As a result of my recent posts in Amanda Hess’ “The Sexist” blog, many of you are reading the Monologues for the first time.  Before you read my earlier posts, there’s something I want to clarify, but first, I will quote a recent Commentator on “The Sexist” in response to my post, “Murder and Mayhem”

A guy named Danny commented, with my original comments in quotes, as follows (his entire comment, including my original comments, is in bold):

This is not to say rape shouldn’t be illegal. After all, guys, think about how disgusting it would be if a fat chick tied you down against your will, planted her smelly, hairy, yeasty pussy on your face, and kept gagging you with her filthy labia and engorged penis-like clit.
You do realize you could have just been generic and just said “someone you don’t want to have sex with” right? You didn’t have to put fat women on the spot like that (if you aren’t attracted to fat women that’s fine but this example sounds like by default straight men don’t want to have sex with fat women).

To be sure, rape CAN be a serious crime. For instance, rape of a straight guy by a fellow-guy is an unnatural and horrible and despicable act. It involves the insertion of one body part into another body part where it is clearly both not intended to go and where such body part is not welcomed by the recipient.
Rest assured it is a serious crime. I don’t think its on par with murder but to violate someone’s body in such a manner is serious. Most people regard sex (or least they themselves having sex) as a very intimate and private thing. To be forced to perform such a private act at someone else’s will is very serious indeed. However I can’t help but note that the example you note is of a hetero guy being raped by another man. I’m sure you don’t mean to but it almost feeds into what you say later:

But whether something is a truly serious crime shouldn’t merely depend upon who is doing it. Rape, of course, does. Few women in the United States would deny themselves the opportunity to have Derek Jeter insert his penis in their vagina, not even knowing anything about Derek Jeter’s penis, and yet if another guy, possibly with a nicer penis and better cocksmanship, does the same thing without the consent of the girl, or even with her consent but falsely claiming he is Derek Jeter, he faces decades in prison.
The problem you point out isn’t a matter of famous vs. not famous but if the perp and the victim is male or female. Take a look at when an adult rapes a child. When a man rapes an underage girl for the most part the mainstream media has no problem pointing out that that man did a horrible thing to that girl but when a woman rapes a boy all of sudden they want to know “what made her do it”. The understanding we have of sex these days is that men must want it all the time and to not want it is to not be a real man and women are not supposed to want it at all and to want it is to not be a real women (or “lady” if you will). So when that man rapes the girl it fits the dynamic of him wanting sex and her not but the shit gets crunk when that woman rapes that boy because boys are supposed to want sex all the time so there is no way he could be violated and women are not supposed to want sex there is way they could violate someone to get it.

I would adjust your example to show what would happen if Derek Jeter raped a woman under false pretenses vs. Jennifer Love-Hewitt raping a man under false pretenses. People would be saying Jeter’s victim was raped but Hewitt’s victim should thank his lucky stars for getting “raped” (the quotes being from the person saying that as a way to imply that there is no way a hetero guy would turn down a sexual encounter with her).

To Danny and all of you that read my posts so closely:  I am flattered by the attention, but perhaps you’re analyzing my posts a little too closely.

First of all, I write humor, more or less.  When people go to see standup at a local club, they typically say to themselves and each other about the comedian, things like, while guffawing, ”he’s right,” “I can relate to that,” “he has a point,” and “that’s so true.”  Of course, quite often by the end of the routine, the comedian has largely contradicted what he or she earlier said, but the audience laughed a lot and, in general, the comedian made some pretty good insightful points.  After the show, no one – at least not from the general public – orders a transcript of the show, analyzes the act word-by-word, and then goes ahead and writes the comedian about the inconsistencies and imprecision,or how the act could have been slightly improved.

