Guest Blogger: Bruno!

[I'm still pretty overextended with moving and work, so here's a guest post from Bruno to pick up the slack. -Holly]

Women don’t like sex. They feign interest only to attract men and put up with it only to keep them or to get pregnant. They’d rather eat chocolate; when Lesbian couples dive, it’s into bags of Doritos.

It's absurd to recount that myth beside Holly Pervocracy’s detailed accounts of her gleefully perverted exploits, but it took me a long time to overcome it and deeply impacted me in the interim. I suspect many men are similarly affected. If women won’t give sex, men have to take it from them. If they can be tricked into offering it, men can learn legerdemain. If nice girls say no, nice guys won’t ask.

My parents didn’t give me a healthy view of sexuality. They rarely even kissed where I might see them, and when they did it was always a sterile peck on the lips. That became my benchmark for normalcy. When I saw my babysitter and her husband on top of each other on their couch after school one day, I ran to tell their kids. (“So?” was their response, in a tone that implied I might get hit.)

My dad did leave copies of Playboy around where I could find them, but although I knew my dad and I wanted to see naked women there was nothing to convey what those women or my mom wanted.

My other early source for information about sex was my parents’ copy of The Joy of Sex. Theoretically, it could have given me a realistic view of sexuality and a broad knowledge of sex practices. There were at least two obstacles to that.

One was that the book wasn’t exactly aimed at a curious kid. The line-drawn hippies didn’t look like anyone I knew and much of the material came across as alien. I think I would have preferred learning about erections before being confronted with armpit fucking.

The second obstacle was that the book wasn’t kept in a bedroom. I found it in a water-damaged cardboard box in the furnace room among disintegrating mimeographs, abandoned Tupperware, and broken desk accessories, so my parents presumably found it as useless and weird as I did.

But of course I read it thoroughly, hands shaking in fear of being discovered and eyes straining in the amber light of a bare 20-watt bulb.

By high school I’d encountered other sources of information, but they didn’t help dispel the myth either. I got pretty good sex ed, but of course it focused on the dangers of sex, not on why anyone would accept the risk, which I guess should have been self-evident to a teenager. The “letters to the editor,” I found in dirtier men’s magazines were written from the man’s point of view and based on factual inconsistencies and anatomical improbabilities I already suspected they were fiction.

High school also featured a few conversations about sex with girls, who also did nothing to dispel the myth. One friend insisted that she’d be a virgin on her wedding day, but that she wanted her husband to have some experience. Sex was like farting –of interest only to crude stinky boys.

College probably should have done more to convince me that women actually like and pursue sex, but apparently I was difficult to persuade, possibly because “women don’t like sex” was easier to digest than “women don’t like me.” I now had access to Internet porn, which meant actual fucking, but actresses’ moans weren’t always distinguishable from agony. Besides, I was soaking up the political correctness of the environment, and knew that all sex was rape unless every act received explicit, enthusiastic consent, and that pornography was inherently degrading to women. Women disliked sex and needed to be insulated from it.

There’s always been an important exception to the myth for procreative sex. A female college friend who was no doubt being sincere in her flattery regularly told me that I’d “be a good dad.” I’d yet to get laid, or even more than a truth-or-dare kiss, and never seen a naked woman in person, and here was my fate: For being a good person, women would reward me with diapers, not orgasms.

Eventually, someone liked me enough to proposition me. She scared the crap out of me, though, so it took a better friend and a couple rounds of propositioning to get me to second base. Then my first girlfriend found me, and eventually asked me to make love to her.

She never asked again, and after that relationship ended my second sex partner was completely passive. Eventually I felt rejected by and resentful toward both, and so the myth lived on.

Years later, I’ve had a few more experiences and may have finally integrated the truth into my mindset. Some of the credit goes to women like Holly who are willing to share their experiences. A lot of it is courtesy female friends who are honest about what they want, whether or not they seek it from me. Mostly, though, it’s about maturing beyond thinking of myself as aberrant.

But the myth still pops up. I ran into an immigrant friend while traveling to a bar to meet with mutual friends, and she complained about the amount of attention she gets from men. What a burden, to be desirable! My FWT (friend with tension) essentially propositioned me to be a sperm donor, albeit leaving the delivery mechanism ambiguous.

Most significantly, it’s exposed in the idea that women can get sex whenever they want, compared with the frustrated, lonely men. The 15th century Latin translates as “man proposes, God disposes,” but an equally popular philosophy is “man disposes, woman disposes.” Women are in control, and if they’ll condescend to fucking they’ll have limitless opportunities because not enough women want sex to satisfy the insatiable appetites of men.

Of course, women might have to settle for someone other than the hottie de jour. My FWT told me that for her birthday she wanted to “treat [herself] to some nookie,” and she got it. It was with a guy who’s older, fatter, balder, and dimmer than she’d presumably prefer, but yes, he’ll give her whatever she wants.

And what she wants includes orgasms.

Moving.

I'm still in the process of moving. I made some progress on my Giant Pile O' Worldly Belongings, but there's a lot left to do. I have Memorial Day off and I'm going to try and spend most of it hauling.

I was very exhausted this morning. I haven't been eating, drinking, or sleeping properly and today it got to the point where it was difficult just to walk up the stairs. I drank a full gallon of Gatorade and slept twelve hours and now I feel wonderfully comfortable-by-contrast. I'm going to ruin it again tonight and tomorrow, but after that I should be able to live comfortably (and post normally) again.

I like to name things in my life--the car is Stella, the old apartment in Washington was the Den of Sin, the guns all have names. And so I declare this apartment the Girlcave. Because it reminds me of Batman and of a vagina.

Real people.

Last night, I went to see a shadow-cast performance of Repo! The Genetic Opera. (It was freaking awesome and I am a geek.) Seeing the local cast of mostly non-professional actors contrasted against the movie's real cast, I couldn't help but notice how much sexier the humans were.

They were so much more different from each other. I know that's a weird comment since the characters in Repo are already pretty distinct-looking, but they seem like variations on just a couple models compared to the way real people are different. Real people have so many body types--and I don't just mean "real is fat!" although that's one part of it--real people have so many permutations in their fatness but also their muscularity and their proportions and their masculinity/femininity and their very skeletons. Real people have tattoos, they have blemishes, they have weird noses and they have cute haircuts.

In the movie, Amber Sweet has two bodyguards who are hunky male-fitness-model types with no body hair and ledgey haircuts. They look identical, perfect, and mostly uninteresting. In the shadow cast, one of the bodyguards was thin with buzzed hair and a goatee, and the other one was taller and bigger and had a little bit of hair on his belly. They were so much sexier that way.

It's the humanity, I guess. A person with flaws is a person with history, a person who exists when I'm not looking, a person who's had a stiff ankle since that bike accident and who eats their fries with mustard and has a total crush on that one barista with the fauxhawk. Idols are overrated; I want someone who always gets an itchy nose right after putting on gloves.

Soothing.

(Posts may be scarce for a few days, I'm moving and stuff's all crazypants.)

When I'm tired enough, sex is sometimes not exciting but soothing--sometimes very soothing, like the perfect way to drift off to sleep. Not hard fast sex, but slow sleepy sex is positively lulling. And napping together is a whole new kind of intimacy, one that's harder for me to relax for than just sex. I can fuck a guy I don't totally trust, but if I try to sleep with him I'll be awake or barely dozing all night; I have to really trust someone to be able to fall all the way asleep.

Alone, I find that a vibrator helps me sleep. On the lowest setting, just holding it still, it doesn't make me come but it makes me comfy. It's sort of embarrassing to wake up with the cord wrapped around me and the vibrator wedged into the small of my back, though. A few times it's still been going.

Man. Can you spot the subtle hints in this post that I just switched to graveyard shifts? I'm going to take a nap now.

Having a secret.

On the surface of it, keeping my freaky sex life a secret seems reasonable enough. There's no reason to tell family or coworkers or unhip friends what I do in bed, right? They don't tell me that they like it doggystyle with clit stimulation, and I don't tell them about getting beaten up; that's just decorum.

The problem is that if anyone is at all prying, they ask questions I have no good answer to.

"So where did you go out last night?"
"Um with friends."
"Oh, how did you meet them?"
"Off the Internet."
"What did you do?"
"Just hung out."
"I've never met these people! You should introduce us sometime."
"Uh, maybe, sometime."

Admittedly imaginary-person there is being a little pushy, but their questions aren't unreasonable--and certainly aren't sexual--and yet I can't answer them honestly without digging way too far into the details of my sex life. I'm either a liar spinning stupidly elaborate webs of "oh yeah, so then we went bowling and my score was terrible, ha ha", a petulant teenager saying "we went places and did stuff, okay?", or a very petulant teenager screaming "that's none of your business!" All so I don't have to tell everyone in my life that receiving pain makes my pussy wet.

The worst part is when I go to a purely social kinky event and we end up talking about sharks or linguistics the entire time, ass-beating barely gets a mention, but I still have to skulk around with a Dark Secret. Nobody can know I was at Denny's talking about sharks, or I'll be ruined!

My secret garden is the Matrix.

I have some weird-ass sexual fantasies. To begin with, they're all set in the Matrix. I mean, in a fully immersive massively-multiplayer computer-generated world. I never think about people really having sex; I only think about people having Matrix sex which is indistinguishable from real sex. I think I do this because it lets me skip over all the nitpicky details--you don't need condoms in the Matrix, nobody has to eat or drink or go potty, and your body can't be damaged. The Matrix conceit also lets me shift scenarios and construct really bizarre ones without having to worry about realism.

(Because otherwise, yes, I would worry about realism. It would be a huge problem and I would write angry letters to myself about how I used to be a fan but I simply can't suspend disbelief any longer, and I wonder if I've lost respect for my audience.)

Other strange features of my fantasies:
-They're always third-person limited omniscient. It's "a woman" doing stuff, not me.
-No real people may appear. Not celebrities, not people I'm sleeping with, not crushes, no one. Someone who even looks like someone I know, or has a similar name, is unacceptable.
-It's all fairly extreme BDSM, where no one is just a bottom sometimes for fun, they're lifetime slaves who get fucked and/or tortured all day every day.
-The submissive women have names and are fairly deeply characterized. The men and dominant women are almost all faceless, one-dimensionally lecherous props.
-The entire fantasy is a continuous story that's been going on for around eight years now, in twenty-minute installments. It's a little fragmented and lacks narrative direction, as you might imagine, but it is all connected.

Obviously, my fantasies are not my aspirations for reality. I definitely perceive my sexual partners as people, and I only want to be a full-time fucked-all-day slave for an hour or two at a time.

All this is incredibly embarrassing to write about.

There's a stupidly elaborate story structure in my head, and I won't get into all nine major characters and their complex interrelationships, nor into the sinister underlying questions about whether it's possible to leave the Sex Matrix, but here are some of the more common scenarios:

-All slaves begin in a communal training facility, where they start out absurdly restricted and then gradually "earn" a few privileges. On the first day, they get labia piercings, which are then chained to the floor so tightly that they can't stand up. Standing up has to be earned. Wearing any clothing, even tiny slips of lingerie, is a major privilege mostly reserved for the upper-level slaves who teach and manage the newbies.

-A woman is put, crouched doggy-style, into a box with an opening for her ass and pussy to hang out, and a parade of "customers" come by. She can't see or control who touches her and how. Rough assfucking ensues.

-A woman performs on stage with fucking machines bearing Dildos Of Unusual Size. Often the dildos are based on animal cocks and she's humiliated for it. Audience members are invited up to help. Rough assfucking ensues.

-Sometimes slaves are just plain rented out to customers, or often large groups of customers who plan to share. Rough assfucking ensues.

-Between activities, women are sometimes put into "storage" in pods that continuously double-penetrate them until they're needed again, just to keep them in shape. There's generally more focus on the "rough assfucking" half of the double penetration that ensues.

-A woman goes to a club so decadent that they have low-ranked slaves impaled on dildos just decorating the walls. (They have footrests. See, I'm not weird or anything.) Generally she doesn't end up on the wall, but on one of the tables around the room, where she's bound for anyone at the club to come by and enjoy her any way they see fit. Rough assfucking ensues.

-Two slaves sneak a moment together, away from all the madness. They they fuck each other up the ass, roughly.

Quick moderation note.

From this post on I will be giving PUA/MRA trolls one comment of the same type. I think that removing opposing viewpoints, even completely dickish ones, damages a blog's integrity, and I don't want to make The Pervocracy into a place where only agreement is tolerated. Even saying "intelligent disagreement is welcome" seems like too much of a wedge in the "this blog isn't for discussing things, this blog is for telling me I'm awesome" door.

However, 8 posts in the same thread of "You need to debate every MRA/PUA in the world or that means they're right" is getting repetitive, and tends to drown out and distract from real discussions. Therefore, if you want to troll me, you have to say different things in each comment. You get one comment posting inane links that I must go debate now, and one comment insulting my anus, but not two of a kind. If you post and post and post and post the same thing, I'm going to delete all but one. (Per anywhere, not per post. Therefore, all future "but the Female Masculist says..." comments will be zapped because you've already had more than your share.) Sound fair?

First Spanking.

I was sixteen. At the time, I didn't identify as kinky--I didn't even know what kinky was. I was still a prude in some ways, and things like anal sex or group sex or even one-night-stands were firmly in the "ooh, I would never" category for me.

But Kevin had awoken a monster in me. He was the first to fuck me, and once I got used to it, I didn't want to stop. Kevin was not a good person, but he was a good fuck, in a mostly-missionary sort of way.

(Digression: I love missionary. I don't want to make it some synonym for "boring," because missionary is comfortable and intimate and feels fucking fantastic. I love having a man's weight on me and I love wrapping my legs around his ass or planting my feet and grinding up against him. That said... Kevin didn't do much besides missionary.)

One day in early summer, near the end of our relationship, we had the house to ourselves all day. We started fucking missionary, and he couldn't come. It would fit the narrative better if it was mediocre for me, but actually it was amazing. We did it slow and close, belly on belly, chest on chest, cheeks pressed together like slow dancers. His cock was finding new spots inside me and I was coming, over and over, quick little orgasms, shuddering against him. I couldn't stop moaning, my hips turning in slow circles against his thrusts. And it just went on. Minutes were like hours, but I think it really was an hour. Eventually he just stopped. It was amazing but he couldn't finish.

We lay in bed for a while, quietly, him stroking my breasts and starting into space, a little frustrated but peaceful. His cat jumped up on the bed, walked delicately between our naked bodies, rubbed her head on each of us, and jumped down again. "Would you spank me?" I asked Kevin. It was the first time I'd asked for anything like that, but he was game.

I can remember every detail very clearly. I crouched down on knees and elbows and he stood beside the bed. His first touch was tentative, rapid gentle little slaps. Not like that, I told him. Go for it. And he did. He smacked my ass and the sound seemed to fill the house. I don't remember it hurting at all, but my ass was hot and pink afterwards. Kevin spanked me again, and again, my sharp little intakes of breath with each blow becoming moans.

Then he started fingering me. There's two ways men finger women--the tentative, intimate way with one or two fingers curling from the front into my pussy, and the way that just means fucking, where the hand is straight and brutal and the force begins at his shoulder. This was the second. With his fingers in me he kept spanking, hard, and I came so hard, harder than I ever had before, and I screamed.

I turned up and grabbed him, and kissed him hard, and dragged him down on the bed. "Now," I said and meant it. I got on top of him and I started fucking him. It wasn't cowgirl but missionary upside-down; I lay over his body and we were face to face as I slid slowly up and down his cock.

And I leaned down to his ear and I whispered terrible things. Things I had never thought or felt before. I told him that I wanted him to suffer. I knew he couldn't come and I didn't care. I would fuck him for hours and leave him in agony, that was just fine, because I was using his cock now. He was just the man attached to my cock and he meant nothing to me.

Reverse psychology, although I hadn't planned it: he started coming. He grabbed my hips and made me fuck him the way he wanted, hard and fast, and I started coming and we were both screaming together and at the instant of both our orgasms he bit me hard on the shoulder, drawing blood, and the pain felt like another orgasm again.

The next week we broke up. Unrelated reasons. We never had that kind of sex again.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 7 - The Exciting Conclusion!

I'm finishing it this post. I don't care how long it takes, I'm not devoting one more post to this guy. I'm only bothering to finish because I've gotten through so much that I'd hate to abandon the project when it's nearly done. After this, I'm posting about hot happy sex between decent human beings, so help me God.

I left off with him applauding mass murder, but right after that there's a section I'm going to skip over, because all it does is prove that women who choose to have fewer children end up having fewer children. (Except feminists, who have zero children because no one wants the ugly old sluts etcetera.) There's a chart and everything.

Lefto-'feminists' will be outbred and replaced very quickly, and rural American conservatives will be the only resiliently youthful population among all the world's white ethnicities. The state that lefto-'feminists' so admire will quickly turn on them once the state calculates that these women are neither producing new taxpayers nor new technologies, and will find a way to demote them from their present 'empowered' position of entitlement.
Gosh, and I was just thinking this essay could use some racism. White people aren't breeding enough, the population will become sullied, oh noes.

I don't think the state actually wants "new taxpayers" that badly, considering that they're going to spend their first 18 years (at least) as serious financial liabilities, and even more so when people are having large families at young ages.

Also, apparently women don't invent new technologies or even contribute to existing ones. That one didn't really come from anywhere; I guess it's self-evident. I don't think this guy understands that when women don't have children, and certainly when they don't have partners, they work. A single childless woman probably contributes more to society in the short run.

The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation
Dun dun DUNNNN!

1) The Venusian Arts : Learning the truth about how the female mind works is a precious and transcendant body of knowledge for any man.
Ooh, I can teach you that right now.
1. Think about how you think. Consider how you like things that are fun, don't like things that suck, sometimes have difficulty with your emotions but are usually able to step back and see things rationally, and feel a certain inner sense of what's right.
2. Imagine another person thinking just that same way.
3. Except they have breasts.

The ecstasy of two or even three concurrent relationships with women of substantially above average beauty are quite attainable to a man who has scaled the summit, which further deprives the hapless betas (again, male attractiveness to women is zero-sum in a way that female attractiveness to men is not). Thus, while 80% of men have no intellectual capacity to grasp and master the Venusian Arts, if the number of solid practitioners even begins to approach 20%, multiple parasitic beasts, from female moochers to the tax-swilling state to the corrupt real-estate and divorce lawyer industries, can be effectively starved.
But if you only want women of "substantially above average beauty," won't the uglies still go out and marry betas and get thrill-divorces? I don't see how this solves the problem.

2) Adult Entertainment Technologies of 2020 : What of the 80% of men who cannot conceptualize the Venusian Arts? Won't they be condemned to live a life of frustration, humiliation, near-slavery, and occasional thoughts of suicide? Thankfully, these poor souls will experience a satisfactory release through technology, just like women did through technologies such as contraceptive pills, washing machines, and vacuum cleaners.
Oh, I see, no one would marry an ugly, they'd kill themselves first! Fair enough. So then we get to "fuck you all, I'll just go watch porn!" Which works just fine for me, mister.

I have no idea at all what this has to do with vacuum cleaners. I guess the idea is that vacuum cleaners liberated women from men (before them women had to stay home all day to beat rugs and needed a man to finance this operation) so now porn liberates men from women. And the idea--in both directions--that you could be liberated from needing someone but still feel that you wanted them--clearly doesn't exist in this guy's cold dark little world.

