If you value this site and the work I put into it, please consider a donation. Even a small amount would be nice. Donations motivate me to write more, and when they’re not coming in, I don’t want to write so much. So when you donate, you are keeping this great site going.
If you worry about making me rich and think I don’t need the money, don’t fret. I’m basically retired, and I live off a small fixed income. You are definitely giving to the needy here.
And you are also contributing to the research that powers this blog. I mean, it’s not just highbrow, it’s Beyond Highbrow. And so are you.
Want to support this site and not send a donation?
This is taking up all my time these days. Oh well, at least I have a job that I’m working at full-time.
If you are interested, you can check the progress of it here. The problem with this sort of thing is that once you start down one of the rabbit holes, you can stay down there a long time and still not feel that you’ve finished. At some point, you have to say enough is enough and move on. 75 pages on the page and over 200 references. I’m going nuts on references. If you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, bury them with bullshit. Works pretty good.
This is the sort of thing I read for sheer kicks. That is a 152-page document called Child Molesters – A Behavioral Analysis For Law Enforcement Officers Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children by Acquaintance Molesters, written by the FBI’s top expert on child molestation, Kenneth Lanning. I read about this stuff because I am very interested in sex offenders and paraphilias. I’m a teleiophile, and I’ve never molested a kid, thank God. And I never got molested myself. Similarly, I know few people who got molested. It’s just something that interests me.
I will say though that that document is hard to get through. I’ve had it up there forever and I still haven’t gotten through it. Trying reading about child molesters for 152 pages some time. It’s pretty hard to do and it gets to you after a bit.
About this paper, I don’t think too much of Lanning or his document.
The “Pedophile As a Word with No Meaning” Bullshit
First, he doesn’t seem to know what a pedophile is. He keeps lumping in pedophiles with a preference for small children who molest kids with men who engage in statutory rape with adolescents. The two crimes could hardly be more different, and people who commit them are often extremely different. Few pedophiles even have an interest in a 13 year old! There is no mention of hebephiles. There is no mention that it is quite normal for adult men to have sex with adolescent girls, as we’ve been doing it for 99% of our evolution as a matter of course with no ill effects recorded since. Instead, he calls men who have sex with teenagers pedophiles! Ridiculous!
Second, he’s a pig. A real pig. A fed pig, by far the worst pigs of them all. I actually don’t mind a lot of local cops. But I truly despise feds.
He has an extreme attitude towards child pornography and claims that if a pedophile is using a photo of a child to masturbate, it’s child porn! So a pedophile has an innocent photo of a kid in a bathtub taken by some doting parent. He’s using it to masturbate. According to Lanning, it automatically becomes child porn. Typical fed pig.
Further, he twists himself in endless circles trying to justify bans on child porn.
First of all, the real deal is a record of a crime. This is a fact.
It’s also a record of horrible abuse. This part is much less certain.
He says the child is victimized by having their photos passed around the world among pedophiles. I agree to a point. However, suppose the child has died? Sure, it’s a record of a crime, but so what? The victim is dead. As the victim is dead, they’re hardly being harmed by their photos being passed around. So there are issues with even the standard justification for making this stuff illegal.
The “Child Porn Is Whatever the Cops Think It Is” Bullshit
In the past 30 years, due to mass hysteria about the subject, courts have bent over backwards to endlessly redefine child pornography. It’s now like the feminist definition of rape – as big as the Atlantic Ocean, expanding all the time, and constantly changing so no one can even define it anymore. Child porn means whatever the pigs think it means. Rape means whatever some feminist thinks it means.
It turns out that if a pedophile has perfectly legal photos of nude kids, but writes lewd things on them or has balloons showing the child making lewd statements and he’s using this stuff to masturbate, it’s child porn! Oh, for God’s sake! Don’t these poor sods have a right to jerk off in peace? Life must be difficult enough for someone with an orientation like this. As you can see, the “photo of a crime” and “kid in the photo is being victimized as the material is used by pedophiles” arguments wash out completely in these cases.
Turns out we need to make up some new arguments to cover this stuff! When you have to keep making up all sorts of different arguments to keep something illegal as circumstances change, chances are the illegality of the behavior is on pretty shaky grounds.
He also agrees the pedophilic cartoons should be illegal, though once again, the child in the cartoon doesn’t even exist and is a fictional character.
By the same token, he wants 2-D CGI child porn to be illegal.
He also wants child sex dolls to be illegal.
And apparently though the FBI has said that child porn must depict nudity, Lanning argues that there are cases where a clothed child is somehow child porn.
Child porn fiction has always been legal until earlier this year, when suddenly it wasn’t. The fact that no one even knows the definition of child porn and that things are perfectly legal until one day the pigs decide without telling anyone that they’re not is very disturbing. Vague laws are unconstitutional. Laws that constantly change their definitions without being so changed by a Legislature or court are unconstitutional. In order to not break the law, you have to know what the law is. If there’s no way to even figure out what’s legal and what’s illegal and where the line between the two is, it’s unconstitutional.
I figure that anything that doesn’t show an actual kid being molested should be legal, sorry. If there’s no kid being molested, there’s no record of a crime. The kid in the pic is not being harmed either, as nothing is happening in the photo.
Anyway, Lanning ends up having to make up more and more new arguments to keep more stuff illegal. Turns out that photos of kids in bathtubs, child porn stories and cartoons, legitimate photos with lewd writing on them, and kid sex dolls all need to be declared child porn and be made illegal because…get this…pedophiles use them to masturbate! Apparently everything a pedophile uses to masturbate is illegal! That’s just crazy.
The “It Makes You Dangerous So It’s Illegal” Bullshit
He also says that all of these things that the pedophile uses to masturbate increase the likelihood that he will offend and molest a kid, which is justification for wanting to send them packing for everything they use to jerk off.
The problem is there’s no evidence of that.
In fact, what little evidence exists from countries in which child porn was legal for a while before being made illegal shows that molestation rates were quite a bit lowerwhen the material was legal and went up significantly when it became illegal. I know the Netherlands is one such case. Apparently as rapists watch porn instead of raping, and porn makes rape rates go down, pedophiles look at child porn instead of molesting, and molestation rates go down.
The “It’s Illegal to Be Dangerous” Bullshit
So these guys are being arrested for the crime of “dangerousness.” I wasn’t aware it was against the law to be dangerous. Generally speaking, any law allowing cops to arrest people for “dangerousness” is unconstitutional. Of course there are some exceptions, mostly in terms of red flag laws.
In most other cases, you can’t be arrested because people think you’re dangerous. You can be as dangerous and scary as you want, and it’s perfectly legal.
However, if you are crazy and dangerous, we can hospitalize you.
The MDSO Ultra-Bullshit
This was the basis for the ridiculous and unconstitutional Mentally Disordered Sex Offender laws, where, incredibly enough, people who have served their full terms and paid their debts to society are re-sentenced just before they get out on the grounds that they are “dangerous.” Hell, 90% of the people we let out of prisons are probably pretty damn dangerous. It doesn’t mean we keep them locked up beyond their terms!
And because it’s perfectly legal to be a menace, the courts have twisted themselves into Octopus-like positions to claim that these men are both mentally ill and dangerous because if they are nuts and dangerous, we get to hospitalize you. These laws also operate on the bizarre and insane notions that locking these guys up for the rest of their lives after their terms are up on “dangerousness” chargers is…get this…not a form of punishment! Because if it was a form of punishment, it would be illegal!
I guess it’s actually a huge gift and a favor to these shmucks to lock them up for the rest of their lives on bullshit “dangerousness” charges.
Turns out that you don’t even have to be seriously mentally ill to get locked up this way. Most of these folks aren’t the tiniest bit crazy. All you have to have is a mental disorder that makes you dangerous! In practice, these are paraphilias, typically pedophilia. However, non-pedophiles keep getting socked away under these laws, particularly hebephiles.
The “Let’s Make Up Some Mental Disorders” Bullshit
Turns out that when you can’t figure out what paraphilia the person has, you get to make one up! So the hebephiles go down on Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified or Paraphilia NOS. Turns out that hebephilia is not even a documented paraphilia in the DSM. Turns out it’s not even mentally disordered behavior. Turns out it’s not even abnormal! Nevertheless, it can get you socked away forever on some bullshit law after you get out of prison.
One more thing. Locking people up as they are walking out the door for made-up crimes, or really for the crime they went down on, is obviously convicting someone twice for the same offense. They get around this by saying they’re not punishing these folks. Instead they’re doing them a favor!
This is just abuse. They’ve also invented brand new paraphilias where none exist. They’ve invented some Paraphilic Rape Disorder where the rapist is specifically and preferentially aroused by the thought of raping. Turns out this sort of thing is quite rare, and rapists, like most men, get turned on by a million things. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association says there’s no such thing as Paraphilic Rape Disorder. No problem! Just make up a diagnosis! They simply say the man has Paraphilia NOS, and he goes down on that. Who knows what Paraphilia NOS even means. As with child porn above, apparently it means whatever some prosecutor thinks it means!
Summary: This woke bullshit was a terrible idea back then when it started, and it’s probably an even more terrible idea now.
They would never join us, but I’d say the site in the link is Alt Left or at least a form of the Alt Left. All anti-IP, anti-SJW, or anti-woke liberalism and Leftism is really just Alt Leftism.
This site has already been described by a thoughtful author as “Anti-Woke Left.” The author writes on American Renaissance. It’s either Chris Roberts or Gregory Hood, but I’m inclined to think it’s Chris because he came out of the Left and continues to write about the Left at that extremely rightwing publication. Amren is a White nationalist publication or White Supremacist if you want to think that way. Problem is that the editor, Jared Taylor, thinks Asians are superior to Whites. So it’s hard to argue that he’s a White Supremacist.
I actually comment on there because nobody else will have me. I get banned from almost all Left and liberal sites very quickly for my anti-woke politics. On the other hand, the commenters are not just racist – they are wildly, fanatically, off-the-charts racist in a way that few Whites are anymore.
Which is one more reason why their project will fail. They refuse to tone it down, probably because they can’t. They can’t tone it down possibly because the project is inherently radical and extremist and hence will always only attract such types. There’s not much in the White Nationalist movement for the average White person.
This is one more reason we need to get away from this crap term White Supremacy. Yes, this was a powerful thing for a long time in this country, but it’s all but dead. Even Whites who like being White are hardly White Supremacists. And many non-Whites also very racist, especially against Blacks. They’re left out of this whole thing. The percentage of actual White Supremacists or potential White Nationalists among Whites ranges from 6-9%. That’s a very low number. It’s hard to see how this is a movement charging across the country enveloping everything in its grasp or how a whole political party has gone over to it.
How about White racist or racist Whites instead of this White Supremacy/ White Supremacist crap? How about anti-Black racism instead of calling anti-Black non-Whites White Supremacists? Even Blacks who step outside of the BLM/woke line are getting called White Supremacist. That’s pretty stupid. It just goes to show that in any contest about who is the most politically retarded, the Dogmatic Left is always near first place.
He wanted peace with the Allies and a united front against Communist aggression, as he saw the war being lost.
He was an agricultural student. That would feed his interest in genetics and biology and of course racism.
He was actually arrested – the architect and executioner of The Final Solution – by Hitler, which forced him into hiding, which lead to his arrest by the British and subsequent suicide. This happened when he asked Eisenhower for peace via a third party.
He built the SS from almost nothing into a force of millions of men.
At least one of his daughters never repented from neo-Nazi ideas and in fact aided Nazi war criminals after the war.
I can’t understand how a person can hate and be elitist as much as he was unless it’s some demonic possession. And what was the justification? He was this simply an abnormal personality type gifted with high intelligence for planning given massive power, and we see the end result.
RL: Liberal White snobs with money beating up poor White proletarians and lumpens. If anyone is being oppressed in our society, it’s these poor sods. I’m for the oppressed and against the oppressors. White liberals and the Left in general have demonized these poor shmucks, and it’s disgusting. They’re literally oppressing these poor guys.
There’s also a thing from liberal White males along the lines of, “Ha ha. We get laid a lot, and you guys don’t!” Wow, so this is the Left right now. Sex-havers showering contempt on the sexually unlucky? How pathetic. Anyway it reminds me of rich snobs gloating in their success and hating the poor for being financially successful in life.
1-800-Whatever: Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think these “liberal” or (pseudo) leftists are getting laid all that much. Most I’ve seen are pajama boys. I think they get married more, but I don’t know they are getting laid all that much. I could be wrong of course.
I’m not sure myself because they are all male feminists! And a lot of them are really angry about PUA’s on the Left who are “oppressing” the women of the Left by trying to fuck them! How dare they! I call them fags, girls, and cucks even though most of them are straight because I want to attack their masculinity for abandoning their brothers and going over to the other side. As it’s uncool to act like a real man on the Left and masculinity is seen as toxic, it’s a mystery to me how they get laid or why leftwing women put up with this pussy, faggy bullshit.
I really don’t know if they get laid or not. I know they despise PUA’s. They say all PUA and Seduction Theory is a lie, which seems crazy. You mean there are not better and worse ways of getting women? There are not men with great Game and men with zero Game? There are not men who can improve their Game or who lost their skills?
It’s madness. Everyone knows that some guys are very good at this and other guys can’t get laid with God’s help, and YES, Game does matter. A LOT. Maybe not as much as Looks, but if you are Chad with shit Game, it’s not such a great thing. I have Game-less Chad’s go years, maybe even over a decade, without a single date.
