Monday, 25 September 2017

Sex isn't all I want, unless it's all you have

Why are women unhappy with more privilege?

The key is to ask why no one else thought of the interpretation that, once you read it, will seem to be the obvious one.

I grew up thinking it's a good idea to listen to women's advice on how to get women. But it makes no sense. It's just another woman-power thing and I think they have enough power in this game. The advice always makes men edit what they really want. "Don't talk about religion or politics on dates." Well, what if I want to? No offence, but who cares what women want?

Women think they're giving us shortcuts to her panties and so talking about politics will only turn her off. But ultimately there are no shortcuts. Shortcuts to her panties end up being longcuts to my life. The stuff women tell us to do are the things men already do, but don't want to do. That's why we're losing. Our existence with women is a complete lie. The game pivots around what turns women on because a vagina is valued far too high for what it is. All men are looking for is: "hey, how are you? Let's go in the back room for a bit."

Even women know they have nothing else to offer other than the vagina. How else do you explain the idea of chastity? Older women know men only keep them around for their sexual value, so once the wrinkles arrive men will want to switch to younger women because it's in our nature. Vagina ages like cars, not houses. Chastity is best seen as a corruption from the top down by older women whose vagina-value has dropped to zero. And since the older women want to keep their man, but have no skills to do so, they invent things like chastity or "slut-shaming" to corrupt every fresh generation of women irreparably. This is what happens when we lie to ourselves.

Men have different problems to deal with. We aren't attractive to women straight off the bat. Men have to star in movies, own a successful company or develop some amazing skill, just to get a woman's vagina. The vagina is considered to be at the same level as a man's lifetime of hard work and status. When you lay it out like that, it's actually ridiculous. An ugly millionaire man can get laid because of his money, but an ugly billionaire woman is in deep shit.

Let me put it simply: besides a vagina, what do women need to have to get a man? No guy has ever gotten sex simply because he has a penis. Do you see? We can't just go, "look at this dick, ladies" and have them stampede us. Men require a skill or charm. No woman has ever charmed her way into sex when a man didn't want to participate and she's never talked her way into something. It doesn't happen.

Without a vagina, women say they'd just use their mouth or ass to hold onto their man. That's what they say, not me. Think about this. Their worth is being collapsed down to sexual value, by themselves. No patriarchy could ever achieve this sort of control. But the truth is: after sex, then what? Why should men keep them around?

I am so tired of vaginas adding up a woman's whole value. The arrogance of bringing so little to the table with so many demands is infuriating. A man works his entire life to amass resources, but a loser woman can have sex with him today, just by turning up. I understand women have an evolutionary objective to have sex with one guy as much as possible, but they don't have any skills to keep him. If you say "marriage" I will put real corn in your cornflakes. A wedding ring is not a skill. It's just society's way of keeping everyone in line.

Men need to be good at something, but women want to be good something. And there's a world of difference between need and want. Men know they can't all win so they have to work like maniacs to get the best woman. But for some reason, even though they've been winning for millennia, women aren't happy with having such an easy time in the sex game and now they want men to think they have skills too. The sheer arrogance of it all...

Women have no clue how to make themselves happy. When a woman says she's happy having sex with a hundred different men, that's a lie because it's opposite to her nature to be promiscuous. Some will say they like sleeping around, but they're miserable when they're doing it. Why? They're pretending that they're happy doing what makes men happy because there's no satisfaction in the way they get sex. A woman can get sex just by pointing at her crotch, so having sex with a hundred guys isn't impressive when we know she could get a thousand guys if she said just yes more often.

This goes all the way to the bottom of biology. The difference in sexual dynamics is that men have an activity in which a few times a week we get to kill life. I can squirt life anywhere: on my girl's chest, in a sock, in her. It doesn't matter to us, it's all the same result. Yet there's no activity in which a woman can say "yay, there's an egg on the floor." The basic difference is that women don't know what it's like to be frivolous with their body. Having sex with a hundred guys won't make a girl happy. There's no gratification, no hunt, no satisfaction.

So without sex, why would men want women around? They don't even know how to be friends with each other, which is why they hang around us all the damn time. There isn't a woman I know who would hide a gun for their lady friend if that friend committed a murder. Women have so few skills that they aren't even better than men at making friends. Being a girl would be horrible. Fellas, next time you have sex, try laying back in missionary position with your legs in the air and get her to drive. It's embarrassing. And then try sitting down to pee. It's miserable.

Feminists say they want more female politicians or CEOs. They almost never encourage women to invent new institutions and refuse to invite men. All those roles were invented by men to get more sex. They think men wanted the jobs because it makes them happy, so women make the assumption that if they become CEO they'll be happy too. I think women steal male jobs and roles because they still secretly believe they are inferior to men. They don't want to be better women because they don't like being women in the first place.

Instead, women will try to trap us into making us think we want to love them. But men know the difference between love and lust. There have been times I thought I loved a girl, but the moment I had sex with her the feeling disappeared. She loves me, but I only lusted her. Men hunt for sex. If love happens, fine. But it doesn't happen just because we get sex. A man may be more depressed after a breakup, but that's because a woman can go out that night and get another man. He'll have to work his ass off and go back to being rejected six times a night.

Another thing that pisses me off is when women treat anal sex as a reward. The arrogance makes me sick. This attitude is for goofy guys. Why the hell should the ass be a prize? It's just another hole. Women will even say a girl who does anal sex has a lower status than a girl who has normal sex with a hundred guys. Try to figure that one out, fellas. They'll even say we shouldn't want the kind of girl who does anal anyway. The way I see it is if you're giving up your ass as a "reward" then, sorry, you are one of those girls. Why shouldn't a man like anal sex?

Anytime a girl tells you what she likes, she only likes it because some dude did it to her. If a guy doesn't try to get anal sex, women would never wonder on their own what it might be like. They don't have an exploratory mind. Nature made women the fuckee, not the fucker. They don't get to decide what a man likes sexually.

Way back at the beginning of time, women discovered their vagina was valuable and a man would give up his rocks and cave just to get it. That means men are lagging behind by about a million years. But we're getting tired of giving up everything for sex. Males happen to be the version of human animal that sends life and females are the version that receives it. Neither are special or more valuable than the other, it's just nature.

No comments: