The Lady Garden

Tea and Strumpets

Comment of the month

Hello darlings!

Sometimes, a comment comes along that is such a gem, filled with such insights, is so delicious, we just feel the need to highlight it.

This is an exhaustive process, of discussion behind the scenes, much conversation between the Lady Gardeners. We select these comments rarely, because we love all our little seedlings.

The following is just such a comment. We hope it will provoke you to share your own thoughts. Thank you, Brody.

Girls everywhere and all you emasculated “men” who are trying so hard to be politically correct at the expense of your masculinity, listen up.

Men and women are equals. This does not mean that they are equal in every single thing they do. For example, men are, on average, physically stronger than women. It is much easier for a semi attractive (even a 6/10) woman to go out and get laid. The same cannot be said about men. Men have to work at it, have some skill (game) and thereby get a woman to sleep with them. It is a LOT harder for an equally attractive man to get women than it is the other way around. This is one of reasons behind why we, as a society, naturally celebrate men who are successful in bedding multiple women; while at the same time shame women who bed multiple men.

Let us briefly visit the topic of virginity from both perspectives. Virginity in a man is not a desirable state or label when it comes to an attribute that the opposite sex wants. This is because he has obviously not been preselected by other women. However, female virginity is not looked at negatively in the least by men. If she looks decent, no man cares if the girl is a virgin or not. In fact, a female virgin is often wanted more.

Now don’t get me wrong, men LOVE sluts. We will never turn down an opportunity to sleep with a good looking slut. Partly because she’s good in bed, partly because it’s sex. But any decently intelligent, self-respecting man will know that it is a terrible idea to emotionally involve himself (i.e. date) a slutty girl. That would be a very dumb move. Why would any man want to get emotionally involved with a girl who’s had 15+ sexual partners? We would just be setting ourselves up for failure. There are many nice worthy girls out there who don’t have daddy issues and haven’t slept with an entire fraternity house. But, by all means, fvck the brains out of sluts in the meanwhile.

Most guys can detect when a girl is a slut by the first few dates and by what he hears about the girl from other people and from the girl herlself. We put this information together and figure out if she is dating material or not. If not, I like most guys, will still go in for the prize but have no intention of following through with dating the dirty little tart.

To put it simply, a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock and of little worth. But a key that can open many locks is a master key and is valuable.

31 responses to “Comment of the month

  1. Emma March 21, 2012 at 7:14 pm

    *sigh* I’m so sad Brody doesn’t want to date me, what with his deep understanding of women and his willingness to form emotional relationships with the ones who aren’t slags. Well, if they’re “semi attractive”, anyway.

    But! All is not lost! Because (assuming my track record indicates I’m “semi attractive”) Brody will still fuck me. I can’t wait.

    This must be why I have so much trouble finding a man…

    • tallulahspankhead March 22, 2012 at 10:17 am

      I am so looking forward to Brody fucking us. I assume we’re attractive enough, given that men have, in the past, you know, shown an interest in wanting to “fvck [my] brains out”. Not to mention the ladies who have wanted to do the same. (I assume they don’t count in Brody’s estimation.

      We know, from his email address (which I didn’t publish, despite really wanting to) that Brody “has balls”. I assume he’d be great in the sack, and not one of the virgins he so poorly maligns.

      Before I published this, I considered just replying to him by email, and saying “you mean, because I have slept with more than 15 people, dudes like you won’t fuck me? Shit, what a terrible fucking loss.”

      My point stands.

      • Brody April 8, 2012 at 8:02 am

        Read my comment again. I was very clear in stating that I, like most guys, would have no problem fucking you (if I find you attractive, of course), but dating you is another question entirely. The bar for my emotions to be involved is a lot higher than just sex.

        And just because men have fucked you in the past, it doesn’t mean you’re even remotely attractive. You could’ve snared some young drunk boy at a bar, or got some virgin who wanted to lose it so badly, he didn’t care who he did it with. The possibilities are endless.

  2. Hugh March 21, 2012 at 7:28 pm

    While we’re on the subject, when am I going to know whether or not I won the January mansplain awards?

    I’ve got a bottle of champagne I’ve been waiting to crack open.

  3. Curvaceous Dee March 21, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Oh Brody Brody Brody. I am a slut (happily so), and many keys will open my lock. Your key, however, has no bloody chance in hell. Ever.

    xx Dee

  4. Rebecca March 21, 2012 at 8:25 pm

    If a guy can’t pass the brain test,then there’s no way he’ll even get to find out whether he can open my lock. This statement really represents his intellect,or lack of it,rather pointedly!

