People keep reposting this video and expressing compassion for the guy in it:
I find it all to be childish and hypocritical. The guy wants to spend 15-20 years of his life ejaculating into a wide variety of women. I’m sure this is very pleasurable to him. But everything in life comes at a price. This is the price of his sexual freedom. He wants to shoot his load freely, and women into whom he freely shoots it want to be as free from him and his seed as he wants to be from them.
There’s no scenario under which he gets to treat women like interchangeable rubber dolls and they in return treat him like a human being worthy of respect.
You want to owe nothing to women you bed? Fantastic. They owe nothing to you either. Don’t like this setup? Have only married sex in a deeply committed, profound, loving relationship.
When will people understand the basic idea of tradeoffs?
Clarissa's Blog 
Is it a clip from a movie?
LikeLike
I think it’s from some TV series about sex-obsessed people.
LikeLike
Ah. Well.
LikeLike
Sorry, he dodged a flashing red flag. There was good reason that I feared becoming a recluse, possibly a hermit. There is no chance in hell that this pair could possibly handle the difficult discussions necessary to survive a marriage. It takes two to tangle ;-D
LikeLike
Every time I encounter these scenarios– people talking about their IRL experience, hypotheticals, whatever, the number of alarming ‘default settings’ revealed is so great that I can’t even have a conversation. Like talking to aliens. In order to get to this point, you have to assume that it’s normal unquestioned standard practice:
…to start a sexual relationship with a total stranger, and then get to know them later.
…to do this without (the man) taking any responsibility for contraception.
…to do all this without any of the cultural expectations that still existed back in 1969 summer-of-love hippiedom, that of course if a child resulted, you’d get married and make the best of it, or put the kid up for adoption by responsible adults.
The mind boggles. Where do you even start with that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t get over the hypocrisy of all this. The guy is enjoying the results of the sexual revolution but get mega upset at the consequences. And we are supposed to feel bad for this big crybaby who believes he’s so special he won’t have to eat the consequences of his actions.
The woman, weird and self-hating as she clearly is, at least acts consistently.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Isn’t that the same actor they hired to play Leia’s angsty perpetual-adolescent son in the starwars sequels? The typecasting is spot on…
LikeLike
“woman, weird and self-hating as she clearly is, at least acts consistently.”
He treats here like a receptacle and then looses his shit when she treat herself like a receptacle that has to be cleaned out….
And if you reversed it (she wants to keep the baby and he wants her to abort) then most of the same guys would be arguing for him to have no financial responsibility….
LikeLiked by 1 person
If they were married or engaged, absolutely I’d say that her actions are monstrous. But in a casual, one of many relationship, he can’t count on extra special consideration that he himself is not offering.
LikeLike
Women don’t have to open their legs, ya know? Two to tango.
LikeLike
She opened her legs and accepted the consequences.
LikeLike
She most certainly did not accept the consequences, nor did he. Given the current level of STDs amongst young women, he most assuredly always should have worn condoms. I would also point that this short scene was written and directed by Lena Dunham of HBO’s feminasti wetdream Girls, did you really expect any male to have any opportunity to do the homourable thing? C’mon Kid, you are better than this.
LikeLike
What’s bizarre is that the woman keeps getting pregnant and is not bothering to do anything about it. If you are so high-fertility, use 3 contraception methods at once. Use four. Her indifference to her own body (and its clear desire to carry a child to term) is bizarre.
LikeLike
Are you talking about Lena?
LikeLike
I mean the character in the clip. I haven’t watched the show and am only vaguely aware of the author.
LikeLike
Well, you saw more in the clip than me, I considered her as cold, mentally unstable, maybe psycho as in, “Run, Forrest, Run!” ;-D
LikeLike
Oh, she’s all, of those things: amoral, cold, etc. But the fact that he’s been sleeping with her for seven weeks without getting a whiff of any of that says he’s an absolutely terrible judge of character, needs to back the heck off and become a celibate until he’s figured out why he’s attracted to unfeeling psycho women, and fixed that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree. This should be a major point of reflection and self-analysis for the guy. Otherwise, his shock is worth nothing. This kind of thing will keep happening.
Also, his certainty that he never got anybody pregnant before is ridiculous. She just told him that she never informs the men. What makes him so sure the previous girlfriends would have told him?
As for the woman, she’s definitely a sociopath.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Perhaps I wasn’t clear, none of this happened, none of the characters ever existed. It was a romantic drama about twenty something women in New York City, produced by HBO, created, written, directed, and acted by Lena Dunham. You know, just about as realistic as HBO’s drama “Sex and the City” created and largely written by two openly homosexual men ;-D
LikeLike
There is an entire genre– books, TV, movies– that I now think of as “Young childless single people in NYC”. It is one of the most tedious, narcissistic, awful…. I would rather read pulp Westerns or Harlequin romance novels all day. But *they don’t label these*. Like, every other genre gets some identifying mark on it– if you pick up something by Baen, or Harlequin, you know exactly what you’re getting. You can spot a Western at twenty paces. But the YCSPINYC genre has pretentions about being *literature* and hides in the racks, waiting to ambush unsuspecting readers.
The plot is always the same: YCSP wandering aimlessly around NYC, hooking up more or less at random (never in a way that suggests personal agency or choice in the matter), seeing the sights, and doing whatever it takes to avoid any long-term attachments that might tie them down and restrict their freedom. This is all worth it because NYC is such a delightful, endlessly amusing place that can never get stale on you, so it’s OK to not have permanent relationships or family. Oh, and the majority of characters are either gay or bisexual. I now avoid all books that even *mention* NYC in the flap copy, because this is so irritating.
LikeLike
“…doing whatever it takes to avoid any long-term attachments… “
Yeah, I have a great niece whose life in Vancouver sadly closely resembles that.
LikeLike