Similarly, The Balls Monologues should not be read as if they are the Dead Sea Scrolls.  The central theme of The Monologues and Guyinism is to educate guys, and push for legislation, so guys can regularly get laid in their own home by hot chicks without having to get married, have kids and spend $350,000.00 each on them, even have a serious girlfriend, or exercise regularly.  If as a result of my efforts, marriage becomes obsolete - which I am fairly confident would eventually result in civilization breaking down and either guys almost as a whole or women almost as a whole becoming subject to widespread famine (I’m not sure which sex will suffer, but I’m pretty sure it’ll be one or the other), wars and insurrections erupting, and the takeover of the planet by apes (except for a small colony of humans without skin living underground in the ruins of New York City on the other side of The Forbidden Zone) – I will have contributed enough to the world.  There’s no need to hang on my every word in a search for absolute truth. 

In a nutshell, what I say to you is do hookers instead of engage in traditional degra-dating and/or at least tolerate legislation giving us a right to choose willing sex partners, and you are accepted into the guyinist fold – you’ll pretty much figure out everything from there.  Enjoy the ride.

As for the rest of your critique, if and when you find a post by a woman taking a pro-female stance on gender issues half as long as mine or more and that is anywhere near as internally consistent and logical, let me know and I’ll start worrying about fine-tuning my posts. I’m 46 and still waiting to read my first one. One! OK, I’m exaggerating. Maybe there’ve been three.  In their diatribes and railings against us, as far as the use of reason, fairness, and logic, women have set the bar quite low – I surely exceed it.

The fact is, starting with my initial post in The Balls Monologues, which can be seen by clicking on my name, my intent is to parody.  On gender topics, to parody allows me to be as nonsensical, unreasonable, and extreme as women when it suits my argument.   Of course, like just about all other great comedians, my humor is reflective of inner rage.

This is not to say that I am generally nonsensical, unreasonable, or extreme – in fact, I think I’m pretty sensible and reasonable (OK, I can be a little extreme), but I don’t fine tune my posts for the slightest inconsistency.  Rather, I prefer to make the case for guys in the alternative.

If you are looking for bloggers that take themselves very seriously while they carry the flag for us guys in a drier fashion, perhaps MensNewsDaily (http://mensnewsdaily.com/) is for you.  But be forewarned – there’s not a lot on those posts to indicate those guys have much experience with pierced clitori, vaginal tats, or hitting girls from the back that are in the process of eating their best friend’s pussy.  I’ll make you laugh more.  And I’ll show you how to get laid.  Really laid, by women who are professionals at it.

Finally, I’ll worry about not offending women when women worry about not offending guys. In case you haven’t noticed, they love ranting on and insulting us like fat kids loves cake.

Speaking of fat, you wrote about my post, “You didn’t have to put fat women on the spot like that (if you aren’t attracted to fat women that’s fine but this example sounds like by default straight men don’t want to have sex with fat women).”

That’s right, Danny, I can’t speak for all of us, but it is indeed quite true that, by default, straight guys don’t want to have sex with fat women.

For that matter, neither do gay guys.

Click on pen to

One of the economic offshoots of  EconGuyinism is fuckanomics.  Fuckanomics is, as I’m sure you immediately recognize by name, largely involves a currency conversion between money and sex.  Its the calculation many of us usually make at the end of a lousy typical mainstream date (or, what I usually refer to as a “degradate” because of how degrading it is to the participants, especially, usually, to us guys) when we say to ourselves we should have just gone out and hired a hooker instead of wasting all that money on filet mignon and Grey Goose and not gotten laid.

The Father of Fuckanomics, at least to my knowledge, is frequent Monologues commentator Iceman, though his initial conception, back before I was a regular customer of full-service sex, was converting money into full-contact lap dances at Tampa’s legendary Mons Venus strip club.  While there has almost always been some variation in price from girl to girl, at the time, Mons Venus lap dances averaged out to about $20.  Thus, under Icemans’ analysis, $20 was actually worth one lap dance.  When we would say, grab a hamburger together afterward, while the burger may have been listed as selling for $4, Iceman and I would refer to the burger as actually selling for ”a quarter” of a lap dance.  Similarly, spending $40 on a shirt would be a waste of 2 perfectly titillating lap dances.

