Skip to main content

He isn't with some meth chick who'll slice him with a kitchen knife because she wants to see all the tiny spiders come out.

I think I get it: rich dudes want to be dominated by dominatrix chicks because with other chicks they have all the power, because they got the money, so if the dude says he wants anal the chick gives him anal, because then she gets, like, a new Gucci bag or some shit. And he probably didn't even really want the anal, he just wanted to show that he could get it if he wanted it, even if he really wasn't wanting it much.

So the dominatrix flips this around on him, and he gets to be with a chick who treats him like the pathetic asshole he was before he made the big money and became a pathetic asshole who's rich.

But he still knows he's in control: he's paying her, she isn't doing this for free. So he might get a bruise here or there, but, like, he isn't with some meth chick who'll slice him with a kitchen knife because she wants to see all the tiny spiders come out, he's got a safe-word and shit.

And the dude's actually still pathetic, because what these guys really want most of all is for a chick to peg them and pee on them, but they don't have the balls to ask for that, so they go with the whips-and-chains shit instead, and sublimate the wanting-to-be-peed-on and pegged shit.

Because they want to be more than dominated: they want to be degraded. But they don't have the confidence it takes to ask to be degraded. Because being dominated gives the illusion of giving up power, so they can work out their mother-problems shit, but being degraded is too much like that time when they were eleven with Uncle Jack in the back bedroom while everyone else was in the kitchen looking at sister's new baby. And being fucked in the ass by Uncle Jack was bad enough, but the memory of him then pissing on you -- you can't really forget that.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

I mean, straight men in their seventies don’t dress like a pirate unless they are actually a pirate, okay?

I always thought the song was, like, Mick’s way of letting Keith know gently that, no, Mick was not going to fuck him and shit. Because if you can’t tell that Keith Richards is gay then you just don’t know how to look. I mean, straight men in their seventies don’t dress like a pirate unless they are actually a pirate, okay? So when Mick sings “I saw her today at the reception A glass of wine in her hand I knew she was gonna meet her connection” The ‘her’ is Keith, and Keith and Mick are at, like, some party or shit, and Keith’s looking for his drug dealer, because he’s not going to get to fuck Mick and now he needs some more drugs. Pretty obvious. Then Mick sings “But I went down to the demonstration To get your fair share of abuse Singing, "We're gonna vent our frustration If we don't we're gonna blow a fifty-amp fuse" And the ‘demonstration’ is a metaphor for the recording studio, where Keith is abusive of Mick because Mick isn’t rock-and-roll e...
1 comment
Read more

I mean, most of the time the cattle prods are like a metaphor and shit, but sometimes you need a real cattle prod to make your shit obvious.

"our favorite characters are unrelentingly tortured — electrocuted with cattle prods, kicked, threatened with dogs, chained to a gas stove and burned, left alive on a gallows covered with urine." This does kinda sound like harsh shit, but it's, like, a corollary of Internet Rule 34: if it's on video and involves a chick, some dude somewhere will masturbate to it. It's just how media works, if it can't get chicks outraged and dudes masturbating then it isn't doing the job. But "The Handmaid’s Tale" is, like, for chicks to masturbate their feminist clit. Because a lot of chicks feel the most represented in art when they are a victim, like, getting electrocuted with cattle prods. I mean, most of the time the cattle prods are like a metaphor and shit, but sometimes you need a real cattle prod to make your shit obvious. It's kinda like how chicks get Oscars for portraying hookers: because all chicks are hookers and being electrocuted by catt...
1 comment
Read more

Because if you look at rock stars from back in the day, they all pretty much look like twinks, too.

So, like, I did a little research, because some of the gay dudes I know say all twinks are bottoms. And the first Google article has some twinks who say, no, that's a misconception and shit. But then Queerty actually did a survey of gay dudes, and they said, yeah, most twinks are bottoms. But I don't think all twinks are gay and shit. Because if you look at rock stars from back in the day, they all pretty much look like twinks, too. I mean, Mick Jagger: when he was young, he was pretty much a twink, and he wasn't, like, gay ALL the time. And David Bowie was a twink, and HE wasn't gay all the time. There is even that rumor that Jagger and Bowie fucked each other once, but I don't remember if it was ever said who was the bottom. I bet it was Bowie, but that's just a guess, really, maybe he and Jagger both took turns being bottoms and shit. Now, Freddie Mercury: he was pretty much gay all the time, but I don't think he was a twink, I don't think most ...
Post a Comment
Read more