Vivian Norris’ incredible shrinking Boycott!

Brooke: I want you to WANT to do the dishes.

Gary: Why would I “want” to do dishes? Why?

Brooke: See that’s my whole point

The Break Up: 2006

Penny:   All right. Let me give you a little girlfriend 101. Usually the first move out of the gate is you withhold sex, but that will work better after Sheldon hits puberty.

The Big Bang Theory, The Weekend Vortex 2012

I still have not read Helen Smith New Book Men on Strike (although I very much want to have her on the show ASAP) but something came up this week that instantly made me think of it. Vivian Norris proposed Sex strike.

But women, take heed: Don’t give in if your man, boyfriend, husband, toyboy is not voting for your best interests, your reproductive health — do not sleep with that man! I don’t care how cute or charming he is! I don’t care if he is your husband of many years. Resist! Go swimming! Meditate!

A 20 something man, the type who might be considered most vulnerable to such a proposition who I told the story to suggested this would fail as woman wouldn’t be able to do with out sex themselves.  This invoked a memory of a SNL skit  from over a decade before he was born staring Jane Curtin:

Earlier this October, Congress extended the period for ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Yet, since then not one additional state legislature has ratified this most basic affirmation of human rights. It is time we women took action. As a spokesperson for Weekend Update, I am therefore calling on the women of America to place a moratorium on the act of performing oral sex on any male until the ERA is the law.

I recall Bill Murray’s reply vividly

Well, okay, Jane. But remember that oral sex is a sword that cuts both ways. No oral sex — you know what I’m saying?

Of course we have since learned from liberals that Oral Sex really isn’t sex so it may not be included in Vivian Norris’ proposed strike but lets for the moment presume it is.  Even including a potential lack of Felicio Vivian Norris and her allies proposal to withhold sex until Texas approves late-term abortion on their terms is doomed to fail, mostly due to the limited number of potential persuadable men.  Let’s examine the subset

1.  By definition this strike will only be effective on pro-life men if they are having sex with pro-abortion women.  Since there is a large subset of women who are pro-life none of them are likely to join this boycott so those men are out

2. Religion is a strong driver in terms of abortion positions.  There are always the men who put principle or religion over sex, a small subset to be sure but that subset must also be removed from the equation.

3.  By nature people in high political positions have power and or money, both of these are power inducements for women to have sex with them (Ask yourself if the women at the playboy mansion care what Hefner’s abortion position is)  so the subset of women who are willing to boycott shrinks to the pro-abortion women who are not persuaded by either power or money to sleep with a man.

4.  We also have to subtract those with national ambitions in the GOP, coming out pro-abortion would mean death in a primary and would dry of vast quantities of donor funds from the base nationwide

5.  With the combination of masturbation going from a source of derision and humor to something society declares as “healthy & natural” and pornography becoming not only acceptable but so common on the net on cable and elsewhere that you have to take affirmative steps to avoid it, a man can find release easily.  For a few dollars more a strip club or a hooker on Craigslist is not far away.

6.  Finally you have to exclude one more subset of men, the long married.  A man who has been married for over 30 years put it well when I mentioned it to him saying he’s been married so long he’s forgotten what sex looks like.

7.  And of course this boycott will not effect pro-life women voting for the ban

So now Ms. Norris’ boycott now is now down to targeting the subset of  pro-life men,  who are not with a pro-life spouse or girlfriend, who are not strong enough of character to put their religion or principles first, are not driven enough by ambition to be pro-life for political purposes,  do not have sufficient money and/or power to override the willingness of women to copulate with, are not satisfied with either porn, hookers and strippers to provide a sufficient masturbatory release and who haven’t been married long enough to not notice the absence of sex as normal.

That’s when she hits the final wall.

Men in general tend to have a much higher tolerance for clutter and disorder than women.  What happen if the man figures, hmmm she not going to give me any anyway, why should I bother with dishes, or laundry or mowing the grass or painting that shed or picking up, or those errands etc etc etc.

Men need very little incentive to practice inertia, I suspect Ms. Norris’ boycott will provide more than enough to continue.

So who does that leave Ms. Norris to target?   The subset of non-religious pro-abortion straight men, without power or money, who have not been married long enough to forget sex, are unwilling to masturbate or spend a few dollars on a pole dancer and are too fastidious to let a house stay unkempt in Texas.

And I thought the GOP was a small voting subset in Massachusetts.

Well perhaps if Ms Norris & her voluptuous colleagues can pressure these men sufficiently  so they will implore the other men not vulnerable to the boycott  to give in for their sake.

Because there is nothing like knowing you are having more sex than the other guy to bruise a man’s ego.

Update:  Cleaned up some minor grammer mistakes