I recently wrote and posted the best craig’s list personals ad ever. How do I know it was the best ever? Well, because about 100 women told me so.

Here is a typical response:

“Wow I have to say I’m a little old for you (48) and probably not your type but you should get a response from every woman in (XX city)! Yours is definitely the most fun and funniest post I have ever seen on Craig’s List, usually, they are sick and disgusting but yours was amazing! You must have funny oozing out of every pore on your body . . . anyway just wanted to say I wish you luck and am sure you will have no trouble finding a great girl!”

This post is a great example of typical female psychology. If a guy is funny, and he posts a funny ad online, then he should get laid like a rug, and married, and kids, and wealthy. Everything will be OK as long as you are a really, really, funny and amazing guy.

Well, I am a really, really funny and amazing guy. And you know what? The world doesn’t work that way.

This is how the world works:

  1. If a woman is looking for love online, either browsing personal ads or answering craig’s list personal ads, she is defective in one of the following ways: addict. overweight. ugly. angry. mean. single mom. deeply conflicted. low self-esteem. shitty job. no career. no ambition. wants kids. wants financial support. trying to cheat on husband. etc. etc. etc.
  2. The really hot, quality girls are either married, or in “monogamous” relationships. The scare quotes around “monogamous” just mean that they might slip up and sleep with a friend or a random dude in a bar if the mood strikes. Nobody finds out or if they do, they’re forgiven.
  3. The really hot, quality girls spend all their days in a corporate environment (since men and women are equal now) and then go home to their bore-friends who fuck them in pretty much the same way  all the time. (I know this because I’ve been one of those bore-friends).
  4. The really hot, quality girls might go out on a ‘girls ‘night’ but then it’s all about drinking and dancing and looking hot and only occasionally, in a very rare instance, letting themselves get fucked. So-called ‘players’ or player wannabes will spend 90% of their effort trying to find or manufacture those instances when an otherwise ‘claimed’ woman will open her legs for just one night.
  5. The really hot, quality girls are therefore SEQUESTERED away from any really hot, quality guys who may be single.
  6. The really hot, quality girls who are SOMEHOW STILL SINGLE are therefore free to sigh, “where are all the GOOD guys?” Simple because they have constructed (or rather, allowed society to construct for them) a CLOISTER around their lives so they have ALMOST NO CHANCE of meeting a decent guy outside of an alcohol-soaked dance club where they won’t remember anything anyway.
  7. The way for an awesome, funny, intelligent guy like me is NOT TO POST PERSONALS, but to go out to an alcohol-soaked dance club, insult women, insult men, and generally act like an arrogant douche-canoe until a girl is amused enough to let me drag her back to my car / apartment where I will proceed to pound her like a cheap steak, an event that will go down in her personal history as ‘the best night of passion of my life’ due to her filling in all the awkward gaps caused by alcoholic memory erasure with scenes from her favorite romance novel, but which will expose ABSOLUTELY NONE of my best qualities, and therefore lead to no number exchange, no further conversation, no personal expansion, no authentic encounter, no mutuality, no connection, and nothing, in other words, worth doing at all.

If you’re a hot, funny, attractive, intelligent single guy, and you don’t live in NYC, LA, SFO, or (maybe) Chicago, the best thing you can do is either A) move to one of the aforementioned places and join the rest of the human dating race, or B) slit your wrists right now.

Because the online thing doesn’t work.

Advertisements

Love, Actually. . . Not

December 25, 2011

I’m back, bitches.

I just finished watching Love, Actually with Liam Neeson and a whole host of other Hollywood A-listers, and not only is this the perfect movie to watch on Christmas Eve, it’s also a pretentious load of Disneyfied fairtytale crap.

Love, Actually has nothing to do with actual love. It’s all about wish-fulfillment fantasizing about an idealized version of love that twistes our friendships, ruins our marriages and makes a mockery of our childhood crushes.

At the root of this movie is not a heartwarming tale of truth about how “love conquers all”. At the root of this movie is a glittering, cynical, hard-edged exploitation of human hope and vanity.

