"Beyond the Reach of Feminism," by Alpha Unit

Like all women who came of age when I did, I have been a beneficiary of feminism. Feminists have a done a superb job of chronicling the treatment of women at the hands of men. They have done an admirable job of trying to secure power and access for women where women didn’t previously have it. But there is certain territory that feminism cannot touch. It has no valence here. It comes up against a force that renders it null and void. This place has no particular name. You could call it Elemental Truth, I suppose. Male imperatives are the driving force of the world. Some people might say, “Yeah, we know that. We’re trying to do something about it!” Well, excellent. A lot of people have been very busy doing something about it. But there’s only so much you can do. There are things that guys value, intangible things. The complaints of women can’t make them stop valuing these things. There are certain inclinations guys have. Feminism can’t eradicate these inclinations. The concessions men have made in the face of feminism (and even before) are significant, but it was their prerogative to make them. Do you think women could have overpowered men somehow and forced these concessions out of them? And could women have forced men to establish the institution of marriage – a stabilizing force between men and women that pre-dates feminism, and exists in places that never heard of feminism? Feminism has for a short time been a driving force in the West, but in the face of certain male drives – things like ethnocentrism, nationalism, and their various branches – it’s nearly insignificant. It’s like a little offshoot that gets sustenance from certain branches. There’s no doubting who’s dependent on whom. In this sense, it really is a man’s world. Women and children just live in it. On the deepest levels, I suspect that women understand this. They know that they have to maneuver their way in a world governed mainly by male fears, male desires, and male prerogatives. Feminism has its limits. It has changed a lot about the societies where it has taken hold, but some things are beyond its reach.

Feminists Want a White Man, and Everyone Wants a Non-Feminist Woman

tulio made an excellent comment just now on feminism.

The subject of comparative masculinity between the races and feminism is subject that often arises here. One thing I observe is that white males are the choice mates of feminists of all colors. I recently had a heart to heart conversation with a Latina that is left wing and definitely on the feminist/independent woman tip. She says she prefers white men.

She feels that black and Latino men are either too machismo, too controlling, believe too much in gender roles or are likely to cheat. She doesn’t view Asian men as an option under any circumstance. So she prefers white men. And this is a girl who you guys would definitely consider anti-white in politics. Like she believes white people have no culture, that many of them are racist and she’s definitely seems to be in favor of little or no immigration controls.

She feels that white men are going to be more tolerant of women with her sense of independence(or basically all her feminist traits), and she’s not into all the roles of women thing like having dinner ready and being submissive in any way. She thinks white males are the best option for women like her.

When I think about it, almost all the feminist I know or have known ended up with white guys. Usually they were the feminized SWPL sort of whites guys. The kind you see waiting outside the store with the baby strapped to his chest in a harness while the wife wants to do her thing inside. I’ve met some of these guys. They come off as wimpy, easy to control and get dominated by their feminist wives who run the show.

These guys have usually been shamed into thinking any overt sense of masculinity is taboo. They tend to be very much beta males and wouldn’t think of doing anything that would offend his wife’s feminist sensibilities like suggesting she cook or clean.

They also tend to be afraid to do anything that would suggest they see her as a sexual object. That’s the one common complaint amongst feminists, “Women are not sexual objects!” Of course women are sexual objects. So are men. That’s not all we are, but that’s part of what we are. If you go around with cleavage showing, don’t be offended if a man leers at your breasts. He’s just being a man. What the fuck is wrong with that?

One of these guys looked at me like “WTF” when I said I’m not a feminist, as if they was like someone saying they are against civil rights. So there you go, non-macho non-cavemen white males certainly have their market. It’s feminist females of any color.

I’m starting to have more and more a dislike for feminism and how it has fucked with the natural order of things. You have a lot of these bitter, domineering Hillary Clinton type women who think they have to compete and fight with men and have a chip on their shoulder. Many of them don’t date or date rarely.

