Skip to main content

SLUT!

I reserve the right to be wrong.



Food for thought, my slutty humans. God forbid that a woman take ownership of performing in porn to make ends meet. Porn isn't really my cup of tea, I confess, but the fuss-mess that kicks up when my sex tries to shame the 'slut' of the day is, well obviously horrible, but also rather creepy.

After all, it's mainly my sex watching the stuff, so what's so bad about what this woman did? Did I miss a meeting?

Your body is just that; it's a lump of very shapely meat in your possession, and if you decide you have a chance at an improvement to your life, or at least getting by, by using that fleshy asset of yours then I don't see any reason for me or anyone else to berate you for it.

It isn't an intrinsic male trait to want to shame women who take pride - or even just pleasure - in their sexualities. It is a cultural trait. It is learned. Which means it can e attributed, neatly or not, to patriarchy.

I firmly believe that the attitudes that lead to men pitifully vilifying women - not to mention exposing them to the public in the first place - will wither away over the coming decades, as people get more used to the technologies of instant mass communication now at our disposal. There is also the matter of spreading affluence; within the next century pretty much everybody will enjoy spending power equivalent to £40k* ( $60k ) or more, and the combo of comfort, better socialisation, and a more enlightened education that includes an understanding of self-determination and non-aggression, will afford every man and woman the social space to be truly themselves, that is to say, to be truly their own selves.




* - in 2014 £'s and $'s!



On the next Ecomony Blogtime;

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What Lingos Are Most Similar to English, Though?

Commentaryism - The Death Toll of Capitalism

How many people have died because capitalism exists? How many would still be alive if it had never existed? Let's dig in!

We will take two approaches over the course of this blog post by looking at the the death tolls attributed to the word in its broad popular definition - everything socialists don't like - versus the toll that fits the definition offered previously on this blog.

By the same token I will not lay any outsized figures at any other mode of production's door except where that mode of production demonstrably caused the problem that killed people. It's political ideologies that really matter here, and this is where the first big problem with even trying to lay a specific body count before capitalism runs into problems - there is no political ideology called capitalism.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now then, Alfonso Gutierrez says in a comment thread that "capitalism and free-markets have murdered billions of people" which is a risky claim at the …

Trickle-down Economics as Economic Theory in Reality

I watched an interview with Deirdre McCloskey on the Youtube channel of the Institute for New Economic Thinking. [1]

After doing so I contributed to a comment thread, recreated in full below, wherein a chappy who claimed to be an economist tried to convince me that trickle-down economics actually is a serious thing after all. This was in response to my posting a link to Thomas Sowell's article The Trickle-Down Lie, and I am so far unconvinced by the tale the economist in question spun for me.

He cited a paper from the 90's as his example, and I entreat you to have a gander at its abstract and compare that to trickle-down as described by David Stockman in his interview with William Greider on supply-side economics. [2][3][4]

Steve Horwitz isn't in love with the phrase, but offers a decent definition;
It’s hard to pin down exactly what that term means, but it seems to be something like the following: “those free market folks believe that if you give tax cuts or subsidies to …