  5. giovanni March 21, 2012 at 9:11 pm

    Fantastic bit of punctuation: “I like most men”.

  6. Sandra March 21, 2012 at 9:42 pm

    I feel squirmy and defiled just from reading this comment. ugggghhhhhh.

  7. Sem March 21, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    This is a nice piece of rhetoric, we have got here. I am impressed, sir. Not.
    First shout at all the girls – and ’emasculated’ men – because your have something important to tell us; and we defintely need to know. You show that you are liberal-minded and that the issue at hand is of utmost importance; again. Yes, of course, we all are equals (in what way, sir?). Who in his right mind would doubt that in the 21st century? No, not you, sir.

    But girls and men are treated unequally. Which sounds unfair and could be a reason for a complaint when you are really liberal – or let alone ‘progressive’ – but then… WTF? Why all the bother with this nonsense introduction? This is somewhat refuting his argument, isn’t it? I mean he tells us about us women – or girls, for that matter – being treated unequally when it comes to our sexual freedom. And then he says: I treat you unfairly, too? I don’t get it. I’m not stupid enough for this stupidity.

  8. Lucy Stewart March 22, 2012 at 12:25 am

    I’m all in favour of darling Brody applying his handy slut-test to every woman he dates, as long as he also hands them all a copy of this comment and lets them apply the total-arsehole-test in return. On the other hand, he might then be surprised by the way men and women are also equal in the ability to choose who they stay the hell away from.

  9. Sinead March 22, 2012 at 4:26 am

    I’m glad that I am not a slut because I have only slept with 14/15 members of the fraternity house. It is SUCH a relief.

    Also, if I sleep with a negative person is that a “-” partner? ie, if I fuck Brody does my number go down to 13?

    I may have rolled my eyes so hard that I hurt them.

  10. Vee March 22, 2012 at 8:33 am

    Thank you for making me feel so awesome about my male friends =) not that I wasn’t aware they are kind, decent, considerate human beings already, but reading this really brought it home.

  11. verbscape March 22, 2012 at 1:18 pm


    Some locks are meant to open to one key only. Some locks are meant to open to a couple of keys. Some locks are meant to open to many keys. And all of those locks are good locks doing what they are supposed to do.

    On the other hand, a key that opens a lock it’s not meant to is probably being used to commit a crime.

    Of course, human beings are not keys and locks and it’s a terrible analogy anyway. (Why do men get to be the keys, anyway? Why aren’t women the keys? What about combination locks that don’t even use keys? What about nonbinary people? Are they swipe cards? I HAVE SO MANY QUESTIONS.)

  12. dimsie March 23, 2012 at 9:58 am

    My favourite bit is ‘(game)’, in brackets. Because he is down with the slang of his sex-havin’ compatriots, don’t you know.

  13. Jackie Clark (@hakiclark) March 24, 2012 at 6:09 am

    At first reading, I thought it was a clever joke, but then I got to the end of the comment. I particularly like his version of the “key/lock” theory. I shall, henceforth, call penises “master keys”. Except, of course, I’ve only seen one key in the last 21 years, and due to unforeseen circumstances, it doesn’t work anymore. So I remain firmly locked. And this brings up the point of people having sex who don’t have keys, but only a lock. Two locks? Unheard of. Two keys? Someone could get hurt! All I can say is that this male person is spectacularly unimaginative, and likely has difficulty finding locks that are compatible with his “master key”. I’d get a new key, mate.

  14. Brody April 7, 2012 at 11:53 am

    Ladies, don’t get your panties in a bunch. Chill, take a number and get in line. Brody will take care of all of you; well, the attractive ones anyway. In my comment, I merely speak the truth. What can I do if you do not like it? All of society, both western and eastern, agrees with me and shows it in their actions. Btw, what kind of site is this anyway? Seems like a place for post-menopausal women to rant about everything. Well, it’s a good thing if you ask me – takes a load off your husbands. I kid, I kid!

    But on a more serious note, I’d be willing to bet that I could easily bed any one of you if I met you in a coffee shop, library, wherever. My turnaround time is usually 7-9 hours of work from first meeting you. Although that might never happen since I’m dating gorgeous Russian girl who treats me like a man ought to be treated. It’s hard to find something like that in America these days.