Let’s take a look at the stories involved, one by one. I’m only going to briefly thumbnail sketch the movie plot: a variety of characters’ stories intertwine in wholly contrived ways while they all, in their own way, pursue “true” love. That’s the summary. Here are the gory details.

Harry, the director of an ad agency, cheats on his wife Karen with his younger, sexier secretary Mia. Karen discovers this and has a two minute breakdown, and then goes on with life as usual, because she won’t end the marriage for the sake of the kids. This vignette underscores that who Karen really loves are her kids. This is a bleak, depressing, and wholly realistic commentary on the modern marriage, in which (if kids are present) they often become the focus of the relationship, above and beyond the breakdown of the original partners’ marriage, and in many cases the original couple will “stay together for the kids”, thinking this will be better for the kids (even if, in many cases, it’s actually worse). The difficulty here underscores the insanity of believing that a modern marriage has a better than 50% chance of working when the truth is, it doesn’t.

If you’re still questioning my conclusion here, answer this quick quiz. Which choice is better for a happy family?:

  • Husband and wife unhappy and maybe cheating but stay together for the kids
  • Husband and wife unhappy and maybe cheating but break up (divorce)

If you tried to avoid a third option, “Neither – Happy Marriage”, you’re welcome to try, and please send me a postcard letting me know how well that works out.

Peter marries Juliet, and gradually Juliet realizes that Peter’s best friend Mark is in love with her. But, despite this love, Mark has gone years without speaking to Peter or Juliet about his undying love. So, he decides to sneak over to the house one night, pretend to be a whole chorus of carolers (yeah, right) and show Juliet signs that say, basically, “I love you, but I’ve always been to chicken to tell you, so hopefully I’ll find another girl, but I really am committed to you forever, in my heart.” And Juliet responds by French kissing him. Oh, boy: the moral of the story? If you’re false with your best friend, it’s okay, because the gorgeous girl he just married who you want desperately will probably break you off a little piece for you anyway if you just tell her how you really feel. That way, everybody’s happy. Oh, but you still can’t be honest with your best friend, and you still can’t have your dream girl. Unless you, y’know, kill your best friend. That may be your best bet. She’d probably get turned on by that or something.

New UK Prime Minister David is attracted to office-girl Natalie. When the U.S. President visits and makes a pass at her during a state visit, David is horrified and has Natalie transferred into another department. Later, she admits to him she was momentarily intoxicated by the President’s power and couldn’t help herself, and she really does love him (David). David ends up kissing her backstage at her kid brother’s Christmas play and, of course, the happy couple is outed in front of all the world. The moral of this twisted story: First, use your power to hit on the women in your office. Second, use your power to remove them from your path when it gets too difficult. Third, use your power to chase them down again when they make a inept confession of love (?) to you in a Christmas card. And Fourth, sneak around with them at public functions, imagining nobody will find out. True love really does conquer all. BARF.

Jamie is a writer who got cheated on by his wife with his brother. Shattered, he retires to a French cottage to write, and, romantically, the owner provides him with a fetching Portugese housekeeper, Aurelia, who doesn’t speak a lick of English. Of course, the sparks fly despite the language barrier, and after a tearful goodbye in which the impotent Jamie fails to act even after Aurelia kisses him on the mouth, he mounts a months-long campaign to “win her back”, learning Portugese and traveling to Portugal, contacting her family without her knowledge and actually showing up at her workplace unannounced and uninvited to ask for her hand in marriage. Of course, the rest of her family are portrayed as ignorant 3rd-worlders who banter about a “bride price” as if this was some 15th century arrange marriage. We’ll ignore the blatant racism and elitism for a minute and focus on the fact that, of course, Aurelia has been learning English and “saving herself” for him, on the off chance that he would randomly show up, just like in a storybook romance (“my prince will come.”) — and, of course, he does. Hello, has anyone ever heard of this happening in real life, not in a Disney movie? I didn’t think so. So here’s the Real Life version of this story: inept, impotent Jamie doesn’t have the stones or the follow-through to learn Portugese and fly to Portugal, and so continues his days masturbating to Internet porn or, better yet, marrying some sexless woman who will never measure up to the Portugese minx he lost through inaction. And, of course, Aurelia goes back to Portugal, works as a waitress, and gets picked up by a hunky Italian one night, who proceeds to boff her brains out, giving her the best sex of her life, only to dump her two months later for a richer, prettier girl.

