Archive for the ‘sex’ Category

Sharing a bed without sex

September 15, 2009

Some of you may remember hexadecimal declaring that if a woman took off her panties, got into bed with him, and told him, “I’m not going to have sex with you,” he would “respect” that. That’s when I banninated him, because he was telling women they should feel free to do this because only “a piece of shit” would react any other way. Feminists love to endanger women with this kind of advice. I, the misogynist, advise them not to do anything so dangerous and foolhardy, since the odds are excellent that something bad will happen to them if they do so. Putting yourself in a position where your safety and well-being depends on someone else’s ethics is not a good idea when it can be avoided.

I was reminded of that ludicrous statement tonight when I was catching up on Roissy’s blog. First, this is from a few days ago. A reader emailed Roissy with a question:

The other night I had this 18yo on the back of my car, we had made out a few time. She was naked on the back seat with her legs spread open and her back against the window, I was naked and had just put a condom on, and just when I my dick touched her pussy and I was finding her glourious hole she said ‘Not gonna happen’ to which I replied ‘Well, it is happening’.
She then got dressed, said something to the effect of ‘I lost my virginity 2 nights ago (other guy not me) and im not gonna do it in the back of a car’ and I kept my usual aloofness but inside I was confused as hell.

Fortunately for this stupid cocktease, men have now had decades of hearing about women having clearly consensual sex and then charging them with rape the next day, or women leading them on and changing their minds at the last minute, etc. The guy in my example from the women’s magazine article was in the midst of the Sexual Revolution, constantly bombarded by feminist bullshit about how women have just as high a sex drive as men and want to have fun screwing around just like men do, etc., and he was old enough to remember when women didn’t act like that unless they were sluts who wanted to have sex. He had every reason to be confused. Men today know that confusion is the natural state when dealing with modern women and that they just have to put up with irrational, malicious behavior like this. So Roissy’s correspondent knew that the only thing he could do when this chick gave him every reason to think she wanted to have sex and then announced that she didn’t was to zip up and drive her home.

He behaved rightly, but she didn’t. If a man invited a woman to an expensive restaurant and then told her at the end of the evening that she would have to pay for dinner, what would anyone think? If a man got engaged to a woman and then jilted her at the altar – well, heck, you used to be able to sue men who did that. She knew perfectly well that her behavior was leading him to believe he was going to score. The only possible reason she had for behaving this way when she didn’t intend to come across was that she enjoyed messing with the poor guy’s head.

(By the way, the example I gave from that women’s magazine probably wasn’t a cocktease, just a moron. Feminists told her she could undress and get into bed with a man and expect him not to touch her, and she was stupid enough to believe them. The old rules of behavior for unmarried girls were designed to protect pinheaded females like this. Feminists have robbed those dimbos of that safety and thrown them to the wolves.)

Roissy agrees with me about the proper way to treat women who act like this:

A better response would have been to keep your cool, get dressed, and drive her home silently. She would have gotten confused and asked what was up, at which point you would say “I have to get up early.”

Look, dude, you’re dealing with a Class A skank whore. She lost her virginity two nights ago (if she’s telling the truth) to another dude and now she’s in the car fooling around with you. Chicks like this are master manipulators of male egos. They love the validation they get from hard cocks being pushed up in their faces, and then they power trip by denying those cocks sweet release.

Yes. There’s three ways to respond when a woman pulls this crap.

A piece of shit will rape her, and hopefully will go to jail afterwards.

A mangina will grovel, telling her that he “respects” her, go to sleep, and hope that eventually she will have pity and give him some pussy. (She won’t.)

A man (or dyke) with a spine will throw the bitch out.

Then today, Roissy posted about this at greater length, in response to another reader e-mail.

One crucial beta move jumps out — you let a girl sleep in your bed with you without getting any nookie. In other words, she got everything (companionship, sleep, validation, emotional orgasm) and you got nothing except Olympian blue balls.

A few times in my life a girl I had begun dating attempted this “we can sleep together and cuddle as long as you keep your hands to yourself” routine. This magnificent shit test is just about the most selfishly indulgent act of cruelty a woman can foist on a man. If you ever wondered whether women have *any* empathy at all for how a man feels and thinks, the “sleep but no sex” shit test should answer your question: Women don’t have a clue about the male sex drive, and of those that do have a clue they are cunty sadists if they pull this stunt.

