or Why Slut-Shaming Doesn’t Work
Slut-shaming, by its very definition, attacks women more than men.
If the point of shaming is to decrease the targeted behavior, it follows then that women should be having less sex than men. But following the shame train of thought down its reprehensible rabbithole, who then would be left for all those man-studs and man-whores to have sex with?
This leads us to one of two conclusions:
1) Everyone is having less sex.
If women get slut-shamed more than men, and this shaming works to encourage women to stop having so much sex, overall heterosexual sex rates will go down because there will be fewer women-sluts for those man-studs to have sex with.
2) Slut-shaming doesn’t work.
If heterosexual sex rates do not go down, obviously the slut-shaming is not having the desired effect. The ‘slut’ is stronger than the ‘shame.’
This 2013 study from George Mason University shows that shaming actually encourages the shamed criminal to return to his bad behavior:
“The distinction between shame and guilt may seem at first like semantic hair-splitting, but it’s actually very important in studying punishment and rehabilitation. Feelings of guilt are focused on a particular act: ‘I did a bad thing by stealing (apples).’ By contrast, feelings of shame focus painfully on the self: ‘I am a bad person because I stole (apples).’ When people are guilty – as proclaimed by a judge, for example – they experience remorse and regret, and they want to make reparations. But people who are shamed feel generally diminished, worthless – and defensive.” (Emphasis mine.)
Which leads us to conclude that slut-shaming is an all around bad idea: it makes people feel of less worth (bad for the -shamed), but it doesn’t actually change their behavior (bad for the -shamer).
- Maybe slut-shamers would be better off as slut-guilters – focusing on the behavior instead of the person. But that would require them to actually care about changing the behavior instead of just making the other person feel bad.
- Maybe this important distinction shows up slut-shamers for what they actually are interested in: diminishing the slut, not the sluttiness.
- But most maybe of all, maybe evolution will eventually sort out slut-shaming like it already has with other vestigial appendages of dysfunctional human society.
- Like religion and muscles.
or Your Exhausting Social Responsibility Towards Everyone and Why People Who Build Treehouses Are Happier
1. You have no social responsibility towards trees.
You don’t have to care what they think or say hi to them when you walk by. When trees sneeze in the woods, no one says ‘Bless you.’ You can be naked around trees or be angry or be high. You can be you around a tree – with no fronts with no pretend with no masks. You don’t customize your presentation, hygiene, outfit, personality, sex appeal, facial expression, voice, habits when a tree is in the vicinity. You don’t care how you look to trees.
2. You can’t treat people like trees.
It’s considered rude to ‘treat people as if they didn’t exist.’ This means constantly altering yourself slightly due to nothing more than the presence of another person. You have to constantly be smiling at them, judging whether they are weak/infirm/old/fragile enough to deserve your seat or your care, censoring yourself in various ways to suit their temperaments. Their existence causes you to act/smell/talk/be differently in a way that the existence of a tree would not.
3. There are too many people to have a realistic social responsibility toward all of them.
You can’t tailor yourself to suit the tastes of seven billion people. Whether you want to or not, whether you have amazing social skills or not, whether you look good from most angles or not, you just don’t have 7,000,000,000 smiles in you.
It’s impossible to make sure seven billion people get a seat. It’s impossible to look good from seven billion angles. And even if you never said or did anything at all, someone would still be disappointed with you for it. The world’s too big to give everyone the correct amount of social consideration and respect that they require. Even the average of 80,000 people you will interact with in your lifetime is still too big a number to realistically get right.
4. You have to treat some people like trees.
There’s no way to avoid it. The more people there are and the more you get to know, the more you will have to treat like trees. There’s simply no way for your mind to process all the socially-acceptable interactions necessary to fulfill all your social responsibilities toward every human being that ever crosses your path. You will get sweaty, you will laugh too loud, you will burp, you will act like your negative cultural stereotype, your hair will be out of place, you will leave food on your beard, your clothes won’t match. At some point in your life the sheer weight of your social responsibility will dawn on you, and despite your best efforts, the cracks in your social veneer will begin to show.
5. Be yourself.
Those trees are also treating you like a tree. From now on it’s just you and your friends in a forest. Build a treehouse, and feel free to live in it as You, edition 1.0. You’ll be happier.
or The Friend Zone Is Toxic
Does it make you uncomfortable when someone does something to you that you don’t want?
You only want to be friends if there’s no flirting involved. I only want to be friends if there’s lots of flirting involved.