    Btw, what do you ladies think of having a fwb relationship? Do share your thoughts on whether you would consider having one or have done so in the past.

  15. Jackie Clark (@hakiclark) April 7, 2012 at 2:28 pm

    I went on this feminist site and it was all old ladies bro, and I gave them some of my chick chat – you know, my best lives EVAH. I got their panties wet, and then oh how I laughed. Bro.

    • Brody April 8, 2012 at 8:04 am

      Oh yeah. Old feminazi’s who are just about to croak. Too bad even their cats will not miss them. Try engaging your frontal lobes in something remotely intellectual for a change. Here, I will help you out.

      Women complain about how unfair it is that men are called studs when they sleep around, yet women get called sluts for the exact same behavior. It’s actually not a double standard though, because both scenarios are pretty different in terms of circumstances and consequences. I can think of at least four crucial differences:

      First, sleeping around is easier for women. Regardless of how you feel about promiscuity, we can all agree that a guy who manages to rack up a lot of sexual partners has to have some skills. It’s challenging for men to rack up partners, even for men with low standards. A man needs social intelligence, interpersonal skills, persistence, thick skin, and plain old dumb luck. For women, though, a vagina and a pulse is often enough. Whenever an accomplishment requires absolutely no challenge, no one respects it. It’s just viewed as a lack of self-discipline. People respect those who accomplish challenging feats, while they consider those who overindulge in easily obtained feats as weak, untrustworthy or flawed.

      Second, women have potential to do more harm by sleeping around than men do. Say a man sleeps around with a bunch of different women. He’s definitely doing harm to these women if he pretends to be monogamous while sleeping around. He may cause them emotional pain by his promiscuity. He may cause unwanted pregnancy. He may spread VD. When women sleep around, however, they can cause not only all these same ill effects but one additional crucial ill effect: the risk of unknown parentage.

      If one guy sleeps around with five women, each of whom is monogamous to him, and they all get pregnant, it’s a safe bet as to who the father is. If you reverse genders and have one woman who sleeps around with five men who are monogamous to her, and she gets pregnant, the father could be any of the five men. And if one of those men is tricked into raising a baby that isn’t his, he’s investing time, money, estate and property to provide for a child that isn’t carrying his DNA into the next generations, a costly mistake from an evolutionary standpoint.

      Our two basic primal drives are to survive and to reproduce, and promiscuous women traditionally make it hard for a man to know for sure whether he is truly reproducing or is secretly raising another man’s child. Men stand a lot more to lose from promiscuous women than the other way around. And it’s no picnic for the child to not know who his real father is either. And it’s a mess for the women carrying on the deception as well. Or just look at any random episode of the Maury show if you don’t believe me.

      Since the DNA test and the birth control pill didn’t exist until recently, there were no reliable ways to prevent pregnancy or prove parentage for most of human history. For this reason society developed a vested interest in preventing promiscuity among women, and society accomplished this by creating the slut stigma. And even though the creation of birth control and DNA tests have made this less of a risk than the past, longstanding traditions and customs are not easy for society to break so the slut stigma remains.

      Third, men have evolutionary reasons to be programmed to sleep around more. A lot of women roll their eyes when they hear that men are “hard-wired” to sleep around. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it makes total sense. If the two primal drives of humans are to survive and to reproduce, nothing leads to maximum reproduction like one man sleeping with multiple women. If one women sleeps with many men in a nine month period, she can only get pregnant just once. Nine months of rampant promiscuity would give the same result as nine months of highly sexed monogamy: one pregnancy. Now if one man sleeps with many women during a nine month period, you can get many pregnancies during that period. The more women he sleeps with, the more possible pregnancies.

      So from an evolutionary standpoint, there are concrete advantages to men being promiscuous compared to women being promiscuous. This doesn’t mean that women have evolved to be strictly monogamous. Women have evolved to be somewhat promiscuous too, something men badly underestimate. However they haven’t evolved to be as rampantly promiscuous as men.
      Fourth, promiscuity poses more risk to women than to men. A woman has more to lose from choosing bad sex partners than a man does. She’s the one who gets stuck with going through a pregnancy and taking care of a baby alone if she chooses a deadbeat. For this reason, promiscuous women throughout history have historically been viewed as being a vastly more irresponsible risk takers than promiscuous men, who rightly or wrongly could always run away from the consequences of unwanted pregnancies easier than women could.