I learned my lesson the hard way (quite hard) and ever since have responded in one of two ways:

1.I left if we were at her place, or I kicked her out if she was at my place.
2.I molested her all night long until she either relented and we screwed or she gave up on her idea of sleeping in my bed peacefully without sex.

Amen. My first girlfriend pulled that shit test on me, and I flunked it. Yes, I “respected” her. Hey, I was infatuated and she was gorgeous and a champion manipulator. After that, I knew better. When later gfs tried to pull that on me, I told them to go the hell home.

When I started reading PUA stuff, I found that some of their principles were things I had figured out about women through brutal experience. It’s too bad I didn’t discover PUA before I got fed up with women, but pussy isn’t worth putting up with women. Not anymore.

Link Dump

August 2, 2009

Carl gave me this link: Breast practice on the riviera. It’s about the topless beaches in France.

In the meantime, far from the Riviera, Les Tumultueuses (Tumultuous Women), a group of radical feminists, has staged several topless actions at Parisian public pools.

At their latest outing, Natacha, one of the group members, explained: “The point of our action is to denounce the ways in which men and women are treated differently. Women’s bodies are systematically sexualized in a way that men’s bodies aren’t.”

What you’re denouncing, babe, is nature. If men didn’t get hard-ons from looking at the female body, the species would die out. If seeing a man of less than movie-star attractiveness made women wet, the species would decline because we wouldn’t be choosy enough to evaluate men’s genetic fitness and reliability as a provider before letting them fertilize us. Political action can’t change this any more than it can make us breathe carbon dioxide instead of oxygen.

I grow so weary of these people trying to change the unchangeable. If they really want something different out of life from what tradition would have granted them, ignoring the facts of reality is a bad start. The biological facts can be gotten around, but not if you’re resolutely ignoring them. These feminist shrews can sling their mammaries around in public in the hopes of being seen as “equal” to men, but the actual result will inevitably be one of two things: if they’re goodlooking, people will think about sex, and if they’re not, people will think about how unattractive they are. A woman who acknowledges the immutable fact that the female body is sexual in a way that the male body simply isn’t (except to gay men) will do what virtually all women do anyway: wear normal clothes that do not draw undue attention to their breasts. Undistracted by their mammaries, the people these women meet will be free to evaluate them by other criteria, such as their work, intellect, personality, etc.

But just try to explain to a feminist that there are any choices other than dressing like a prostitute or wearing a burqua. According to feminists, those are the only two options in existence. It’s especially ironic that they drag this out, considering that they are invariably in favor of allowing those honor-killing ROPers to emigrate to the formerly civilized nations built by Christian men.

I’ve found a couple of interesting blogs: Feminine beauty, which carries articles about the scientific basis of what we perceive as beautiful.

Elysium Revisited, a PUA blog. Not often updated, but that just means you can read the entire archive.

Teacher Gives Sex Tape To 5th Graders On DVD

A local teacher accidentally put pornography into a DVD that was meant to be filled with school memories from the past year, and nobody caught the error until after it was sent home, shocking parents and students alike.

Parents of students who attend Isabelle Jackson Elementary said that the woman is a good teacher, but just made a mistake that may become the most embarrassing moment of their life.

The offending DVD starts with a menu screen that displays various school trips and functions, and when you click on one of them, you see kids in a classroom sharing stories. They start clapping, then the video suddenly cuts to sex.

“It goes from my son, straight to her on the couch,” said ‘Joe,’ who saw the video along with his son and did not wish to be identified. “My son’s reaction was, ‘Dad, is that Ms. Defanti?'”

Parents today see no problem with entrusting their children to whores.

Finally, I have been linked by someone called Theo to “proof” that feminism is a Jewish plot: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Jewish_feminists
Dude, are you sure you’re not a feminist? This is totally their style of logic: 1. Jewish feminists exist. 2. Therefore, feminism is a Jewish plot.

As an exercise, make a list of shiksa feminists. Or examine the Old Testament and see how much feminism you find in it. Matter of fact, I’ve seen essays by Christian feminists who try to evade their faith’s clear instructions about the relationship between the sexes by blaming it all on – you guessed it – The Jooz. If it weren’t for the historical coincidence that, um, God decided that His Son would be born into a Jewish family, then Christianity wouldn’t have inherited the misogyny of The Jooz and women would have spent their lives screwing around out of marriage and being women’s studies professors and senatresses for the past 2000 years.

