Post: #1

Last night one of my plates stayed over. She had to leave early, and I took the day off.

"Hank, I'm leaving. Blowjob? Quick sex? Hand job?"
"Nah babe, I'm all good from last night, have a good day at work."
"Ok. Go back to sleep then."
[Editor's note: This afternoon I regretted not taking the blowjob, but it was like 6:30 in the morning, and I was in a deep sleep.]

Sex is pretty much the most important part of any relationship. If a woman is into you, she'll bend over backwards (and forwards) to make sure you're sexually satisfied at all times. It's pretty great.

However, according to my favorite ironic blog, sex is no longer a necessary component of a relationship:

https://everydayfeminism.com/2017/03/don...t-asexual/

[Trigger warning: this blog sucks, and the article is too long and not worth reading. It's basically about how a woman decided she didn't want to have sex with her boyfriend anymore, but still wanted to be in a "relationship." Of course, now they're in an "open relationship", which means he pays all the bills while she sucks off bartenders. Justification: feminism / liberalism.]

Quote:"It’s been a couple years now since we decided that sex wasn’t really in the cards. But we’re still together, and we’re still just as happy, if not more.

It’s not a big deal for us. But there are so many societal messages that insist that any relationship that lacks sex is broken, defective, or doomed.

This encourages people to force a sexual attraction that may not be there, engage in a physical relationship that isn’t working, or to entirely discard a relationship that may have immense value in other ways, rather than simply focusing on what works and setting aside what doesn’t."

My physical relationship with my spouse wasn’t working – my partner had become very sick over the years due to chronic illness, and sex had begun to feel like an exhausting chore that made both of us unhappy.

So basically, you have a beta roommate. Who pays all your bills. Who you don't fuck.

Oh, and of course...

Quote:For my partner and I, we decided to open up our relationship, agreeing that if the other wanted to seek out a sexual, or even romantic, relationship with someone else, they were welcome to, as long as the line of communication remained open as well.

So dude is left in a relationship with no sex while his partner is out banging other people.

This is why I need feminism.

Post: #2

There's a logical discourse to this.

- All feminists are ugly
- Ugly people are not desired

- Feminists aren't desired


Simple logic that doesn't fail. These women want to eventually ban sex because they aren't getting any.

Look through all feminist lenses as them being ugly, everything else makes sense.

Post: #3

This is the feminist sex narrative...

- Sex isn't necessary (at least with their boyfriend)
- Open relationships are the norm (until they find a man who won't put up with that shit)
- Men should act feminine, but should understand doing so won't get them laid. It's just the "right thing to do." They should become "allies." Whatever the fuck that means.
- It's okay for women to fuck Trump supporters, as long as they feel bad about it
- Everyone should fuck transgenders, gays, people of color, and handicapped people, but it's okay for feminists to have a 6'4 cisgendered white male boyfriend. "It's different."

So basically, it's in your best interest to reject all the feminist shit, because these women are just going to fuck conservative traditional men anyway.

Post: #4

(01-11-2018 05:09 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  This is the feminist sex narrative...

- Sex isn't necessary (at least with their boyfriend)
- Open relationships are the norm (until they find a man who won't put up with that shit)
- Men should act feminine, but should understand doing so won't get them laid. It's just the "right thing to do." They should become "allies." Whatever the fuck that means.
- It's okay for women to fuck Trump supporters, as long as they feel bad about it
- Everyone should fuck transgenders, gays, people of color, and handicapped people, but it's okay for feminists to have a 6'4 cisgendered white male boyfriend. "It's different."

So basically, it's in your best interest to reject all the feminist shit, because these women are just going to fuck conservative traditional men anyway.

You're talking about carousel riders, not feminists. Riders want to fuck anything and everything without consequence, feminists want to ban sex.

Post: #5

(01-11-2018 04:40 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  It's basically about how a woman decided she didn't want to have sex with her boyfriend anymore, but still wanted to be in a "relationship."

I once had a woman try to tell me that blowjobs were for birthdays.

Post: #6

(01-11-2018 04:40 PM)HankMoody Wrote:  It’s not a big deal for us. But there are so many societal messages that insist that any relationship that lacks sex is broken, defective, or doomed.

Have you noticed that feminists always hide a morsel of truth somewhere in a huge waste of paragraphs?

Post: #7

I agree with the premise of your post, but a guy wrote that article, not a woman.

Post: #8

This relates back to the other "Open Relationship" thread we were talking in /thread-66553.html

They're all apart of the bigger picture of breaking the nuclear family.

It's an attack one monogamous relationships.

The only people usually pushing this are as stated above: Fat Ugly Feminists or mentally unstable girls.

That article is literally a look inside the brain of the female feminist hamster.

Lack of sex= "We don't need sex in a relationship"

Lack of masculine counterpart= "We don't need sex" "We're in an open relationship"

Hank you're correct in alluding to - why the fuck go through the hoops to agree with feminists in order to bang them - when in reality, they'll fuck guys who reject their views and are conservatives anyways.

The whole white knighting and being a feminist "ally" has never ever fucking worked.

Women don't like lap dogs and door mats - they want a challenge, emotion, friction, and their gina's tingled.

If a chick stops having sex with you or talks about being "poly" - E FUCKING JECT.

You lost the battle - but there's a war still raging on (and so is your boner).


What's ironic about this author - he claims that his chick was sick and banging was a chore and exhausting.

Then why is there a need for his chick to look outside their relationship for everything.

The cold fact is, she should be thanking him that he didn't just up and bail on a sick woman.



Something is awfully fish about this article and the author is broken - that's for sure.

Post: #9

(01-11-2018 06:34 PM)Huey Wrote:  I agree with the premise of your post, but a guy wrote that article, not a woman.

?????

Quote:Noah Redd is a contributing writer at Everyday Feminism, and a genderqueer, kinky, non-monogamous, graysexual writer with a knack for making things weird. In addition to kicking the heterocispatriarchy where it hurts, he writes about relationships, sexuality, and that fetish that makes you blush. When he isn’t doing that, he’s watching YouTube videos of dancing birds who are probably too good for this world. You can read his articles here.

Post: #10

(01-11-2018 07:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Quote:Noah Redd is a contributing writer at Everyday Feminism, and a genderqueer, kinky, non-monogamous, graysexual writer with a knack for making things weird. In addition to kicking the heterocispatriarchy where it hurts, he writes about relationships, sexuality, and that fetish that makes you blush. When he isn’t doing that, he’s watching YouTube videos of dancing birds who are probably too good for this world. You can read his articles here.

The guy should write for The Onion because he's already a walking caricature.

Post: #11

(01-11-2018 06:34 PM)Huey Wrote:  I agree with the premise of your post, but a guy wrote that article, not a woman.

Could have fooled me.

This "guy" is a woman.

Post: #12

Apparently, "graysexual" means that you only rarely experience sexual attraction.

I don't know how you reconcile that with being kinky and non-monoganous, but I don't think this dude/dudette/critter should be telling us about how relationships work.

Post: #13

I'd ask for a photo of it, but there isn't enough eye bleach in the world......

Post: #14

Soy

Post: #15

(01-11-2018 07:16 PM)debeguiled Wrote:  

Quote:Noah Redd is a contributing writer at Everyday Feminism, and a genderqueer, kinky, non-monogamous, graysexual writer with a knack for making things weird. In addition to kicking the heterocispatriarchy where it hurts, he writes about relationships, sexuality, and that fetish that makes you blush. When he isn’t doing that, he’s watching YouTube videos of dancing birds who are probably too good for this world. You can read his articles here.

^ That's in English, but I only understand like 4 words from that.

Genderqueen?
Graysexual?
Heterocispatriarchy?

I don't even want to fucking know.

Post: #16

(01-12-2018 11:41 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  Heterocispatriarchy?

"Normal"

He's fighting "normal".

Post: #17

(01-12-2018 12:15 PM)Jetset Wrote:  

(01-12-2018 11:41 AM)[email protected] Wrote:  Heterocispatriarchy?

"Normal"
He's fighting "normal".

Sounds like he's out of shape and needs viagra, so he tries to spin it as a special-snowflake lifestyle choice (graysexual) but then proceeds to throw on some self-deprecating male-feminist self-loathing on top.

I really think the SJWs are just another social clique. They speak and behave the way they do because it makes them feel special. Same as any other generational group like hippies and punks and goths and so on. When you strip it all down it has more to do with immature people seeking a sense of belonging. The ideology is wholly secondary, which is why when they spout off it comes across as boiler-plate to the point of self-parody.

Post: #18

^^THIS

Post: #19

(01-12-2018 12:56 PM)questor70 Wrote:  Sounds like he's out of shape and needs viagra, so he tries to spin it as a special snowflake lifestyle choice (graysexual) but then proceeds to throw on some self-deprecating male-feminist self-loathing on top.

Did you just assume his gender?

This could easily be a biological female.

Post: #20

Quote:"And as someone who’s transgender, my dysphoria can make it impossible to feel safe in some sexual encounters."

It's a woman who wrote this article and is pretending to be a man.

Post: #21

Sounds like another run of the mill story of a girl who doesn't fuck her boyfriend because she is repulsed by him (unnattractive, effeminate, weak game, no frame control, etc).

"Sexless" relationships are fake news. Only reason a couple doesn't have sex is because one party is not sexually attracted to the other. Notice the "open our relationship up" comment. That means the girl still wants sex, just not with her guy. Typical story of beta provider who doesn't get laid. Women are creatures of opportunity.

Post: #22

It amazes me how much people will put up with. How little self respect some people have for themselves.

The hamstering and self justification of someone who could do this to another person is mind boggling.

To think that it's OK to treat another human being that way is monstrous. You are basically leveraging someones feelings for you to give you a pass to disrespect them.

As soon as someone comes along who this person can lock down they will leave poor sick partner in a heartbeat, but of course with lots of regret but "they just weren't fulfilling my needs any more."