More DirkJohanson on Semen Facials

Quite a lively debate ensued for a couple of weeks following “The Sexist” Amanda’s Hess’  Semen Facials are Like Weddings.  See DirkJohanson on Semen Facials.

Unlike Amanda Hess, another “Amanda,” Amanda Marcotte, doesn’t like facials.  She compared facials to spitting in a girl’s face, and that both acts represented guys’ loathing of sexual females.

I fired back:

Earth to Amanda Marcotte: most of us guys in this country under about, oh, age 90 or so, love girls that have lots of sex and that have hot sex.

I love facials – giving, watching, and if a girl can squirt, getting facials, too – but I don’t at all get this spitting thing. Under your theory, as a facial-lover, I should love the spitting – I don’t, and I turn off a video as soon as I see spitting – yet I comb the internet looking for cum shot after cum shot. “Fuck the preliminaries,” I say much of the time – “show me the money shot.” Go figure.

I have a theory the spitting actually caters to guys who really want to be spitting on the faces of women who are anti-sex, and/or women who won’t have sex with them. But who would watch a video of a guy just spitting on womens’ faces if the video didn’t involve sex? And the type of women whose faces a lot of guys would want to see spit on are the same type of women who would never agree to do such a video.

Personally, I think spitting is disgusting. I don’t want to see anyone get spit upon. Well, maybe Bernie Madoff, but you know what I mean.

Commenter Gayle also hates facials, and, most likely, all of us guys.  She wrote:

Since you’re all so into it, why don’t you just jizz all over each other? I don’t see why you need to involve us women in it– at all. You certainly don’t need a vagina or any other piece of female anatomy to do it. Just whack off on each other’s faces and splooge away! Take turns, have a blast.

You’re welcome to apply whatever sexual moral standards to your own life that you like. You want to sleep around? Fantastic. You’d rather be a prude? Great!

Just leave everyone else out of it.

Having known many female cum-cravers (in fact, one just texted me a few minutes ago and I should be feeding her some within a few hours), I retorted:

So, Gayle, what are you saying: facials should be against the law unless they are only between guys? If a woman asks me to give her one, I should decline, and if I don’t, she can call the cops?

The inherent problem here is that woman have organized groups and crackpot academicians concocting all sorts of theories about why guys are evil and how everything we do is evil and about power. Of course, almost none of it is. We’re not as devious and calculating as you give us credit for – we’re not as devious and calculating as so many of you.

Which brings me to a related discussion – what is the real sex-reversed equivalent of a facial, given that sex to guys is what money is to women. Back in the 80s, when women chipped in for dates, women almost invariably ordered inexpensive salad. Once things switched back such that guys were expected to pay for the entire date again, women almost universally began ordering expensive filet mignon and ordering dessert. Therefore, I posit that when a woman orders the almost-obligatory filet mignon, she is often, in effect, subjugating the guy with a female facial, though she might also be just ordering filet mignon because she likes it.(this was a slight misfire because I wrote in a hurry.  I meant to analogize this situation to an unwelcome facial, but sometimes I actually like spending money on a girl, like when I’m really into her and she appreciates it, in which case its like the very welcome facials Amanda Hess and the girl that just texted me enjoy)

Of course, that’s just one example. A couple of weeks ago, a girl I was dating brought me to a store and asked me to buy her some outfits. She asked how many I was willing to buy, and, knowing she had to pee, the store was closing, and figuring she would keep it within reason, I told her to buy as many as she wanted, figuring that meant only 3 or 4. Instead, she went to the register with 16 and assorted pieces of jewelry. In effect, when she asked how many she could buy, I had meant that she could, in effect, cum on my tits. By buying 16 outfits and jewelry, she in effect violated my request and came on my face. (i.e., a welcome facial)

So, if as you propose, we are going to make male-administered facials illegal, lets make all female-administered facials illegal. For instance, lets make it illegal for women to order filet mignon when guys are paying for it.

Anyway, chew on that (no pun intended).

Naturally, a chick, this one named Nic, played the misogyny card.  She took issue with my recitation of one of the philosophical pinnings of Guyinism, that “sex to guys is what money is to women.”   Her attack

“are you 14? (no, but I think I may have accidentally had sex with a 14 year-old not too long ago) 

“money is like sex for women? i can’t even comprehend the level of misogyny it takes to write that statement seriously. i feel very sorry for any woman unfortunate enough to have sex with someone who believes she’s only (emphasis supplied) in it for the money, not for her own enjoyment. makes it remarkably easy to disregard her pleasure, doesn’t it, if women really like money, and not sex.”

Obviously, Nic doesn’t know that I, at least along with Durex, am a female orgasm factory.  I’ve made 8 happen already today.