I could go on, but I’d rather not.

Let me instead elucidate the rules of modern relationships, in contradistinction to the propagandist tripe this movie has put out. Instead of letting your mind be polluted with this Hollywood garbage, tell yourself the following: I guarantee the following messages will get you better results.

  1. You will never, ever get a second chance with a girl, so act now.
  2. If you get married there is a better than 50% chance you will get divorced. Know this.
  3. As a man, once you have kids with a women, the kids will become more important than you.
  4. Go after the woman you want, not the woman you think you have a chance with.
  5. Be honest with your male friends about which girls you love (or are crushing on). Be brutally honest. It’s way better than losing the friendship when you seduce her later and she cheats on him, and it’s way, way better than watching your best friend marry and fuck a girl you had a good chance with.
  6. If you are in a relationship with a woman, whether marriage or just dating, there is a good chance she will cheat on you, either with your best friend, your brother, or someone of no consequence. This is not because she’s an evil person: this is because humans are not meant to be sexually monogamous.
  7. You can be tightly devoted to your family, but if your blood relatives become your only social connection, you won’t get laid very much.
  8. Real love isn’t learning languages, traveling across continents, and doing other outlandish and stupid things in an effort to prove to someone you love them very much. Real love is accepting someone for who they are, totally, and letting them be that person, encouraging them to be an ever more perfect actualization of their own highest self — even if that someone is a guy who needs to seduce every third woman he sees. Anything else is selfish and self-serving wish fulfillment.
  9. Don’t date women you work with.
  10. Especially don’t date women who work under you.

A NY Times article, Sorority Evictions Raise Issues of Look and Bias, raises some hard questions about how college women behave.

Not really.

As if we needed any more proof that college women (and especially college women in sororities) are shallow and vindictive, the story details how a tiny sorority at a tiny college in Greencastle, Indiana — student population 2,400 — effectively kicked out all their overweight, ugly, black, Korean of Vietnamese women.

The purging, initiated by the sorority chapter’s higher-ups from Delta Zeta headquarters in Oxford, Ohio, was probably in response to an annual psychology professor’s survey that asked students to characterize the different sorority groups on campus.

While other sororities got labels like “Daddy’s little princesses” and “Offbeat hippies”, Delta Zeta claimed the prize: “socially awkward”.

Let me point out that the psychology professor, a Ms. Pam Propsom, conducted this little survey ostensibly under the guise of part of her psychology class. My question is, exactly how valuable is a survey that asks students to stereotype sorority girls?

To show the power of stereotypes? College women ought to have learned that lesson well enough in high school.

So a female psychology professor initiates a catty popularity-contest “survey” with questionable educational value, and other catty women, in charge and trying to damage control the bad PR their precious sorority is getting, swoop in from Delta Zeta headquarters, interview 35 sorority members ostensibly in the context of their “commitment” to the organization, and kick out the 25 ugliest and fattest.

And, then the NY Times picks up the story and exposes them all as silly bitches.

You really need to look at the article to see the awful justice in full light of day — the story includes photos of many of the women kicked out, and it’s true, they are not pretty, and they are overweight.

But kicking them out on these grounds and trying to cover it with a tissue-thin fantasy about their lack of commitment is just laughable.

Just more evidence to confirm what I’ve always believed: sorority women at that age are pretty sad. Even sadder are the adult ones who never grow out of the mindset. I’d say they are good for one thing only (sex), but my experience is, often they are disappointing even in bed.

Porn. Porn where they would all excel — not only would it give them an outlet for their catty, competitive energy, it would give them a paycheck for acting fake.

Redefining Seduction Reviewed

February 26, 2007

I don’t remember how I came across the website Redefining Seduction — all I knew was that, as a an avid student of human mating behavior and researcher of all the latest dating and mating theories, I had to read the book of the same name.

The draw was obvious. This book, co-written by writers and activists Donna Sheehan and Paul Reffell, promises to produce “The Joyous New Women’s Movement that Men will Love Too!”

