Several days ago I posted up four clear and present ways Today’s Women are rank hypocrites when they bring up the “double standard”; I argued, quite convincingly I might add, that Women are often the biggest purveyors of double standards – not only do they engage in them, at will, but they will also defend and justify them, on a wide and ever-changing basis of rationales.
My inspiration for writing such a post were several, one of them coming from my running “battle” with “anti-Game” bloggers Lady Raine and Denise Romano. I posted my piece over on Lady Raine’s blog, and only got, in LR’s case, a rambling “defence” of her refusal to pay for dates on the basis that all Men are PUAs and/or MRAs now and so she must “protect” herself, and a niggardly response, at best, from Ms. Romano, MA, EdM; she only said that “in principle” she has paid for dates, but wouldn’t be more specific than that. Another common poster on the site, “Maria”, also, when pressed to the wall, had to admit that Women do indeed engage in double standards as much as do Men, but that the kinds of double standards that impact Women were much worse – that would be nice to know if my query had to do with which double standards were indeed worse – but it wasn’t. It was simply making the case, using sitations that everyone who has eyes and has lived for any length of time on this Earth, could clearly see, that not only do Women engage in double standards *all the time*, but they also justify their doing so when called on the carpet.
Period.
The utter lack of straightforward answering of my questions, to say nothing of my post on the part of Lady Raine and Denise Romano, if not their deliberate ignoring the questions or giving milktoast answers, only goes to further weaken their very own moral authority and credibility, when it comes to their Anti-Game Crusade.
Why?
Let’s find out…
Now, Lady Raine is known for her boisterous “I don’t need no Man!” ways; we are constantly assailed with the nature of her job, how much she makes, what she can afford on her own, and so forth. She also regales us with how she can and will punch a guy out if he don’t come correct in a bar or some other meeting place. Yet this same modern day Annie Oakley does a complete 180 when it comes to her actually putting her money where her big mouth is. When asked about Point Number Four in my recent post, she launches off into all manner of rationalizations and justifications as to why not only won’t she pay for ANY dates for ANY reason, but then attempts to argue that she has to protect herself from merely only being used for sex. Which is strange coming from someone who’s stock and trade is in telling anyone within earshot just how sexually liberated she is, and all the rest of it. First off, she lives in a part of the country where the Mancession has taken the greatest toll – even the Atlantic recently covered this in a very detailed and excellent article on the economy, and I urge everyone to check it out. Yet this doesn’t matter to Lady Raine; “tough” she may say to the thousands of Men in her area who, through no fault of their own, couldn’t afford to “court” her even if they wanted to. Second, for her “sexual defence” – if Lady Raine was really serious, she’d control the whole interaction from the get go – by paying for the evening, she gets to determine when, if ever, sex will happen. There’s absolutely no ambiguity here, right? Afterall, he, or she, who pays the piper, calls the tune – and no Man can really complain if, after being treated out on a night on the town, he doesn’t get anything, because the sponsor of the evening, the Woman, has decided that either he ain’t the one, or that she isn’t ready to go down that road yet. But nope, Lady Raine ain’t really interested in doing any of that, because then it really require her to, like I said, put her money where her mouth is.
And for her part, Denise Romano, for all her bluster about power exchanges and control issues, equality and so forth, suddenly seems quite demure when asked straight up if she actually walks the walk. I asked Ms. Romano on several occasions over the pasrt few days, what she thought of the four points I laid out in my post; I asked her if SHE had dated any Men who were shorter than herself; whether she had dated any Men who had less formal education than herself; whether she agreed in the basic premise that Men also had a right to reproductive freedom; and exactly how many dates did she pay for, outright. To date, on these points – nothing. And this, coming from a Woman who’s internet postings are volumnous when it comes to how she feels about Game! What a rank hypocrite.
Like I said, if you’re a guy and are reading this, please go back to my original post and hand it out to the Women you know, grab up some popcorn and enjoy the show; you’ll bowl yourself over with laughter watching these poor ladies’ Rationalization Hamsters dang near pass out from running so hard! LOL
The Obsidian
PS: Yet ANOTHER example of clear Female Double Standards: when an older guy expresses interest in a younger Woman, he’s creepy and a loser; when an older Woman expresses interest in a younger guy, she’s sexually liberated and exercising her “choice”. When Women want a NSA sex life, again, she’s exercising her “choice”, but when a Man wants the same, he’s a loser and a creep. Hypocrites, I tell you; Hypocrites!
