Tag Archives: Sam in the City
I really should *never, ever, EVER* read “Sam in the City” no matter how faux-progressive she promises or tries to be.
Up front let me say I don’t have the time or the inclination to follow up on her sources and so to comment on those. This is purely about the sort of logic with which she compiles her random tidbits, gives it a title and calls it an ‘article’.
But I’ve got to wonder: of the women nowadays who believe they own their own sexuality (because they sleep with plenty of men and engage in one-night stands), who do they think owned it before? The men? Their parents? The local council?
Yes. The men, the parents, the church, society. Oh the local council oh hardy har har.
You know, despite the *tone* you even think she might inadvertently hit on a good point: that the ‘sexual revolution’/'raunch culture’ has produced abundant benefits for hetero dudes and some rather mixed blessings for many hetero/bi women: giving head to a guy WHEN YOU WANT TO and feeling you’re entitled to enjoy it *is* great – but if the ‘revolution’ (for hetero women only) *only* means that they are *allowed* to play to men’s fantasies all day and every day and that meanwhile the concurrent judgments on *their* character, and the character of those who don’t enjoy it continue unabated and with often disastrous consequences, well it’s less of a revolutionary revolution, and more of a repackaged marketing ploy for masculinity and blokey consuming heterosexuality surely.
So there is a lot to be discussed in relation to the ‘sexual revolution’ and women: the slut/stud dichotomy, ‘slut shaming’, the right to say ‘no’ – at *any* point, and have *that* be fully respected and deferred to, as well as yes, a respect for women FULL STOP, not JUST a respect for their desires and wishes when it happens to coincide with a particular male wish that she get on her knees and enjoy it. I don’t wish to be put in the same camp as Sam here – I’m no crusader for the ‘Good women bake cookies and keep their knees TOGETHER’ camp: I want a respect for women who like it vanilla and a respect for women who like it kinked to the hilt, respect for women enough to know that they all might like it in all kinds of ways/not at all depending on time/context/various considerations, respect for women enough to know that sexual desires and sex acts *do not define them as a type of person*, respect for women monogamous and poly, single and into casual sex, I want respect for women in the sex industry, and for women who don’t like sex at all at all ever, who consider themselves asexual and I want respect for gay/bi/trans* women, I want respect for rights to choose to *be* sexual at any given time and to choose *not* to be sexual/sexualised at any given time.
You’d hope that Sam would be getting into this sort of stuff, but no. It’s a bit of a rant about how the dudes are lapping up the benefits ‘from the club to the bedroom’ – ie/ all dudes are the same, all men exploit, all stripping is exploitation, all sex is exploitation of women, women ‘gift’ sex ‘to’ men, well Hey there Tony Abbott.
While the men are calling these women “loose” (not empowered), the women are failing to understand what the fuss is all about.
“Why can’t I have sex like a man?” they ask. “I have sexual needs too!” the women lament. “But I wanted it just as much as he did … so what’s the freakin’ problem?”
To Tony Abbott, virginity is a “precious gift” that should not be thrown away … least of all before marriage. But to the rest of the women engaging in casual sex, aside from swapping a slew of sexual diseases and feeling used and low the following day, there’s another issue that no amount of casual sex or “owning female sexuality” can combat: “the orgasm gap”, denoting the fact that women are not getting their fair share of pleasure in the bedroom.
Ok now STOP. You’ve lost me and left me in a blind funk of rage before you even introduce your topic du jour. Excuse me while I ask a couple of short clarifying questions:
a/ The rest of the women engaging in casual sex? Is Tony Abbott a woman engaging in casual sex? Or…well what does it mean?
b/ SWAPPING A SLEW OF SEXUAL DISEASES????? Holy FUCK lady! You’re trying to negotiate the flaws of the ‘sexual revolution’ and you decide that all women who ‘engage’ in casual sex are not only SLUTS, but DIRTY, DISEASE RIDDEN, DISEASE SPREADING MENACE-TO-SOCIETY SLUTS??? And you want me to take you seriously as trying to engage with an issue of the imbalance of power between men and women
c/ ‘feeling used and low the following day’. Uh…presume a lot will you? The only way you can assume that a woman MUST feel used and low the day after casual sex is if you think we are all the same, emotion over body, desiring a miraculous love from every shag, secretly wanting marriage and babies where we foolishly deluded ourselves into thinking we wanted to fuck.
So okay, let’s engage with ‘the orgasm gap’ shall we? Personally I think Lily Allen said it better (hat tip to WP and her choice of ‘It’s Not Fair’ at Hoyden Karaoke last weekend) and with much more space for complexity and nuance. It’s entirely possible to love someone who still doesn’t ‘get you off’ – and entirely possible that while you might love them that it’s problem enough for you to resent it and potentially move on – that it’s a legitimate concern to have. And lest I (or Allen) be considered bitchy and judgmental and ‘down on men’ the song is *not* about men trying and failing to achieve a female orgasm for their partner, it is about this guy just not caring about her orgasm – she puts in, he gets off, that’s it for him. Say hello to a frank discussion of ‘the orgasm gap’ – do we have to call it that? It makes me think about hiring policies and employees. Though where the scenario Allen describes is in play, some affirmative action might not go astray.
Researchers from Stanford University have discovered that, while the men are getting off most of the time with a big climax and a smile on their faces, the women engaging in casual sex and random hook-ups are being left without a happy ending (let alone a follow-up phone call!).
I’d be interested to see how much better the researchers found that women in long term relationships were doing in terms of getting what they need from men, but as I said I don’t have time to go hunt all that down right now, and anyway, her presentation of it is horrific enough.
As Paula England, a professor of sociology at Stanford University, recently said, “The orgasm gap is an inequity that’s as serious as the pay gap, and it’s producing a rampant culture of sexual asymmetry.” Yeouch.
(As a side note, I really think ‘Sam’ uses ‘Yeouch’ as a substitute for ‘I simply do not understand this sentence or have the faintest idea of how to meaningfully engage with it’).
Can I just note before moving on that it can only be seen as an issue ‘as serious as the pay gap’ in the context of FIRST WORLD PROBLEMS – I’m ALL FOR orgasms, I’m like ‘Go orgasms, it’s your birthday’ or something to that effect (sorry Willow for butchering Willow-talk). And it is indeed bullshit, and I think it does have major implications for sex, for (hetero) relationships, and (hetero) hookups, for heterosexuality etc, and plays into all kinds of serious stuff. But really – and here I guess I’m broadening pay gap to include sweat shop labour/lowly paid menial tasks etc – you can still feed/house/cloth/seek medical attention if you don’t have enough orgasms, and it’s somewhat harder without money. YES – serious issue. But yes, undue conflation as far as I can see. Any counter arguments? Happy to hear them.