As of late, fuckanomics has been gaining traction, and, though fuckanomics was not mentioned by name, a brilliant fuckanometric analysis was applied recently article in Creative Loafing Tampa by Kelly Cornelius, a woman no less.  The article concerned a sexual harassment case against Hillsborough County (Florida) Commissioner Kevin White, who was found liable for sexual harassment for trying to bang a 23 YO during an official county business trip.  Damages of $75K were ordered, and the case has also caused the county to incur substantial attorneys’ fees.  Applying established principals of fuckanomics, Cornelius figured out that, for the same money, White could have fucked 9.1 local hookers every day for an entire year, instead of trying to but not fucking the 23 YO.  The cost has since escalated due to additional attorneys’ fees, settlement demands, or whatnot.

While I compliment Cornelius for her basic approach, I cannot nominate her for the Nobel Prize in Economics.  Hopefully, someday, a fuckanometrician, perhaps Iceman, will be given his or her due by the Nobel committee.  However, there is a flaw in Cornelius’ analysis.  Specifically, she relied upon insubstantial data. The girls that she used as a basis for the  conversion were street girls and were actually quite expensive for street girls.  One wanted $150, while I have fucked at least one hot 20 (as in two-zero) year-old in my own bed within the past few months for less, and hot 20ish-year-olds can be had all over the Tampa on incall for half-an-hour for only $100. Had White done half-hour incalls, he could have had sex with 13.6 hot 20ish-year-olds a day for a year.  Tampa street whores  – the girls used in Cornelius’ analysis – can actually be had for only $25:  http://www.usasexguide.info/forum/archive/index.php/t-2310.html  Had White done street girls – something I don’t do  but nonetheless an option - he actually could have fucked 54.4 girls.

 That’s 54.4 girls PER DAY.

 54.4 girls per day FOR AN ENTIRE YEAR, a pace even Genghis Khan would have been proud of.

Anyway, I really can’t Cornelius for these errors.  She’s a brilliant economist, for sure –  just not a Guyinist.

How’s she supposed to know hooker prices?

Kelly Cornelius’ analysis is found here:  http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2009/08/27/kevin-whites-sex-trial-could-cost-taxpayers-close-to-500000-thats-91-hookers/

Click on pen to

Amanda Hess’ “The Sexist” blog has erupted into a gender war over the false rape accusation case at Hofstra University.  In case you haven’t heard about it, a Hofstra student, Danmell Ndonye, recently accused five guys of raping her.  The media jumped all over the story, calling it heinous, but Ndonye soon recanted, admitting it was voluntary, and that the reason she cried “rape” was so as to be able to justify it to her boyfriend.  My contribution to the battle, with some minor editing, is set forth below:

Lets separate the forest from the trees.  The root problems here aren’t “rape culture” or false accusations.

The real problem is represented by a simple catch-phrase:  “murder and rape.”  The real issue is that rape ain’t exactly murder.  Not even close.  Sorry, girls, including to my otherwise dear co-worker who recently voiced that rape is worse than murder:  just because it happens to you more than us guys doesn’t make it a worse crime than it really is.

To be sure, rape CAN be a serious crime.  For instance, rape of a straight guy by a fellow-guy is an unnatural and horrible and despicable act.  It involves the insertion of one body part into another body part where it is clearly both not intended to go and where such body part is not welcomed by the recipient. 

The very horribleness of guy-on-guy rape is what keeps most of us guys from a life of crime, which usually leads to more money and – as all of us guys know by now – both as a result of the crimes and the glam that comes with being the “bad-boy,” leads to more girls. 

Rape is also a serious crime when involves the spread of disease, and can certainly be a serious crime when it results in an unwelcome pregnancy.  And to be sure, rape is often accompanied by other serious crimes, such as murder and mayhem.

But whether something is a truly serious crime shouldn’t merely depend upon who is doing it.  Rape, of course, does.  Few women in the United States would deny themselves the opportunity to have Derek Jeter insert his penis in their vagina, not even knowing anything about Derek Jeter’s penis, and yet if another guy, possibly with a nicer penis and better cocksmanship, does the same thing without the consent of the girl, or even with her consent but falsely claiming he is Derek Jeter, he faces decades in prison. 

In contrast to rape, now matter how much I adore, revere, often fuck, have dated, sex workers, and no matter how much I even want to someday marry a sex worker (contrary to the theory of the misguided girls that think guys hate sex workers), I wouldn’t even want the likes of Carmen Luvana to cut off my arm, or going all Lorena Bobbitt on me.  That’s the difference between rape and mayhem – with mayhem, the act is virtually always a bad thing.

And, as vividly demonstrated by the Hofstra case, where the only “crime” these guys apparently committed was not inviting accuser Ndonye to breakfast the next morning, a serious crime isn’t something that could just as easily be the fantasy of a lifetime fulfilled.  Especially when that fantasy of a lifetime is actually being forcibly raped. 

I know a girl who called me one morning, screaming and crying that she was passed out and woke up in bed with a guy she knows, that she was raped, asking me what she should do.  Beginning the next day for the next six months, that same guy was, with her full consent and in her own words, her “boyfriend.”

It can even be rape if the woman enjoys getting raped, as some surely have.

This is not to say rape shouldn’t be illegal.  After all, guys, think about how disgusting it would be if a fat chick tied you down against your will, planted her smelly, hairy, yeasty pussy on your face, and kept gagging you with her filthy labia and engorged penis-like clit.  Such a thing CAN’T be legal, and that’s coming from a guy who paid a cute 21 YO $100 yesterday to smother my face with her hairless, odorless vagina while I was rolling.

Personally, I abhor rape – even borderline, getting-a-girl-in-bed-by-claiming-to-be-Derek Jeter rape.  OK, maybe that’s not so bad, but most rape is.  I don’t want to see it happen to anyone, girl or guy.  Its makes girls hate guys, its wrong, its cheating, and it denigrates the accomplishments of guys like me who can occasionally get hot chicks in bed voluntarily.  And with hot 19 year-olds only a few phone calls, $200, and a couple of hours away courtesy of sites like Craigslist, raping is being cheap.  In fact, in effect, its stealing.

A lot of guys don’t really understand why women consider rape so horrible.  It sometimes looks to some of us like running over to console a toddler who just fell or knocked its head against something but didn’t think to start crying until everyone starts coddling.  And even some of us thinks rape is a lot worse than it really is by putting ourselves into the woman’s shoes, but when we do so, we really, in effect, put our asses into the woman’s pussy, which makes it seem worse than it is, since its worse to fuck our asses  – they aren’t for penis insertion, but pussies are.  In fact, the overwhelming majority of the time, women quite like it when penises go in them -  it makes them juicy, and throb in a good way.

What really drives the cult of rape, if not its “culture” as described by Amanda Hess, is that rape is about that favorite obsession of women, to wit:  power.  Of course, it isn’t about power for the rapists, just to the victim, because it shatters the illusion of power women carry with them.  The true power of penis-worthy women emanates from between their legs – the limits they place on access to their vaginas, and the shortage of attractive women, is what keeps us paying attention to them, paying for their lifestyles, paying them cash, and coddling them like toddlers.  Most attractive women considers only the most elite males truly worthy of their time and affections, and consider themselves the power equivalent of professional athletes, billionaires, and rock stars.  Upon being raped, they suddenly realize that any old dreg in a dark parking garage has power of them, too, and the illusion is shattered.  Women hate rape because its a reality check.

This isn’t just DirkJohanson speaking.  The world, or at least any reader of The Balls Monologues, now expects a piece like this by me.  Rather, other guys say things like this to me all the time – they bring up the subject, out of thin air.  We are beginning to accurately assess rape.