He(?) also called me an unprintable name, no doubt figuring that this would increase the likelihood of my approving his comment, and suggested I write a post about why women should never have been taught to read or write.

Do I need to point out that the people who espouse feminism and other liberal bullshit are the same gasbags who claim that Israel is a Naziesque state because it heinously defends itself against Palestinian terrorists who are trying to murder all the Jewish Israelis they can? And who generally support allowing terrorism in the Middle East to thrive, terrorism which is a threat to Western countries but a much greater one to Israel? And that most Jewish feminists are the “self-hating” Jews who buy into all that bullshit?

Yes, I probably do.

Defining our terms

July 14, 2009

First, I don’t often link to Dusk In Autumn, partly because occasionally he says really whacked out things, but he sometimes has interesting Roissy-ish things to say. Like today:

The reasons that females police promiscuity are self-interested, not patriarchal

Also, I happened to think about this post I made a few months ago. The post began, “I just came across some idiot male feminist saying on a blog that Superman rescuing Lois Lane all the time is “misogynist”. Got that, boys? If you save a woman from murder or abduction or whatever, it’s because you hate her!”

The poor man was clearly confused, but not only about the proper relationship between the sexes. He also had his feminist keywords confused.

What the mangina doubtless meant was that it was “male chauvinist” for Superman to rescue Lois Lane. Let’s define our terms.

An antifeminist is simply someone who opposes the excesses of feminism. Default female custody, for instance, or the wild increase in false rape accusations. (As an aside: recently I googled “false rape accusation”, and to my amazement, the first ten results Google gave me weren’t feminists expressing fury that anyone admits that such exist, but articles denouncing such accusations [which in addition to destroying men’s lives, also cast doubt on genuine accusations] and sites telling falsely accused men how they can defend themselves and rebuild their lives. That was one of the most pleasant surprises I’ve had in a while.)

I think some of my readers aren’t misogynists like me, just antifeminists who think the women’s movement has gone too far and want to hear something different for a change.

A male chauvinist is a person who recognizes the fact that men are basically superior to women. It’s male chauvinist for Superman to rescue Lois Lane because this implies, correctly, that she can’t do it herself and needs a man to do it for her.

A misogynist is someone who hates women. Not every single woman, but women in general.

A misandrist is someone who hates men. In one of her novels, Marilyn French fretted that there wasn’t even a word for this. There is.

A misanthropist or misanthrope is someone who hates humans. Of either sex.

And as long as I’m defining terms: a feminist is a person who subscribes to the myth that women are intellectually and morally equal to men, and that they can be, not merely allowed, but encouraged to engage in traditionally male pursuits and freed from traditional obligations (such as chastity and child care) without harm to society.

For their own good, women shouldn’t be "liberated"

July 9, 2009

So last night, I kept being distracted from the movie I was trying to watch by thinking over what the poor little feminist dimbo who denounced my post on rape said. The movie was set centuries ago, when people still chaperoned their daughters, so the story kept making me think about that.

You see, that feminist who was insisting that it is in no way confusing to a man – at the height of the Sexual Revolution, no less – to take off your panties and get into bed with him, while telling him, “No intercourse,” is, like the woman I gave as an example, a perfect illustration of why daughters need to be chaperoned.

Before Women’s Lib, things like that didn’t happen, because women had more sense. Unless they were either hookers or total sluts, they didn’t put themselves into that kind of position. And all those dreary old rules, like don’t let your gentlemen caller into your apartment after 6 pm, were intended to protect women who didn’t have any sense.

The woman who spent the night in her boyfriend’s bed wearing nothing but a shortie nightgown is a victim of the lies of feminism. Feminists told the world that women wanted to screw around too, that it was fun, that women enjoy sex just as much and with the same nonchalance as men. Without all that propaganda, neither she nor her boyfriend would have been in that situation. IIRC, she was in college when this happened. She should have been either living with her parents, living in an all-girls dorm with a curfew and a matron to keep the boys out, or married. Instead, feminism deprived her of all these protections and left her on her own to try to figure out if spending the night in a man’s bed put her virginity at risk.

