This film is about this older American woman falling in love with an mentally challenged Australian man half her age (Mel Gibson). While this might be a touching and interesting story on IQ and age differences being overcome, we just can’t ignore the fact that Mel Gibson is attractive to women, or at least he was at that age. In that case, it’s easy to make fun of this movie.
They could have just gotten a less attractive person – or even worse – and gotten him to fall in love with the woman. That might have seemed less fake and cheesy.
What middle class/rich women doesn’t want to fall in love with the hired help – lol? Which of them wouldn’t want to teach him to read, especially after going on beach outings where he’s strutting around in what looks like underwear?
Why not? What’s so fun about dating good girls, unless you’re a bad boy? I mean, good needs to help bad, right? It’s just a natural dynamic. In fact, I don’t understand how two good people could get along. Well, maybe two bad people could get along, but it might even get boring there. Well, definitely a pair of two bad people could be very dangerous – so it would be too unhealthy for such a pair maybe.
This post has now been updated. See here for the April 4 update. It’s even crazier than this update!
This post is very long. It runs to 29 pages. I’m sorry but I’m afflicted with both graphomania and logorrhea (same thing). We writers love to write and once we get started, we just can’t quit, like any other addiction to dope, gambling, sex, porn, or whatever. Except you never get the peak high, and there’s no post-high crash. The high continues the whole time, and there’s relief when you’re done as in an accomplished chore instead of a crash. Sort of, “I’m sure glad that’s over.” We love it yet it’s a chore. Kind of like, you know, life.
You just can’t stop. Supposedly writing too much is a sign of a lousy writer, but then we must convict Balzac and Dickens, not to mention encyclopedists like Pynchon and the king of the graphomaniacs, Proust. I’d rather not do that.
It’s not so much the sign of a lousy writer as the sign of a writer, as in a born writer, a real writer. Just as there are men and real men, so there are writers and real writers.
Obviously it’s a flaw. It’s violates White’s Manual of Style (Keep it simple, stupid) and a lot of other things, including the reader’s precious time. But all great things come with flaws just as there is a bit of good in even most horrors.
Anyway, what do you think editors are for? To mop up our Niagra of words, that’s what.
A bit here on my ever-growing army of haters. I’ve met some new folks lately, and they all say, “You know, I heard all these horrible things about you, but I wasn’t sure if they were true. Now that I contacted you, I know it’s all garbage. You’re like the nicest guy in the world.” Well, yeah. The obvious conclusion of someone who really knows me. Which is like…just about no one.
Anyway, haters, oh haters! If you hate me so much, why do you read? I don’t get it. I don’t read people I hate. I might use their prose for toilet paper or lining bird cages, but I certainly won’t read it. I have better things to do, like enjoying life instead of hating it like you do. If you hate me that much, just go away. Don’t read. Unless you’re someone to whom hate is as valuable as oxygen. In that case, do come and get your fix.
One more thing. Nothing the haters ever said about me is true except that I’m broke, don’t have a regular job, and at one point my car broke down and I didn’t have the money to fix it. None of the sexual proclivities or obsessions they say I have are true. I don’t mind people who think that way, but it’s not for me, sorry. Once again, anyone who really knows me figures this out. Which, once again, is like, just about nobody.
How bout one more one more thing, just to try your patience? There’s a lot of graphic commentary below, including gruesome descriptions of the brutal murders of two young teenage girls. True crime is a nasty beast by its nature. There’s no way to pretty up this pig. If your true crime commentary isn’t brutal, you’re avoiding the facts. If you have a sensitive stomach about such things, just don’t read. Go read about flowers or something instead.
Oh, one more two more things. There are are blown up and edited to Hell images below taken from a helicopter hovering over the crime scene. In the images, some can make out the outlines of the two young victims. Not much is visible. They may as well be stick figures. Nevertheless, a lot of tender folks freak out on such things. So don’t look at them. Have a cup of coffee and think of sunshine and smiles instead.
Oh and one more three things. I would like to officially thank “Cory Ahlm” and “Ryan Vanslooten,” whoever the Hell they are, assuming they even exist in the first place, two of my very best friends going so far back I can’t even remember when we first met. They’ve been with me from the start and the start of this case, and I couldn’t have done anything without them. I could barely have existed without them! Speaking of which, I wish I was in California! The weather here is fit for Polar Bears and few else. By the way, I’ve heard of doppelgangers, but who ever thought there could be a double doppelganger? Only in the movies!
This will be a follow-on to my earlier post here. Anything published in the early post that has not changed will not be republished here. Only new items and old items that have changed will be listed here.
First of all, about the purpose of this website. The purpose of this site has simply been a clearinghouse for rumors about the Delphi Murders on Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi, Indiana, on February 13, 2017. That’s all we ever wrote. It’s true we were fast and loose with some of those rumors, reporting them as truth, and that is unfortunate. But that’s how it goes in this business.
So every time you hear people bashing the Hell out of this site for something we printed, keep in mind that that was just some rumor we heard and printed. That’s all it ever was. Of course, we have been trying to winnow the rumors down into those we have more confidence and less confidence in from the very start, but that’s easier said than done.
I would estimate that 95% of the rumors I have printed about this case have proven to be false. In fact, 95% of anything you have heard about this case anywhere over time is probably false.
I suppose I should go over some of these old dead rumors because idiots keep accusing us of pushing these theories. Now, when I say a rumor is considered dead, not credible, false, not true, etc., please leave me alone and quit accusing me of pushing an old story I’ve long since discredited. I will start with dead rumors or highly dubious rumors. After I do that, I will discuss rumors that have more credibility.
Dead or Highly Dubious Rumors
The barn theory: Has to do with the Mears barn across the street from Ron Logan’s house. We have a photo of cadaver dogs searching the barn. Also there was a small shrine with flowers inside the structure. And the owners acted very strange when we asked if the barn had been used in the crime. The barn theory is continuing to be pushed by a woman who says the girls were removed from the area, taken to the barn, killed there, and then returned to the dump site. Despite all of this, we regard the barn story as dead.
The initial K was carved in trees at the crime scene. We got this secondhand from a LE source. Turns out it was a bad rumor. As you can see, LE sources are not so reliable.
The White Dodge Dart: We formerly thought this had something to do with the crime. Turns out it was a great big dead end, one of many in this case. A white Dodge Dart is not involved in the case.
The crime had Satanic overtones. Indeed, we theorized this in the early days after the crime. In part it was due to bizarre reports from people who saw crime scene photos that the crime appeared to have occult or Satanic overtones. We now feel that this is false. There is no evidence of occult or Satanic overtones to this crime.
A previous report said that Abby was raped via PIV sex and fluids were left at the scene. This rumor is now judged false. The rumor also stated that the motive of the crime was the rape of Abby Williams. This is also false.
A previous report stated that the girls were bound with ropes around their backs. We judge that false. Instead, we believe that they were handcuffed.
A previous report said that the crime scene “begins in the Robertson’s backyard and continues for 1,000 feet.” We regard this as unconfirmed to say the least. Probably best disregarded for now.
A previous report said that at least two searchers touched the bodies and one tried to revive the girls with mouth to mouth resuscitation. We now regard this rumor as probably false and unconfirmed to say the least. There’s no evidence for it at the moment.
A previous report said that the cause of death of Abby Williams was a knife wound to the heart. We now judge this as rumor as false. Instead, we feel, via Leaker, that Abby was struck over the head with a blunt object (we believe it was the killer’s gun). She was also stabbed in the main artery of her neck. It is not known which assault was fatal.
A previous report said that some sort of bleach or toilet bowl cleaner was thrown on the girls’ bodies, in particular their genitalia, in order to destroy DNA evidence of the crime. This is rumor is unconfirmed.
Our POI: We had a sleuthing group with 200 members. I had a POI and I built quite a large case against him. In fact, LE contacted us and asked us to send them everything we had on this man. In addition, the Indiana State Police were verified as harassing this man at one point by repeatedly calling him on the phone. I know the name of the detective who was doing that, too. In addition, this man was a suspect according to the FBI, who tricked him into coming up to Michigan, only to detain and get a DNA sample from him.
As you can see this man was a considered a suspect by both the FBI and the ISP, so please stop accusing us of harassing him. We never published his name one time over the years, and I will not do it now. I won’t even publish his initials. We had a private pay-only group where we discussed him, but that was it. That’s like talking about someone within the confines of a private home. This man also made a series of videos where he seemed to be confessing to being the Bridge Guy (the UNSUB in the murders). In addition, he seemed to be taunting LE and viewers in these videos. Excuse me for suspecting that a guy who making videos almost literally confessing to being BG might actually be the killer!
This man is not a very nice person, but I no longer feel that he had anything to do with this crime. His quasi-confessions go down on the list of false confessions in this case. Counting hazy cases like this, I count four false confessions so far.
I would apologize to him for falsely accusing him behind closed doors, but he threatened to murder me many times, so I’ll pass on that. In cases like these, possible suspects who seem like good possibilities for being the culprit are often run through the ringer, only to be dismissed. They’re often pretty suspicious people. I’d appreciate it if people would leave this fellow alone. He’s not very pleasant anyway.
Rumors That Have More Credibility
The girls’ bodies were violated with sticks and branches. We have caught Hell and high water for this one, however, this rumor has some staying power.
It showed up quickly within a week of the murders when a local young man published photos of the crime scene that he had somehow obtained. He described the murders as “occult-like” and wondered if there was an occult or Satanic connection. He described a branch plunged into the body of one of the girls.
Next, we received confirmation of this via an associate of a detective working on the case. He had told his SO details about the case, and we got the data from there. This person said the detective had told them that the girls’ bodies were violated with sticks and branches, in particular, that sticks had been inserted into the girls’ vaginas and anuses. That sounds pretty awful but this is one terrible crime.
Finally, a woman came to me and apologized. She said she had been mad at me for spreading this rumor but she had recently been able to confirm its truth via a detective in another area of LE who had seen crime scene photos. This man added that Abby had a branch plunged into her body just below her solar plexus in her chest. So far we have three verfications of this rumor, two from people who saw crime scene photos and two from LE with some overlap. Nevertheless, we still regard this rumor as unconfirmed though definitely possible with the two LE confirmations.
And the more you learn about this crime, believe me, the more you would not be surprised at the cruelty and bizarreness of abusing these girls’ bodies in this way because that seemed to be a major focus on the crime – violating, dishonoring, shaming, and debasing these girls with cruelty and contempt and then posing them in a degrading and humiliating manner. In addition, the killer’s behavior a few hours after the crime was another taunt and a cruel dancing on these girls’ graves after their deaths. This is one Hell of a dark crime.
One girl was pregnant: This has been a rumor from the very first weeks after the crime. The same woman above also apologized for being mad at me over this rumor. However, she told me that she was able to confirm this rumor via a sheriff’s deputy in nearby county. Nevertheless, I suppose it remains formally unverified, and keep in mind some of our LE sources have told us false things. The rumor is that one girl was in the very early stages of pregnancy. We are not going to say which girl it was. Based on the recent verification we got from LE, we regard as it quite possibly true, but it would be nice to get some more confirmation.
A longstanding rumor is that Libby German was killed by a deep knife cut to her neck. This was recently confirmed by a new source named Leaker, who I regard as credible. Apparently his wife accessed documents relating to the case at her job at the courthouse. I have also verified this sad fact via the girl’s own mother who saw the wound. This rumor is 100% confirmed.
A previous report said that Libby was attacked with a gut knife in her abdomen, resulting in a partial disembowelment of this poor girl. If this wound took place, it was after she was dead. A gut knife is one of the knives that would be present in that deer kit (a deer hunter’s kit containing five knives) that BG has around his waist. Partial verification of this is in the form of reports of detectives going around to local hardware stores in the weeks after the murders asking if anyone had bought a gut knife recently.
Presumably one of the wounds to the girl(s) was via this sort of a knife. On the other hand there is a new rumor that a gut knife was left at the scene. This man also lists a number of items the killer left at the scene that stretches credulity. Leaving a gut knife at the scene is unverified and seems quite dubious. A knife with no DNA? That the girl was attacked in this terrible manner is also completely unconfirmed. However, detectives definitely feel that a gut knife was used in this crime.
New Information from Leigh Kerr (Leaker)
Quite a bit of new information came out a few weeks ago via an appearance by a man named Leaker, identified above. He is a pastor who lives in Lafayette. His access to investigation documents is described above. Leaker was extremely controversial, yet for a variety of reasons, I regard him as credible. He gave us a lot of new information, much of which may be correct. Keep in mind that both local LE and FBI have commented on Leaker’s remarks, saying that nothing he said was true. But that is to be expected.
Leaker says that there is a prime suspect in the case. Based on the facts laid out, he can only mean a Delphi resident, recently moved to Monticello, who I will call Mr. X. I could use his initials but that doesn’t seem right. This man is either the prime suspect or Leaker is trying to frame him, one or the other. I think he’s the prime suspect.
According to Leaker, Mr. X was involved in the search party. At some point during the searching, he claimed to have lost his keys. His truck was parked overnight, hidden in the cemetery right above where the girls were found. It was still there the next day when the cemetery was full of police vehicles. This is because Mr. X lost his keys at some point. I believe he claims to have lost his keys while searching. Although Mr. X claims that he called his wife to come bring an extra set of car keys, his truck stayed there overnight and into the next day, which seems odd. On the afternoon after the bodies were found, Mr. X’s truck was towed.
At 6 PM, Mr. X asked permission to search Ron Logan’s land. Permission was granted. This request can be linked to the truck hidden at the cemetery as this is where he obviously was parked when he made this request, however, we do not know when the truck arrived there. Mr. X then searched Logan’s land. Although it was dusk, it would seem to be hard to miss the girls right below where his truck was parked.
Mr. X was back searching in the area on Logan’s land at 12:30 PM February 14. He and 1-3 other persons spotted the girls bodies. There is a rumor that Mr. X looked through his binoculars, spotted a deer, and then looked down and saw the girls. This seems credible to me although some say that LE just made this up as a ruse. The searchers did not come very close to the bodies. Who all found the bodies is still quite up in the air. After he found the bodies, there is a rumor that Mr. X was so traumatized that he ran from the scene. He then needed psychotherapy for some time after discovering the bodies. Both of those behaviors seem pretty over the top, even for such a gruesome crime.
Mr. X is the prime suspect for a variety of reasons. For one, there was a small change in his story.
Leaker said, in shocking news, that Mr. X’s phone was pinging at the abandoned Child Protective Services (CPS) building for several hours around the time of the murders. It is the opinion of LE that the killer parked at the CPS building while he committed his crimes. There vehicle may have been a truck. A persistent yet unconfirmed rumor is that it was a white truck. However, Mr. X’s truck is orange. LE would like very much to speak for anyone who spotted that truck at the CPS building during that time to contact LE. If the truck can be linked to Mr. X, an arrest will be possible.
Mr. X does not have a good excuse for his phone pinging at the CPS building for hours. However, cellphone data is generally not admissible in court, and anyway, Mr. X can always say that he was elsewhere and his phone just happened to be pinging at the CPS building looking for a signal, so this evidence cannot be used in court. However, it is suspicious to say the very least. If Mr. X’s truck was not there the whole time, it is possible that he left his phone at the building for several hours while he committed the crime. That way his phone could not be tracked to the crime scene.
Leaker says that Mr. X had an alibi, a friend of his. This friend says he saw Mr. X elsewhere in town around the time of the murders. LE was unable to break Mr. X’s alibi via his friend. It is considered to be a solid alibi in terms of taking the case to court. Unfortunately, this friend is has since died. This complicates the case immeasurably.
According to Leaker, the only DNA on the girls’ bodies is from Kelsi, Libby’s sister. Kelsi has been cleared. Mr. X’s DNA is in the area, but he was part of the search team that discovered the bodies, so it’s not usable. Assuming he did it, see how he contaminated the scene by finding the bodies?
Leaker also said that there were religious aspects to the murders. Although the exact nature of these aspects is unknown, a rumor that a crucifix was left at the site seems credible.