It might sound mean, but I have personal reasons.
I’m attracted to you. I think you’re crazy hot.
This means one of two things.
- One, maybe you’re not attracted to me. Me being attracted to you and you not being attracted to me will create an imbalance of power in the friendship between us. Friendships based on power imbalances are toxic.
- Two, you ARE attracted to me. If you ARE attracted to me, then that also means one of two things.
- Either you’re hiding from me how you feel.
- Or you’re also lying to yourself.
- Friendships based on dishonesty or lack of self-awareness are toxic.
I’m sorry, but I can’t have toxic friendships in my life right now
Technical Notes and Disclaimers
I’m a sucker for this sciencey shit. It’s hard for me to talk creatively about something if I don’t have its parameters strictly defined. In other words, I like to carefully plot out sets of rules for me to break. I like to design metropolises in tandem with Godzillas.
These are my Seven Dimensions of Cock in relation to its sexuality. They are the minimum number of coordinates needed to specify the character of a cock within any sexual encounter.
These do not include cosmetic aspects like looks, taste, color, hair amount and quality, smell, etc, although those can also be important.
These dimensions are not necessarily represented on a Good vs Bad scale. In most cases, as with most things, the scale is more accurately Goldilockian, with Too Little and Too Much at either extreme and a broad range of OK in the middle. Greater Speed or Sensitivity, for example, might be Terrific for some sexual situations, but Terrible for some others. None of these have clear-cut wrongs and rights; they’re just facts that can be measured.
Maybe you can think of an 8th Dimension of Cock (or maybe seven is already too many).
Let’s warm up with a simple one. The Length of a cock is one of its most basic dimensions (and the one most often obssessed about in public forums). One interesting and not-often-referenced fact about a cock’s Length is that it has no bearing at all on male pleasure.
Also, being that only about 25% of women are consistently orgasmic during penile-vaginal intercourse, the actual physical object that a cock represents could be said to have very little actual bearing on female pleasure either. Cock is more of an idea than a direct physical stimulant.
The idea of cock may actually be more pleasure-inducing to a woman than the cock itself. Think about that.
Being a cylinder, a cock has more specifically Girth than just width. If we think of a pussy as a sort of elastic reverse-cylinder, the Girth of a cock could be said to have some bearing on its snugness when nestled inside a pussy.
Rigidity is another dimension that has no bearing on his physical pleasure. A cock can be intensely aroused and even brought to orgasm without an erection. Still, when a sexual encounter involves two (or more) people, some amount of Rigidity is usually involved.
Although there is a great emphasis on Foreplay For Her in popular sex culture, there is very little emphasis on Foreplay For Him. This could be due to the male tendency to be undersexed and the undersexed tendency to explode at the slightest stimulation.
Foreplay, though, has everything to do with Rigidity. This is one dimension that can be stretched to its limit with very few adverse effects: The harder the better, and all it takes is a little bit of extra playtime.
Rigidity for men is often like a plateau preceded by a peak. At the beginning of the sexual encounter, the Rigidity rises sharply. Once full Rigidity is reached, there is a strong urge to climax. If the man can think past that urge, he can usually reach a plateau of Rigidity that can be sustained for long periods with the right amount of mental and physical stimulation.
Though genital Sensitivity is more often associated with female sexuality than male, cocks have feelings too. In certain religious cultures, circumcision used to contribute greatly toward the male lack of genital Sensitivity. Without its protective layer, the head of the cock became more calloused and more capable of taking a beating.
For men who do still have their foreskins, however, Sensitivity comes in two different flavors:
Flavor Number One – the Sensitivity of the head, which is usually a lot greater in the uncircumcised than in their circumcised bros. Greater head Sensitivity may demand softer blowjobs and less pounding (or at least more lubrication).
Flavor Number Two – the Sensitivity of the foreskin, which is infinitely greater than in uncircumcised men. The foreskin may lack elasticity and hurt or feel uncomfortable when pulled back. Many uncircumcised men prefer to be touched with their head still sheathed in its protective foreskin.
Be sensitive to your man’s Sensitivity.
Like any quality sex toy, most cocks have various Speed settings and can be adjusted according to her and his mood. Some cocks can go faster than others, but some cocks seem to be stuck in permanent drill mode (sometimes to the disappointment of the drillee).
Common Cock Speed Settings include:
Ultra-Slow – This setting is usually best accompanied by candles, feelings, and deep soul gazing.