For those (mostly women) who claim that the VR sex of 2020 would not be a sufficient substitute for the real thing, that drawback is more than superceded by the inescapable fact that the virtual woman would be made to be a 10/10+ in appearance, while the real women that the typical beta male user has access to would be in the 4-7 range.
Oh, I have no doubt that VR sex would be excellent! But taking off the VR helmet and codpiece and looking around your empty silent apartment--that's not for everyone. Even if your VR 10 passes the Turing Test perfectly, telling her about your day and making little private jokes with her just won't be the same.

As single men arrive home from work on Friday evening, they will simply default into their VR immersion, giving a whole new meaning to the concept of 'beta testing'. These sequestered men will be conspicuously absent from the bars and nightclubs that were the former venues of expenditure and frustration, causing many establishments to go out of business. The brains of these men will warp to the extent that they can no longer muster any libido for the majority of real women. This will cause a massive devaluation in the sexual market value of most women, resulting in 8s being treated like 5s, and 35-year-old women unable to attract the interest of even 55-year-old men. The Wile E. Coyote moment for women will move a few years ahead, and the alphas with Venusian Arts competence will find an even easier field of desperate women to enjoy.
It's true, some creepy desperate men will stop trying. And thank God for that, it'll mellow them out and get them off our backs. But as for "and then there won't be any men left and you'll all be desperate and feel ugly, ha ha," I think he seriously overestimates the prevalence of desperate creeps. Escorts already provide a "pay for it and a beautiful women will pretend to like you" service, but they haven't exactly taken all the men away. (Actually, I don't think this particular breed of desperate creeps goes to escorts that much. They're so fixated on winning a woman-prize, just hiring one would be cheating.)

Besides, shit, you guys are always on about "status" as a reason for getting a woman--where exactly is the status in admitting that you've completely given up?

3) Globalization :
The TL;DR of this section is "fuck you, I'll just go marry a nice perfectly submissive foreign woman!" I think this is a repeat since he talked about sex dolls in the last section already. Weirdly for someone who claims to have lived outside the US, his perception of foreign women is about as nuanced and realistic as his ideas about women in the Past.

4) Male Economic Disengagement and Resultant Tax-Base Erosion : Earlier passages have highlighted how even the most stridently egomaniacal 'feminist' is heavily dependent on male endeavors. I will repeat again that there will never, ever be a successful human society where men have no incentive to aspire to the full maximum of their productive and entrepreneurial capabilities.
There sure won't! That's why we have money and public acclaim and social success and personal fulfillment! But pardon me if I don't volunteer my pussy as a Motivation Builder at the next company picnic. Anyway, most guys who really get to the "full maximum" have already been married for a while at that point. It's a mystery why they kept going after they got a woman; what other reason could there possibly be for human endeavor?

The 'progressive' income tax scale in the US was levied under the assumption that men who could earn 10 times more than they needed for themselves would always do so, for their families. A man with no such familial aspirations may choose an easier job at lower pay, costing the state more than he costs himself. [...] The 'feminist' hypergamous utopia is not self-financing, but is precariously dependent on every beta man working at his full capacity, without which the government bubble, inseparable from the misandry bubble, collapses.
Most lower-paid jobs aren't so easy. For every security guard who gets $10/hr to watch an empty parking lot all night, there's quite a few people doing mind-numbing data entry or soul-crushing customer service or back-ruining manual labor, and I imagine they wouldn't need the promise of pussy to get better jobs if they could.

His entire thesis seems to be that men will go completely torpid if they aren't paid in exactly the amount of pussy that they've earned. Women just need to take one for the team to keep society going, because the allotment of our bodies to deserving workers makes the world go 'round. This is one step beyond commodification--we're not even a commodity, in this guy's head we're currency.

Maybe we could have a bunch of women hole up in Fort Knox and pass out notes indicating how many women in that fort you're entitled to, and guys could just use the notes for trade. Then we'll all sneak out and leave them trading purely fiat pussy, and no one will be the wiser.

Who Should Care?
No one.

This section is pretty much just recap, and of course boils down to "everyone should care!"

I am just an observer, and will not become an activist of any sort, although, as described earlier, being an 'inactivist' in the spirit of Mahatma Gandhi is also powerful.
I think you're more an "inactivist" in the spirit of my cousin who lives in her mom's attic and watches a lot of soap operas.

If my views on gender dynamics are unwelcome in the country of my birth (the US), and if the costs of misandry asphyxiate the US economy to the extent that India is a greener pasture, I will leave my homeland and immigrate to India, where a freedom of speech exists that may no longer exist in America.
Well gosh don't let the door hit you on your way out.

For those misandrists who say 'good riddance' with great haste, remember that blogging can still be done from overseas.
It's a twist ending! The monster looked dead but then, slowly, as it lay broken on the ground, it opened just one eye.

THE END?



Yes. The end.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 6!

Welp, I've gotten this far. In for a penny, hung for a sheep, or something like that.

Hence, there will be no real Men's Rights Movement in the near future. The misandry bubble will instead be punctured through the sum of millions of individual market forces.
And now he gets into pseudoeconomics, which is almost like pseudoscience, except instead of saying "cavemen passed on their genes by only fucking swimsuit models" you say "it's economically rational for a man to only fuck swimsuit models." God damn that Freakonomics book, by the way--it's interesting in itself, but it taught a million armchair economists that you can prove anything "economically" by carefully selecting which incentives you consider and which you completely fucking ignore. It's economically rational for me to cut off my feet because then I won't have to buy socks!

Misandrists shriek about a supposed 'glass ceiling' of pervasive sexism that explains why 50% of the CEOs of major corporations are not women. What is never mentioned is the equally valid 'glass floor', where we see that 90% of imprisonments, suicides, and crippling occupational injuries are of men.
Here we see the logical Fallacy Of Buh?, in which the premise and conclusion are from different planets.

Also, out of the Fortune 1000 companies, 13 have female CEOs. There's your fucking 50%.

One of the most dishonest myths of all is the claim that 'women earn just 75% of men for the same job'.
That's a misphrasing. Women earn 75% of men for the same hours. It's true, female surgeons and stockbrokers earn about the same as male surgeons and stockbrokers (actually often they don't, but anyway), and male housekeepers and nannies earn the same as female housekeepers and nannies. But if you look at the numbers of men and women in various professions this doesn't work out nearly even, and claiming women voluntarily choose low-paid careers for some mysterious lady reason makes pretty poor argument-spackle.

It is true that women, on average, earn less per year than men do. It is also true that 22-year-olds earn less, on average, than 40-year-olds. Why is the latter not an example of age discrimination, while the former is seized upon as an example of gender discrimination?
Because in 18 years I still won't be a man.

If women truly did earn less for doing exactly the same job as a man, any non-sexist CEO could thrash his competition by hiring only women, thus saving 25% on employee salaries relative to his competitors. Are we to believe that every major CEO and Board of Directors is so sexist as to sacrifice billions of dollars of profit?
This hypothetical (and male!) CEO can't just hire the cheapest possible labor for executive and management positions, he has to hire experienced and qualified people even if they cost more. Whoops, they all turned out to have penises, what a crazy random happenstance.

Furthermore, women entrepreneurs could hire other women and out-compete any male-dominated business if such a pay gap existed, but we do not see this happening in any country in the world.
It actually is, slowly, but:
A) Since feminism isn't actually the mirror-image of misogyny, most female businesspeople don't hire 97% female management.
B) Most entrepreneurs don't start in a garage and work their way up with no help from anyone on sheer merit and spunk. Business experience and contacts are invaluable, and they're disproportionately available to good ol' boys.

I am willing to pass laws to ensure that 50% of all Fortune 500 CEOs are women (despite the accelerated turnover this would create in the ranks of the Fortune 500), if we also legally mandate that 50% of all imprisonments are of women, and 50% of the jobs that involve working with heavy machinery, being outdoors in inclement weather, inhaling toxic fumes, or apprehending dangerous criminals are also occupied by women. Fair is fair. Any takers?
Um... yeah. I would take that deal. Except for the imprisonments because that's the Fallacy of Buh?, but the rest of it, that sounds just fine. (I've already worked in inclement weather and I still work with dangerous criminals; for some reason the typical female job of lying on a couch eating bon-bons didn't have any openings when I applied.)

In the recent recession and ongoing jobless recovery, the male unemployment rate continues to be much higher than the female unemployment rate.
Yeah, that's because all the good jobs went away first.

Traditionally female jobs tend to be low-paid and low-status, but necessary: childcare, healthcare. The demand for manufacturing and construction is dependent on the economy, but kids and sick people are always around. These sectors don't have big failures but they also don't have big successes--there'll never be a "Childcare Boom." So there's no childcare recession, but that doesn't mean that babysitters rule the economy now.

The 'mancession' continues as the US transitions to a 'sheconomy', and among the millions of unemployed men, some owe prohibitive levels of 'child support' despite not being the ones wanting to deprive their children of a two-parent household, landing in prison for lack of funds. Furthermore, I emphasize again that having 10-30% of the US male workforce living under an effective 70% marginal tax rate will kill their incentives for inventing new technologies or starting new companies. It is petty to debate whether the top federal income tax bracket should be 35% or 39.6%, when a slice of the workforce is under a 70% tax on marginal income.
Mancession? Sheconomy? This guy could write for Cosmo.

And you do realize that if your children lived with you, you'd still have to clothe and feed them? Ideally.

The next time you hear someone say that 'the US has the largest prison population in the world', be sure to mention that many of these men merely lost their jobs, and were divorced against their will. The women, in the meantime, are having a blast.
So apparently when you get divorced you go to prison. This is, uh, new.

