A truckload of sluts.
I am well aware that in Italy it is early for a discussion on female thymosexuality, but this bad conscience, this never-born debate, forces me to sympathize with those who, in the end, were only participating in an atmosphere – the one that exists in football – which is not normally a symposium of well-mannered barons.
It should begin here and it should end here, in fact, if one wanted to at least pretend not to be driven mainly by the guilt feelings of a bad conscience: he was speaking to a group of football players, notoriously an audience that thinks – when it thinks – exactly in that way.
However, if the country was ready for an honest and adult debate on female thymosexuality, it would have noticed one thing instead. The “Calendar of the Wags”:
for instance.
And it's time to wonder why the minimum girlfriend of a footballer is a model. Since these are two quite small tribes numerically, the chances of this happening systematically are quite low.
Despite this, it would appear that the thing is rather systematic. And it looks like we're in a blatant case of thymosexuality: apparently, marrying a model is more likely if you're richer.
This problem, female thymosexuality, is generally justified with a pseudobiological excuse, according to which it would be natural, genetic and evolutionarily advantageous for a woman to prefer the rich male who will therefore be able to better support her offspring. Pure evolution.
I have only two notes about this theory:
- the first is that a rather normal, if not low, number of children usually comes out of these unions. For women obsessed with the instinct of being able to support offspring, it seems to me that offspring are in short supply. Normally, then, it is the poor who have the most children, a sign that this famous thymosexual instinct is not so prevalent after all.
- if we have to think that women do what nature and biology tell them, in order to justify their behavior when it's questionable, we have to think the same about men too. What is the evolutionarily most advantageous reproductive behavior for the male in nature? “Make any fertile female pregnant, and if she's not fertile, try anyway, you never know miracles. And in nature, consent is not important.
As you can see, on the one hand it's not really easy to demonstrate that there is this evolutionary drive to choose the richest male thinking of the offspring, (I don't know that Berlusconi has ever had children with his olgettines), since they are the poor people who have more children.
But on the other hand, if I were to use the same method on males, we would all have to turn into obsessive fornicators, basically rapists: I repeat, in nature consent comes after reproduction.
Therefore, I would reject these pseudo-mitivations, and I would go back to the point, or rather to Berlusconi's speech to the Calciatori [12:22], and in truth I tell you:
"footballers (or rather: the rich) are subjected to a constant flow of sluts, on the bus or not".
By this I mean that we need to give a face to thymosexuality: if Berlusconi had offered a prize of one million euros per player in case of victory, a bus full of sluts would have spontaneously shown up in front of the locker room, or anywhere else.
But I think it will be necessary to stop here, since in Italy the culture is not yet ready to peacefully discuss female thymosexuality.
But regardless of whether or not one wants to discuss female thymosexuality, the empirical observation remains valid. If tomorrow those players won a Serie A scudetto, then making up for the necessary wages, Berlusconi would have no difficulty finding a bus full of sluts: he would have difficulty getting them to find parking among the other busloads of sluts that sprung up spontaneously, arriving before his.
What are they afraid of, those who tear their hair out because Berlusconi has promised a bus full of sluts? We know very well that, Berlusconi or not, if that team were to win we would find "the Monza Swag calendar" on the net, and that it would be the usual same-sex models that surround rich people.
We could also start discussing why this phenomenon exists, what female thymosexuality is and why it is so systematic and brutal: but the tones would immediately expire. So I limit myself to the empirical observation: if those players win and therefore get rich, a truckload of sluts will pass through the locker room, Berlusconi or not.
If you want, you can spend the time talking about my male chauvinism or my "toxic masculinity" (in any case, by now a license of chauvinist, patriarch or masculinotoxic is not denied to anyone. My ficus also has it, and my cat has two. Who cares?), but the empirical observation would remain valid.
When you strike it rich, whether you win soccer or not, a bus of sluts stops by your locker room anyway.
Berlusconi has only said that the sluts he procures are better than the others, the ones who usually marry the rich: the sluts that Berlusconi procures have one quality: in the "after", they get out of their balls.
And the money they receive is not an alimony salary, but a severance pay.
That said, be shocked as well. And you won't be able not to be shocked, because by shouting scandal you will silence those voices that tell you inside you "but look, if they win the truckload of sluts they still get it".
And since you are unable to have a serious discussion about female thymosexuality, this bad conscience, this sense of being of the Pharisees, will continue to make you scream.
Go ahead and scream.