Consider This Message
From a commenter to the Amy Alkon article at Pajamas Media I referenced below:
Why shouldn’t wimmin be made to remain sexually available?
Men putting endless barriers around females (as their male reproductive strategy for marginalizing other males) is why we have the ambition, greed, political problems(triangulation: immigration, feminism etc) and the pyschological/pathology, chaotic economic and overall ‘growth’/environmental problems we do in western culture.
Islamics and Polynesians and etc indolent cultures are non growth based –ie non enviromentally destructive and non chaotic/ non pathologic– specifically because the males are content…
…given the “sexual availability” of their females.
It is ironic that the west’s sexual revolution’s and “free love” lead to the price of sex going through the roof (thereby exacerbating male competition to generate more for themselves –at other’s expenses– so they can buy some acceptance and fidelity from a creature so en-pedalsteled that she rarely offers any.)...
I find it fascinating that liberals have no problem advocating “redistribution of wealth” but are blind to the real wealth –that biologically underpins and motivates all the other kinds of competition/ wealth aquiring.
Why can't any of our commenters write like that, huh? Lazy en-pedalsteling bastards.
Anyway, remember: there is no sexism. Much like there is no spoon.
(The Plain People of The Blogs): Whoa.


er...What?
It makes more sense if they meant "Industrial" instead of "Sexual" Revolution, but of course, it doesn't make sense then either.
Posted by: Jay B. | April 16, 2008 at 05:31 PM
Maybe it's just that kind of day for me, but I can sorta see where Mr. I-didn't-get-any-today is coming from. Jean Auel, in her Clan of the Caveman series, makes the point that, in her caveman world, nobody knows how babies are made, so jealousy and all the attendant territoriality is nonexistent.
Of course, Mr. IDGAT probably envisions freely-available harems, with no responsibility on his side, sorta like the guy in Texas had. Or something. As long as the wimmins keep their pieholes shut and stop ASKING for things.
Posted by: merciless | April 16, 2008 at 05:41 PM
Why shouldn’t wimmin be made to remain sexually available?
You had me at hello.
Posted by: TKK | April 16, 2008 at 05:54 PM
Why shouldn’t wimmin be made to remain sexually available?
And, more importantly, why shouldn't straight men be made to be sexually available for gays? Bend over, dude! othewise, you're just contributing to ambition, greed, political problems(triangulation: immigration, heterosexualism etc) and the pyschological/pathology, chaotic economic and overall ‘growth’/environmental problems.
Posted by: rea | April 16, 2008 at 05:56 PM
And, more importantly, why shouldn't straight men be made to be sexually available for gays? Bend over, dude!
Great point. If this is what it takes to keep Bill Kristol occupied instead of what he's doing now I will be happy to volunteer that guy over there for duty.
Posted by: Righteous Bubba | April 16, 2008 at 06:04 PM
some days I dream of being able to invent a word. Today I will be dreaming of enpedasteled.
Posted by: Kathleen | April 16, 2008 at 06:44 PM
I think just reading this kills brain cells. I felt my IQ decline by 3 points.
Posted by: DrDick | April 16, 2008 at 07:23 PM
Uh, yeah. I liked that commenter's idea better when it was on Arrested Development.
Gob: 52% of the country is single. That's a market that's been dominated by apartment rentals. Let's take some of that market. I call it "Single City."
How do we filter out the teases? We. Don't. Let. Them In.
This goes for the guys, too. Because sometimes the guys are tapped out. But check your lease, man. Because you're living in Fuck City.
Posted by: va | April 16, 2008 at 08:04 PM
And I'd be willing to bet you that when faced with the merest whiff of someone claiming legal entitlement to anything that isn't pussy, he has the vapors.
Posted by: julia | April 16, 2008 at 08:52 PM
The commenter certainly makes abject "biological" poverty very attractive. lol
Posted by: Silver Owl | April 16, 2008 at 09:49 PM
many thanks for the myles na gopaleen reference.
Posted by: tim serbo | April 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM
It is ironic that the west’s sexual revolution’s and “free love” lead to the price of sex going through the roof...
He can suck my dick gratis.