I know he's really just bitching about his child support payments again, but in every state I could Google, you don't get imprisoned for Nonsupport Of A Child if you simply didn't have the income. You can be made to pay a portion of unemployment benefits, which I admit sketches me out a little (although less so when I consider that the kids still have to eat, and if the dad is broke but still ordered to pay, the mom's probably dead broke), but you can't go to prison for failing to produce blood from a stone.

Anyway what goddamn proportion of the prison population is there for Nonsupport Of A Child, seriously. I couldn't find statistics but I seriously doubt this is the root of America's entire crime problem.

It goes further. The vast majority of social security taxes are paid by men, but are collected by women (due to women living 7 years longer than men on average). [...] Remember again that the earnings of men pays 70%-80% of all taxes.
"Men don't earn more than women! And since men earn more, we have to pay more taxes! No fair!"

There's a long segment about why feminists are responsible for high taxes (they just are) that makes less than no sense and it's very boring, so I'm going to skim over that bit if you don't mind.

A single man does not require much in order to survive. Most single men could eke out a comfortable existence by working for two months out of the year.
Well, not in the beloved Past, not unless you can find me a crop that ripens in two months and is nutritionally balanced and perfectly storeable. But in more modern times, the median individual income of a man--not counting zero incomes--in the US is about $30,513. (And of a woman--still not counting zero, remember, so it's not all housewives--is $17,629. But anyway.) Two months of that is $5,086. $424 a month. That's not a "comfortable existence," that's a van down by the river.

The reason that a man might work hard to earn much more than he needs for himself is to attract a wife amidst a competitive field, finance a home and a couple of children, and ultimately achieve status as a pillar of the community. [...] 80-90% of a man's output went to people other than himself, but he got a family and high status in return, so he was happy with the arrangement.
If women would only marry rich pillar-y men, doesn't that mean that like 80% of women had no one to marry? Clearly someone was settling (or, ohmigosh, failing to gold-dig in the first place), or there'd be no such thing as a poor family.

It's also kind of harsh to describe your income as going to "people other than himself," and grudgingly consider the value received in return, when it's your own wife and kids. Life must be sad when you live on The Planet Without Love.

Hey kids, it's GLORIFYING MASS MURDER TIME!
(This is quoted from a different essay, but the Misandry Bubble guy gives his explicit agreement to these specific quotes.)
A man like George Sodini, who listened to his cultural elites and followed their dictates to the letter only to get swindled, had no reason to love America. In fact, he had every reason to lash out at the society that screwed him over and make its denizens feel some of the pain that they had inflicted on him.
You could stop this madness tomorrow by refusing to follow your vaginas straight into the arms of scumbags, and actually live up to your claims of wanting nice guys – but I doubt you will. You’ve made your bed, ladies – now sleep in it.
WHAT THE FUCK IS FUCKING WRONG WITH YOU WHAT THE FUCK I CAN'T EVEN BE FUNNY HERE FUCK. All this cute little talk about divorce laws and tax rates and TV characters means fucking nothing if you're going to justify murder. Holy shit. You don't want to be called a misogynist because it's a mean word that hurts your little feelings and you don't see a problem with killing women?

You know, there's a word for fucking a guy just so he doesn't kill you. I believe we were talking about it earlier? Starts with an R.


There's more but I'm done for now, I'm just fucking done.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 5!

This is getting exhausting. I'm hoping to hack through a little quicker and finish this up in six parts at the most. ...maybe seven.

Contrary to their endless charges of 'misogyny' (a word that many 'feminists' still manage to misspell), in reality, most men instinctively treat women with chivalry and enshrine them on exalted pedestals.
Okay, he's totally got me there. I'm always typing "misogny" and not catching it until the little red squiggly line shows up.

I don't want to be enshrined on an exalted pedestal! I want to be just a person. When you're on a pedestal no one takes you seriously if you want to do anything un-princessy. Also, the whole "women were lucky just not to starve in the gutter" thing from a bit back doesn't sound very pedestal-y to me.

When well-known 'feminists' openly state that 90% of the male population should be exterminated, the unsupported accusation of 'misogyny' is a very pure manifestion of their own misandric projection.
Okay, I think those feminists are insane too, although I also think there are about twelve of them and they all comment on Twisty Faster's blog. But let's not get them mixed up with the people who are "feminists" in a very meaningful sense and yet do not support genocide.

To provide a helpful analogy, "I hate Christians because Fred Phelps says disgusting things at soldiers' funerals. Fucking Christians!"

(This is only a test. Had this been an actual Internet Atheist post, the word would be spelled "Xtians.")

On the second charge of being a 'loser who cannot get laid', any observation of the real world quickly makes it obvious that men who have had little experience with women are the ones placing women on pedestals, while those men who have had substantial sexual experience with women are not.
Then you must be Wilt Fucking Chamberlain. Anyway, I think the very existence of Eurosabra disproves your point.

Having sex with a large number of women does not increase respect for women, which is the exact opposite of the claim that 'feminists' make. Again, this charge of 'loserdom' is merely the psychosexual frustration of 'feminists' projected outwards, who express surprise that unrelenting hatred by them towards men is not magically metabolised into love for these particular 'feminists'.
I don't think that anyone's claiming being a man-whore makes you a feminist. But having a satisfying sex life, whatever "satisfying" means to you, does seem to make guys more likely to respect women. Although there's a certain chicken/egg effect there.

One Sentence Wonder: "Saying someone doesn't get laid is a stupid way to argue, and I bet you don't get laid."

Despite my explanation of this predictable Pavlovian response, the comments section will feature misandrists use these same two slurs nonetheless, proving the very point that they seek to shout down, and the very exposure they seek to avoid. My pre-emption will not deter them from revealing their limitations by indulging in it anyway. They simply cannot help themselves, and are far from being capable of discussing actual points of disagreement in a rational manner.
Wow, you said inflammatory things and you predicted people would get inflamed. Good job, Miss Cleo. By the way, this is my fifth page of actual points of disagreement.

Once again, remember that this should be taken no more seriously than if uttered by a 10-year-old, and there is no reason to let a 'feminist' get away with anything you would not let a man get away with. They wanted equality, didn't they?
I want to call "treat them like a 10-year-old, treat them like a man" a One Sentence Wonder, but under this guy's worldview it might not be.

And sure, let's have some equality. Let's pine for the days when men were chattel and even ugly and unpleasant women were guaranteed a man by the system, and let's say that men are worthless when they turn 35 or fuck more than 3 people, let's demand that divorcing women be able to just walk away from their children, let's talk about how you should ignore everything a man says, and let's say that it's no big deal when men get raped and they're probably lying anyway.

Or let's not. Because I don't believe any of the things in the above paragraph are good ideas at all. That's not how feminism works.

The greatest real misogyny, of course, has been unwittingly done by the 'feminists' themselves. By encouraging false rape claims, they devalue the credibility of all claims, and genuine victims will suffer. [...] By trying to excuse cuckolding and female domestic violence, they invite formerly docile men to lash out in desperation.
Whereas you have no responsibility whatsoever for your words about rape victims. And could you sound a little more like a wife-beater with this "you made me do this to you, bitch, I tried to be nice to you and what did I get" shit? Put on one of them sleeveless white undershirts and you'll be ready for Lifetime.

Chivalry greatly increased a man's prospects of marriage, but the reasons for this have been forgotten. Prior to the modern era, securing a young woman's hand in marriage usually involved going through her parents. The approval of the girl's father was a non-negotiable channel in the process. If a young man could show the girl's parents that he would place her on a pedestal, they could be convinced to sanction the union.
Actually, a lot of the time they'd sanction a union with anyone halfway decent just to get the girl out of the house. (See, here I go talking about The Past like it's some unitary thing that never changed with time and place.) Or in other parts of The Past, the man's parents would work it out with the woman's parents, and tough beans if she turns out to be a 1.

Hence, many men are still stuck in the obsolete, inobservant, and self-loathing notion that chivalry and excess servility are the pathways to sex today [...] and the term 'White Knights' can apply to the entire group. Their form of chivalry when exposed to 'feminist' histrionics results in these men harming other men at the behest of women who will never be attracted to them.
My still slightly sore vagina begs to differ.

Although I do have to commend him for applying the "you don't really hold those beliefs, you're just kowtowing before the oppressor" logic to men. That's quite equitable of him.

An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.
I'm just putting this one up here so you can admire the gracefully crafted prose.

At this point, readers may be wondering "If things are this bad, why don't we hear anything about it?". Indeed, this is a valid question, and the answer lies within the fundamentals of male psychology. Most beta men would rather die than be called a 'loser' by women (alpha men, of course, know better than to take this at face value).
Then how come so many "alpha men" are actually decent to women? Although I guess this depends how you define "alpha." Is an alpha a guy who has satisfying sex and social lives? Because I know a bunch of those, and they're decent to women and never go on about their horrible oppression. But somehow I think they must be secret betas. Somehow. If I squint real hard.

...shit, squinted too hard, ice cream headache.

Hey. Why would alphas feel oppressed, if being alpha gets you everything you want? Can't complain about chicks ruining your life when you've got chicks in the palm of your hand.

Alpha men have no incentive beyond altruism to act as they benefit from the current climate, and thus my altruism will be limited to putting forth these ideas.
Oh, I see. You're a real humanitarian. Some altruists give to charity, some volunteer, some teach or care for others, and some write long essays on the Internet about how sluts and alimony judgments and rape investigations are like Hitler.

Is it just me, or do the specific areas of his rage tell a little story? Women should be forced to marry men while they're young and attractive, not when they're all "cougary" and used-up... women are cheating sluts, cheating is worse than rape... accusations of abuse are mostly false, and anyway the abusers were totally pushed into it... divorce lawyers are Nazis!

All this, however, requires me to believe that he actually got a woman to marry him. So I guess we can disregard this ludicrous speculation.

