Yes, quite obviously this is true

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.

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.

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.

It’s difficult to understand how anyone could get 6 months past losing their virginity without understanding this either. But there’s vast numbers who don’t.

29 thoughts on “Yes, quite obviously this is true”

  1. Of course there are a few women who are not at all fussy about the blokes they have sex with, but I suspect they quite quickly realise that it can be a profitable money spinner as well.

  2. bloke (not) in spain

    Don’t think it’s as simple as that.
    Little bit of revealed information from the working girl sorority: The high proportion of punters who try to establish a “relationship” with their service provider. Not just an attempt to get freebies or reduced rates. They’d be quite happy if the final cost was higher than the hourly rate
    Coz us blokes aren’t as “easy sex” driven as we think we are. Actually, we’re not much different from women. It’s why blokes will be shirty about paying for a hooker, up front. But will do twice the going rate in drinks, meals & sparkly stuff for the likelihood of a peck on the cheek but no coffee.
    See, we want to own them. Be in possession.
    Hence AshleyMad
    Not that easy for a women to get an easy lay. Coz men come with all their baggage. It’s not the getting screwed. It’s getting shot of them afterwards. So it’s difficult for women to get the itch scratched in the context of their everyday life. Complications. Complications.
    Women are stupid enough to think AM’s going to be full of men without complications, when it’s going to exactly the same men they’re trying to avoid. Because, the why of why they’re signing up isn’t the why they tell themselves it is. It’s not easy sex they’re after it’s an addition to the harem. As in zero plus one, in most cases.
    Which is why the business model. It’s the same model’s why blokes pick up restaurant bills & buy sparkly stuff. It’s the bloke’s roll to pay.

    Product warning
    That’s not to say AM won’t be well seasoned with WGs. Like every other dating site. Ask yourself. Do you really think that stunning 23 year old thrusting the enormous norks at the selfie has to resort to Badoo to find boyfriends?

  3. “your own days of going to nightclubs”: I never did. I preferred standing around letting girls hurl themselves at me. Them wuz the days.

  4. You’re exactly right, b(n)is, with one addendum.

    “Not that easy for a women to get an easy lay. Coz men come with all their baggage. It’s not the getting screwed. It’s getting shot of them afterwards. So it’s difficult for women to get the itch scratched in the context of their everyday life. Complications. Complications.”

    Even if they do get that lay it’s likely to be awful. There’s a huge number of sexually frustrated women around who can get all the sex they want as long as sex is defined as “the man gets off, the women gets to ponder paint colours for the ceiling”.

  5. bloke (not) in spain

    “Men are the Gatekeepers of Commitment.”
    I think you’re totally wrong, there.
    Look at the couples you’ve know, one partner’s two timed the other. Women get angry. What concerns them is personal security. Which gets sorted out if it runs to divorce.
    It’s the blokes who are emotionally devastated. it’s actually worse than some stranger borrowing their car. Far worse. They’ve been hit in their self esteem. No longer the bull of the herd. They cry. They’re the ones require commitment.

  6. @bloke (not) in spain

    Not quite the point I was trying to make. Women decide whether men have sex or not – men are the ones that have to do most of the work to get there. Men decide whether women get married or not. IoW, women have to show men that they’ve got something to offer in the wife department. At least that used to be the case.

    Women did’t like this, they thought they should be entitled to whatever kind of relationship they want, on their terms – hence lots of feminist squeaking about ‘all women are beautiful’, ‘ down with slut-shaming’ and other such nonsense.

    Men need to realise, or rather rediscover, that they have power too – after all, has anyone ever seen a wedding magazine that was called ‘Beautiful Groom’?

  7. Who was it on here that mentioned the Chateau Heartiste blog? Jeez, there are some strong views on there but their general view of the respective roles of men and women often hits the mark.

  8. Somebody mentioned it on here once, with a warning that it’s not for the faint-hearted. And they were right. 🙂

    I could have found out who, were it not for Tim having the only blog in the world that isn’t listed on Google. Grrrrr.