Anyway, I then pointed out that by misquoting me, Nic proves not that I am a misogynist, which I am not (I love my grandmother, my mother, and like a lot of other women), but rather: 

Nic,

I think you’re comment shows more where your head is at than it does mine. You misquote me – I didn’t say women are ONLY in it for the money for anything like that. I just said “sex to guys is what money is to women.” I did not state or imply that guys are into women onlyfor the money. Thus, in order for my statement to be consistent with your accusation, you would have to believe that guys are only in it for the sex. Thus, it is not misogyny by me, but rather your misandry in believing that guys are only into women for sex, that has come to the fore.

The fact of the matter is, guys are not only into women for the sex – we are also into women since we need women to cook and to clean up after us  …

Since I wasn’t speaking to fellow guyinists, but in fact a bunch of misandrists, I then added, ”(this last sentence is a joke).”

A woman named YB was a bit more diplomatic, aleit misguided, than Gayle:

With all due respect Dirk, what exactly do you mean by “sex to guys is what money is to women?” Here I though (sic) sex to (most heterosexual) guys was the same as to (most heterosexual) women, and money is, well, the same for just about everyone, with individual exceptions of course. Are you implying that men and women have inherently different attitude/need for sex and money?

Imagine implying such a thing!

YB,

…

I cannot answer your question with certainty as to whether guys and women have inherently different attitudes/need for sex and money, other than to say, yes, I have no doubt that, at least to some extent, I’m pretty sure there are differences. I’m sure whole books have already been written about the issue, and I’m confident that their conclusion is not that guys and women have 100% identical attitudes and needs for sex and money. Then again, we live in an advanced society, quite far from the caveperson’s jungle, where what is inherent would be a lot easier to discern. Personally, I strongly believe, like most species, our inherent state is that the alpha males mate with large numbers of females – that dynamic alone would by definition mean that we have inherently different attitudes and needs for sex and money.

I can more specifically answer, however, what, in reality, guys and women display, irrespective of what is inherent. And, in reality, guys clearly display that they value attractiveness, a proxy for sex, as primary, and women clearly display that they value money as an important, possibly the single most important, quality in a guy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that women aren’t as into sex as guys, nor does it mean women don’t take into account physical features of a guy (especially height), nor does it mean that guys don’t want to win the lottery as badly as women, or that guys don’t consider whether a woman has children from other guys that he would be expected to support – but it doesn’t mean we are identical, either.

The clearest way to observe reality is through the conduct of the people that have the most mate choices. Wealthy and famous guys almost universally select unusually attractive women – one does not see, for instance, a professional athlete or a movie star with a woman who is overweight. In moments of candor, I am confident the vast majority of guys will affirm that what motivates them to go out and work hard and be successful is to attract desirable women, or a particular desirable woman, or that one of our dreams, or that one of our dreams we already have.

Turning to women, one frequently sees wealthy supermodels and actresses with much older and not particularly well-kept billionaires. Even though wealthy supermodels and actresses don’t need the money, they almost never end up marrying just some good-looking guy they met in the supermarket.

Of course, there are always going to be exceptions.

Mrs. D, who to her credit does indeed enjoy having her face plastered with ball goo, then spoke up, though she obviously didn’t get my point of looking at the people who have the widest choices to be able to my clearly assess what qualities are in inherent demand:

Yeah, Dirk, exceptions like people who valuthe people as people and not objects. Sure, we can analyze the 1% of the population who are models or actresses, or billionaires, or we can look at real, actual people, who make up 99% of the population.

Your observation about height has some merit. I always felt awkward dating men shorter than me, back in the day. Considering that I’m 5?5, and society dictates that men should be taller than women, that’s not terribly surprising (oh, and that the average man is 5?10, which is 5 full inches taller than me, so there’s plenty of room for below-average-height men…my husband is 5?8, so, while below average, he is taller than me).

“Society” is dictating this, of course, not just the half of society known as broads – blame us regular-size guys for the fact that regular-size girls won’t give us the time of day.  Anyways, she continued,

So outside of the height thing…it was always the men who were disturbed that I made more than them. Seriously, it became an obsession of me and my girlfriends to decide how to break the bad news to men that we made the same or more than them (the favorite method at first was to casually leave a paycheck stub or employment contract out where they could grab it as soon as we excused ourselves to go to the restroom). Or that we had the same or more advanced degrees, that sucked too. And you know what the end result of that was for me and my girlfriends? Those of us who came to grips with our success and just let it be (no more conveniently located paycheck stubs) met wonderful men (some who made more than us, some the same, and some less), and those who continued to obsess over WOMEN SHOULDN’T MAKE MORE THAN MEN!!! continued to be single and miserable.

At least she’s learned, but it seems like she didn’t quite get the full lesson. 