Grind – This setting has the delicious side effect of his pubic arch meeting with her clitoris and can have wondrous results in women who have difficulty climaxing from penetration alone.
Bounce – This rhythmic rebounding setting is a fine middle ground and can be held for long periods of time allowing pleasure and arousal to slowly build.
Pound – Both the Pound and Ultra-Pound settings should be used with caution and may only be enjoyed/endured for short durations.
The Duration of a cock is an important dimension for her pleasure, but may be hell for him. With a minimum of self-control and a touch of restraint, however, cocks can usually be coaxed into lasting for as long as necessary. Some men may find it helpful to have two types of condoms available for different situations: an Ultra-Thin for normal situations, and a Slightly Thicker for when they’re feeling especially turned on.
The more familiar a man is with himself, his moods, and his own arousal, the better he will be able to fine-tune this dimension to suit both his and her needs. I recommend having lots and lots of sex to familiarize yourself with you.
It doesn’t matter the Length, Width, and Height of an object if it has no Time to exist in. For cocks, this dimension is better described as Accessibility.
A cock can have six other impressive dimensions, but if its man has too many other interests, the dimension of Accessibility will tend to lean toward the small side. A man with great Length, Girth, Rigidity, Sensitivity, Speed, and Duration, but an undersized Accessibility will also be of little use.
Fortunately for most pussies, most cocks are very accessible most of the time.
And Men Are Like Cars
Motorcycles are smaller, weaker, and more fragile than cars, but still demand (and deserve) equal rights on the road.
Cars often resent motorcycles for this.
Cars have completely separate seating with a respectful distance between each person. Motorcycles are all about snuggles and hugs.
Motorcycles have fewer blind spots.
When chasing a motorcycle in traffic, other cars will constantly car-block you.
Motorcycles don’t mind sharing lanes with cars but only on their terms. If you try to share a lane with them when they don’t want to, they will get mad.
Cars are disgusting, smoke-belching, environmentally-hazardous creatures; motorcycles are slightly less so.
Motorcycles can go for much longer than cars (and on much less fuel).
Cars have an evolutionary (or perhaps cultural?) proclivity toward opening their doors to more and more people, while motorcycles have to be choosey about whom they seat.
Motorcycles are fun.
Always wear protection when riding one.
or The Pursuit of Pussy
Men throughout history have been generally straightforward in their definition of attractive women. And although the details may have evolved slightly, it pretty much has always come down to some combination of looks + bod + nothing else.
Women, on the other hand, are well known for being far less straightforward in their definition of attractive men. A man can be too muscular or too pretty or too nice. Perfectly beautiful men can open their mouths and somehow ruin things. Short men statistically get more sex than tall men. Something as nebulous as a sense of humor can elicit a sexual response. Inexplicably, old ass politicians are still on millions of bucket fuck-it lists. And we’ve all seen that ugly little bald man with the pot belly and loads of attitude who gets laid way more than us.
But there is a way to objectively determine how attractive a man really is (to women) by measuring one factor and one alone. There is one attitude that can be objectively observed and explicitly examined that can show and tell us once and for all how attractive that man really is to a large percentage of women.
You can tell how attractive a man really is by how sick he is of pussy.
‘Attractive’ in this context doesn’t refer to physical appearance only. It refers to a confluence of qualities – social skills, alpha-ness, money, power, confidence, humor, looks, body – that women find attractive.
‘Sick’ in this context doesn’t refer to a permanent state of spurning. It refers to circumstances in which a person gets enough of a thing so that he/she may still enjoy it but isn’t constantly chasing it.
This observation works to a much lesser extent with assessing the attractiveness of women: because all girls can get most dick most of the time. (That means that all women – big or small, rich or poor, young or old – pretty much walk around in a permanent state of sick of dick.)
But most men can’t.
Most men have to work hard for their pussy, and they value it, they appreciate it, and they cherish it.
But not the attractive man.
Because it’s a simple fact of nature that the more you get of something the less motivated you are to chase it. So the more attractive a man really is, the more pussy will fall in his lap, and therefore the less motivated he will be to chase it.
Think about that the next time you see that beautiful, perfect, sociable man, metaphorically on his knees just begging for that girl to go home with him. He just must not be essentially that attractive after all.
Think about it the next time your friend with the chiseled abs and the golden hair is running around chasing another skirt. There must be something, and I don’t know what it is, but I guarantee there is something about him that women just don’t find that attractive.
Think about how much time you spend in pursuit of pussy.