When it comes to returning favours, the women aren’t getting much satisfaction either, with the study finding that women dish out oral sex during 80 per cent of hook-ups, while the men do it back only 40 per cent of the time.
So what’s going on?
Michael Kimmel, author of Guyland, says it’s largely the women’s fault and equates it to doing the housework.
“Men don’t pull their weight on either front because no one makes them,” he says.
A/ giving oral sex is not always about favours, but can be intensely pleasurable for the giver, however B/ yes, I imagine in a lot of hetero relationships there is an inequality in attentiveness which is definitely not cool. But as to WHY is it a big mystery? Hello there partiarchy, male entitlement and the idea that sex is all about the dude blowing his wad. HOW THE HELL CAN YOU TURN THIS INTO A SUPER-SLEUTH ISSUE? and of course, without undue delay C/ OF COURSE IT’S FUCKING WELL WOMEN’S FAULT – IT ALWAYS IS FOR SAM’S “EXPERTS”!!!
But back to the WOTS. Owning your own sexuality and dishing out oral sex are all about choice. Of course no one wants to feel bad about themselves the following day when they discover that doing it like a man wasn’t as easy or fulfilling as they were once led to believe.
By Christ woman! Is it (and I would strongly suggest the affirmative) AT ALL possible that the issue is not that ‘doing it like a man’ wasn’t as easy or fulfilling as we were led to believe, but perchance that doing it with particular men (and indeed for many women with men full stop) is not as easy or fulfilling as we are constantly TOLD to believe?
The solution? Well may I suggest a few – sex with women, sex on your own, sex on your own terms, sex where if the guy is REALLY gonna roll over once he’s ‘done’ that the deal is he well and truly looks after you first, sex with guys if you enjoy sex with guys with men who are NOT selfish bastards? Frank discussions? Ditching men who don’t care, since as Allen says ‘It’s not fair and I think you’re really mean!’ – see despite the slamming of feminists as anti-men, FEMINISTS can point out that NOT ALL MEN just ‘fuck’ you, come and roll over – that there are many men out there who are caring and attentive, sexually generous and secure AND that there are for women multiple options in terms of WHO they have sex with, how, when and under what conditions they do it – and hey, that’s true just as much in casual encounters as relationships I’d wager. I’m not suggesting that it’s easy for women to negotiate these things, cos ‘Hello patriarchy’ but I am honestly sick to fucking death of Sam insisting that a/ all women are straight b/ all men are straight c/ all men are selfish pigs and can’t be expected to *change* that…oh there are so many generalisations I’d be here all day cataloging them.
The one guy who suggests that men in this scenario might want to make some effort has this to say:
“Always call a woman the day after sleeping with her and make her feel good about having let go with you – even if you don’t want to see her again or she doesn’t want to see you again.
And just when you thought *that* was offensive – don’t you know, take time and care to ensure she enjoys everything as much as you, just call her cos she doesn’t really want orgasms, she’s just insecure and needs a call – you get to his REASON for the suggestion:
Don’t ruin her for other guys.”
And THAT is the fucking ball game right there. It’s not about her, it’s never about her, it’s about you, your cock and looking out for other dudes. Chicks are just the commodities you trade.
Fuck you Sam, and fuck your fucking ‘experts’.
It’s here, it’s there, it’s everywhere. Feminists and pole dancing, feminists and ugly bores, feminists neutering our manly men, feminists having changed society into one where the men are weak, meek, utterly unmanly. (Hi, has SHE been reading the news recently?)
She gives one example of one strong woman she knows who also wants the man to pay for dinner – not in reflection that men earn more than women and might care to recognise that occassionally by way of being a little generous at times – but cos she wants a ‘real man’ (and real men apparently foot the bills for food/wine/jewellery). Therefore it is proved: all feminists everywhere demand their men pay for dinners and are therefore hypocrites who deserve to be ignored (and are ruining men, sex and society).
Sam gives us some pearls of wisdom, telling us sadly that some feminists indeed bring their feminism from the boardroom to the bedroom (oh, holy end of the good sex life Batman! Except lookie here: it seems that feminists experienced more equality in relationships and that partners of feminists experienced greater relationship stability and greater sexual satisfaction than with non feminist partners – hat tip Rachel) and then:
Yet the biological truth is that in order for a relationship to have the necessary spark, sexual chemistry and va va voom, there needs to be masculine-feminine polarity – a balance whereby the man exudes masculinity and the woman femininity.
So same sex relationships don’t have that ‘necessary spark, sexual chemistry and va va voom’? Lesbians would be happier with men, gay men with women?
You wouldn’t know your biological arse from your biological elbow Sam.
So being a feminist means being masculine? Having any awareness of your own self worth is akin to having a great big cock? Insisting on decent treatment and noticing inequalities gives you chest hair? If you’re a feminist in a heterosexual relationship does that by Sam’s logic there are therefore two men in your bed, one in a woman’s body? Or that the feminist’s male partner is so ‘pussywhipped’ and ceaselessly ‘meek’ that he becomes the ‘feminine’ one (but that that polarity – of the ‘manly’ woman and the ‘womanly man’ is strictly of the NOOOOO BINGO variety for Sam). Please, your bigotry, lack of logic and bad writing is bumming me.
Masculinity and femininity as traditionally done equals good sex? The bedrock of a healthy happy society? Happy men, happy women, peace and calm across the land? Take a fucking look around. Think about last week’s news.
So far as I can see the majority of men defend their rights to ‘be men’ which rougly translates into being an overpriviledged thuggish arsehole to the death. They bitch and moan about the loss of traditional masculinity – usually in columns to FHM and Zoo. (Do you see where I’m going here). They bitch about it in workplaces with female employees (very few at senior management levels) treating their female coworkers as non people, of *course* their feminine brains accept their superior masculine logic, and their lack of acceptance would mean little seeing as how they have no penis and are therefore illogical beings. They bitch about it at family gatherings – goddamn it those FEMINISTS are ruining my fun – why CAN’T I holler out the side of my car at thirteen year old girls…look how they dress.
And yet…and yet rape stats, domestic violence stats, stalking stats, the amount of gendered abuse online, the male gaze in cinema, mens mags, jokes about fat chicks and feminists and wives are still in fucking GLORIOUS abundance are they not? What MARKERS of traditional masculinity are allegedly gone?