By complaining about everything and anything under the sun for more than four decades about guys, including through what I call sperm libel (false, generalized statements about guys such as saying that we hate sex workers), by discarding equal protection under the law for empowerment, by using every trivial slight to attack everything guys do and attempt to garner the fruits of our labor through spurious lawsuit and claims, women have lost the issue of rape – ironically, perhaps the singlemost pro-woman issue guys felt most strongly about long before the Steinems and Dworkins and Ciccones came along.  We used to take womens’ words for it that rape was horrible, but ladies, you’re credibility is shot now, not just because of Ndonye the Duke case, and other false accusers, but because of so much of what you’ve said in the past four decades.

So, society needs to come up with a new catchphrase to characterize serious crime.  I propose “murder and mayhem”-  it even alliterates.

Mayhem.  Now that’s a serious crime!

Click on pen to

Blood libels are false accusations that Jews use human blood in certain aspects of religious rituals and holidays. Surely, there has been some Jewish guy somewhere that has used human blood in some aspect of religious ritual, but it isn’t part of Judaism. The libel of the entire religion persists in certain circles nonetheless.

Of course, as guys, its barely possible to open a newspaper or magazine, watch more than a few minutes of TV, or converse with women for more than a few minutes without encountering some sort of libelous generalization about guys that is not true, and probably never was true. A few of them were slung about by commentators mentioned in my previous post, More DirkJohanson on Semen Facials.  Indeed, it appears that one of the commentators, Mrs. D, to her credit, eventually separated fact from the sperm libel that guys were holding her success against her. This isn’t to say that guys never claim they don’t want to date or marry a broad due to her success – I’m sure plenty of guys have used that line when they really just want a quick roll or two in the hay – just that, as studies show, us guys are quite welcome to the idea of a woman earning more than us so long as it isn’t a problem from the woman’s end (which, studies show, of course, it is).

And so it was last week when a Facebook friend of mine posted,

“Women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, men are insultingly supporting their own superiority. Mary Wollstonecraft”

Mary Wollstonecraft tried to kill herself twice before dying at age 38 when her baby-daddy wouldn’t take her back, and used his last name even though they were never married. She convinced her sister to leave her husband and infant when the sister was suffering from post-partum depression, dooming her sister’s future.

More than two hundred years after her death, feminists are still impressed with this nutty broad. But that’s not the point.

I can’t speak of conditions in the late 18^th century between the sexes. Maybe what Wollstonecraft said, despite her insanity, was right on point back then.

What I can say is this: “trivial attentions?” causing women to be “systematically degraded?” Because we “think it manly” and are “insultingly supporting own superiority?” The Facebook post is from 2009!  Where is this systematic degradation happening?

So, if any of you have an example, let me know – tell me where I’m wrong. If the Wollstonecraft has any contemporary relevance, call me on it.

In the meantime, I would like to start accumulating a compendium of similar statements about guys based on myth not fact – in other words, of Sperm Libel.  As you may be just now noticing, the Monologues now even have a new posting category.

Click on pen to

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 ) 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

As it turns out, one of what I thought was four vibrating rings Durex sent me turned out to be a finger vibe.  I found out the, uh, er, hard way this morning trying to put it on my disco stick during sex.  Anyway, kudos for Durex for giving the chance to try out other products from their product line, and once I figured out that the finger vibe went on my finger and not my cock, I simply opened one of the free vibrating rings Durex sent me, and less than 2 hours and 9 orgasms later (8 by the girl, one splattering of slightly Silver Patron by me), here I write.

Also, just as a heads-up, in case any of you are planning to have sex with Tabatha Jennings (Deep Throat Revealed!), the only girl I’ve ever used a finger vibe on, she doesn’t like it (though, to be fair, that one wasn’t a Durex).  I found this out after, with her consent, I put one in her while I was licking her ass one time.  She definitely likes the ass-licking, though.

Anyway, once again, thank you Durex!

Click on pen to

Durex Rules! They just sent me four vibrating rings (“play vibrations”) and two coupons for my troubles with the vibrating ring they sent me that had a mind of its own during my threesome last week (Is a vibrating ring a form of life?) 