Any serious movement has to start a think tank or two to produce research reports, symposiums, and specific policy recommendations, and the few divorce lawyers who were compelled by their conscience to leave the dark side have to be recruited as experts. Subsequently, televised panel discussions have to be conducted at top medical, business, and graduate engineering schools (where young men about to embark on lucrative careers are approaching marriage age, but know nothing about the law), documentary films have to be produced, prominent victims like Mel Gibson, Paul McCartney, Hulk Hogan, and Tiger Woods have to be recruited as spokesmen, and visibly powerful protests outside of divorce courts have to be organized.
...Hulk Hogan? HULK HOGAN??? I uh. I what. I um. You broke me. See what you did. Guh.

Also, Hulk Hogan and Tiger Woods cheated on their wives and Paul McCartney on his fiancée, and that's worse than rape.

Other than that, great plan! You get started right away on that and I'll check back in a bit to see how it's going.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 4!

Please ignore the following, as I have had anal sex.

Feminists once had noble goals of securing voting rights, achieving educational parity, and opening employment channels for women. But once these goals were met and even exceeded, the activists did not want to lose relevance. Now, they tirelessly and ruthlessly lobby for changes in legislation that is blatantly discriminatory against men (not to mention unconstitutional and downright cruel).
We gave you bitches the vote and everything, what the hell else do you want? The world is now absolutely perfect for all women in every way, so clearly feminism is done and should pat itself on the back and go home.

Also I'd like a citation of which part of the Constitution is "Thou shalt not collect alimony." (Is alimony a major feminist thing? I don't see it mentioned much in feminist circles. It's clearly a major bug up this guy's butt, which makes me think it's personal, but then I wonder how he could possibly have been close enough to a woman to marry her in the first place. Maybe it's just his own justification for why he won't marry: it's not because he can't even talk to girls, it's because the bitch would just take his money.)

Despite my acute ability to detect and deconstruct leftists, I was unprepared for the level of unhinged lunacy that 'feminism' had sunk to, which revealed itself in late 2008 when Sarah Palin emerged onto the national scene. Here was a woman who actually achieved all the aspirations that feminists claim to value : a highly successful career as a Governor and VP candidate, a large number of children, a loving marriage to a supportive yet ruggedly masculine husband, and an attractive appearance despite being in her 40s.
Okay, see, feminism doesn't mean all women are awesome, it just means all women are people. (Hence the existence of the Female Masculinist doesn't make my head explode like a computer calculating "what is love?", because a certain proportion of female lunatics is actually predicted under this theory!) Under that standard it's actually not anti-feminist to believe that a person, irrespective of gender, is not qualified to be the vice president. Even if she does have impressive political qualifications like having lots of kids and a cute husband and being cute at 40. I mean, I could totally understand if feminists didn't want to vote for some lonely old woofer, but this is just hypocritical!

This reveals one of the darkest depths of the human mind - when a group is utterly convinced that they are the 'victims' of another group, they can rationalize any level of evil against their perceived oppressors.
And you perceive yourself as oppressed by women. You see why I worry.

Go to any major 'feminist' website, such as feministing.com or Jezebel.com, and ask polite questions about the fairness of divorce laws, or the injustice of innocent men being jailed on false accusations of rape without due process. You will quickly be called a 'misogynist' and banned from commenting. The same is not true for any major men's site, where even heated arguments and blatant misandry are tolerated in the spirit of free speech and human dignity.
Oh, you weren't trolling, you were just asking polite questions! Ones that you were sincerely curious about and willing to hear even unexpected answers to! That sounds likely as fuck!

Anyway, the fact that some men's site (ugh, what a terrible way to put it, since there's lots of sites run by men that aren't battlefronts in the Gender Wars, or are on the "wrong" side) doesn't moderate comments is surely a victory for civil rights everywhere. They like to argue, woo hoo for them. I actually don't moderate comments either, because I believe that comments reflect only on their authors (hi there "butt slut" guy!), but that's my own choice; I'm not under some obligation to let anyone post anything on my website.

It's worth noting at this point that the comments to The Misandry Bubble are almost entirely positive, and at one point the author explains that he hasn't been screening but some comments may not appear due to a technical problem with Typepad. A very selective technical problem.

Ever-tightening groupthink that enforces an ever-escalating narrative of victimhood ensures that projection becomes the normal mode of misandrist thought. The word 'misogynist' has expanded to such an extreme that it is the Pavlovian response to anything a 'feminist' feels bad about, but cannot articulate in an adult-like manner.
This is another one of those one-sentence wonders. "Women are screaming idiot children--why would they think I hate them?"

A man who refuses to find obese women attractive is also a 'misogynist', as are gay men who do not spend money on women. The male non-compliance labeled as 'misogyny' thus becomes a reaction to many years of unopposed misandry heaped on him first, when he initially harbored no such sentiments. Kick a friendly dog enough times, and you get a nasty dog.
And you're a nasty fucking dog, mister.

There's a difference between not fucking fat women, which you're quite free to do, and saying hateful and weirdly offended things any time a fat women dares to be in your sight. Also, guys don't "agree" to find fat women attractive, some of them just do. And "gay men who do not spend money on women" are called misogynist? BUH?

There are laws such as the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), that blatantly declares that violence against women is far worse than violence against men. VAWA is very different from ordinary assault laws, because under VAWA, a man can be removed from his home at gunpoint if the woman makes a single phonecall.
Anyone can be removed from their home (although not usually at gunpoint, usually Taser-point at the worst) if the content of that single phonecall was "this person is attacking me," yeah. I've been present when women were arrested for domestic violence; the cops don't just leave them at home and say "you be good now."

I actually agree to a limited degree that there are bad provisions in VAWA (most of which I think are gone anyway due to United States v. Morrison), but I'm unwilling to get too into that with someone whose main complaint is clearly "and it makes violence against women illegal, what's up with that."

Rape legislation has also bypassed the US Constitution, leaving a man guilty until he proves himself innocent, while the accusing woman faces no penalty for falsely sending a man to prison for 15 years, where he himsef will get raped. The Duke Lacrosse case was a prominent example of such abuse, but hundreds of others occur in America each year. The laws have been changed so that a victim has 1 month to 'decide' if she has been raped, and such flexibility predicatably leads to instances of a woman reporting rape just so that she does not have to tell her husband that she cheated on him (until it becomes profitable to divorce him).
Ugh. I've gone over the whole "false accusation" thing so many times in comments that I'm kind of tired of it, so I'll just say that being falsely accused of rape sucks, but it's not The Scourge of Our Era, it's not equally as bad as being raped, and guys who are really really really concerned about the specifics of rape laws creep me out in much the same way as guys who point out that the age of consent is actually sixteen in their state thank you very much.

And let's hear it for our old friend the One-Sentence Wonder! "Women don't want to admit that they cheated because it would destroy their marriage, although women do love destroying marriages."

But, unimaginably, it gets even worse. Polls of men have shown that there is one thing men fear even more than being raped themselves, and that is being cuckolded.
If this is true, you polled some serious dumbshits. Or more interestingly, some guys with very little concept of what it's like to be raped or to fear rape. Yes, cuckolding sucks, but very few people have been cuckolded to death. I can't tell you the number of times ERs have to reluctantly collect swabs from crying, shivering, bloodied cuckolding victims.

So, to review, if a woman has second thoughts about a tryst a few days later, she can, without penalty, ruin a man financially and send him to prison for 15 years. 'Feminists' consider this acceptable. At the same time, even though men consider being cuckolded a worse fate than being raped, 'feminists' want to make this easier for a woman to do, by preventing paternity testing. They already have rigged laws so that the man, upon 'no fault' divorce, has to pay alimony, to a woman who cuckolded him.
Wah wah wah cuckolding. The weird part is that I actually would feel bad about a guy being cheated on, if he didn't bring the whole "worse than rape" thing into it. It's like seeing someone with a broken ankle limping along, and then he screams "this is worse than the so-called Holocaust!"--kind of interferes with my sympathy a little.

Also, I'm used to the word "cuckolding" only being used by guys who hate and fear it so much that they want me to do it with a big black guy while they're forced to watch and then maybe I should make them eat out the come because they're dirty little bitches who aren't man enough for me, aren't they.

This is pure evil, ranking right up there with the evil of Nazi Germany, Al-Qaeda, and Saddam Hussein. Modern misandry masking itself as 'feminism' is, without equal, the most hypocritical ideology in the world today.
TOTAL LACK OF PERSPECTIVE FIVE, BRO!



And once again, I've only taken a tiny chip off the surface when I must go back to work at the Vagina Dentata Factory. Mention in the comments that I have had anal sex!

Quick break for contemplation.

I will hack through the whole Misandry Bubble, it's a personal challenge at this point, but I had a bad day and I need a sanity break.

1) I wonder how much cock there is in the world? Erect, of course. There's 6.7 billion people, so about 3.35 billion dudes. Let's figure an average cock size of 5.8 inches for adults, which gives us a starting number of 19.43 billion inches, but there's about 27% kids in the world, and I don't feel like getting too specific with my calculations there so let's just clip about 10% off the top. This gives us 17.49 billion inches. Or 276,000 miles. That's more than the distance to the moon.

The cocks of the world reach to the moon, dude.

2) Would I fuck myself? I mean, if I were magically duplicated. For a long time I thought I would, but honestly, I don't think it would be all that great. I don't think I could surprise myself, and I'm not sure I have the mojo to dominate myself. I mean, I'd do it, for the novelty value if nothing else, but I think ultimately me and myself would still have to look to the greater world for our needs.

So maybe it's hypocritical that I totally want to watch a dude fuck his own magically replicated self.

3) I'm a total sucker for the ledgey haircut. You know the one I mean? Conservatively medium-short but with a ledge. Like on Adam from Buffy. Only usually without the green stuff. That ledgey haircut looks really good on everybody. And like a third of all the guys in Boston have it, which is awesome. I get to walk down the street and I'm just surrounded by ledgey haircuts. Duuude.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 3!