Men are still pushed in to competitive sports, ogling women in ways that objectify and demean them in order to bond with their mates, jokes about women and swallowing their feelings (which leak out in outraged screeching over The Big Nasty Feminists Are Trying To Take My Pee Pee Away) to be more stoic and manly. They’re still encouraged to look at their female partners as their ball and chain, still monitor each other with names like ‘pussy’ and ‘bitch’, still think they earn more because they’re better, still full of unexamined privilege and assumptions.
Women are still pushed into concerns over diets and makeup and hair and clothes and accessories, are still reading ‘The Rules’ and ‘He’s just not that into you’ (how IS that a feminist text Sam). We’re still in lower paid jobs, we’re still at risk of assualt from men we know and love, we still have to listen to sexist jokes in the workplace and watch the poor male host of a major show to examine ad culture can’t quite make the connections (oh, right, damn, fat chick jokes out the window – he actually asked for the list of people he could still make fun of…how’s about get some fucking comedy material?), we’re still emotionally battered with ‘if you don’t have a man, what have you got’, we’re still taught to smile when we’re angry, to laugh when we’re offended, to be nicey-nice-nice and to emotionally care take men.
Where exactly is the evidence of the feminists taking over? Of snivelling emasculated men slavering to gain the favour of the whip holding feminists? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Shut up.
Sam in the City reaches new lows every day. Sometimes she tries to *disguise* the fact she’s a retrograde, woman hater and an eager and willing tool of patriarchal bullshit.
Yep. What’s going *so wrong* in relationships *these days* (forget the stats about domestic violence etc) is that the man feels threatened and emasculated by the reality of a woman who works, is intelligent, has opinions, money and a sense of humour (apparently). It’s funny because they’ve been arseholes about clingy whiny bitch golddigging whores for years, but we’re not here to police consistency in the hatred of women! We’re here to ensure those uppity bitches get BACK in the kitchen where they belong!
Yes, is SCIENCE!!!! Sam says lots of “anthropologists” say so – is the WAY THINGS ARE and if we change it…OMG, lack of balance, chaos, disintegration, mayhem, bloodshed, death, destruction and the end of the world as we know it. But since she doesn’t link to/cite any anthropologists I think I will presume that as usual she can’t even use google and knows shit about shit.
But the advice, from Sam, from the ‘expert’ and the ‘random person’ is JUST STOP BEING YOURSELF. Really. Stop trying to achieve a nice, fulfilling and well rounded life. You will be WAY happier if you pretend to be someone else. Someone quieter. Someone dumber. Someone less fiesty. Someone less funny. Someone who doesn’t give a flying fuck if their needs are met. Someone one dimensional and boring. Someone who NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDS him financially, emotionally and in all ways…who can’t BREEEEEEEEEEEEATHE without him.
According to Sam, men are total arses who only want helpless women who are totally dependant on them. That gets men HOT.
If you are smart, sexy, talented, capable, have a career and can walk and talk at the same time, you are likely to give your man Instant Erectile Dysfunction (and this is very firmly noted as not being HIS problem but yours) AND overthrow the cosmic order. See MEN are supposed to be in charge. WOMEN are supposed to follow. IT. IS. TRUTH. Like in caveman times ok? If we don’t do this, we will likely cause relationship meltdowns, the unhappiness of ourselves and our loved ones, *true* oppression of women, the total *emasculation* of men, and total irreversibly ruinous social decay.
Ok. Perhaps it’s because my man is Dutch and the Dutch have an unassailable view of themselves as really quite awesome and nearly always right, and the makers of far superior cocoa, but my man still manages to get it on with enthusiasm EVEN THOUGH I earn my own money and don’t spend his! EVEN THOUGH I have opinions and keep talking even when I disagree. EVEN THOUGH I MAKE JOKES!!! (OMG!) (Seriously, we are apparently supposed to ‘let him make the jokes). EVEN THOUGH I don’t stupidly pretend every cool thing we do was all his idea. EVEN THOUGH I don’t play dumb arse manipulation games.
Cherry Norris, founder of Dating Director, concurs, surmising that if a woman is too alpha for a man (especially if she decides to project these AF qualities on the very first date), she runs a great risk of turning him off. “He could think, ‘This woman has so much going on that she doesn’t need me. I need to find a woman who’s more available to what I have to offer.’ ” Sound familiar? I bet it does.
“In a convenient relationship, i.e. one in which each partner is equally respected and cherished, there must be some distance based on pragmatic reality,” she writes. “Two people can ‘equally’ disco but they cannot ‘equally’ waltz. A waltz is much more intimate but also much more dependent on each partner sacrificing some personal freedoms for the sake of the dance.”
(By the way, in case you think her theories are a bunch of codswallop, I do like the fact she encourages women not to be so picky when it comes to picking a suitable mate by espousing this little nugget of wisdom: “Don’t give up unless he makes you sick or drives you crazy. Nobody is perfect. If he’s 51 per cent, keep him.”)
Oh ok. So *true* equality is achieved only through the acceptance of inequality? Uh-huh. And Sam approves because not ONLY does she say women exist only to complement (that’s right, to be their perfect complement, I’m not misspelling compliment) their men, and ought to mould themselves, adapt themselves to that sole goal, but she ALSO says you should settle! That’s right…just settle. Don’t ask questions, don’t expect mutuality or meeting in the middle of the road. Just settle. For any random dude that doesn’t turn your stomach and make sure you’re Compliant Barbie for him. That way lies true happiness and REAL equality.
Here’s a little advice:
If a dude is *freaked out* because you have a full life? If he thinks that means there is no space for you to be properly submissive and dependant upon him in order that he can properly extract his dues? Then RUN. Flee, scramble, scedaddle, get the fuck out of there and find yourself a partner who LIKES women to be fully human. And then you get the relationship AND your life. You can have sex AND make jokes. Wowee!
So I’m advocating ditching the waltz, and the men who can’t cope with you making jokes and instead getting into disco.
Ah women…we hold *such* a prized place in society don’t we?
If we diet and exercise we can adorn the pages of men’s mags between the ages of 16 and 25. If we look like what they demand of us they will call us ‘Princess’ for a while. As if the role of Princess was ever good to women, ever allowed them any freedom or self determination.
Even that is only until they’ve fucked her a few times and the novelty is gone, or she says something inconvenient, or she’s not wearing makeup one day. Then they remember how much they HATE the Princess ‘type’: so SHALLOW; all concerned with looks!
Did you notice that? How they demanded what they want: LOOKS (because everyone KNOWS women aren’t real people, don’t have desires/careers/personalities/opinions strong enough that they could possibly bother mine – I’ll take mine straight up hot and otherwise utterly blank, thanks) and they got it, and that they then become angry that what they ordered didn’t necessarily come complete with all the shit they dissed earlier as *chick stuff* in favour of LOOKS? Well hey guys, it might be time to reassess YOUR priorities since you’re the ones sounding pretty shallow here.
Shallow? Where did that come from. Oh Sam in the City’s latest effort, Why the Younger Generation Fail At Relationships. See the thing is she’s looking at young men who wanna hang around Playstations all day (!! Is this even a TOPIC??). Is it their fault that they’re more interested in acting like morons than dating? Or that when they DO date women they treat them like shit? Why of COURSE not!
It’s WOMEN’S FAULT!! How, I hear you ask? Well it’s women’s fault because men see us as “dishonest, self-involved, slutty, manipulative, shallow, controlling, and gold-digging”. I don’t know about you, gentle readers, but I’d call that men’s problematic attitudes to women rather than it being somehow conclusive of men treating women badly being women’s fault.
And the women they would use to back that up? Well let us assume since it’s the same guys that don’t give a fuck about personality/mental health/fulfilled lives/intelligent opinions since all that matters is if a chick is HOT ENOUGH chose women on that basis who are proclaiming they don’t bother since women are disease ridden gold digging whores…that maybe once or twice they got what they wished for. Hot. Perhaps she’s not dishonest at all, maybe all she represented herself AS was hot, which she is, but now you don’t like it that when you’re a pig she calls you on it. You want a ‘traditional woman’ so she’s nice and compliant how you like, but when she expects you to pay for dinner (all nice and ‘traditional like’) she’s a gold-digging whore. You want her to be all Maxim style Up For It Anytime, but when she is she’s slutty. You want her to groom herself out of existence for the sake of your cock, but when she does she’s self absorbed. So basically women can never win? Plain? NEXT!! Hot? SLUTTY SHALLOW BITCH!
Sam goes on to quote a reader. It’s really a simple technique to write like Sam. Pick a topic, any topic that’s likely to sound FASCINATING when you reveal the SHOCKING conclusion that…wait for it…WOMEN ARE TO BLAME, for everything, everywhere, the suffering of men, and their own suffering, the suffering of all women everywhere, and possibly the collapse of the economy too if she can find an angle. So what you do is pretend to examine an ‘issue’. Then you find an ‘expert’ (dude you SERIOUSLY need to examine your ideas about what constitutes an expert, a cock with a typewriter who got published because his wildly misogynistic ideas are already hugely popular? Not so much an expert in anything but wankery) for a soundbite on why it’s women’s fault. THEN she follows it up with some sick-fuck reader to lay it on even thicker about how it’s women’s fault, and OMG Q.E FUCKING D, it HAS BEEN PROVED, CAN I GET AN HALLELUJAH!?
This weeks sick-fuck reader?
“Maybe we turn to video games not because we are trying to run away from the responsibilities of a ‘grown-up life’ but because they are a better companion than some disease-ridden bar tramp who is only after money and a free ride.”
Sam’s response: “Ouch!”. It’s her favourite. It lets her sound like she’s distancing herself from such brutal and as Richie from Crimitism would say bare-knuckled misogyny, while allowing her to include it to underpin her own argument and sail on by. Can’t you just see it? A flip of the hair, a widening of the eyes, and “Ouch!” Sam, he’s talking about YOU here as well as about me and about all women everywhere, it’s your goddamned column could you muster some strength of character and kick his arse for the misogynist prick he is instead of a blithe little ‘ouch’?
Anyway, believe it or not the final straw was a misquote of Beyonce. Yeah, I know. It’s just that, well, this level of misogyny is in its heyday it seems, we’re all discussing Bettina Arndt’s suggestion that women ought to ‘give men sex’ when they don’t want to have sex…I’m reading about feudalism and how women were chattel, women were things men owned to beget heirs ‘on’ them (no, that’s the language used). How has anything changed, except now the priorities of men have shifted and instead of heirs, we chattel are expected to lie back and let our husbands get to an orgasm ‘on’ us – NO. MATTER. WHAT. Cos that’s what it amounts to if it’s sex you don’t want to. We are seen as chattel for men to get off on.
So this level of misogyny…it’s hard to keep on hearing it, to bear it, to see how wildly fucking popular it is, to see more and more evidence of how little women are respected or even seen as fully human, so sometimes when it gets too much I have to kind of blank it out, go numb. For a beautiful explanation of the pain it causes women when they haven’t managed to block it out on a given day, see Helen at Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony’s post ‘You’re Soaking In It’. But this day the rage induced white noise was getting loud enough to do damage (DISEASE RIDDEN????) so I had to go blank, but then this misquote just tripped me up. She researches so very very little that she can’t even get the main line from a hit pop song right (it’s called GOOGLE, look into it shithead):
Sadly, along with Hymowitz, many experts (including Freud himself) blame it on the behaviour of the fairer sex. Case in point: one minute SYFs (Single Young Females) want something casual, a fling, an F-Buddy or a one-night stand because, heck, we’re modern women who can have sex without emotional connection or a ring on our fingers. And the next minute, we find ourselves asking that very same one-night stand what he thinks about marriage, when he envisions himself having kids and how he feels about raising a family in the suburbs versus the city.
Oh, ok dick, except we do fucking NOT so thanks a whole lot for making us all sound both deranged and marriage obsessed as if we don’t have fucking lives of meaning outside the all important fucking MARRIAGE. Like everything else is just a decoy that we can drop once we’re married, because marriage is SO GREAT for women! (LOOK AT THE STATS! SHIT! Men live longer, women less long if they’re married, men’s finances recover more quickly than women’s, men go for round two quite quickly, women do not – hat tip to Wildly Parenthetical for this last point).
Then she UTILISES Beyonce for this bullshit and says:
As Beyonce recently crooned in her new go-girl anthem, “If you like what you see, put a ring on it,” encouraging women to dump a dude who refuses to propose. (No wonder we’re all single.)
Except that she DID FUCKING NOT!!! I’ve been at the gym a lot and that song is literally ALWAYS on, and she DID FUCKING NOT! I can’t get the goddamned song out of my head, and I was scandalised on first listen, but I’ve looked it up and she DID. FUCKING. NOT!
It’s about being out dancing and her ex is there and is getting jealous that she’s dancing with another guy, and she’s saying get out of my face, you had me for three years and you weren’t very nice to me then, you don’t own me, and maybe if you wanted to ‘own’ me, to be able to treat me like an ‘object’ you should have ‘put a ring on it’.