      These four reasons explain why the longstanding tradition came about of men being rewarded for multiple partners while women get socially punished for similar promiscuity. Of course all this is gradually changing, but we’re up against millenia of evolutionary and cultural conditioning here, so don’t expect any dramatic overnight reversals.

      Understand that I’m just explaining why the double standard came into existence and not condoning or condemning it. This is not an attempt to pass judgment or be self-righteous in any way. It’s just an explanation of why the two conditions are treated differently.

        • Brody April 12, 2012 at 1:58 pm

          Bitches, they come, they go. Saturday through Sunday, Monday. Monday through Sunday yo.

          Hope that short enough for your feeble mind to process.

          • tallulahspankhead April 12, 2012 at 2:42 pm

            Yeah, OK, you’re really not funny any more. Feel free to let the door hit your ass, etc.

          • Tamara April 12, 2012 at 2:57 pm

            Actually, his summary did confirm that I was right not wasting my time reading his blog-length comment.

      • Daniel Copeland March 28, 2013 at 6:49 pm

        Whoever Brody has copypasted from has a basic grasp of the evolutionary biology (Brody’s “Bitches they come, they go” summary shows that he himself does not). However there’s a difference between what’s good for us and what’s good for our genes.

        My one surviving grandparent spent much of his life investing in four children who, genetically, weren’t his, including my father, for which I am profoundly grateful. His choice to stay with my grandmother despite her infertility was, from his genes’ point of view, a ghastly mistake, and one that would no doubt have been penalized by evolution if adoption by non-relatives had been a live option in human societies for more than a handful of generations.

        But our genes are not us. Their good is not ours. Why do people report so little life satisfaction from meaningless sex? Because although our genes have an interest in our *desiring* sex, they have no interest in our being *satisfied* with it — they’re better served if it leaves a big hole in our lives which we try to fill with more sex. If we are trying to do what’s good for people, instead of what’s good for genes, we’d be well-advised to watch out for traps like this created by the disconnect between our well-being and the replication of our genes.

        And one of the traps is the very competition of males for females that Brody’s plagiarism victim outlines. It may spread our genes about but it doesn’t add to our life satisfaction. We should not conclude “Biology pushes us this way, so this is how we should behave.” We should conclude “Biology pushes us this way, so we should take extra care to resist it.” Societies that succumb to this particular lure are called patriarchies. They are not, as a rule, happy places to live.

        Fortunately, resisting biology is not hard. Biologically, men have large beards; I’m guessing Brody, like most men in our culture, counteracts his “essential male nature” in this regard with very little effort and no regrets at all. Biologically, humans are driven to eat sweet and oily foods, a legacy of millions of years of nut- and fruit-eating ancestors. Chocolate triggers those desires, but when was the last time you saw an adult sit on the floor by the bulk bins in the supermarket and scarf the chocolate chips by the handful? Would you call that “natural” behaviour?

        Finally — although, as I say, the person Brody pinched this from does get quite a bit right, they’ve also made a basic mistake. Males and females do not have equal stakes in the reproductive game. The small amount of time, water, energy and protein it takes a male to generate a given ejaculation are trifling compared to the risks pregnancy imposes upon female eutherian mammals. Patriarchal societies of course compound those risks by penalizing women who break the rules. And pregnancy again explains why patriarchal restrictions always fall heaviest on women — the man can, if he wishes, simply deny any involvement and walk away.

  16. perfectdark64 April 26, 2012 at 4:33 am

    I must be one of those emasculated men that Brody was talking about. I agree with absolutely 0% of this article. Your so proud of the fact the you can have sex with random women, but then say that sluts have no value. Who do you think is sleeping with a “man” like you anyways. Your mail order bride from Russia does not count either.

    You specifically came on a feminist site to incite a flame war, while it worked to some extent, you don’t even come off as an intelligent troll, you simply come off as an uneducated oaf. Perhaps posting this on a website for “studs” will garner a better response. Oh, and I did quite enjoy your qoute of “I like most men.” Even your standards for sleeping with men are low, which contradicts your arguement that men must work really hard to have sex.

    Great speech, but backed up with no evidence, not even links to proposed theories. I hope you can comprehend why no one is taking your post seriously.

  17. Brody July 12, 2013 at 4:22 am

    Yes, you are one of those emasculated men. By the same logic you used, you came on this site because you are a feminist. But the worst kind of feminist. One who despises your own kind… men.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: