Oh AskMen.com, you harbinger of antiquated sex values, you never disappoint in your oblivious celebration of the most backwards of relationship advice and unadulterated ignorance.
"Stacy Jones" wrote to AskMen.com's relationship
misogynist columnist Curt Smith wondering why handsome Daniel never called her back after she 'fessed up to having slept with 43 men. Shockingly, Curt's advice wasn't "Stacy, you're better off without some douchebag who responds by saying 'Hmm, one for each of my birthdays,' and then turns over to pretend to read the Money section of USA Today." Instead, Curt gave Stacy the low-down on something she should have realized a long time ago: Women who have lots of sex have a Problem with a capital P that will forever keep them from true love, and it's called PROMISCUITY.
"Before I begin, allow me to stress that I'm not passing judgment on women, nor am I saying that women shouldn't enjoy themselves sexually."
Disclaimer Fail! Smith's entire article is about how women who sleep around/are sexually liberated (same thing, duh) can't face the facts that men won't want them!
Some women will argue that if men have the right to sleep around, so should women. But I ask only one question: If women adamantly believe this, then why is it that when faced with the question, "How many men have you slept with?," most women who have slept around with truckloads of men always lie?
Because they feel like shit after reading crappy articles like yours, which deliberately instill additional guilt in women who have ever felt shame about sex!
Smith doesn't waste time to objectify women in the most fundamental way possible: by calling them objects.
An object that has value is worshipped, respected, cherished, and shared with very few deserving people. As soon as you start sharing that object with anyone and without care, the object starts to lose value. The more people use the object, the more it depreciates and the less bargaining power it has: this is a plain psychological fact of life.
Does this scream "abstinence-only movement" to anyone else? Why don't you just escort me to a purity ball already, Dad? The whole depreciating-value thing resembles the duct-tape metaphor for women who get around: the more places it's been the dirtier and nastier it gets! Observe:
They could stick together forever!
Given the terms Smith uses to describe la vajayjay ("sacred body", "precious gift," "special gift," "valuable treasure" [other laughably awkward phrasing Smith uses: "sexual magic," "full intercourse"]), the only thing that's missing from this backwards campaign is the bit about dying from STDs (and funding from the Bush administration, ba-dum ching!) Is Smith's article all that different from pro-abstinence site ChastityCall.org? The stirring poem "A Real Woman..." and "To My Future Wife" have the same message: keep your magic sparkling treasure chest locked and hidden if you want to be the perfect mate!
Too little, too late, sister!
For those women who remain oh, a tad skeptical over his argument that our "precious gift" is the most valuble thing you can give a man, Curt thankfully takes the time to lay out his argument in language we can understand: Marriage.
If I were to offer Stacy the same engagement ring that I once offered my ex-fiancée, would she appreciate it? I'm sure she wouldn't, and it's only a ring. Then how do you think men feel when a woman offers herself once she's already offered it to so many other men?
Ohhh I get it now! (My uterus makes it difficult for me to relate to anything that doesn't involve jewelry.)
Even more mystifying than the patronizing metaphors is this magical golden era Curt keeps referring to.
"Times have changed…There was a time when many women cherished their bodies much like a sacred temple. Where only a noble man, one who respected and loved her, had access to her body."
Ring, ring, "Hello? Is this the fact-checker for Askmen.com? Yes I was wondering where exactly you heard about this time period? Oh hmm. Yes, I see. You found it in the Vague'n'Mythic file in the Department of Delusions? That explains it!" Please, "a noble man?" Even Queen Guinevere got around.
But one of my favorite parts is towards the end:
"If…. a woman abuses her sexual power with many men, it will backfire on her. Unfortunately, women only realize this after they've had their 'women's movement fun.'"
Favorite new term for feminism or choice euphemism for sex? I can't decide….
I imagine most Bitch readers wouldn't give this kind of article a second thought, and would rightfully write-off Mr. Smith as a no-bit, misogynistic, possibly ghostwritten, web hack. Hell, even the commenters on the article call him an a-hole, troglodyte and diss his writing skills (burn!). But what about the folks who do read this stuff? Men and women who take his crap-vice to heart, forever in unfulfilling relationships with no clue why? What about poor souls like "Carrie Bradshaw's Brother" who can't even bring himself to type out That Most Sacred Object, referring to a "woman's V---"?
Is it good enough to scoff off AskMen.com? Easy enough to avoid clueless d-bags? Or is it cause for concern?
Thanks Kate D. for the tip!