Now it may be too much to hope that it’s also a critique of the institution of marriage and the way it reduces women to objects men now officially own (though it does seem to be a bit of an anthem to the single ladies to stick up for themselves and NOT be *owned*, and not let dudes act like commitment is HER desire and pathology, and he wants nothing to do with all that, and to treat em like shit and also THEN get all possessive of those women they’ve not wanted to commit to in any way), but she is still NOT singing that men can window shop and slap a layaway tag on some chick they see walking down the street, which is what ‘If you like what you see put a ring on it’ suggests – it’s a song of get out of my face fuckwit, you had me, you took me for granted, I’m moving on and you can just fucking DEAL. Possibly somewhat problematic in what it may suggest about marriage, but it’s NOT what Sam suggests, the line is “If you liked it you shoulda put a ring on it” – ie/ if you liked WHAT WE HAD, if you liked BEING WITH ME, if I AS A PARTNER meant all that much to you, maybe instead of treating me badly and letting me go you ought to have worked on it then, so now you can take your jealousy and go fuck yourself.
Is it too much to ask that Sam does a quick Google before she just ASSUMES that Beyonce is as much of a passive, simpering lapdog of misogyny as she is? FUCK!
February 24, 2009 Is smart the new sexy and other FASCINATING questions! Fuck the Sams, and why I’m gonna be light-on with the posting
So I won’t be posting much in the next little while. My laptop just died. Just like that! It won’t be back til around Monday I think.
Also am enjoying of the exercise and study, and hanging out with mini FP and attempting to persuade him that homework is both delicious and nutritious.
So check *THIS* out: Sam in the City dissecting the allegedly “very real” debate of smart v sexy.
For my money, stupid is the biggest turn off so whatevs Sam and most of us have our heads around the fact that it’s entirely possible to be both smart AND sexy.
Sam uses the word lecherous in a way that brings to mind the quote from Inigo Montoya. No, not “You killed my father, prepare to die” though I’d happily swordfight with her, but rather ”You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means”
And then of course there is Sam-I am SO a Feminist You Whinging Humourless Feminist FatArsed Dyke-deBrito expounding on the inequality of the sexes, and how COME chicks can watch SatC and he can’t say he’d never date a fat arsed biatch??
This is a spectacular return to form for deBrito, it’s the barely concealed anger and *OMG me TOO is a victim* that make this in my mind the Nessun Dorma of whitebread shithead oped vomit.
Women, however, are ones who buy the magazines, clothes and potions that drive this ‘ideal’; men like me, who are attracted to it, are merely the by-product.
Ahhh…I see…the mags MEN buy have NO INFLUENCE. Posts like this don’t contribute to it. That women are fully REQUIRED day after day to regulate their food, their exercise, to buy lotions and potions in order NOT to attract the derogatory comments of you and your wanking mates has NOTHING to do with it. Women are the ones who set up this system and poor men would LOVE to be able to get off with our horrible womanly bodies, but they’re broken victims and they JUST CAINT!!! Ah fuck off with your idiot self.
What happened deBrito? Finally figure out that all your smoke-and-mirrors, Yes Officer, I’m a Feminist wasn’t gonna get you into Emily Maguire’s pants?
So Sam in the City asked the question “Is it worth dating a divorced woman (or man)?”.
It’s probably unnecessary to tell you she doesn’t answer what is a ludicrous question to begin with.
As far as Sam goes, it’s – well it’s almost a radical feminist moment by her standards. She actually engages with the fact that the myth is that through divorce women get it all and live a life of luxury, that less than a third [this is apparently in the U.K] get any maintenance, and over a quarter end up living in poverty. Now I’m never that sure of Sam’s studies and stats, but fuck me, she’s dug up and published one that doesn’t trash the women as greedy, ballbreaking shrew bitches!
Really, as a divorcee myself, I’d suggest you don’t follow either suggestions of Sam here:
Either avoid the topic altogether and pray to the relationship gods that your date never checks your personal records. Or, get it out in the open within the first few sips of your vino so ensure oh-so-coquettishly that there are no secrets between you too.
Ok, stop. First of all checks your personal records??? I reckon any argument starting with ‘I went through your documents/I hired a detective/I looked you up through Births, Deaths and Marriages and you were MARRIED??’, ends with ‘You’re fucking insane and a stalker and you’re upset about the marriage?’. You win any argument that starts that way. SHIT!
Second…I don’t think that the other option to keeping it a deep dark secret is to blurt it out on a first date. What the fuck? A/ on a first date how is it their mother-fucking BIZNEZ? B/ Just…don’t for fuck’s sake. A first date generally speaking is about banter and flirting with maybe a hint of anxiety-induced nausea. I’m prepared to accept there’s all kinds of first dates, all kinds of topics that might feel natural and acceptable, but I don’t think that screaming “BEFORE THE SHRIMP COMES OUT YOU SHOULD KNOW I’M DIVORCED” is really the conversation starter you’re looking for here.
Then there’s some generic boring crap filler (no, really!) then THIS:
I reckon the most important tip for divorcees, and anyone looking for a new relationship really, comes from US matchmaker Patti Stanger (of the hit reality television show Millionaire Matchmaker) who says that there is to be absolutely no sex until you’re in a “committed monogamous relationship”.
So first she just obliterates any consideration of the specific pressures on divorcees (or whether they’re worth dating) to dole out her inane uber-prude advice.
Second. WHAT? God DAMN this woman is a prude.
Third…you want people to commit to monogamy and a serious relationship BEFORE they have sex? How exactly are you supposed to discover you like someone enough to get serious, to commit to them in any way if you aren’t sleeping together? I would imagine it ends up being advice to dangle the possibility of sex in front of someone in order to lock them down and extract promises, which – YUCK!
Where are the spaces for different kinds of relationships, different times and spaces? Different ways of dating? Shit. Perhaps if your sole goal was getting re-hitched you’d listen to her…but even then…it feels like headfucking and manipulation to me.
So here’s my sex advice: if you like someone, if you’re having fun, if it feels right to you, feel free to have sex. Regardless of whether you’ve been married before or not. And if you have some ‘secret’ like ‘Once I was married by I didn’t like it so much’ or ‘I have a secret stash of James Blunt cds’ , well for fuck’s sake!! You don’t need to blurt out your secrets on a first date.