To put this in perspective, pretend for a moment that your thirteen-year-old daughter heads for the door with an overnight bag. “See you tomorrow, Mom and Dad!” she says.

“Whoa, wait a minute, where do you think you’re going?”

“I’m going to spend the night at my boyfriend’s house.”

“…I assume you’re going to sleep in his sister’s room.”

“No, I’m going to sleep with him, in his bed. I’m taking my new shortie nightgown!”

“Put that bag down, young lady. You are too young for sex.”

“Oh, we’re not going to have sex. I told him so. We’re just going to sleep in the same bed. It’ll be fine!”

“…Are you out of your mind? Go to your room. You’re not going anywhere near that boy.”

But the poor young woman who this happened to back in the 70’s, and the silly feminist who denounced me at her friend’s blog, both don’t have judgment any better than that of this hypothetical 13-year-old. It’s obvious that these women need the same kind of protection.

Now, I do think the 70’s rape I discussed needs to be put in the context of the times. Her boyfriend was probably just old enough to remember the old rules: nice girls don’t spend the night with boys, nice girls don’t take off their panties around boys, etc. His generation had a firm set of rules about what nice girls did and didn’t do. If a girl followed those rules, he knew she was “nice” and the only way to get her into bed was to marry her. Usually young men didn’t even try to score with such girls. If a girl didn’t, that meant she was a tramp, and he could press her for sex and hope to get it.

Then the feminists of the Sexual Revolution swept all that hidebound stuff about “nice girls” away. Now all girls, whether they were tramps or not, were behaving like tramps. Of course boys were confused.

If a girl takes off her panties and gets into bed with you, that is a pretty good sign that she wants to have sex with you. Behavioral cues carry more weight than what people say; this is how the human brain works.

If I were in that guy’s position, if a girl did that with me and then refused to give it up, I wouldn’t let her go to sleep, I’d throw her out of my home in disgust.

By now, of course, men have had decades to get used to the fact that women don’t take responsibility for their actions anymore, that they consider themselves completely entitled to give men every reason to think they’re going to sleep with them and then refuse at the last minute. Every young man has also read plenty of articles about women who had sex with men, never in any way indicating that they didn’t want to, and then the following day had them arrested for “rape”. The young man in my example didn’t have that advantage, if you can call it that. He acted according to how the silly girl he was dating behaved, not according to horror stories in newspapers.

F. Roger Devlin illustrated just how young men find themselves falsely accused of rape – by women who never even said “no” while they were taking off their clothes – and pointed out that many co-eds are now discovering that their male classmates don’t ask them out. These young MGTOWs know that their lives could be wrecked if a female feels like being irrational, which most females usually do, so they ignore the nubile young women all around them.

Reasoning with young women about taking responsibility for their own behavior and not giving men the wrong idea is useless, because of the first four words of this sentence. Except in very rare cases, most of whom are either 1) Ayn Rand or 2) lesbians, women do not respond to reason. The silly feminist who blogged attacking me described only how bad my blog made her feel. She described her shock and horror and anger in detail. The only attempt to reason was her assertion that taking off your panties and getting into bed while saying “no” does not constitute mixed signals. Women think that all that matters is their feelings. That’s why when they’re wet, they jump into bed with you, and the next day when they’ve cooled off, they decide you raped them: their feelings, not your actions, are the sole determinant of what happened, as far as they’re concerned. Anyone who’s ever had an argument with a wife or girlfriend has experienced this.

Women need to have mean old oppressive societal rules telling them not to take off their panties and get into bed with a man if they don’t intend to have sex with him. They need to be chaperoned and supervised by their parents until they get married. This is for their own protection.

Yet again, feminist attempts to present their case only proves that women are too silly to handle “liberation”.

Others are noticing the problem!

May 13, 2009

A reader emailed me these links to a discussion about feminist folly at VFR.

Why has the female sex lost its mind?

Advice to young women: you cannot do whatever you like, watch out for yourself

These discussions deal with how patriarchy causes civilization, the lies feminists tell young women, and the many problems caused by female sexual “freedom”. People are even recommending Roger Devlin to each other! I thought only a handful of us MRAs understood these things. I may have to start reading this site, despite my obvious disagreements with the people there.