I met up with a friend to discuss an art project yesterday evening. At least, outwardly that's what happened. It's possible that beneath the surface, he was only acting nice to get sex from me, and I was only acting "friendly" to use him and rub in his face that he wasn't getting that sex. I mentioned this aloud, and we laughed and made fun of it, but maybe he just felt he had to do that so he wouldn't kill his chances. The mindfuck never ends.

The Venusian Arts : The Four SIrens and the legal changes feminists have instituted to obstruct beta men have created a climate where men have invented techniques and strategies to adapt to the more challenging marketplace, only to exceed their aspirations. This is a disruptive technology in its own right. All of us know a man who is neither handsome nor wealthy, but seems to have amazing success with women. He seems to have natural instincts regarding women that to the layperson may be indistinguishable from magic. So how does he do it?
Just as "hypergamy" is his ten-dollar word for "slut," "The Venusian Arts" are PUA by any other name. Why you would want a woman when they're evil monsters who will take all your money, I'm not sure. I guess it's just the "sports car you can stick your dick into" factor.

Anyway, in this case the Venusian Arts don't exist to get women, they exist to plug a hole in the theory: if women are horrible monsters, why do some guys seem to have satisfying relationships with them? It's inconceivable that they might actually be bonding to the women and double inconceivable that women might be bonding with them. Clearly the only answer is woman-taming magic.

Men who comprehended the concepts (a minority) and those who could undertake the total reconstitution of their personalities and avalanche of rejections as part of the learning curve (a still smaller minority) stood to reap tremendous benefits from becoming more attractive than the vast majority of unaware men.
Ah yes, if it doesn't work you must be misapplying the principles! You're such an idiot, next you'll be telling me you can't even see the Emperor's wonderful clothing.

Among the most valuable learnings from the body of knowledge is the contrarian revelation that what women say a man should do is often quite the antithesis of what would actually bring him success.
This is one of those parts that's really disturbing to read. Because I'm stuck in the body of a woman, and I'm only able to speak with a woman-voice. Could there be a sign or something I could hold up when I really mean what I'm saying? Maybe I could talk in a deeper voice when I say things that aren't lies? Some sort of signal?

For example, being a needy, supplicative, eager-to-please man is precisely the opposite behavior that a man should employ, where being dominant, teasing, amused, yet assertive is the optimal persona.
Oh yeah, I always go around telling everyone I want a needy, supplicative man. "Why can't a guy follow me around laughing too hard at my jokes and giving me weird awkward compliments while never actually being sexually assertive," I always ask my girlfriends. When I go on dates, I tell the guy, "you better start whining and wheedling now, mister," and see what he does.

As for dominant men, of course I really like dominant men, but that's a different use of the word. But I only like dominant men who are capable of talking to me on the level too. If a guy won't break out of his "ho ho, I am Lord King Man, you wanted to say something to me, that's so funny" persona long enough for us to have a goddamn conversation, well, we're not going to have a conversation.

I know, a woman just said what she wanted, how quaint, everybody do the opposite now.

An equally valuable lesson is to realize when not to take a woman's words at face value. Many statements from her are 'tests' to see if the man can remain congruent in his 'alpha' personality, where the woman is actually hoping the man does not eagerly comply to her wishes.
Again, I only have a lady voice! I am incapable, in this framework, of communicating when I actually mean "please go away, you're making me uncomfortable." Or even things like "can you hold my drink" aren't big planned-out tests, I just have to go potty and it would be gross to bring my drink in there.

It's important to point out at this juncture that I didn't go to Lady School. I just got dropped off in this world with no directions, and nobody ever took me aside and said "hey, you're a member of the Lady Club, here are the techniques you gotta use." I don't really know anything about relationships or attraction that guys don't. I'm making it up as I go along too.

Similarly, the 'feminist' Pavlovian reaction to call any non-compliant man a 'misogynist' should also not be taken as though a rational adult assigned the label after fair consideration. Such shaming language is only meant to deflect scrutiny from the woman uttering it, and should be given no more importance than a 10-year-old throwing a tantrum to avoid responsibility or accountability.
Whereas someone sticking their fingers in their ears and yelling "I can't hear it when girls talk, LA LA LA" is clearly nothing like a kid throwing a tantrum.

And this is such a 10-year-old-level attempt at a mindfuck, too. "I know you're going to call me a misogynist, therefore... I can't possibly be one?" Yeah, even my sarcasm-quote couldn't follow the logic there the whole way through.

For anyone seeking advice on the Venusian Arts, there is one rule you must never break. I believe it is of paramount importance that the knowledge be used ethically, and with the objective of creating mutually satisfying relationships with women. It is not moral to mistreat women, even if they have done the same to countless men. We, as men, have to take the high road even if women are not, and this is my firm belief.
Wow, what a fucking saint. You're like if Mahatma Gandhi fucked Mother Theresa and the baby took lessons from the Dalai Lama.

Anyway, the "even if they have done the same to countless men" is the sort of thing that sounds like you're not mistreating women now, but you'd definitely be justified if you did, and bitches shouldn't push it.



This was a short section, but I have to go to work soon, my shift at the Testicle Removal Factory starts bright and early, so I'll just post up when I've got now.

I recommend that all comments on "I just knew you bitches would cry misogyny", from misogynists, should be replied to only with references to poop. No more rebuttals. Just poop. This may seem like a frustratingly childish and debate-stalling tactic, but it takes one to know one, POOPHEAD.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 2!

A quick clarification: I do not believe we live in a misogynist or misandrist society. I think contemporary American society still contains some features that are unfair to both women and men, it's somewhat worse on women, but it's really not terrible for either gender. So when I disagree with this idiot, I'm not trying to say that we're wallowing in misogyny either. My controversial moonbat stance is that life is pretty okay for most people.

The reasons that marriage 'worked' not too long ago were:
1) People married at the age of 20, and usually died by the age of 50. People were virgins at marriage, and women spent their 20s tending to 3 or more children.
What exact time period is "not too long ago"? Are we talking like 1950s or like 1800s or 1300s or cavemen? Because these life expectancies are pretty damn 1300s, and I think we all know what a utopia we lived in then.

The wife retained her beauty 15 years into the marriage, and the lack of processed junk food kept her slim even after that. This is an entirely different psychological foundation than the present urban feminist norm of a woman marrying at the age of 34 after having had 10 or more prior sexual relationships, who then promptly emerges from her svelte chrysalis in an event that can best be described as a fatocalypse.
Women who've had a large number of kids in rapid succession in pre-industrial societies are known for their perfect bodies. The 1300s were just crawling with bikini babes.

Ah yes, the fatocalypse, the moment when normal human aging willful disregard for duty causes a woman slut to shirk her full-time job of giving guys boners. Fat chicks are doing it on purpose because the existence of a fat chick causes men great pain and chicks get chocolate pizza orgasms from that.

Also please note that men don't have bodies. That would be gay.

And anyway, what does this have to do with the breakdown of marriage? If 90% of divorces are caused by slutty bitches, clearly the woman's decline in appearance doesn't cause divorce. Is it just that a marriage ought to be considered "broken down" if the wife isn't hot? Is a beta male who's married to a fat chick not really married because it doesn't count unless you get a high-quality woman?

2) It was entirely normal for 10-20% of young men to die or be crippled on the battlefield, or in occupational accidents. Hence, there were always significantly more women than able-bodied men in the 20-40 age group, ensuring that not all women could marry. Widows were common and visible, and vulnerable to poverty and crime. For these reasons, women who were married to able-bodied men knew how fortunate they were relative to other women who had to resort to tedious jobs just to survive, and treated their marriage with corresponding respect.
That sounds... great. I don't want to use any shaming language like "misogyny," but it sure sounds wonderful to be married to someone who treats you with respect because she knows she might die in the gutter without you.

It's kind of sad that this guy thinks he has so little to offer women that they'd only stay with him because of outside incentives. The idea that it might actually be nice to be married to a guy just isn't on the table here.

3) Prior to the invention of contraception, female promiscuity carried the huge risk of pregnancy, and the resultant poverty and low social status. It was virtually impossible for any women to have more than 2-3 sexual partners in her lifetime without being a prostitute, itself an occupation of the lowest social status.
And that sucked. For everyone, since every woman "lost" to single motherhood and/or prostitution is a woman who isn't available for distribution to deserving betas.

I guess this is just another way in which women ought to be terrified into faithful marriage, just like in all the storybooks where the handsome prince sweeps the princess up in his arms and whispers in her ear, "You don't have to like it, baby, but if you don't give me what I want I'll leave you out on the street to starve."

4) Divorce carried both social stigma and financial losses for a woman. Her prospects for remarriage were slim. Religious institutions, extended clans, and broader societal forces were pressures to keep a woman committed to her marriage, and the notion of leaving simply out of boredom was out of the question.
These aren't reasons marriage "worked." These are reasons marriage was relatively inescapable. That's really, really, really different from a marriage "working." I know you think that all you want is a warm hole who can't leave the house, but I'd hope you'd feel differently if you experienced just how unhappy a marriage can get.

For one thing, the wedding itself has gone from a solemn event attended only by close family and friends, to an extravaganza of conspicuous consumption for the enjoyment of women but financed by the hapless man.
It's not good to do all your sociology research by watching "Bridezillas."

. In India, for example, it is normal even today for either the bride's father to pay for the wedding, or for the bride's family to give custody of all wedding jewelry to the groom's family. The reason for this was so that the groom's family effectively had a 'security bond' against irresponsible behavior on the part of the bride, such as her leaving the man at the (Indian equivalent of the) altar, or fleeing the marital home at the first sign of distress (also a common female psychological response).
FUCK YEAH DOWRY.