One guy was the best-looking man in town for his age and he went a decade without a date. No one liked him. All the women hated him and thought he was a weirdo. I’m not sure what was wrong with him. He seemed to have some sort of an anxiety disorder. Often had a weird blank stare on his face like he was in his own world. But you sat down and talked to him, he was completely normal. Everyone thought he was “dangerous” too, but I spent some time around him, and he was the most harmless guy you ever met. People can’t read others for shit a lot of times.
They also really hate Alpha, Beta, Omega, etc. Everyone knows that those categories are completely true. I knew it by high school. But they say it’s all just fantasy and they laugh about and make fun of it. How the Hell do you get laid at without understanding the very basics such as Alpha, Beta, Omega, etc.?
I did see one of these idiots on a Left thread asking how to flirt with women without being seen as a creep and getting #metooed. Of course it’s impossible because metoo makes all flirting potentially illegal because you never know if an advance is unwanted or not. It’s also reclassified all dating as sexual harassment because you can’t date women without grabbing or touching them at some point, and no, you don’t ask permission to grab, touch, or kiss a woman on a date. You just do it! If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.
I’ve dated hundreds of women and I did this with most of them, and I rarely got a negative response. It’s all about reading the vibes which are completely unspoken and almost like an electrical feeling you can sense in the air. I imagine a lot of folks find that sort of thing completely baffling. It’s also about reading the situation in what she says and does and even how she is thinking. You tell what she is thinking by studying her and trying to read her mind, which can actually be done to some extent.
Of course, I know how to do it and I don’t completely jump them unless I’m pretty sure it’s going to go over well. I read accounts of these guys getting metooed and I thought, “Damn these guys don’t know how to talk or act around women!” I would not have acted like that at al. Also a lot of them were way, way too rapey. A lot of others were pretty sleazy about how they went about trying to get laid. Over and over I found myself cringing and saying, “I wouldn’t have done it that way.” I suppose I could go over some of those cases and show where those guys screwed up if you want.
And most sex is apparently rape.
He got a bunch of really stupid answers that showed that these idiots had shit Game and didn’t know their asses from a hole in the ground. One woman suggested, “Well if you want to flirt with a woman, just ask her if it’s ok to flirt with her.” LOL! That’s the stupidest crap I’ve ever heard. Don’t ask for permission for anything from a woman if you’re not in bed. In bed it’s a bit different, but you still don’t ask permission! Fuck this “Momma may I!” There’s a way to do this, but “Momma may I” ain’t it!
It would be interesting to talk about female pedophiles and how they are different from men.
Apparently, there are no female pedophiles, pedophile meaning someone who has a preferential interest in children under 13; that is, they are more attracted to children under 13 than they are to adults. Any female child molesters are likely to be non-pedophilic molesters or situational molesters. Apparently only men are preferential molesters; i.e., pedophiles.
The use of the word pedophile for anyone other than a preferential child molester or someone with a preferential sexual interest in children under 13 is simply false.
In the overwhelming number of cases where the word pedophile is being used nowadays, the person is either teleiophilic – that is, completely normal in age orientation, being maximally attracted to females 16+ and attracted to adults. That is 81% of all males, including me, believe it or not. Maximal attraction to 16 and 17 year old girls is not pathological at all. Not only is it not disordered, but it’s not even abnormal. In fact, it is much more abnormal to not be not maximally attracted to 16 and 17 year old girls. This means you are either a pedophile, a hebephile, gay, or dead.
Pedophile is also false when it means “attracted to girls 13-15.” Even teleiophilic men react to pubescent girls at a very high level of 86% of maximum. Literally the only difference between hebephiles and normal men is that hebephiles have preferential maximum attraction to 13-15 year old girls, and normal men have an attraction of 86% of maximum. That’s not much of a difference. Also a number of hebephiles have little to no interest in females over 15, which is odd to me.
Attraction to very young girls under 13 is not necessarily pedophilic either. Normal men are attracted to little girls at 60% of maximum. Pedophiles are attracted to them at maximum and often have little attraction for adults. Those are the main differences between pedophiles and normal men.
Adult men having sex with 13-17 year old girls is not pedophilic behavior. In fact, the American Psychological Association has said that it is probably a part of normal male sexuality if we speak in historical or anthropological terms. Legally speaking, this behavior is often statutory rape, and men who do this are called statutory rapists. In cases where it is legal, it is properly considered legal and normal behavior in a psychological sense anyway. Granted, many people have moral objections to this at least at certain ages anyway.
Most child molesters are non-pedophilic or situational child molesters. So pedophile isn’t even a correct word to use for most child molesters! The crime itself is called child molestation, not pedophilia. Child rape is a different crime. Child molestation should not be referred to as child rape because child molestation is often psychologically consensual, whereas child rape never is. Further, child rape is a much worse crime than child molestation in most cases.
Sex between teens 13-17 is never pedophilic or even child molestation. It may be statutory rape but mostly it’s just completely normal sexual behavior. You simply cannot molest a teenage girl. Nor can you molest a woman.
Any sex between an adult man and a girl under 13 is properly termed child molestation. In a minority of cases, the adults who do this are pedophiles, but in most cases they are non-pedophilic molesters. The best way to describe non-pedophilic molesters is to call them criminals. They are driven more by antisocial behavior than by deviant sexual interests.
Since nobody seems to be able to use the words pedophilia and pedophile correctly, we should just stop using them. Every time you want to say pedophile, just say child molester. Every time you want to say pedophilia, just say child molestation.
Pedophilia is simply a way of thinking or a sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality, and it is biological in all cases, like a lot of homosexuality. It’s 100% legal. A pedophile is simply a man who thinks in a particular way in sexual sense or has a particular biological sexual orientation similar to male homosexuals. It is not against the law to be a pedophile.
Hari Seldon: So I have to ask, where do you meet these girls? How do you pick them up? You said you have a 98+% rejection rate. So you are actively approaching them? Do you openly proposition them, or indirectly?
Mostly meeting them on the Net these days. In Meatspace, it’s about zero. Literally nobody wants me. I go to porn blogs and Kik groups and meet women in there. Even young ones, too! In those places there are lots of young women who have an older man thing.
The Various Stars and Looks
This never happens to me much anymore, but if she stares at you or catches your eye every time you look at her or keeps looking at you off and on, it means something. It probably means you turn her on on some level. But nowadays I have young women who look at me off and on in a way that always meant she liked me in the past, and now I go talk to the Lookers and it turns out she hates me! So women who hate me are looking at me and staring at me now.
But this just started in the last few years. Before that, if she keeps looking at you, catches your eye every time, or especially if she stares at you, it means she likes you on some level. I think it means you turn her on.
The Robot Hypnotized Entranced Stare
If she goes into this stunned, shocked, robot, automaton stare when she sees you, especially the first time, it means you absolutely turn her on. Often the stare is mixed with hate and fear. That’s because women hate and fear the men they like. I’ve all sorts of theories on that.
She’s Acting Nervous
Another bad thing I’ve noticed lately is some young women act nervous around me. It’s usually when I’m approaching them pretty hard or escalating the flirting. She often asked for by stopping what she was doing with the message “Come talk to me.” Of she was just super-friendly and now you are taking it beyond super-friendly into the sexual flirting realm.
Lately, nervousness is a disaster. She’s uncomfortable with you on some level. Maybe you’re making her uncomfortable by escalating the flirting. Maybe she has mixed feelings about you. She acts like she wants you to talk, then you go over and talk to her and now that you are next to her, she gets scared.
I’m not sure what nervousness means around a younger man. Women don’t typically get nervous around men they like. You would think they would but they just don’t. Actually they get less nervous and more calm because she likes you and you are turning her on and charming her, and that is fun, exciting, and also very relaxing.
Just because you’re turning her on doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to go out with you! It doesn’t even necessarily mean she even wants to be friends.
Women Are Either Friends or Enemies. Know Your Female Enemies, Fear Them, and Leave Them Alone
At my age, I can’t really approach any woman directly anymore. If I try I just get the brushoff. I usually approach and say something, especially if they are behind a counter helping me or ringing me up. I’ll ask their name or something. Lately I get a hard brushoff right there. I just make a note of it and consider her an “enemy” because that’s basically what a young woman is if she brushes you off like that.
You need to stop bothering her and stop hitting her up with even basic orders. I was returning something in Walmart last night and I asked the clerk her name. We talked as bit more and I started to get the brushoff. I get the brushoff from almost all women these days. When you class her as an “enemy” it really keeps you away from her. When they do the hard brushoff, they don’t even want to be friends. If you ask for help, they won’t help you. They will act like you’re not there. When they get like that you need to stop interacting with her 100% unless she’s ringing you up or something.
Some People Just Like to Flirt, Don’t Read Too Much into It
Some of them flirt with me a bit, but I figured out that they don’t want to go out with me or even be friends. They just like to flirt with me. I’m supposedly still goodlooking for my age. A lot of women will flirt with a hot older man because he kind of turns her on. But it’s fake. She doesn’t want to go out with you and she doesn’t even want to be your friend.
Keep a Constantly Updated Database of All the Women You See Regularly so You Know Where You Stand with Them
I make mental notes of every woman I interact with regularly to figure out where I am with her. If she’s fat or homely, I don’t care, but if she’s cute or hot, I want to keep a scoreboard. Say she flirts with me when she first meets me. I go back and see if she keeps doing it. A lot of them will flirt with you the first time, and then they go cold. You have to figure out exactly where you are with every woman you interact with so you know exactly how to deal with her. Otherwise you will mess up act “creepy.” I hate being called creepy so I’m very cautious.
Never Proposition a Stranger of a Woman You Don’t Know Well. Only Proposition a Woman if You’re Pretty Sure She Wants to Fuck
You can never openly proposition any woman anywhere ever. Just don’t. Actually I don’t even proposition girlfriends. Sex is best unspoken. Just start doing things to her, or she will start doing things you to you. I learned a long time ago never to ask a woman if she wants to have sex, especially if you’ve never done it with her before. That will get her thinking, and that’s bad. The whole idea is to shut off her brain the hamster wheel stops spinning and she’s gone over into pure body reactions, as in let her body take over from her mind.
Flirting, Escalating, Etc.
Just sit back and throw out feelers to see how she responds. If she likes you, SHE will bring up sex pretty quickly, usually within the first 20 minutes. If she derails the conversation off into sex after 20 minutes or less, it means she likes you, and now you can start saying sex-type stuff. But even then you have to be careful. Just follow her lead. Read the conversation and see where it’s going the whole time. Note if what you say gets a good or bad response and then adjust on that basis.
Bedroom eyes absolutely means you’re making her horny! And it literally means she wants to fuck right now. Bedroom eyes plus the weird robotic stare means she’s going into a sexual trance and she wants to fuck you. You have to go after any woman who looks at you like that, period.
In order to make bedroom eyes or hooded eyes, put your head down and now look up. That’s bedroom eyes. It’s a bit uncomfortable and you can sort of feel hate and fear in yourself when you do it.
The bedroom eyes mean you put her in a trance, a sexual trance. Women often go into this weird sexual trance when they want to fuck. It’s like they’ve lost control of their bodies and their bodies are just acting on their own. Plus she looks like a weird robot. That means her brain’s not controlling her actions anymore. You’ve sexually hypnotized her, which is how women get turned on, pretty much.
If you have sex with her a first time and you get up to leave and she follows you to the door with the weird robot stare bedroom eyes, she really likes you. She might even be falling in love. A woman in the early stages of love stares at her man. Sometimes you will both be sitting in a room on separate couches and you look at her and she looks at you and you just sit there and stare at each other without saying a single word. This can last up to 15 minutes. It’s actually extremely calming and relaxing especially if you are starting to like or love her too. The whole world shuts down and it’s just you and her, staring, silent, in love. Life and the world doesn’t mean more thing.
She’s basically completely lost control of herself, which is what happens when women get horny and want to fuck. If she’s robot staring you to the door, she absolutely wants to see you again! She’s not necessarily in love. It means she wants to fuck you again. You’ve hypnotized her, sexually hypnotized her. This is the basis of seduction. When you seduce a woman, you are often literally hypnotizing her.
Seduction in general is underhanded and sleazy. The fact that you are hypnotizing her is sleazy right there. But this is you do it. Seduction is a scam, a trick, a con, a lie. Men know it is. Women complain about it but they know it’s a scam too, and with the right guy, she will allow herself to be tricked or scammed.
That’s part of what makes them so submissive in bed. You’ve hypnotized her, tricked her, scammed her, fooled her and she knows it. Her reaction to that is just to go completely submissive and give herself over to you. The female sex drive is all based on submission, and often the more submission, the better. This is what they like, what they want. They want to go completely submissive and lose themselves and give themselves over to this scary bad boy rather psychopathic caveman.
Sex is probably pretty scary for women. We can literally kill them with our bare hands and any time. It takes a lot of trust for a woman to make herself so vulnerable as to have sex with you. She’s scared. In a sense, she is almost risking life and limb by going submissive to this dominant, maybe dangerous, aggressive, and maybe violent maniac caveman. She’s a cavewoman. A lot of times women will negotiate.
“I don’t really care what you do to me. Just don’t kill me, please!”
I’ve had a number of women say that to me. They were all crazy in love with me. It’s actually good because it means she fears you, and woman want to fear the man they are in love with. Don’t ask me why. It’s some cavewoman stuff. The girlfriend who was most terrified of me fell deeper in love with me than any other woman.
A conversation with a girlfriend. We had broken up. She calls me. What are we doing? I ask her if she has a guy because she usually does. She says she does but he’s boring. And she wants to get back with me.
