Differentiating between women as men’s equals or as sl*ts, with Men Going on Strike

In the past women were worried if they were to have s*x with a man for fear of being labeled a sl*t, with a common question applying to the situation, “Will you respect me tomorrow (or in the morning)?” The se*ual revolution rightfully resolved this double standard. However, did we ever think that the se*ual revolution of one s*x would be used to suppress the other?

Does there exist a place or category for shaming women for having s*x? Not if s*x is all that’s at stake any more than it would be to shame men for the same. Otherwise, we have what’s referred to as the male double standard in which case women are deemed ‘sl*ts’ and men are ‘studs’ for the same activity. This also adds to the incel problem of men not getting laid. (And men are shamed for that.) Go figure, right? Could those who sl*t-shame women be more stupid?

However, there now exists a difference compared to the past when sl*t-shaming merely referred to women who liked to have s*x with multiple s*x partners. (Except there appears to be no discrepancy between the two by the religious trad/cons whose small minds are merely concerned about body count.) A different version in female character now exists in which case women use their s*x as high-priced prostitutes by only having s*x for a purpose—to secure finances (extravagant dating) and/or to entrap men (“Me Too” and to baby trap)–as they only seek the upper 10% of men deemed “high value.” These are the fit, nice-looking, wealthy men. Thus, women are far more likely to engage in s*x for ulterior motives compared to men which denounces the female pair-bonding myth sold to us by the religious trad/cons.

A big difference exists, and thus an important distinction needs to be made between the two. Women in this modus operandi, contribute to the incel problem as much as do the religious trad/cons in their sl*t-slamming antics of all women. They differed from the women of the past who had s*x with men for its own sake. They enjoyed s*x and liked men without any ulterior motives attached as was evident in the ‘70s (e.g. The Free Love Movement, “Make love, not war”) and continued awhile thereafter with terms in practice also applying as “Friends with benefits.” What rationally-minded people would oppose this? (Feminists and religious trad/cons? No, I said rationally-minded.) Well, as I have said before in reference to the females who are men’s friends and are as s*xual equals to me, “I love ‘sl*ts’.” (Hell, I’m one myself.) But keep in mind that this expression of my appreciation applies to the type of ‘sl*t’ typical of the past who loved men, not of the present who hates men and will use them to get what they want by using sex to get it—entrap and extract finances through the use of their sexuality. (Pair-bonding? Most relationships and marriages are ended by women, not men.) These women do indeed need to be shamed due to their ulterior motives. But such shame needs to be qualified with a distinction made between the two categories as to not include those women who do not possess such ill-intentions attached to their sexuality. Sure, these types of women, with their ulterior motives existed in the past but they were the exception and deemed bad—no good ‘man-eaters’ who were in no way the common standard as is now the case.

Still, again, why would body count alone matter unless the sl*t assessment is being applied to all women who have s*x with multiple partners, not just with the top 10%? Numbers alone by the religious trad/cons are often used to ridicule and shame women regardless of their character and intentions. Incels are created by this sl*t-shaming effect applying to all women, known as the male double standard which hypocrisy went away for several decades. I used to reassure women (still do) who worried about me not respecting them if they had sex with me that I respect them more for having sex with me than if they didn’t, and that was, and still is, the truth. I detest those people who impose this shame because these gals are equals to me (and other men), and I love them for it. The others who don’t want to share sex are those who I’ve disrespected and still do disrespect. I love sl*ts–the kind who don’t use their sex for ulterior motives (for marriage or use it to get pregnant and extract resources) but who are friends with benefits to men. We need many more of them in today’s society (“Make love, not war”), all the others filled with misandry are coming from both the religion trad/cons and feminists.

Men going on strike:

What good would it do for men to go on strike? How would that work to change these conditions? What would that even mean and how would it be carried out? If orchestrated it would help greatly to separate the chaff from the wheat. But what do men have that would apply leverage to effect this change?

Men could go on strike without losing anything than they haven’t already lost. If that’s the case, you may ask, then what leverage would men have? The leverage would come from men depriving women sought-after male attention and the resources men are commonly cheated out of by women merely showing men enough interest to extract finances under the pretense of false promises. Take away male se*ual attention, and the opportunity for women to bait men (under false pretenses) and financial use, since women commonly use other men outside the 10% as stepping stones. You might recall, as it applies here, that song from the band, The Monkees, ”I’m not your steppin’ stone.”

(I’m Not Your) Steppin’ Stone: Song by The Monkees https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=i%27m+not+your+steppin+stone+song Speaking of monkeys, there is the term monkey-branching that also describes these female opportunistic intentions.

If men went on strike women would not get the attention they thrive upon from those men they don’t intend to lay anyway, so men would gain in either case, along with a much needed blow to women’s ego. Men would not be deceived, used and rejected, humiliated, subjected to liability or robbed by them either.

Women of the low caliber, deservingly, won’t connect with any man and will eventually self-destruct, oh but blaming and shaming men for it all along the way. But the women who like men for their own sake, not for use or some purpose, will be flushed out by this process and given, equally-deserving, honorable recognition. No man I know wants a virgin. How archaic is that? And no man knowingly wants a high maintenance exploiter who’s going to take him for all he’s got either. And that’s only if he qualifies as her final goal, in which case, on average, she will deservingly fail due to the law of averages. This differentiates the difference between women who are sl*ts per purpose and those women who are men’s friends with benefits.

Also Read:
Men are the d*sposable gender
Female Power Dynamics Exposed by Will Smith and Johnny Depp Cases
The Johnny Depp, Amber Heard Ordeal exposes hidden truth about Domestic Violence