So, yesterday my homeskillet, Max posted a blog post entitled, “Reopening A Can of Worms (Still cant have sex whenever we want)“, which was a follow-up to her post, “No, We Actually Can’t Have Sex Any Time We Want.” The latter (listed) of which erupted into one of the most epic blogville arguments known to man (and some degrees of it carried over to gchat, but we ain’t gon’ talk about that right nah*).
If you haven’t already, reading both of those is a homework assignment before continuing any further so you come well-equipped and ish, but the gist of Max’s thesis is that “women cannot have sex whenever they want/it’s not truly easy for women to get sex.” And I agreed with her.
I actively participated in both debates, and since I have a problem not sitting right with not getting everything I wanted to get out… out, I decided to vomit my words all over my space. Because ya know, any other way would mean writing a blog post in the comments section OF ANOTHER BLOG which we all (if “all” meant “everyone except for a few crazy niccas”) know is against blog etiquette.
Anyhow, while watching the debate continue, a few points stuck out to me. And by “stuck out to me”, I mean, “confuddled me greatly to the point where I thought the high blood pressure that run in my family would be fully realized within me in that moment.”
I’m gonna note the commonalities that I noticed amongst the men’s arguments and speak my piece on each. Cool? Ice cold.
1. “Her Experiment of Just Sampling 5 Men Is Faulty.” Ya know, I found it funny how a lot of men used this to mean, by default, that they were right. Except not. Let’s say it WAS faulty… that just means the experiment was inconclusive, it doesn’t then mean that obtaining sex IS easy for women. I also find it funny (hilarious, even) that if she conducted this exact same experiment but ended up getting her back blown out thusly, these exact same results would’ve “proved” the men’s claims right. Jigga how?
2. “She Should’ve Added A Qualifier Like ‘Quality Men’ or ‘Only Men I Want’.” Chile, bye. You know who you sound like? Those very “When you dog women you should ONLY say, ‘SOME women’, otherwise we think you’re talmbout all of us!” type chicks ya’ll claim to be annoyed by. And this is a (kosher) beef I have with the internets, in general. Thing is, in order to keeps us sane, generalities are needed. If we had to add a qualifier and specificity to each and every thing we wax generic about, each and every blog post would have a 50-lem trillion word count and take 31 days for the page to load. Thing is, when we write using generalities, we usually hope (pray, even) that our readers are able to put 2 and 2 together and know that there are always exceptions.
Yes, women would rather have sex with someone they want. Who doesn’t? Who complains about something not being available that they don’t care for? No one that’s who. Even men who say that they can’t text a chick asking for sex without getting slapped figuratively/literally (more on that later) are texting for sex they want, no? So yeah, please assume that women mean the sex that they want. Which, there’s nothing wrong with. If we include “any and every sex available on the planet” then it’s easy for everyone, ain’t it?
3. “It’s Easier For Ya’ll Than For Men, Doe!” I’m not even gonna get on the fact that she never claimed this in her original premise, but c’est la vie and whatnot. Let’s entertain this thought, doe. First off, easy is relative. If — in one breath — you admit (hell, even try to strengthen your argument) with the fact that women have different checklists on whether they’ll sleep with a nicca than men do, then you can’t — in the same breath — measure how “easy” it is for women in relation to how easy it is for men, ya dig? You noting that we have different morals in terms of sex presupposes that our “easiness” then can’t be measured on the same scale. If you know dayum well that women are more choosey in who they decide to share their loins with (and berate them when they’re not so choosey at all…), wouldn’t you at least hesitantly admit that this makes it a tad bit difficult for chicks? Given the chances alone? Doesn’t matter that it’s not easier for you, it’s not easy for her. It not being easier for you doesn’t make it easy for her, by default. And I do have to add that screaming about how bad women react to your advances means nothing but the fact that we’re more dramatic in how we say “no.” A “no” is a “no” is a gottdayum, “no.” Acting like you so “busy” when a girl hits you up to pet her kitty, is a way of saying, “no” as well. Check your Thesaurus, it’s in there.
*checks blood pressure* … *sees it’s still on the up-and-up… oh wait, wrong phrase… sees it’s normal* Rejoice!
So, yeah, Pinchers, had to get that out. See why I couldn’t have that all up in Maxie’s blog? Anyway, what do ya’ll think about this severely dead horse? Is it an infamous semantics debate? Am I full of it? Eh, it’s probably just gas. Hug me anyway.
Love ya like hippies love to occupy Wall Street,