Posted by: Gerald Curl | April 16, 2008 at 11:01 PM
How does one integrate into an "indolent culture"? Because I want me some of that.
Posted by: Molly Ivors | April 17, 2008 at 06:16 AM
I concur on "en-pedalsteling." Genius and beauty.
Whiskey Fire - The Mothers of Invention
Posted by: donnie | April 17, 2008 at 07:57 AM
Best read in the voice of the hash-addled caterpillar from the cartoon version of "Alice and Wonderland."
Posted by: Jay C. | April 17, 2008 at 08:46 AM
Yes, why shouldn't this man's daughter be forced to be available for anyone's sexual pleasure? And his wife and mamma too.
Get on over here, Granny! Some men are buildig up competitive juices and need a release!
Posted by: Susan of Texas | April 17, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Between this and the right-wing blogger (I forget the name) who wants to have sex with robots, can anybody doubt that the whole neoconservative movement is merely a way to get revenge on all the kewl kids who didn't invite the neos to their make-out parties?
Posted by: Gummo | April 17, 2008 at 12:33 PM
Once again, I compliment you for channelling Himself.
Truth is, indeed, an odd number.
Posted by: charles pierce | April 17, 2008 at 01:23 PM
Lemme try this...
Why shouldn't sheep be made to remain sexually available?
Men putting electrical fencing around ewes (as their male reproductive... er...
I guess it doesn't work.
Posted by: Thomas Allen | April 17, 2008 at 01:38 PM
"Islamics" are indolent because they have ready access to "available" women? That's one the most fact-free sentences I've read.
Oh, and isn't the poster calling for redistribution of the nookie because, even when he offers money, he isn't getting any>
Posted by: K. Ron Silkwood | April 17, 2008 at 02:25 PM
I find it fascinating that liberals have no problem advocating “redistribution of wealth” but are blind to the real wealth –that biologically underpins and motivates all the other kinds of competition/ wealth aquiring.
That is just about the most wonderful thing I've ever read. It's even better when I remember how excited Glenn Reynolds is about porking robots.
Posted by: Phila | April 17, 2008 at 03:08 PM
Islamics and Polynesians and etc indolent cultures are non growth based –ie non enviromentally destructive and non chaotic/ non pathologic– specifically because the males are content…
…given the “sexual availability” of their females.
*making note: check air fares to Tahiti*
Posted by: actor212 | April 17, 2008 at 04:20 PM
Maybe someone should send a robotic fellatio lamb to Cheney's office, pronto.
And since he's Republican, make it a male.
Posted by: the Rev Jerry Gloryhole | April 17, 2008 at 09:20 PM
Well, at least this guy's lack of access to the good things in life hasn't made him bitter and caused him to latch onto some weird, irrational belief system.
Posted by: STH | April 18, 2008 at 02:16 AM
so they can buy some acceptance and fidelity from a creature so en-pedalsteled that she rarely offers any
He's right you know. That neck... those pedals... once she gits ta twangin' on that pedal steel, that's all she wrote when it comes to sweet, sweet lovin' in the back of the truck. The Pedal Steel is a jealous partner, only revealing its deepest secrets to the most dedicated of its lovers.
Close down the honky tonk, throw away the key...
Posted by: chiggins | April 18, 2008 at 07:15 AM
I am so aghast I can barely type. I have to stop at home depot first though...you know, so I can buy some fencing and lumber to build the wife's pedestal and containment area. Actually, she might like that, it would keep our horrible babies away. Perhaps, one should closely consider what one wishes for, lest they actually receive it.
Posted by: Jake T. Snake | April 18, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Say what? Is this guy actually advocating free love as long as it's just women giving it up? Someone did not get laid like his frat brothers did and apparently he'd like society to make it up to him. Fat chance.
Did anyone else find it weird that he's advocating (with no real understanding thereof) the multiple wives/consorts model in place in Muslim countries? Apparently he missed the part where if you touch someone else's wife/consort, her male relatives have the right to castrate THEN kill you (still an active law in some countries). Try that out for size, ya rat bastard.
Posted by: Reba | April 19, 2008 at 08:24 PM