Leaker also said that the girls’ bodies were posed in a sexual tableau. This seems to be correct. More on that below.
A previous report said that the killer took photos or video of the crime and sent it to Abby’s phone after the murders. This is correct, and I have additional evidence that will prove this.
A previous report noted, in stunning news, that the killer had known Libby for 3-4 months before the murders via social media. According to Leaker, this is correct. The killer contacted Libby on social media using the “catfish” of a young man aged 19. Libby had gotten smitten with this young man and wanted to meet him. The catfish appears to have been the killer himself. Leaker says the second sketch is a sketch of the catfish photo that the killer used to lure Libby on Snapchat where she was catfished. One of Libby’s friends had seen a photo of the catfish, and her description of it is what the second sketch is based on.
At the start of this case, LE said “be careful of what your kids are doing on social media.” The usual idiots who have swarmed this case from Day One have insisted all this time that that means nothing. However, we have been reporting for some time on here that the girls may have been catfished via social media. In fact, we were ripped up pretty severely for promoting that theory. As with so many aspects of this case, a number of the “wild, outrageous, and offensive stories” we were reporting on here from the start are turning out to be true. It’s no surprise to me. I’m a professional journalist. I have a BA in Journalism. I worked as an assistant editor of a magazine. This is one of my professions.
According to Leaker, LE feels that Libby may have posted on Snapchat that she was going to the bridge that day. We reported in a previous post that the trip was not a last minute decision, and instead, adults were discussing it in local bars on Friday night. We have been saying all along that the killer must have known the girls were going to be there that day, and he came quite amply prepared to commit this specific crime. The crime may have been plotted for four months prior to carrying it out. You can see how BG was loaded up with all that murder equipment. He’d obviously planned this out in advance.
Of course, we have been bashed for this too, and an absolutely insane theory that fails all logic tests that the killer came to the bridge that day looking to kill any victim that he might happen to spot there has been suggested in its stead. This theory fails so badly on logic alone that it’s amazing how much traction it got.
Too many people on this case seem to be afflicted with a disorder called Pathological Doubting Disorder. They have pathologically doubted everything and anything that anyone ever said about this crime. They beat their fists on the table endlessly that only verified information, not rumors, must be discussed. The problem here is that LE hasn’t told us a damned thing. If we were restricted to merely discussing what has been verified by LE, there’d be nothing to talk about. We’d all be sitting around talking about the weather instead.
Leaker also said that if the catfish can be connected to Mr. X, an arrest will be possible.
However, this will be hard to do. All attempts to find the killer’s IP addresses or texts or photos of the catfish on Snapchat have come up empty for whatever reason.
According to Leaker, Mr. X has completely cooperated with the investigation. At the time of the crime, Mr. X lived two miles from the crime scene.
Leaker also said that the crime was committed in a ravine that is hard to see from most angles. It may also be sheltered sound-wise too.
Leaker said there is more audio on Libby’s phone, but it is so garbled and hard to hear that LE did not feel it would be useful to the general public. However, Leaker said that LE cleaned the audio up and transcribed it as best as they could. BG accosted the girls and appears to have pulled his gun on them.
In brand new information, apparently one of the trail cams at the south end of the bridge where the abduction took place had been disabled. LE feels it was disabled prior to the crime. So BG came to the south end of the bridge before the crime occurred and disabled the camera. Once again, we see forward planning for this crime.
According to Leaker, after BG accosted the girls, he said he was a police officer and they were trespassing on private property (they were not). He said he had spotted them with his binoculars and had come to arrest them. I can now confirm that BG did have binoculars. BG then handcuffed the girls and said, “Down the hill.” The girls pleaded with him to let them go, that they are sorry and they won’t do it again, etc. but he told them they are under arrest.
Jesus Christ, this case is sad! Just thinking about that scenario with those girls pleading to be let go breaks my heart!
At the bottom of the hill, Libby’s shoe was found by searchers. To me this implies that she tried to run. How else does she lose her shoe?
What follows, according to the families of the girls who LE played the tape for, is six minutes of garbled conversation in which the girls and BG are talking as they walk through the woods, the sound of the forest floor crunching beneath their feet. At the six minute mark, BG and the girls can be heard starting to cross the creek, so the girls were definitely walked across the creek. This has been an odd source of contention. At that point, LE shut off the tape.
Leaker says that the audio continues after the girls crossed the creek and were marched to the kill zone, which appears to have been selected and prepared beforehand due to its visual and auditory seclusion. Next you hear a loud scream followed by a loud thump. This is apparently poor Abby screaming. The thump sound is thought to be BG hitting her over the head with a blunt object. We believe he hit her with the butt end of the handgun you can see in his right hand pocket of his jacket on the BG video. Abby may well have been knocked out cold by this blow.
Leaker concurred that Libby died via a deep knife wound to the throat. He also said that the murder weapon was a hunting knife.
I Was Able to Obtain Official Document(s) Relating to the Case!
And now I can release brand new information! I was able to obtain anywhere from 1-10 documents from the investigation. I am making the claim vague in this way because I have to protect the person I got this data from. They very much do not want it getting out that they were given these document(s). So I have to cover my tracks pretty well here because I don’t want to reveal my sources.
I’m an educated and trained journalist. One of the things we learned in J-school is that you have to protect your sources and value their confidentiality at all costs. We are supposed to go to jail instead of revealing our sources, and some of us have.
Therefore it is disconcerting to see constant accusations of me making up rumors or theories about this crime out of whole cloth. I can’t do that. That’s a gross violation of journalistic ethics, and I’m an ethical journalist. I’m not talking about beating around the bushes of masking facts and truths as I did above with the documents statement. Journalists have lost their careers over doing that, and good luck getting hired again afterwards. It’s as bad as scientific misconduct is for a scientist.
Obviously I’ve been dying to get a hold of official documents about this case for four years now. We did briefly have contacts with a few LE sources, but they didn’t tell us a lot. We had maybe one LE source every two years on this case. So we don’t have any “special sources” about this case as my critics claim. What special sources? What are they talking about?
I assure you that it’s completely legal for the possessor of these document(s) to possess them. That’s all I’m going to say about that.
The document(s) came to me from the owner who lawfully possessed them..
The document(s) came from either LE or from the judicial system or possibly both at the same time. They are signed by official(s).
I was able to learn a number of things about this case from these document(s), some that have been released before, but others that have never been released or even rumored anywhere. I am absolutely certain of the truth of everything I write below based on my belief that these document(s) are authentic.
BG discharged a gun in the course of this crime. Perhaps the most amazing information of all is that this was a gun crime! The gun used was no doubt the one that can be seen in the right jacked pocket of BG. It’s a handgun. After the “guys” in the video, he apparently pulled his gun out and pointed it at the girls. He controlled them with the gun. We have assumed that from the very start of this case. But we never had any idea that a gun was fired during this crime!
We don’t know how the gun was used. We only know that it was discharged. Where, how, and why we don’t know. However, spent cartridges were found by LE, who says they were fired by BG. Did he fire them into the girls’ dead bodies? No idea. How does LE they know that the spent cartridges they found were fired by BG? No idea. But they do have spent cartridges from this crime and they are trying to find the gun used to fire them in order to do ballistics tests on it.
Leaker said that BG had binoculars. He told the girls when he accosted them that he had spotted them trespassing through his binoculars and he decided to come and arrest them. I can now verify Leaker’s statement because the document mentions binoculars. LE is looking for binoculars that were used in the crime.
There is more shocking information that was touched on earlier. I mentioned above that there was a rumor that BG had taken photos and video and had sent them to Abby’s phone after the crime. This rumor was affirmed by Leaker. However, I can now prove this is true because LE is looking for photos, videos, film, cameras, and/or videocameras. Any of those. Video were recorded by BG as he committed this crime. So he videotaped his crime as he committed it. Some people say they can see a Go Pro on BG’s person. We are uncertain about this.
Now how could LE possibly know that BG took video of his crime as he committed it? They can’t. But if he sent some of this video to Abby’s phone after the crime took place, then they know he shot video of the crime. Therefore the rumor that BG sent photos of the crime to Abby’s phone seems to be true.
In addition, the document says that BG recorded 43 seconds of audio, presumably of the crime. No doubt this goes with the video that was shot, the video being of unknown length. We know this because in the documents, LE says they are looking for 43 seconds of audio.
LE is also looking for knives, presumably hunting knives as Leaker averred. The murder weapon in the case was a knife. This was not a gun crime in that a gun was not the murder weapon. That’s not to say the gun was not discharged into the victim(s) after they were deceased. Perhaps it was. We have no idea. But if that was the case, then this is still not a gun crime as the gun was not a homicide weapon. Then all BG is guilty of regarding shooting the gun would be mutilating a corpse.
LE is also looking for blood-soaked clothing. LE feels that this crime was so brutal (in particular the killing of Libby) that BG must have been covered in blood after he murdered that poor girl. The blood spray from such an attack would be serious. So LE is looking for the clothing he wore that day with bloodstains “seen and unseen.” I don’t understand the part about unseen bloodstains, but apparently when you get blood on your clothes, not all of it is visible and some can only be seen with special tools. Ever watched crime shows where they put a chemical on the crime scene that shows bloodstains as bright purple? I suppose they use that to uncover those unseen bloodstains.
Perhaps the most incredible fact in the document is LE stating that BG abducted the girls at precisely 2:13 PM. Why is this important? On what day did this crime occur? On February 13, or 2-13. 2:13 and 2/13. Matches up, get it? Let’s play with this a bit more. He abducted and murdered 2 girls, one of whom was 13 years old. 2-13 again. 2:13, 2/13, and 2-13.
A physician friend of mine who might as well be Dr. Spock, such is his dedication to pure logic, has cast doubt on this connection. He immediately stated, “Coincidence!” (natch) when I told him about the two 2-13’s lining up perfectly.
However, LE thinks these two 2-13’s lining up perfectly was a significant enough event to be mentioned in their documents about the case. So LE thinks that fact that BG abducted those girls at precisely 2:13 in the afternoon is no coincidence.
This is all I have from these document(s). Make of it what you will. Keep in mind that these document(s) went through different people before the came to me.
Owner -> Professional -> Fellow sleuther -> Me.
There are two people between the owner and me. What do I have? I have a photocopy of the document. Could it be faked or forged? Maybe, but the professional would not do something like that. He’s as bound by his professional ethics as I am with mine.
Crime Scene Photos
I was also able to obtain some good crime scene photos for the first time. These have been out for six months now, having first appeared on Youtube in a video. They are from the same media helicopter footage as the crime scene photos we previously released here. They were presumably taken from the part of the footage where you can see many flashes going off in a circle around a location in the woods. Obviously CSI guys photographing the crime scene. These photos have been blown up and enhanced to Hell and back by everyone and their uncle. However, the photos I will discuss today are from this video.
The author is a theoretical physicist. Not that that means much, as kooks roam all fields, and kookery doesn’t discriminate, but I do think that adds weight to his analysis. Talk about logicians. We are talking about field like math where everything you say has to be backed up by formal proof. A fasifiability is a thing, and “not even wrong” is on the tip of everyone’s tongue.
The author claims a number of startling things in this video.
Outlines of the bodies of the two victims. I’ll vouch for that one.
A crucifix. Don’t see it.
A gigantic stuffed animal. No way. I can’t believe how many people believe this. Let’s not even get into the crazy discussion of this stupid stuffed animal and the dolls. That said, many things are possible in true crime, and this is one of them. I’m just not seeing it though. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that. God I hate that phrase but there’s a time and place for all things.
Dolls scattered around the scene. Nigga please.
An abandoned bleach bottle. Gong!
Abandoned clothing, in particular a girl’s top. Nah.
Weird messages scrawled all over the scene. I concur that one may be possible, but the rest I can’t see at all.
CSI guys wandering the scene. Nothing but blurs.
Keep in mind that for the above to be true, BG must have constructed this entire Disney World Crime Scene in a mere 45 minutes! Either he has superhuman powers or it didn’t happen. Occam’s forces me to choose the latter. How did he get all these animals and dolls down the crime scene? Come on. This crime’s weird enough as it is without taking things to outright science fiction.
Keep in mind that a lot of people claim they can’t see a damned thing in these photos, including the victims’ bodies, or that they were looking at pixels and graphics software playing games with us. Pareidolia. I hate that word, favorite of scientistic skeptards. But time and place, etc. Even the most abused notions have a proper application.
Leaker said that the girls were “posed in a sexual tableau.” That’s interesting except no one knows what it means.
John Kelly, retired FBI profiler who does excellent work and now makes his living being a media figure, felt in this recent video that the sexual tableau referred to the girls being posed in some sort of a lesbian sex act. He also suggested that BG had a deep obsession with lesbian pornography and that people around him would be aware of this. Assuming the photos below are valid interpretations, the girls are not posed in any obvious lesbian sex act. Perhaps they are posed in a milder, less than obvious one. As you can see, Abby’s hand is close to a “certain part” of Libby’s body. Whether that counts or not I have no idea.
However, assuming the images below are correct, both girls’ legs were spread very wide after they were killed. Libby was nude and Abby was nude from the waist down. That counts as sexual tableau. He did this to humiliate the girls after their deaths. One last Parthian Thrust before he walked away into the woods history. This is the posing part.
I agree with Kelly who says that killers who pose victims (“posers”) are some of the worst ones of all. They’re dark as Hell and they’re at the far end of the psychopathic spectrum. He also said that if he’s a poser, he should have killed again by now because these guys can’t control themselves, a reflection of their extreme pathology. He said that the only reason he hasn’t killed by now is because he’s afraid. Afraid that they’re onto him. Afraid of getting caught. Afraid of that one last knock on the door before the jail bars clang shut.
I have more to say about this crime as usual, but I’ve gone on long enough. More later.
I would like to apologize for the fact that these photos are very small. See if you can enlarge them. I don’t know how to fix this right now.
This term has been grotesquely abused lately, starting with feminists, who equate all prostitution with “trafficking” and then the federal government, which passed a rather silly law 5-10 years against “sex trafficking.” Increasingly what you are seeing in the media is a complete conflation of prostitution and “sex trafficking.”
In particular, anyone pimping minor females is said to be “trafficking” no matter whether there is any coercion at all. Trafficking was originally supposed to mean women who were being essentially enslaved, kept prisoner, held against their will, and forced to prostitute themselves for others. Basically sex slaves. There are a lot of forms of this coerced and imprisoned sort of prostitution in the world, and it is an ugly thing to be sure!
But that silly federal law conflated that with any prostitution of minors. So “sex trafficking” is not just sex slavery but it’s also prostituting of minors. Which seems a bit silly. How are minors being “trafficked” if they are not being held against their will? It’s ridiculous. The crime should be something like Prostituting a Minor, along those lines. Perhaps that’s a serious offense, I have no idea. But it sure isn’t “trafficking.”
Increasingly I have seen articles, many coming out of Texas, about big roundups of “sex traffickers.” They were rounding up 50-60 men at once and the guys looked pretty ordinary. That’s an awful lot of “traffickers” to round up at once. When they do round these guys up, they usually only catch a few at a time as they are hard to catch and not particularly common anyway. So I did some research. It turned out that of those 60 men, only one of them actually trafficked in prostitutes, and even he was just prostituting minors. I have no idea if coercion or imprisonment was involved. The other 59 men were guilty of…get this: buying a teenage prostitute!
Look I’m not saying that buying an underage prostitute should be legal. But you should have to prove that he knew that she was underage or by her appearance, she could not possibly have been 18. The bizarre thing about these laws is that in many states, it is perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16-17 year old girl as long as he does it for free and doesn’t pay her. The minute he gives her some money for her treasures, it’s a crime!
Even knowingly buying an underage prostitute is not “trafficking” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a crime called “Buying a Minor Prostitute.” How in the Hell is buying a whore “trafficking?” It’s absurd.
To tell the truth, many prostitutes with pimps may be being trafficked. That’s because many pimps won’t let the girls in their stables free. They threaten to hunt them down, beat them up, or kill them if they run away from the pimp. Any prostitute in a situation like that with her pimp is indeed being trafficked.
Now buying a teenage prostitute is an odd crime. Minors are not allowed to legally prostitute themselves, but many do it anyway. And 50% of minor female prostitutes are Black. Blacks are only 13% of the population. So there’s massive over-representation of Black teenage girls in minor prostitution. Quite a few of those girls probably have psychopathic tendencies too, or will develop into psychopaths when they are adults because we are not supposed to diagnose psychopathy or any other personality disorder in minors. Fully 45% of adult female prostitutes are psychopaths. Newsflash: whores aren’t very nice women. They not even very nice people.
A lot of them are simply criminals and ripoffs and all sorts of petty thievery and female prostitution go hand and hand. In my opinion, a prostitute and a thief are the same thing. This is what the female psychopath becomes: Histrionic Personality Disorder, the “Mata Hari” or “femme fatale” disorder. Basically what I would call a thieving whore. Many female strippers, porn stars and other sex workers are also female psychopaths or have high scores on the PCL.
Many male porn stars are the same. This was observed as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. If you look at those old porn movies, look at how mean and evil so many of those male porn stars are. And look at how crass, loud, brassy, and cold the women are. That’s the typical whore personality: hard, cold, brassy, callous, cynical. It looks like a damaged woman. Their emotions look shut down and they’ve gone hard.
Jason: Yeah, the key is self-confidence and leadership ability. Well, there could be some cases where the woman can only find an abusive jerk, the only other option being weak nice guys. I don’t know. However, the dream of a woman would be some nice guy who is strong as you say.
I don’t know. I think 1/3 of women actually like bad men, and they literally want an asshole who is abusive to them. I’ve been dumped by three young women aged 18-20 recently for being too nice and not being mean enough to them. They literally wanted a man who treated them like shit. They were also calling me “sir,” so I think they were way off into that BD/SM shit which is taking the sexual world by storm these days.
As far as the classic advice you get from any man dishing it out about how to get along with women, it’s always “be an asshole,” and “treat them like shit.” This never made any sense to me because women usually took extreme offense to me being a dick to them and that was usually the #1 reason they had for breaking up with me: I had hurt their feelings in some way. Keep in mind that I was a super nice guy back then, so I had always hurt their feelings inadvertently. Which is the easiest thing in the world to do with a woman because every other thing in life hurts their feelings, upsets them, sends to tears or rage, etc.
I think I finally figured it out. They want you to be an asshole to them sometimes. They want you to treat them like shit sometimes. I’ve only done so when they attacked me from a place of evil-mindedness. I think women want to be put in their place. They want you to build a fence around them, sort of like children do. They want to test your limits and see what you will let them get away with.
Kids will try to your limits and see what they can get away with too. They literally want you to build a fence around them and tell them that everything beyond the fence is forbidden. They scream and yell when you do that, but they are secretly happy at you for putting limits on them. Kids think they can’t control themselves, so they want someone else, as in a parent, to put some limits on them.
I think women are much the same. Women always want to see what they can get away with. You let them get away with too much, and they will run rampant on you because they disrespect you for not putting limits on them. Like kids, women think they can’t control themselves; in particular, they think they are at the whim of their emotions which they can’t control very well. Women feel like they are dragged around through life by their emotions like a dog on a leash, the emotions being the leash.
They secretly want to be controlled, just like kids. So you need to put strict limits on women, such as that there are certain things that she just cannot say to you or you will let her have it. She will act furious, but like a kid, she will actually respect you more for putting limits on her and basically putting her in her place. And that respect will come out in the form of intense love for you.
I think the normal 2/3 of women want a decent guy who is a real motherfucker to them when they act bad though. Ever since I started acting that way, I’ve had women fall deeper and crazier in love with me than ever before in my life. They all mentioned that I was “mean,” “psycho,” “dangerous,” “scary,” etc. One even said, “You’re scary, but scary’s hot.”
Keep in mind I did not act that way all the time, only when they were being mean to me to no good goddamn reason. Oh, and I started calling women cunts too. Believe it or not, after I started calling women cunts, I’ve had the wildest, craziest, most over the top love affairs of my life.
The rest of the time, I’m basically a great big pussycat, the nicest guy you’ve ever met. I’ve always been this way. I don’t like to fight.
Also, I took to domming the living Hell out of them in bed for the first time, and that’s also coincided with women falling in love with me deeper than they ever have.
I guess if you want some really evil advice from me, I’d say to cuss her out to the ultimate, and especially to call her a cunt when she’s being evil or mean for no good reason. Diss her out, call her every name in the book. And especially use misogynistic insults. Laugh in their faces when they get mad at you. Keep frame. Don’t get hurt when they insult you. Act like a rock and treat their insults like pathetic, wimpy jokes.
And dom the living Hell out of them in bed.
I wouldn’t threaten her, though I did threaten to kill one woman. Weird thing is that woman loved me more than any woman ever. And she was the only woman I ever threatened to kill!
I especially used gendered insults and specialized in misogynistic insults. I insulted them in the most evil way for being women, told them they were pathetic, that men were superior and women inferior and stupid, that they should behave themselves because ,”You’re talking to a man now, dammit!”
In short I acted pretty bad. Now I am no more of a misogynist than any other man. Which isn’t saying much, granted. I dislike open misogyny and that’s what I have against most PUA’s, MRA’s, and the Manosphere. I love women. I like them a lot more than I like men. So I don’t believe any of that misogynistic crap I rip them to Hell with. I just use it because I know they hate misogynistic insults more than anything else.
If she’s angry at you for a good reason and not out of spite or evil, I would give her a break. I was with one woman for 1.5 years, and I never gave her this treatment. She got mad as Hell at me, but it was all coming from the place of a good heart. If it’s coming from the place of a good heart, I will not give her this treatment. Only if it’s coming from an evil-hearted place.
As far as domming them in bed, I just started doing this. I don’t go full BD/SM at all. Just really aggressive, rough sex, lot of name-calling, etc. But then afterwards I worship her like a princess. Well, not quite but you get the picture. I adore her.
Humans are among the few mammal species unable to synthesize Vitamin C from glucose. All of our Vitamin C has to come from our diets. If you were somehow to end up with no Vitamin C in your diet whatsoever for a prolonged time – say, three or four months and counting, indefinitely – it is no exaggeration to say that the repercussions could be dire.
Without Vitamin C we can’t make collagen, and without collagen your body can’t repair your skin, bone, cartilage, ligaments and tendons, blood vessel walls, and teeth. You need fresh food in your diet, either from plant or animal sources, to get this done.
Wherever you find people going without fresh food for long periods, you’ll find Vitamin C deficiency, or scurvy.
Scurvy has been prevalent throughout much of human history. It likely began to occur in humans during the development of agriculture. According to biologist Thomas Jukes, once people in temperate zones adopted an agrarian lifestyle they were able to store grains for use during winter. They were also able to spread into other temperate regions previously uninhabitable due to the lack of food supply during winters.
But because stored grains are extremely low in Vitamin C, it is likely that these ancient peoples developed scurvy during the long winter months because grain dominated their diets.
During long journeys or overland campaigns, such as the Crusades, scurvy inevitably appeared.
The first written account of a disease likely to be scurvy comes from the Eber Papyrus of ancient Egypt, dated to 1550 BC. The Papyrus not only diagnosed scurvy but prescribed that its victims be given onions, which contain Vitamin C.
Throughout maritime history, people had to figure out not only how to transport themselves across seas and oceans but how to stay healthy along the way. They were clearly relatively successful at both. Millennia ago, Austronesians were the first humans to invent oceangoing vessels; they colonized a large part of the Indo-Pacific region. Early Polynesians were superb seafarers and traveled thousands of miles exploring and settling the region we know as the Polynesian Triangle (drawn by connecting the points of Hawaii, New Zealand, and Easter Island).
Somali seafarers developed extensive trade networks, and Somali merchants at one time led commerce between Asia and Africa. Chinese merchants sailed the Indian Ocean and traded throughout Southeast Asia, the Arabian Peninsula, and East Africa.
How did ancient seafaring peoples deal with scurvy?
Stefan Slater writes that Polynesian seafarers relied on freshly caught fish, crustaceans, and octopi, and would sometimes slaughter some of the animals they were transporting for breeding stock. Jin Ding, Chaojan Shi, and Adam Weintrit report that the diet on Chinese sailing ships included green tea, which contains more Vitamin C than black tea. They also say that Chinese ships began to carry gardens with them, growing soybean sprouts, which are high in Vitamin C.
So there is some evidence that ancient seafarers knew the importance of keeping fresh vegetables and meat in their diets on long voyages.
For Europeans, it wasn’t until the Age of Sail that the problem of scurvy truly came into focus. Wealth and national interest were at stake in ways they hadn’t been before.
Advances in naval technology and a rush for exploration and conquest brought Europeans the “plague of the sea.” Scurvy was the main occupational disease of what historians call the European Age of Exploration. More sailors died of scurvy than all other causes combined, including battles, storms, and other diseases.
Jason A. Mayberry makes the case that a unique confluence of conditions made scurvy and seafaring a deadly combination for Europeans. In his essay “Scurvy and Vitamin C,” he draws upon the work of Stephen Bown, author of Scurvy: How a Surgeon, a Mariner, and a Gentleman Solved the Greatest Medical Mystery of the Age of Sail.
First, countries had difficulty maintaining sufficient crews for their naval vessels, so they relied on impressment: the taking of men into the military by compulsion, with or without notice. It had been legally sanctioned in Britain since the time of Edward I.
It was basically kidnapping. Gangs of men would go into port towns looking for “recruits.” They would club a man and drag him back to the ship. The man’s family might have no idea what happened to him, and many of the men never made it back home.
Some had experience at sea, some didn’t. Some were in poor health to begin with, being homeless, convicts, or elderly. On average a third of a ship’s crew was made up of impressed men.
Even the men who volunteered for naval service were often in poor health. Many would volunteer in order to secure a place to sleep and get regular meals. Sometimes boys who were orphans or runaways would join.
A second reason that Vitamin C deficiency was hastened during this period were the working conditions on ships. Discipline was harsh and included flogging, keelhauling, and starvation. The body needs more Vitamin C when it is under stress, and sailors had heightened stress in the form of physical exertion, exposure to the elements, fear of battle, and sleep deprivation.
The third and main factor in the development of scurvy was clearly the diet onboard ships. What mattered most for food supplies was that the food be storable for long periods without spoiling. The nutritional content of the food was of little concern for those in charge. What was most important to them was to maintain a suitable labor force at the least possible cost.
A typical weekly ration for a sailor, according to Bown:
1 lb. hardtack (biscuit) daily
2 lbs. salted beef twice weekly
1 lb. salted pork twice weekly
2 oz. salted fish 3 times weekly
2 oz. butter 3 times weekly
4 oz. cheese 3 times weekly
8 oz. dried peas 4 times weekly
1 gal. beer daily
Sometimes the rations included dried fruit or barley meal. But the lack of fresh fruits and vegetables left the diet almost completely devoid of Vitamin C.
Compounding this problem was that even the food sailors had access to wasn’t always fit to eat. Spoilage was a huge problem on ships. Ships were a dark, damp, and sometimes waterlogged environment for sailors and their food, and this led to moldy, worm-eaten bread, or other dried foods. Meat would begin spoiling almost as soon as it left port, no matter how salt-laden it was.
European navies did provide surgeons and surgeon’s mates on ships, but most of a surgeon’s time was spent caring for battle wounds instead of focusing on the treatment and prevention of disease.
All of these factors made scurvy the leading cause of death during the Age of Sail.
The onset of scurvy is a slow progression, Bown and others inform us, usually appearing after 60 to 90 days of a Vitamin C-deficient diet. This is when the body’s lingering stores of Vitamin C are depleted. The initial symptoms are fatigue and muscle aches. Upon waking, a scurvy victim’s joints will ache.
During the second stage, his gums begin to swell and will bleed with slight pressure. The teeth become loose at the roots. He also feels pain throughout his joints and muscles.
During the third stage, the gums begin to rot. They also bleed profusely. The victim’s flesh becomes gangrenous and will spontaneously hemorrhage. His skin, especially on the legs and feet, develop ulcers that turn gangrenous. As connective tissue fails, long-healed broken bones begin to refracture, and long-healed wounds begin to reopen. The legs cramp so severely that the person cannot walk.
At this point the person is in excruciating pain.
In the final stage of scurvy, the person gets a high fever. His skin develops black spots and he begins having tremors. He will drift in and out of consciousness for a while, and then he dies.
An estimated two million sailors died of scurvy between the 15th and 18th centuries. The science at the time was of very little use in treating them – even though various people throughout European history had made the connection between citrus fruits and the prevention of scurvy.
On July 8, 1497, Vasco da Gama set sail from Lisbon, Portugal, in search of a passage to India. On January 11, 1498, the fleet anchored off Mozambique. After five weeks at sea, the crew began showing the symptoms of scurvy.
Fortunately, some weeks later, they arrived at Mombasa, on the coast of Kenya, where they met local traders who traded them oranges. Within six days of eating them, the crew recovered. Da Gama left Africa and began his voyage across the Indian Ocean to Kozhikode (or Calicut to Westerners).
After staying in India for four months, da Gama left for a three-month journey at sea in which scurvy killed many of his sailors. On January 7, 1499, the ships anchored at Malindi, Kenya, where the sailors, remembering their previous cure in Mombasa, asked for oranges. Still, more sailors died of the disease “which started in the mouth.” Six months later the survivors made it back to Lisbon.
Did Vasco da Gama alert any ship owners or controlling authorities of what he had discovered about treating scurvy? No one knows.
Sir Richard Hawkins had discovered a cure for scurvy in 1593 when it appeared in his crew in southern Brazil. He reported that oranges and lemons had been a remedy for his men. To whom did he report this? What did they do with the information?
The Dutch had known about the value of citrus fruits since at least the late 16th century. According to J. Burnby and A. Bierman, who wrote “The Incidence of Scurvy at Sea and Its Treatment,” the Dutch East India Company bartered for lemons in Africa and also established vegetable gardens and orchards in their colonies to provide fresh citrus to their ships. How did the Dutch manage to keep this knowledge to themselves? Was that their intention?
Burnby and Bierman also write about an Elizabethan merchant, Sir Hugh Plat, who had an interest in botany and gave bottled lemon juice to the commander of the first fleet of the English East India Company. It was only the crew of the flagship, Red Dragon, which received a daily allowance of lemon juice. It was also the only crew that remained relatively free of scurvy. What did the English East India Company do with this information?
In the early 1600s John Woodall, a surgeon for the same East India Company, described the symptoms of scurvy and recommended that ships’ surgeons inform Governors of “all places they touch in the Indies” that the juices of oranges, lemons, limes, and tamarinds be used as medicine for scurvy.
The East India Company actually supplied “lemon water,” as it was called, for its ships until 1625, when the Company chose not to provide it because “the woman supplying it wanted 12d. a gallon above the usual price.” The return voyage of 1626 was badly afflicted with scurvy because they had bought tamarinds in the East Indies which they presumed to be as effective as lemons. All sour fruits and even acids such as vinegar were erroneously thought to be cures for scurvy.
J. F. Bachstrom, a Lutheran theologian and physician, wrote in 1734 that there was only one cause of scurvy – the absence of fresh fruits and vegetables for a long period. No drugs would help, nor would mineral acids. Were any companies or government entities aware of his findings? If so, did they take them seriously?
Europe was slowly making headway against this problem nevertheless. In 1739 James Lind, a former physician’s apprentice, volunteered for the Royal Navy and was designated a surgeon’s mate. After seven years in that position, he was promoted to surgeon on HMS Salisbury. It was on this ship that he performed his famous scurvy experiment.
Lind showed an insight ahead of his time by understanding that, to develop a cure, treatments must be compared simultaneously in similar patients. He had envisioned the concept of clinical trials, as rudimentary as his idea might have been.