Me: So who is he? (not getting jealous or angry, just acting like I could care less).
He’s just some boring old man (in a tired, bored voice)
I see (no particular emotions still no jealous anger)
I like you better. You’re scary, but scary’s hot (philosophical tone of voice, like she’s admititng some uncomfortable truth.
You’re scary, but scary’s hot.
Why do women like bad boys. Why do they like men who abuse and mistreat them? Why are so many of them weird masochists in one form or another. Why do they like psychopaths, ex-convicts, and convicted serial killers. Same reason.
He’s scary, but scary’s hot.
I’m not telling to scare your woman. I’m just saying some interesting things start to happen when the woman who loves you also starts to fear you. Like fear you a lot.
She’s giving herself over to you, but you don’t get to take her life. And she will often tell you whether she likes pain or not. A lot of women don’t like physical pain. They don’t want you to inflict physical pain on them. They might be open to verbal of psychological pain and aggression. But they don’t want to give themselves over to physical pain and the concurrent aggression.
She’s totally submitting to you but she’s putting down some hard lines. She’s also assuming complete trust that you will respect her boundaries. You need to respect women’s boundaries. If she doesn’t want to do something, don’t pester or bother her to engage in some sex act. It’s shitty. If you connect well you negotiate in bed, often before sex. Ok we are going to do this and that but not this other thing. I always say, “If I ever say or do anything you don’t like, just tell me and I will stop.” They always say ok. Then I proceed to dom them hard and they never say they don’t like anything I said or did.
Polar Bear: What would you do if your perfect little angel, that you love more than anyone, is violently raped by a grown ass man?
Child Molestation and Child Rape Are Two Completely Different Crimes
Most child molesting isn’t violent rape.
That’s usually a different crime called child rape. And child rape does occur. It happened to my sister at age 11. Guy pulled a knife on her and her little friend while they were walking in this fairly wild area. We never heard that this had done anything bad to her. Certainly she never talked about it. But she flips if you say the words “rape” or “molestation” and shuts down the conversation. So I spell the words out sometimes when I’m around her. But other than that, I’ve never heard that she suffered any long-term harm from this very violent rape.
Much child molesting is more or less consensual. That is, the kid goes along with it. Of course kids can consent to sex past a certain age. Psychologically they can. They can’t legally though. I think 90% of molesting is in the family and it’s often consensual. What about brother-sister sex? All brother-sister sex is now called child molesting! WTF. What about men screwing 14-17 year old girls? A lot of people don’t like it, but that’s statutory rape, and stat rape is completely different from child molesting in so many ways.
What If My Daughter Got Molested or Raped by Some Man?
It depends. If it was actually child rape via a stranger and a weapon, sure it would be bad, and I don’t really know how I would deal with it. If he was molested with coercion, that’s also very bad. I’m not sure how I would deal with that either. But if she was molested consensually and had a neutral or even positive attitude towards it, I would act differently. And believe me, it’s very common for kids to react to consensual child molestation by saying it was fun of pleasurable. Neutral actions are also extremely common.
Not every kid flips out and gets horribly traumatized by getting molested. I think I would tell her that I didn’t want her letting any more grown men to do that to her. I would say it’s weird, strange, and not right. You really need to stop. If you keep doing this, it could be harmful to you. Mainly I would want her to start resisting if a man did this to her.
If she had a neutral or even positive attitude towards getting molested, I would be very happy because there’s usually no long-term harm in those cases.
I would say:
Look it’s not bad or awful or horrible or anything like that. It’s nothing! It’s no big deal. It’s not something you should make a big deal out of. That’s just something weirdo men do. Ever seen weird men doing weird stuff with kids, like yelling stuff at them or doing creepy stuff? Well, it’s like that. Weird idiot men are everywhere and they often try to do weird, stupid things to kids.
I would tell her not not see it as a trauma and freak out and make a big deal out of it because that what causes the harm. I would just brush it off with a great big attitude like this:
It’s nothing, forget about that stupid idiot, let’s move on. Don’t even think about it anymore. It was just a stupid thing some weird idiot man did to you. But it wasn’t harmful.
But I would tell her to be careful who she told about it. I would also tell her not to feel guilty about it as she did nothing wrong. I would tell her that girls who freak out about getting molested and adults who run around screaming how horrible it is is what causes the harm in cases of consensual molestation.
If it was consensual and she had a positive or neutral attitude towards and did not incorporate any negative feelings about it, by college she would be completely over it. Maybe even a lot sooner.
In a sexology book, I read that consensual child molestation used to not cause much harm back before 1950. They treated it like it was no big deal, brushed it off, and told the girl to forget about it. My mother told me that my aunt got molested as a girl when she was ~7. This might have been ~1940. I will have to check. I told my Mom about how people used to treat it like it was nothing, and the kids suffered little harm. She said my aunt had gotten molested at age 7 and everyone just brushed it off, told her it was nothing and to forget about it, but to not let any man do that to her anymore. My Mom said my aunt suffered no long-term serious harm from getting molested. In fact she may have suffered little to no harm at all!
Most of the Harm from Consensual Child Molestation Comes from Everyone Freaking out and Making a Big Deal out of It
In cases of consensual molestation, everybody running around screaming:
How horrible! You got ruined! You’ll never be the same! He stole your innocence! He committed a terrible crime against you, a horrible violation! He violated your body! Your personal space! You need to go to the police and then go to court to testify against this evil man who did this evil thing to you! You got abused!
He abused you! You got molested, one of the worst crimes of all! Pure evil! You got raped! He raped you, the worst crime of all! He’s the worst evil maniac on Earth! Here, we have to send you to a psychologist right now because many or most women who got molested as girls can suffer long-term lifelong harm, and we don’t want that to happen to you!
Then they shuffle her off to a bunch of therapists. I’m not sure they would even say the last sentence because the popular nonsense nowadays is that child molestation causes intrinsic and automatic harm to any kid who gets molested:
It causes trauma! And the trauma lasts a lifetime! No woman who ever gets molested as a girl is ever over it! It effects her for life!
First of all, this is not true. It’s not automatically and permanently harmful, and up to 50% of kids say they wouldn’t even consider it abuse. But telling victims that they suffered unavoidable long-term trauma that will effect them horribly their whole life is about the worst thing you could tell them! It literally causes the very horrible symptoms that they scream about.
Four Women Who All Got Over Being Raped, Molested, Beaten Up, Imprisoned, and Horribly Abused by Men
I knew four women around age 50 who all got molested as little girls.
One was a 50 year old woman who I got involved with for a short bit who was molested at church at age 8, church youth leader, apparently a pedophile. She told me she was totally over it. She said, “It’s weird because it feels so good but it’s wrong.”
Another was a 50 year old woman who I dated for a bit. She got molested by an uncle or a family friend, probably a pedophile. She was a little girl. She told me she was totally over it.She’d also been raped violently a few times. One time the guy broke in and almost killed her. Another kind was a date rape gone bad. She was over the molesting and she told me she was over the rapes too.
She’d also had a number of men pull guns on her in cars and burst into her house with guns pointed at her. She had a husband who beat the shit out of her for years. She told me she was pretty much over all this abuse men had done to her in her life. Weird thing was she still totally loved men.
And when she talked about a particularly horrific rape where she was beaten, imprisoned, tied up and raped for hours, she had a weird twinkle in her eye and a sly sexual smile on her face as she talked about, like it turned her on! I thought, “What the Hell is wrong with this chick?” Women tend to eroticize their sexual abuse, either molestations or rapes. That’s just the way they are.
Another was 55, a girlfriend for 5 1/2 years. She was 11 and a 13-14 year old boy on her street had sex with her. I don’t think that even counts! That’s practically childhood sex play. She also got raped at age 18-19. Almost date rape. It wasn’t violent. Black guy in Jamaica. She told me she was over both of the incidents.
One was a 52 year old woman, a girlfriend with 1 1/2 years, who had a brother who had sex with her when she was 5-8. I think he was 13-17. It was their “little secret.” Unfortunately this crap goes on a lot. They usually don’t even call it molesting if it’s another minor doing it.
She was into really perverted, dirty sex where she liked to be totally dominated and even degraded. She liked to be “treated like a slut” as she put it. Pretty quickly after I met her she referred to herself as a slut and a whore casually.
She liked the idea that I “owned her” as property like she was some sex slave. She wanted me to “mark” her or “leave my mark on her” to show that “I owned her and she was my property.”
She told me she was over the molestation but she had had a very rapey, weird, and sick relationship with a sexual sadist with serious sociopathic tendencies who was definitely dangerous to women over a 5 year period. She said she got raped every day over 5 years. How is that even possible? And she didn’t even try to stop him. “It would be no use,” she said. She claimed that this was a time of horrific rapes but she always talked about all the extremely dirty sex they had and she had this look of fondness in her eyes as she talked about the sex. And she always talked about the sex during the five years of horrible rape when we were having sex. I think she eroticized her abuse.
I told her I liked to hear about the dirty sex she had with this guy, and she flipped out and told me I was fantasizing about her being raped! That’s bullshit. No one lives with someone and gets “raped” every day for 5 years if you’re not even fighting back or protesting. Fight him off! Resist him! Hit him! Call the police on him! And for God’s sake, leave him!
Also he had some very dirty sex acts she liked to practice and she was always asking for me to do that stuff with her. So she had basically eroticized getting “raped” over 5 years. That relationship turned abusive and he turned very mean. She told me there might be five good minutes in a month. The rest was just pure evil, living with a hostile monster. Yet there was still continuous sex!
She had a bad bone condition where she needed regular operations or her joints might literally fall apart. Once she needed an operation so she told him to go easy on part of her hip. Well, he started specifically making the sex where he singled out this hip area and almost attacked it during sex. If the joints would have broken, she might have died. She said he was basically trying to kill or at least seriously harm her.
She ended it after 5 years and had to move back into her Mom’s house to put herself back together.
I don’t think she was over this trauma, but she didn’t seem all that screwed up by it and she never talked about any bad symptoms she had from it. In fact, she had eroticized it and she often talked about this horrible monster rapist maniac with an attitude of fondness in her face, eyes, and voice.
She did suffer from depression and had attempted suicide before I met her. And she was suicidal part of the time I was with her. But I could never make any connection between her depression and suicidality and this rapey relationship. I never asked her if she had any trauma symptoms from this relationship, but I knew her for 1 1/2 years and she never mentioned having carry-over trauma symptoms even one time.
There are places you can go on the Net to meet perverted and horny women of all ages. Mostly they tend to live way too far away, as the site has people from all over the world. I’m thinking in particular of porn blogs. There are sites that are full of porn blogs. They used to be on Tumblr until Tumblr took them down. You just go there and make a blog. You can put stuff up there but I usually leave it blank. Then you cruise around the blogs and there are lots of really perverted and nasty porn blogs full of the most misogynistic, degrading, humiliating hardcore porn that the feminists complain about. And a lot of those fucked-up porn blogs are run by women!
Thing is there are lots of women who get off on degrading porn and even like to be treated like that in bed. I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who want you to call them degrading names in bed. There must be tens of millions of women like that in the US alone. I’ve met others who wanted me to tie them and handcuff them to the bed. They’re into the dirtiest sex acts you could imagine. I met a young woman recently (29 years old) who wanted to me to fist and piss in her vagina! Crazy. She wanted about as much anal sex as vaginal sex.
And a lot of women from 19 to 52 love to be spanked. You ask, “Harder?” and they always want it harder. I quit at some point as I don’t to put marks on her, but you wonder how far they were going to take it.
I meet women who want to role play, “She’s the teenage girl and I’m her father” games. I go along with it. I wonder how many women wanted to fuck their fathers as teenage girls. Why do they all call us “Daddy” nowadays anyway?
What’s the message here? I don’t know the exact science of whatever men really feel, but they should be quiet, and especially they should know if they do something with kids, the consequences could be fatal, and the vigilante etc., might not be punished.
Yeah, I refuse to keep quiet about this stuff. My conscience is clear. I’m a teleiophile and I’m no more interested in little girls than any other man. I’m not even into junior high girls. Looks like way too much of a young girl. Of course I don’t molest little girls and I’ve never done anything like that in my life other than some weird childhood sex play with girls who were around my peer age around puberty. We were 13 and she was 11, if you want the details. My conscience is clear.
I advocate that all men not molest little girls and not collect obvious child porn because you can harm the girl and also I think it’s weird and you can go to prison hard. I don’t care much about CP except that the real thing is evidence of a crime. The main thing is if you have that crap on your drive, you can get arrested and you will go down hard.
I advocate that all men respect the statutory rape laws of the state or country where they reside, if only because I don’t like to see my brothers going to jail on this stuff. And I’m not wild about men having sex with 13 year old girls. A lot of places call it child molesting and let’s face it, that’s an awfully young girl.
Other than that, of course you can think anything you want or do anything legal you want to with any willing minor of any age.
This is what I advocate. Why would I get murdered by a lynch mob for advocating something reasonable and law-abiding like that? I don’t get it. And no one who kills or hurts me over this stuff is going to get off the hook by some judge because he talked about weird stuff like pedophilia, child molestation, rape, child porn, and statutory rape. So what! Anyone can talk about anything. No judge is going to let someone of the hook for “killing some guy who talks about weird stuff.” Forget it.
As you can see below, the things I do in my life are pretty much legal and I don’t do anything outrageously bad or illegal. I don’t download and save CP on my drive. I don’t engage in any sort of sexual behavior with jailbaits. Sometimes I talk to them as they are in those Kik groups below. But in California it’s perfectly legal to talk to teenage girls. I usually don’t want to get too sexual in my conversations with them though.
