Wimminz – celebrating skank ho's everywhere

November 27, 2011

What is a man, after all?

Last night‘s post about the disobedient skank ho was only half the story.

In pill-popping terms it was the delivery mechanism, and this post is the payload.

Part 1 of the payload is the after separation SMS, which from me was “so long, thanks for all the fish, don’t think we are suited but good luck” or words to that effect, and the reply from her this morning was “You don’t know anything about wimminz and you are a nothing who will never get a real wimminz but good luck on PoF

Archived to the cloud, fuck the insult, fuck the delusions, fuck everything, that morning after exchange is the icing on the cake in your defence against any and all future accusations, and that is the SOLE point of ALL your archived communications.

Part 2 of the payload is the conversation the skank and I had before I departed.

This part deals with the thorny question of what is a man, after all, and indeed what is a woman.

As I explained to the skank ho, with every human being there are two factors, one is what that person really is, and two is how they see themselves, if you like you can visualise these concepts as two lines drawn along a graph, with the time axis at the bottom, with a man, a real man not a mangina or white knight, his life is an ongoing relationship between the two, where he tries to keep the two lines as close together as possible.

What ALL human beings share in common is the belief that the gap between those two lines is very small, yes, white knights, manginas and wimminz will all think they do a pretty good job at that, like last night’s skank ho who promised total sexual obedience in bed, was totally disobedient, and yet who insisted that she was being totally obedient.

So I said to her, when you tell a child to tidy its room, and the child says I will when I finish watching Craptain Save-a-ho cartoon on the telly, is that child being obedient or disobedient, and of course to her that was obedience, to me it was disobedience.

So we come closer to a useful definition of the difference between Men and wimminz and niggerz, it isn’t the gap between the two lines on the graph, it isn’t the perception of the size of the gap between the two lines, it is however a willingness to swallow bad tasting medicine, and to make efforts to change BOTH lines, both what we actually are, perhaps by avoiding alcohol, and what we see ourselves as, perhaps by accepting that we have alcoholic tendencies.

Logically the problem with this solution / approach is that this skank’s opinion of me is just as valid as my opinion of her, we both believe we are right and neither one of us will give up our own viewpoint… it is like putting a priest and a rabbi in a room and expecting them to come to some agreement, when the reality is there are only two possible intelligent solutions, they both agree to immediately get up and leave the room together, or if prevented from doing so they both agree to meditate in silence, as it is impossible for them to converse on any subject with their differing world views.

Such an agreement was not on the cards last night, so I had the choice of unilateral action, to leave, or to meditate in silence, and you know how long that would be tolerated by a wimminz.

In effect I am stating that to be a Man, I must be passive in my dealings with other human beings, unless we mutually agree to instigate active dealings with each other, and I must also be active in my dealings with myself and my two lines on the graph.

Now, finally, we are approaching some sort of qualitative test that can be applied across the board.

It still carries the danger of subjectivity, that one person can make active changes in themselves, and another person can say yeah, but you should not be making THOSE changes, you should be making THESE changes, but the blue text above gives the clue, the passive person will not give voice to that opinion to the other person, they may think it, but not say it.

Which is a massive Red Pill moment, because we are taught that to be manly is to challenge and change the environment, and that to be passive is weak and worthless and wimpy.

I assert that passivity is manly, because in effect passivity is the refusal to create ties and bonds between yourself and the thing that you are acting passively towards, when addressed from this perspective, passivity is in fact the assertion of self and isolation over the option of we and connectivity.

So now we apply this qualitative test to those we meet, and use it to determine if they are the kind of people we wish to associate with passively, or if they are the kind of people we wish to distance ourselves from passively.

I’ll give you a clue here by pointing out that the reason I am single is I have not found a woman who passes this qualitative text, and I am not a fag so the many men who pass this text become friends and perhaps brothers in arms but no more.

The passivity link above to Wikipedia talks about passivity, and then co-mingles it with subservience and submission, typical trick cyclist bullshit rhetoric.

I like sexually submissive women, this was used by the ex’s lawyers to label me a rapist and child abuser, a domineering and aggressive monster with severe sociopathic issues who must never be allowed anywhere near his own kids.

The truth is that last night’s skank’s total lack of sexual submission very quickly made her totally lacking in all kinds of sex appeal or attraction to me, my passivity to her lack of submission was total, my cock was limp and nothing could make it hard, I no more manifested the tendencies ascribed to me by the skank ho ex’s lawyers than a guy sat behind a market stall exhibits the traits of an armed bank robber and extortionist…, he is sitting there, passively, displaying his wares, with “an invitation to treat“, he is content to deal actively only with himself and his own dealings, he prices his wares and sets them out on display, sits back and reads a book.

This secret family court red/blue pill is not therefore about the contents of the red and blue pills, or their efficacy, or side effects, or c0-morbidity, just that the red pill is a prohibited class A drug, and the blue pill is state mandated daily fare.

Protesting otherwise just gets you labelled as a psycho heroin dealer advocating that kids be given free access to heroin.

Application of the blue text above to everyone else involved in my secret family court appearances neatly categorises them, far better than any other test that I can come up with, and the more power they had over other human lives, the less passive and restrained they were in their dealings with them, and the less active and more restrained they were in dealing with themselves.


  1. A surprisingly thought provoking and interesting article. You’d probably like Jürgen Habermas’ ideas on communicative ethics; and, unlike most of the people I read on the interwebs, you’d get the two-axes charts about perlocutionary validity statements and other such esoterica. That is, if you haven’t read it all before. You seem to have some interesting ideas that parallel his.

    Know thyself and nothing to excess… Boxer

    Comment by 8oxer — November 28, 2011 @ 4:45 am

  2. Indeed, your articles testify to a thorough wisdom, your ordeals have been a blessing in disguise, despite their cost.

    Comment by Petroll — November 29, 2011 @ 5:41 am

  3. It is always countdown to “yes your Honor, I consented to sex but then he got too rough, and when I asked him to stop he didn’t”.
    There is no escape, given a long enough timeline. That is the new red pill, in stores now. The odds are funtastic.

    Comment by Gerald the herald — November 29, 2011 @ 9:58 am

  4. […] What is a man, after all? (wimminz.wordpress.com) […]

    Pingback by I don’t know how much longer the signal will last… « Wimminz – celebrating skank ho's everywhere — November 30, 2011 @ 12:21 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

%d bloggers like this: