There’s No Such Thing As a Free Lunch
Since I began the Honorary Man of the Month program (in which an ordinary woman can honorarily have the prestige usually saved for men for a fleeting moment), I have never thought that Carmen Electra would not be among the herd.
This month she has done a man-deed by outing prostitutes worldwide while participating in a charity auction. The auctioned prize: a date with Carmen Electra. The price: high enough so that Miss December “actually felt obligated to, like, sleep with the guy.”
Brava Madam. By the way, when I said prostitutes earlier, I was talking about all women. Every single woman on Earth is a prostitute. Most are just lousy at it.
Before we get carried away, let me say first that Carmen declined the man’s charitable donation, which was probably going to orphans or some kind of diseased persons. Even though no stipulation of sex was implied or requested, she simply didn’t feel comfortable with it — probably much in the same way that the child who could have purchased a working kidney or new eyelids with the man’s money feels uncomfortable with his plagues.
Women are like that in everything that they do. They can be winning important awards like the Honorary Man of the Month with one hand, while they’re stripping organs from needy children with the other. It’s the same kind of shit magicians do except women do it for personal gain. Women are morality magicians. They make principles disappear.
While she has displayed a typically appalling woman-selfishness, Carmen Electra has also expressed the perfectly opposite and very manly opinion that all women are prostitutes. They are. And that’s why she’s the Honorary Man of the Month.
Prostitution is a part of a woman’s nature. It’s something they can never escape, and that’s why they respond so well to being propositioned as such.
“Would you like to go to dinner?”
“I’d love it.”
Yea. That’s because you’re a prostitute.
Unlike men, women are lazy as shit. Women are so lazy that if they designed houses, there would no longer be stairs. Houses would have only slides, and women would give absolutely no fuck about how to get back upstairs because with women it’s all a race to the bottom anyway. Or they would make some hack joke about a man finally asking for directions.
Women ask for directions at the first sign of trouble because they’re lazy too. How many gloriously mantastic things have ever been done because someone got to the right place at the right time? Fucking none. You just show up right where you thought you would be at exactly the right time and then a bunch of predictable shit happen.
That’s horseshit. Men don’t ask for directions because we don’t ruin great things that might be just over the horizon or around some uncharted corner for the sole purpose of clinging onto a pathetic timetable that represents how much control we delude ourselves into thinking we have over our lives.
Also, the women who eat a free meal and then skip out on the requisite sex aren’t thieves or empowered, they’re just lousy whores. Once payment takes place, you’re guilty. Don’t believe me? Go ask a fucking cop.
Related Articles:
December 29th, 2005 at 1:02 pm - IP Man-Hash: a1da9f9ac370d
Female said: “I am interested to know your definition of how to treat a woman like a prostitute.”
I never gave my definition of how to treat a woman like a prostitute. I simply said women act like prostitutes. Please, in the future, try to refrain from putting words in my mouth.
December 29th, 2005 at 1:53 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
Female, all of our opinions can be considered dangerous for the young to the mind who disagrees. Consider all the other sites on the internet - pictures of aborted babies, pornography, racist sites. Then, there are the political sites, the sites on religion, or the sites on issues like marriage, culture, the death penalty, etc.
You have books out there that have the same sort of material. When I was in grade nine, I had two classmates read Mein Kempf. They never agreed with it - obviously - but some people would have this book banned because it is deemed ‘dangerous’.
The world and life is not perfect. Why don’t you leave the job of parenting up to the parents of these children. If they care for their young ones at all, they will be monitoring the sites their children visit and teaching their children the values that they think is right for them. If they don’t care enough for their children to monitor their activities and teach them right from wrong, then their kids are already on the road to destruction. Parents are still a much stronger influence than strangers on the internet.
With regards to this site, there are much worse things than opining that men are better than women. Unfortunately for us, Dick’s words do carry a ring of truth from where I am sitting. It’s not that I think that men are better than women as a whole, but that I believe that in some capacities - I myself show some of the traits that Dick describes.
