“Sex, that’s all men ever want!” has been a common declaration made by women. But such acknowledgement comes with female biasness and contradiction. Sex is often all women show men they have to give. Women also claim that women have an equal desire/need for sex. But sex would not be a common complaint if women also desired sex as much as do men. However, this contradiction is apparently only used to discount the discrepancy when convenient. Women refuse to concede to men (admit it) even if it means blatant biasness because this would weaken their sexual power in how it can be used to their discretion.

We know, as the oldest profession attests, this ‘equal’ need is not, and never has been, the case. Women fail to even put out half the effort in acquiring sex from men, unless an alteior motive exists (e.g. money). This is why only women should be held accountable for prostitution since it’s only women who make sex a crime by charging for it.

[An accomplice to the crime is when police entrap men by exploiting them through their sexual needs, even using undercover cops posing as female prostitutes–actually in this case, per entrapment, police are culprits in creating the crime.]

Buying something needed is a business transaction between to consenting adults and is no business of the government’s to interfere let alone purposely exploit and entrap innocent men via their basic personal needs. (Sex and male guilt are not to be intertwined.) This is about as low as one can go, especially by those who are assigned to supposedly serve and protect us.

The equaivalent male assets to women providing men sex has been the capability to provide women sustenance (later converted to government currency/money). We could also say “Money, that’s all women ever think about.” One major difference though is that money has been detached from men and their equaivalent assets to women’s and freely provided to women. However, female assets have not been detached from women and provided to men. And in consideration of this trade-off arrangement we need to also realize that sex is something shared, not taken, unless a woman is raped. However, money is taken. By implementing EEO every man has, to some extent, been raped by women. (A man who buys a woman’s way on a date is subsidizing her assets without consideration for his own needs, and this has also been, attesting to a woman’s complaint (lesser need for sex), that she shouldn’t feel obligated to have sex because he buys her way. But sex wouldn’t even be an issue if the desire were equal now would it?

It’s mostly women who oppose prostitution and implement laws that control and/or exploit men’s sexual acquisition/fulfillment. This secures their female assets–keeps their female commodity/stocks high. They even manage to carry the ‘moral’ flag when their interests are threatened by any other source or avenue of the male’s basic sexual fulfillment–e.g. prostitution, porn, etc. which are ‘immoral’. If this pertained to an equaivalent female need, think there would be an issue with it, that women would be exploited, even by the police, through their basic needs? Of course not. Men’s unconditional sexual fulfillment is a threat to female power. That’s really all women think about is how to sexually manipulate men and use their sexuality to exploit, overpower and control men.

Religion is also conveniently used by women, despite their actions, to assess men and their sexuality as dirty and immoral. Hell, the Virgin Mary is not even held accountable or ridiculed for being unfaithful and is still harolled as a ‘virgin’ after the conception of Jesus. Sexual intercourse is somehow by-passed by the encounter, indicating that she has not been ‘soiled’ by the male and thus is still ‘innocent’ and ‘pure’.

Women commonly exploit men through their sexual needs using their bodies to do so which also attests to the need imbalance. And this exploitation applies to laws sculpted to target men’s sexuality. For example, women commonly use their sexuality to gain an advantage that men don’t have in seeking and advancing in their careers. The Harvey Weinstien case is a prime example of this–he on the one hand is sought out by women using their sexuality to gain preferential treatment, yet on the other, when they no longer need him, he is criminalized by them.

Sex, that’s all men ever want? Again, that’s all women show men they have to give, and even that is phony–not true, although conveyed in their skimpy dress and dishonest behavior. As Esther Vilar states in her book, the manipulated man, “Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves.”

Strange how if a woman finds a man looking at her deliberately exposed privates, he is told “Hey, eyes up here!”, but if a woman views a man’s deliberately exposed privates, he is committing a sex crime.

By sexually revealing herself, a woman is conveying that she is sexually receptive to a man, welcoming his response. Her lack of sincerity is not something he is to be held responsible for but is something (her own action) for which she must be held accountable. This was the case in the past when reason influenced laws that were not targeted to persecute some at the arbitrary discretion of others.

Women are sexually provative and openly summon sex from men, yet they hypocritically blame men for it, even saying that just because a man may desire sex with a woman means he wants to rape her. If a man desires to have sex with a woman, he desires to rape her? This is ridiculous, especially when a woman sends her sexual ques. So all sex desired by men is rape? If this happens to be the presumption perhaps it is best to therefore ask: When men are stimulated by women do women have harm in mind for men?

The last thing a man who is sexually stimulated by a woman has in mind is harm. Who then is really the least innocent and the one possessed by ill-intent? A discrepancy must be made in that if sex is seen to be harm it is women who are initiating that harm in their dress and behavior–often laced by a negative mental disposion/agenda. Women are therefore the actual instigators of sexual violence, per their hypocrical behavior accompanied by an exclusive and subjective assessment, not men.

Alan Millard’s most recent book, A Flaw From Within: How Women’s Higher Status Defies Equal Justice, Violates Men, and Destroys Society, is available through Amazon.