I then hear people I know that have wives or girlfriends from S. America, or SE Asia or E. Europe and they say once you hunker down with one of these women who embrace their femininity and believe in putting family first over career, you’ll never want a Western woman again. They say feminism has fucked up Western, and particularly American so bad that they’ve written them off. My uncle only dates Asian women and said he’s done with American women for good. I’ve met other guys that have said similar.

Thing is, I am a feminist in the strict sense in that I’m all for women’s rights, I’m pro choice, I believe women should have equal opportunity, there should be no glass ceilings for women and I think women make perfectly fine heads of state.

What I don’t like is the complete feminist assault on femininity and their belief that women will be made strong by making them less like women and more like men. They look down on “girly, feminine women” like a black nationalist would a Uncle Tom.

I’m not down with that crap. While both my parents worked, I always grew up in a household where my dad brought home most the bread, my mom worked too, but she always saw it as her duty to cook and clean and shop for the kids. My dad wore the pants, he made the rules. He was never abusive or anything, but it was obvious who was running the show. My mom simply saw it as her duty to take care of the house make sure she made dinner. That’s what her mom did, and that’s what her grandmother did.

He discusses how feminists all want White men. Well, of course they do. What’s bizarre about this is that if you read modern feminist discourse, such as feminist websites, there is not one word about Latino or Black men. Men from other nations are rarely discussed. The rage is all directed against White men, but paradoxically, that’s who they all want to hook up with!

I wrote a while back about how Mexicans have ruined California, but strangely enough, my complaint is not against the illegals. The illegals and non-assimilated or poorly assimilated Mexicans generally act very, very good. They have traditional Old World, Old Mexico peasant and working class values. Sure, there are traditional role models there, but strangely enough, the women seem to love it! The women are very, very happy, and of course, so are the men. I have no idea if the women are oppressed or not. Perhaps they are. But they seem to enjoy their ultra-feminine role.

The strange thing is that the more women move out of traditional roles, it seems like the more miserable they get! Modern women claim they don’t want to be shackled with the old ways, but the more they give it up in favor of feminism, the more unhappy and angry they get. I suspect it’s because they are messing with Mother Nature. Nature wants women to be feminine and to play a traditional role. When they don’t, they’re fucking with the system. Nature doesn’t like things that don’t play by the rules: she attacks them. So she attacks modern women by making them angry and miserable.

Tulio’s position is the same as mine. Equity feminism is good; radical feminism is bad. Modern feminism is radical feminism.

The paradox, as I mentioned, is that if feminists all want White men, why do they rail against us as evil rapists and oppressors of women? White men don’t do a lot of raping, and they don’t oppress women too much. Black and Latino men are way worse on both counts. Yet there is nothing but silence about this subject from feminists.

A couple of things are going on here. Radical feminism is PC. PC people never like to say anything bad about their glorious POC’s. So there’s an inhibition there. I don’t blame them, because the minute they say one bad word about POC men, they’re going to get hit by a broken dam flood of “RACIST!” screams.

Radical feminism seems to resemble Critical Race Theory in some ways. As CRT is mostly a way for bourgeois self-hating Whites and POC’s to rail against bourgeois Whites for not divvying up the bourgeois loot fairly enough, I suspect the same thing is going on with radical feminism. If you go their sites, these women are all smart, White, and either in college or college grads. A surprising number of them are going to top name schools like Yale and Harvard. The talk on the blogs is how they are going to move into big bucks corporate world after graduation. It’s obvious why these women don’t want to discuss the C word – class, too much.

Their lament, I think, is similar to the CRT folks. These bourgeois White women are furious at bourgeois White men for not divvying up the bourgeois loot fairly enough. No fair! This is where the rage is coming from.

