The last three girls I’ve fucked are 21, 19, and 21, respectively. 

Here they are, out of order:

Here’s another of the last girl, with one of her play partners.  I include this picture since it best shows off her vaginal tat,which I had a chance to taste:

Click on pen to

Benedict Arnold Kristof wannabe, Nick Turse, thinks is economic violence for a guy to try to control the family purse strings:  http://www.truthout.org/051109T?n

My response:

Nick, 

You’re trying to pass yourself off as journalist .. did it even occur to you to at least try – just to try – to interview one of the supposed batterers and get his (or her) side of the story?  Battering is wrong – but not even a try?!

Everything could be exactly just as these women say – or not – but, heck, why bother when you can do the usual women-are-always-right slant.  After all, might not it be justified for the husband to limit the wife’s access to money if she’s blowing the rent money on Coach?  Might not that even justify a single spank to the tush if it happens repeatedly?  Women slap guys’ faces all the time – no one seems to have a problem with that.

Finally, lets talk about sexual abuse, of guys by women.  Guyinism recognizes that money is to women what sex is to guys, yet no one says its sexual abuse when a woman controls her partner’s access to sex.  Traditionally, guys agreed to live within the sexual confines of what their wives could provide, and women agreed to live within the economic confines of what a guy could provide.  If a guy trying to keep family finances under control is economic abuse, than a woman trying to stop her husband from being with other woman is sexual abuse, so, unless they had an open marriage or are swingers, then “Tyrie” is guilty of sexual abuse

Click on pen to

Regular readers of Guyinism may remember my now private (and perhaps again unprivate if Jess doesn’t pay me the $60 she owes me) February 13 post “Dirty D – wanna get done dirt cheap?” (http://guyinism.com/?p=70 - guess who hasn’t paid up?) in which I exposed Guyinism hero/adversary Dirty D’s claim to film his glory hole scenes - in a real adult bookstore to be a fraud.  In fact, the glory hole scenes are filmed in his drab home in Tampa.  Readers may also recall that I had advised his neighborhood association of the zoning-prohibited-porn goings-on his home.  It was also through that post that Dirty D, whose real name is Michael Storm, apparently became first aware that his home has been under surveillance by law enforcement. 

Forced to scout other locations in order to bring truth to his claims, on March 15 Dirty D arrested while checking out Tampa’s Playhouse Adult Theater as a new alternative location to shoot.

In fact, Dirty D was actually trying to shoot when he got busted.  Trying to shoot a load, that is.  The story appears at this link:  http://www.xbiz.com/news/105931

You don’t fuck with DirkJohanson.  Opal, you’re next.

Click on pen to

According to the article at the link, the Sarasota County, Florida, Sheriff has agreed to settle a gender discrimination suit brought by a woman who claims she was not promoted because she’s a woman   http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090220/ARTICLE/902200333   The settlement was for $300,000 “damages” plus $70,000 in salary she would have earned had she been promoted.  Under the pressure of the lawsuit, facing a jury, in a county known for its old bitties network, as part of the settlement, it was reported that the Sheriff agreed with the plaintiff and her dykey lawyer to create a three-person Promotion Assessment Board, which must include at least one woman.

Aren’t the damages from not getting a promotion the salary that she supposedly should have earned had she gotten the promotion?

And is it appropriate that the settlement of a gender discrimination lawsuit should result in a governmental-body enshrining discrimination against guys? 

A few days ago, I received a notice reminding certain male, and only male, employees where I work that the law prohibits their continued employment there unless they have registered with the U.S. Selective Service for potentially drafting into the military:

Male employees employed with the state since October 1, 1988, or those over the age of 18 seeking employment who were born on or after January 1, 1960, must have registered with the U.S. Selective Service to be considered for promotion or hire. Pursuant to Section 110.1128, Florida Statutes, on selective service registration –

(1) No person who is required to register with the Selective Service System under the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 453, may be offered employment by this state in an authorized position, as defined in s. 216.011, without proof of such registration.

Heads they win, tails we lose.  If they are supposedly too fragile to be in combat, how can they be cops?

With more girls than guys going to college and more guys than girls coming home in bodybags, how long before women outnumber guys at the top?  When that day comes, will one person on the Promotion Assessment Board have to be a guy?  Will empowerment-driven women ever agree to such a thing?

The same lawyer slapped the sheriff with another gender discrimination suit, apparently the same day the settlement was announced – I like to think of it as payback for selling us out.

Click on pen to

Upon special request of a regular Balls Monologues reader, I was asked to provide official commentary on the following article, containing the following quote: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ian-kerner/viva-la-vulva_b_167967.html
“As any man who has spent time in the trenches will tell you, the female orgasm is an elusive thing. Like Bigfoot and quality television, we know it’s out there; we just don’t actually come into contact with the real thing all that often. Understanding female sexuality can be as complicated as Euclidean geometry, and when the final exam is a woman’s orgasm most guys fail miserably (we’re not graded on a curve). ”

 The author, Ian Kerner, bills himself as a “sexuality counselor.”

My response is in the previous post, Viva La Vulva.  Fellow commenter and guyinist Michael McKLA had written: 

Among my various business interests is an adult video production company. Trust me on this, I see a lot of female orgasms. This is because the women in this business both generally enjoy the sex and also enjoy the money they make — and it’s also because the director doesn’t interfere. This enables the performers to enjoy each other, despite the crew, heat and equipment distractions.Regretful orgasms? If the ladies are having any regrets, I don’t see them.  …

A variety of vibrating rings are available at Wal-Mart, and many other retailers, for $6.95 or less.  Trojan makes one:  http://www.trojancondoms.com/Product/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductId=18 

 Of course, I usually use their Magnum.  As I said in my comment, there IS more to it than just the vibrating ring.

PS guys:  here she is.  Click on her pic to see her looking better as a brunette – which is how she showed last night.  More on her later.

Finally, I leave you with some of those elusive female orgasms:

 http://gals.onlygonzo.com/7/vlkmruw/index2.html

http://www.pornvideotv.com/gals/female-ejaculations/10_11/indexaabser.html

http://gals.onlygonzo.com/8/gjdote/index2.html

Click on pen to

Ian,

No offense – well, OK, I guess this is offensive to you, but I have nothing against you personally.  You’re a sex counselor? Not trying to brag – after all, it didn’t come cheap (some of my sexploits are documented on guyinism dot well, you know the rest) – but I think about a third of my body’s epidermis is still saturated from the chick-I-met-last-night’s sweet stuff.

Two words: vibrating ring.

Well, it takes a lot more than that – but that’d be a good start for any of you.

I agree with the porn producer (Michael McKLA) who posted, who implied that chicks are a lot less regretful when they are getting paid.

Studies also show women most enjoy sex when they feel appreciated by their partners – and what better way to show them the love – or lust – than with a little cash-o-la.

Finally, you write, “Today’s woman can do better than having sex “like a man” – she can teach a man how to have sex like a woman: more sensual, more emotionally connected and ultimately on a higher level.” Never mind – …. – I’m virtually speechless. Dude, seriously, you need to mix in at least a little bit of pounding.

MichaelMcKLA – talk to this guy.
More on Sex
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Click on pen to

Tonight I was at Starbucks, and a girl at the next table received a frantic call from the bathroom to bring in a tampon.

When they were on the way back, I said, “hey, it happens to all of us – oh, wait, it doesn’t happen to me.”

Just something to keep in mind next time some hot cunt gives you attitude and acts like she’s too good for you, or when any girl says guys are dirtier - we’re a lot less likely to need our friends to come running into the bathroom to stop us from dirtying our underwear and blue jeans.

Guyinism – building your self-esteem.

Click on pen to

In Mistresses of the Universe (Benedict Arnold Kristof watch), Kristof gave the dubious opinion that that the problem in banking is that there are too many males and not enough females.  The other day, Kristof wrote about education policy.   http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/opinion/15kristof.html?_r=1   

In italics below is Guyinism’s official statement in response to the article:

Perhaps the reason our schools are broken is that there are too many female teachers, and not enough male teachers.  It is possible that, if some fields don’t have enough women, others have too many, right Nick?  Its possible that guys would do a better job at something on this planet that doesn’t involve heavy lifting, isn’t it Nick?  Or can it only work one way?

As set forth in the developing compendium on http://guyinism.com there are many things guys are better at that women.  Perhaps, just perhaps, teaching is one of them.

Guyinism supports meaningful education reform, not just in curriculum – we must attract some of our best and brightest to teaching.  For instance, Guyinism supports giving teachers the option of larger salaries in exchange for reduced retirement benefits. 

This reform which would attract more male teachers to the profession, since they would then be able to afford expensive cars to impress chicks with, be able to take them to the same overpriced restaurants the DABA Girls ( Why only one whore?) currently frequent on the arms of bankers, and hire young hotties off Craigs.  

Guyinism knows that when women talk about wanting a guy with “security” they don’t mean the real security that teachers probably have more than any other profession  – like tenure and retirement.  Guy teachers must be able to make what hot chicks consider “security” – high-end restaurants, and cars that depreciate in value the minute they are driven off the lot.

Click on pen to

Some readers may be confused at this piont.  Is Guyinism against old-fashioned feminism?  If so, why is DirkJohanson railing against the DABA Girls (Why only one whore?), who represent their site to be “free from the scrutiny of feminists.” 

And Dirk certainly seems to enjoying the fruits of the sexual revolutions, so why is he complaining?
 
Sorry – I don’t come that cheap.  And when do women stop complaining?  Besides, we can do better.
 
Its a matter of simple fairness – gender equity, if you will –  if they can push for everything they want, we should be able to do so, too
 
If its about empowerment and choice, and for them it is, lets empower ourselves and fight for OUR right to choose.
 
Lets step back and, at the risk of adding credibility to its gaga, take an analytic nutshell look at “feminism.”
 
For most of my life, I actually considered myself a feminist – I think I really was a feminist under any meaningful definition of the term at the time.  I mean, “equal rights”, voting, equal job opportunities, being able to get credit cards - who could argue with that, or should I say, who could argue with that back then?  Our guycestors must have been evil mother-fuckers do deny women that - or so I thought, before I could fully appreciate the naturally advantages that came with the Vaginal ATM.  

Fast forward to 2009 – is equal pay truly an equality issue when, at the end of the day, women are responsible for 87% of all consumer spending – yet still not be expected to pony up as much for presents and on Valentine’s Day?  Isn’t the spending of the money what matters, not the making of it?  Why has Valentine’s Day, despite massive economic gains by women, morphed from a holiday about people loving each other to a holiday about guys buying things?  I also didn’t realize that, if it weren’t for the money, the day would come where, unless we’re 6’5″, in a band, loaded-to-the-hilt, or have held up a convenience store, most of them would just as soon do each other than give us the satisfaction. 

And I’m sorry, but some bitch’s grandfather denying my grandmother a job in 1959 doesn’t merit the bitch getting a job I’m better qualified for in 2009.

Just about an hour ago, days after I first penned the above, I was involved in an incident at a parade which serves as a perfect allegory for contemporary relations between the sexes.  I was at a parade since I didn’t have a date tonight.  Predictably, none of the girls in Target or the supermarket that kept following me around the aisles, and none of girls in Starbucks that were batting their eyelashes, asked me out. 

I’ve had a great series of corresondences as a result of my trolling of www.sugardaddyforme.com  – including emails and texts from a 4’11″, 19 year-old (just turned 20 today) porn star with pierced just-about-everything, a call from a 5’4″, 125 lb 18 year-old whose primary profile picture is her hot ass in a thong who I had earlier told I would only date if we played together with other girls, an email from another hottie I had earlier told the same thing to, and a series of emails culminating in a dinner date this Monday with a spinner who says her only requirements are help with the utilities and groceries as long as she’s unemployed.  The reason I set the date for Monday night, and the reason I didn’t make plans with the others, is that stands-ups by chicks are so rash these days – a friend of mine even got stood up a few weeks ago for an already-paid-for cruise – that I refuse to chance getting stood up for Valentine’s Day.  And in my experience, stand-ups are nowhere more prevalent than with girls on Sugardaddy for Me.

So, I went to a parade party, and after not being able to make anything happen with the only cute available girl, decided to leave before the end of the parade.  I spotted a trashy (in a good way), 30-something year-old spinner along the route, leaning against a telephone pole, hanging out with a couple.  Since the space on the other side of the telephone was empty, I naturally positioned myself there.  Soon enough, a float came by, and beads and other trinkets started flying.  A broad on a float pointed at the spinner and threw out a bracelet of hearts.  Fully intending to promptly turn it over to the spinner as part of introducing myself, I reached out and caught it.  Still playfully holding it in my hand, not even moving toward putting it on my own wrist, the spinner started bitching me out, “that was wrong, dude – that was wrong.  She was giving it to me – that was wrong.”  She wasn’t bitching me out in a playful way – she was just bitching me out in a cunty way.  And this, BTW, from a trashy broad wearing a ring alone on Valentine’s Day  – presumably a ring from a guy in jail purchased with the proceeds of illegal activity, or perhaps the proceeds itself (Dirk knows these things).

And there you have it – the perfect allegory for the larger society.  At the type of bead-throwing parade where, except for beads that are intended for young children, the long-established moray is every person for him or herself, we are now expected to only catch the crumbs intended for us.  So, unless there’s a float of gay guys, we’re SOL except for the occasional fat chick.  Never mind that some rich guy probably paid for the beads – we guys are supposed to underwrite the cost of everything in the world for women while they stand ahead of us in every line.  They’re supposed to get the best jobs, but we’re still supposed to foot the bill for dinner and chocolate and flowers and children and Jimmy Choo and jewelry and … and … and …., and even adult diapers when they’re old.

After hearing about how wrong I ways for playfully catching the 69 cent item, which I did with the intent of possibly making the ingrate my wife, mother of my children, co-signer on various deeds, and my heir, I revealed that I had intended to give it to her.  She then cuntily snapped back, “what do you want me to do?  Beg?”  Biting my lip from responding with my real answer (“suck my cock”), I looked her in the eye, said “yes,” began putting the bracelet on, and walked away.  Score another one for Guyinism.

Getting back to the larger picture, women have taken to using the terminology “waves of feminism” to try to explain away how feminism has basically come to contradict itself and become meaningless.  After all, as most of us guys over about 35 know, back in the 80s, for women “having it all” used to mean having both a successful career and raising a family, while “having it all” now means not having to have to work and having lots of shoes – the two things don’t go together.
 
There is considerable disagreement about chicks and hens as to exactly when the various “waves” existed and what they entailed.  For instance, this commentator, writing in 1996, cites academic texts for the proposition that the ‘third wave” occurred in 1910.  http://www.jofreemancom/feminism/waves.htm
 
On the other hand, this chick thinks Madonna, born nearly a half-century later, is the quintissential third-wave feminist, and, when one considers her divorce settlement with Guy Ritchie, by one objective measure  - highest ever paid, male or female – she certainly is a feminist.  http://www.feministezine.com/feminist/music/Madonnas-Like-a-Virgin.html  This chick cites the release of “Like a Virgin” in 1984 as launching the third wave.  In fact, in 1990, esteemed bisexual professor Camille Paglia opined in none other than the New York Times that Madonna’s love of fucking (hey, we can all get behind that, I thought back then) earned her the praise – “Finally, a Real Feminist” (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE1DC123AF937A25751C1A966958260&scp=1&sq=feminist%20madonna&st=cse)  – but that would make Madonna part of the first wave, wouldn’t it?
 
But then there’s this broad, a Dr. Hampton, who says the third wave of feminism started in the mid-1990s: http://www.pacificu.edu/magazine/2008/fall/echoes/feminism.cfm  So, to her, it couldn’t have started with “Like a Virgin” and we can assume it didn’t start with her mid-90s material, which, despite pre-dating internet downloading, was rather underwhelming in sales. And she didn’t kiss Britney Spears at the MTV Video Awards until 2006, so that wasn’t the landmark event – I don’t think.  And the pictures of Madonna in Playboy, back when she was a brunette named Louise Ciccone with hairy armpits – well, you didn’t see underarm hair catch back on, so that must not have been it.  Nor, apparently, was it the fucking of Jose Canseco (that I can only assume she’d rather forget), which happened in 1991 and doesn’t coincide with any of the academia on the subject.  Could it have been the laying of that serious student of humanity, Dennis Rodman – they evoke images of Henry and June and Anais Nin, don’t they?  Maybe it was her supporting actress performance in ”A League of Their Own.”
 
So, intellectually speaking, you can see its kind of difficult to pinpoint the origin of she-of-the-fake-British-accent’s contributions to the movement.
 
Actually, Dr. Hampton does a good job of exposing the patent contradictions between what she describes as the various ”waves of feminism.”  She discusses how members of the “second wave” “threw ‘oppressive’ feminine artifacts such as bras, girdles, high-heels, makeup and false eyelashes into the trashcan” but how “young feminists” have readopted the “very lip-stick, high-heals (sic), and cleavage proudly exposed by low cut necklines that the first two phases of the movement identified with male oppression.”  That sort of thing. 
 
