Thursday, September 2, 2010

Zipless?!

Note: Generally I avoid using profanity in my writing, since I consider it something of a crutch.  In this post, it is not possible to avoid profanity.

It is anyone's guess how feminists could have ever been convinced that promiscuous sex was not psychologically damaging to women, especially when it happens on the terms of the "pickup artists" (cads) who dominate the nightlife in the big cities of the Occident.  Modern cads use a combination of studied insouciance, minor insults, and calculated body language to entice women to their bedrooms, where they specialize in quick, dirty sex which they can brag about.

Whether the women enjoy the physical act or not is little discussed.  What is clear is that the women are treated as toys to manipulated into sharing their bodies with aggressive strangers.  If this were a business transaction it would be considered a "rip-off".  The odd thing is, there is a more general term for what is happening to the women:

They are getting fucked.

The strange thing is, that's figuratively and literally exactly what is happening!  Seems like kind of an obvious warning, right?  This is not a mystery to either the pickup artists, or the guys who can't stand this behavior, or most women for that matter either.

The only people to whom this is a mystery seem to be the feminists, or at least the third-wave feminists, for whom "fuck" was usually a noun ("He and I had a fuck" or better yet "He and I had a zipless fuck") or perhaps an intransitive verb ("He and I fucked [ziplessly]"), but hardly ever a transitive verb ("He fucked me").  Of course, the etymology of the word (from a Germanic verb meaning "to penetrate") doesn't allow nominal or intransitive uses, and doesn't really allow the female to be anything but the object.

In other word, the English language itself is telling you:
Ladies, if you're not making love, you're getting fucked.

The language's opinion is of course just a construct I've thrown together for this post, and it wouldn't matter if social psychology didn't agree.  Social psychology does agree.  Women most certainly do get the sweetness and femininity fucked out of them when they behave promiscuously.  Sexual bonding with their future mates is reduced, which means their inclination to build up their vulnerable menfolk is lacking.

While feminists rail about women being demeaned by being "expected to do menial chores" and "used as sex toys", many women seem to eschew cooking and meal-planning a lot more than they eschew acting like sex objects.  The fact that men's day jobs are often plenty demeaning never really comes up.  If a man comes home from cleaning out deep-fat fryers all day wearing a plastic apron to a woman who tells him too "cook his own supper for a change", he may well have trouble remembering what exactly the benefit of being married and having a job was supposed to be.

It doesn't help that more and more men are opting out of the job market in favor of becoming girlfriend parasites, but it's interesting to study exactly which men can get away with this.  In my experience, it's generally the apathetic-and-hostile crowd - the same men who get away with pretty much everything else.  Since these men stand out much more, socially, than the faceless drudges and nerds who work for a living, male parasites cast a pall of ignorance on their sex.

Which bolsters the notion that now it's men who are only good for one thing ... as long as it's zipless.

3 comments:

tribeofice said...

So much word. Relations between the sexes have deteriorated so much in recent decades, and neither sex is better off.

B Lode said...

So much word? Does that mean my post is too long?

I already knew that!

:-)

Thanks for stopping by.

B Lode said...

Oh, I get it ... Tribe of Ice probably meant "So much IN a word".
I wish she were still around.
:(