Knowing from personal experience how difficult it is to write anything that pleases both men and women, I was interested from this angle — and also because the book promised to, among other quotes from the website:

Picking up from Darwin’s theory of Sexual Selection, Redefining Seduction is an audacious and evocative look at male and female sexuality and the mating game. The premise of women as being in the evolutionary driver’s seat will undoubtedly have huge implications for generations to come.

The premise of women being in the driver’s seat, eh? Well, obviously I can agree with that idea, to a point: I do believe women happen to be the “choosers” of their sexual partners, in one way or another, although this generalization often has limits.

But I was very curious what others had to say, especially others who billed themselves as “evolutionary behaviorists” who had plowed 5 years of research into this book.

Redefining Seduction as Scholarship
I sprung for the $10 e-book version and read it in a few days. It is a small book, at barely 100 pages (including the epilogue), and honestly, I was a bit surprised at how little new information was presented in it.

The authors claim to have spent 5 years researching the book, but honestly, I did not see evidence of 5 years’ worth of original research. The “notes” section that supports their in-text assertion has barely 20 citations.

Obviously, this depth of research did not convince me. I myself have written 100+ page research papers in under three weeks with works cited sections stretching to over 100 citations.

So how does this book stand up as a scholarly work? Not very well.

As a Seduction Manual for Women
Some of the highest praise I can give the authors of Redefining Seduction is that, in their Notes section, they say of the perennial female-seduction guide The Rules: “prolongs the myth that women can beat up on men emotionally and expect to get away with it.”

As great as that is, and as much as this book wants to break paradigms of female behavior, the only real support it offers for the efficacy of its new methods is the success of the two author’s relationships: the book opens with the story of how Donna Sheehan “seduced” Paul Reffell, and returns repeatedly to their relationship over the course of the 100-page book.

Women take great pleasure and comfort in social rapport with other women, and the feeling of solidarity that comes from reading another woman’s story — but if a woman doesn’t identify instantly and closely with Doona (who seems to be the primary and only author, despite Paul’s name being on the cover), she’s sunk.

The book doesn’t even feature the multitude of compared women’s stories that books such as He’s Just Not That Into You do.

As practical guides go, the book does suggest some really basic moves (such as “make him comfortable” and “say positive things” and “touch him lightly”) but does not present a comprehensive “system” or method that is very different or new at all.

In fact, the farthest it goes is saying “keep your eyes open for men, and start chatting them up wherever you see them, take the initiative.” That’s it. That’s pretty much Redefining Seduction in a nutshell.

So, as a seduction manual, I would say this book falls pretty short as well.

It may remind a few women that they are living in the 21st century and there is more leeway for them to take some initiative, but beyond that it really doesn’t advance knowledge or open any new doors.

Devilish Details
Even more shocking, I found this book flat-out got it wrong in key places.

It says men will share the “minutiae” of their relationship lives at the first provocation: which seems a clear case of projection (women do this often, but I haven’t met a single man who does).

In the “Sex” section, it says that “so-called vaginal orgasms result from the stimulation of the clitoris.”

Wrong.

It also says “the clitoris is the center of the climax.”

Wrong again.

Then it goes on to compare orgasm to winning the lottery, and attributing a woman who has an orgasm on first intercourse with a new partner as “lucky”.

What a blatant perpetuation of not only feminist tropes, but plain old downright bad anatomy!

At one point, it leaps to the hasty generalization that “men with dogs have given up on finding a woman.” Uh, actually, the majority of single men I know who have dogs have them because they know that dogs give them opportunities to meet women.

At another point in the Sex chapter, they cite a study that says fully 37% of women wanted men to wait between one and three months before trying to initiate sex.

I couldn’t help thinking, are these women over 65 years old, or what? I don’t know ANY population of women in the U.S., except maybe evangelical Christian virgins, who would want a man to wait that long to try to initiate sex.

The book further mis-characterizes men as indiscriminate breeders — “seed sprayers” — who are incapable of empathy, kindness, or making a good decision on who to sleep or partner with. This is one of the book’s greatest weaknesses, since it is not only sexist and shortsighted, but also misandrist.

Getting It Right
The book does have a few high points, where it gets the analysis of women and men right.

It says at one point that all men “want a woman who is attractive to him and others in some way, a woman who ‘resonates’.”

It DOES warn against blaming men for their actions, which is good, to a point — but on the other hand, it applies this standard of blamelessness to men in other odd situations, such as after a date (“It’s not his fault if he doesn’t call you back.”) Applying this logic to women is what leads to frustrating flakey hate-inspiring modern women, so while I am grateful to see a woman applying these same moral standards to men, I am still concerned that they exist at all — personal responsibility is a good thing.

And finally, it does advocate women be more outgoing and friendly, and not so fearful (of the ever-present threat of “rape”, right?), saying, in a great passage:

Our personal fortress in which most women, especially urbanites, hide in fear of strangers…it’s the closest a woman can come to feeling how it is for most men at all times when they are in public. These defenses are all products of…..[a]….mindset that has created the suspicious and fearful atmosphere that tyrants thrive on.

And, to it’s credit, the book does advocate safe sex.

Save your Money
At $10, I figured I couldn’t possibly waste money on this book, but I was very nearly proved wrong. The authors seem to think they can effect global change with this 100-page polemic against helpless “masked” males: here’s a snippet from the blog that accompanies the book:

Men are designed for focusing on the job at hand, creating stuff, destroying stuff and spraying seed wherever they can. Women are designed for seeing the whole picture, creating connections and creating life from raw seed. Men are not designed to choose their mates. This according to Charles Darwin and his Sexual Selection theory (read the book!).

Actually, Darwin never said men are hapless seed-sprayers incapable of choosing a mate. That’s an extrapolation that the authors have used to put words in his mouth.

Men are designed to display their best traits. Women are designed to select their mates. So, guys, that’s why so many of you have been rejected so many times when you made the first move.

No, guys get rejected because they don’t understand how to approach women in the right way, a way that will appeal to the woman.

And it’s partly why so many marriages end in divorce. Male-initiated marriages are more likely to end in divorce than female-initiated marriages. Google it sometime.

This is because women, when they initiate marriages, initiate marriages with limp-wristed Beta males who are already whipped prior to the “proposal” and are essentially the woman’s domestic and economic servant for the rest of their naturally born days.

Men don’t divorce the woman who proposed to them because the woman won’t give them permission to.

But wait, they’re just getting warmed up:

Now it’s time for women to use their biological seductive power to reclaim their true role as the civilizers of men. Women are the drivers of evolution, through their mate choices, their child-rearing, their ability to understand the bigger picture and thereby the consequences of their, and their mates’, actions. Women are the only hope for steering men away from their path to certain destruction.

Not only is this again returning to the misandristic sexist trope of “men aren’t as mentally capable as women” but it’s saying tha, in effect, women are superior, and would make better political leaders, and can single-handedly bring about a ‘taming’ of the violence of human (whoops, male) nature and save the day.

Well, let’s look at some female political leaders. Janet Reno (remember Elian Gonzales?) Condoleeza Rice. Need I say Margaret Thatcher? Right, I think women make swell political leaders.

Sorry, I don’t buy this sexist trope, and neither should you: humanity suffers because of humanity, not because of men — there are good men as well as bad, and good women as well as bad. Setting it up as a battle between evil men and good, nurturing women is completely counterproductive, given that in reality it is a battle between GOOD men and GOOD women against EVIL men and EVIL women.

And thus concludes my book review. I can’t write another word about this thing: and I cannot recommend this slim manual (I won’t call it a “book”) to anyone.

In the city I currently live in, there is a shortage of Alpha males.

Most of the men in this city are laid back, relaxed, many are effeminate or downright metro. There is a large and openly out gay population.

This is a major metropolitan area, and it is a very liberal, progressive city in a Blue state — the sort of metropolitan area Republican Presidents fear to tread in.

Although it has vibrant local art, music, food and wine scenes and is additionally very high-tech, the men here still leave something to be desired; the nature of the city and the area itself seems to draws effete men to it; and the men here who do play at being “alpha” do so in a churlish, frat-boy way. There are very, very, few of what I would call “natural alphas” that are over 27, single, attractive,  and not douchebags or assholes in some other way.

The women here, on the other hand, are VERY dominant.

Going along with the openly gay community is an open and vocal lesbian community. Women are seen walking openly hand-in-hand down the street while nearby male couple do the same thing. Openly lesbian women are appointed to prestigious teaching positions at local universities.

And that’s what cued me in; a lesbian University professor I once had who, way back then, challenged my assertion that Good Sex ought to involve Emotion.

“I can have sex just based on physical attraction,” she said. “I don’t think emotions have to come into it. And I’m a lot older than you, I think I have a little more experience.” She said this in the context of an undergraduate class in Women’s Studies.

Different place, different time, different woman, same message: I can have sex just like a man.

– I can objectify the targets of my desire;

– I can see them as nothing more than living, breathing sex-toys;

– I can fuck them without regard to their emotional lives;

– I can use them and cast them aside, and move on to the next.

Just like a man can.

And I am free to develop that masculine dominance exactly in proportion to how scarce actual masculine dominance is around here.

By now, I’ve heard this refrain from many women — all of them “dominant” women who were either openly lesbian or strongly bisexual. None of them particularly effeminate — many of them embracing traditionally masculine characteristics — short hair, androgynous clothing, male sex roles, and so forth.

None of them I considered particularly attractive.

What I’m developing here is a social theory that dominant women spring up in the absence of dominant men, and take on their sexual roles.

Or, put another way, assertive, masculine (butch) women are a product of submissive men.

When assertive, masculine, Alpha males are in short supply, women take up the natural slack and expand to fill the power-gap left by those men: they get jobs like them, harass and harangue like them, dress like them,  and try to fuck like them.

This would never happen in a region with a healthy supply of dominant, masculine males: Texas, for instance. A woman who wanted to be dominant would not only not venture to go there (because she’d get laughed right out of her butch attitude) but also, women born in those areas are LESS LIKELY to get the idea that they need or want to develop dominant, traditionally-masculine traits — they see dominant men around them, they understand the power of femininity, and they don’t see any reason to change the status quo.

To further test this theory, I have examined (in fine detail) some women from the vast rural areas outside the dense urban center.

These women are, to a one, more feminine, more attractive, and more interested in and responsive to a dominant,  man.

So now you know. Female dominance is adaptive; female submission is natural.

What the hell is this country coming to?

In a report done in early September of 2005, Ed Bradly of CBS News’s 60 Minutes reports on the country’s current “abstinence-only” sex education, and the fact that almost $1 billion dollars worth of federal funding (that’s YOUR tax dollars, folks) have gone into a faith-based educational black hole that actually teaches today’s youngsters that condoms are ineffective and unsafe.

You can watch the report in its entirety over at One Good Move. It’s a real eye-opener. The full transcript is here.

Some of the highlights:

Amy and Rick will be taking their virginity pledge at a music and light sex-education show called Silver Ring Thing. In the last few years, Silver Ring Thing has received more than $1 million in federal and state subsidies. Its aim is to encourage young people to put on a ring and promise to abstain from sex until marriage.

You really need to see these “Silver Ring Thing” shows to believe them. Imagine a nightclub for kids, only with bad Christian rock and a Christian youth minister haranguing kids about the dangers of condoms — and little skits about how BAD sex is unless done in the context of marriage.

Hitler-youth-rally-esque gatherings like the Silver Ring Thing are the reason I’ve been seeing all these “promise rings” popping up on younger women in the past 5 years. We’ll return to those promise rings in a moment.

[Denny] Pattyn [Christian youth minister and founder of Silver Ring Thing] doesn’t just preach the virtues of sexual abstinence. His show is full of negative messages about condoms – messages warning that condoms won’t protect kids from pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases…

“My own daughter, my 16-year-old daughter, tells me she’s going to be sexually active. I would not tell her to use a condom,” says Pattyn, “I don’t think it’ll protect her. It won’t protect her heart. It won’t protect her emotional life. And it’s not going to protect her. I don’t want her to get out there and think that she’s going to be protected using a condom.”

Wow, that’s great, Minister Pattyn, and you know what, you’re absolutely right — because you taught your sweet little 16-year-old daughter that, last night I fucked her raw and she contracted HIV from my gold-plated big-swinging Player Dick (which incidentally has been places you don’t even want to imagine).