“you are trolling me on it.”
You are correct.
“If you do not address my theory I will take that as confirmation.”
Then, I refuse to answer your question. Your attempts at manipulation fall flat and I don’t respond well to such obvious infantile tacticks. I couldn’t care less about your theorizing to start off with.
“I have a social purpose for being here, while your purpose seems…without purpose.”
My purpose is to entertain myself. I suppose that can be called selfish intent, although I doubt that anything I’ve written bothers you at all. There is no harm done.
“I have a social purpose for being here”
You’re only fooling yourself.
“No one will be able to get rid of me sweetcheeks”
I don’t want to get rid of you.
“You may find this hard to believe but I am not here for you to vent at so please find yourself another playmate.”
The moment you fail to entertain me is the moment I’ll leave you alone. For as long as you behave as you are (i.e. by deluding yourself into acting as if you are fulfilling some social purpose), I will continue or stop once I get bored with it. I started doing this because every time you posted, you were acting like a hysterical little censorship princess. It amused me and I wanted to join in on the fun. I’m not really irritated with you at all.
“There is nothing that CAN refute his claim as his claim is an opinion.”
Evidence can refute opinion - hands down. You would look so much better if you acted with grace and dignity (you know, sort of like Arielle), if you provided the evidence that refuted Dick’s or provided evidence where Dick refused to provide an iota. Instead, you just look like a psycho beeyotch. If you are worried about those pre-adolescents, you will only serve to confuse them rather than shoving the nail on Dick’s ideas (as you think you are doing). Since Dick is intentionally humourous, his ideas may even appear more attractive to them.
I say it again - just so that your little feelings don’t get hurt. It’s not personal. I don’t like or dislike you. You are just an amusing aside to an otherwise boring day.
December 29th, 2005 at 5:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
I asked you before what kind of evidence (study) could refute his claim, which I see you either deliberately chose to ignore or simply missed. Let’s have a think about this as you seem so sure that there must be evidence to refute the claim that all women are prostitutes. What kind of investigation shall be done? Hmmm, well, we’ll need to set the criteria for what exactly a whore is. It must be based on the number of men or women that a women actually has sex with during her lifetime. Who is going to determine this number? Is 25 too many or too little? I think I read somewhere that 12 is the norm, so maybe we’ll double that and say 24 sex partners during a life time implies whorishness. Rapes, of course, do not count. Now, how are we to check whether each and every woman has had intercourse with this many partners? Shall we give her a medical inspection when she is 89 and on her death bed? What exactly would that tell us anyway? Perhaps we should inject her with truth serum and force it out of her? Nothing like a bit of dignity on your deathbed. The idea that evidence could be found is absurd, your reasoning is juvenile. If by some miracle, someone could actually define whorishness for non-prostitutes and measure the amount of sexual partners each woman has had, how then, would they know for sure how many of those partners were consenual? Well, who the fuck really cares. Women are whores so she must have wanted it, surely? You people become fouler by the minute.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
“I asked you before what kind of evidence (study) could refute his claim, which I see you either deliberately chose to ignore or simply missed.”
I thought that was a rhetorical question. I don’t want to answer the question anyways. If you’re smart, you can figure it out on your own. If you were secure, you wouldn’t bother with this goofy little game of yours at all.
Just for fun, though - I’ll answer a few of your points:
“The idea that evidence could be found is absurd, your reasoning is juvenile.”
Start thinking outside of the box for a change. Not every piece of evidence is in the form of a scientific study. Even Dick provided one piece of evidence for his opinion - flimsy as it is -
“It’s something they can never escape, and that’s why they respond so well to being propositioned as such.
“Would you like to go to dinner?�
“I’d love it.�
Yea. That’s because you’re a prostitute.”
Dick is making a huge assumption here (and upon reading the last paragraph - you can see why), but at least this is evidence.