I don’t know if it’s my looks, but if I talk to one of those girls for 20 minutes (and I’m very careful how I talk to them), I can guarantee that the devious little nympho seductress will figure out a way to shift the conversation over to sex! See? They go after us men! A lot of those jailbaits are horny as Hell and they love men. I prefer to see them more as dangerous than anything else. They’re almost a menace.
I’ll talk to them after that. A few have sent me pics, but the pics were mostly legal as far as I’m concerned. Erotic but legal. I try not to get into actual sexting with them, though I did it a lot (mostly with women but also with a few 14-17 year old jailbaits) in Yahoo groups 20-25 years ago, but all this stuff was way more wide open back then. Nobody was worried about anything. The situation has completely changed now 20-25 years later. Everyone is paranoid, cops are arresting men on all sorts of vague, weird, and stupid sex law bullshit, and this whole area has gotten a whole lot scarier.
I absolutely like to look at 15-17 year old girls because they are highly sexual to me, and they really turn me on. I haven’t touched a jailbait since I was 21, and I don’t anticipate doing so in the remainder of my life.
I don’t collect child pornography and when I see the really bad stuff, I report it right away. I have pics of teenage girls on my drive. Most I knew were 18 or 19. I get photos like this quite a bit. I have a huge folder full of pics young women, mostly 18-23 but up to 27, sent me.
A couple wouldn’t tell me their age. They just sent me nudes with a message, “Me Daddy” and went away. I look at it closely, and if she could possibly be 18 by any stretch of the imagination, I keep it. Once girls get into the 12-14 year old age range, it’s pretty obvious that they are way too young and I don’t touch that stuff and I block anyone who tries to send it to me.
I see that stuff posted in Kik sex groups once in a while, and idiots on Kik try to send me pics with that stuff that they are selling. I delete the pics and I don’t download any of those videos or photos. I’m not putting any of that stuff on my hard drive.
I was in a Kik group the other day and someone posted a video with a very young as in way too young teenage girl sucking her boyfriend’s cock and him cumming in her mouth.
The group was literally run by a teenage girl, a 16 year old girl. It was mostly just her, a few other mostly women and girls, and a bunch of men. Those groups are all called something like Younger Women for Older Men. Another group like that is run by a 13 year old girl!
These are just jailbait teenage girls who like to talk to adult men. They pose pics of themselves now and again to show off or get likes, but the pics are never pornographic. They tend to be cheesecake-like, maybe her in a bathing suit. Any kind of porn is rarely posted in the sites run by those girls because they’re not really into porn. If you post porn or dick pics in there, the girls who run the group throw you out right away. And the conversation is not supposed to stray into overtly sexual territory because the girls don’t really want to talk about that stuff.
But with a name like that, idiots post obvious CP or what we call “way too young” teenage girl (13-14 years old?) videos and photos now and again. The girl who runs the group will say, “Whoa that looks way too young,” and they usually just throw the guy out right away. I might look at it, but Hell if I am putting that crap on my drive.
The best analysis of all of this stuff that I have seen is from high to low functioning:
Introvert: We all know what this is, can function markedly well ->
Severe Introvert: Possibly odd but can be robustly healthy psychologically otherwise ->
Schizoid Personality Traits: Some coldness, apathy, distance re: human relations and lowered sex drive, otherwise can function very well, reduced functioning ->
Schizoid Personality Disorder: Marked coldness, apathy, and distance re: human relations and strongly lowered, apathetic, confused and baffled sex drive, “something is off about them but you can’t put a finger on it because they seem otherwise healthy,” otherwise some can function extremely well ->
High-functioning Autism or Asperger’s: Something seems very much off, possibly just looks like extreme introversion with marked anxiety but others can appear markedly normal and the condition only becomes noticeable after a few hours with them, problems with excessive seriousness, “sciency” type explanations for emotions, emotions seem off, some flapping, etc, baffled by human emotions, somewhat robot-like behavior, rocking motions, baffled by social skills, do odd things that violate social rules because they don’t understand them, possible gender identity confusion, often denies or minimizes their condition, can have strong sex drive, many females) ->
Medium functioning Asperger’s/Autism: Very weird, something is extremely off, can still function well at certain jobs, often low sex drive and desire for human relations, can be distracted by say a strobe light to where they seem to be entranced, weird ordering rituals with objects, very robotic to the point of being un-human or android-like, possible gender identity confusion, often male ->
Lower functioning autism/Asperger’s: Can still work, maybe a computer job for family, nonexistent friendships, sex drive or romantic partners, keeps asking the same question endlessly in an obsessive fashion, strange to the point where they need help understanding stoplights, severe meltdowns, possibly dangerous or criminal at times, markedly “nerdy,” something very clearly off about them, sex drive retained, possibly sexual orientation or gender identity confusion, some simply cannot work or live on their own at all. ->
Nevertheless, all Aspies often display a strong core of human feelings. Can get their feelings hurt. Capable of righteous anger, sense of pathos or tragedy about situation, in other words, there are times when you realize that they are just as “human” as any of us, and they can seem sad or tragic at these times.
“Pure autism” category: Appear mentally retarded, strong decline in intelligence/IQ, marked repetitive actions, cannot function or work, must live in group homes and have things done for them, nevertheless, a hard core of human awareness such that they can tell if you are ignoring them or not being nice to them and they get their feelings hurt, desire for human action, strange, retarded-like speech, weird body movements.
I don’t know how much child molester-haters side with parents of victims of child molestation who take the law into their own hands and kill molesters, but this case makes it seem like it’s commonplace in the USA, or at least it was in the 80s. A post was made by a man on social media recently linking to the article above and praising the child molester killer, and it shows the contempt that culturally right-wing Americans and maybe others have for anyone even talking about pedophilia or child molestation.
Child molester Jeff Doucet and victim Jody Plauché checked into a cheap motel in Anaheim, California, just a short walk away from Disneyland. Inside the motel room, Doucet sexually assaulted his karate student. This went on until Jody asked to call his parents, which Doucet allowed. Police, alerted by Jody’s parents, traced the call and arrested Doucet, while Jody was put on a flight back to Louisiana.
Mr. Plauché, father of the victim drove to Baton Rouge Airport. He entered the arrivals hall wearing a baseball cap and a pair of sunglasses. His face hidden, he walked over to a payphone. As he made a quick call as a WBRZ news crew got their cameras ready to record the caravan of cops that were escorting Jeff Doucet out of his plane. When the procession passed by him, Plauché pulled a gun from his boot and shot Doucet in the head.
What did he get for doing that?
Plauché walked away from his murder trial with five years probation and 300 hours of community service. Before he had completed both, Plauché was already back to living a relatively normal life under the radar. He died in 2014 from a stroke when he was in his late 60s.
I also heard a more recent story that was similar. The guy who killed the child molester got a slap on the wrist.
What’s the message here? I don’t know the exact science of whatever men really feel about this sort of thing, but they should be careful what they say about the matter, and especially they should know if they do something with kids, the consequences could be fatal for the man who did it via vigilantism, and the vigilante might not be punished.
Here is a link to the article I have been working on lately. I spend a good part of every day on this thing. So far it’s 54 pages and I have no idea how many references. Maybe 150 by now. I’m going through putting in references and adding to the copy that’s already there because some sections are not well filled-out.
The subject is Historical Linguistics and it’s definitely specialist stuff. It’s headed for a peer reviewed academic journal. What I’m saying it’s not for everyone, and non-specialists might have a hard time understanding it. On the other hand, the subject matter is also pretty general for the general reader who’s interested in some rather intellectual arguments. There’s not a lot of really technical linguistics material in there.
This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.
However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.
I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.
I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.
I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.
For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.
78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?
Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.
I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.
In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.
Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.
If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.
Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychologicalobjection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.
About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.
Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.
I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.
Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.
As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.
On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.
Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.
In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.
By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.
I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.
The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?
Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.
In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.
It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.
Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.
12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.
Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.
When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.
She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.
Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.
The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.
At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.
He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.
A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.
Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.
It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.
The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.
I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.
For example, Belle Delphine.
He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.
If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.
The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.
During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.
The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.
This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.
The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.
Fairy tale men below.
So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.
The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.
A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.
According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.
Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.
The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.
In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.
Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.
This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.
Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.
But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.
According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.
The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.
If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.
Menarche and Mammories
In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.
There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.
Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?
I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.
I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.
I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.
So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.
When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.
Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.
Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.
Hi folks. Sorry for no posts for a while, but I’ve been doing other things. In particular, I’ve been working a linguistics article for a peer reviewed linguistics journal. So far it’s 46 pages and over 100 references. They’ve told me that they want me to write it up. They saw a draft, but now I am going through putting in references and it’s taking forever. So if you want to know where I’ve been or what I’ve been doing, it’s that.
1-800-Whatever: No Robert, I don’t. I’ve never been on their sites, but I am familiar with their ideas based on their comments I’ve come across but more so from what their “Manospherian” detractors say about them. I try to empathize with them, even though I don’t generally endorse their ‘mood,’ so to speak. I just wanted to point out the (pseudo) cool Gametards that ‘punch down’ at and scorn them. I don’t like that sort of rigmarole.
Sure. We are all incels, are we not? How many of us men have gone for more than six months of involuntary celibacy? And suppose we say buying prostitutes doesn’t count? Now how many have gone at least six months of involuntary celibacy. My God, it must be most of us. If you look at my raw figures like how many females I dated or my laycount, supposedly I’m in the top 6% of men. On the other hand, I’ve absolutely had periods of six months+ involuntary celibacy, especially if we don’t include whoremongering.
So in a way, we are all incels! These guys who call themselves that have simply experienced the worst possible incel experiences: they have been deprived of all or most all female affection for their entire lives, which has logically left them bitter, angry, depressed, self-hating, and even aggressive and violent. There’s a little bit of the incel in all of us is what I am saying. I look at those guys and think, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
I always thought I did well just because I was so fucking cool and had such outrageous Game that females just couldn’t love me enough. In other words, my success was due to my actual superiority to other men. However, some Manosphere types, especially Looksists, schooled me and told me that I was deceiving myself and that much of my success was probably just pure good Looks. It was a bit hard for my ego to take at first, but I handled it well because I’ve always derived a lot of my self-esteem from my Looks.
Now, for sure you need to combine good Looks with other things like good personality and especially Game. Anything else – any status, power, money, fame, intelligence, talent, sense of humor, charm, etc., – can’t hurt, but these are all “add-ons” to the basic Looks requirement. In other words, in many cases, Looks is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success with women. And many of those other things other than the first four are neither necessary nor sufficient to get women.
I guess there are guys without Looks who do great with pure Game, but I would not want to go that route myself. Hell, even with Looks, the World of Women is a scary enough place as it is. Sometimes it feels like walking through a field of razorblades. Actually it’s felt that way most of my life, even back in the day.
The world of Women is not inherently harmful but there are so many obstacles, you have to watch every step you take or you get hurt, it’s oh so easy to mess up and cut yourself pretty bad, and when you get cut, no one soothes you or patches you up, so you have to lie and say you never got cut. If you tell the truth about getting cut, everyone laughs at you and calls you a loser. So you grit your teeth and tiptoe through the field of knives once again. Our penises that guide and control our frontal cortexes demand that we must walk the razor-sharp minefield again and again.
Polar Bear: I’ve always wondered why Japanese don’t have the stranglehold Chinese have in SEA?
Your answer, among other reasons, may be found in your second sentence:
Polar Bear: They have the potential and did so in a fascist way during WWII.
There ya go. Furthermore, none of those countries have any Japanese blood. There is little to no Japanese blood in Taiwan, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Burma, the Philippines, Indonesia, or even Southern China for that matter. There is quite a bit of Chinese blood in all of those places, in particular in Thailand, Vietnam, Burma, and of course Taiwan. There is also a fair amount of Chinese blood in the Philippines and Indonesia. Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, and Burma all have heavily Sinicized cultures, some dating back thousands of years in the case of Vietnam.
If we want to go even further back, all speakers of Austroasiatic languages came out of a homeland in Yunnan, China 5,000 years ago. This includes almost all Cambodians, Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais, and Burmese, and also includes Northeast Indians and some Indian aboriginals.
All speakers of Austronesian languages came out of Taiwan 4,000 years ago. Before they were in Taiwan, they were in the part of China across the strait. This includes all Filipinos and Malays, most Indonesians, the Papuans who live along the coast, and all residents of the Pacific Islands. Although it’s uncertain how much Chinese culture was retained after thousands of years, all of these people have an ultimate homeland in China. Really all of Asia came out of a Chinese homeland!
Even Japanese and Koreans came out of a Chinese homeland in the parts of China around the Bohai Sea and the Shandong Peninsula where they had their homelands 8,000 years ago.
The Vietnamese language itself is 70% Cantonese Chinese borrowing. Furthermore, both Korea and Japan have heavily Sinicized cultures. Both languages are full of Chinese borrowings and much of the Japanese scripts are based on the Chinese script. Both nations were largely settled from migrants from China. The cultures of both countries are heavily Buddhist, a religion mostly out of China. South Korea is now heavily Christian, but the basic culture is Buddhist. In addition, Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam also have largely Buddhist cultures, and the majority practice the Buddhist religion.
Vietnam and Thailand were also largely settled by Chinese invaders, 2,300 years ago in the case of Vietnam and 900 years ago in the case of Vietnam. Both nations are about half Chinese genetically.
By contrast, Japan has been an inward hermit Kingdom forever. They didn’t even bother invading and conquering other lands. That’s how inward they were. They only opened up to most of the world in the 1870’s and even then most reluctantly. They think they are better than any other race of humans. Why conquer inferiors? Why even visit their lands, if only on vacation? Why trade with inferiors? What could you possibly learn from inferiors, other than how to be more stupid?
It’s an inward attitude similar to the one that the Ottoman Empire had towards Christian Europe for millenia. Visitors would come to the royal court and show the Emir the great inventions from Christian lands. He would look at them or hold them in his hands and study them and then give them back to the visitors and shrug his shoulders.
Anything invented by the infidels couldn’t possibly be any good and besides, why would we wish to learn anything from infidel inferiors anyway? Let the infidels make their fancy toys. These things are of no concern to us superior Muslims. It’s an unfortunate attitude that set the Muslim world back for many centuries and left them mired in backwardsness.
The only place on Earth with a good amount of Japanese blood is Hawaii. Some of the other islands in Polynesia or especially Micronesia may have some Japanese blood too. I am thinking of places like Guam and Saipan.
And, yes, when the Japanese finally decided to interact with the rest of Asia, they did so in a totally fascist manner, invading, conquering, and in many cases, mass murdering or even genociding the natives who they saw as utter inferiors. Most of the places that were conquered by these fascist Japanese militarists are not real happy about being treated like that, and the Chinese, Taiwanese, and Koreans are still pretty pissed off.
I’m not sure how the Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians, Burmese, and Filipinos felt. I doubt if they were happy but they don’t seem to have made a big deal out of it. The Chinese are stark raving furious about it to this day, especially when they are made aware of atrocities like the Rape of Nanking. Further, the Japanese have not been real great about saying they were sorry.
Manuel Rodriguez: Back to politics. What is going on in Bolivia is worrying me. We have fascist squads lynching “undesirables” like peasants. We also see that there have been placed barricades with rubbish and tires that block vehicle mobilization, causing people to be fed up and remove the barricades. You know what this all reminds me? The guarimbas of 2014 in Venezuela and Nicaragua. I can see where this is going.
Separate: There is an tendency that is pretty worrying going on at least in Latin America.
The people are tired of the structural inequalities from the neoliberal policies of the right, causing them to lose in elections whenever they appear as they are, and the people are conscious enough.
The mutation consisted on swapping in the public’s mind the Traditional Right image with Center-Right, which seems like a more popular alternative. The complementary tactic is for thee Center-Right to dress up as the Center-Left, which in reality are already prepared sell-outs whose main purpose is try to divert votes from the Left to help the Right win.
The media did their thing, which was to help Center-Left Boric would win over the Leftist Jadue. The whole purpose of Center-Left Yaku Pérez’ candidacy was to make the Leftist Andrés Arauz lose.
That strategy seems to be being recently changing. They are changing the Center-Right for populist Trump-style fascist Far Right candidates. The most worrying thing is that they are getting a lot of support from the population. Bolsonaro is an classic example. Jose Antonio Kast is a more recent example. It seems that Vamos in Argentina is going to win in the parliament.
I would like to point out that the election in Ecuador was profoundly unfair. First of all, the main opposition party kept getting banned, and its leaders all have warrants out for their arrest on fake charges. This “lawfare” is similar to what was done in Brazil. By the way, the FBI greatly assisted the Brazilian fascists in the lawfare against the Left down there. The US is also engaging in lawfare against Venezuela.
Vamos are Argentine fascists?
Obviously Bolsonaro is a fascist, and Kast is clearly a Pinochet-style Chilean fascist.
Why are people voting fascist? I don’t get it. Although Chile and Argentine both have deep fascist blocs in each country, in my opinion mostly because those are majority-White countries. Brazil is also a majority-White country, which may be why they are going fascist too.
In Latin America nowadays, where you lack a White majority, fascism is hard to install because Latin non-Whites hate fascism. They’ve had quite enough of it. However, they do support it in Colombia. On the other hand, Colombia is also a fairly White country. Fascist roots in Colombia go back to Independence. The country simply has developed a culture of popular fascism for whatever reason. Turkey is very similar. The people get no benefit for voting fascist, but they keep doing it anyway.
There are fascist governments in non-White Haiti, Honduras, and Paraguay, but all of those are dictatorships. The Right seized power with fascist coups – armed in Haiti and Honduras and legislative in Paraguay – and they have ruled by dictatorship ever since.
In the Americas, Whiteness is associated with rightwing authoritarianism and fascism. In Europe this is not the case, but Whites are a huge majority over there. It appears that Whites go fascist when they are in the minority, but Argentina and Chile are majority-White, so I don’t get it.
Really any population descended from the Catholic Spaniards divides into the typical Far Right-Far versus Left Collectivist pattern. This pattern is also seen in Greece, Italy, Portugal, Turkey, and Lebanon, all Mediterranean countries. This is also seen now somewhat in France. Spain, France, and Italy are Catholic, Greece is Orthodox, Turkey is Muslim, and Lebanon is mostly Catholic and Muslim. Mediterranean countries are collectivist, so politics tends to be collectivist. Islam, Catholicism, and Orthodox Christianity are collectivist religions.
Left collectivism is Communism and socialism, while Right collectivism is fascism.
The Catholic East European fascism in Poland and Hungary is different and has a Catholic socially conservative and anti-Communist tint. Liberation theology never took hold in Eastern Europe except in Czechia, where there is a long tradition of “Catholic Communism.”
In Ukraine, the Baltics, and Belarus, the fascism is simply Nazism, pure and simple. Ukraine and Belarus are Orthodox, and the Baltics are Catholic (Lithuania) and Protestant (Latvia and Estonia). The Nazism here stems from World War and the independence movements in these countries making alliances with the Nazi occupiers who promised them independence. The Communists in turn were seen as anti-nationalists who thwarted these nations independence dreams. See below for more on that.
In Orthodox Georgia and Russia, fascism nationalist – ethnic nationalist in Georgia or simply nationalist or “Russian Empire nationalist” in Russia.
Protestant Northern Europe is more individualistic. The Right there is just about dead except in the UK and the Baltics. The Right in the UK is a pale copy of US politics. See below for the anti-Communist roots of the Right in the Baltics.
The Right in the northern individualist parts of Europe is mostly anti-Muslim. It’s conservatism is toned down like all politics in Northern Europe is toned down, so it’s not really fascist, instead a type of Woke Anti-Islam. Otherwise they are very left on social issues. One of their leaders in the Netherlands was a gay man. And they support a more socialist economics, but this is the case for both the Right and Left in most of Europe proper other than the Baltics.
The Economic Right is only popular in the UK, where the political economics mirrors the US, and in Czechia, the Baltics, Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia. In all of these places except the UK, it is an anti-Communist reaction where many people are angry about living under Communism in the past, so they have gone to extreme Right economics as an overreaction.
In Estonia and Latvia, support for the economic Right has been disastrous and has almost destroyed both countries. The Economic Right has little power in Russia and Belarus, with only 10-20% support. It is in power in Ukraine but only because Ukraine has outlawed the parties of half the population, the Russian-speakers. In the Baltics and Ukraine, the anger towards Communism is because the Communists stifled independence movements, though it was Communists who set them free. Anti-Communism is also part of Hungarian and Polish fascism. Anti-Communism in both countries often had an odd socialist tinge.
Booker T: Women want all ugly/older/short/disabled guys to be regulated to the margins of society as unseen, unheard worker drones whose only purpose is to provide the tax revenue that sponsors the lives of women, Chads, and their Chadspawn children. This is no exaggeration. This is EXACTLY what their end goal is!!
You are actually correct. I was a Chad in my youth, so I got spoiled. You would not believe the outrageous shit that women let us Chads get away with! They practically let us get away with murder! No lie!
Now that I am older and apparently unattractive to women, it seems that nothing is more offensive in this world to women than the fact either that I exist in the first place or that I have a sex drive or both.
Almost all young women want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me. They won’t even make friendly conversation. We don’t have to have sex! We don’t have to do anything sexual! But we can’t even be the slightest bit of friends. And what really infuriates people more than anything else is that I still have a sex drive. I still look at women. That really infuriates women, especially young ones. It’s outrageous that I have a sex drive at all! I don’t think they would accept me much if I didn’t have a sex drive, but the fact that I have one seems to drive them completely up the wall.
The incels have been saying this for a long time. They have been saying that women seem to be furious that ugly men even exist at all! It’s like an affront to their existence that these guys even share the planet with them. And the incels said that the fact that they have a sex drive seemed to drive these women particularly crazy.
The feeling seems to be that women are disgusted and outraged at the idea of me having sex at all with anyone. I guess I’m disgusting now and it infuriates women that disgusting men have sex. Although I will grant that even some of the young ones are ok with me chatting up and hitting on women more my age. They just don’t want me having anything to do with young ones. Perhaps they’re not disgusted at the idea of me having sex with a woman my age.
I never quite believed the incels until I started to experience this for myself. Now I know it’s true. The incels are right about so many things. I still don’t agree with a lot of their outlook, especially the hatred of women, but the only reason I like women at all is because they were so good to me back when I was a Chad.
The reason those incels hate women is because women have been treating them like toxic waste their whole lives. You hit a man enough times, he might just hit you back! What do you expect? I’m also quite certain that if those incel guys experienced what I got to experience in my youth, there is no way that most of them would hate women. If people are good to you, you like them. If they’re crappy to you, you hate them. It’s not rocket science.
I think you are right. I’m not sure if they care that we exist, but I think instead that they would prefer us to be out of sight. If we existed but they never saw us, I think they would be quite happy with that.
I read this whole thing but I still can’t really make sense of it. I like to read things that challenge my mind and make me think, especially things I don’t know the answer to. I like to read opinions that are opposite mine, and then I go over to my side and see what our people are saying against these arguments. I even spend time on my enemies’ sites. I spent quite a bit of time on pro-Israel sites recently. The weird thing about that is that after a while, it starts to get under your skin. You get brainwashed. I found myself starting to support Israel for a while, so I stopped reading. I encourage all of you to do this, though.
Consider reading the material of the other side that is completely opposite to what you believe. If it starts making you want to support them, you may want to quit, but at least expose yourself to their arguments. And I have found by doing this that conservatives are actually right on a few things these days, mostly in the cultural sphere. And I am almost a Communist! But I’m not going to reject an idea just because it’s conservative. If conservatives are right, so be it! Hell, if the fascists are right on something, I’ll support that view.
Thing is they’re hardly ever right on anything, but I’m always willing to consider that they might be. Also if you understand your enemies’ arguments, you can understand their motivations and them themselves better. And when you understand them better, you understand your own side better.
Most stuff I read doesn’t really challenge my brain too much. So I do like to read mindbenders that are hard to read or hard to understand. For some reason, I find literary fiction to be among the hardest things that I read in terms of truly understanding it. There’s so much packed in there and you have to pay attention to every sentence and make little pictures in your mind. You really have to pay attention to every word, every sentence! Nothing quite taxes my mind like literary fiction. Pure theory also taxes my mind.
Recently I have been reading sociology theory. I’ve dipped into Durkheim’s Suicide and The Division of Labor in Society. They were both very hard to understand, but they were both quite intelligible. Same thing: they both packed in so many ideas in so short of a space. Each sentence was packed with ideas, often more than one at once.
So when I saw this, I decided I would tax my brain with this stuff. Problem is I hardly understood any of what this guy is talking about. These are reviews of a book Morris Raphael Cohen called A Preface to Logic. It’s philosophy, hardcore philosophy. I must say that philosophy is the most taxing of all. It’s taken me til my 60’s before I could understand Hegel, Nietzsche, and especially Sartre. I still hardly understand Sartre. And I even understand a bit of Kant, and can’t nobody understand that guy. This goes to show you that in some ways you indeed do get smarter as you age.
If any of you dare to read this, let me know if it makes any sense to you at all. It’s Philosophy, particularly the branch of Philosophy called Logic.
Morris Raphael Cohen (1880-1947) was an American philosopher, lawyer, and legal scholar who united pragmatism with logical positivism and linguistic analysis. He wrote other books such as Reason And Nature, An Essay On The Meaning Of Scientific Method, The Faith of a Liberal: Selected Essays, Studies in Philosophy and Science, etc.
He wrote in the Foreword to this 1944 book, A Preface to Logic :
“This volume does not purport to be a treatise on logic. Whatever slight contributions I have been able to make to the substance of logical doctrine have been made elsewhere. What is attempted in the studies that form this volume is an exploration of the periphery of logic, the relations of logic to the rest of the universe, the philosophical presuppositions which give logic its meaning, and the applications which give it importance.
If this voyage of exploration does not settle any of the domains surveyed, I trust that it may at least dispel some doubts as to the existence of these domains and perhaps persuade some who are now inclined to waiver that here are fertile fields which will richly repay honest intellectual labor.” (Pg. x-xi)
He explains in the first chapter:
“The employment of special symbols instead of the more familiar symbols called words, is a practical convenience rather than a logical necessity. There is not a proposition in logic or mathematics that cannot be ultimately expressed in ordinary words (this is proved by the fact that these subjects can be taught to those who do not start with a knowledge of the special symbols). But practically it is impossible to make much progress in mathematics and logic without appropriate symbols.” (Pg. 8)
“Mill’s method of agreement and difference has a limited usefulness as a method of eliminating the circumstances which are not causal, and thereby helping somewhat in finding the true cause. But it is to be observed that the efficiency of this method depends on our fundamental assumption as to what circumstances are relevant or possibly related causally to the given effect. If the true cause is not included in our major premise the ‘canons of induction’ will not enable us to discover it.
