or A Different Kind of Disgusting
A gentleman refers to women as the weaker sex. A feminist refers to women as equals.
Gentlemen pay for women’s drinks. Feminists pay women a fair and equal wage for equal work.
Gentlemen give women a hand so they don’t slip in their heels. Feminists don’t shoehorn women into wardrobe choices that are objectifying and damaging in the first place.
Gentlemen open doors for women. Feminists open their own doors and shatter glass ceilings.
A gentleman loans a woman his coat to keep her covered. A feminist frees the nipple.
A gentleman always tries to keep a smile on a woman’s face. A feminist understands that women (like men) are creatures of vast emotional depth, a wide and colorful spectrum of feelings, and that they have the judgment-free right to not always be your idea of chipper (or ladylike or attentive or accommodating or upbeat or sexy) at all times.
Gentlemen treat women right. Feminists don’t keep women as pets.
A gentleman tries to protect and shelter his woman. A feminist tries not to use personal possessive pronouns with human beings.
A gentleman believes in defending a woman’s purity and honor. A feminist believes a woman’s body is her property.
A gentleman will fight FOR a woman. A feminist will fight ALONGSIDE a woman.
Gentlemen let women go first. Feminists don’t feel entitled to the right to ‘let’ women do things.
Gentlemen graciously bestow each of these thinly-sugarcoated demeaning kindnesses on women because, whether they realize it or not:
Gentlemen objectify women.
Feminists see through these possibly-well-intentioned-yet-condescending-and-belittling poisons and patronize the patriarchy right back.
Feminists objectify gentlemen.
A gentleman’s every act is designed as a small, subtle reminder to women that they are weaker, less capable, and inferior to men.
A feminist doesn’t try to hold women back or push them ahead or swallow them up in your own definition of what ‘woman’ is.
A gentleman is not a well-bred, honorable man who treats women with good graces. A gentleman is a sexist stereotype in disguise. ‘Gentleman’ is the opposite of ‘Feminist.’
or Blaming Her, Insulting Him
or The Knee-Jerk
She was asking for it.
If you don’t wanna get raped don’t dress provocatively.
Blaming the victims of sexual aggression/assault misconstrues the crime and damages and re-traumatizes the woman. … …But it is also quite offensive to the man, and to men in general.
Let’s talk about that.
I have a friend who keeps a pet snake, a 5-foot western whip, for all you snake nerds out there. One day, her pet snake bit her. It was hungry or angry about some snakey little annoyance, and it struck out of nowhere and locked its jaws around her hand.
When they finally pried its cold, barbed fangs from her bloody flesh, however, she laughed it off and said it was her fault anyway.
According to my friend, it was her fault because, of the two of them, she was the intellectually-superior-and-therefore-culpable party. She should have known better than to handle a snake in that condition. The snake was just a simple beast of a creature and could not be blamed for his soulless, instinctual impulse to assault her.
So the party with the greater intellectual capacity gets the blame.
Which is what us men have inadvertently been saying all along by blaming women for our brutish misconduct:
I interpreted her actions as asking for it, and because I am a feeble-minded, insentient, savage, bipedal lower organism, I could not help but assault her.
She was dressed provocatively, and as a witless, irrational, feral, subhuman, knee-jerk buffoon, not assaulting her was beyond the scope of my mental capacity.
If we as men can’t stop victim-blaming simply because of its logical inaccuracies and devastating effects on women, maybe we can at least stop because it’s insulting to our intelligence as men.
or The Physiological Benefits of Hitting Other People
I think it’s funny that the more illegal and socially unacceptable spankings become as a child’s punishment, the more mainstream and typical they become as an erotic accessory.
Spankings used to be something every parent did to every child and maybe three men did to their wives during sexual congress before being burned at the stake as heretics.
Then they became something that only strict parents did to their children and perverts did to their wives.
Soon after, they became something that only terrible parents did to their traumatized children, and that some very liberal men did to some very permissive women.
Now, spankings are something for which in many countries you can get thrown in jail for doing to your children, and something that practically everyone does to everyone else when they’re having sex and feeling a little extra kinky that night.
In the future, perhaps, child spanking will only be remembered in the history books akin to child sacrifice, and erotic spanking will be a systematic part of The Human Dating Ritual (aw look there’s a picture of our first spanking, and there’s one at our wedding when the Unitarian Universalist Priest said, “You may now spank the bride”).
Perhaps human beings have an inherent physiological need to spank other human beings, and if they can’t take it out on their helpless children, by the gods, they’ll take it out on their consenting life partners.
Which is at least progress.
The moral arc of the universe and all that.
Interracial porn is beautiful.
Myriad genders and races coming together to form a prismatic collage of pleasure gives one hope that maybe just maybe the problems of the world can be beaten.
Because it’s hard to hate someone when you are balls deep in them.
But it’s hard.
Consensual sex has a healing and uniting and inspiring power unrivaled by almost any other act and eclipsed by none.
Interracial porn is racist.
You say it’s a bunch of black guys fucking white guys or Asians fucking Latinos, but I don’t see race or color.
I only see porn in monochrome.
So as far as I know, it’s just a bunch of grey people cumming on other grey people.
or Evolving Past Our Attraction to Procreation-Related Attributes
or Large Wives, Skinny Lovers
A girl saying she likes monogamous men is the evolutionary equivalent of a guy saying he likes tits and ass.
There women go again, evolutionarily objectifying us men.
I like tits and ass.
But let’s look at attraction and pleasure logically. Let’s try to look past the evolutionary lenses handed down to us by our cavemen ancestors.
We all know why we like tits and ass, and respectively, monogamy and muscles. Tits meant better able to give milk to our young. Ass meant wider hips for more unencumbered childbirth. Curves meant more fat storage for better-nourished babies. Monogamy meant a certainty that our offspring came from us. And muscles meant a greater degree of protection and security for our families.
But now that we, as a species, have won the battle for planetary domination, maybe it’s time to step back and look at our attraction to procreation-related attributes and see if those attributes are really contributing to our physical pleasure or not.
Now that there’s a supermarket on every corner, do our babies really benefit from curvy mothers? Do we? What does curvy mean today?
While there are certainly many social, economic, personality, and genetic factors that could contribute either way to this physical marker, none of them are definitive. Curvy can mean poor or rich, idle or hard worker, selfish or unselfish.
One thing that does hold true across all boards is that in most cases, heavier = slower. If you like lightspeed, pounding sex with a girl who you can toss around and drill, curvy might not be for you. If you like the intense, grinding, sensual undulation of worship sex, curve away.
Conclusion: Curvy is a style choice and has no conclusive bearing either way on pleasure.
Now that hospitals can address the majority of birthing problems, do our childbirths really benefit from wider hips? What about us? Does a bigger ass contribute toward greater (physical, not aesthetic) pleasure?
Hip width has little bearing on vaginal musculature, and the concept of wide hips = unencumbered childbirth doesn’t necessarily translate to narrow hips = tighter feel during the sex act. On the other hand, smaller skeletal structure = smaller everything, and the pressure from a tiny pelvic bone structure can lead to the impression of tightness in the groin.
Conclusion: Ass is an aesthetic relic that does nothing to contribute toward (physical) pleasure. Wider hips / pelvic bone structure may possibly take away from the feeling of tightness during the sex act.
Now that baby food is available across a wide range of non-breast platforms, the question becomes if tits really contribute toward greater physical sexual pleasure or if it’s all in our minds.
Although tits are longitudinally removed from sexual ground zero and can at first glance seem to have little to do with physical pleasure during the sex act, oiled up and pressed together they can actually provide a second ground zero that can directly stimulate physical pleasure.
Conclusion: Tits provide a direct contribution to physical pleasure.
Now that we have home security systems, police forces, distance weaponry, and laws, do muscles and physical strength continue to make an impact on physical pleasure during the sex act? Or are they an aesthetic relic that should be left in the cave?
Physical strength directly contributes toward a man’s ability to go longer, harder, and faster during sex without hindering his ability to go slow and soft when needed. Muscles allow for more athletic sex, diversifying a man’s sexual arsenal and allowing him to cater to a larger berth of sexual preferences. A muscular body type makes a man better able to tailor the sexual experience to you, whatever you might like.
Conclusion: Muscles have a direct bearing on physical pleasure.
Now that we have birth control and DNA testing to sort out offspring origin issues, does monogamy provide a positive or negative contribution to physical pleasure during sex?
Less sexual partners means less sexual experience, which is a direct negative factor in sexual pleasure. Monogamous males are also more prone to patriarchal/misogynist tendencies, which can lead to abuse.
Conclusion: Monogamy contributes to diminished sexual pleasure and can contribute to abuse.