Feminist: “You’re an MRA, because you can’t get laid.”

Out of all the shaming tactics that have been employed against me and my efforts to spread ideas relating to men’s rights and criticisms of feminism, the “can’t get laid” accusation strikes me as the most hurtful, insidious, and blatantly hypocritical. However, instead of merely dismissing this tennis ball of a criticism thrown at the tank of my character and intellect, I have decided to critically analyze this accusation in order to expose my critics’ hypocrisy, sexism, and dehumanizing regard for male sexuality.

The phrase “can’t get laid” is a monstrosity. Consider what these three little words imply:

A man who “can’t get laid” is to be shamed and criticized as a sexually incompetent failure. A man who “can’t get laid” lacks the ability to have sex with women at will. A man who “can’t get laid” should be blamed for lacking this mystical ability. A man who “can’t get laid” is less of a man than one who possesses this ability. This ability to “get laid” is independent of any characteristics of any women involved. This ability to “get laid” is independent of the intentions of any women involved. This ability to “get laid” is independent of the nature of the sexual activities involved. A man’s sexual pleasure is secondary to his sexual power over women. A man’s sexual prerogative must be to “get laid”. Sufficiently aged male virgins are necessarily pathetic losers who “can’t get laid.” Men have sexual agency as actors, while women lack sexual agency as people acted upon. Men should be judged by their sexual power over women.

From social experience, a man who “can’t get laid” is considered a loser. He’s incompetent, sexually unappealing, lame, pathetic, unimpressive, and pitiful. He’s a low value male that hangs out at the bottom of the social totem pole. Shame on him. Shame on him for making men everywhere look bad. Shame on him for his failure to wield sexual power over women. It’s a pity that his mother gave birth to him and society wasted so many resources educating and protecting him only to see him grow up to be a man who “can’t get laid.” Tsk tsk…

If only this man could have sex with some woman at a time and location of his choosing. In that case, he’d truly be somebody. Indeed, if he could simply will sexual pleasure from various women, he’d be admired and adored by all. (Sarcasm off!) Quite clearly, to say that a man cannot “get laid” implies the lack of a particular ability. That the alleged lack of an ability is being focused on is no small matter. This accusation is not about whether the man has had sex in the past, or whether he’ll have sex in the future, or even whether he’s currently having sex right now. It’s about whether or not the man can secure access to sex with women at any given time. Moreover, if he cannot secure such access, he is to be held accountable for his inability to do so.

That such a man is to be blamed for lacking the ability to secure sexual access to women is rather interesting. It implies that men determine whether or not certain women will have sex with them almost as if a woman’s consent in the matter is irrelevant. Yet, the woman’s consent does vaguely seem to be required, because when a man proclaims “I got laid”, he is loosely implying that the woman had something to do with it. Still, given how deeply concerned these feminists claim to be about the issue of rape, they have chosen an accusation that is rather hazy as it pertains to the consent of any women that are having sex with a man as per his ability to “get laid.” Regardless, it is up to the individual male himself to develop his ability to “get laid”. That is, once a teenage boy hits puberty, it is paramount that he procure any and all capabilities relating to acquiring sexual access to women. Isn’t that a positive and pleasant message for feminists to be voicing?

After all, if a teenage boy, still learning plenty about the world in general, fails to advance his sexual capacity, he will inevitably get regarded as a lesser man by a significant portion of society. This seems especially true in the eyes of those feminists who have hypocritically levied the very accusation under review. Perhaps he’ll be regarded as a dork, a nerd, a geek, a dweeb, a creep, a loser, a poser, a wannabe, a faggot, a gay wad, a homo, a queer, a wimp, a weenie, or just a wanker, but he’s certainly not on track to be fucking the prom queen come senior year. Likewise, those teenage boys who do make progress in this area of expertise gradually rise to the higher ranks of social status. They are perceived to be studly and cool. It’s rather fascinating that a man’s worth, social status, and masculinity are to be judged in terms of this ability. How confusing it is that various feminists concern themselves with it. And how liberating it is to personally no longer give a damn.

Notice now that to “get laid” one does not need to have sex with any particular type of woman. The ability to “get laid” does not depend on the attractiveness, age, character, style, social status, intelligence, sexual ability, nationality, class, religion, or even the woman’s sexuality. In order to “get laid”, a man simply has to have sex with some woman. She does not have to be his girlfriend or even anybody he knows on any level. As long as she has a vagina and a willingness to generate sexual pleasure for him, the formula is complete: this man “can get laid”. Isn’t that special?