If anyone thinks that I have understated the case for these canons of induction as methods of discovery, let him discover by their means the cause of cancer or of disorders in internal secretions.” (Pg. 21)
He comments on the Logical Positivism of Rudolf Carnap:
“Carnap and others deny that any unverifiable proposition has meaning… We do not ordinarily think that the meaning of anything is identical with its verifiable consequences. All sorts of statements are ordinarily deemed significant or meaningful without it ever occurring to us to undertake their verification.
Such is the case, for example, with ordinary suppositions, invitations, statements of problems, expressions of doubt, questions, statements of immediate perception, and statements of logical implications. Surely these and other types of intelligible statement have meaning without being verified. I say to someone, ‘Consider the case of a man drowning.’ This is an intelligible statement that does not call for verification.” (Pg. 57)
“Recent psychology seems to justify the doubt, expressed long ago by Burke, as to whether people who understand what is meant by right, liberty, justice, etc., have any corresponding images other than the words or sounds, and whether even more concrete concepts universally arouse any other images in the course of ordinary rapid conversation or reading.” (Pg. 68)
He points out:
“Consider the usual illustration of induction given in our logic texts, viz., that of the sun rising. Is it true that the more often we have seen it rise the more probable it is that we will see it rise again? If that were the case there would be a greater probability of the man who has been it rise 36,000 times living another day, than the man who had seen it rise 3,600 times—which is absurd. Mill, himself the strongest defender of the claims of induction, admitted with characteristic candor that in some cases a few instances are far more probative than a much larger number of instances in other situations.” (Pg. 106)
“Conclusions are necessitated by the premises because if we follow certain rules of logic all alternative conclusions are shown to be impossible. By ruling out certain possibilities of premises and conclusions we achieve determinate results. In this development of limited possibilities lies the fruitfulness of logic. Mathematics is thus productive as well as deductive. It is an exploration of the field of possibility just as truly as astronomy is an exploration of the field of stellar motions.” (Pg. 181)
Cohen’s book, though more than seventy years old, may still interest modern students of Logic looking for an introduction to the “principles” of the subject. Although Cohen was unrivaled in contemporary American philosophy for the diversity of the subjects with which he occupied himself, it is from Logic that he draws the basic principles that enable him to survey so wide a domain with such a unity of view. Early in life, through the study of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics, he became convinced of the reality of abstract or mathematical relations.
That pure mathematics asserts only logical implications and that such logical implications or relations cannot be identified with either psychological or physical events but are involved as determinants of both seemed to him to offer a well-grounded and fruitful starting point for philosophy. It at once ruled out for him the empiricism of Mill, since relations if they exist in the mind only, cannot connect things external to the mind; it also ruled out for him the Hegelian effort to locate relations in an absolute totality that is beyond human understanding and therefore of no explanatory value.
On the positive side, the doctrine, since it constitutes a ground for the procedures of scientific method generally, permitted him to take full advantage of the remarkable developments of modern scientific thought. It led him also to return to what constituted the concern of classical philosophy before it became preoccupied with the problem of knowledge – mathematics, physics, biology, psychology, ethics, law, art, and religion.
In philosophy proper it enabled him in the course of his extensive writings to raise almost every metaphysical question of importance, and it resulted in the composition of his book Reason and Nature, one of the few inexhaustible philosophical volumes written in America.
When the second edition of Russell’s Principles of Mathematics appeared in 1938, Russell pointed out that the Pythagorean numerology:
“…has misled mathematicians and the Board of Education down to the present day. Consequently, to say that numbers are symbols which mean nothing appears as a horrible form of atheism. At the time when I wrote the Principles, I shared with Frege a belief in the Platonic reality of numbers, which, in my imagination, peopled the timeless realm of Being. It was a comforting faith, which I later abandoned with regret.”
Many of the disciples, however, refused to give up the faith and have busily defended the doctrines of the first edition against those of the second. Cohen long before the appearance of the second edition had detected this shift in Russell’s thought. He remarked that with the publication of the Principles, Russell became his Allah, and that Mohammad has kept the faith, even though Allah himself has perhaps somewhat departed from it.
Perhaps no more bitter controversy has been engendered in the mathematical-logical field than the dispute touched upon briefly by Russell in the passage quoted above.
“What is all this frog-and-mouse battle among the mathematicians about?”
even Einstein paused to ask. Its ramifications were extensive, and the militancy of contemporary Logical Positivism is current evidence that the questions still evoke strong partisanship. Cohen in the present volume pays his respects once again to this and numerous other controversial matters, related more to the metaphysical foundations of logic than to the traditional technical themes.
Logic, for him the most general of all the sciences, attempts to isolate the elements or operations common to all of them. From this it follows that the laws of Logic have no contraries which possess meaning or are applicable to any possible determinate object, a condition which is not true of the special sciences, the systems of which have contraries which are abstractly possible. Cohen’s view is that the distinctive subject matter of Logic is formal truth and that such truth is concerned with the implication, consistency, or necessary connection between objects asserted in propositions, the relations generally expressed by if-then necessarily.
This conception of the subject matter of Logic, although an accurate description of the basic content of classical Aristotelian Logic, has many assailants. In fact it is argued today, so unsettled is the whole matter, that there is no ground for asserting that Logic has any subject matter. Against such a delimitation of the subject matter of formal Logic as that attempted by Cohen, the objection is offered that it is a deduction from a particular philosophy and that the field of Logic should not be determined by such partial considerations.
Cohen’s position avowedly is an expression of his philosophy of Logical Realism. But since his conception of Logic can be deduced from many philosophies – although not all the interpretations which Cohen puts upon the various logical doctrines can be so deduced – the validity of the conception should be judged by other considerations. If a true philosopher is one who has grounds for his belief, then Cohen assuredly in the present case qualifies for that distinction; however, since a true conclusion can follow from a false premise, his understanding of logic is not undermined by a disproof of his philosophy.
The argument that there is no ground in the present condition of logical knowledge to hold that Logic has a distinctive subject matter is an admonition of caution and as such undoubtedly has merit. But in the absence of the construction of a non-Aristotelian Logic in which the contraries of the principles of contradiction and excluded middle are assumed to be true and from which valid inferences can be drawn, we may assume that logical truths have been discovered and that their study is the subject matter of Logic.
Notwithstanding the fact that Cohen’s emphasis is upon the abstract qualities of Logic, he has always been careful to disassociate himself from Logical Positivism, which maintains that formal Logic deals with linguistic expressions without any reference to sense or meaning. This attitude of the logical positivists is a development of Hubert’s Formalism, according to which mathematics is a game played according to simple, definite rules with meaningless marks on paper. Mathematics is held to be comparable to a game of chess.
It is said that chess players do not ask what a particular game “means,” although at some future day, the game may acquire a meaning if it should be interpreted in terms of law, economics, or religion. However, the analogy is not strictly accurate, since today the result of a game of chess may mean that A is better than or equal to B in chess-playing ability. In his application of Hubert’s Idea to Logical Inference, Carnap uses the example of meaningless symbols: From “Pirots karulize elastically” and “A is a Pirot,” we can infer that “A karulizes elastically” without knowing the meaning of the three words or the sense of the three sentences.
Cohen denies that this is so. He points out that Carnap admits these are sentences only because we assume that “Pirots” is a substantive, “karulizes” is a verb (both of these terms being plural in the first sentence and singular in the others) and “elastically” is an adverb describing a way in which a process takes place.
“These expressions [Cohen writes] are therefore not entirely meaningless as would be undiluted gibberish. If instead of “Pirots” we put “the members of any class of objects” and instead of “karulize elastically” we put “are members of another class” we have as an inference that “a member of the first class is necessarily a member of the second class.” And this I submit is the actual meaning which Professor Carnap’s example suggests to anyone to whom the inference seems a valid one. This statement applies to all possible objects irrespective of any of their specific or differential traits but assuredly is not therefore entirely meaningless.”
But is this Carnap’s point? His position in fact is that in order to determine whether or not one sentence is a consequence of another, no reference need be made to the meaning of the sentences; it is sufficient that the syntactical design of the sentences be given. Cohen seems to admit this when he grants that “A karulizes elastically” follows from the premises. Before he made that concession, surely it was not necessary for him to translate the nonsense words of Carnap’s syllogism into his own meaningful sentences.
Although Carnap’s position is not answered by a demonstration that if a certain consequence is deducible from the manipulation of sentences possessing only a syntactical meaning, then a meaning otherwise than syntactical can be read into the sentences, it does point the way to the principal defect of Positivist logic. All that Carnap says may be true, but we are still faced with the problem of giving language a material application. It is of the essence of language from the point of view of science that it communicate meaning with respect to matters which are true or false.
If we start with, “If X, then Y,” the problem is to arrive at, “If Socrates, then mortal,” and not, “If Socrates, then immortal.” If Carnap’s conclusion that Logic is nothing but syntax were true, Logic would lose its scientific significance. Professor Carnap’s effort to meet this problem through his method of obstensive definition reveals the real difficulties of his position. Cohen’s importance in contemporary thought is due as much to his application of the methods of science to problems of human existence as to his technical contributions to philosophy.
Since Hegel, Cohen and Jordan were the only philosophers of standing who concerned themselves extensively with the problems of the legal ordering of society. Thus he rejects altogether the view that since science can deal only with the facts of existence, judgments of what ought to be are so arbitrary that no science of norms is possible. He insists that the essence of science consists of the formulation of hypotheses based upon the best available knowledge and anticipating new situations which can be experimentally tested so that greater determination can be achieved. He maintains that this procedure is open to ethics.
An ethical system, he argues, can achieve the status of a scientific system if adequate hypotheses as to what is good or bad or what is necessary in order to achieve certain ends are developed. This position seems unassailable as far as it goes, but does it answer the real difficulty? It disposes of those who maintain that facts are the starting point of inquiry, but what of those who admit that facts are the ends to be achieved by inquiry and who still deny the possibility of a science of ethics on the ground of the complexity of the subject matter or that of the ultimate irrelevance of ethical judgments to life on this earth?
The hypothetical-deductive system has yielded extraordinary knowledge of the physical world, but that process has been successful in part at least because of the ability of the physicist to simplify and deal only with ideal entities. Where the scientist has not been able to simplify he has failed, as in cancer research. We do not know if the method of simplification, i.e., the pursuit of the implications or effects of one single aspect or factor of a situation, is available in ethical inquiry in any significant sense, since the nature of human conduct may be such that it will not yield to that technique.
Furthermore, since we see no ground for such action we do not today pass judgment on the goodness or badness of the universe, the evilness of volcanic eruptions, or the practice of slavery among the ants. Whatever our preferences may be, Cohen’s argument does not negate the possibility that ethical judgments of human conduct may be just as irrelevant as evaluations of the physical universe. This argument does not foreclose the possibility of a technology of ethics founded on unsystematized preferences and ends in which normative judgments to that extent possess relevance.
But a science of ethics demands as a prerequisite a determinate system, a condition which the complexities of conduct may make impossible. Cohen’s present volume is devoted, as can be seen from the foregoing, to an analysis of problems lying on the borderlines of Logic and not with the customary subject matter of the usual treatises. Since his writing is distinguished by an admirable clarity, his argument can be followed with ease by the intelligent reader. All the topics which he discusses are the subject of radical inquiry in philosophical circles.
They embrace such matters as the nature of propositions, the theory of meaning and implication, the overlap of logical classes, fictions, the statistical view of nature, Logic and the world order and a chapter on probability which is a valuable supplement to the discussion of the same topic in Reason and Nature. These topics may seem innocuous but they harbor questions the analysis of which has led within recent years to actual assassinations of human beings, and the framers of political programs have found it expedient to take official notice of them.
As a whole the volume is one of the best existing statements in the field of Logic of the point of view of that branch of American philosophy which deals with its subject matter through the methods of science.
Manuel Rodriguez: I just wanted to mention briefly how i was studying about Game and mating systems for a while and share some of my findings.
In summary, since men have youthfulness as an significant part on how they score attractiveness on a mate, some feminists are trying harshly to outlaw men from being able to have sex with young women (sometimes reaching ridiculousness), which would eliminate them (those girls) as competitors, increasing their own chances in the mating game. Under the logic of sexual market economy/mating market, women “sell” sex to men.
Much like oil producing OPEC countries have in their best interest to make oil as expensive as possible, is in the interest of women to make sexual access as expensive as they can. Under this logic, banning pornography serves to increase the price of sex. That’s not to say that some of their arguments and demands are invalid, like sex trafficking and enslavement in pornography. Still, one can’t deny that this might be a reason too.
I figured out that the people that attempt to ban prostitution, putting aside religious fundamentalists, are mostly upper middle and high class women, and they do it when they manage to get a majority political control.
Sure, but why do upper middle and upper class women wish to ban prostitution. A lot of them are basically the biggest whores of them all. How do you think they got all that money? You think they earned it on their own? LOL. A lot of them earned it on their backs by getting with rich men!
Yes, banning porn does increase the price of sex, or Pussy as I call it.
This is a perfect comment. I call it the Pussy Market. That’s crude, but that’s what it is. It’s in women’s interest to keep the price of Pussy as high as possible and furthermore to restrict the supply of Pussy as much as possible. As there is a chronic Pussy shortage, shortages of products always drive up prices.
Therefore, the more women restrict the supply of Pussy, the more the price goes up. That’s one of the main reasons they want to keep teenage girls, even 16 and 17 year old girls, off the market. Those girls compete with women and they go straight for the best of the best men in my experience. It’s hard for a woman to compete with a jailbait hottie, and hundreds of millions of men will fuck these girls if they get a chance.
In Sweden, feminists are trying to outlaw men taking mail order brides simply to dry up the Pussy supply and drive up the price of Pussy. Swedish women are such horrendous feminists now that Swedish men are just bailing on these bitches altogether. They are going over to Thailand to pick up traditional Thai women, who incidentally do make very good wives. Instead of quitting being such awful bitches so there men might like them more, they are outlawing the competition.
Feminists are also trying very hard to outlaw sex dolls. I don’t really care about these dolls and I’ve never used one. But it’s obvious that these things are used as Pussy substitutes, and men using them drives down demand for Pussy, which drives down the price. Men also use porn instead of having sex with women, so this also drives down demand for Pussy. Declining demand means declining prices. I’m not sure about prostitution.
I suppose if prostitution exists, men can buy prostitutes instead of dating ordinary women, so that might drive down the demand for Pussy. But on the other hand, that prostitution exists at all shows most women that they can get money for Pussy. If women find out you have even bought a prostitute, a lot of them will narrow their eyes, knowing that they have a sucker who pays for pussy. Women find allegiance with prostitutes. After all, prostitutes are doing what all the rest of them are doing, which is charging for pussy.
I had a Black girlfriend once whose eyes lit up when I told her I had bought a few prostitutes in my day. To her that meant I was a sucker idiot who paid for Pussy, and now she felt even more motivated to charge me than she already did. And boy did charge me. By the way, no race of women has a more whorish attitude towards sex than Black women.
As long as all these whores are out there charging top dollar for Pussy, a lot of women look at that and say, “Hmmmm, I should charge too, just like them.” It sets an example. I’m not sure if outlawing prostitution would affect the Pussy market in any way. Obviously it increases the Pussy shortage and increases the demand for Pussy, therefore, it probably drives up the price of Pussy. But I’m not sure if it works out that way in real life.
There is no race of women who has the idea that men need to pay good money to access their pussies than Black women. And no race of women has a prostitution and pseudo-prostitution rate as high as Black women.
I still meet Black women who are frankly prostitutes in one way or another. This race of women also seems to think that there is nothing wrong with prostitution. 45% of female prostitutes are psychopaths. In fact, prostitute is the typical outcome of a female psychopath. Black women have psychopathy rates twice as high as White women. This does not mean that Black women are psychopaths. The Psychopathy Scale ranges from 0-40. Reportedly most people score more than zero, so we are all at least a bit psychopathic. This is no concern to me as a bit of psychopathy in the human is quite normal. It’s pure mammalian beast logic.
Let’s say White women have a Psychopathy score on the PCL of 4, which may well be their average. Then Black women would have a Psychopathy score on the PCL of 8. You need a score of 20 to be a psychopath. My point is that even among us normal non-psychopaths, people can be more or less psychopathic. And you can be pretty damn psychopathic and still score below 20. The 20+ scores are for the true outliers, the pure psychopaths and sociopaths that cause so much damage. So perhaps this more casual attitude towards whoring among Black women is due to increased psychopathy.
A commenter: Crying is for MEN AND WOMEN. For centuries the patriarchy has stuffed us with bullshit where women are considered the weak that cry and men are MEN.
If a man crying will not be respected by the woman, it is most likely due to the fact the man has done some ‘manly’ thing, she is just not interested that much in him, or the woman is just too influenced by the patriarchy.
Advice from another man: Cry your eyes out, experience emotions, you are a brittle and sensitive human being.
You know what? Normally I would agree with you. On the other hand, I have known men who just cried too much. It was pussy, sissy, weak behavior. They were not gay but they were wimpy, and worse, they were male feminists who believed in rape culture and the rest of that nonsense.
I felt like you for many years. I finally gave up and caved in to the patriarchy. Women want toxic masculinity in men. IMHO, that’s pretty much all they want. I would be surprised to find a woman who would tolerate anything less in a man, especially nowadays. I’m a man who has had women troubles my whole life due to the fact that I seem soft. Women interpret that to mean pussy, gay, wimpy, weak, etc., and they get aggressive and try to dom me or bully me or they turn into bitches.
A lot of sadistic bitches deliberately hook up with what they see as weak men so they can kick their asses their whole lives. And some of these women may indeed love their men. It’s terrible to be in a relationship like that. The last thing you want to hear from other women is, “We don’t like the way she treats you! She is really mean to you, and we don’t like it!” It’s nice that they have your back, but it looks terrible. If you are out in public and she is bitching you out, people will look at you with disgust. Hispanics, both men and women, are by far the worst about this.
I used to call myself a pure androgyne along the lines of Bowie, the Dolls, or Mick Jagger. That worked back in the 70’s and early 80’s when everyone was like that and men had the freedom to act that way, but we no longer have that freedom.
Society has gone completely backwards in the way men are allowed to express ourselves. And this change has been enforced by women. Most toxic masculinity is enforced by women. Most men accept me as a perfectly masculine man because I walk the walk and talk the talk. But what works with men does not work with women. Women are far more demanding in terms of masculinity than men are. Further, they don’t understand the meaning of masculinity in the male world. They have a cartoon version of masculinity that does not line up at all with what men experience with other men.
I’ve basically given up and I act a lot more masculine now. I must say my life with women has gotten a lot better. I also cuss out girlfriends in the meanest way possible when they get out of line with me. Since I started doing this, I have never had such deep relationships with women. Women have loved me more than they ever did before.
I think women want a mean man. Not one who is mean all the time, but one is mean sometimes. All you have to be is mean sometimes. You can be a real nice guy all the rest of the time. But you can’t let her get away with shit, and you can’t let her get out of line. If she does, read her the riot act. It is also important that your woman be a bit afraid of you.
The more afraid of you she is, the less she will bitch you out. A woman who bitches you out a lot is often doing it because she’s not afraid of you. If she’s afraid of you and bitching you out, then she’s just a crazy, suicidal bitch. No woman should bitch out a scary man without a good reason, but they do it all the time. I call that “trying to get murdered.” Which, by the way, is also something women do all the time. Unsurprisingly, sometimes when women are trying to do this, they actually achieve their goal. That is, they get murdered.
We don’t talk about it, much, but we know it. You’re just not supposed to admit it. When I’m down, it’s obvious. The older man at the store will ask me how I am doing. If I am really down, I will shrug my shoulders. That’s means I’m down in ManWorld talk. You’re saying you’re depressed, but you are saying it in an acceptable way. Then he would say, “Hanging in there, huh?” or “Surviving, right?” I say, “That’s right.”
In ManWorld you can get depressed, but you almost have to be hanging in there and surviving. That is, coping. You’re not supposed to let depression knock you out of service. That’s not acceptable and it’s also cowardly. You probably should not stay too depressed for too long, either. I always try to keep my spirits up, even when I’m down. I usually say I’m ok or all right if people, even when I’m down.
Sometimes I will admit that things are not going well for me, and other men will respond by just cutting off contact with me. That’s what we men and even a lot of women do. Depression and bad vibes are contagious. Depressed people are depressing. They make you depressed. That’s why people avoid them. Depressed people also remind a lot of people that their lives are pretty depressing too, but they are denying and smiling their way out of it. Being around a depressed person reminds them of how fake their happiness is.
Defenses work best when they are relatively unconscious. The more conscious a defense is, the less well it works.
That’s why people get upset when you talk psychology. “Enough psychobabble!” These are usually extroverted Normies, usually men who are not too young. They are dealing with life by simply refusing to look inside of themselves and denying everything that is unpleasant down there. When you even mention the word psychology, you remind them of how fake their happiness and adjustment is and how it’s all based on mass forgetting and refusing to look at a whole lot of things inside of themselves. You remind them that there’s a creepy closet in their psyche full of all sorts of scary monsters who they are too scared to even look at, hence they are acting like scared little 7 year old boys.
A lot of people also think “depression is evil.” They think people choose to be miserable and by choosing this, they are making an immoral choice. They are sort of like criminals. They’re bad people! That’s a Hell of a way to feel about depressed people like that, but it’s not uncommon. Usually seen in a professional person of either sex aged ~30-40.
After 40, you’ve seen so much depression and probably experienced enough of your own that it’s hard to call depressed people evil anymore. It hits too close to home. Also, by 40, almost everyone has had about a million bad things happen to them, and most people simply don’t think that their shit doesn’t stink anymore. There is a humility that comes with middle age, even to the most arrogant people. The weight of time and life humbles us all.
If a person past age 40 is still arrogant and highly narcissistic, something is badly wrong. A lot of times you are looking at Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That said, even the narcissist can only lie to himself for so long before even he has to admit it’s all a big fake job. Time and age is hard on the narcissist. Time not only heals all wounds, but it also wounds all heels, even narcissistic heels.
There is a decline in many functions and appearances with age, not the least of which is personal appearance. You can cover it up with makeup and even plastic surgery and a lot of extreme Denial so strong that you look right in the mirror and your mind literally distorts your own reflection. Yes, defenses can cause actual perceptual distortions.
But at some point, all the patching up isn’t going to work anymore, and the narcissist will have to deal with the painful reality that he is no longer so goodlooking or hot anymore, and in fact, he is now a homely aging or old person. This is very hard for the narcissist to take, and a lot of narcissists become depressed in middle to old age. At some point all the defenses collapse and the whole structure comes tumbling down, leaving them dazed, bruised, and forced to look at the reality of their own personal wreckage.
A healthy person can be fairly ok with this. For example, I joke:
I think my looks are shot, but a lot of women still tell me I’m hot. I don’t get it.
Of course, I don’t really believe that, but it works pretty well as self-deprecating humor, and it’s the opposite of narcissism. And I’d be lying if I wasn’t fishing for compliments* when I say that.
The woman, even a young one – Hell, even an underage teenage girl, usually says:
“No way! You are handsome!”
To which I respond,
“Really? Well, if you say so.”
Humility, fake or not, tends to go over pretty well as long as you don’t act like you hate yourself. If you have egotistical tendencies (and I do), it knocks you down to other people’s level, and people like it when you meet them on their level, whether it’s genuine or not.
I’m starting to think that no one cares how you really feel about them. Life is all about appearances, and appearances are by their very nature quite fake, at least in us showboating human egoists. Walk the walk and talk the talk and you’re done. Fake it til you make it.
Everyone acts like this is an immoral way to walk through life, except that people who say that are probably doing the exact same thing. In a sense, our interactions with other humans are best seen as a series of roles that we are playing in a drama with the other humans as co-actors. Shakespeare remarked on this. Yet it’s true. How many of us is truly genuine and why in the Hell would that be a good idea anyway?
Know one but you knows what is in your mind, so your thoughts are important to you only and are never important to anymore else until you verbalize them, which isn’t mandatory and is often a bad idea. Thoughts originate in your head and are often best kept right there. Thoughts aren’t illegal yet either; though don’t fret, the feminists and SJW’s are working real hard on it, and there should be some legislation to deal with thought crime soon.
In a way, the best social actors are those who can play a variety of roles. If you always play one role, fine. But in some cases, you may need to try on a new role. I’ve played all sorts of roles in life, and I like to try new ones all the time. It’s pretty fun and it’s an escape from egoism, narcissism, and solipsism because it gets you out of your damned head for once, and it also makes you realize that this thing called “you,” your actual identity, is in a way fake too, as fake as all these roles you are play. It’s manufactured, created or socially constructed as the postmodernists like to say.
Age is painful for us all, but healthier people, as the British like to say, “manage to muddle through anyway.” But here the narcissist is in trouble because at a fundamental level, he is simply not healthy.
It is no secret that a lot of narcissists are very goodlooking, highly intelligent, or quite skilled at this or that. A lot of narcissists really are superior to most of the rest of us. Nevertheless, you’re not supposed to act like it. If you do, you will make everyone mad because no one likes to be talked down to.
*Supposedly fishing for compliments sucks, but you know what, readers? You all go ahead and fish for all the damned compliments you want. Life’s tough enough as it is. We all deserve a break and a pat on the back now and then.
Mostly just lots of short stories these days. They’re all considered classic literature. One book is a set of French short stories by writers who are considered to write classic literature.
The French book was published in 1960, so we are dealing with dated material here, all over 60 years old:
Charles Baudelaire: Paris Spleen (1869). “Prose poems or proems,” an odd literary form. Very nice. I have read The Flowers of Evil (both are books of poetry), and I cannot recommend them highly enough, especially Le Fleurs du Mal. French Symbolist literature, or more properly, Decadent literature, from the late 1800’s. He hung out with Paul Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud and Stéphane Mallarmé, all of them haunting Parisian bars in drunken ecstasy.
He as actually straight, unlike some of those other guys who were homosexuals. He was sickly, nuts, erratic, a drug-addict, flake, dilettante, gambler, spendthrift, and heavy drinker who lived his whole life in poverty. He attempted suicide once. Dead at 46. Marcel Proust said Baudelaire was the greatest poet of the 19th Century. He was also praised by Edmund Wilson and T. S. Eliot, who actually referred to himself as a “Baudelarian.” He was claimed by both conservatives and liberals. On the left, Walter Benjamin praised him.
Francois Mauriac: The Grand-Lebrun (1933). First thing I ever read by this guy. Has a James Joyce feel about it, especially Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.
In the other book, published in 1968, so these stories are all over 50 years old:
Anton Chekhov: Misery (1885) and Rothschild’s Fiddle (1894). These are better than either of the French stories. This is the first Chekhov I have read. He’s 19th Century Russia, so I warn you, these stories, like most Russian lit from that time, are depressing and gloomy as Hell. Someone either dies, has just died, or will soon die, or all three at once. Nevertheless, his style is truly amazing and heartrendingly beautiful and sad. He is said to be one of the masters of the short story.
Ernest Hemingway: Big Two-Hearted River (1925). This one also is almost perfect. Classic Hemingway understated yet perfect prose. He doesn’t waste a sentence or probably a word. His writing is based on the Iceberg Theory. I’ve also read a number of his novels A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls,The Old Man and the Sea, and The Sun Also Rises. I also read Death in the Afternoon (nonfiction) along with In Our Time and Men without Women, short story collections.
William Faulkner: Dry September (1930). Nice little story, terrible subject matter. He catches the South in all of its casual brutality. I also read Light in August, and it is excellent. Can’t recommend it enough. It’s written a lot in stream of consciousness, so you have to pay attention to whose mind he is in and who’s talking at the time. Also a lot of it is in dialect.
Vladimir Nabokov: First Love (1943). This story is just gorgeous, but it’s not an easy read at all. He’s one of my favorite writers ever, truly one of the greats. However, he is not an easy read at all. Like Hemingway, his work is full of hidden details, references, clues, puns, on and on. I’m not sure if it’s possible for the non-intellectual to read his stuff on an entertainment level.
I’ve also read Lolita and Bend Sinister. Both are good, but Lolita, the story of a pedophile (or hebephile) child molester and relationship with the extremely precocious, gum-smacking 12 year old sexpot Lolita, is out of this world, one of the greatest books of the 20th Century. I do know that it can be read on different levels though, and even at a basic level, it is incredible. If you wish to go hunting for the endless Easter eggs peppered all through this symbolism-shot book, you can do that too. If you haven’t read it, do so. Don’t worry about the disturbing subject matter. It’s something we talk about all the time anyway. We just don’t talk about it like this.
Richard Wright: The Man Who Lived Underground (1944). This is the first I have read of this author, the famous Black writer of the classic Native Son, which I probably need to read sometime. He’s very angry and all of his writing is about racism and Whites’ unjust treatment of Blacks. His writing is cold, vicious, cruel, and often horribly violent. But if you can handle him, he’s quite good. And to be fair, Blacks were treated terribly back when he was writing.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: EPICAC (1950) and Next Door (1955). Both of these were great! Both of them are as good as a Chekhov or Borges short story, and that’s the gold standard. There’s often a wild twist at the end.
I’ve read quite a few books of his. I’ve read Breakfast of Champions or Goodbye Blue Monday!; Cat’s Cradle; God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater or Pearls Before Swine; Happy Birthday, Wanda June; Mother Night; Player Piano; Sirens of Titan; Slaughterhouse-Five or The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death, all novels. I’ve also read Welcome to the Monkey House, a book of short stories (now rereading it). In addition, I read Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons (Opinions), nonfiction.
Vonnegut is very nice. He’s quite simple and anyone can read him. But his work is nevertheless absolutely brilliant. Because it’s so simplistic, there’s a tendency to see him as overrated, until you read him again and you realize just how brilliant he really is. If you like easy reading, I’d recommend any of the books above. They’re entertaining and funny, too, often in a self-deprecatory way. As a person, he was a huge asshole to just about everyone, but again, that’s not unusual with these genius types. They’re out to lunch in a lot of ways, and socially can be one of them.
Carson McCullers: The Sojourner and The Jockey (both 1955). First I have read of her too. Interesting writer. Sort of Hemingway-like, understated stuff. Overtones of melancholy.
James Allen McPherson: On Trains (1961). I had never even heard of this author before and at first I thought it was just the author trying to be antiracist by throwing in some Black (or other designated oppressed minority) author to get woke points. I was shocked. He’s excellent. If you like Black writers, check this guy out.
He writes about race a lot, but in a subtle, understated, matter of fact way, sort of like Faulkner. But he also deals with the reality of Black-White sexual relationships, which was probably controversial in his day. When he went to Yale, he had already experienced quite a bit of racism, but he seemed more philosophical and “I’m going to show those White boys how good I am” about it. He’s not nearly as militant and angry as Wright.
John Updike: A & P (1962) and The Doctor’s Wife (1962). A & P is one of the all-time greats. Then again, not much happens. But that’s true of the best short stories of all.
Consider For Esme, with Love and Squalor by J. D. Salinger. What happens? Not a whole lot. But it’s one of the best short stories of its time. And Updike is rather like Salinger in that way. His writing is very subtle and to figure it out properly, you need to get down below the basic writing to figure out what he’s really getting at. He shows. He doesn’t tell.
And dialogue is very important. He deals well with shades of emotion, feeling, and mental states that are often pretty hard for us to put our fingers on, and we would probably deny them even if we could. There can be a sense of lost opportunity or hypocrisy. His male characters are often gross sexists.
Misogyny is often apparent. I’m reading a recent novel of his, Towards the End of Time, and the same thing is going on. In many cases, this has to do with the author’s relationships with his ex-wives. But the lyrical Melvillean prose dancing off the pages of of this much later novel is joyous to read just for style alone..
I also read Hugging The Shore, a book of his book reviews and literary criticism. It was very good.
Donald Barthelme: Margins (1961) and See the Moon? (1966). This is literally some of the strangest and weirdest fiction I’ve ever read. It’s like this new fiction style called Weird. That’s about the only way to describe it. However, as an author, he is absolutely brilliant in a lot of different ways. You wonder how one man carried all this knowledge and insight in his 10 pound brain. I liked these stories, but they sure were weird all right. Plus which not much happens, but apparently that’s the idea.
I’ve read Amateurs; Come Back, Dr. Caligari; Forty Stories; Great Days; Sadness; Sixty Stories; Snow White; and Unspeakable Practices, Unnatural Acts, all short story collections. There was a time in the 80’s when I was binging on that stuff.
Jorge Luis Borges: The Secret Miracle (1962) and Funes the Memorious (1967). Borges is the great Argentine writer, one of the best writers of the last century. Nevertheless, he’s not for everyone and he’s a bit hard to get into. This writing is similar to Barthelme’s, but it is on a whole different level. It has been called magical realism. It has been called a lot of things. But there is no writing quite like it anywhere else.
It’s a bit like Gabriel Garcia Marquez of 100 Years of Solitude fame. After all, they are both South Americans and magical realism was birthed on the continent. He’s also rather like Ray Bradbury in terms of showing us fantastic and otherworldly visions of our world which are at once our own world and then again, something else entirely. I’ve always felt there was a bit of Franz Kafka in there too. There’s often a sense of tragedy in his writing, and usually someone dies. Death is always waiting around the corner. I’ve Ficciones and Labyrinths, both short story collections, during my time at university from 1978-1981.
John Barth: Life-Story (1968). John Barth wrote in The Literature of Exhaustion in 1967 that the novel form was used up and there was not much to do anymore as it had all already been done. It caused quite a stir on the lit scene. It appeared around the time that Roland Barthes, a literary critic, wrote The Death of the Author. Both are considered to be seminal texts in the emerging movement of postmodernism. Much literary criticism now continues to echo Barthes in positioning “author” and “reader” as completely different battling entities. It spends a lot of time mining the interplay between the two.
In 1980, he wrote The Literature of Replenishment in which he singled out Borges and Nabokov (see above) as two writers who were indeed doing new things with the novel instead of the same old same old.
Barth’s writing is self-consciously postmodern. After The Floating Opera and The End of the Road, things started getting weird. He became known for metafiction, that is fiction about the writing of fiction. The “writer” of whatever piece you are reading will often make an appearance, say a few things, and disappear.
Perhaps he will remind you that you’re only reading a book. Perhaps he will say that the story you are reading is really a story about an author writing a story. Which is about an author writing a story. And on and on. Get the picture? He was the first professor of Creative Writing in the US in 1953, although that is hard to believe. Now these departments are everywhere and all of their graduates are churning out at least a novel or two. To say we are swamped is an understatement.
His writing is full of a lot of self-conscious talk about novel-writing, how to write a novel, the components of a novel, the various ways one can choose in which to write a novel, the levels on which you can write them, characterization, plot, background, conflict, on and on. He often starts talking about this right in the middle of your reading, so you are reading along and then this “author” guy pops up and tells you there’s going to be a big plot change coming up ahead, so get ready for it. It’s weird and jarring but it’s very interesting.
This stuff is very hard to read and can be quite confusing at times. It’s also frustrating. But if you like to bend your mind a bit, this is a good place to do it.
I have read The Sot Weed Factor. That’s considered to be his best book.
You either like this writer or you don’t. I assure you that he is absolutely brilliant. But he’s not for everyone and some may find him a bore or end up throwing the book at the wall. Caveat emptor.
Saul Bellow: “A Father to Be” (1953): Interesting little story. In his early novels and short stories, the wild goings-on in the heads of his characters, who all have very rich and complex fantasy and emotional lives, is matched by the world, which is about as strange and active as the material in their heads. This can be seen in Dangling Man, The Victim, and even in The Adventures of Augie March and Seize the Day. After that, things start getting really weird and the outside world or the plots start veering way off course from the character’s inner lives. The mismatch between the two offers a lot of the conflict.
I have read Humbolt’s Gift at university, but I found it a bit of a chore honestly, and it was also rather boring. But then, I was 22, so hey. Maybe if I read it again at my age, I might get a lot more out of it.
It’s about the poet Delmore Schwartz, whose live was as wild as his poems. He wrote Under Milkwood, a Play for Voices. I’d never read it but maybe it’s not supposed to be read with your eyes. Maybe as the title implies, it’s supposed to be heard with your ears. I heard it on the radio one and the genius and brilliance of it was almost impossible to fathom. It was as good as Ulysses. Really. I don’t even know how he did it? How can one man do such a thing.
He drank himself to death at an early age like so many of these guys do. The story is he went to a bar and asked how many drinks he would have to drink to die and people at the bar estimated 17. So he proceeded to then drink precisely 18 drinks of alcohol. You know how this story ends, right? He died. Call it a suicide. Or a parasuicide. Anyway, it’s a typical way for this types, men as well as women, to take their final sleep.
I think the most common cause of death in poets must be suicide. And so many of them are depressives or manic-depressives. But it’s a fine line between creativity and mental illness and that’s why so many of us artistic types are so nutty. Yeah, I consider myself an artsy type. If I’m not, sue me. Anyway, it’s a great excuse for being crazy!
Also, an unbelievable number of poets are more or less gay. A lot of the women are lesbian or bi and often dykey or mannish. Gay male poets are almost a stereotype. But then the link between the Arts and Homosexuality was noted as far back as Antiquity. Some have even suggested that should a cure for homosexuality or genetic testing show up, we might want to keep gays around just for their creativity. As with so many questions of some but not great importance, I’m inclined to leave that up in the air or for the Gods to work out, which is basically the same thing.
A while back I was going through a bunch of poets because I had nothing better to do with my time and I kept running into this Gay-Suicide-Poet thing. A lot of the women’s dykeyness was turning me off, and I was terribly sad to find out that some of my favorite male authors were batting for the other team.
Then I achieved an epiphany. I don’t really if so many of these poets are faggots, dykes, and suicides or some combination of first two and the third, their lives were worth it and glorious and beautiful and perfect just for leaving us that sublime silver prose that sings off the pages as we read it. They did not die in vain. And perhaps there’s a place in the world for folks like that. It takes all types to fill the freeways.
The feminists hate Ernest Hemingway and call him a sexist macho pig, but that’s a bum rap. His women are often very good, and it’s not uncommon that they are stronger than the men. In fact, a lot of his men are rather weak and pussy-whipped and the woman is wearing the pants. Considering Hemingway’s macho demeanor, this is odd.
Philip Roth has a reputation for drawing shrewish, screeching harpies for his female characters. Presumably, his wives or ex-wives figure into this. However, an ex-wife of his was interviewed and she said he was more boring that sexist or misogynistic. He wrote a solid four hours a day and then spent eight hours reading literary fiction. 12 hours a day, all used up. He was pretty much inaccessible during those periods. Roth was also a massive narcissist, but that’s not uncommon in famous male writers. Come to think of it, a lot of male artists of all kinds are narcissistic. Sort of goes with the territory.
Saul Bellow had a similar reputation when he wrote about wives and ex-wives, but he married four times. I think it’s a bit of a bum rap in his case.
Henry Miller was grotesquely and ridiculously misogynistic. He was the classic misogynistic player who spent his life drowning in pussy even though he was a huge asshole and he was pretty mean to boot. Anais Nin, who was very close to him, once called him on his misogyny, and he protested that he loved women, after all, he was surrounded by them all the time. But all misogynistic playboys are like this. They look down on or possibly even hate women, don’t treat them well, and women reward these semi-sociopathic misogynists by drowning them in pussy.
There’s also the player or womanizer who loves women or ladies’ man. He simply can’t get enough of them and even prefers to spend his time with women instead of men. He even thinks like a woman, somewhat. He’s often very goodlooking and he’s a bit softer than the other kind. He doesn’t treat women very well either, but he does love them.
Bukowski was a serious misogynist. A drunken raging creep. I remember one interview in his home where he drunkenly picked up a chair and hurled it at whichever Young Woman Writer Groupie Du Jour was staying with him, and he added in a ton of abuse. And she hadn’t done much to deserve it. In addition, he was a proud alcoholic and he was also probably the ugliest man that ever lived, yet he got lots of women his whole life. Go figure.