The Reality Blog

There would have been occasions in the past when either your partner or girlfriend would have stated after a conversation with a member of her sex that "she is so fake" "she is such a phony" or something similar along those lines. You would have wondered how or where the hell that came from because you just had a normal conversation with a female who you interpreted as being, you know, alright. That is where the confusion rears and that's where one must pay attention to the experts as it's the experts who not only recognise that type of fraudulent behaviour or tactic because they practice it themselves. I must confess to being stunned in my early youth by those exact words by a potential future squeeze, who may have been of the opinion that those observations demanded explanation or it may have been just another ploy to divert my attention, who knows..

Women can and do recognise that type of behaviour in other women and it would be wise to move on as they commence that practise when they are young and work on refining it from there onwards.

The reason I mention the above is because there are two small ripple feminists by the name of Marcotte and Valenti who have been severely severed by their own, for precisely the same reason. Not for competition with the opposite sex as their audience have a preference for their own sex but a general dressing down and a bitchy walloping for their inane and stupefying commentary on topics and subjects of which they have no expertise or an ounce credibility. Their claim to fame is relentless male bashing also their interpretation of human behaviour via the tainted, deeply flawed, myopic, feminist nonsense can only be viewed as a wish list rather than anything practical or even required. Many of their own have castigated and soundly rejected their endless rantings for being precisely that. Here is a Marcotte example..

A lot of us feminists who came up online have been promoting a model of sexuality called “enthusiastic consent”, and I think that one thing that could strengthen this is tackling the market model of heterosexuality.  Because, to put on my Twisty Faster hat, if we cast men as buyers and women as sellers, that means that women are assumed to be in a perpetual state of consent just as that gallon of milk at the store is assumed to be on sale for anyone who can cobble together the $5 to buy it.  As long as the market model of heterosexuality is in play, the notion that sex should be a mutual exchange between two individuals will not make so much sense to people. …I actually would say that my ideal is a world where everyone is kind of selling a little, but no one is cast as a buyer.  I think that people’s friendships work this way, in fact.  People shouldn’t feel entitled to have the time or affection of others, but instead should assume the responsibility of being charming enough to have people give it to them of their own free will. I do see a turn towards this in our culture somewhat, with men actually starting to think a little harder about being what women want instead of just meeting the metaphorical price tag that they are socialized to think is hanging off women.  We just have a long way to go.”

Marcotte is in denial mode as she tries to shift blame from feminism for lowering the cost or value of sex for women and reducing it to such a degree that women are now either forced to give it up on demand or find some cats to keep her company. Marcotte lives in denial that human biology and human behavioral patterns are established over thousands of years and her trying to wish it away just does not work and neither does forcing dysfunctional feminist doctrine down everyone's throat. Feminism has clearly harmed women in more ways than one. First they spread the lie that they can have it all, then came the "get pregnant at 40" lie (which NOW (Nat.Org.ofWitches) denied funding for) and now we have the denial that female sexuality is but an equal opportunity trade-off option but in reality it is what women are basically all about. Take away that option from females and it's lowers their status, lower the female status and you end up with an individual who has no power to wheel and deal her way to what she would like or wants. Not a great loss you may say but what happens now is that women will have to settle for what they can get rather then choose what they want..

“His new research, published in The Journal of Social Psychology earlier this summer, used two data sets on 37 countries, including an international online sex survey of 317,000 people and data specific to gender equity and related subjects. He found that countries ranked higher in gender equality also generally had more casual sex, more sex partners per capita, younger ages for first sex and greater tolerance/approval of premarital sex.

More information on a fine post on this topic here..

Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon weighs in, straddling the tightrope she’s been walking for a while now:
“This might seem like excellent news, just one more argument in favor of equality — and it is! But it also paints a mathematical, emotionless portrait of relations between the sexes.…The result is a world where women use sex to get what they want from men — whether it’s a free dinner or a lifetime commitment. It’s similar to an argument made by Mark Regnerus…who talked to me earlier this year about his belief that feminist advances have driven down the price of sex to an all-time low in the U.S. These are compelling theories and it’s hard to argue with the cold, hard facts that they present — but certainly economics alone can’t adequately explain the complexities and idiosyncrasies of sexual and romantic relationships.”

Yes ofcourse, economics alone does not explain it but it does go a long way in demonstrating that it actually exists. Even women have confessed that for the last 20 years or so. I am not really perplexed that women are loosing their power to manipulate men as they always have in the past but it does demonstrate once again that feminists have been lying to everyone and all are just fodder to their experiments..

Susan Walsh 

Of course economics can’t explain individual idiosyncratic relationships, and it’s not meant to. What it does explain is the correlation among feminism, relaxed sexual mores, and relationship commitment, which is the “price” of sex. This puts feminists in an uncomfortable bind – feminism has led to women getting less of what they want, in general. For women who proudly call themselves sluts this is not necessarily problematic, in that they don’t appear to want what most women want, i.e. emotionally intimate relationship sex. Still, it means that feminism is now relevant primarily to a very small slice of the sisterhood.