YB stubbornly clinged to her position that guys and gals are essentially identical beings with different genitalia:

To DirkJohanson:

I think I did not phrase my sentiment correctly. In fact, I have to agree with you that for many women money is more important in a relationship than sex, and sex is more important for many guys than money. More specifically, my issue was the fact that to me it seemed that your comment reinforced this social construct as something inherent. The fact that money (or their equivalent) is still chiefly important to many women is the vestige of the times when women were not able to make a(n) (adequate) living on their own. By the virtue of a biological coincidence, human females bear an proportionate reproductive burden – pregnancy and initial child rearing (breast feeding) is not exactly budding or laying eggs. This made (frequently pregnant) human females less able to defend themselves early in human history, whereas men were never really reproductively burdened in the same way. This is why already in cave times, I guess, women sought males who could provide the today’s equivalent of money – defense and similar support. As history went on, this trend became socially reinforced, and socially cemented.

Which brings me to my point about the “true” value of sex and money to both genders. The fact that women were forced by necessity to seek “well-to-do” men does not prove that money or its equivalent has a greater intrinsic value to them, but rather that it is necessary for their and their offspring’s survival. Figuratively speaking, for all we know a woman may be willing to eat at McDonalds for the rest of her life for sex, but if she has no way of providing that McDonalds meal for herself and her dependents she will seek someone who is doing well enough to be guaranteed to do that for her.

It is no longer the case today that women can not support themselves and their dependents – but it has been so up until very very recently, our grand or great-grandmothers’ times, and is still the case in many parts of the world, so, should I say, old habits die hard? But habits, not inherent preferences, nonetheless.

As for men preferring sex over money, it is generally historically true that they never had to make the choice. If for some reason men were not able to support themselves (or, to go back in history, often and for long periods of time unable to defend themselves and the children for whom only they could care thru their first years of life), I have no doubt today we would see a great deal of men for whom money would be much more ‘important’ than sex.

Today, while women still face many obstacles in the workplace and pay inequity is a sad fact even in a progressive country like the United States, women can generally support themselves and their dependents. And even though this “working girl” concept has existed for a very brief amount of time, we already see a huge shift in our view of female (and male) sexuality – from “women cant have orgasms” type stuff to women who are proud of their sexuality and freely engage in as many sexual relationships as they want. Give it another 100 yrs or so, I’m sure the instances that may invalidate your “sex to men is what money is to women” statement will be obsolete.

She then finished with, get this:  So, anyway, why would you pay for someone’s dinner?? (bold supplied).

As much as I preferred to do battle with the women that hate facials rather than the cum-lovers like YB, and as much as It was a question not worth dignifying with an answer, I was bored and answered nonethless:

I pay for womens’ dinners because for the past 15 years or so, they have made it quite clear they damn well expect me to. If I don’t pay for them (except in an isolated situation, such as my birthday), the relationship, or chance of a relationship, is over – something women have warned guys about ad nauseum. Five years after the fact, one girl[Beth Hurff of Venice, Florida) I know even continued throwing up to me that I took her up on her offer to pay for a cheap breakfast. Ironically, if I were wealthy and no more presentable, I would have an endless supply of women to choose from should one particular woman refuse to date me again for not paying. I’m not wealthy, so like most guys, I have to put up with it. Of course, I don’t always put up with it. My Friday night date asked me to take her to the mall Saturday for a shopping spree – I politely refused, and I’m confident that I will see her again, anyway. (I have - she's the one who came 8 times today).

Anyway, you talk about things like womens’ relatively higher childbearing burden as if it is a historical relic. It isn’t, and to the extent that ever changes, it will only change due to technology, which means any such change will not be reflective of what’s inherent.

And as much as Mrs. D has apparently seen the light, love facials, and doesn't want other women telling her what to do in the bedroom, I had to respond to her post to at least take a shot her friends:

Mrs. D – was it really the coming to grips with your success that made the difference, or just canning the conveniently located paycheck thing? First of all, that could easily be interpreted as a woman dropping a hint to a guy that she believes she is above him because she makes more money – whether she really feels this way (as most women do [according to numerous studies]) or not. Moreover, it seems to me that conveniently leaving paychecks is the equivalent of getting back to a guy’s place after a nice evening out on a typical vanilla first or second date (spent talking about such things as pending legislation) and having him surreptitiously whip out an album of pictures of him having sex with many other women. I’m sure a lot of women would be put off by that, not because they don’t like sex, and perhaps not even because those pictures aren’t something that in the right situation they might want to see and even be in, but because of the sheer boorishness of it.

Finally, I “defended” Gayle against Mrs. D’s objections to Gayle’s desire to dictate what goes on in other people’s bedrooms:

“as much as I disagree with just about everything Gayle has written (actually, I might disagree with everything, but I just don’t feel like giving her every word such detailed scrutiny), there is a case that she is affected by what happens in other people’s bedrooms or in porn since she refuses to do something that other women are quite willing and often eager to.

“Presumably, her facial-less milkshake doesn’t bring as many boys to the yard. Gayle, is there something you want to cum clean to us about (no pun intended)?”

The complete transcript of “Semen Facials are Like Weddings,” including reader commentary, is available at http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/sexist/2009/08/24/semen-facials-are-like-weddings/.

Oh – I almost forgot – here is a picture of an actual semen facial being delivered by DirkJohanson.

Click on pen to

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.