“Women” aren’t typically all that well-known for traveling alone or being adventurous in a way that isn’t carefully curated (you know, they need their toiletries, their access to a shower that isn’t merely a spigot and, most of all, a real pillow to rest their head on–any “woman” who tells you differently is a fucking liar probably trying to kowtow to her “man” du moment, e.g. taking up a sport just to claim having a similar interest as the object of her desire).
But that rare “woman” who does like to travel–especially alone–often has the tendency to boast about the number of foreign conquests she’s been able to include in her sexual passport. It’s as though, in addition to being able to call herself a “free spirit,” she can also lay claim to being a true “bohemian.” Minus the part where she actually does anything pertaining to being “an artist” apart from surrounding herself with faux aspirants (i.e. a guy who plays guitar near the Puerta del Sol at unpredictable times when it strikes him that perhaps he can make some quick cash for the bar later).
Her strange need to play the braggart doesn’t come from a place of wanting to reveal just how deep her passion for travel goes, but the underlying need to cling at any sense of being “rebellious” that she can. For once she hits the age of desperation (arbitrary in some cities and suburban milieus), she will immediately pack it up in a different way. Putting her suitcase back in her closet for good in favor of domestic, steady dick that she can at least fool into believing she was “wild” once and that he’s now tamed her. But if she could, she would keep on sampling all the flavors of the world, if only that thing called an expiration date on “female” desirability wasn’t so pervasive (and it’s an expiration date that only accelerates when a “lady” is always on the move without a proper skin care regimen).
Warren Beatty once goadingly asked Madonna in a scene of Truth or Dare, “Why would you say something if it’s off-camera? What point is there existing?” The sentiment has evolved in the twenty-first century to essentially mean constantly posting photos and videos of oneself for the sake of letting everyone you know (and many you don’t) that your life is simply better than theirs. Primarily, it is “women” guilty of putting on this performance–“men” just don’t have the patience it takes to undercuttingly compete with others in this manner. And yet, sometimes, a “woman” will renege almost as annoyingly as a “man” does on his promise to love you forever in abruptly deciding to delete an image she seemingly proudly touted only moments or hours before.
Who knows what event or line of reasoning might suddenly scandalize her over what she’s put out into that alternate universe called the internet? Only yesterday, Lana Del Rey had put up a video of herself wearing cherry earrings and typically dramatic eyeliner as she prepped for a show, only for the video to disappear. But it isn’t just celebrities outraging themselves over next to nothing, it’s the common folk too. For instance, a “girl” might post an image of “guy” that no one is familiar with, sparking intrigue and a fury of queries. This was no doubt the effect she wanted–at first. Maybe to make an ex or current flame jealous, maybe to prove to other “women” that she’s more desirable than they are. But then when too many questions start a-brewin’, the “woman” swiftly removes her content lest, apparently, she has to answer to someone for her showboating behavior. But what’s the point of showboating in the first place if you’re not really going to own up to it? Don’t be a little asshole and post something if you’re not going to stick to your social media guns. There is, after all, no point in living off camera. Like if a tree that’s a really selfie-worthy waif falls in the forest and no one’s there to make fun of her for it, did it even happen?
“I bleed for you,” most “women” are internally saying to the fuckboys they covet on a daily basis. And it’s true in the literal sense as well. Never truer, in fact, thanks to the rather disgusting invention of bleeding cups. Some of the tiptoers (so everyone) around direct language prefer to use the more palatable phrase–if you can call it that–“menstrual cup.” But no, it’s ultimately a bleeding cup. It’s filled with fucking blood that you’ve freely chosen to cart around with you as though it’s a separate entity, a friend. Pads were already foul enough in this regard, but bleeding cups are pads on steroids, allowing a “woman” to chill with her own filth as though nothing bizarre or slightly cultish is happening. Because, yeah, cults, rituals, blood sacrifices, etc.
Promoted as being more “practical” and “eco-friendly” than tampons and pads, the bleeding cup has found a lot of favor with the “ethereal woman.” You know, the sistren that goes to yoga, eats granola, wears natural deodorant and composts. There’s nothing wrong with these activities, one supposes, except that, well, what is she really getting out of wearing the bleeding cup, ultimately? Missing A Clit’s guess is the feeling of wearing a strap-on, ergo sporting the closest thing she will ever have to a dick. Her desire to feel powerful in this fashion is what the bleeding cup provides in a subversive, undercutting way. But of course she’ll tell you she’s only trying to be environmentally conscious–all the while subconsciously wishing for a penis, even if it is one that amounts to a chode.
There’s something to be said for a “woman” who is shrewd enough to know the importance of subtly kowtowing to the man she’s trying to secure in catering to his every interest and whim. Subtly being the operative word, as few “men” like to feel as though they’ve found themselves with a personality-less sponge (unless she has the plastic surgeon’s looks to make up for it). This is why the truly clitless “woman,” in all her strategic wisdom, will first glean either from his online profile(s) or his friends/apartment decor (if she’s more analog a.k.a. craftier, classier and infinitely more in touch with the tangible world around her–ah, but fuck that, it’s all stalking anyway) what sports he’s passionate about.
Without him ever telling her anything, she will make it a point to start alluding to her own zeal for [insert meathead-filled team here]. Whether it’s football, hockey, baseball, soccer, bowling–shit, even fencing–there’s no limit to what a “woman” will claim to enjoy either 1) playing or 2) spectating. This gives her an automatic edge over every other “competitor” in the game called: find the needle that is the “straight man” in a haystack. So ask yourself, fellas, does she really care about any major league, or is she doing it all for the penis and the peanuts (concession stand food is the only reason to endure any game)? Every “man” with a “woman” who “loves” the same sport as he does should start questioning it immediately.
For as much as single “women” prattle on about how utterly shittaytay “men” are, the second one of them manages to finagle a “boyfriend” (generally on the more fey and malleable side if he’s willing to be “pinned down”), all those previous comments about the assholery and uselessness of them fly out the window. In fact, all comments of any kind disappear as you’re never likely to see or hear from your friend again now that she’s secured semi-steady “dick.” And it’s emphasis on the semi comes from the reality that “men” aren’t half as libidinous as women anymore.
You might catch glimpses of your friend now and again at major events like her bridal shower or wedding. If you’re lucky, she might even make a cameo at your birthday party. If it’s a milestone. Especially one like forty, when she can really feel superior about how “Thank god it’s not me who’s still alone at that age.” But maybe what it really is about “women” who get “boyfriends” abandoning their former confidantes is that the primary thing that once bound them together–seeing “men” as little assholes–has vanished. Now you’re the little asshole for attempting to possess integrity in not settling for a “man” just because he was willing to. Then again, there’s also this: you can’t fuck your friend. Unless, of course, she doesn’t end up finding someone and things do get that desperate.
As summer, marginal though it might have been with its flickering rays of sunshine prone more to monsoon weather than anything else (at least, on the East Coast, where we set most of the Missing A Clit narrative), the clitless “women” of the world are still trying to get their last “Insta-worthy” photo in before the sun dims out completely and the pool floats accordingly deflate. Who can pinpoint when, exactly, the float craze began? Was it, according to some, when Taylor Swift posted a picture of herself in an inflatable swan in the summer of 2015? Or was it at the very dawn of the commercialization of the pool float, when Madonna appeared on Vanity Fair‘s 1992 cover (pictured below) photographed by Steven Meisel? Granted, the latter was far more tasteful and less grandiose in its puerility.
What it all speaks to is the “female” need that requires an extra level of attention under the guise of simply being “naturally cute.” What, me? I just fell onto this adorable float in my barely-there bikini. I can’t help it. That sort of thing. And regardless of whether or not you find a “man” or several of them to help you complete a larger pizza pie for your aerial photoshoot, the fact of the matter is, there’s nothing that can help your narcissistic soul float to the surface with nearly half the same ease as your overpriced vinyl-crafted prop for contrived vanity.
How a pool float should be done
How a pool float should not be done
Dreadlocks aren’t a good look on anyone: “men,” “women,” black, white–whatever. But the “women” of a Caucasian background that somehow feel obliged to adopt the look for the “Rasta lifestyle” they slip into after smoking weed a few times and securing a black boyfriend à la Julia Stiles in Save the Last Dance are of particular note when it comes to causing offense with this hairstyle. Once they’ve lost the black boyfriend and merely settled on a “casual” white drug dealer in a band, the dreads persist–after all, they’re rather difficult to just “get rid of” once a white girl has committed (a.k.a. possessing gnarly hygiene is so much more comfortable–no muss, no fuss).
Then again, the dreadlocks worn by those claiming to adhere to Rastafarianism aren’t exactly the ones with the monopoly on the looque. Egyptians were the first to lay claim via archaeological evidence to the trend (though many trace its birthplace to India). When Rastafarianism appropriated the tenets of Hindu and African tribal culture mixed with the Old Testament, somehow the black Jamaican population became the only one permitted to sport the style without causing an outrage. And white “girls” are at the top of that list (especially after a Marc Jacobs runway show).
In truth, however, there’s this: just no one wear dreadlocks, ever. It does not enhance your power, as previously thought by the ancients, but merely detracts from it.