A key that can open any lock is a master key, but a lock that can be opened by any key is worthless.
What this is saying is that men can sleep around with honour and pride, but any woman that tries is a worthless whore. Really, any argument that reduces human beings to one-dimensional phallic and vaginal objects shouldn’t be held in any kind of esteem, but for some reason this argument is brought out any time someone tries to say that slut-shaming is a bad thing. I mean, it’s so ridiculous, if you even just change the objects around a little bit, you alter the entire idea. Like, “An iPhone that can be charged by any cord is a practical iPhone, and a cord that can charge any phone is also super practical.” When Apple released that new iPhone that wasn’t compatible with any of the old chargers, people were pissed, but all Apple was promoting was normative monogamy.
This is bullshit that no one should take seriously, but that’s exactly my point. Male genitals do not have teeth and ridges in them, nor do female genitals have a unique set of tumblers. If you can’t manage to get your dick into a girl, it’s not because you’re drunk and at the wrong house… actually, it might be. Nevermind. My point is: dicks aren’t keys, and pussies aren’t locks. Your argument is dumber than actually trying to fuck a lock.
This maxim only came into being because people were trying to justify sexist ideologies. It’s not like cavemen discovered a locking mechanism and thought to themselves, “Oh hey, this exists! Guess women must all be sluts!” Society maintains this anachronistic view that men can do whatever they want and women just have to take it, often with all the innuendo that that implies, and some nerd discovered that unlocking a door was exactly like having sex and took just as long, and created the comparison.
The problem with aphorisms is they inherently possess verisimilitude (I learned this word specifically for this blog. It means that something seems like it’s true) I’m not just making this up. If something sounds poetic, people will believe it. Why do you think nobody questions that Birds of a Feather Flock Together and Opposites Attract are both equally considered truisms, despite being entirely contradictory? The veracity of something is never, ever related to how it “sounds,” so quit being morons.
Using the proper function of a brain, it is unsurprisingly simple to dismantle this metaphor for slut-shaming. However, people still love shaming the shit out of all those sluts, and they’ll still high-five a dude for doing the same thing. Within the last week, I have heard a woman referred to sarcastically as “classy” for partaking in some delightful heavy petting on a public bench, as well as a few other choice words for a girl getting double-teamed in the middle of a school dance floor. Nothing negative was said about the men, despite the fact that in both these scenarios they are engaging in literally the same sex act. These women were not masturbating, folks! It’s like saying only half the people during a heist are actually committing a crime, and the mark of innocence is dictated by genitals alone.
Women. Like. Sex. Everyone likes sex. Have you ever had it? It’s amazing! Why would you condemn anyone ever in wanting to have it? I want you to stop what you’re doing, and masturbate until climax right now.
Welcome back. Wasn’t that great? Wouldn’t it be better sharing that with a partner? You bet! Why would you put restrictions on something like that? Obviously safety and health are crucial aspects, but people don’t slut-shame because they’re worried about a gonorrhea outbreak. If they were, it wouldn’t be gendered abstinence that they were advocating. This is hypocrisy at its very worst because it is depriving orgasms from half the population. This is something I will not abide.
I’ve already discussed why this happens with my tool and temple analogy in regards to sexual autonomy, which actually works quite well with the key and lock metaphor. Perpetuating harmful social conditioning is a bad idea.
So. To clarify. Women enjoy sex. Men enjoy sex. Having sex is great. Stay safe, kids. Wrap it up.
Blog for Chumps 
[…] of women is condemned while the same behaviour is regarded as studly in men. If you haven’t, I wrote a handy blog about it. It’s a good one. If you liked lasciviousness and licentious, I use words like […]
No man wants a shitty lock, lol. Sorry.
No women want a cheap duplicate key ,lol.
1. Women are the gatekeepers of sex. Men are the gatekeepers of relationships.
2. It is much easier for a women to get sex then a man.
3. Men and women have diffrent, complimenting gentials and sexual roles.
4. The key and lock anology fits. Your retarded false equivalences don’t.
There is why there is a so-called “double standard”.
The whole of men being praised for being cads is no-where near as widespread or historical as you think it is.
If you don’t want to called a, slut, don’t be one. It’s called freedom of speech, just as you are free to have copious amounts of sex.
And no, not everyone wants to have sex or masturbate, or choses not to. It’s called being asexual (an actual asexual and not a pretender), pious or simply someone with respect for the intimacy of sex.
Virginity is very much real, too, not a “social construct”. Only sluts, cads and simps think otherwise.
Sex should be between you and the man/woman you love, as an expression of love and reproduction.
Plenty of men, and some women, don’t want a terrible, unreliable, easily-broken lock, and there is nothing wrong, insecure or creepy about that. Straight men have every right to not want to put their hands, mouth, dicks or other parts of their onto part of a woman where other dicks have been.
This whole blog is hilarious, feminist cockpuppet.
Hi friend,
Thank you for taking the time to read and respond to my article here. I appreciate it, and so I too will take my time in responding to you.
1. Regarding gendered gatekeeping of sex and relationships, how does this work in homosexual relationships? Or if someone is assigned one gender at birth, and then later transitions into another, at what point does their gatekeeping role switch, if it does at all? What about the polyamorous? You advocate for the inclusion of asexual (or even aromantic!) people into the conversation, but someone not interested in either sex or romance would surely not be in a gatekeeping role – how do they fit into your maxim here? Beyond the gender and sexually diverse, there is also a lot of cultural diversity with regard to gender and relationship roles. What does gatekeeping look like in matriarchal societies such as the Mosuo in China or the Akan in Ghana? Or in cultures where relationships are arranged by one’s parents, rather than the individual, like in India? Even in the West, individuals choosing their own partners is relatively recent, only really becoming popular in the 1700s, with politics and land-claims determining who would marry whom in previous relationships. I belabour the point here because the common response to this is that those cultures or identities are simply unnatural, sinful, or wrong in someway. To me, it seems like it would be an incredible coincidence that the natural and right way of being in a relationship just so happens to be right now and exist only in our own cultural context.
2. I’m not sure what you’re basing the ease of getting sex on. I guess my response is that reasonable people could argue that the sex drives of men and women are more similar than they are different (see: https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/sex-drive-how-do-men-women-compare), so if both want sex about equally, where does this imbalanced perception come from? I could speculate that women are often afraid of intimate partner violence, and the aggressive nature that some men use when pursuing them sexually often makes women cautious when seeking out sexual partners. Anecdotally, I’ve known some women who have been actively seeking sex, and have found it difficult for a variety of reasons, including one gentleman who was worried he was taking advantage of her, when she in fact was trying to take advantage of him. I’m not sure if this addresses your point or not. I guess I would need to see the data you’re basing this on to comment further.
3. Though you don’t outline what those complementary gender and sexual roles are, I feel safe in assuming that you mean that men are in a provider/protector role, and women are in a domestic role as that is the most common trope. I don’t want to get sucked into a tangent, so I’ll stick with the topic at hand which is sexual autonomy without shame. Even if a woman was in a domestic role, that to me seems irrelevant to her sexual needs or role. Same with a man in his own traditional role – maybe he’s into being a sub to his housewife’s dom. I haven’t seen any evidence that suggests a link between someone’s sexual capacities and the amount of household chores they do. Where are you getting this information from?
4. The lock and key analogy only works if you approach heterosexual sex from a certain perspective based on, as you say, a very localized and subjective understanding of sexual and relationship roles. Any sword and scabbard analogy would apply, and one analogy doesn’t hold any more truth than another; that was my point with the absurd phone charger analogy. If I’m wrong and the lock and key is universally applicable to the exclusion of all other metaphors, then it would need to make sense outside of our present and localized context – which I don’t believe it does. Men being celebrated for being cads in only our current context actually supports my argument because it shows the subjective and ahistorical nature of the lock and key metaphor. Why shame or celebrate someone for what amounts to a fad?
