The Thinking Housewife

...and the evils of jilling off.

Quote :

Do modern women seem to you either desperately unhappy or manically triumphant? Do they seem to be hopeless or filled with the most unreal of hopes?

Uhhhhh...

Quote :

Perhaps we need look no further for light on these strange contradictions than Dr. Laura Berman, the famous expert on female sexual health. Dr. Berman, who proves that wearing a white lab coat gives almost any statement an air of authority, openly advises women to have sex. She advises them to have sex with themselves ...

Italics not added by me. Apparently the thought of someone having sex with themselves is a shocking one to Miss Laura Wood, who we can assume owns no vaguely phallic-shaped objects or things that vibrate. And who has no fingers.

Quote :

A woman living in the lonely chamber of “self-pleasuring” is not enacting her deepest dreams.

...She isn't?

The Thinking (and Non-Jilling-Off) Housewife is pretty anti-women's pleasure...

Quote :

No matter how pleasurable it may be, masturbatory sex, whether for men or women, desensitizes.

Well, of course, if you do it too often or too hard-- just wait for a day or two and--

Quote :

It makes both men and women – in their own way and for different reasons – impatient during intercourse and with the effort to achieve simultaneous pleasure.

No, being a jackass or uncaring of/uncommunicative with your partner does that.

Quote :

And, it’s not true women have more sexual pleasure over the long term. Many more end up divorced and alone. Lesbians resort to toys and cheap thrills. Addictions produce less pleasure over time. Masturbatory sex diminishes the incidence of mutual pleasure in marriage. The highest form of sexual gratification is reciprocal pleasure in intercourse, especially when accompanied by an openness to pregnancy.

Masturbatory sex – with men, with women, or alone – is shameful and self-centered.

So don't ever jack off in front of your spouse!

The rest of the article degenerates into blah blah Christianity (despite the fact that no where in the Bible is masturbation explicitly mentioned) blah blah offensive generalizing about a lesbian stranger that Laura claims to have met on a hiking trip blah blah birth control.

Oh, hey, she's also racist.

Not gonna post any more excepts because I'm sick of going through the site. Have at it folks.

Quote :

Do modern women seem to you either desperately unhappy or manically triumphant? Do they seem to be hopeless or filled with the most unreal of hopes?

Let me think.... no. Neither. Are we done here?

Malganis wrote:

Apparently the thought of someone having sex with themselves is a shocking one to Miss Laura Wood, who we can assume owns no vaguely phallic-shaped objects or things that vibrate. And who has no fingers.

I have fingers, but I don't have sex with myself. Just sayin'. I won't be the one going blind.

At least sex with yourself is sex with someone you love. Also, for those of us who just don't have the time and energy to go through the trouble of online dating sites, it saves money.

Also, isn't the phrase "Thinking Housewife" an oxymoron? I thought they weren't supposed to think.

She also wrote about the "slut walks" that the guy on Third Edge of The Sword was blathering about.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quote :

They want a world in which rape does not occur. Such a thing is not possible. However, there is a way to gain some measure of safety. A woman can protect herself against rape not by participating in protests, especially protests defending sluttiness, but by earning the protection of good men. Men protect women against men. The sensible path for a woman in a dangerous world – and the sensible path for women collectively – is to earn the protection of good men. Protection is not a right, but a privilege.

Women earn the protection of good men by dressing modestly, by recognizing the nature of masculinity, and by remaining faithful. Then their safety increases. Constable Michael Sanguinetti in Toronto was perhaps, without realizing it, articulating this truth. Good men don’t want to protect sluts. Why risk one’s life for a slut? Why care about a woman who is willing to give up nothing for you or for other decent men like you?

Modesty, both indirectly and directly, does protect women from rape. Sluttiness makes women much less safe in a dangerous world.

Quote :

Protection is not a right, but a privilege.

So, that's a troll, right.

It is, at the very least, hard to distinguish from an actual trolling attempt (the same impersonating blog that I mentioned in the other thread).

Strychnine wrote:

As far as personal safety goes, if women reject patriarchy then they don't deserve the security net that comes with it.

Quote :

Sluttiness makes women much less safe in a dangerous world.

So... when women are raped, it's because they're sluts? WTF

4shadowedice4 wrote:

Quote :

Sluttiness makes women much less safe in a dangerous world.

So... when women are raped, it's because they're sluts? WTF

Sadly, that's the view some people take. If you dress in any way that could be seen as provocative or acting in a suggestive manner, you are a big slut and just asking for it. In some way or another someone will find a way to say that the victim was being inviting to the rapist. Good girls don't get raped.

Salamas wrote:

4shadowedice4 wrote:

Quote :

Sluttiness makes women much less safe in a dangerous world.

So... when women are raped, it's because they're sluts? WTF

Sadly, that's the view some people take. If you dress in any way that could be seen as provocative or acting in a suggestive manner, you are a big slut and just asking for it. In some way or another someone will find a way to say that the victim was being inviting to the rapist. Good girls don't get raped.

Quite a few people say that mankind is constantly progressing, but you read about people like that it makes you stop and think 'Are we really?'.

I mean, it's women like that, that put other women back in the 'Women should be seen, not heard.' phase.

4shadowedice4 wrote:

Quite a few people say that mankind is constantly progressing, but you read about people like that it makes you stop and think 'Are we really?'.

No, I really think we are. Just not in a straight line and not everybody at the same time.

grmblfjx wrote:

4shadowedice4 wrote:

Quite a few people say that mankind is constantly progressing, but you read about people like that it makes you stop and think 'Are we really?'.

No, I really think we are. Just not in a straight line and not everybody at the same time.

Quite a few people never realized the pinnacle the Roman civilization reached before shit hit the fan and Europoors fucked up the Dark Ages for everyone.

You only know that because I basically just said that elsewhere. To you, no less.

Quote :

Protection is not a right, but a privilege.

...

Constable Michael Sanguinetti in Toronto was perhaps, without realizing it, articulating this truth. Good men don’t want to protect sluts. Why risk one’s life for a slut? Why care about a woman who is willing to give up nothing for you or for other decent men like you?

So I guess this person's motto is "Your neighbor is unworthy of your love if they're not following your moral code"? Gee, I like how s/he just pulled that out of his/her ass, instead of the Bible.

Quote :

Protection is not a right, but a privilege.

...

Constable Michael Sanguinetti in Toronto was perhaps, without realizing it, articulating this truth. Good men don’t want to protect sluts. Why risk one’s life for a slut? Why care about a woman who is willing to give up nothing for you or for other decent men like you?

Does this apply to "slutty" men, too?

Miss Misery wrote:

Does this apply to "slutty" men, too?

Sure it does! But as you know, a man can only be a slut if he is gay. Liking the peen = slutty.

Because the women of the Democratic Republic of Congo are such skanks.

I hate to sound like a pedantic Marxist academic, but associating rape with sluttiness in women instead of violence in men isn't just sexist, it's ethnocentric. It universalizes the date-rape experiences of privileged white American women in order to judge all women. Imagine if this blogger walked into an auditorium and yelled, "Bring me one of those whiny rape victims so I can give them a piece of my mind!" and you had the honor of bringing her an Afghan 13-year-old.

Malganis wrote:

Oh, hey, she's also racist.

You ain't kiddin'...I just paid a visit to her site and came across this little gem.

Quote :

THESE are days of darkness for white European civilization. The sky is darkened. The sun is in near total eclipse.

Gee, how nice of her to be so open-minded.

Well... Can I give slutty men a piece of my mind?

Quote :

Why risk one’s life for a slut? Why care about a woman who is willing to give up nothing for you or for other decent men like you?

"Good" men will only be good for you as long as they are sole owners of your vagina.

This website is fractally wrong, it is wrong overall, but it is somehow equally wrong no matter how far you zoom in. I have spent some time just reading it recently and I keep going "wait what?" I mean I ... I even have trouble finding a specific article to talk about because it's all so utterly insane. I'm not expressing myself clearly here, but she's against: tattoos, racially and gender desegregated education, and explaining why voluntary discrimination against women is good. It's like a really backwards housewife from the 1950s shooting her mouth off.

KeyserSoze wrote:

This website is fractally wrong, it is wrong overall, but it is somehow equally wrong no matter how far you zoom in.

Lovely imagery. A+, would buy again.

KeyserSoze wrote:

This website is fractally wrong, it is wrong overall, but it is somehow equally wrong no matter how far you zoom in. I have spent some time just reading it recently and I keep going "wait what?" I mean I ... I even have trouble finding a specific article to talk about because it's all so utterly insane. I'm not expressing myself clearly here, but she's against: tattoos, racially and gender desegregated education, and explaining why voluntary discrimination against women is good. It's like a really backwards housewife from the 1950s shooting her mouth off.

Good grief...I think this woman is possessed by Helen B. Andelin.

Interestingly enough a friend of mine ran her posts through the Gender Guesser and the Gender Genie. In each case they came out between 60-75% male. Now I've tested that thing before and I find that it can be uncanny when it comes to figuring out peoples gender. Certainly I've never run into a female author that gets those values.

KeyserSoze wrote:

Interestingly enough a friend of mine ran her posts through the Gender Guesser and the Gender Genie. In each case they came out between 60-75% male. Now I've tested that thing before and I find that it can be uncanny when it comes to figuring out peoples gender. Certainly I've never run into a female author that gets those values.

KeyserSoze wrote:

Interestingly enough a friend of mine ran her posts through the Gender Guesser and the Gender Genie. In each case they came out between 60-75% male. Now I've tested that thing before and I find that it can be uncanny when it comes to figuring out peoples gender. Certainly I've never run into a female author that gets those values.

Except me.

Yeah, when I saw it, I knew I had to try it with my own Facebook posts, forum posts, and journal entries (I keep a paper diary like people in the olden days). And it says I'm a dude, 60-80%. I'm not.

Not that the Thinking Housewife couldn't be a man - it's common for pro-life men to pretend to be women in online discussions. I also need to provide the qualification that I have high-functioning autism, a condition that psychologists consider intellectually masculinizing, and I am therefore somewhat of an anomaly. Draw your own conclusions.