Feminist Barbara Ellen, late of the British rag, The Guardian, takes time out of her busy schedule to scold the men whose information was compromised by the Ashley Madison security breach. At least two men are no longer alive to receive the benefits of her “wisdom.”
Am I supposed to feel sorry for those exposed by the Ashley Madison security breach? Well, I don’t.
Now, why would I expect empathy from a feminist for men? That would be a bit like a stomach parasite empathizing with the host creature.
It’s not a moral judgment on my part; it’s just always painful watching people posturing as wild freethinkers, unfettered by convention. To my mind, AM subscribers come across as faux-sexual libertines – too wussy, miserly and/or timid to either have a proper, full-blown affair or hire a sex worker. The irony is that most of the women on the site are now said to be (ta-da!) sex workers. Either that or photographs of fake-women, who don’t exist beyond their beguiling “sexually available” pixels.
So if you aren’t committing adultery the way Barbara Ellen approves of, you’re a wuss, a faux-libertine, you probably have a little dick, you’re gay, you’re broke, you hate your mother, and [insert standard bullshit woman insults to male sexuality/masculinity]. Yes, just go out a hire a prostitute, which, in a more civilized society, would be as legal and acceptable as hiring a contractor to install new cabinets. Unfortunately, feminists and their war on male sexual pleasure has driven prostitutes into the darkest corners of society and deprived them of legal recourse against those who harm them. So sex workers have to utilize sites like Ashley Madison under the guise of “looking to have in affair” in order to ply “the world’s oldest trade” ™ when they should be able to just put up a sign in a storefront and offer blowjobs at market rates.
Then there’s the stupidity factor, and I’m sorry but it’s predominantly male stupidity. Unlike women, men were charged to enter (and indeed exit) the site, which might have given them a small clue as to what was going on. Which hinged on the same thing that’s always gone on – that it’s generally only men who go to such extraordinary lengths to get laid, because women simply don’t need to.
Oh, this is so fantastically shortsighted, it’s hard to find a place to begin. While Barbara Ellen merrily wags her little feminist finger at the “male stupidity” of trying to obtain sex, any mention of “The Fappening” or “revenge porn” (remember when releasing someone’s intimate data was a “devastating, very modern, betrayal” and the victims of such deserved ” stronger, more focused legislation”? Yeah me neither) would fill her little feminist eyes with tears of righteous histrionic rage. Women seeking validation by uploading pictures of themselves to a third-party, aka “female stupidity” should be excused and mitigated (by men). When it comes to “male stupidity”, meaning treating women’s vaginas like they are worth more than they are, well, Barbara and the hens like are free to mock men because as she says herself, men must go to “extraordinary lengths to get laid, because women simply don’t need to.”
Some of you might have noticed from your own days of going to nightclubs how frequently females were let in for free, because that was the only way to get the (fee-paying) males in – and how the reverse never seemed to occur. As the Ashley Madison payment system shows, in some ways this never stops.
Not just let in for free, Barbara. Women typically get free drinks, primacy of place, lots of emotional validation (more important than sex to a woman), in exchange for serving as bait for men’s money. Seems like a fair exchange between the club and the women aka sex objects/decor. The only one getting shafted, in a bad way, is the man.
However “hot” or otherwise, however sexually driven or otherwise a woman might be, she knows she can always get sex – so long as sex is all she wants and she’s not too choosy about the partner. It’s in the female DNA – or at least this is the Ellen view – not to worry about obtaining sex, only about the quality of the sex (and the man). It’s a clear-cut marketplace issue. Women know that the supply will always be there and that the supply will always exceed the demand.
A half-truth at best. A woman’s sexual supply peaks in her mid to late twenties. After which, the decline is of quality dick is sharp and notable. But yes, a woman can always find a man willing to fuck them, but that would be all, but the goal of a woman is not to fuck a man, but to get him to commit to her exclusively.
Let’s be clear: there aren’t hordes of insane, conceited, delusional women walking around, thinking: “I’m so hot that I can get any man I want!” The whole point is that women don’t have to be particularly hot to get sex.
I disagree, there are hordes of insane, conceited, delusional women walking around. Females’ natural vanity, combined with the gynocentric coltishness of feminism that teaches women that their vaginas imbue them with supremacy over men, it makes them insane, conceited, and delusional.
While to a straight man being able to always get laid might look like a super-power, in reality it’s not, unless it truly doesn’t matter to a woman who she has sex with. Once you put desire (whom the woman might want) into the equation, this “power” is exposed for what it is – ultimately worthless. What does it matter to a woman that she could end up having sex with somebody/anybody from a bar/club/website if there’s no one that she’s interested in?
Here’s a tacit admission of truth: sex to a woman really means nothing because women are generally passive recipients of sex from start to finish. Her “power” to dole out sex, is really nothing but a gatekeeper function, and she doesn’t even have to be a particularly smart or judicious gatekeeper to let a man through her portcullis, so to speak.
Moreover, if a woman wants something deeper, perhaps more relationship-shaped, then that’s where the game sharply changes and the playing field levels. This isn’t necessarily because women want relationships more, and spend their evenings sobbing into their cat’s fur about the non-arrival of their prince, but because finding a special, lasting connection is extremely difficult for both sexes.
If you were reading this, it is a fantastic confession: As a man, your commitment (emotional, financial, temporal) is inherently worth more to a woman, than her sex is to you. Once she’s hunting for a commitment (which they all are, ultimately) you, the man, are the prize, not her. It’s also interesting how her first thought of an acceptable man is a “prince” and not an “equal partner who makes exactly as much as I do, and evenly splits all of the household responsibilities.” Her reference point to a man in a relationship is a man who is socially and financially superior to her. Men, don’t fall for this companionate, 50/50 bullshit. The greatest service you could do any woman in any relationship you are in is to be better than her.
Ultimately, everyone finds it difficult getting what they really want, just in different ways. However, perhaps men in particular could learn from the Ashley Madison debacle. Sites such as AM can only work because certain men are conditioned to make surreal efforts to obtain sex, so much so that it feels “normal” to sign up for adultery websites that demand potentially catastrophic personal details.
This complaint is so general that it could be applied to any online transaction. Don’t want your data stolen? Don’t shop on Amazon/Walmart/Ebay/Target/Etsy/WTFever. Her position absolves the hacker of responsibility. I would advise her to stop victim-blaming before she triggers someone.
By contrast, for women, obtaining “just sex” requires little to no effort. So, while there probably are some women wanting extracurricular sex, who simply can’t source it anywhere else, there wouldn’t be that many, certainly not the hordes promised by Ashley Madison. The sad truth is that certain men only believed it because it suited them to believe that women could be as sexually desperate as them.
Again, sex, in and of itself, is worth nothing to a woman, until she wants a commitment. Barbara Ellen’s conclusion is that men are at fault for having their sexual desires preyed upon, not only by Ashley Madison, but by the hackers who stole and published their information (victim…blaming?) But if “just sex” requires so little effort and is of such little value to a woman, why should I as a man have any regard for her vagina? Why should I offer one iota more of compensation for it than the value she places on it?