Of course, the malfunctioning vibrating ring was no biggie – its not like a malfunctioning condom that could lead to a pregnancy.  When it didn’t work, I just put another one and it, in combination with my dominatrix friend’s finger and my hard cock, made the 21 YO hooker (Meet the Hooker’s Parent), who was not charging me, cum in her first naked sexual experience with another girl.

Kudos to Durex!

Click on pen to

The Wall Street Journal ran an article recently on young girls’ dieting and related disorders.   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204731804574386822245731710.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

Reader Jennifer Lee apparently thinks that with greater power, women will not be so concerned about being thin.  She writes (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052970203440104574405293662090748.html):

“From political leaders, to business leaders, to movie directors, men are in charge. Women and girls see and know this. We need to level the power playing field to change girls’ self-esteem.”

But wait – when one thinks back a few hundred years, when guys held even greater power, weren’t Rubensian (i.e., fat) chicks all the rage?  At least, that’s what the feminists have been telling us.

Its not illogical that the growth in female power and sexual expression causes girls to diet.  As girls become freer in their sexuality and eschew monogamy, they are more oriented toward appealing to smaller groups of alpha males.  Competition among the girls heightens, and, juala, they get thinner to please the alphas.  Its not low self-esteem that causes them to diet – rather, its bloated self-esteem.  They all think they have a shot at at-least-sharing Tom Brady.

Of course, as you guys know, the playing field is already slanted in favor of women, and it looks like if it gets even more slanted in their favor, Kate Moss will be considered fat.

Click on pen to

Maybe its not all its cracked up to be.

OK – take it from me – it quite often is all its cracked up to be – but not always.

One of the precepts of guyinism is that women aren’t really all that – we spend so much time pursuing them because there aren’t enough of them worth fucking, and, after all, they are who us guys are supposed to breed with, so we’re kind of stuck and make a big deal out of what precious little true quality there is out there.   We say things like, “I’d eat her shit for a mile just to get to the ass” or ”I’d eat her shit for a mile just to get to the corns” when, in fact, we wouldn’t eat her shit at all voluntarily.   In fact, we even often make a big deal out of slight-more-than-medium quality broads – even ones that don’t make us say to ourselves and each other that we’d eat their shit.

Along that vein – uh, er, colon – here is a link to a great article about one broad’s experience in girl-on-girl orgy porn.  In this article, author Liz Armstrong, who also uses the alias Teen LaQuiefa and who herself shows up to the set with a bleeding, hairy vagina, gets her face farted on while eating pussy.  Meanwhile, another girl on the set vomits, and the only real porn star on the set found her co-stars so unappetizing, that she sneered, “this is what I’m dealing with?,” at the mere sight of them.

Here is the article:  http://www.viceland.com/int/v16n9/htdocs/get-off-my-back-122.php

And Armstrong: 

Anyone want to take the other side of a bet that she’ll be back doing guys again soon?  Guys emit gas from fewer holes, and our anatony is superior for fart-blocking.  At least if we fart while a chick is going down on us, our balls can block the fart air from flowing directly from our asses to the chick’s nose.  Just one more reason to love our balls!

Our own balls, that is.

Click on pen to

Here is a party announcement I recently received:

9/25/09 – Hot Chocolate Parties Greedy Babes Gone Wild in Tampa, FLThis party is BAREBACK ONLY (NO CONDOMS) and is all about the hot sexy MILF’S whose hubbies or boyfriends love to watch and/or participate with them in action with multiple black males because ONE Just Isn’t Enough! Members MUST bring proof of negative HIV/STD test results taken within the past 60 days)
This party is limited to just four couples, one single female and 15 single black men only!
(The four Couples and Single Female have been CONFIRMED; our next Greedy Babes party is scheduled for Fri 10/30)

For more information, see Hot Chocolate Parties: http://www.HotChocolateParties.com   Apparently, for better or worse, unlike some previous similar parties (see Johns by Choice), I will not be attending this one.

Actually, I’m supposed to go to  Trapeze that weekend, anyway, with Tori                        4

Click on pen to