“how then, would they know for sure how many of those partners were consenual?”
Frickin’ hell. Do you realize that you aren’ t making any sense here? Funny thing is, I don’t think you care.
December 29th, 2005 at 6:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
Grump, unfortunately for me, because I chose to display my gender through my username, I encountered instantaneous hostility and the men here have pretty much demanded of my every post that I back it up with sound scientific evidence and logic at the very least. You were smart. You fooled them, and me, with your username and they assumed you were male, now of course, they can’t backpedal and hate you because they don’t have a scientific reason to do so, other than their own male ignorance. I therefore think it is hilarious that you should state that it is perfectly fine for Dick to make claims based on nothing more than flimsy evidence (something he made up, no less) but I, being a woman, can’t be expected to have the same priviledge. Perfect little patriarchal, double standard, circle jerk dick’s got going on, that is for sure.
December 29th, 2005 at 8:01 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7f5a0b2070dae
“they can’t backpedal and hate you because they don’t have a scientific reason to do so”
I never disagreed with them in an overly aggressive way, either. Arielle’s initial post - if I recall correctly - was in mild disagreement with Dick’s point of view, but nobody got seriously on her case about it. I highly doubt that anybody here hates you.
“I therefore think it is hilarious that you should state that it is perfectly fine for Dick to make claims based on nothing more than flimsy evidence (something he made up, no less) but I, being a woman, can’t be expected to have the same priviledge. Perfect little patriarchal, double standard, circle jerk dick’s got going on, that is for sure.”
It’s not that you are a woman. It’s just that you were being you. I don’t always disagree with Dick, but when he’s wrong - I want somebody who is the voice of reason, the voice of calm, and the voice of grace. It would contrast Dick’s style beautifully. You would not only make a well-reasoned presentation, but a more attractive presentation to the pre-adolescents that you want to impress. You have passion. Just don’t be shooting those arrows aimlessly. Don’t let your passion overwhelm your sense.
There is a time for war, and a time for peace. I don’t believe this is the time for war, female.
—-
Don’t mistake me. I’m not a feminist by any stretch of the imagination. I despise it. I’m as traditional a female as you can get - where my opinion on the role of men and women in marriage, etc. is - I want to submit to my husband’s leadership. I’m not oppressed in the slightest, or forced to do anything I don’t wish to do. I despise a philosophy that puts women’s rights above those of children and men - a philosophy that seems entirely predicated on gaining power, and nurturing feelings of insecurity to the goal of destroying any lingering sense of responsibility that women have. This only serves to hurt women in the long run. More divorce, strife, abortion, single parenthood, fatherless homes, sexual promiscuity (with all attendant risks and consequences) and premature sexual activity, the destruction of marriage…all can partly be attributed to the feminist movement. Well, I could write much more than this, but you get the picture I’m trying to paint here.
Despite all this, I don’t think I would ever have attacked you as I have been doing if you presented yourself in a fashion that was a little more akin to a grown-up. Nicole is sixteen years old. She has that excuse, at least. I get the impression that you are not a teenager, am I right?
December 29th, 2005 at 8:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
If you do not see me as calm, I can understand it, but it’s quite hard to remain cool when you are constantly being provoked not to be.
If the men here don’t like my abrasive manner then they can thank the dominant hegemony of typically patriarchal corporate competition for making me a product of my environment. If the men here don’t like what women are becoming, they might try changing their, and our, world. Frothing at the mouth and calling women whores and bitches is not the way to do it.
Respect springs to me, unfortunately the only kind of respect I see the men here demonstrating is the kind only given if you are
1. male or
2. a woman that conforms to a 1950’s feminine archetype, which, no offense is a woman that keeps her mouth shut; does not have any opinions of her own; should only speak when supporting a man’s opinions.
It’s all too fundamentalist Islamic or quakerish for my liking. I don’t disagree with you that there would be less social problems if women compromised on some issues, but then if one says that, one should also say that there would be less social problems if men also compromised on issues and unfortunately they don’t see to like doing that very much, while our sex is simply expected to be used to it. I don’t think so.
The men here perhaps do not like to be challenged by women, in the workplace, home or bedroom. Boo fucking hoo. This is the 21st Century. Equality will be taken by force if it is not offered, and that is exactly what has been happening. Obvious.
December 29th, 2005 at 9:52 pm - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
If it’s forced, it isn’t equality.
December 29th, 2005 at 10:18 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
I knew someone would quote that. You are correct, equality can only be given, but it hasn’t been, which is why people like the Zen Priest and “hippy” Christian have noticed the backlash from my generation.
While they whinge and complain about the lack of respect from the younger generation, echoing no doubt what their own parents said about them, I can look at todays generation of teenagers and also express the exact same sentiments. But that’s just scapegoating isn’t it. You would have to be blind freddy not to realise that there is a terrible lack of respect and sexual objectification of women in the modern media. Doesn’t really seem to be any middle ground, you can either be a pornstar prostitute with an inflated chest and no clothes or you can cover yourself with a bhurka. Gangs of men can roam the streets and beaches gang raping whoever they please because hey, no clothes = whore, hijab = don’t touch, just marry. Meanwhile, men come to this site to bitch about women somemore and reinforce the whore stereotype, while the 1950s Stepford wife has substituted the muslim woman. The irony that Dick probably set up this site as a backlash against men being portrayed as idiots in the media, only to portray women as whores or braindead bimbos is extremely unfortunate. Not a good job dick.
December 30th, 2005 at 9:28 am - IP Man-Hash: 957564b4aff6d
The Stepford wives that you mention had to be drugged into being a happy housewife. I, and other women like me, have no need of drugs. We’re wives and mothers because we enjoy it.
As for clothing - I will reference you to Dave Chappelle’s surprisingly insightful comedy.
“Hey, just because I’m dressed like a cop, doesn’t mean you can come to me for help…”
December 30th, 2005 at 10:46 am - IP Man-Hash: 8dd3dc862afae
Right, and in what part of your suburbia does that happen? And what the fuck does anything have to do with muslims? Racist.
-Dick
December 30th, 2005 at 1:16 pm - IP Man-Hash: d754ab99d7c00
I agree. And much of it by women.
There is also, incidentally, a terrible lack of respect and objectification of men in that same media. I note with interest that that has escaped your attention. Cute.
Leaving aside the anti-male vitriol, the present “status” of women in the media is almost entirely a result of the widely applauded Erica Jong/Isadora Wing school of feminism. They wanted women not to behave like men, but to behave like feminists’ worst perceptions of the most flawed men.
They got their wish, in spades, and women were treated by the media accordingly.
Your whinging on about the patriarchy really does place you solidly in the ’70’s. You’re sure you’re not an elderly spinster gender feminist who’s about 49, realizing she’ll never get a man, clinging desperately to her polyester power pantsuits? It’s surely got to be that or a friend of Dick’s.
-wolfe
December 30th, 2005 at 4:11 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
If you mean the way the mass media portrays men as idiots or yobs, then yes, I’ve noticed it and actually mentioned this in my previous post. Man Law 1.
If you mean the way the media portrays men as ubersexuals, then no, I haven’t noticed that, be great if they did though. I can’t say I respect Posh Spice too much (the insecurity factor erks me) but she sure has done a wonderful style job on Beckham.
“Leaving aside the anti-male vitriol, the present “statusâ€? of women in the media is almost entirely a result of the widely applauded Erica Jong/Isadora Wing school of feminism. They wanted women not to behave like men, but to behave like feminists’ worst perceptions of the most flawed men.”
I don’t know who these people are but for some reason I’m imagining that women who gave 5000, or whatever, head jobs in 24 hours.
“Your whinging on about the patriarchy really does place you solidly in the ’70’s. You’re sure you’re not an elderly spinster gender feminist who’s about 49, realizing she’ll never get a man, clinging desperately to her polyester power pantsuits?”
Polyester power pantsuits?! ROFL. Would that be with or without my rollerblades? Seriously, you are such a hypocritcal bigot. Take a look at yourself.
“It’s surely got to be that or a friend of Dick’s”
He is amusing isn’t he Dick ;
December 30th, 2005 at 5:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
LOLZ. Please stop it, my ribs are now hurting.
December 30th, 2005 at 6:08 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
“they can thank the dominant hegemony of typically patriarchal corporate competition for making me a product of my environment.”
*sigh* this is just ‘the devil made me do it’ excuse.
“Frothing at the mouth and calling women whores and bitches is not the way to do it.”
Didn’t your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right? I’m not excusing Dick. I just think you are playing right into his hands.
“a woman that conforms to a 1950’s feminine archetype, which, no offense is a woman that keeps her mouth shut; does not have any opinions of her own; should only speak when supporting a man’s opinions.”
I talk a lot (too much!), I certainly have my own opinions, and I’m not afraid to disagree with a man. I believe that men and women both have responsibilities to one another. While men are to be leaders, my idea of leadership is certainly not akin to domination and oppression. It is - in a term - ’servant leadership’..
I think I’m going off on a tangent here. So, let’s say this: I commented that Dick’s evidence was flimsy, didn’t I? Did Dick attack me for that comment? No? Then, your comment has lost validity.
“one should also say that there would be less social problems if men also compromised on issues and unfortunately they don’t see to like doing that very much, while our sex is simply expected to be used to it. I don’t think so.”
No, the way I see it - men may be different, but they have just as much (if not more) responsibilities as women. They don’t get to screw with however many women they want, because their moral priority is to love and respect their wives. There would be a lot less social problems if men weren’t social deadbeats to their children (and wives). They will have to be loving and respectful of their wives even if they don’t feel like it. I know that the ideal is far short of ‘the real’, but we should at least seek to work towards these things instead of tearing it down at every opportunity.
The problem is not with men who refuse responsibility, but with women who use the legitimate problems that women face and use it as a justification for all sorts of irresponsible behaviours. Example: we feel sorry for women, so therefore the very idea of marriage has lost it’s meaning through easy divorce laws.
Men, too, have dropped the ball, but this doesn’t give women the right to be just as pigheaded. You look at men and say: ‘well, if they want to be jerks, then I should be just as much of a jerk!. That attitude doesn’t solve a thing. It only perpetuates the problem, leading to more strife and dysfunction.
“The men here perhaps do not like to be challenged by women, in the workplace, home or bedroom.”
On the contrary, it is the women who do not want the men to challenge them. You didn’t want Dick to challenge you. If you aren’t a bitch and a whore, then there’s no reason to be upset when somebody calls you one.
“Gangs of men can roam the streets and beaches gang raping whoever they please because hey, no clothes = whore, hijab = don’t touch, just marry.”
Bull crap.
“Meanwhile, men come to this site to bitch about women somemore and reinforce the whore stereotype, while the 1950s Stepford wife has substituted the muslim woman.”
As if women don’t bitch about men!! (sarcasm)
The Stepford wives - gosh, I have a jolly time laughing at that propaganda piece! It is pure gold.
1. Do you believe everything you see on television if it proclaims itself as liberal and feminist?
2. Is there something wrong with being a happy housewife or are you - in Simone de Beauvoir fashion - going to force ‘rebel’ traditional women to enter the workforce as well?
December 30th, 2005 at 6:54 pm - IP Man-Hash: dc6df4d5c25ad
Dude, that is a fucking long tract you are asking me to respond to. I have to get ready for a NYE party. Yay!!1!11!!! Fat Boy Slim at Bondi Beach tonight, whoohooooooo. But I shan’t be there. Am off to a right posh affair in a mansion, no less. I’ll have a dance, a swim in their indoor pool, a spa and a few lovely cocktails. Sigh. Then fireworks at Midnight. Hurrah!!1!! Love fireworks on the harbour, so much to do, so little time. Excitement!!
I will try and contain myself long enough to answer you. Joy!! Nowhere near US Chapter 11 joylessness.
“they can thank the dominant hegemony of typically patriarchal corporate competition for making me a product of my environment.�
“*sigh* this is just ‘the devil made me do it’ excuse. ”
No, it’s real, very subtle, but the insidious influence is there.
“Frothing at the mouth and calling women whores and bitches is not the way to do it.�
“Didn’t your mother ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right?”
No
“I’m not excusing Dick.”
I know. That’s good.
“I just think you are playing right into his hands.”
I disagree.
“a woman that conforms to a 1950’s feminine archetype, which, no offense is a woman that keeps her mouth shut; does not have any opinions of her own; should only speak when supporting a man’s opinions.�
“I talk a lot (too much!), I certainly have my own opinions, and I’m not afraid to disagree with a man. I believe that men and women both have responsibilities to one another. While men are to be leaders, my idea of leadership is certainly not akin to domination and oppression. It is - in a term - ’servant leadership’..”
I know what you mean. Very good.
“They don’t get to screw with however many women they want, because their moral priority is to love and respect their wives.”
Yes, for those that have morals. We live in morally declining times though. Womens rates of infidelity are taking over the mens!!
“There would be a lot less social problems if men weren’t social deadbeats to their children (and wives).”
You’re not wrong.
“They will have to be loving and respectful of their wives even if they don’t feel like it. I know that the ideal is far short of ‘the real’, but we should at least seek to work towards these things instead of tearing it down at every opportunity.”
True.
“The problem is not with men who refuse responsibility, but with women who use the legitimate problems that women face and use it as a justification for all sorts of irresponsible behaviours. Example: we feel sorry for women, so therefore the very idea of marriage has lost it’s meaning through easy divorce laws.”
I’m sorry, I do not understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if women aren’t getting a fair deal in a marriage that we shouldn’t feel sorry for them and allow them to get out?” I disagree totally if this is what you mean.
“The men here perhaps do not like to be challenged by women, in the workplace, home or bedroom.�
“On the contrary, it is the women who do not want the men to challenge them. You didn’t want Dick to challenge you. If you aren’t a bitch and a whore, then there’s no reason to be upset when somebody calls you one.”
No reason to be upset when someone calls you a bitch or a whore? Are you kidding? It’s highly offensive and if you do nothing about it, then they just think they can get away with it again and again, perpetuating the decay of common courtesy.
““Gangs of men can roam the streets and beaches gang raping whoever they please because hey, no clothes = whore, hijab = don’t touch, just marry.â€?
“Bull crap.”
Fraid not. Sydney riots didn’t just happen out of the blue.
“The Stepford wives - gosh, I have a jolly time laughing at that propaganda piece! It is pure gold.
1. Do you believe everything you see on television if it proclaims itself as liberal and feminist?” Of course not. I don’t watch tv.
“2. Is there something wrong with being a happy housewife or are you - in Simone de Beauvoir fashion - going to force ‘rebel’ traditional women to enter the workforce as well?” LOL. Hardly.
Happy New Year, men included :)
December 30th, 2005 at 8:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: 60b660aafc3e4
“Dude, that is a fucking long tract you are asking me to respond to. ”
Sorry about that. I type fast and tend to underestimate myself.
Happy New Year to you, too, female!
January 2nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
A wise forfeit, Grump. I can’t tell where Female’s nonsense begins and where she left off the quotes on the out of context snippets.
-Dick
February 13th, 2007 at 10:44 pm - IP Man-Hash: a2dadaa74aa7e
I wonder, do any of you have daughters? And what do you think of your mothers?
February 13th, 2007 at 10:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: adc0a2c9dafc9
This is not the place for nosey girl questions… You’re not welcome here.