And for the millionth time, this guy doesn't want a marriage, he wants a goddamn Woman Cage. If a woman is fleeing your house in distress, maybe she has a really, really good reason.

Divorce lawyers, like any other professional group, will seek conditions that are good for business. [...] When they collude with rage-filled 'feminists' who would gladly send innocent men to concentration camps if they could, the outcome is catastrophic.
I'm not entirely sure what the crazy man just mumbled, but I think it had something to do with how divorce lawyers want to send him to a concentration camp. I'm, uh, not sure I have the intellectual rigor to thoroughly refute his excellent point here.

The concept of 'no fault' divorce by itself may not be unfair. The concepts of asset division and alimony may also be fair in the event of serious wrongdoing by the husband. However, the combination of no-fault divorce plus asset division/alimony is incredibly unfair and prone to extortionary abuse. The notion that she can choose to leave the marriage, yet he is nonetheless required to pay her for years after that even if he did not want to destroy the union, is an injustice that should not occur in any advanced democracy.
This is the one part of the essay where I'll concede he sort of has a point in some cases. Divorce courts do sometimes unfairly favor the woman, based on the idea that she should be compensated for keeping the home and/or raising the children and thus freeing the man to earn more--even when this didn't actually occur. It's wrong when this happens. There. I agreed with something. I'm so reasonable.

I still don't think this proves that our entire society is headed toward Mancentration Camps.

Even if the woman chooses to leave on account of 'boredom', she is still given default custody of the children, which exposes the total hypocrisy of feminist claims that men and women should be treated equally. Furthermore, the man is required to pay 'child support' which is assessed at levels much higher than the direct costs of child care, with the woman facing no burden to prove the funds were spent on the child, and cannot be specified by any pre-nuptial agreement. The rationale is that 'the child should not see a drop in living standards due to divorce', but since the mother has custody of the child, this is a stealthy way in which feminists have ensured financial maintenence of the mother as well.
You forgot to put "feminist" in scare quotes; you're slowing down, buddy. I like the part here where he doesn't mention loving the children or planning to care for them, he just wants to make sure he doesn't owe child support.

What was once the bedrock of society, and a solemn tradition that benefited both men and women equally, has quietly mutated under the evil tinkering of feminists, divorce lawyers, and leftists, into a shockingly unequal arrangement, where the man is officially a second-class citizen who is subjected to a myriad of sadistic risks. [...] Needless to say, this is a violation of the US Constitution on many levels, and is incompatible with the values of any supposedly advanced democracy that prides itself on freedom and liberty.
"Congress shall make no law respecting the right of a man to never have to give up anything that's hiiis, waaahhh, be it money, child, or wholly owned domestic woman."

Anyone who believes that two-parent families are important to the continuance of an advanced civilization, should focus on the explosive growth in revenue earned by divorce lawyers, court supervisors, and feminist organizations over the past quarter-century.
One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong. Actually two of these things, considering how lucrative and sought-after the job of "court supervisor" is.

Simple logic of supply and demand tells us that the institution of monogamous marriage requires at least 80% male participation in order to be viable. When male participation drops below 80%, all women are in serious trouble, since there are now 100 women competing for every 80 men, compounded with the reality that women age out of fertility much quicker than men.
This assumes that 100% of women want to get married, that fertility is a prerequisite for marriage, and that women who are already happily married give a crap about the "market." And even with those assumptions the 80% number is still just pulled out of his ass.

It also ignores the fact that most people have some standards for marriage other than "human of the opposite sex." That is, there will always be far more pairings that don't happen because of incompatibility than because of numerics. I'm not waiting for a guy to come by who's available for marriage, I'm waiting for one that I want to spend my life with! Whether someone I wouldn't marry anyway is available or not means nothing to me.

(There's a link to a hilarious article about men on a "marriage strike" to protest this ridiculous manslaving institution, which must absolutely devastate all the women who were desperate to marry those guys.)

[...] thanks to 'feminism', these women are proving to be poor pilots of their mating lives who pursue alpha males until the age of 34-36 when her desirability drops precipitously and not even beta males she used to reject are interested in her. This stunning plunge in her prospects with men is known as the Wile E. Coyote moment, and women of yesteryear had many safety nets that protected them from this fate.
Dammit, one minute ago you were all "betas just want a woman, any woman, no matter if she even wants to be there," and now you're getting all picky. Because sure you said anyone, but you didn't mean old ladies, jeez.

And wow, Wile E. Coyote moment, you fucking charmer. Do you plan to never turn 35? (Do you realize that married women also turn 35?)

The 'feminist' media's attempt to normalize 'cougarhood' is evidence of gasping desperation to package failure as a desirable outcome, which will never become mainstream due to sheer biological realities.
A boner is a biological reality. Many, many boners are created each day on behalf of women over 35. Also, I'm pretty damn sure that MILF porn and wolf whistles of "wooo, cougar!" are not products of the feminist movement. Perhaps the "feminist" movement; those crazy bitches seem to be responsible for everything from spoiled milk to earthquakes.

A complex sexual past works against women even if the same works in favor of men, due to the natural sexual attraction triggers of each gender. A wise man once said, "A key that can open many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock."
That doesn't even make sense as an analogy. It doesn't make sense for locks, it doesn't make sense that locks would be like vaginas, and it doesn't make sense for vaginas. It is the perfect trifecta of meaninglessness.

Another way to put it would be: A complex sexual past means that a woman is more likely to be hot and confident as fuck in bed, and the same is true of men. A wise man once said, "A dog that eats rocks is contented, but a fish that eats kibble smells like cinnamon."



More coming soon because I just can't look away.

The Misandry Bubble - Part 1!

Oh lord. Before I even start this, I want to make something really clear: this is just a mockery, not a rebuttal. You know the old adage about wrestling a pig? I am not, just not interested in engaging in an open and fair debate on "Resolved: Women are horrible monsters." My monstrous nature precludes it. (Comments on how this failure to honestly engage the serious issues is just typical of a woman can go piss up a rope.)

Anyway if someone has a huge, deep-seated, years-in-the-making problem with women, it's not like I'll find just the right bit of logic to undo it all. Blogging is the fine art of preaching to the choir, and I don't expect this post to transcend that.

That said, let's read The Misandry Bubble!
Executive Summary : The Western World has quietly become a civilization that undervalues men and overvalues women, where the state forcibly transfers resources from men to women creating various perverse incentives for otherwise good women to conduct great evil against men and children, and where male nature is vilified but female nature is celebrated. This is unfair to both genders, and is a recipe for a rapid civilizational decline and displacement, the costs of which will ultimately be borne by a subsequent generation of innocent women, rather than men, as soon as 2020.
Well, I'm glad women are "otherwise good," but I wonder who exactly makes up this state. It's not men clearly, but the women are otherwise good... oh god, it's feminists. The evilest third gender of all.

And I don't like that "the costs will be borne" bit at all. "This isn't really me hurting you, this is just the wages of your sin."

Take a look at the collage of entertainers below, which will be relevant if you are older than 30. All of them were prominent in the 1980s, some spilling over on either side of that decade. They are all certainly very different from one another. But they have one thing in common - that there are far fewer comparable personas produced by Hollywood today.
Yes. Because there are no men on TV today.

A single example like Jack Bauer is not sufficient to dispute the much larger trend of masculinity purging.
Mkay, how about Jack Bauer and Jack Harkness and Jack Sparrow and Jack O'Neill and Jack McCoy and Jack Skellington and that's just the Jacks.

This trains women to disrespect men, wives to think poorly of their husbands, and girls to devalue the importance of their fathers, which leads to the normalization of single motherhood (obviously with taxpayer subsidies), despite the reality that most single mothers are not victims, but merely women who rode a carousel of men with reckless abandon.
Oh yeah, I want to be a single mother when I grow up! It seems so easy and fun! All the joy of tremendous responsibilities, none of the hassle of adult companionship! That's why when I get pregnant I'm going to ditch the father no matter how much he begs and pleads to give me his love and support!

Let us define the top 20% of men as measured by their attractiveness to women, as 'alpha' males while the middle 60% of men will be called 'beta' males. The bottom 20% are not meaningful in this context.
It's good to start your argument by making up numbers, then deciding that those numbers you just made up won't work and throwing out the bits that don't fit. Also, what is with this misery-loves-company 80% shit? You have to be very isolated to believe that, because any observation of a normal social circle would give you some goddamn perspective.

Research across gorillas, chimpanzees, and primitive human tribes shows that men are promiscuous and polygamous. This is no surprise to a modern reader, but the research further shows that women are not monogamous, as is popularly assumed, but hypergamous. In other words, a woman may be attracted to only one man at any given time, but as the status and fortune of various men fluctuates, a woman's attention may shift from a declining man to an ascendant man.
"Research across ants, termites, and bees shows that people naturally live in huge colonies with a queen!"

Anyway, most women have more than one relationship in their entire lives, and that's terrible. How dare they. SLUTS.

What is wrong, however, is the cultural and societal pressure to shame men into committing to marriage under the pretense that they are 'afraid of commitment' due to some 'Peter Pan complex', while there is no longer the corresponding traditional shame that was reserved for women who destroyed the marriage, despite the fact that 90% of divorces are initiated by women.
So do you want to be married or not, dude? In one sentence you're cruelly manipulated into marriage, then cruelly forced out of it. Make up your damn mind!

Societies that enforced monogamous marriage made sure all beta men had wives, thus unlocking productive output out of these men who in pre-modern times would have had no incentive to be productive. Women, in turn, received a provider, a protector, and higher social status than unmarried women, who often were trapped in poverty. When applied over an entire population of humans, this system was known as 'civilization'.
I thought civilization had a lot more to do with farming replacing hunting-gathering, specialization and trade replacing subsistence, and the creation of permanent settlements, but shows what I know.