IF you get to know one another well enough that you think it’s any business of the other person’s, then tell them, but IN YOUR OWN TIME! If you feel a need to ‘confess’ then I’d suggest not putting it off for so long that it feels like you’re about to confess to killing their pets, making their pelts into vests and hiding the bodies down the back of the lounge, but god! If some person you’re just getting to know gets angry and all up in your face that you didn’t lay out your Virgin Credentials or lack thereof prior to sharing your first meal? I reckon I’d be thanking them for a nice time and getting the hell out of there.You don’t need other peoples absolution for previous relationships. Shit.
And finally, what a shit stupid question to begin with.
You like the person or you don’t.
Sam Brett is so FULL of bullshit contradictions. Let’s sample just a few shall we? Let’s call it the degustation approach.
A wise friend once exclaimed that a woman’s emotions become a man’s burden. When she says those three magic words – the ones that contain eight letters, three syllables and enough baggage to weigh down a 747 – and he’s not ready to hear them, a man can suddenly feel as if he’s been trapped inside a velvet prison. Especially if she’s lying on top of him, butt naked.
Just a warning. If you EVER use the phrase velvet prison in front of me I will wholeheartedly barf on your shoes. If you write it and I read it, I will barf on my own and mail them to you.
Oh yeah, then there’s the whole boring, overdone blah blah, women always say/think I love you “too early”, blah, “I love you from a woman=baggage not actual love” (because women can never be straightforward)…blah blah, if you say it ‘when he’s not ready to hear it’ you’ve done wrong/committed a relationship sin/he’ll run a mile (because women are ALWAYS at that point before men, because men are emotional cripples, because men’s “readiness”, men’s timing, men’s comfort is the ONLY readiness/timing/comfort that counts. If he says it and you’re not ready…well Sam can’t comprehend this notion, I think her head would explode…can we try it?).
[More fake 'Only in the world of Sam' conversations]
“Women always try and put things into boxes,” explained a male dating expert when I asked his opinion. “They’re always trying to define things way too early when it sounds like this woman has only just met this man. If she even so much as mentions the ‘L’ word, he’ll run the other way. He’s only thinking about getting laid. Not having her babies. Ever.”
Ah, yes. Thankyou Male Dating Expert. Because:
sex=totally meaningless, devoid of emotion, just about the orgasm=masculine desire=all men everywhere are the same
Anything ‘more’ than “meaningless” sex automatically equals BABIESBABIESBABIES. Women don’t have lives/careers/desires beyond OH BAAAAAAABEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESS!!!!! SO CUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUTE!!! (We don’t likes sex, we just wants to make teh BAAAAAAAABEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSS)
And of course babies=meaningful=EVERY WOMAN’S DESIRE IN HER HEART OF HEARTS WHETHER SHE KNOWS IT OR NOT.
Cos (they’re telling us) that all men SEE women as tits and vag on legs, but all men KNOW they’re walking talking uteri just ACHIN’ (yup yup) for some reproduction (yup yup).
Because women never want just sex (and when they do they’re sluts and we should punish them for being man eaters).
Women want LOVE and BABIES and MARRIAGE and FOREVER…they want your SOUL!!!
And men NEVER want companionship/friendship/laughter with a woman, men can never conceive of the woman they want to shag as a whole woman, men NEVER see women as women, in the logic of Sam they seem them as holes to jerk off into.
Sounds familiar? That’s because scientists reckon this irrational female response to sex isn’t exactly her fault. Instead it’s the fault of the female limbic system, which, after sex, or flirtation, or even a text message with one x too many, releases a bunch of irrational hormones leading to the belief that she’s met her soul mate. Even if he’s only after some late-night nooky
Which scientists? Which hormones? What limbic system? What papers? What evidence? What the fuck are you talking about you dipshit?
Here we cross into the section on “Invitation to sex”. Now…you and I move in the world where men and women do actually manage to have discussions (hell, in our world men and men do and women and women, but you know, we’re dealing with SamLand here) but in the land the Dating Experts ‘study’:
Which brings me to the moment two people first lay eyes on each other. You see, men abhor rejection. They’re unable to make the first move without a clear signal from the opposite sex. Hence scientists have come up with the top ways to tell if a woman is into a man and it’s mostly through her sexual body language.
A woman will show a man she’s into him through a range of physical cues: by licking her
lips, touching her lips, putting on lip gloss or pretty much doing anything that may require her mouth, such as sucking seductively on a straw or eating her food playfully. More subtly, she’ll cross and uncross her legs, play with her hair and make lingering eye contact. But don’t take her smile for an indication she wants to sleep with you. Oh no, that’s strictly the male’s domain.
So her sexual body language as studied by “scientists” (ahem) show that she wants you real bad when she does all this.. (lending scientific credibility to the notion that women might say one thing and mean another borders awfully close to propping up rape logic). Again, WHAT science, which scientists, what study. But going against the ‘science’ she just used to back herself up to prove that a woman doing these things wants teh seks; Sam surmises that she doesn’t want teh seks.
Now read THIS:
Dudes, on the other hand, will frequently smile, talk to a woman while looking at her eyes and face (if he actually focuses on what she’s saying, then it’s a telltale sign he’s into her), while any form of touching, asking for her number or calling her the next day are signs he not only wants to sleep with her, but he might actually be interested in getting to know her first.
But HUH??? Men NEVER want anything beyond “just sex”, and WOMEN mess things up by being interested in men as people!!! That’s the LAW, it’s SCIENCE!!!
Again, that lovely false dichotomy (because she likes to pretend she’s hip to the Man-logic but she’s actually a fucking prude): if it’s in any way ‘real’ sex must wait, if sex happens too soon, it’s meaningless, *just* orgasms, the woman will make a fool of herself and the man will go cold. By this stage I’m crosseyed at her ‘logic’.
Blokes can forget those poignant opening pick-up lines they so habitually practise, because it’s the first kiss that says everything to a woman. From the very first snog, men need to beware: women are judging a man by his genetic compatibility. Yep, according to psychologist Professor Gordon Gallup at The State University of New York, Albany, women are searching for olfactory, chemical and tactile cues from the very first kiss in order to “make a determination about instances of potential genetic incompatibility”.
Damn straight the first kiss is important…but that’s cause I want to know how we kiss together. I want to know if it makes me reel with dizzy anticipation, if it makes me grab that person and pull them to me, or if I go…’Ewww….that was wierd’. It’s only happened twice in my life, but it was distinctly…not happening. But “GENETIC INCOMPATIBILITY”????