  9. blog in the world that isn’t listed on Google indeed it isn’t, do google like not like our esteemed host? Anybody know anything about this?

  10. Re the lack of Google search, Tim probably needs to enable SEO (search engine optimisation) in the WordPress control panel.

  11. @Tim Newman

    If you go in prepared for the worst you can learn things. Taking the Red Pill they call it.

  12. I don’t think it’s SEO.

    I think it’s some sort of google block, maybe because of all the naughty words.

    It’s been like this for some time. Ie, if it was SEO, presumably a seatch for say “site:worstall.com murphy” would at least through up some results, but nothing at all.

    Whereas put the same search into:

    https://ixquick.com/

    and which doesn’t use google, and you do get results.

  13. Thank you, gentlemen, for the Chateau Hartiste referral.

    Hard core indeed. My question, having in 20 minutes’ perusal found nothing with which to disagree, is this: Why bother?

    I mean, you go through all that mauling of your own character for a …. What?

    Not a criticism exactly. Pleased to see an articulate articulation of male interests unabashed by zeitgeist. Just, once you’ve bypassed the gal’s knickers, what’s the point?

  14. @ Edward Lud

    “Not a criticism exactly. Pleased to see an articulate articulation of male interests unabashed by zeitgeist. Just, once you’ve bypassed the gal’s knickers, what’s the point?”

    For the Lulz. Obviously. Oh, and the Trumpenkrieg.

  15. “Once you’ve bypassed the gal’s knickers, what’s the point?”

    There is none. You are now free……………..

  16. Think Tim had been blocked by Google for running the advertising links, not for the swearing. It did used to be listed on Google. To be fair I’m sure Tim would rather have his Forbes blog prominent than this one – rather more remuneration there. This is for fun, and for writing practice, as I understand it.


  17. If you go in prepared for the worst you can learn things. Taking the Red Pill they call it.

    Indeed, there’s some good stuff there. Not that I really need it these days being married and all, but I like the way – as Edward Lud says – they are unashamedly un-PC.

  18. bloke (not) in spain

    Chateau Hartiste?
    Well that was an interesting one of the wee small ones. Fings we learn on the interweb, eh?
    Does have the slightest tang of male egos being propped up though.

  19. MBE

    “Think Tim had been blocked by Google for running the advertising links, not for the swearing.”

    I am being slow here.

    Advertising links? Most websites on the internet have advertising (but are still linked from google); what’s the bit I am (obviously) missing?

  20. PF

    Google has certain policies on sites that run links that are effectively being used as “link spam” to raise the target site’s search engine ranking. (A left wing blog – I think Liberal Conspiracy iirc – ran a series of really weird sponsored posts in its dying days. Shaped to look like a blog post on politics then giving up the tenuous political connection to transmogrify into an ad for a site to sell anti-blood-clot socks or whatever. They weren’t doing that so that the readership base there would buy the socks. Though a few lefties let off various wtf or “sellout” comments when the site owner forgot to set the first few brazen ads as “no comments”. It was because the site featured highly on search engines, since it had quite a big web of content and a lot of inbound links from bloggers, social media and the press, back when it was highly regarded. In its twilight, the blog owner was making use of some of that “google juice” – advertisers knew they’d benefit from getting a link from such a site. Anyway I digress.)

    Google knows blogs in particular are prone to manipulation in manners as I described. It has a list somewhere of acceptable and unacceptable practices. I seem to recall that some of Tim’s practices – perhaps the links in the sidebar for golf etc, which were clearly there for the SEO rather than the off chance a blog reader would click on them – would rate on the dodgy side. But I’m writing this from memory. Fallible. Also possible that Tim wanted this site to be invisible to google, I suppose, but not sure why.

  21. MBE

    That’s really interesting – I’ve learnt something new, thanks….

    “Also possible that Tim wanted this site to be invisible to google, I suppose, but not sure why.”

    So – that would be like having a house that’s invisible from space, known only to those that know; I do rather like that idea…:)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *