attention, or alternatively act offended that you are not interested in her. (I speak from experience). …
Women as we know are programmed to get over even the worst relationship in no more than three months, whereas for a man (even when in hindsight it was Xmas come early) we are often talking decades, for to be ditched is to take away all that it means to be a man (provider, nurturer). … Now, why am I betting that Futrelle did not mention these things last night – and why am I also betting he has not got one single phone number from any female at Northwestern Univeristy?
(You guys are really are obsessed. Aren’t you supposed to mention my weight as well?)
Greyghost managed to work the phrase “gina tingle” into his ramblings:
Men actually have the capacity to love. Only a man can write an article like that. Women just don’t have the capacity to love. Women gina tingle. …
The big lie was and is that a woman can love. Romance is what men do women receive it. …
The MRM with women on board on not will never ever change the nature of women. No matter how much awareness of the pain men and even children are in, women will vote and demand what is in therir childish perception of their interest. ( It will always be uninhibitted status and hypergamy)
In a later comment, he added these creepy afterthoughts:
Women do not and can not love the way you do and can. The best a man can get is some good emotional gina tingle. Never ever forget it. It can be a very emotionally pleasing and soothing time for a man but a man can never forget he is a man and right or wrong is a keeper of civilization.
The emotional trauma brought down on men when the realization of the lie hits [is] off the charts. It is where murders and suicides come from.
Georice81 offered up a rather elaborate excuse for slut-shaming:
My observation is that when women have been sexually promiscous their ability to submit and be very loyal to a single man is very diminished. … They can’t respect that one man that may actually love them since they are contemptous of a man that could love someone like them. Men in the 1950′s understood this and would not marry someone who was not a virgin since they did not trust those that were not.
We men can love and want to love. We also have a huge capacity to forgive. Modern western woman don’t seem to comprehend this because of their own hangups.
Binxton, for his part, seemed to be posting from an internet café on Gor:
Women are by nature emotional, self-centered creatures. Absent controls on their behavior, they lack both morals and objective principles. They are too easily manipulated by their environment to allow them to be free.
Ultimately, female emotional nature requires men to control women.
Women will love when they endure hardship and respect higher authority, i.e., patriarchy.
Western women must acknowledge a male-centered world where they can enjoy the labors of man only if, and when, they show due deference to male authority. Those who fail to do so must be disciplined and punished as examples.
Joe set forth some similarly, er, traditional notions:
Women are capable of love but there’s a reason St. Paul tells wives to “fear” their husbands. Because women are just much more like children in their moral reasoning and in their emotional “resilience” (or capacity for cruelty). So for a woman to love a husband is much like a child’s love for his parents. It is a love that is requires her to be in a dependent position. This is why marriage in a feminist society of independent and irreligious (I don’t mean women without superstition, but women without fear of moral judgment) women, cannot work.
I think I’ve had enough of The Spearhead’s notions of love. Let’s try ten hours of Haddaway instead:
Let’s shame some virgins!
NOTE: THAT HEADLINE IS A JOKE. IT’S APRIL FOOL’S DAY.
In today’s edition of “Make Shit Up About Man Boobz,” we have this highly upvoted comment from the Men’s Rights subreddit attacking me (us?) for all the evil virgin shaming we supposedly do around here.
The total ridiculousness of this comment is fairly obvious. But I would like to take a moment to clarify a few things.
Being a virgin, or celibate? Not inherently funny.
Being a virgin, or someone who has had literally one sexual encounter with a woman ever, and writing post after post about how evil and icky vaginas are in an attempt to get other men to swear off women forever – that’s pretty funny. That would be a bit like me writing a travel guide to Denmark, or Albania, or any other place I’ve never been to.
Having trouble getting a date? Not inherently funny.
Having trouble getting a date because you’re a loathsome tool who hates women? Funny.
Using a sex toy? Not inherently funny.
Dudes pontificating about how sex toys and sex robots will soon make icky real women obsolete? That shit is fucking hilarious.
Also, sex toys themselves? Yes, they can be funny. I mean, the legendary Fleshlight is a disembodied vagina/mouth/asshole-replacement in the form of a giant clunky flashlight-shaped thing. That’s sort of funny. Attaching this giant clunky thing to an iPad so you can pretend that the iPad (or at least an image on it) is giving you a blowjob? That’s comedy gold!
Here are some other sex toys that are hilarious and/or seriously disturbing, courtesy of Scary Sextoy Friday, perhaps the world’s greatest blog. (All links are NSFW.)
Vibrators shaped like Santa Claus.
A dildo designed to look like poop.
Sorry. I got carried away with the links. That blog is like crack.
The Misogyny Album
Tired of reading long, rambling, barely coherent misogynist tirades? Would you prefer misogyny in convenient, e-z to understand chart form? Well, you’re in luck, because a Redditor calling himself firstEncounter has assembled a handy imgur album of “women logic” graphics and comics. Here’s one of them:
Oh, let’s do one more:
Oh, let’s make it an even three:
If you enjoyed these, there are 29 more for you here.
Why, you ask, has firstEncounter gone to the trouble of assembling such a giant stinky pile of misogyny? It’s not why you think! He just likes to put things in categories! As he explains:
I actually have entire imgur albums categorized by content. …
I don’t hate women, seriously. Nor do I believe the images within the album are accurate depictions of standard women behavior. I simply found them entertaining to some extent.
So there you have it!
Oh, and in case you’re wondering, firstEncounter’s little collection received (let’s all say it together) DOZENS OF UPVOTES on Reddit.
And thanks, ShitRedditSays, for pointing me to this.
Skanks, Sharia, and Manginas in Shining Armor: Yet another rant from The Spearhead
ARGLEBARGLEBLLLAGGH
[TW for violence, rape apologism.]
On this lazy Sunday (why can’t every day be lazy?), I present to you without comment this lovely little rant I found over on The Spearhead, where it received more than two dozen upvotes for its lively mixture of misogyny, Islamophobia, and rape-as-comedy-fodder. (It got a decent number of downvotes too, I’m guessing less for its views on “femiskanks” or Islam than for its straightforward endorsement of White Nationalism; I’ve edited out some of the Islamophobia for space reasons.) Take it away, Bryan the cracker-loving woman-hater:
Ah, american femiskanks, where would we be without them?
In a nasty way I almost look forward to the rise of Islam in the West/USA because it will be amusing to see feminism crushed under the boot of Sharia. There is no room for feminism, gay rights, etc, in a Sharia land. …
I think that being a man who is disgusted with western women, I’m going to spend a bit of time laughing at the thought of femiskanks being raped by Muslims for taking part in “slut walks” and having acid thrown in their faces for making their typical femiskank claims about how men are worthless. …
I look forward to the day when police stop responding to requests for protection orders, emergency protection orders, etc… If a woman is truly in danger from a man then she should be able to seek protection via her brothers, her male cousins, and stay in her father’s house. If her brothers don’t want anything to do with her that speaks to the sort of woman she is.
Along similar lines, I look forward to the day when police stop responding to domestic “violence” calls unless it has crossed into the realm of disturbing the peace or creating a disturbance for the neighborhood. When some femiskank calls 911 and tells them, “I see a man raising his voice with his wife and telling her it is time to leave the store they’re in, this isn’t right” said femiskank should be told, “why don’t you just drop dead, this line is for serious calls, get off the line or we’ll arrest you.”
There are too many mangina police out there who are all too ready to physically assault and even kill other men, at the behest of crazy power-tripping women, simply because they care more about making $50,000 dollars per year and gaining the approval of random femiskanks in the community, than about doing what is right and what is healthy for the nation.
Women realize the incredible power they have, be it political, social, economic, judicial, or extra-judicial. If a woman makes a false rape claim she can ruin a man financially, socially, politically, legally, and often she can have him attacked, perhaps killed, by an outraged mob of manginas in shining armor. …
A Roman father had the legal authority/power to have any of his daughters PUT TO DEATH, yet … I cannot cite a single example of the law being applied in practice.
Can you imagine how terrible things would be if women had the codified and unquestioned legal power to put a male relative to death merely by word/command? The male population in the USA would easily be less than half of what it presently is. The only reason women might refrain from engaging in mass purges against men is because on some level they realize they need men for economic reasons. Even still, that realization might not stop them as they are incredibly short-sighted to the point of being so hateful and bitter that they cut off their nose to spite their face.
Yes, we have seen it time and time again, they have restraining orders taken out to keep their ex-husband away from his children, thinking, “ha, that will show him who is boss, let him cry about it!” and they give no thought to the fact that their children are almost certain to grow up with tremendous problems. Either they do not realize it or they just do not care. I tend to lean towards the latter being the case, they just don’t care whether or not their own children suffer, as long as they can “make that jerk (ex-husband) suffer” and make him realize “I am woman, hear me roar!” that’s all that matters.
Yes, I’m sure that’s the reason. I’m pretty sure that if I lived in the same town as you, I’d try to get a restraining order against you just for this comment alone.
Gucci Little Piggy: Sandra Fluke is a lesbian pirate because one of her fingers is longer than the other
Welcome to Day Three of the Man Boobz Pledge Drive. If you haven’t already, please consider clicking the little button below and sending a few bucks my way.
Thanks! And big thanks to all who’ve already donated. The response has been amazing so far. Now back to our regularly scheduled programming:
Leave it to the manosphere to further elevate the national discourse about Sandra Fluke. On Gucci Little Piggy, a blog loosely aligned with the alt-right/racist/PUA wing of the manosphere, blogger Chuck Rudd suggests that Rush Limbaugh might have been wrong to call Fluke a slut. Sounds good,eh? Not when you hear the, er, reasoning behind it:
I think the term “slut” is too arbitrary to have much meaning in a political context, especially when we don’t actually know anything about the so-called slut’s sexual history. It doesn’t fit Sandra Fluke anyway as we don’t know for sure that she’s heterosexual.
Go on.
Fluke is not a “slut”, nor is she a “good citizen” which is what President Obama called her in a press conference held today. Based upon readily observable behavior and on her beliefs about what she and her favorite groups have a right to grab from tax payers and employers, it’s best to call her what she is: a pirate
Uh, what?
Apparently, in Chuck’s world, putative lesbians who suggest that insurance should pay for birth control that they personally don’t need to prevent babies, though they or people they know might need it to treat other medical conditions, are pirates.
Later in the post, Chuck links to a review of a book that suggests many pirates engaged in sodomy. Which is evidently proof in his mind that lesbians are pirates, or at least that it is hilarious to call them pirates.
Anyway, the best part of the piece is how Chuck, using the magic of SCIENCE, proves that Fluke is gay:
[P]eople who have a longer ring finger (4d) than index finger (2d) have more testosterone and, some argue, a higher sex drive.
Pointing to a news photograph that appears to show that Ms. Fluke does indeed have a long ring finger, Chuck concludes:
her ring finger is quite a bit longer than her index. It’s almost as long as her middle finger. In general, a low 2d:4d ratio in women indicates a greater proclivity towards homosexuality or bisexuality and greater tendency towards aggressiveness and assertiveness. So, yeah, pirate fits.
Thanks, Chuck.
Most of the commenters to his article seem to agree with his basic thesis.
Stickman writes:
forget the fingers… shes got strait up MAN HANDS. But look on the bright side, if she survives the up coming second dark ages, I’m sure she will do a fine job of pulling a plow.
Note: The “coming second dark ages” is a familiar trope among manospherians; the idea is that men will get so fed up with the gynofascist matriarchy we evidently all live in today that they will stop working, civilization will crumble, and the ladies will be put in their proper place, behind pulling plows.
SOBL1 adds:
As a fellow Cornellian, my guess is lesbian. Cornell has a decent les population.It also speaks more to a les to demand free birth control as a hand out from the government speaking on behalf of all women when she has no shot of getting pregnant. That’s just the thing lesbians like to do: consider their opinions the worldview of all “womyn”. At a minimum, she was a LUG [Lesbian Until Graduation]. Her face and hair are so masculine, she could pass for a male supporting character in “All the President’s Men”.
Did he mention he went to CORNELL?
One free-thinking fellow actually challenges Chuck’s analysis. Nick digger writes:
This finger length analysis from candid photos is nonsense. There are too many knuckle-bends in all directions, combined with skewed camera position, to get an accurate measurement. There has to be some standard for this, such as hands pressed flat against a flat surface, with all fingers together, or each finger extending in a straight line from its source carpal (or metacarpal, whatever it is).
Having said that, she looks like a fat, ugly cunt — which is what Rush should have called her, as it does not imply sluttiness. He’s entitled, because libs call him a fat ugly cunt all the time.
Such is the nature of the discussion amongst some of the internet’s most steadfast advocates for the rights of men.
Chuck himself adds a few parting thoughts in a comment suggesting that Fluke’s biggest crime was that she didn’t ask for birth control coverage nicely enough:
When you ask for something from someone you don’t demand it and then demonize someone who doesn’t cave in to your demands. You ask and the other person chooses whether to reciprocate. All of this is akin to someone asking a stranger for a hitch across town and then screaming and yelling when rebuffed
It’s true. In the past, activists have always been extremely polite about their demands requests. You may recall the famous anti-war slogan: “Heck no, we would prefer not to go.” The “Excuse us, fellas, but we would also like to be able to walk around at night” marches. And of course, Martin Luther King’s famous, “Guys, would any of you like to hear about this dream I had” speech.
All Chuck and his friends are asking is that fat ugly dyke cunts stop being so darn rude when they call on insurance companies to provide certain kinds of medical coverage. Is that really too much to ask?
-
I’d better put that blinking
gif here, just in case.
If Rush Limbaugh could draw cartoons …
Oy, Sorry for more Rush Limbaugh-related crap, but this cartoon, by Gary McCoy, was just too appalling not to post.
I’m not even going to get into the slut-shaming, or that the cartoonist is bizarrely trying to fat-shame someone who is not actually fat, but I would like to point out once again that WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDING FREE BIRTH CONTROL (even though that sounds like a nifty idea to me). We’re talking about INSURANCE COMPANIES COVERING BIRTH CONTROL LIKE THEY COVER OTHER MEDICAL EXPENSES. You know about insurance, right? That thing that people PAY FOR THEMSELVES, with THEIR OWN MONEY?
Are Rush and his fans really so ignorant and obtuse that they’ve somehow convinced themselves that this is about the government paying for birth control? Or are they deliberately misrepresenting the issue, knowing that most of their readers/listeners/whatever won’t bother to check the facts?
Rush Limbaugh offers a gracious apology for his comments on Sandra Fluke. Scratch “gracious.” And “apology.”
Rush Limbaugh wonders momentarily if he is a complete tool, concludes that he isn't.
Hey, everybody! Rush Limbaugh has issued a gracious apology for his attacks on Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown law student who testified before congress on the costs of birth control. Here it is:
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
After a long paragraph in which he basically repeats his original argument about birth control, such as it was, this time without directly referencing Fluke, he continues:
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
Uh, “I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation???”
“My choice of words was not the best??”
Here’s what he originally said:
So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. … We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.
He also called her a “prostitute.”
So let me rewrite that for you, with some nicer words this time:
So my dearest Miss Fluke, and the rest of those who share a love of feminism and the tenets of National Socialism, I would like to present to you a most intriguing proposition: If we are called upon to help finance your purchase of medical treatment and/or various and sundry items designed to prevent pregnancy, and thus to provide financial support to you as you make sweet, tender non-procreative love with your beloved, we humbly request something in return for our investment. To wit, we would like you to memorialize your lovemaking in video format, and for you to graciously place this video tribute on the Internet so we may share in the pleasure of enjoying these tender moments.
Oh, and instead of “prostitute,” why not refer to her as a “courtesan?”
Yeah, that’s not really any better. (And for some reason you still think taxpayers are paying for birth control, when in fact the issue is insurance coverage.)
In an attempt to be humorous, I would like to suggest to you, Mr. Limbaugh, that you stuff your apology up your ass, you worthless piece of shit.
I do not, of course, mean that as a personal attack.
Attention feminists: Rush Limbaugh wants to watch you having sex.
Sometimes Rush gets a little overexcited
You may recall that all-dude panel of “experts” at that recent congressional hearing on contraception. One of the reasons it was an all-dude panel was that congressional Republicans wouldn’t let Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke testify on the costs of birth control. (She later testified at a separate hearing held by Nancy Pelosi.)
Apparently stating publicly how much contraception costs when it’s not covered by insurance is basically the equivalent of pooping on the flag to some misogynistic assholes, among them the always charming Rush Limbaugh, who has denounced Fluke as a “slut” and a whore, saying, at one point, that she
went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.
Actually, she didn’t testify about her own experience at all.
Also, does Limbaugh even know how contraception works? Yes, the number of condoms one buys depends on how often you have sex. (Or at the very least how often you hope to have sex. Who knows how many boxes of condoms, purchased in moments of optimism, have quietly expired on the shelf waiting for their purchasers to finally get their mojo working. )
But the costs of many other forms of contraception have no relation whatsoever to the frequency of sex. Women on “the pill” take a pill every day, regardless of whether they are having sex that day or not. Women using IUDs don’t run down to the health center to have one installed every time their vagina expects a visitor.
Birth control, in short, doesn’t work like Oxycontin or Viagra, the two pills about which Limbaugh seems most knowledgeable.
Sorry to belabor the obvious, which apparently isn’t so obvious if you’re a right-wing, woman-hating asshole.
Anyway, now Limbaugh seems to think he’s entitled to watch Fluke having sex:
So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. … We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.
Dude, what the fuck is wrong with you?
Here’s the excerpt from his radio show in which he makes this creepy demand.
Are dog bitches superior to human bitches? A misogynist dingbat says yes.
Bitch, please.
At some point, you’ve probably all heard some douchebag offer some version of the following bit of misogynist humor: You shouldn’t call a woman a bitch because that’s an insult … to female dogs!
A traditionalist Christian named Walter Allen Thompson has expanded this dumb joke into an even dumber essay. And he seems to literally believe it. As he explains in the essay, which has been posted on the Very Dumb Government blog (and which I ran across thanks to a link from our pal MarkyMark):
[W]hen some of you call a woman a “bitch” think about what you are saying. The word “bitch” means a female dog. So if you are going to use the word with its true meaning, you would actually be insulting female dogs, because the dogs have better behavior than many women. … I would never insult my dog by calling Gloria Allred a “bitch”. … I would call her a feminist but not a bitch. The feminist movement has made many of our women unseemly wenches.
Walter clearly holds a much higher opinion of his dog:
I love my bitch and I don’t want to say anything to offend her. My bitch is sweet, my bitch is lovable, my bitch is kind, my bitch is considerate, and she hardly causes me any trouble.
And, and as we all know, ladies is trouble:
A dog will give a man unconditional love; whereas, a woman may or may not keep you around depending upon the prevailing winds. I don’t have to buy my dog a food dish lined with jewels…. My dog doesn’t run up a charge account at Macy’s, and she doesn’t spend $50.00 to do her nails. My dog doesn’t take drugs, drink alcohol, or crash my brand new car.
I don’t know from dogs, but if my cat were actually capable of any of these things, she would do them. That’s part of the charm of cats. They’re tiny little monsters – selfish, self-absorbed, amoral creatures we let into our homes because they’re cute, they’re fascinating, and they’re too small to kill us. Not that mine doesn’t try.
I wouldn’t put up with that from a human being, but I put up with it from my cat because she’s a cat, and had a rough childhood (she was abandoned) and doesn’t know any better. Generally speaking, people expect different things from their pets than from their romantic partners.
Well, not this guy:
All my dog needs is a little love, attention, and her food. Overall, the quality of life with my dog has far exceeded any relationship I have had with any woman. The value of any relationship depends upon unconditional love, and that’s more evident with my dog.
“Unconditional love” sounds nice in theory, but in practice as most of us know it’s really a pretty shitty idea. If someone behaves in a way that is unlovable – attacks you, deliberately poops on the couch, starts reading A Voice for Men — you’re not obligated to keep loving them. Loyalty is, by and large, a good thing, and most of us are willing to cut those we love a lot of slack, but no one should be expected to put up with intolerable behavior in the name of unconditional love. (Also, people sometimes fall out of love. I know, shocking.)
People demand a bit more from their loved ones than dogs do, and that’s a good thing. Also, people know things that dogs don’t, and that’s also good. Hitler’s dog loved him. But then again Hitler’s dog didn’t know he was Hitler. (Hitler returned this unconditional love by having poor Blondi killed just before he killed himself.)
Of course, our boy Walter knows that most love is not unconditional. Indeed, as we saw above, he’s got a long list of conditions — some reasonable, some not — that women will have to meet before he’ll be willing to even consider them over his dog. Here are some more of his conditions, which his dog fulfills but most women (in his mind) won’t:
She doesn’t mess with my mind; doesn’t say. She doesn’t tell me she loves me today, but tomorrow she wants a divorce. My dog doesn’t pole dance at drunken parties. My dog doesn’t pick up “stud muffins” at bars. My dog doesn’t make porno films. My dog doesn’t take me to court (you lawyers..don’t get any ideas) and she doesn’t make any unreasonable demands. It is a perfect relationship as I don’t have to entertain any of her relatives. My dog is my friend and not my adversary.
It’s a pretty revealing list. He’s upset not only by infidelity, but also by women changing their mind about things – “say[ing] yes today and no tomorrow.” (Saying “no” to what? Sex? Does he think he deserves the right to rape his wife?) His idea of a “perfect relationship” seems to be one in which he doesn’t have to deal with a woman’s wants, or desires, or even her relatives.
Walter rails against feminists and feminism, but it’s clear that he also has issues with traditional women actually expecting him to fulfill his role in a traditional male-breadwinner marriage.
If you want to know where you stand with a woman, just run out of money. If you have a woman that stays with you when you’re broke or in a setback, then you have a good one.
Here’s a hint: if you don’t want a woman to expect you to provide for her, don’t marry a woman who expects you to provide for her.
Also: try not feeding your dog for several days, and see how lovable she is after that. (Given the strange literal mindedness of so many misogynists, I should add: don’t literally do that. Just imagine doing it, in your head.)
If I was ever to consider getting married again, the woman would have to (at the very least) rise to the level of the behavior of my beautiful little dog. Dogs and animals stay within the natural order in which God created; many people do not.
No, that’s ok. Stick to dogs for now.
EDITED TO ADD: As Molly Ren points out in the comments, it turns out that some dogs do pole dance. Heck, some even lick the stripper pole, like Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls. (Well, not exactly like Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls.)