After eight weeks at sea, and when scurvy was beginning to take its toll on the crew, Lind decided to test his idea that the putrefaction of the body caused by the disease could be prevented with acids. He divided 12 sick patients into six pairs, and provided each pair with a different supplement to their diet: cider, vitriolic acid (diluted sulfuric acid), vinegar, sea water, two oranges and one lemon, or a purgative mixture.
Only the pair who took the oranges and lemons improved.
You would think that Lind had established a clear connection between citrus and scurvy and that the Navy would have taken immediate action. But neither happened.
Lind continued to believe that there were multiple causes of scurvy. He also advocated a method of preserving the virtues of oranges and lemons that involved boiling the juices. Unbeknownst to Lind, boiling destroyed the active ingredient in citrus juices – Vitamin C. When the boiled juice was tried on ships as a preventative measure and found lacking, people began to dismiss the whole idea that citrus fruits were effective against scurvy!
In 1753 Lind published his Treatise on the Scurvy, considered a classic of medical science. But it took the Royal Navy over 40 years to adopt Lind’s recommendations. This happened under the direction of Sir Gilbert Blane, who had been appointed Physician to the Fleet.
Blane was familiar with Lind’s work and had the power and initiative to bring about change, Mayberry states. He organized an experiment on HMS Suffolk on a 23-week trip to India. The sailors were given a mixture of rum, water, sugar, and lemon juice. A few sailors developed a slight case of scurvy. They were given additional rations of lemon juice and the scurvy was quickly cured.
With the results from the HMS Suffolk and the power of his position, Blane was able to ensure that fresh citrus juice became a staple in the British Navy. For the British, scurvy had finally been conquered.
The question remains: why did it take so long, when so many had found the cure time and time again?
Burnby and Bierman note that there was the view among ship owners and government authorities that seamen were expendable. They also suggest that seamen themselves might have been reluctant to take part in experiments that might have settled the issue. But they mention other considerations, mainly the problem of “sheer impracticability.”
How does one store many thousands of oranges and lemons on an overcrowded man-of-war laden with guns, gunpowder, and shot? Using the juice of citrus fruits was certainly a space saver but it readily became moldy, especially under poor storage conditions, which were usually the case.
Speaking of practical considerations, how long can it be practical to treat your work force as if they are expendable? There were no sailors’ advocates at the time to make it impractical for businessmen and governments to do so. Nothing stopped or even slowed Europe’s exploration and colonization, so losing sailors to scurvy was just one of the costs of doing business.
Honestly, unless you had a home phone near the jail or prison, you’re looking at $300 or more a month just to have contact your loved one on an everyday basis (maybe 3 – fifteen minute calls a day).
Anyway, jails etc. are supposed to be punishment, but we sometimes have loved ones, and we want to ease their suffering as much as possible because we love them.
Anyhow, should it be different? I don’t know. The prison system says it cares, but considering the fact that prison is punishment, it gives them a green light to be tyrannical. In fact, they even monitor your massively overcharged calls and cut off contact with you and your loved one permanently, but I don’t think this happens very often.
Anyway, for other stuff you can now send electronic emails, also charged – but not too much – and also photos, which are a little expensive.
Well, emails are O.K., but I you can’t keep a real relationship without hearing their voice.
It’s not allowed in a lot of the country because of COVID, so the alternative is video visits, and of course, they’re charging an arm and a leg!
I’m thinking some Black men have the notion they can put women in their place so they’re better husbands than White men, or maybe they think they’re better husbands for Black women.
Whatever the case, Black women are just as resentful of men wanting slaves as are women of other races. In fact, a relationship with a Black man where he’s wanting a slave will lead either to a divorce/break-up or literally a slave relationship with a partner that hates them.
Black men might bring this up – even knowing deep down it’s false – because they want an excuse to blame when bad things going down, and they don’t want to blame the woman. They will say the husband isn’t Black so he cannot be a good enough husband.
This notion is easily shot down because as some have said, some relationships where the Black man is with a White woman don’t work, maybe because of over-possessiveness on the part of the Black man.
As a 2nd Thought
The Black men could be just talking about being masculine, such as getting a job and manning up in general. But that has nothing to with race. There’s nothing making Black men more masculine than other men.
The bottom line is that you have to be able to make it to where most of the time, the woman calls you, and you’re not calling her. Also, if she’s the one calling, don’t beg her to call you too much.
When it comes down to it, this is a great way to show you have confidence – and that’s what women want – and if they don’t call to the point where it seems like they’re not interested, then just let them go.
Well, this breakup recovery site – forgot the name – was saying this was evil and that sociopathic women were doing it. I disagree. It could be that women are just naturally prone to do this. They don’t have an obligation to be loyal to you like a dog once married or dating. You have to keep up your Game to attract them. You have to man up, not be jealous from her silly “bringing up better men,” etc..
My Dad kept my mom. He never got devalued to the point of point of being dumped, though there were probably a few fights over his drinking. Anyway, the key to his success is he simply kept “manning up” up. He never cried. He never got lazy.
A lot of guys want comfort from the hurt of being dumped. They want to believe that they didn’t do anything wrong; instead the woman is a crazy loon. But what really happened? I wouldn’t know. Again, I strongly suspect the man was screwing up. Maybe he have wrecked the finances. Maybe he didn’t work much or at all. Maybe acted emotionally weak in front of her, and women hate this, as much as they often try to deny it.
The cold, hard fact is that often keeping a woman attracted to you in a marriage – especially after times are tough – can be very hard. At times the woman loses her attraction for the man. Supposedly, marriage is something where people take vows, but we don’t live in a patriarchal society where men can expect the woman will take crap from them without a reaction. Even if we did, who would want to be with someone who really doesn’t want to be with them?
On one hand, men don’t like being cucked. On the other hand, a lot of women will talk about other men to see if you get jealous. If you get even a little bit jealous, you seem like a wuss, and the woman could lose attraction for you! In fact, they could even dump you!
Doesn’t seem fair, does it? Seems like a trap. But men go on and on about being cucked, how cucked men are despicable, and how they aren’t the type and won’t be pushed into that situation.
The advice from me, but maybe not @Robert Lindsay, is just to ignore “jealous provoking” with silence or humor. That is, if you really want the girl. If you don’t, you could move on. I think in a lot of these situations that the woman is trying to provoke you with a guy she has no actual interest in. It’s just a test from the woman.
A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.
It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.
The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.
Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.
However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t exist.
A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.
But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.
It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.
Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.
The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.
It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.
In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!
Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.
How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.
Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.
Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.
Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.
I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.
I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.
However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.
Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:
Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.
To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.
The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.
She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.
She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.
The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.
The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.
Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.
That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.
Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.
I wrote this in objection to a paper under review right now on Academia by a Left professor of Somatic Psychology, a PhD and a very smart man, who quotes Wilhelm Reich, a Jewish pro-sex and anti-fascist writer, as saying that fascists are out of touch with their bodies. Presumably antifascists are in touch with their bodies and not repressed. Apparently sexual repression and being out of touch with your body is part of the genesis of fascism. I don’t agree. Here is my response, in part.
I think that quoting Reich on fascism is not the greatest idea. He’s not the best person to ask about fascist theory. The modern intellectual descendants of Reich (the Cultural Left) don’t have a very good view of fascism.
Further, Reich was an extreme sexual libertine who may have molested his sister and raped his maids as a boy. Reich’s sexual libertinism was rejected by all Communists in the last century and is still condemned in existing Communist countries. So Reich’s critique is ill-formed, as the Communists were just as bad as the fascists when it came to Reich’s libertinism.
Fascists are sexually repressed? I don’t know. I’ve run into some MAGA women lately who are ridiculously libertine to the point of being degenerate or depraved. They’re about this far from becoming out and out porn stars. Yet fascists they are. A friend used to be an actor in the porn industry. He told me that the industry is full of conservatives. I’m aware of a few pornstars who were basically White Supremacists.
Donald Trump’s fascism was nearly a “pornographic fascism.” He cavorted with pornstars, cheated on all of his wives, made lewd remarks about his own daughter and the teenage underage daughters of his friends, reportedly attended sex orgies, and may have raped a 13 year old girl and forced a 12 and 13 year old girl to have sex with each other. He’s as libertine as Reich, yet he’s a fascist.
Better definitions are coming out of serious scholars of the Left. There area number of modern scholars who are trying to pin down exactly what fascism is. Almost all are operating from the Left. Among these superb modern theorists of fascism are David Neiwert who blogs at Daily Kos, the authors of a blog called Three Way Fight (not sure if it’s still up), along with excellent political scientists working out of the universities.
Better older analyses of fascism also come from Lenin and especially from Trotsky, who wrote some of the best essays on fascism ever written.
A “popular dictatorship against the Left” seems to be the best definition. “Palingetic nationalism” is another, referring to the bird that rises from the ashes in mythology. Fascism appeals to “the everyman,” “the man on the street” – “the shirtless ones” of Peronist fame. That’s the appeal – to your “basic man” and “basic woman.” It also appeals to strong primitive drives of aggression, violence, projection of failures onto outsiders, expansionism, often imperialism, an opposition to liberalism and democracy. It also opposes equality and in favor of hierarchy.
Fascism involves a reverence for sacred violence bordering on the religious, a worship of “the greatness of the ancestors,” a dialogue to restore “the glory days of yore” from the ruins of the “degenerate present”, ruined by liberals, democracy, anti-nationals, nation-haters, and traitors.
Fascism has historically supported a return to traditional values and a rejection of degenerate modernism, but as we can see in the “pornographic fascism” of Donald Trump, that’s not necessarily the case anymore.
Fascism also always advocated a return to traditional male female role models, but that need to be a hindrance to basic equal de jure rights for women, as seen in the many successful MAGA women and the many often-religious MAGA men who love and cherish their wives.
Fascism has typically targeted minorities and has been racist. People think that fascism is inherently anti-Semitic, yet many early Zionists such as Jabotinsky were open fascists and supported the fascist movement in Europe. Some of the early Israeli guerrillas were Jabotinskist fascists.
I’d argue that Israel has been fascist from Day One, but certainly with the coming of Sharon and Netanyahu, the ideological descendants of Jabotinskyist fascism, Israel became literally a fascist country. Jacobinsky is the hero and spiritual founder of the Likud Party. He was an early Zionist who wrote a book in 1921 called The Iron Wall. He and his followers were strong supporters of the fascist parties in Europe in the 1920’s and 30’s. Some of the early Zionist guerrilla organizations were Jabotinskyist fascists.
In Lebanon, the Gemayalist Phalangists named after a general named Gemayal, are an actual literal fascist party. Even their name is fascist as phalange is a popular name for fascist parties. They are Christian Maronites who see themselves as transplanted Europeans, descendants of “Phoenicians,” who despise Arabs and Islam. They are also the most pro-Israel party in Lebanon. This founder of this party had photos of Hitler in his school locker when he was in high school and the party’s ideology is modeled on the classic European fascism of the 30’s.
Israeli fascism is not anti-Semitic at all, and many White Supremacists actually support Israel as the model for the racist state they wish to set up. Many dislike Jews in the Diaspora who are seen as anti-national, but have no problem with the fascist Jews in Israel and see them as fellow fascists.
A number of the anti-immigrant Right parties in Europe are pro-Israel, including the National Front in France, the AfD in Germany, and the neo-Nazi party in Austria! They often like Israel because of its strong anti-Muslim orientation. Along the same lines, the Muslim-hating Hindu nationalist fascists ruling India in the form of the BJP party, are very pro-Israel.
The pro-fascist Spanish and Italian conservatives, remnants of former large fascist movements in those countries, are pro-Israel. The fascist Saudis, Bahrainis, Egyptians, Moroccans, and Ermiratis are now pro-Israel. They’ve always been Rightists so it’s no surprise. So philosemitic fascism is absolutely possible and even existing.
Arab nationalists have always been quite fascist despite their Leftist trappings. Saddam was a fascist, as was Hafez Assad. Some think Bashar Assad is a fascist. The North African leaders, all Arab Nationalists, were fascists in the sense that they tried to destroy the Berbers’ identity and make everyone into an Arab. The Assads and Saddam also attacked Kurds and Assyrians, in both cases in attempts to turn everyone into an Arab. Saddam also attacked Turkmen. And he discriminated against Iraqis of Iranian background in the South so much that he threw hundreds of thousands of them out of the country.
The Moroccan fascists are even expansionists, having invaded Spanish Sahara. The Indonesian fascists committed genocide in East Timor and Aceh and in the entire country against Communists when they unleashed a genocide in 1965 that murdered 1 million Communist in less than a couple of months. It was as bad as the Rwandan genocide.
All of these are examples of “Muslim fascists,” so fascism and Islam are quite compatible.
There seems to be a view in the West that fascism must be White Supremacist and of course it must be anti-Semitic.
None of the above were White Supremacists. They were all non-Whites, and none were self-haters.
Also as you can see above, fascism need not be anti-Semitic.
I also listed a number of fascist and anti-Islamic movements, rightwing dictatorships along with the post-fascist conservatives in Spain and Italy. The former fascist followers of Mussolini and Franco simply melted into the rightwing movements of both countries. In Spain it was the Conservative Party, a party with fascist roots.The Francoists simply changed clothes and melted into the Conservative Party. Francoism is still extremely popular, mostly in the form of anti-separatism, these days. I’ve been to their very popular websites.
Burlusconi in Italy has inherited the descendants of fascism in Italy. A fascist and racist separatist and somewhat White Supremacist movement has formed in Northern Italy. They are White Supremacists in the sense that they claim the are Celts or “pure Whites” and they despise Southern Italians as de facto “niggers.”
A friend in Italy told me that fascism was still very popular in Italy to this very day, although it was also widely hated as the Left in Italy is often Far Left or almost Communist. There are cities in Sicily were the leftwingers are all Communists and the rightwingers are all fascists. They engage in street battles all the time.
My friend told me that the Red Brigades, an anti-fascist Far Left group of Communists that attacked the state, was extremely popular in Northern Italy, particularly in Vicenzia Province where he lived. His sister was a strong supporter of the Red Brigades, and she came from a normal middle class background in Trieste.
Fascism is said to be anti-Muslim, yet we have Islamic fascism in Turkey, Azerbaijan, Brunei, Morocco, and probably the Taliban in Afghanistan. Turkey and Azerbaijan are classic fascists of the 1930’s type, however they have married this to Ottoman imperialism and Islamic jihadism, particularly the genocidal variety that held sway in Turkey from 1880 until 1940.
That the Taliban are a new sort of fascism was an argument of the Leftists at Three Way Fight. I’m not sure I agree with that. Other Muslim fascists used to rule in Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Iran. Above I listed more Muslim fascists in the Arab World, who might better be described as rightwing dictatorships.
Fascism is chameleon-like and changes shape endlessly to mirror and capture whatever times it is in. I can even see chameleon-like fascists adopting yoga, meditation, and bodywork, the “Left” body psychology mechanisms the author refers to. Hitler was a vegetarian and a good animal rights supporter, if terrible in so many other ways.
This aspect of fascism of what makes this political mercury blob so hard to pin down. Indeed, many fascists pose as anti-Nazis and anti-fascists and accuse anti-fascists of being fascists! I’ve seen this with my own eyes.
Problem is the Modern Left starts talking about fascism, and it immediately degenerates into propaganda and nonsense where we push views that line up whatever biases our Left formation is pushing du jour. The Cultural Left, which is almost devoid of intelligence or intellectual honesty of any sort, in particular cannot be relied upon, as almost everything coming out of there is propaganda and a lie in some form or another. For instance, the Cultural Left argues that White Supremacists, anti-feminists (or what feminists would call misogynists), homophobes, and transphobes are all “fascists.”
That’s utter nonsense as none of this Identity Stuff has anything to do with the Left in the first place, as the Left is only about economics and many Communists of the last century were in fact social conservatives described under the epithets above. Many of the antifascist fighters fighting in the Allies in World War 2 were White Supremacists, racists (in particular, racist against Blacks), “misogynists” (or at the very least strong sexists), and virulent homophobes. Trannies didn’t exist back then, but they would have been hated much worse than gays.
The very racist White Southern Democrats of that time absolutely despised Hitler, Mussolini, and the rest of the European fascists along with the Japanese, who were promoting a sort of “fascist militarism.”
The Cultural Left would have us believe that Stalin, Mao, Castro, Hoxha, Deng, Ho Chi Minh, the Bulgarian Communists, etc. were all fascists because they were social conservatives. Homosexuality was banned as a bourgeois vice in the Eastern Blog. The Shining Path executed homosexuals and cocaine abusers (another bourgeois vice). The Khmer Rogue were terribly racist. I don’t think anyone will deny that they were Communists.
Even Strasserites are Communists, granted they were odd ones. Further, Strasser had no biological race-based objection to Jews. He had an economic objection. And he wasn’t the best anti-Semite. He kept asking the others why they were so overboard on the Jewish Question.
Stalin wasn’t the best on women’s rights.
The Bulgarian Communists had opinions on race that would be considered Nazism nowadays.
As noted, homosexuality was banned in all of the Communist World. Castro put them in labor camps. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation even today doesn’t have the best policy on gays nor on Jews for that matter. I’m pretty sure they are Communists.
Trans people were not even acknowledged by any Communist country ever.
We have to completely rethink our view of fascism.
It is perfectly possible to have a libertine fascism in a porn-drenched society, which is what we just went through with Trump. MAGA folks are not repressed at all in my observation. They’re not out of touch with their bodies. The Sex Revolution of the 60’s which I was a part of took care of that.
MAGA fascism even allowed for equal rights for women. MAGA women do not appear to be discriminated against legally. A lot of them made a lot of money and held high positions.
Fascism has always been homophobic, yet the Nazi brownshirts were full of homosexuals, and I’ve talked to many gay MAGA types.
I assure you that there are gay MAGA folks. I’ve talked to a number of them. Mitch McConnell is a lifelong homosexual. He’s as fascist as they come. The first brownshirts were full of homosexuals. The Republican Convention welcomed an open fascist, the founder of Ebay, to their convention. They gave him a standing ovation.
I’m aware of Neo-Nazis to this day who are open homosexuals. James O’Meara was one. A number of White Supremacists have been outed as closeted gays. One was murdered by his young Black boyfriend. A friend used to be involved in these groups and he told me that was a LOT of homosexuality in this scene.
Brazilian fascist integralism was multi-racial and formally anti-racist, populist to the core. But Bolsonaro does not come from this milieu; he represents an actual throwback in some ways to classical European fascism of the 1930’s.
Fascism has traditionally been racist, but Black and Indian fascism is a real thing. I believe that fascism knows no color. The Tonton Macoutes of Haiti were black fascists. The Black Hutu government in Rwanda was fascist, as was Mobutu in Zaire and Samuel Doe in Liberia.
A fascist indigenist Indian rights activist is running for President in Ecuador. He’s pulled support from Cultural Left morons who support his Identity Politics while overlooking his fascism, a typical error of IP types, who are the a scourge of the Left.
Obviously modern fascism opposes transsexualism, but that’s not necessarily the case into the future. Caitlin Jenner, a fully-transitioned transwoman, is MAGA.
In the future we may see even forms of fascism that offer equal rights to gays and maybe even transsexuals.
Repost from the old site. This is a great old article from the old days.
In reference to the title, I was working as a linguist/anthropologist, when one day this new woman from New York came to work for us. She was a bitch from Day One. She knew it all, and boy did she! She was pissed, and after a bit, I figured it out. She’d slaved her butt off to get a college degree, and here she was, slaving as a secretary. What a failure.
She was a vegetarian, and when I told her I ate meat, she gave me these dagger eyes and said pointedly, “I know. All meat-eaters smell terrible to us vegans.” It went on and on like that with her for some time.
Being an introvert and pretty much of a puss at work (I call this the “office puss” role that men who work in offices must play), I kept on smiling and sucking up to her and trying to be nice. Whenever anyone’s mean to us, we introverts usually figure we fucked up and that’s why they are properly treating us with the contempt, scorn, coldness or indifference we deserve. So I kept trying to act better, and she kept being a bitch.
One day she came to me all apologetic and baffled. “I don’t know what’s wrong?” she shook her head sadly. Turned out I wasn’t the only recipient of her bitch-rays. The whole office was.
“The boss told me that I’m not being nice to people, but I just can’t see it. I think I’m nice to everyone but she says everyone says I’m mean. None of this makes any sense to me.”
I’d already figured her out long ago. She was a headstrong, independent type. Within a few weeks of moving from New York to California, she had herself a decent guy and had already moved him in. Good work. Boy, women have it so tough. They can get laid anytime they want. I’m crying so hard for them now I can barely type.
She had the “got it together” mindset that tended to look down on 90% of the population as fuckups. It’s true that I’m a huge fuckup but you don’t need to say it over and over. Look. I get it. I know I’m a fuckup. I heard you the 98,681th time. I don’t need to be reminded of it all the livelong day.
And one thing you need to know about angry people is that 95% of the time, 95% of angry people deny their anger and general shittiness, especially when they are beating up on weaker people, which all angry ever people do anyway. I’m not sure what the psychological mechanism is, but I think it’s important to know this. Ever heard an angry person say, “I’m an asshole but I just can’t stop. I need Assholes Anonymous”? Of course not.
Anyway, she came from New York and brought her New York Bitch attitude with her. Back there, it’s normal. I guess they say, “Have a nice day” the same way we say, “Fuck you.”
She was here to apologize to me for being a bitch, on bosses’ orders under penalty of being fired if not done, though she had done nothing. Would I accept her apology? Sure. Was she being a bitch?
“Well, yeah, she was, I nodded.”
Then I started to explain.
I sat down on the curb with her.
“This is how you do it. You need to start faking your feelings.”
I asked her how she felt about her boss and her co-workers.
I think she hated the boss, but I’m not sure about the co-workers. I’m not sure how she answered that. She liked me just fine even though she treated me like shit, but only for the love of God she just could not not see it.
“Look. The boss pisses me off too. And some of these co-workers really piss me off. But I’m not sure if they know it. What do I do? I disguise my feelings.
“Here is what you do. Go ahead and feel any way you want about your boss and co-workers, but adjust your feelings when you have to actually deal with them.
“Say you have to go talk to the boss. Forget that you hate her. Walk into the room, smile and act like you love her. Don’t fake it, because that shows. Actually brainwash yourself into thinking she really is the greatest boss in the world and believe it as hard as you can.
“Then after you walk out the door, mutter under your breath what a bitch she is. This is what you do. You play roles all the time. I usually don’t show people my true feelings, and I’m always putting on some kind of show or other.”
She was dumbstruck.
“You actually do this? How long have you been doing this?”
“Oh, ten years at least, maybe even longer.”
Then she started in about how this was awful, as it was not genuine and honest. It was lying. This was horrible and dishonest and probably even ought to be illegal. Anyway, it was immoral. In New York, everyone wears the heart on sleeve, and that’s why they are all so ornery. But at least they are moral.
This thing I was arguing, it was so…Californian! To put on a mask, lie to everyone all the time, always fake it, never be real, etc..
“Well,” I suggested. “What good is being honest when it gets you fired?”
She did agree that I had a point.
“Look,” I said. “Another thing you can do is save it up. All day long, no matter how much you hate the boss, every time you think of her, think of how actually you really love her and she is the greatest boss on Earth.”
“At 5:03 PM, as you are pulling onto the highway to drive home, you may begin cursing the evil boss. If need be, you may curse, swear, and pound upholstery all the way home. But the next day at work, you put all that away, and stride smiling into the office to work for the greatest boss on Earth again.”
She acted like this was really evil, but I suggested it was better than getting your ass fired. She nodded humbly. She asked me if I did this at work. All the time, I assured her.
Then she went on her way.
Every time she saw me after that, she was always smiling at me, but she had this weird look on her face like she was looking at me trying to figure out what I really thought of her or what in God’s name was going on in my head.
It’s the way you look at some weird object when you can’t figure out what the heck it is, turning it over, poking around at it, putting it up close and then far away, showing it around.
I was a Goddamned walking enigma, what do you know?
I’d given her the evil secret of lying your life away, but you had to admit, at least it kept her ass off the curb.
When I was working as an anthropologist for a local Indian tribe, I had to go through all of the anthropological literature about the tribe. This took quite some time. There was quite a bit of hostility from the Indians towards the anthropologists, which is stupid, sad, and mostly just ignorant.
The legend had grown up among many of the Indians that the anthropologists who had come through were the “enemies of the Indian people.” I researched the folks who had come through and it didn’t seem to fit.
We are talking some of the biggest names of all like Alfred Kroeber. Kroeber and his wife loved the Indians in a time at the turn of the century when Indians were not so popular. The legend continued that the crafty Indians, in order to fool the wicked White men, had concocted lies to tell the anthropologist.
Anthropological field work is hard enough without having to deal with this kind of crap, but it does come up at times.
Fieldwork manuals will tell you, first of all, that you need to develop a strong sense of cultural relativity if you are going to do fieldwork.
You have to decide that whatever it is these folks do in terms of their culture and values, no matter how weird, stupid, horrible, or noxious, it’s ok. You aren’t going to make any judgments about it.
You want to chop off little girls’ clits? Ok, no big.
You put grandpa on an ice floe when he gets old? Understandable, I’d do the same with my own Dad.
You treat your women like shit? Hey, I can understand, in dating countless women over a lifetime, I’ve built up a nice boiling witches brew of hatreds and grievances myself. Keep them ball-breaking bitches down! You go, guys! Show them cunts who’s in charge! Damn right they better put out or else! They owe us! We rule!
I think you get the picture.
This sort of thing may prove difficult for many folks.
In fieldwork, you need to do this to get along properly with your subjects. If you don’t accept their lifestyle with “unconditional positive regard,” it’s probably not going to work very well. You get subjects lying to you like they did with Margaret Mead and all sorts of stuff.
I actually spent a lot of time on this agonizing question, and I called up famous anthropologists all over the country in trying to solve this empirical question. Had the evil White anthropologists really been had by these crafty noble savages, fresh out of Paleolithic?
Turns out they probably had not. Further, I uncovered a lot of data that suggested that all of the anthros had a good relationship with their informants.
Another thing you can do is go through all of the old data and see how well it all lines up. Turns out that all of the data I had from 1873 through 1970 lined up very well.
There were times when I spotted some lying. Indians said that wild horses and buffalo used live in Central California, and they used to hunt them. The last wild horses lived here 10,000 years ago, and buffalo never did. The anthro himself wrote in his field notes that he thought they were lying to him.
There are several ways to test this. One thing you can do is to interview informants over a period of time, say weeks or months. You can work with a single informant any number of times over that period. You can ask the same question over and over a few times and see if the answers vary.
Another thing you can do is go around to different informants and ask the same question. If only one informant says, yeah, we ate vultures for breakfast, and the others say, “Hell no, we did not, he’s lying,” then vulture-eater is probably lying.
You can interview informants alone and with others, changing the others around, and see if their stories change when they are with various others compared to what they say when they are alone. You can shoot questionable material to others and see if they back it up. In fact, you need to try to back up all of your data. One informant is pretty shaky.
It all rests on the sort of relationship you have with your informants. Bad relationship = possibility of poor data. Good relationship portends good data.
I decided that there was some tragic reason why the Indians harbored this hatred for the anthros. Obviously, the anthros just represented Whitey.
Plus many of them had this crazy idea that all the anthros had used the Indians, gone back to Berkeley or wherever and used this illustrious knowledge to write famous books about the Indians and got rich. The anthros got rich, and the Indians never saw a dime. It’s not true, but it felt good to them.
There was a sadder aspect to this anger. All of the great stuff on these Indians had been written by White people. Everything on the language, the culture, everything.
Why couldn’t the Indians write down about their language and culture themselves? The suggestion is that they are too stupid to do that, so they have to have the Smart White Man come and do it for them, and that’s totally humiliating. A reaction to humiliation is rage.
I went through Sylvia Broadbent’s Grammar of Southern Sierra Miwok as part of my work. One informant, who worked as some sort of “House Indian” in Yosemite National Park, was well-known for being a showman, liar, and teller of tales. He also knew a lot of language, but he threw in lots of other words that other informants had never heard before. She ended up rejecting a lot of his data as spurious.
As you can see, this is not exactly hard science. Where do you think “physics envy” comes from? It gets hard to get mathematical proofs of much of anything in the social sciences, which is why the physicists sneer that our sciences are “soft sciences”.
So much of our judgments in these tough cases in fieldwork is play it by ear, seat of the pants, I know it when I see it intuitive stuff.
Unfortunately my project floundered over some of the Indians’ rage at the anthropologists. I had gathered this data and was set to write it up, and the whole thing got shot down.
Because elders said that the Indians had lied to the anthros, every word of the notes was up for grabs. There were known knowns, known unknowns, and worst of all, unknown unknowns, the last category being what the otherwise non-empirical Indians deemed the notes.
I was on a salary anyway, so it really didn’t matter. One of the amusing things was the sort of things that they disputed. They were livid about the notes that reported that these Indians tole the anthros that they used to eat skunks, rattlesnakes, and gopher snakes.
Their rejection of this food, of which the rattlesnakes at least are proven to taste precisely like chicken (of course), is based on a primitive but common mode of thinking. Rattlesnakes are poisonous, so they are evil, so they should not be eaten. The suggestion is that the meat is poison too. Only an idiot would eat poison meat.
Skunks smell horrible when you piss them off, so obviously their meat must taste like their horrid odor. Someone else opined that their meat is “probably pretty oily.”
Turns out, according to the New York Times in 1913, skunk is one of the delicacies of the woods, right up there with possum, deer, and bear. The main obstacle in the way of proper enjoyment are the speed bumps of human psychology. As long as you associate the meat with skunk-stink, it might taste pretty bad. Convince yourself it’s really fillet mignon and you can dig in for a hearty meal.
Tender eating, skunk meat tastes like either chicken (obviously), goose, duck, or rabbit, depending on your powers of dissociation. You really need to figure out how to dress skunk meat properly in order to keep the stink away from the choice cuts. Baked skunk recipe here.
As I feel I’ve been figuratively eating skunk most of my life anyway, I may as well take the plunge some day. If it’s really as good as they say it is, I assume it will be coming to Chez Panisse or Spago anytime now.
The gopher snake was also rejected as food, but I have often wondered what they tasted like. A while back, I was catching them by the side of the road a lot. If they were near dead, I’d bring them home and throw them on the lawn for my cats to play with, or drag them around on the lawn and let the cats chase them.
Of course I washed the snake blood off my hands and my car. People who saw me doing that still think I’m a really weird person.
After the gopher snake died, I brought it inside and seriously thought about figuring how to cook the sucker. I finally gave up and threw it out in the woods in back. One cool thing about living in the woods is any small dead animal you toss into the woods will always vanish within 1-2 days max. Carrion doesn’t stick around long in nature; it’s the feral equivalent of dumpster-diving.
I later asked some people how to slice up and cook a gopher snake, and everyone thought it was one of the most outrageous things they had ever heard. I guess they still think I’m weird too.
Anyway, the Indians insisted that they never ate gopher snake. “Ugh!” One Indian said, “They taste like dirt. It lives in the ground!” He curled up his nose.
I’m told this is more erroneous thinking, and the guy’s probably never chowed down one anyway. This cognitive error states that a thing tastes like what it lives in. Gopher snakes spent a lot of time in subterranean mode pushing up daisies but living to tell about it, so therefore, they must taste like dirt. It lives in dirt; it tastes like dirt. Probably not. By this logic, pork tenderloin ought to taste like mud, and it doesn’t.
Of course, inquiring minds the world over (Well, at least me anyway) are dying to know the ins and outs of how to hunt, kill, and skin skunks. Forget the kitchen for now. Procurement and dressing are tough enough.
Try here. Turns out skunks may be trapped, shot, killed by bow and arrow, drowned, or asphyxiated with car exhaust. Clearly the trick is to kill em without getting sprayed. This ends up being quite the challenge. Skunk dressing is so involved that colleges ought to offer six-month courses for certificates in it. The first story here is quite amusing. It’s pretty much skunk-skinning gone wrong about every way it could. I got a kick.
How arrogant is this? I mean, no matter how much they might dislike a person, the nerve to resort to this! They don’t get it! The bad person isn’t really all that bad. But they haven’t given her/him a chance. Also, the love felt is not logical. We could even resort to Biblical scripture to say something about this. Why should God love the rebels and downtrodden, but not us? Aren’t we supposed to follow in his footsteps?
Yeah, it’s logical to find “safe partners”. Assuming they’re not snobs who you can’t get anyway – LOL. Even if you could get them, think of how boring they would be! How uninteresting is a relationship with no drama and maybe even with someone looking down on you because you aren’t normie enough!
Anyway, our families are not the only people to try to interfere with our lives. The entity could be the government trying to make a separation – for your own good of course! It might be for the good of a third party, but despite the good intention, it’s an inhumane choice between one and the other.
Jason writes: Women shouldn’t like this stuff. Nonetheless, they always have a desire for men who aren’t “too nice”. In that case, it’s advised to play “hard to get” a lot. Well, the other option is actually becoming a sadist – lol.
You know how many women, especially young women aged 18-20, have dumped me recently for being too nice to them? A number of them did.
They literally wanted to be treated like crap and not just in bed but outside of it too. I don’t mind rough sex and I can be pretty dominant and dom a woman pretty hard. I’m just really aggressive with them. But it’s all just a big game. When it’s over, I love or like her as much as ever. I love women. I like them far more than men. I like and love the women I am with. I don’t want to hate them and treat them like crap. If I like or love her, why do I want to hate her? It’s perverse and bizarre. If you like or love people, you don’t’ abuse them and treat them like crap.
You know how many women literally want to be with a man who hates them and treats them like crap? A lot! Could be up to 1/3.
Forget that. And like I said, I don’t mind rough sex at all. It’s just I can’t take it all the way into the hardcore BD/SM stuff because that scene is literally the ultimate in sicko stuff. All the men are sick and evil, and all the women are hopeless, pathetic, have low self-esteem, and absolutely hate themselves. There’s no way you can have any kind of love or even “like” in a relationship like that.
Sure, maybe the woman gets hooked into the guy and worships him. But he feels nothing but contempt for her. And most of them take it to 24/7 total power exchange Dom/Sub stuff, which to me is totally sick and weird.
What I have heard is that all women coming out of these relationships after 5+ years seem to have been harmed. The damage to them looks exactly like the damage to a battered women, and a lot of them Stockholm their doms just like battered women Stockholm their abusers. The relationships themselves look exactly like a classic abusive relationship, except the women like it! It’s a consensual abusive relationship.
If you’re into this stuff as a woman, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re crazy.
For the men, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re evil.
The guys are not that screwed up. They’re just assholes. A lot of men love being assholes. Look how many men are abusive in their relationships and with their kids.
Men are naturally sadistic at least a bit, and women are naturally masochistic at least a bit. Think of the sex act itself. Of course you can do a lot of sex acts in a very slow, tender, sweet, kind, and loving way, but that’s not how it goes a lot of the time.
A lot of the time, he’s being a bit sadistic and she’s being a bit masochistic. He’s pounding away at her in an aggressive or even violent way, and she’s just laying there while some maniac pounds away at her insides. That’s degrading right there!
In that sense, think a lot of even normal sex is degrading to women. It almost has to be. That’s why so many women like this sort of thing. Not only do most women want to be dominated in bed, but you would be shocked at how many women love gross disgusting, degrading and humiliating sex acts and behavior. I admit I do name-calling. And those are degrading terms that I use with them.
Many women react to degradation, humiliation, and grossness by going absolutely insane horny out of their minds, multi-orgasmic, cum drunk, in another world, forget their own names, won’t remember 90% of it, and are so horny they will do just about anything, you name it.
Of course there are women who dislike this type of sex. I’ve met them.
But there a lot of others who do not! Man, you have no idea. If we are talking about women who like degrading and humiliating name-calling and disgusting behavior and therefore consequently liking being degraded and humiliated to some extent per se, then you would be literally blown away by how many women love to be treated like that.
From 18 year old girls to 52 year women, that’s my experience. I didn’t meet that many JB’s like this when I was young enough to be having sex with them from 16-21, so I don’t know how common this is in 13-17 year old girls, who are absolutely sexual beings in the full sense that any woman is. Anyway, I was way too vanilla back then. But even way back then, a lot of the girls acted like a wild animal in a cage.
But grown women? Hell yeah. From waitresses to heiresses, so many of them love it, though I’ve never been with an heiress yet.
Problem is once you give men permission to act sadistically in bed, a lot of them are going to love it and take that ball and run as far as they can with it. And maybe get carried away. I would advise women to not encourage this behavior in their men too much. You’re playing with a lit firecracker.
With this sort of behavior, as the sadism increases, so does the excitement in the male. It’s almost a blood lust, probably genetic. But who knows how nutty he’ll get? I think a fair amount of these women murdered in bed by their partners or dates are a consequence of letting this sort of sex get out of control. The guy may have not even set out to kill her. He just got wrapped up in the moment, kept getting more excited and consequently sadistic in a feedback loop and lost control of himself.
Have you heard of predators that go into a “killing frenzy?” Bobcats can do it. My neighbor told me once that a friend of his raised ducks. There was a huge commotion one night. He didn’t know what it was but he didn’t check. He got up early. At 6 AM, there was a bobcat sleeping in his duck pen and 19 dead ducks. The bobcat hardly ate any of them. He just went into a “killing frenzy.” Large pet dogs can do it too, especially to chickens and ducks. They don’t even eat them. They just kill them. And tear them apart too.
This exact same mechanism you see in the bobcat can happen to us men if we don’t watch this sadistic part ourselves from boyhood like a hawk if and when you let it out to play. You better keep him on a tight leash.
I sure as Hell do. You don’t even want know what my inner maniac wants to do or at least what I think it wants to do because I think it mostly operates subconsciously. But he’s been locked up in a cage deep inside me for most of my adulthood. And that’s where he’s staying! I have done much harm to innocent people in my life as a result. I will get into a fight if you hit me. I killed a man, or at least I tried to kill him once at age 17.
That makes me sound like a maniac, but you must understand that he and his psycho friends were trying to kill my friend and I. Sometimes in life it comes down to kill or be killed. And you better choose kill. You try to kill, injure the person so badly they can’t get up and chase you, or knock him out cold. And then you flee as fast as you can. If you don’t disable the guy, permanently or temporarily, he’s liable to chase you. And a lot of people can run faster than you do.
I’ve already had 3-4 men try to murder me so far in life, and I’m not even a wild person. But I have a wild side, I love parties and nightclubs and even dangerous scenes. Men are simply dangerous as Hell. Women go on and on about men killing women. Fine.
But 80% of the people men kill are other men. Women get off easy. Most of us men have been in serious fights with other men. Some men were beat up regularly as boys. Many others have been victims of violent crime as adults. I know I was a victim of a serious violent crime once. I was kidnapped (a hitchhiker took control of my car), threatened with death, beaten, had beer thrown at me, and sexually assaulted (Well, he grabbed my penis). He also threw my car into reverse when it was going 55 mph. I somehow got him out of my car but even then he was pounding at the windows trying to get back in. I never even went to the police.
I was a serious mental wreck for about three weeks. I was a student teacher at the time. Then it just went away and I haven’t felt much about it since. God knows how it’s effected me subconsciously though. But we men tend to get over things. Maybe too fast. How? We bury it. Suppress it or better yet repress it. Most men are dormant volcanoes due to all the bad feelings of terror and rage they’ve been stuffing away their whole lives.
This sexual sadism is dangerous stuff if you are a man. I’d advise extreme caution. You’re playing with fire. If you don’t put a leash on this sort of thing, you can end up with an injured or even dead woman, or a serious legal problem, arrest, possible jail or prison, and a lifetime of guilt.
We, especially we men, need to control our lusts. Sexual lusts, avarice, blood lusts, lusts for drugs and food, all of them. We are wired to be gluttons, but gluttony doesn’t work. It tends to be a short trip to a grave. Life is about, possibly more than anything else, controlling that damned wild animal, that predatory mammal, that raging terrified beast, inside of us.
My Mom said that an older woman, 50 years old, I dated recently broke up with me because I was too nice. I told my Mom her life story. This woman had experienced a seemingly endless list of maniacs, guys pulling guns on her, death threats (even with guns), violent rapes, child molestations, and even one rape assault that nearly left her for dead and caused neurological damage. has happened to her over and over. The last man she was with was an ex-Marine. She broke up with him because he kept having bad dreams and trying to strangle her in his sleep.
Ladies, if you are with a man like this, get away from. Sure, he’s doing it in his sleep but there’s something very bad in his subconscious. And I’m sure it’s seeping over into his conscious mind. Men like this are dangerous. A lot of them really like to hurt women.
My Mom listened, shook her head and said, “She likes violent men. She’s literally picking out men who are going to get violent or menacing with her and then they do it. She’s seeking out her own abuse in some sense. You’re too nice. She dumped you because you’re too nice”
She’s probably right. This is the story of my life. I just can’t bring myself to be an asshole to women, at least as a matter of course. I would like to never fight at all, but no matter what a woman tells you, trust me, she wants to fight some of the time. Some women say they never want to fight, but I don’t believe them. And the ones who said that to me literally picked fights with me in cruel ways, even baiting me.
Sure, I can be one, especially if she is being bitchy and mean in a contemptuous, wicked, and unfair way, I will attack her back but only verbally. And I will call her every name in the book. Then there’s a big fight.
All your girlfriends are going to be mad at you and act unfriendly, cold, or even contemptuous and enraged at times. The key is not to rid the relationship of these feelings from her but instead to keep it at a minimum. I’m cynical now as I age to the point where if a relationship is good 51% of the time, it’s it’s almost ok for me.
The weird thing is that ever since I started cussing women out like a maniac when they unload on me unfairly like that, I’ve had the most satisfying relationships of my life. More women have fallen in love with me and for longer. I’ve had four different women want me to move with them and marry them just in the past several years. That never happened before. And they loved me so deeply, usually deeper than most women had loved me before.
I don’t think most women like or want bad men. I do think they want a a man who won’t take any crap from them and will rip them a new one and even terrorize or terrify them when unload on him viciously or unfairly. They want a man who loves them deeply but won’t take any crap. This is the man they wish to love with all their heart and all their soul.
So when men say, “You’ve got to treat them like shit…you’ve got to be an asshole to women” in a voice with the knowledge of experience, this is what they are talking about it, though they may have a faulty understanding of this concept. A woman wants a man who will be mean or an asshole to her when she attacks him unfairly. She wants a nice guy in a way but a nice guy who doesn’t take any crap and almost turns psycho when she rip loose on him.
So, do women like assholes, as everyone says? Not exactly. Maybe 1/3 do. But a lot of women really don’t.
But one thing women despise is wimps. A wimp by definition is a man who won’t fight back. If you met me you might think I’m a wimp, and I’ve been called that before by women. But no woman who truly knows me would ever call me that. If you say that it just means you don’t really know me.
I have a very soft voice, I’m quiet, cerebral, well-dressed and mannered, unfailingly polite and so nice you don’t even believe it’s real. Wimps are classically like this.
But my Mom said, “You’re not a wimp. You fight back!” Absolutely. If you fight back and especially if you fight back hard, Hell no you’re not a wimp. Women say they hate it when you read them the riot act, but I think they secretly love you for fighting back against them and not taking any of their crap.
Women are like children in some ways. They want to be led.
They’re followers who want to be dominated and led by a strong person. They’re also very needy, though they hate us for being this way.
Women want you to be available. They want you to be there for them. They almost get a disorder like the Childhood Attachment Disorder when you’re not. This is a disorder of little kids who can’t be on their own or cry when they’re separated from their parents.
I had a woman staying with me several years ago. Now and then, they come stay here. She even flew in on a plane! We spent several days together. Towards the end we were back here, and I had to go off on my own and write. You know we writers are all loners and spend most of our time reading and writing.
Reading and writing is almost a “sensual pleasure” for us, like watching a movie, playing a sport, a dinner party, or a European vacation. I used to get dropped off a the USC library, and my ride would come back 10 hours later. It seemed like an hour to me, or even minutes. I would have a pile of books on my desk. I’d been gobbling books for 10 hours. I didn’t want to leave. It was as exciting to me as a Caribbean cruise or a safari to Africa. My rides were stunned that I could stay there all day long without a moment of boredom. But that’s us. That’s us writers.
Anyway, there was a bit of a fight over this because I had to go off and be alone, and as I said, women want you around all the time. So we made a deal. She would stay in the living room and read a book or whatever and I would go to my office and write. About once and hour she would come in, and and we would make out wildly like high school kids for 5-10 minutes. There was no actual genital sex, but it was still a blast. That was all she needed. Seven minutes out of an hour of pure contact fix. Then she could go be alone for another 53 minutes.
There was a certain long-term girlfriend who got mad and me from time to time and really blasted me. But none of it was coming from a place of cruelty or evil. I just hurt her feelings somehow. The anger was coming from a place of innocence, not a place cruelty. So I never blasted her, not even once in 1 1/2 years. Because her anger and even rage was not coming from a place of cruelty but a place of hurt or even outrage.
I also think women are somewhat like children in another sense.
You know how children want to test your boundaries and see how far they can get with you? Well, a lot of women want to do the exact same thing. It is for this reason that a lot men think women are “evil,” but they’re not being evil, they’re just acting like devious and mischievous children.
They literally want you to built a fence around them and say, “This far and no more!” I will let you have a lot of freedom by there is some stuff that is just out of bounds that I will not tolerate. By the same token, a lot of these rebellious children actually want you to build a rodeo fence around them too and set some sort of limits on them. You’re saving them from themselves. Women want to be saved from themselves too.
Rambo: From the very beginning of the Delphi case, a lot of people had sneaking suspicions that there was a better than average chance that the person or persons involved in this knew beforehand that the day of the crimes would be a school off-day for the girls. A lot of people’s first thought was someone connected with the girls’ school.
Yes, of course. It’s worse than that. He actually stalked Libby for four months beforehand. And the idea that this was a last minute decision has been proven wrong. The girls were discussing it as early as Friday because people who knew the girls were talking about their upcoming trip in local bars that night. And it looks like Libby posted on her Instagram at some point that she was going to the bridge.
I suppose he must have known Abby was going to be there too, so he may have targeted her in a sense too. Instagram is the site that he was catfishing Libby on with that young man’s photo.
This whole idea that he went to that crowded bridge that afternoon with his full-blown murder kit just to haphazardly see if he could find female or two to kill is insane. Others say he was just there to kill anyone, even a man. That’s even more insane. Further, I’m wondering if he’s into killing women. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. He’s not a pedophile, but he could be a hebephile, a very common sexual orientation. After all, 26% of all men could be classified as hebephiles or pedophiles!
13 and 14 is a bit young to be targeting females, but a number of serials have killed young teenage girls and women too because after all, teenage girls look like women! Face facts. Ted Bundy killed a 12 year old girl, but 12 year old girls are on the cusp of puberty and while they don’t look like women, they look enough like women that a lot of men are starting to find them “interesting.”
I believe Bundy also killed an 8 year old girl when he was 14, but he would never admit to that. He even implied in interviews that he had done some things that he would never admit to. Even for Ted Bundy, killing a little 8 year old girl was too low. Maybe not too low but just shameful. Bundy was a narcissist, a malignant narcissist. Perhaps he thought it was shameful to his reputation as the Greatest Serial Killer of All Time if he would admit to killing a little girl. It was a bridge too far.
This is fascinating because it implies that even the worst people of all think there are some things that are just beyond the pale.
Hitler was appalled by the mistreatment of animals. I guess he thought Jews and Slavs were below animals. And one of the worst Nazis of all, Goebbels, has a bit of a moral compass. In the early days of the Holocaust, they were just lining Jews up and shooting them with firing squads. Goebbels witnessed one of these shootings and he completely freaked out. He broke down in front of everyone, started crying, just carried on. And he decreed that there was to be no more of this or they needed to get away from that as quickly as possible.
The next step was not the gas chambers as everyone thinks. Instead it was “gas vans.” Jews were killed in these vans for a while before the Final Solution was agreed upon at the Wansee Conference in 1942 and they moved to the chambers in the name of efficiency but also because they wanted to kill people in as sterile of clean way as possible, in an almost antiseptic was hidden way the same way your cat is kindly quickly, efficiently and cruelly when it is taken to the vet for the last time.
Murder is murder but when you do it as cleanly as possible, it’s easier to rationalize it. If you murder in a cold and cruel way, it seems horrible as disgust sets in and it seems like you really did kill them. If you do it clean, in your mind you can make it seem that you didn’t really “kill” them in the same way as if you chopped them to pieces. Of course it makes no sense, but we are emotional creatures so we are not purely logical and our conscious and especially subconscious mind is “irrational” that can only be understood if we are using “emotional logic” instead of “pure logic” or the logic of Spock on Star Trek.
So they went to the gas chambers. But at first they were not burning the bodies. They were burying them in mass graves, especially at a few little known camps that were truly extermination camps such as Sobibor and Theresienstat. All of these were in Poland. It is odd that Auschwitz is more famous than these extermination camps while Auschwitz was less exterminationist than these others. 15% of the inmates at Auschwitz survived.
After all, it was first and foremost a labor camp. It sounds awful that 85% of them were killed of course, but at some of those Polish extermination camps it was even worse. There was one that killed 900,000 people. There were perhaps 30 survivors who ran for it into the local woods at the very end as the Allies were closing in. Even most of these escapees were killed. Only .0003 percent survived. 15% is a Hell of a lot more than .0003%.
Anyway, Goebbels was at one of those extermination camps and he saw the mass graves where they had buried maybe 10,000’s on inmates. It had been raining and the bloating from the decaying corpses was so extreme owing to the rain and sheer number of the dead that the ground beneath them was literally rising up and falling as they were standing on it. The Earth was alive but in a terrible way.
Once again, Goebbels completely flipped out, got hysterical, started yelling and crying and said no more mass graves. This is how the ovens were added to the gas chambers. To eliminate dead bodies in a more efficient and especially less disgusting way. Once again if you put them in ovens, you can almost rationalize it away. All that’s left are ashes and it’s hard to see those are former humans. Your mind can always tell you, “Oh those are just ashes, that’s all. Not formerly human corpses.” Again this is not logical, but according to emotional logic, it makes complete sense.
It’s interesting that three of the most evil men of the 20th Century actually had a moral compass. A very tiny and meager one for sure, but some things were beyond the pale even for them. One wonders if there has ever been a human with no moral compass at all if one such a human is even possible. Even wild animals have moral compasses. A female mountain lion won’t kill her cubs. A male mountain lion won’t kill his mate.
It’s also interesting that if the kill people and get rid of bodies in as cold, efficient, sterile and maybe democratic way as possible, the mind can rationalize that you’re not “really” killing people and disappearing bodies.
There is no way to understand people until we understand that we are not purely logical creatures. Our emotions make it so we can never be such.
Probably one of the stupidest attitudes one can have in life is to assume that people are logical and sensible. They’re just not. People are irrational. If you think people are or should be rational, you will be disappointed and angry at other people your whole life. You will see others are idiotic, crazy, senseless, etc.
But once you figure out that our emotions color our thoughts and actions and there is an “emotional logic” behind a lot of behaviors, you can start forgiving people a lot more and your feelings about your fellow humans will mellow and become more kind. Furthermore, a lot of behavior you thought was crazy now makes sense if we plug it into “emotional logic.”
It has now come out that there are religious aspects to the Delphi Murders case out of Delphi, Indiana from 2017. The scene of killings was staged in some sort of a religious or occult manner. I have no details on this, but I do believe that a cross or a crucifix was left at the scene where these girls were murdered. There may be other religious aspects to the case.
Some of these type of killers – sexually motivated killers of women, often young women or serial killers in general – are “religious avengers” out to kill “sluts” and “whores” to clean up the world for God, but these girls murdered in Delphi were obviously neither, so I doubt that’s a factor here. I suppose they’re fairly pristine in that sense.
In addition, these killers guys tend to target actual prostitutes as part of their “whore cleanup project.” Obviously neither of these girls were employed as prostitutes.
These killers think they are ridding the world of bad women, and there’s obviously a lot of misogyny too. Although this type of killer is not very common, there have been a few. There’s even a “type” like that. I think it’s called Messianic Serial Killer. He’s on a mission from God, so to speak.
If you spend a bit of time on Earth with your eyes open instead of half-shut like most folks, after a while you figure out that only only do the worst people feel the best, but also the best people feel the worst. This is part of the problem with the self-esteem movement. As self-esteem rises, behavior tends to deteriorate. Low self-esteem is unfortunate, but most such people often behave very well. By pushing excessive self-esteem on people, we are creating societies full of narcissistic, uncaring, callous people.
You are free to think about why this is – the paradox that the best act the worst and the worst act the best, but I think I’ve got it.
The worst people feel best because the worse someone acts, the less guilt they feel because people free of guilt tend to act bad. Guilt is like the brakes on a car. A person with no guilt is like a car with no brakes. It’s a menace to the other cars on the road.
The best people feel the worst probably because feeling the worst makes them act the best. In other words, extreme levels of guilt, though not optimal, seem to prevent most bad behavior, along with preventing a lot of behavior that is only slightly bad (and therefore normal) or not bad at all. This would be akin to a false positive.
So while high guilt levels select most bad behavior as bad and stop it, they also stop a lot of common and normal behavior on the false assumption that is seen as bad by society, and in addition (and here we come to the false positives) it selects a lot of perfectly normal behavior as bad.
So this sort of person has a selective device inside of them that is scanning the world for bad behavior that the might be engaging in or might choose to engage in. As such, it is preventing all sorts of behaviors – all bad behaviors for sure but also a lot of good behaviors.
These people are actually too good. They are nearly saints. But being a saint is quite painful, especially when one lives in a world of sinners. The saintly stride is a painful way to walk through life. In the car analogy above, this person is like someone who drives two-footed with one foot always on the brakes. Not only does this wear out the breaks but it also makes the person overly cautious on the road.
They drive slowly and wait too long to make turns. They’re not really hazards, but their overly inhibited driving obstructs other drivers and slows them down. Furthermore, it gets in the way of getting things done the same way excessive guilt often leads to a rather restricted and excessively cautious life.
In the Delphi Murders case, one of the early suspects who has since been completely cleared was rumored to like to drink and beat women when he had sex with them. Reportedly he beat one woman so badly that she had to go to the hospital. In the Karenna McClerkin disappearance in the same area of Indiana, one of the suspects is a Black firefighter who reportedly likes to beat his women when he has sex with them.
Although this behavior sounds horrific, it’s more common than one thinks. And even more bizarrely, there a quite a few women who actually like to get treated like this. Yep, they actually like guys to beat them up when they have sex with them. I’d like to avoid women like this as much as I can in life, although I once had a girlfriend like this who wanted me to inflict pain on her, like squeezing her nipples very hard. It didn’t do anything for me and I didn’t understand how this was supposed to be exciting. It just seemed sick to me.
Of course all of us men have a sadist buried inside of us from boyhood days. Not a sexual sadist because boys have no sex drive but a sadist, of course. It’s the natural state of the Boy in Nature. Nevertheless part of the process of honing a steel boy from the brittle iron of primitive mammalian boyhood via the fire of the cruel bootcamp that is involved in minting boys from men is to progressively stomp out this primitive mammalian sadist in the boy. It gets drummed into our heads as we move through boyhood more and more that this sort of thing is not acceptable in a man.
Young men still have a lot of sadism in them. This is part of the reason why they’re such assholes, and I say this as a former ill-behaved young man myself. As a man moves beyond 30, even this casual sort of social sadism, often written out as a male bonding practice via ribbing, teasing, etc. becomes increasingly “uncool.” At my age, late middle age, you’re just not supposed to act like this. Ever. With any man. No matter what. It seen as “uncool” and immature behavior.
Besides, it marks you as a huge dick. Feminists think we are monsters and a lot of red-pilled men agree with them. This isn’t really true but in the redpilled areas of the Manosphere range where the more toxic forms of masculinity play, you see quite a bit of it there tool. I find it ugly. I don’t like to fight with guys. I don’t even like to compete with them. I’m a Sigma Male. I don’t even have to compete. I look out and other men and think, “Competition? You call that competition LOL?” and never think of it anymore.
Anyway, the feminists need to know that it’s perfectly acceptable to be a real nice guy even in Man World, the world of masculine heterosexual men. You don’t have to be a dick. Honest.
Back to sexual sadism. Sadly there are probably lots of guys who like to beat and hurt women during sex, and just because some guy is screwed up like that doesn’t make him a murderer. And most guys like that probably never kill. They can definitely hurt women pretty badly though, that’s for sure.
The problem is it’s a bit hard to beat someone up “just a little bit.” Once you start beating people up, it tends to get out of hand pretty quickly.
Also this type, the sexual sadist, tends to get more excited as he hurts people, and hence he might feel his behavior escalating during the act. The disorder called sexual sadism tends to worsen with time, and it’s not unusual for these people, almost always men, to show up in therapist’s offices as their sexual sadism escalates concerned that the last time they did it they felt themselves escalating and had to stop themselves. They show up afraid they may kill someone next.
This disorder, like many mental disorders (at least to a point), tends to be progressive and worsen with time, at least without treatment. I’m not sure why that is but if I’ve learned one thing in life it’s that bad things tend to worsen, not get better, over time. Whether this is due to life sucking in general, Pynchonian entropy, the Spenglerian life process itself, or simply God being a Sadean sonofabitch is not known.
I recall a woman on the Net had some sick fetish where she wanted men to pretend to murder her during sex. So she had this sort of sex with ~10 different guys, and she said in a lot of the cases, the men got more and more excited as it escalated, and a number of the men said they had to stop themselves or they would have killed her.
These men may not have ever been full-blown sexual sadists. It’s simply true that sadistic violence tends to cause excitement in the male as the violence unfolds. As the excitement goes up, so does the violence in tandem. The end result can be seen in the crime pages of big papers every morning. You remember that feeling as a boy when you got more excited as your psychological or physical sadism progressed against your victim.
This type of sexual paraphilia is rather dangerous. Most never kill but it’s like handing someone a stick of dynamite and telling them to play with it.
A lot of people like to play around the edges with this sort of thing in sex, but they’re not seriously wrapped up in it as in the BD/SM lifestyle, which I regard as completely sick in its full-blown manifestation.
As long as it’s just a game that confines itself to the bedroom, it’s seems to be ok.
But in my opinion most serious sexual sadists and even sexual masochists are not very healthy people, and I’ve been studying this from a rather appalled distance for some time now. Women who come out of relationships with sexual sadists often appear damaged, and the damage often looks like a battered woman. The relationships themselves, when viewed from a distance, look precisely like the abusive male-female relationships you hear so much about, albeit in these cases, these precisely same relationships are completely consensual on the part of the woman.
It’s always consensual on the man’s part. He’s the one dishing it out after all. Most people who dish out abuse are quite happy to do so and guilt is not commonly experienced because the man most likely to feel guilt is the least likely to be abusive. As usual, the worst men feel the best and the best men feel the worse, and this applies to women too.
I’m not sure if there’s any safe or healthy way to do this crap. And in case you’re wondering, not that it matters, but this is not exactly my bag. I like to like and love the women I’m with, not hate them. But I’ve studied serial killers forever and this is a major part of their pathology. Also I work in mental health and a lot of the people I work with are dealing with antisocial thoughts – molesting children, committing homicide, etc. I specialize in this stuff.
Rape: Non-consensual sex generally involving force, the threat of force, gross deception like pretending to be another person, or drugging the victim. Everything else is gray rape and most DA’s won’t touch it with a 10 foot pole. Realistically, if she is protesting and telling you to stop and you are forcing yourself on her, it’s rape whether a DA will take it or not.
Coercion is an odd word. Anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal. People have been coercing me all my life. It’s not very nice, but it’s hardly rape as long as she ends up willing. It’s important to limit our definition of rape because even stranger rape is rarely prosecuted.
Almost no one ever goes down on sex with an intoxicated woman, no matter what she is intoxicated on. The feminist line that intoxicated women can never consent to sex is odd.
By this logic, intoxicated men can never consent either. Conceivably, a sober woman having sex with an intoxicated man is guilty or rape!
By the same token, an intoxicated man and an intoxicated woman are guilty of raping each other! Except of course only the man will conceivably ever go down on it.
And what of alcoholic women and women are drug addicts? Apparently every single time they have sex with anyone, they’re being raped!
Also, no one even knows what intoxicated means? At what point is someone drunk enough to not consent? Who knows!
What about other drugs – heroin, cocaine, cannabis, hallucinogens? At what point is one so intoxicated on this or that drug that they cannot consent? No one knows!
Obviously this law is ridiculously vague. All vague laws are unconstitutional and illegal because no one knows whether they are breaking them or not.
As usual, the intoxication is rape argument makes absolutely no sense, like almost everything feminists say ever. Which is a good reason to abandon feminism. It’s nothing but lies!
If you wish to know, DA’s will only prosecute on intoxicated sex as rape if she is passed out cold or passing in and out of consciousness. And even then, some video evidence might be nice. Case in point: the Steubenville boys. If she’s passed out, leave her alone! What are you, a necrophile? If she’s passing in and out of consciousness, forget it. She’s too wasted to enjoy it and half the time, you’ll be having sex with a corpse. In which case, what the Hell is wrong with you?
Logically speaking, you can coerce anyone into sex legally. If you make a condition of a job, it’s not illegal then either, but you can be sued as it’s a civil offense. As I said, anyone can coerce anyone into doing anything legal as long as there is no force or threat of force involved. If by the time she’s in bed, she’s awake and enthusiastic, it’s not important how you got her there unless you used force or the threat of force.
All affirmative consent laws are insane and stupid because no man has ever gone down on failing to read a woman’s mind properly. But if she looks terrified and unenthusiastic in bed as if you are forcing her to do something you don’t want to do, I don’t know pal, but that sounds awful rapey to me. It may be legal but that doesn’t mean it’s right.
Statutory rape (illegal intercourse): Of course teenage girls can consent, but in a legal sense we say some cannot with certain different-aged partners for various reasons, mostly that society finds the idea of adults having sex with teens of certain ages to be unsavory. Where it is consensual, the harm is almost zero.
Nevertheless, men should be advised that these laws are enforced, and nowadays they put you in prison. It’s mostly a non-issue compared to the others here. AOC varies but tends to be ~15-16 in most of the world. In European countries with AOC’s at this level, problems are very rare. This isn’t even really rape. It’s better to call it “illegal intercourse.”
Child molestation: Any sex with an adult and a child under 13 is child molestation. It has to be sex. Backrubs and shoulder pats don’t count. There has to be some sort of genital contact. As I noted in a previous post, harm varies with the degree of coercion.
Feminists should wish to recover all victims of child molestation to live full lives instead of being victims. Child molestation is illegal and should never be allowed. Some kids actually like it believe it or not (I’ve met adult women who enjoyed being molested), but we still need to keep it illegal because we do not wish to live in a society where adults have sex with kids.
Child rape: Sadly it is important to separate child rape from child molestation. This is because feminists and moral scolds have taken to conflating all child molestation as “child rape.” They’re not the same thing. Yes, small children cannot consent to sex with adults but that doesn’t mean it’s rape when it happens. Instead we use the word molestation to refer to the fact that little kids can’t legally consent. There’s no need to muddy the waters here.
Child molestation is generally “consensual” psychologically. However it is not consensual legally because we say that kids can’t consent to sex with an adult. Almost all sex with kids is molestation, not rape. Child rape does exist and it is a severe crime. It often involves strangers, abductions, threats, weapons, and violence. It’s always non-consensual by definition. In some cases, the children are physically harmed or even killed.
The consequences can certainly be long-lasting, even affecting the victim over a lifetime. Nonetheless, women seem to be able to get over rape. I know a number of women who were raped and got over it fine. I’ve only met one woman raped as a child and she won’t discuss it. And yes, it was pretty bad. Two 11 year old girls raped at knifepoint. As bad as it gets.
Pedophilia: This is simply a sexual orientation like homosexuality that means the primary or sole attraction is to children under 13. Hebephilia (primary attraction to pubescents age 12-14) and ephebephilia (primary attraction to teenagers) are not included in pedophilia.
These men cannot help their condition and need to be helped to manage it so they do not offend. There are now organizations of virtuous pedophiles dedicated to pedophiles who have committed themselves to non-offending. Pedophilia cannot be combated or prevented because we have no idea what causes it. There’s no way to fight it because it simply exists.
~75% of child molesters are non-pedophilic molesters. They’re no more pedophiles than any other man. This shows again that there is a difference between the terms pedophile and child molester. Most of this molesting tends to be in the family whereas pedophilic molesters tend to molest outside the family, in part because they often have no children of their own.
There is nothing wrong with these non-pedophilic molesters sexually and probably even psychologically – their sexual interests are quite ordinary. They are “normal” in the way that most criminals are “normal” – that is, they are not the slightest bit crazy. The fact that criminals in general are not crazy and in fact are often remarkably sane is in part what makes them so dangerous. If they were crazy we could protect ourselves from them better. The fact that they are so sane is what enables them to get away with their crimes and also makes them hard to catch.
Rather these are simply bad men who are opportunistic and will have sex with females in general – women, children, no matter. A female relative or child is also a very easy target for these very manipulative men. In some cases it is an alternative if the wife has cut off the sex. The best description of these men is that they are simply criminals. They are users and their behavior is part of a pattern of control and abuse, often combined with verbal and physical abuse.
It is hard to say how girls how girls are effected, for it is mostly girls who are effected by intrafamilial child molesting in part because most gay men do not have children nor do they have access to them. Most molesting of boys does not occur in the family, and in fact such molesting is not very common.
Instead most boys are molested by homosexual pedophiles. And of course there are homosexual pedophiles – the woke crowd claims that homosexuals and pedophiles cannot be one and the same and yet they can.
They tell this lie because sadly gay men do have a pretty high rate of child molesting, mostly probably of the pedophilic variety.
A logical explanation for this is that both homosexuality and pedophilia are probably developmental disorders, as is biological transsexualism. Something goes wrong developmentally with the fetus in the womb, hormonally in the case of male homosexuality and biological transsexualism but due to unknown factors in the case of pedophilia. It would stand to reason that developmental disorders might tend to overlap due to a common cause.
Pedophilia may be caused by subtle brain damage. Neurological soft signs – typically evidence of subtle brain damage – are very common in pedophiles. Furthermore, pedophiles tend to have lower IQ’s than non-pedophiles, once again suggestive of mild brain damage.
In some ways it is worse if your own father is doing it to you. Nevertheless, most seem to get over it with time. The behavior of non-pedophilic molesters is outside the purview of mental health because we just talk about whether behavior or persons are crazy or not. And these men are not crazy. They’re just bad. We are talking about matters of morality and law, not matters of psychology and psychiatry.
There is often significant Cluster B Axis 2 Personality Disorder pathology as is the case with most men who use and abuse others. These men are fairly easy to rehabilitate absent significant psychopathy because significant guilt is not uncommon, and they are not pedophilic, so they can easily fulfill their sexual needs without resorting to children. Probably in India, Morocco and most of the Third World, most molesting is by non-pedophilic molesters because pedophilia proper is not well known in these places, and most men, even gay men, tend to marry and have children due to societal pressure.
First is the orientation to persons or objects of attraction. Heterosexuals are primarily attracted to the opposite sex. Homosexuals are mostly attracted to their own sex. Bisexuals have significant attraction to both sexes.
Sexual Orientation and Sexual Behavior Are Not Synonymous
Sexual orientation is somewhat independent of behavior. Heterosexuals are quite capable of homosexual behavior, and many homosexuals engage in some heterosexual sex. Bisexuals may be behaviorally heterosexual or homosexual for long periods of time.
Orientation is what you are primarily attracted to – behavior is who you have sex with. In cases such as ancient Sparta, the two did not line up very well at least for teenage boys and young men.
The second is age orientation.
Most people, including me believe it or not, are teleophiles – that is, they are primarily attracted to mature persons. This usually means age 16+ because 16-17 year old adolescents are almost indistinguishable from adults in terms of their sexual features.
As the age of the person declines below age 16, teleophilic attraction tends to decline, however, all men still have measurable but much lower attraction even to girls aged 7-13. Some studies show that normal male attraction to girls declines steadily from age 16 to a very low level at age 7, and below age 7, there is no measurable attraction. This is probably correct and any man with significant attraction to very small girl children below 7 is no doubt quite pedophilic.
Girls still have female features of women, especially after age 7, and these features grow more prominent from age 7-12. Around age 10-11, most girls develop very long legs; in short, the legs of a woman. Normal males are attracted to girls this age mostly to the extent that they like their legs, since their legs look like an adult woman’s.
The more a minor looks and acts like a woman, the more attractive she will be a normal male. The more a minor looks and acts like a child, the less attractive she will be to a normal man. The opposite is true for a man with a pedophilic or hebephilic attraction.
For instance, letting little girls under age 13 wear makeup is probably a very bad idea because many normal men say that when little girls put on makeup, they start to look a lot more attractive to men. I can concur that this occurs. It also makes me very uncomfortable. A little girl is not a sexual creature, as she has no sex drive per se. Why sexualize a non-sexual creature? Childhood for both boys and girls below age 13 should be sexless. Normal children have little or no interest in sex.
Note that since teleophiles react maximally in the lab to 16-17 year old girls and most Americans consider such a strong attraction to be “pedophilia,” the remarkable conclusion is that the current feminist and social conservative hysteria about “pedophilia” means that 100% of normal American men are pedophiles! That sounds like the very definition of a mass hysteria right there!
There are also ephebephiles like Jeffrey Epstein who are primarily attracted to girls age 15-19 or mid to late adolescents. Girls this age often have significant to fully developed adult features and bodies. Psychiatry has decided that ephebephilia is completely normal, therefore, there was nothing wrong with Epstein psychologically.
Epstein was not a pedophile in any sense of the word despite continuous descriptions of him in this way. Nevertheless, most men are probably not ephebephiles.
Women reach their peak attractiveness to normal men at age ~23. Men reach their peak attractiveness to women at age ~27. As you can see, women prefer their men a bit older and men prefer their women a bit younger. This seems to be a natural tendency of the human race as even the Romans remarked up this fact of human nature.
A man can still have a child when there is snow on the roof (when his hair is White), but a woman’s time is short.
– Roman saying of unknown provenance.
Hebephiles are primarily attracted to pubertal persons around the age 12-15. All attraction is gone by age 16. Hebephilia is quite a bit more normal than you might think. 26% of all men react as strongly or stronger in the lab to 12-14 year old girls than they do to women.
In most cases there is strong attraction to mature females too, so most of these men never act on this attraction as adults. Hebephilic attraction is generally antisocial in adults, whereas attraction to mature persons is pro-social. Faced with strong prosocial and antisocial attractions, most probably focus on the prosocial attraction and repress or suppress the antisocial one.
Considering that idiot popular culture (99% of people) would say that any man as or more attracted to 12-14 year old girls as to adult women is clearly a pedophile, our ludicrous culture would easily class a minimum of 26% of all men as pedophiles. That’s 28 million “pedophiles” in the US, idiots. Good luck executing all of them or locking them all away forever!
It is important to note that hebephilia per se is not considered to be a mental disorder in any way. In other words, it is quite normal. Nevertheless acting on it is a moral and legal problem but probably not a psychological one as in mental health we don’t deal with crime as mental abnormality per se. We are only concerned if people are crazy or disordered or not.
Pedophiles have a primary attraction to children under age 13. It is quite common. 3% of adult men or 3.3 million American men are pure pedophiles of this type. Substantially more common are men who are as attracted to children under 13 as they are to mature persons. 18% of all US men fall into this category for a total of 21% of all men being as attracted to children under 13 as they are to adults, a shocking figure. Our current culture would clearly call all of these men pedophiles. So once again we end up with 20 million “pedophiles.” Good luck executing or imprisoning for life 20 million American men, moral hysterics!
Note that we don’t even bother to call all men who react maximally to children under 13 pedophiles! We would have to call 20% of all men pedophiles, and no one wants to do that. In mental health, we are mostly concerned with the 3% pure pedophiles because the only way they can satisfy their sexual urges is with a child under 13. This makes these men dangerous almost by definition. Hence it is recommended that they get with an empathetic therapist regularly to keep from acting on their attraction and offending.
Here probably even more than with hebephiles, most of this 18% of men above probably repress or suppress the antisocial attraction to children under 13 and instead focus on the equally strong attraction to mature persons.
In contrast to hebephilia, pedophilia is considered a mental disorder if it is upsetting to the person or if they have acted on their urges with children under 13. It is interesting to note that pedophiles who have never molested children and are not bothered by their attraction are considered to be completely normal psychologically.
This is from a session about a paper called “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather. There were many problems with this paper, including repeated conflation of pedophilia, a sexual orientation, with child molestation, an act that is typically a crime. There were numerous remarks about fighting, preventing, combating pedophilia.
Pedophilia can be neither fought nor combated. It’s a sexual orientation. It simply is. It exists. Once it sets on in a man, it’s for life. 3% of men are primary pedophiles who are more attracted to children under 13 than to mature persons. That’s 3.3 million men in the US. Good luck putting them all in prison! Pedophilia needs to be managed.
Pedophiles who have not offended deserve our compassion. They didn’t choose their orientation. Pedophiles need to get with a caring therapist and see them regularly to keep from offending. Many pedophiles can go decades without offending. A followup of pedophiles released from prison found that 25 years later, only 50% had offended. So 50% of a cohort of offending pedophiles were able to go 25 years without molesting a child.
Consequently, pedophilia cannot be prevented because we do not have any idea what causes it in the first place. We simply know that 3% of US adult males end up with this orientation.
Here in the UK we have finally come around to the understanding that any form of abuse, be it verbal, physical or sexual will have a lasting and detrimental effect on the victim.
From a comment from a session on “Najib Ali, A One-Woman Campaign Against Pedophilia,” by Louise Feather
There is no evidence that this is true. See Ritter et al for the definitive statement on CSA. Far be it for me to defend psychological, physical, or sexual abuse of children, but there’s no evidence that any of those has lasting harmful effects on everyone subjected to it. My whole family was subjected to a lot of psychological abuse. I’m certainly not harmed by it but choice of my own.
I have no idea about physical abuse. Most people can work their way out of whatever damage this sort of thing caused. Of course, in some cases, there is long-lasting harm.
I work in mental health and I seldom find a client who is damaged from a bad familial upbringing, barring extreme situations. Instead most seem damaged from peer relations, especially those from junior high and high school. Many of these folks are still suffering decades later in their 30’s.
It’s not helpful to tell the hundreds of millions subjected to this sort of thing growing up that they are damaged for life unless you want to create hundreds of billions of professional victims, which I suspect is the feminist project.
Back to child sexual abuse, meaning molestation of children under 13. That leaves out all the childhood sex play, peer sex among teens, and statutory rape, which usually leave no ill effects at all.
I certainly don’t wish to advocate CSA of little kids.
However, in many cases there was no coercion. That is, the molestation was consensual. Kids can consent to sex of course; it’s just that legally we say they can’t because they are too young to make that decision.
At any rate, molestation is divided into with and without coercion. Even coercive molestation usually does not rise to the level of rape. Child rape is terrible and should never be conflated with run of the mill molestation. It is usually done by a stranger, a weapon is often used, the child is often abducted, and injury or death is not uncommon.
The psychiatric literature is clear. Coerced child molestation can and is often quite harmful to the child, with harm extending to adulthood. However, non-coerced child molestation usually does not leave lasting ill effects. That is, most subjected to it simply work their way out of it over time. I have been involved with a few women who were molested and worked their way out of it without lasting harm.
The fact that many are able to get over being molested does not mean it should be allowed. Most of us don’t want to live in a society where adults have sex with little kids, regardless of whether the kids work their way out of it eventually or not.
Promoting perpetual victimization or lifetime victimization is not a feminist value IMHO. It certainly does not benefit the victim.
Margaret Thatcher summed it up well when she said, “There is no society.” This is what all conservatives want. They want there to be no society at all. It’s odd because this white picket fence White America they all want to go back to was a society if there ever was one. So all rightwingers want to get rid of society (as it’s bad for business) but then the paradises they all want to go back to had deep societal structures.
Why US Conservatism Fails – Social Conservatism/Support for Working Class Whites and Neoliberalism Are Always Incompatible
Just as Keynesian economics, social liberalism, and even social democracy always inevitably pave the way for and give ground to neoliberalism in the future, social conservatism and neoliberalism are never really compatible, at least not in the US. Another problem for Republicans is selling their project to working class Whites while pushing a project – neoliberalism – that is designed by its very nature to devastate all workers but the working class first and foremost.
Hence the Republicans claim to speak for the White Working Class while pushing the very economics that is causing declining life expectancy, opioid addiction and overdose epidemics, complete social degeneration, and economic wreckage in White working class America. The Republicans have always done this by getting working class Whites to vote for them on social issues. But then the Republicans never really get around to fixing any of the social issues.
Abortion legal yet? Of course not.
Got a handle on illegal immigration?
Porn illegal? You kidding?
Social degeneration arrested? You must be joking.
Divorce and single parenthood? Pull the other one.
Drug abuse, sales, and use? Please.
For abortion, porn, and illegal immigration, the Republicans don’t want to fix any of these issues. They just want to say they will and then never do it. The daughters of the rich get abortions too. I’m sure the rich love their porn, depraved degenerates that they are. And Republicans will never fix illegal immigration because their corporate and small business supporters want to keep the illegal flow coming for the cheap wages and control over labor.
Divorce, single parenthood, social degeneration, drug use, sales, and abuse, including opioid use and overdose epidemics? Curiously, the neoliberal economics that Republicans push tend to directly cause all of these forms of cultural decay and degeneration.
US Conservatism Will Always Be Incoherent
As usual, conservatives are incoherent. The problem isn’t capitalism, it “state capitalism” or “state interference in the market.” This is the Libertarian idiocy. Yet every time there’s a crisis in the market – and under neoliberalism there will be more than ever – the capitalists all go running to the state with their hands out asking for the workers to bail them out. The only thank you the workers get is a giant IOW for trillions of dollars they have to pay back that they loaned to the capitalists.
I go to rightwing blogs all the time and I see them flailing about. Many are starting to figure out that neoliberalism is utterly corrosive of all of the socially conservative values that they wish to cultivate.
Neoliberalism will always support mass immigration and illegal immigration to keep wages down.
Neoliberalism will always oppose any moral structures in society because the more we let it all hang loose, the more consumers we have.
Neoliberalism will never be race realist because capitalists care absolutely nothing whatsoever about race. It means nothing to them. The only color capitalists have ever cared about is green.
I see them flailing around, searching for something, anything – that will give them their social conservatism while keeping their free markets. Huey Longism, “agrarian socialism”, distributism, antisemitic campaigns against “banksters” that leave the rest of the neoliberal economy alone, on and on.
They want the usual starvation of the state with low taxes and no social programs, but that always results in no society at all or something that looks more like Somalia than Norman Rockwell.
They decry the pain that neoliberalism has inflicted on the White working class while refusing to recognize that neoliberalism had anything to do with it.
They never have any solid proposals about anything because their love of neoliberalism, a small or near-zero state, no regulation, etc. always runs afoul of their desires to limit immigration, slow the decline of the White working class, arrest the decay of values and behavior, and adopt some sanity on race, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity because the two things are utterly incompatible.