And as these women are mostly only dating White men and not dealing with POC men at all, that’s why they never discuss the transgressions of POC men – they simply don’t deal with them! Nevertheless, the downtrodden White man is the one they deal with on a regular basis. Their minds are filled with all this feminist fury, hate and Victim Drug, and all that energy needs somewhere to go. So it gets directed at the very males that are most meaningful to their personal lives.

The funny thing is that these guys, as tulio points out, are about as feminist as you can get. But their feminist women are yet not satisfied. The feminists don’t want to be happy like Jews don’t want anti-Semitism to go away. They need patriarchy and female oppression like Dracula needs blood.

I don’t think the solution is to be a pig. Traditional women like guys who assume masculine role models. I suspect that deep down inside, feminists do too. You can cook and clean the house without her thinking you’re a pussy. Hell, I cook and clean myself.

God, Mexico Sucks

Incredible.

And backwards.

These are the people we are importing into our country a million a year. I always knew women were treated badly in Mexico, but I never knew it was this bad. The Mexican immigrant women around here do seem to enjoy their relative freedom in the US. I don’t blame them.

This wonderful culture, celebrated in Latino Studies programs across the land, is probably also behind an Hispanic rape rate that is as high as that of Blacks – fully 6 times higher than the White rate. There is also a high rate of sex crimes involving sex with minors. If you read the article, you can see why.

This article broke my heart. But it also made me mad. American feminists rage and rage against American men, generally White men, as the most evil creatures on Earth. Look around the globe at how women are treated. White men probably treat women better than any other men around, and what do we get for it?

In the West, everyone wants to be a victim, mostly people who aren’t even victims at all.

In the Third World, where victimhood is the Real McCoy, no one wants to be a victim, and victimization is no charade or laughing matter.

The PC Crowd’s War on Male Sexuality

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib opines that the PC Crowd just doesn’t seem to want men to have sex at all. I really think that the PC crowd is all about replacing male sexuality with female sexuality. Female sexuality is to be normalized and even enforced via laws and regulations.

A man is trying to pick up a woman. Obviously, he’s sexually harassing her. At the very least, he’s treating her like a sex object.

A man is looking at a beautiful woman. He is objectifying her and reducing her to a sex object.

A man is looking at a beauty pageant. He is objectifying females and disrespecting them.

A man is trying to get laid. He is evil because he is out to use and abuse women.

A man is having sex with a drunk woman (About the only way a lot of them will do it!). He is raping her.

A man is interested in group sex. He is a sick, evil pervert typical of males.

An older man looks at teenage girls, some of whom are 16-17. HE IS A PEDOPHILE! Huh?

A man is looking at porn and jerking off. First, he is first a loser for jerking off, and second, he is a sexist dog for looking at evil pornography which is hate propaganda against women.

A man buys a prostitute. He is assisting in the subjugation of women, little more than a pimp.

I do not think that society should favor male or female sexuality by law or regulation. Males and females want different things, so there is a War of the Sexes. As the French say, Vive le differance! This War is eternal and present in all normal human societies. Sexual equality is probably not possible, and some leading feminists are now admitting to this.

I enjoy Hispanic culture in the US as far as sex goes. The women seem to think that all men are just dogs when it comes to sex, so they don’t worry about it. Men look at women, and women look at men. It’s all normal. Women like men, and men like women, in spite of it all. Hispanic women have not yet been feminist-wrecked.

In other parts of the world, such as Latin America, the Arab World, Iran, and SE Asia, one finds much the same thing.

I was in an auto parts store a while back. A teenage Hispanic girl was in there with her Mom, Dad and siblings. I figure she was 15. I was 50. Well, she started looking at me. She was looking at me the whole time, giving me the eye. At first I was afraid to look back at her because her parents were there, but they made it clear that they did not give a damn, so I started looking back at her just for fun.

I can’t touch a 15-yr old, of course, but at this age, it feels great to know I can still attract such a young girl.

The weird thing was the attitude of the parents. They were like, “Hey, she’s 15, she’s a woman now, of course she’s looking at men.”