Of course, being a broad, Hampton is woefully off-base in some of her assessments.  For instance, talking about the chickeepoo “feminists”, she notes that “they have developed a rhetoric of mimicry, which reappropriates derogatory terms like ‘slut’ and ‘bitch’ in order subvert sexist culture and deprive it of verbal weapons.”  “Slut” is derogatory?
 
But, for purely selfish reasons, I really love some of the things Hampton writes.  For instance, “Grrl-feminism tends to be global and multi-cultural and it shuns simple answers or artificial categories of identity, gender and sexuality.”  Hmmm.  If gender is an artificial category, then I should be able to get into some corporate gender diversity program designed to attract women, right? And if sexuality is artificial, well, I’ll see you sexy grrl-feminists at the Anti-Valentine’s Day lesbian-club afterparty orgies later, right?

Meanwhile, here’s a broad who claims to expound a ”new feminism” that seems to refute the newest “wave” of feminism as the “old feminism.”  http://www.historyplace.com/pointsofview/alvare.htm  And yet, here is this recent article, calling Samantha from Sex and the City a “new feminist” representing where “the second feminist wave has led.” http://www.hilary.com/dating/missjones.html   But wait – the third-wave started in the mid-90s http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-wave_feminism   – or was it the 1910s? 

Have a headache yet? Don’t worry – there’s not going to be a test, and I’m sure you already know these broads have been spewing forth incomprehsible, intellectually irreconciliable, babble.  This post is mainly so women know that Guyinism is onto the fact that they are intellectually all wet.
 
Anyway, of course, no professorial analysis, or, as the case is, babble, bests real life, however.
 
But we know the bottom-line, whether it has to do with waves or Madonna, high-heels or high-heals.
 
Its not really about fairness, equal rights, or equal opportunities.  They don’t stop at that.  In fact, a lot of them these days are quite vociferous about not wanting job opportunities – why work when there are guy-labor-financed bon-bons to be eaten?
 
In general, of course, its about empowerment. 
 
Empowerment of themselves and, the inevitable flipside of the empowerment coin, disempowerment of guys (or at least disempowerment of their own guys.  After all, does it seem like Russian, Chinese, Indian, or Arab guys are going for this shit?). Its about stripping us of the little power we have left, taking from us the fruit of our labor and what, from hard work and determination, is rightfully ours, whether through laws, or the withholding of sex.
 
But what does empowerment mean?  Are they all sitting around in some sort of conspiracy cooking up ways to bring us down?  Of course not.  They’re just empowering themselves at every turn, as a matter of course.
 
What feminism at its core is about the whim of any given broad at any given moment, no matter how contradictory to precepts of feminism or what any other broad may want, or what she may have wanted five minutes ago, to get what she wants here and now. That’s the power they really seek – that’s what feminism really has come to mean.

In late’07, Bill O’Reilly interviewed a couple of women who billed themselves as ”new feminists.”  Confused, toward the end of the show he asked for a summary, when one responded that, in a nutshell, feminism is now about ”women asserting themselves in their relationships.”  Since even what passes for logic among women excludes the possibility that the definition would encompass relationships with other women, it means women asserting themselves in their relationships with guys – all relationships with guys, not just romantic ones.  In other words, their current mantra is to take what they can get from you at every turn.  That’s it.  Just like for a long time now you have suspected it was.  Full cuntal.

Many of you have lived the bullcrap – I’m not going to ramble on about what you already know – it could fill an encyclopedia, and I’m only good in the short-form.  Maybe eventually all my entries on the subject can be glued together in some sort of treatise, but not for now.  And some of you are probably not yet on the same page.  My bad and my shortcomings:  I’ll have to keep working on you guys until you all get it, and I have no doubt you will.

Back to Starbucks, taking secret pleasure watching a stream of cute, depressed-looking, sweatpants-wearing, dateless, late-20-somethings and early-30-somethings go in and out, wishing they had stooped low enough to go out with a guy like me.  I like to think they’ve all just come from a screening of, “He’s Just Not Really That Into You” and have learned something, but I don’t hold out such high hopes.

I’m still here, too, but I have at least $150 more in my pocket than I would have if I had a date tonight -at least enough to pound Summer (The holidays – what monogamy would look like) silly for an hour before giving her the opportunity to swap my load. 

I also got a text from the now 20-YO porn star in the middle of the parade (“Hey how are you?”).  I hadn’t heard from her in two days – it was enough to make my night.  Wish me luck.  I’ll need it – I don’t hold out high hopes – the weekend after V-Day, the old “boyfriends” inevitably come out of the woodwork to reclaim their stable, and she’ll wake up tomorrow with a full day of being 20 under her belt and won’t feel as over-the-hill as she thought she would.  Anyway, here she is: 

  Member-ID: 1472976     Profile-ID: 693394     Reg. Date: Sep 11 2008

Is she hot, or what?  Another girl from Virginia Beach, like Jess.  My friend Hap, who couldn’t get laid in Jersey, always said he got laid there.  Wish me luck – whether it works out or not, its great to just be in the game for a piece like this – to hell with the Target and supermarket and Starbucks girls that wanted me take them to a restaurant.

Ah, restaurants, those third-party sex brokers that wouldn’t be able to afford to stay open for dinner if we got our legal right to choose.  I don’t think any other setting - including who pays for date, is more emblematic of the fact what feminism is about. 

It is undisputed that women expect guys to pay for dates, and even if a woman offer to pay, if a guy accepts, the woman will never see him again – unless he’s REALLY loaded or 6’5″ with tattoo sleeves.  In fact, women have convinced themselves that us guys actually WANT to pay for dates.  For women, going to a restaurant is like being a child again.  Just like I always had Dad to foot the bill when I was growing up, women can mosee into a restaurant with a guy without a care in the world about the cost of the bill.
 
And yet, despite the fact that in the company of a guy wome choose to act less equal than guys, women believe they are, and don’t like, being treated less equal by restaurants:  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/dining/08gend.html?scp=6&sq=restaurants%20women&st=cse
 
It’s the issue which, in my mind, best exemplifies “feminism” – its why I don’t talk about “waves” – its all “a la carte” – what any individual broad wants at any given moment. 

I say, having chosen en masse to be act like children in restaurants by evading the bill, women have forfeited the right to be treated other than as children. 
 
Guyinism doesn’t need multiple waves.  Yes, there are some precepts and positions and strategies to be worked out, but we know who and what we are up against, what we are fighting for, and who we need to be.  If this Guyinism stuff is all a bit unclear to you, it won’t be, and even if it is, so is feminism – so what?  It works for the broads! 

The tide is turning. The seismic shift has already occurred – you can see it in all our attitudes now that we can blog anonymously and post anonymously to news sites - a couple of years ago, other than from Howard Stern or Bill Maher – guys with the money and power to defend against retribution and reprisals – you could barely find anything remotely Guyinistic anywhere.  Now Guyinism is all over the place – on the blogs, in the comments, and in the conversations we are finally allowing ourselves to have. If you don’t think the tide is turning, look at the caustic reader comments it the end of any MSM article bearing on relations between the sexes.   Look at the response among readers to this article evidencing the strong electoral support for the guys’ right to choose:  http://blogs.tampabay.com/breakingnews/2009/02/deputies-bust-v.html

Cunts have had their day – they’ll never get the reverse Saudi Arabia (where guys can drive, but only to work) that they truly seek.  Its only a matter of time – we’ve found our voice – soon, if we stick together, and if we assert ourselves in all of our relationships with women, we’ll be the ones  – yes, us guys – who will be able to “have it all.” 

Tsunamiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Click on pen to

The current issue of Details contains the latest MSM article warning guys of the pitfalls of threesomes.   http://men.style.com/details/features/landing?id=content_7783

As of press time for this post, two (presumably) guys commented, both agreeing with the presmise of the article.  http://forums.men.style.com/thread.jspa?messageID=487810????

My official response is reproduced below:

Guy up!  Threesomes are hot. 

Notice the author of the article is a chick – a lot chicks want guys to think threesomes will screw up relationships because, deep down, most chicks don’t want their guys banging other chicks.  Check out guyinism dot com for an experienced guy’s point of view.

Yes, it might screw up your relationship.  So?  Get another relationship that threesomes and moresomes work in.  If messing up your current relationship is going to be too costly, then have your threesomes outside of the relationship.   It shouldn’t set you back more than $400 – less than 5% of the cost of the watch advertised on page 50.

Do you really want to just be with one girl your entire life?   Do you really want to be laying in bed night after night, having dreamt your whole life of a threesome, knowing that, at that very moment, DirkJohanson might be having another threesome? Think about it!

Click on pen to