Furthermore, though a woman’s consent is likely required in order to “get laid”, a man with the ability to “get laid” somehow necessarily has the power to determine this. Thus, the woman’s intentions are irrelevant. She may be intending to just go out dancing with her friends for the night, but, little does she know, he’ll be taking her back to his place for sex as a result of his ability to do so. Implied is an act of seduction. The capacity for seduction seems to be at the heart of a man’s ability to “get laid”. Oddly enough, the very feminists that make the “can’t get laid” accusation regard pick-up artists as socially nihilistic scum. Who knew that the likes of Erik Von Markovich (“Mystery”) and Neil Strauss (“Style”) commanded so much paradoxical respect in the minds of MRA-hating feminists? Surely, these guys “can get laid” if anyone can, and we can only marvel at their almost transcendent ability to do so! How could we possibly find more impressive specimens of the male human?! Pick-up artists are the masters of securing sexual access to women. Sure, they might dress and act like clowns in order to accomplish this tremendous feat of sexual ascendancy, but they, far more than most men, “can get laid.” Bravo!

The last aspect of this sacred ability that needs to be addressed is its independence of the nature of any sexual activity involved. In order to “get laid” one need not “make love” within the context of a romantic relationship; one need not be engaged in a one-night-stand; one need not engage in any kinky or erotically titillating behavior; one need not be drunk or high; one need not be practicing safe sex; and one certainly need not be paying a prostitute for her services. Yet, any combination of these possibilities will suffice. I mean, really, who cares? Pussy is pussy, right? (Again, note the positive message that these feminists are implicitly expressing…)

So what does the phrase “can’t get laid” have to do with men themselves? For one, it suggests that a man’s sexual power over women is more important than his sexual pleasure or ability to achieve orgasm. If this wasn’t true, then the mere act of masturbation would suffice. Yet, no matter how hard I try, the feminists that levy the “can’t get laid” accusation remain unimpressed with my skillful self-gratification! Additionally, even if a man is sexually active and enjoying female-induced orgasms, this may not have anything to do with an ability of his. In fact, it may be due to an ability of hers. Thus, the experiencing of sexual pleasure itself is both independent of and subordinate to a man’s ability to “get laid.”

The second manner in which the phrase “can’t get laid” partially defines masculinity is that a man’s sexual purpose is to “get laid” or, put another way, to engage in completely generic and largely arbitrary sexual activity in order to establish the very existence of his ability to do so. Personally, I find this to be a rather degrading and dehumanizing teleology of male sexuality, yet so many people seemingly embrace this very teleology. Thank you, angry feminists.

And now for some comic relief:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hysIlCVLejk

Clearly, if it’s a big problem that a man “can’t get laid”, then for a man to be an actual virgin represents complete catastrophe and a total breakdown of the sexual order. Not only does he lack the ability to secure sexual access to women, but he hasn’t even had the good fortune of a single sexual experience! Masculine blasphemy! Also, notice that people don’t make it an issue if a woman “can’t get laid”. Feminists complain about the double standards of “slut-shaming”, yet some of these very same protesters hypocritically engage in “virgin-shaming” or, at least, the shaming of men who lack the ability to secure sexual access to some vague set of vagina-possessors. On top of that, they then whine about the sexual objectification of women after shaming MRAs for supposedly lacking the ability to (essentially) summon utilizable lady parts! I couldn’t make this stuff up! The irony is almost as thick as the skull of a feminist!

In terms of male hyper-agency and female hypo-agency, the phrase “can’t get laid” is a near-perfect representation of these concepts. The man is the one who “gets laid” through the use of his seductive charms, while the woman is the one who is gotten. The woman is acted upon as a passive sexual object. Nothing about her personality or relation to the man matters so long as access to her sexual capabilities is either granted to the man or taken by the man. She is responsible and accountable for nothing, because everything that happens to her is a consequence of his ability to extract sexual pleasure. Meanwhile, he is responsible and accountable for everything for the exact same reason. He has total liberty. She is bound by fate. Free will for the men; determinism for the ladies.

Finally, if it’s so horrendous and dastardly that a man “can’t get laid”, then it follows that men are to be judged (at least partially) by the existence and degree of their sexual power over women. Again, hearing feminists make this accusation is strikingly strange and peculiar. The very people who concern themselves with the crime of rape (which is about power) and the very people who complain about the sexual objectification of women utilize aspects of these issues to, in turn, put down and dismiss MRAs. In other words, they’re apparently unimpressed with my alleged inability to wield the power of seduction in order to randomly extract sexual pleasure from an arbitrary subset of the world’s vajayjay-owners.

Well, in response to their wholesome accusation that I “can’t get laid”, perhaps, out of respect for myself, out of respect for my sexuality, and out of respect for the women I’d like in my life, I just don’t want to.