5. I’m not sure where freedom of speech is coming from. I nowhere suggest any kind of legal ramifications for slut-shaming. A kindergarten teacher who discourages bullying among her students isn’t restricting their right to free speech; the teacher is trying to teach their students proper socialization. If you do want to talk about freedom, imagine a young boy who is bullied for wearing a pink shirt to school. If he wears it, he is subject to mockery and potentially violence. Is he free to wear what he pleases? It doesn’t seem like much of a free choice to me. Much like if women are shamed for sexual promiscuity, they will be less likely to have sex – perhaps another reason why women aren’t interested in having as much sex as you stated earlier. Maybe if they weren’t shamed, they would be more open to it. Ultimately, I would argue the right to bully (as implied in the “right to free speech”) impinges on the freedom of the bullied. Whose freedom do you want to stand for?
6. You’re absolutely right that not everyone is interested in sex. They shouldn’t be shamed for it either! Though I don’t get into it in my article, the reverse gender is typically the one being shamed for being a virgin: men. Equally a destructive force, and honestly I wish I had included it in this blog. The entire incel movement is based on men feeling insecure because they aren’t able to “get laid” like they think they’re supposed to, and so much harm has come from that. Imagine thinking you’re supposed to be a key, the sole function of which is to unlock locks, and not being able to perform as you believe you’re supposed to – or not wanting to, and being confused by all this pressure to act like a key. The analogy harms both ways, and I regret not addressing it. Thank you for bringing it up here!
7. You say that virginity is real, but then don’t explain what you mean. Do you mind expanding on that?
8. Here you are saying what sex is supposed to be. Sex can certainly be like that for you, or for whomever that lifestyle suits. I worry because I interpret what you’re saying as advocating for the imposition of one person’s way of life onto another. As I said before, that limits their freedom to be who they are. Using bullying and shaming to force people into behaving a particular way is antithetical to freedom. If you truly believe in free speech, and I believe you do, then I would hope you would expand that to all other, non-harmful forms of expression.
9. You suggest that some men might not want their female partner to ever have had sex before, and you’re not wrong. Some men definitely are like that; I expect some women out there are like that too. In my experience, everyone has a past, and we might not always agree with everything they’ve ever done – sexual or otherwise. What’s important is the kind of person they are now. I’m not sure what fear you’re alluding to with men not wanting to put their genitals on something another man’s genitals might have touched. For me, I wonder about public toilet seats for those who might have that concern. Is the fear that significant of homosexuality that one would forfeit a heterosexual encounter? Or is it about the status of the woman who has been touched in a particular way, perhaps made impure and contaminated? If it’s a third option, I can’t think of one and I apologize, but I do wonder what you think those two fears might mean.
10. I’m glad you think I’m hilarious! I hope you keep seeking the truth, as your nickname implies, and that you continue to question all the things you read. Please keep reading and commenting here too! I’ve got all kinds of feminist cockpuppetry that I’m sure you’re be interested in.
All those words and zero actual substance. Don’t quit your day job, friendo.
I’m going to assume you are the original poster. Have you become very emotionally invested in men and women embodying particular sexual roles? I only ask because in my response, I do agree with one or two of your points, and you appear to be dismissing my entire reply. We might even agree more if you answer some of the questions I ask – particularly the questions about where you’re getting your data from! I like to think I’m pretty open-minded, and if sufficient information presented itself, I would change my perspective.
However, you do not believe *any* of what I said had substance. Presumably at least the parts where I agree with you would have substance? Engaging in black and white thinking like, “I’m all wrong” is often linked to strong emotional reactions, so I’m curious. I don’t want to speculate as to what those emotions might be, but my guess is a strong part of your identity is linked to this issue that my article and reply seem to have aggravated. This might be something to reflect on in your own life and your own relationships. Do you find that this topic comes up a lot for you?