The key piece of logic here is that a man supporting a family is somehow more "productive" than a single man and a woman supporting a family, or any other arrangement. My only answer to that starts with "productive of what" and ends with marveling at how single men are just notorious for not participating in the economy.

Oh, and the people who invented marriage umpty-zillion years ago did it not to be sure of the paternity of children, and definitely not because anyone wanted to live in a pair-bond, but because they understood concepts like "we have to make the beta males more economically productive," people definitely thought in those terms then. Just as they think in those terms now, really.

Now we get to "The Four Sirens" that are destroying civilization.
1) Easy contraception (condoms, pills, and abortions): In the past, extremely few women ever had more than one or two sexual partners in their lives, as being an unwed mother led to poverty and social ostracization. Contraception made it possible for females to conduct campaigns to act on their urges of hypergamy.
...and that's terrible. Also, wow, "campaigns." Also, do you really want to choose between having very little sex or having nineteen kids?

2) 'No fault' divorce, asset division, and alimony : In the past, a woman who wanted to leave her husband needed to prove misconduct on his part. Now, the law has changed to such a degree that a woman can leave her husband for no stated reason, yet is still entitled to payments from him for years to come. This incentivizes destruction because it enables women to transfer the costs of their behavior onto men and children.
God I wish I were married just so I could get divorced. I fucking love divorce. It's like a chocolate orgasm pizza. Mmmm, shouting and lawyers and loneliness, I'm planning that from the start.

If I were good to my man I'd stay in a miserable, barely-speaking, sleeping-on-the-couch marriage forever, and we'd both be so happy.

(I'm kidding. There's no way this guy would let me get away with sleeping on the couch.)

3) Female economic freedom : Despite 'feminists' claiming that this is the fruit of their hard work, inventions like the vacuum cleaner, washing machine, and oven were the primary drivers behind liberating women from household chores and freeing them up to enter the workforce. These inventions compressed the chores that took a full day into just an hour or less. There was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce, as more labor lowered labor costs while also creating new consumers.
LRN2HISTORYPLZ. Anyway women never stayed home just to wash things all day; there were these little things called "children" that you may have heard of, two points ago you wanted nineteen of them? The amazing labor-saving device that will do their daily care in one hour has not yet been invented.

And "there was never any male opposition to women entering the workforce," besides the surface ridiculousness--DUDE YOU'RE OPPOSING IT RIGHT NOW.

4) Pro-female social engineering : Above and beyond the pro-woman divorce laws, further state interventions include the subsidization of single motherhood, laws that criminalize violence against women (but offer no protection to men who are the victims of violence by women, which happens just as often), and 'sexual harassment' laws with definitions so nebulous that women have the power to accuse men of anything without the man having any rights of his own.
Yeah, just to deal with all these false accusations that happen one million times every minute because as previously established the legal system is just so fun, we should make violence and harassment against women legal. That'd fix it.

Also, a woman beating a man isn't illegal or anything.

There seems to be a strange idea in all this talk of The Scourge of False Accusations that it's not enough for a guy to be acquitted or have charges dismissed; for justice to be done, he has to never be accused at all.

And I know this is just like a woman to say, but I can't hear about The Scourge of False Accusations without thinking that the guy who's so concerned is worried because he likes to abuse women, but just a little, not in the bad abuse abuse way, just sometimes he can't deal with all her manipulation and cockteasing, and he'd hate to be falsely accused of abuse when that happens.

These four forces in tandem handed an unprecedented level of power to women. The technology gave them freedom to pursue careers and the freedom to be promiscuous. Feminist laws have done a remarkable job of shielding women from the consequences of their own actions.
So having nineteen kids, being trapped in a marriage, being unable to work, and being unable to report abuse are the consequences of my actions? Shit, I must have done something horrible.

Women now have as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed, where they can pursue alpha males while extracting subsidization from beta males without any reciprocal obligations to them.
The typical woman in America today is buying Manolos with alimony checks while banging a hockey player. IT'S SCIENCE.


And here's a good breaking point. Or a terrible one? I can't even tell. It's a breaking point, anyway. Let's break.

Cosmocking: June '10!

Purple cover! Pink! She actually looks pretty badass and her dress is this awesome metal beaded futuristic thing, I would buy it! If they made it in Size Fatty! Which they almost certainly don't! "Fun Dates for Under $10!" Free dates are sometimes nice but somehow I would be much more skeptical of a $9.99 date!

Note where his urethra (the hole at the end of his johnson) is located. It should be right at the tip--not down near the shaft--in order to send sperm swimming in the right direction.
This is like dog-show judging instructions. Also, unless he has severe hypospadias, the sperm can figure out their direction just fine. Sperm are actually pretty smart; they don't just go in a straight line and give up if they hit a wall. They're like little Roombas; they can figure out when to turn.

A boyfriend or husband who typically takes straight-on pics of you considers you his equal. But if he often shoots from above (angling the camera down at your head), he might be harboring resentment--like maybe he's pissed because you force him to go to parties on nights he'd rather stay home.
...huh.

He might also be taller than you.

The reason dudes are so optically oriented is that a male brain's "sex processor" (the area responsible for lusty thoughts) is more than twice as large as a woman's.
Everyone knows what I think of this kind of thing, so I'll just say that it apparently comes from this article, which isn't sexist because it's Science. And that article also contains something I hadn't heard repeated as fact since seventh grade:
Studies have shown that while a man will think about sex every 52 seconds, the subject tends to cross women's minds just once a day.
If this is statistically true, there must be a couple hundred women who don't even know that sex exists, just to make up for me.

"During oral, my ex would do what she called the phone-home move. She'd set her phone to vibrate and hold it against my balls as she worked my shaft with her mouth."
See, this is why you should just buy a vibrator, even if that is a dirty kinky thing that only sluts do: owning a vibrator can keep you from needing to fumble with confusing phone menus in the heat of the moment, and from having ball-sweat on your phone.

One of the most underrated positions is The Catcher.
*snickers like an eighth grader*

(And yeah, this is a position where you squat over his dick like a baseball catcher. Hey batter batter...)

So what is important? Well, it's hard as hell to figure out because no dude is going to outright articulate what he needs from you to be happy.
Well, unless you actually talk to each other. But we covered in the last issue what Cosmo thinks of that.

The male mind isn't organized like women's minds are [...] They don't spend time analyzing nuances; to them, things are black and white.
Ladies: I think this is a very sexist and unfair characterization of men. Clearly, as shown in many works of art and writing by men and the experiences of men we all know personally, this is no more true for men than for women.

Gentlemen: MAGAZINE WRONG. MAGAZINE STUPID. THIS FUNNY.

The value men place on autonomy is biological: In prehistoric times, guys who mastered the solitary act of hunting were the ones who survived to pass on their genes.
Do a lot of people even hunt alone today, let alone in the days when personal protection was a pointy stick and carcass transport was a non-pointy stick?

(Also, are humans ever going to get over being cavemen? Sheesh, we've had agriculture for like 11,000 years now, natural selection didn't just stop at that point, you'd think eventually being a competent modern human would have some reproductive value.)

Once you are together, however, [idiot "sexpert"] recommends giving your guy advance warning before doing things you've never done before. "You don't want to overstep boundaries" [...] For example, instead of just sinking your teeth into his shoulder, let him know what's in store by licking his shoulder and saying something like "Mmmm.. you taste so good!" and then giving him a little nibble. If he moans, you know he's into it.
This is not how you give warning or ask permission. You do that by using your words or at least by physically making it clear what you're planning. This right here? Is neither of those. This is a setup for a hilarious story about how his crazy ex chomped on him like a shark out of fucking nowhere.

Focus on your "trigger fantasy": a red-hot, superexplicit, kinkylicious fantasy you can call up when you're on the brink of orgasm but need an extra push. Start by thinking of movie scenes that have turned you on like crazy, then combine and customize details to concoct one that's even hotter, naughtier, and more specific to your tastes.
Movie scenes? Really? Well, I guess that scene in Spider-man where they kiss upside-down is kind of okay. Or the "ass to ass" scene in Requiem for a Dream, of course. Or the bit in Secretary where... actually a lot of bits in Secretary. I'm supposed to combine and concoct here, so I get... Tobey Maguire going ass-to-ass with Maggie Gyllenhaal. Okay, I admit it, I could probably get off to that.

Spend Way Less on Gas
Fill up [your gas tank] in the morning. Since the temp is cooler, gas is denser, so you may get more for your money.
...is this true? Can it possibly be? This is like the insanest thing I've ever heard. This is so insane I might have to do math.

Gasoline has a coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion of 950 x 10^-6 1/°C. That number describes the (change in volume/original volume)/change in temperature. It's awkward expressing this in text, but anyway, this means that a 1°C increase in temperature will increase the volume of a liter of gasoline by 0.95 milliliters.

In other words, if it's freezing in the morning and 100°F in the afternoon, and ignoring the fact that gas station tanks are underground, you would gain 0.6 teaspoons for every gallon of gas by fueling in the morning. With reasonable assumptions about your gas usage and cost, that'll be about... $1.23 saved in a year.

"My friend convinced me to get contacts for spring break, but I couldn't put them in. After 10 minutes of people bitching at me to hurry up so we could get to the beach, my friend came into my room to help. She made me lie on the hotel bed and straddled me. Just as she was yelling 'Let me put this in already!' my boyfriend burst into the room and saw two bikini-clad girls in bed struggling with each other.
Does the person who writes these "confessions" have even the vaguest idea how contacts work?


Near the back, there's a hospital-themed fashion spread. It's all ridiculous and showcases very bad practices of course (IV tubing tied in a knot with a hemostat dangling on it? A Hoyer lift used for traction?) but it's notable for featuring a model attempting to look sultry and smoldering sitting on a CT scanner bed.

The best caption: "She thought he wasn't interested--until he said he would have to sex-ray her entire body."