I want to know if the kiss will light my fire, I want to know the effect my kiss is having. And that is ALL. If I am not intending to breed again then WTF is with genetics? And compatibility? Well call me old fashioned, but I’d rather determine that sort of shit by years of jokes, discussions and laughter…that’s the only way I can think of TO discover it…and WHY is she making the AIM and measure of all things, the LONGTERMNESS? Can ye not be compatible for a six week fling?
Nope, grunt, grunt, it’s all evopsych bullshit here.
Sounds a little complex to me since men, on the other hand, can actually forego the first kiss altogether and instead head straight to the sex part. Or, if they have to engage in a pre-sex snog-fest, may do it only as a “means to an end”, Professor Gallup says. “Males tend to kiss as a way of trying to gain sexual favours, and also to attempt reconciliation.”
Ok, WOMEN are allowed to like sex, and MEN are allowed to like kissing.
What about all those wonderful hours spent smooching in adolescence? Were the boys who kissed me for hours deficient/not real boys? Would they have grown out of this now? What the fuck is with this wierd hardline delineation between sex and kissing? And wow…men are all manipulative, and are so unmoved/left cold by kissing that they only deploy it as a tactic of manipulation? WHAT. THE. FUCK.
After sex, a man’s dopamine levels drop dramatically, making the woman he’s just bonked less attractive, less desirable and with a less of a chance that he’s going to call her in the morning.
Well, for thos of us without your dazzling familiarity with science Sam, could you perchance include links? To this proven scientific FACT? To hard evidence that dopamine means waking up and being revolted by the chick you banged? That men are all just hormonal dupes?
If men are all hormonal dupes, then why is it that women are painted as irrational for being influenced by THEIR hormones? If we’re equally slaves to our genes/hormones, then perhaps Sam has it all backwards? And MEN are the ones fucking everything up? OR we could all be capable of being fully functional humans??? Influenced by hormones and other factors, but not utterly at the mercy of them?
I just really hate this woman and her writing, the disgusting dismissal of women as rational beings, the revolting reduction of men to total animal status. The reduction of all human sexual interactions to the guy gets his rocks off and just wants the chick to ‘shut up’ now she’s done her job. It’s sickening
Ok…yet again shall I say I don’t have a problem with people getting turned on by voyeuristic images of people having sex…what I *do* have a problem with is the culture of debasement that appears connected to it. Every fucking day some douchehound finds my blog by searching for things like ‘Underage girls love to fuck daddies’, ‘car rape videos’, ‘grandma raped while she screams’.
If you try to find just ‘regular’ sex [and oh thank god I re-read this, I need to edit to note that I do not mean by this hetero man on top missionary position sex, I just mean sex, whatever your flavour of the day which is consensual and mutually enjoyable, between adults no matter of what gender/how many/what have you], you’re bombarded with ads for ‘tiny girls and MONSTER COCKS’, ‘young sluts totally pwned’, ‘ass pounding with vomit’ etc. Even on amatuer porn sites, all the tags are still geared to this mentality of “They’ll only watch if it’s debasement of the woman”. I am no motherfucking prude people…I don’t give a SHIT about anyone watching people have sex…what I DO give a shit about is rape culture and it’s goddamned monopoly on porn.
And then there’s the whole “Oh but it’s not porn, it’s just pornified, photoshopped women in little to no clothes posed in ‘hey fuck me up the arse Mr’ ways”…like men’s mag pics, right? Like Zoo right? With their charming little “Come Wank Over the Chicks Men Killed” feature. Right. You get to claim it’s not porn (it’s just nekkid pornified chicks for the purpose of wanking) to assuage your unease/guilt, except it’s STILL PEDDLING DISRESPECT FOR AND OBJECTIFICATION OF WOMEN AND RAPE CULTURE.
“Men want to look at naked women, it’s normal” is the usual defence replete as it is with compulsory heterosexuality, and you know, whatever. Except you’re NOT looking at women are you? Women come in all shapes, sizes, colours…we eat, we work, we think, we argue. We have laugh lines and frown lines, and scars, and bodies capable of lugging our heads around. Because we’re people JUST LIKE YOU. You’re looking at a tiny select number of women, selected for their conformity to current standards of beauty whose profession is to not eat, to exercise ridiculous numbers of hours away at the expense of actual careers and life concerns and who EVEN THEN have curves erased, thighs ‘trimmed’, blemishes smoothed, have anything that marks them as different from a mannequin or a blow up doll erased, all for your visual stimulation because the most important thing in the world is YOUR BONER and you couldn’t POSSIBLY get it looking at a regular chick.
Sam in the City writes another half arsed opinion piece on porn. She cites Dr Robi Ludwig – psychotherapist, author and TV personality for couples who live in New York’s Upper West Side. (Who knew couples on the Upper West Side now need their own TV personalities?)
Dr Ludwig’s professional medical opinion is thus:
“I think all men look at porn,” she says. “Some men are more addicted and obsessed than others, but I think some men look at porn. So what?”
Well which is it dipshit, some men or all men?
So, you know, wevs, so what indeed…except really what about the *nature* of porn, of the porn they watch, or of masculine culture the connection between sex and degradation that means you need to go further and further to get the same perverse thrill?
Oh, well Dr Ludwig has an opinion on that:
She says that a man’s affection for porn is due to the enjoyment he gets from watching women being objectified, and the male being in a position of total control.
“It somehow hits the pleasure spot in their brain,” she tells me. “They identify with the male protagonist and it allows them to feel powerful and important. I think also these women are sexual objects and they get to play out fantasies in their brain that they wouldn’t get to play out with real-life women.”
So what indeed! So WHAT if men can only get turned on by turning women into objects, into things? So WHAT if men have such fucked up attitudes to sex that they equate sex with dirtiness, perversion, punishment? So WHAT if playing out scenarios in which the woman is utterly debased, humiliated and hurt for their jerk-off-pleasure makes men feel all STRONG and POWERFUL? So WHAT if that spills over into real life like when men rape strippers and scream they deserved it cos they’re sluts? So fucking what says the…tv personality for couples on the Upper West Side.
I really wish that fuckwits like Sam and Dr Robi fucking Ludwig, TV personality and therefore dispenser of all KINDS of wisdom would stop fucking pretending that what’s at issue is jealous deluded unrealistic whiny chicks who can’t handle that their man (again, responding to the compulsory heterosexuality here) handling his member if he’s not thinking about them. Fucking goddamn it. Beat it all day long if you like. Think about the rest of the goddamned universe if you like. Then I can agree ‘So what?’.
But fuck me dead, this does not happen in a vacuum, disconnected from society, disrespect for women, an lo I say it again: RAPE CULTURE.