You’re right. A condom didn’t protect her. I wasn’t wearing one. She said she didn’t believe in them.

Now she’ll have to deal with the social stigma and health issues of having an STD for the rest of her life.

How do you feel about not telling her to use a condom now?

Columbia University’s Peter Bearman co-authored the most comprehensive study ever done on adolescent health and sexuality. He says, “Sex education doesn’t cause all these negative outcomes. What causes these negative outcomes is kids who are having sex and aren’t protecting themselves.”

It was a $45-million project, funded by 17 separate federal agencies. Bearman’s investigators interviewed more than 20,000 young people about virginity pledge programs — and there was some good news.

“Pledging will help them delay sex for, say, 18 months — a year and a half….The downside is that, when they have sex, pledgers are one-third less likely to use condoms at first sex,”

And that is exactly why predatory men like me just LOVE this whole Promise Ring movement — we get an entire new crop of fresh-faced, ripe young girls who have “saved themselves”; they think they’ve been saving themselves for marriage, but as it turns out, they’ve been saving themselves for US.

So when we seduce one of these Promise-Ring sporting chicklets, we can be pretty sure that, if we hit them at the right time,

A) they are probably relatively free of STDs, compared to women with some sexual experience
and
B) they will not ask us to use a condom.

Our protection from disease is virtually guaranteed by their increased abstinence, and their protection from *our* potential diseases, that we may have acquired from a lifestyle of promiscuous unprotected sex, is virtually nil.

In other words — spending $1 billion in public funds to generate a new crop of 1 million fresh-faced virgins that don’t believe in using condoms? Hell yeah! Now that’s what I call government!

There’s another little ancillary side-benefit:

“Adolescents who take virginity pledges – who remain virgins, that is, who don’t have vaginal sex, who technically remain virgins, are much more likely to have oral and anal sex,” says Bearman.

As social commentator Bill Maher remarked famously, Abstinence Pledges Make You Horny.

Based on those interviews with more than 20,000 young people who took virginity pledges, Bearman found that 88 percent of them broke their pledge and had sex before marriage.

And, not only are they highly likely to break their Promise, but they are ALSO likely not to tell anyone about it:

“They’ve taken a public pledge to remain a virgin until marriage. The sex that they have is much more likely to be hidden,” says Bearman. “It’s likely to be hidden from their parents. It’s likely to be hidden from their peers.”

Wow. Just wow.

So let me get this straight:

  1. Promise girls are actually going to have sex 88% of the time
  2. Promise girls are more likely than other girls to be open to having oral or anal sex prior to finally having intercourse
  3. Promise girls are highly unlikely to tell ANYBODY about #1 or #2

I honestly cannot think of a better set of characteristics for a young female population that is perfectly positioned to be seduced and taken advantage of by older, wiser and more sexually experienced men.

The Silver Ring Thing and other abstinence-only sex education programs not only virtually guarantees that its students will eventually have sex, it also virtually guarantees they will have MORE TYPES OF SEX in the process, and be secretive about the whole thing!

I thank you, Bush administration. From the bottom of my heart.

Political rationale for these faith-based abstinence-only programs is a little weak in the “brains” department, though:

Claude Allen is President Bush’s domestic policy adviser and point man on abstinence-only education: “If I were to say to that same group of kids, you know what, don’t drink and drive, but if you do drink and drive, make sure you wear your seatbelt.”

Worst. Analogy. Ever.

Driving a 2-ton piece of metal at speeds up to 70 mph while under the influence of a central nervous system suppressant is a little bit different than letting you boyfriend stick his pee-pee in your hoohah.

You could kill someone while drinking and driving, regardless of whether your seatbelt is buckled: I don’t think you run the risk of killing anyone as a direct result of having sex with a condom.

Plus, I bet Claude Allen lets his partner slip on a condom before railing him in the ass. Just a guess.

-=-=-=-=-=
Final Note

As it happens, I have a personal connection to this story:

On my bedside table, right next to my alarm clock, is a glass bowl. Inside are all the Promise Rings I’ve taken off “pledgers” over the years.

It’s better than notches on the bedpost.