At best we have the situation where all day long, every day we’re reminded that we are shiney little trinkets in a man’s world. We’re irrelevant if we don’t brighten the landscape for them, and if we do, we’re just another nameless faceless shiny little thing, to be objectified, wanked over, spat back out, not really people. We’re ranked and compared, having our noses held mercilessly in the knowledge that we’ll never ever be young enough, thin enough, perky enough, shiny enough, subservient/acceptable ‘sassy’ enough to covet the five minute prize of HAWT CHICK…there’s always some other New Object just rushing along to supersede you. And you can do all you want in other areas, but it’s a man’s world, and women are there to be HOT or to fuck off. Kick out the biatch and bring on the porn.
And then we have the porn issue. Leaving aside the fucking cliched aesthetics of *ugly dude bones woman who’s been freshly blowdried, manicured, and donned with tacky gold jewellery who mysteriously happens to enjoy a good dose of jizz in the face every night*, let’s look at the fucking power dynamics. Women are the holes, the receptacles, the object on which to act out all manner of degrading filth. The more she looks uncomfortable the better it is. Cos they’re disgusting sluts to be punished or the frigid bitches who want to take away our porn. Oh looky there, damned whores and god’s police.
So…when this culture is fucking EVERYWHERE, don’t you two morons be up in my face about how it’s all just the bad naughty girlfriend come to confiscate men’s toys.
November 25, 2008 WHOSE fault is it that your husband is a cheating prick who humiliated you by conducting an affair behind your back for years? Why YOURS of course!
Why am I EVEN surprised? I’m not actually…but I am sure as hell not going to NOT point it out.
Sam in the City ponders (in depth) “Who’s really to blame for an affair?”
Yes, before you ask it IS exactly as bad as you think…she just pretends for a while that’s not where she’s going.
So Gordon Ramsay’s been fucking around.
There appears to Sam to be an unprecedented SPATE of this!!! OMG cultural PHENOMENON!!
Is it the *Other Woman*’s fault? Is it YOUR FAULT as the wife??? (Here she pretends to shy away from this even though WE ALL KNOW it’s her ultimate conclusion and I just LOVE that she bounces from one woman to the other without pausing to reflect on the guy that is the one who actually broke the promises here).
Nooo, HONESTLY, *I* don’t think it’s the wife’s fault, *I* don’t subscribe to this….but…really…I heard a story, right and in this story a guy tried to cheat cos his wife was away for two weeks…so this made me think right? If he doesn’t get it at home… (um, what? She was away on a two week holiday who SAID he didn’t “get it at home”) does he feel “the need to stray”. (Oh poor MENZ!!! NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS to live lies! Couldn’t make a choice! Couldn’t be HONEST! Couldn’t have a wank and a nap! Couldn’t grow the fuck up and go pursue an unattached status where he’s free to sleep with whomever he chooses if that’s what he really wants! Coudn’t give his wife a fucking CHOICE in any of this!)
She never even pauses to think that maybe it’s not about the wife/her not ‘putting out’, that these men may well have had a rollicking sex life with their partner…but maybe he’s just a prick? Or maybe it’s about masculine culture and a sense of entitlement? Or maybe…no, too hard…let’s just blame the woman he’s humiliated and decieved. Excellent.
Oh also? When you as a woman are shocked and appalled at a married male friend hitting on your while his wife is away and tell him in no uncertain terms that it’s inappropriate and you are most certainly not intererested? Well you OBVIOUSLY are a liar who subconsciously led him on – and no amount of protesting on your behalf makes a difference since a random dude who doesn’t know you asserts that:
“She must have been doing something to lead him on in the first place,” he explained. “Because men abhor rejection. They must have seen each other in a previous scenario and she may have been giving him the eye. Men aren’t going to start something like that if they weren’t getting the signals.”
Um, if you don’t mind, I’ll beg to differ here as the recipient of MANY unwanted and upsetting advances, both verbal propositions by married men and the upsettingly taken-for-granted-as-normal groping/grabbing/molesting in clubs NONE OF WHICH involved any leading on, any eye-giving, any ANYTHING.
How is this not rape apology logic??
* OH, men KNOW the signals they’re getting more than women KNOW the signals they’re giving*. By this logic whatever a woman says/does/screams NEVER EVER MATTERS cos a man KNOWS when he’s wanted, and SHE STARTED IT and he’s a fragile little puppy and wouldn’t TRY anything otherwise!
Just fuck off and die.
[Oh and anyone who thinks I'm a little *over the top* with the anger/the rape association? Yeah, maybe I'm just fucking grumpy and worn down by pricks finding my site with searches such as 'Fuck granma screaming whle she's raped', 'rape in car videos' etc]
The wankers of the week awards go to:
Russell Brand and Jonathon Ross for this fucking crap. Obviously the logic is, if a woman refers to herself as a slut, she’s a worthless piece of shit, to be disrespected and punished and is fair game for moronic jokes of all kinds. Including the kind where you harrass an old man by telling him you fucked/enjoyed his grand-daughter. The clear butt of the joke is he ought to feel shame for having such a ‘slut’ of a grand-daughter, that she is not a proper woman or a proper relative. FUCK YOU TWO PRICKS!
Uniliver for the ad suggesting that women ‘fuck men up’ and men’s lives would be simpled up so much if women were like pot noodle soup. Including, yes, being kept in a cupboard. If you want to fuck a bowl of noodles, or some other inanimate object then go right ahead, but if you want the benifits of a relationship with a real live woman then get some fucking respect quick smart. Or be left to jerk off in the dark in misogynist bitterness after a bowl of those lovely cardboard-tasting unilever products.
Sam in the City for this piece of truly misogynist horseshit. It deserves a post of its own, to examine how any woman human hack op-ed writer could feel comfortable being so contemptuous of all women, everywhere and perpetuate and reinforce such particularly damaging stereotypes of women. (We nag, we can’t help it, we love it, we enjoy to make the men miserable etc etc). So if I have time later I’m going to tear that piece of crap to pieces.
The arsehole who thinks no-one knows s/he found my blog by the search ‘raped while she sleeps free videos’. Rape is NOT entertainment. Go learn that pretty please and I will endeavour to remind myself that violence is NOT something to be embraced, even in your case.
The workman who worked past last week and informed me he had a ‘surprise for me’ and it was a ‘big one’. And his two friends for not saying something to him. You think women don’t KNOW that’s a reminder he could rape me if he wanted to? Disguised as a little joke? “I have a cock and it’s huge, and I love seeing your fear and discomfort”??