Now I’m not saying that middle aged men should go running around with underage girls. It’s against the law here, and the law may be reasonable, even if the sentences are not. But this is probably what goes on in normal societies. Young girls come of age and find all sorts of males interesting, from boys to distinguished, confident older men. It’s part of the embroidery of human existence for most of our time on Earth.

This may be backwards, sexist or reactionary, but I find it much preferable to this suffocating feminist-wrecked world of White Western culture.

Female Bosses Suck

I’m not really into sexism and I actually love women and even prefer them to my own sex for some psychotic and masochistic reason, but you keep hearing this stuff over and over. Yet another study of both males and females say that female bosses suck, everyone hates them, and both sexes would much rather work for a man.

Here are the reasons given, as if I had to tell you:

  1. hormonal (read: moody, “that time of the month”)
  2. incapable of leaving their personal lives at home (read: emotional)
  3. only too happy to talk about their staff behind their backs (read: gossipy)
  4. backstabbing (read: manipulative, fake)
  5. loose cannons (need I say more)
  6. feel threatened by colleagues (read: insecure)
  7. sharp tongued (read: bitchy)
  8. too cliquey (read: catty)
  9. too competitive (read: aggressive)
  10. spend too long worrying about their appearance (read: vain)

Feminist articles on the Net are saying that these are all stereotypes, but they are only stereotypes after all because they are true. So the problem with female bosses is, in a word, that they act like women. Here is another article along the same lines from Forbes a while back. Same thing, both men and women want to work for a man. Forbes even polled a Facebook group of female employees:

The real surprise came when the ForbesWoman Facebook community was canvassed: “Would you rather work for a man or a woman?” The majority replied, “A man any day of the week,” to use the words of Stephanie Rovengo.

No surprises there either. An article appeared in the British press recently by a feminist who had formed an all-female TV production company, in part, as a move for female empowerment.

After a couple of years, the company disintegrated, ruined, apparently, by its female employees. They fought all the time, spent hours at work screwing around with their appearance in the bathroom, fought over every man who showed up in the office, formed ever-shifting cruel cliques that excluded some employees, gossiped about their sex lives, were constantly falling out with each other and then kissing and making up. Employees regularly burst into tears in the office when other women ganged up them. They left work and asked for stress leave. On and on.

The woman who started the business eventually folded it, chastened, and said next time she would hire at least 5

I’m not really sure what to do about this situation. The stuff the bosses are accused of is typical female behavior, but I doubt if women are forced to act this way. I’m sure they could knock it off if they tried. If they can’t, maybe they’re just hopeless.

The Scarlet Letter of Modern White Society

It’s not a red A but a red B that many White women must wear in White society. It means she dates Blacks, and to many White men, she’s no longer White. If you look White and you act White, you’re White. These women have broken the second rule. Though they look perfectly White, they no longer act White, so they have been expelled from Whiteness.

An Asian commenter who is upset about Asian women dating White men and abandoning their race was somewhat comforted when I told him that we White guys, to a lesser extent, deal with the same silliness from our women:

Rob, so you’re saying that a white woman will, if she’s going to outmarry, choose an unemployed ghetto hoodlum over an Asian guy who makes good money from a software engineering company?

Of course. But mostly she won’t marry him, she’ll just date and sleep with him. But she won’t give the Asian guy the time of day.

Don’t lose any sleep over it. Why do women do this? Because they basically suck. Just recognize that women suck, accept it, accept that there is nothing you can do about it, and then you will be happier and start to feel a lot more peaceful.

What much of White society does, even White racial liberals, White liberals and White Leftists, is draw the line at White women who date Blacks. For a lot of White men, that’s a supreme violation, and White women who do that are excised from the White race. I know many White men who tell me that they will not touch a White women who they know has a thing for Blacks. In this way, even liberal White society is still quite racist.

I actually don’t mind this too much, but I don’t practice it myself. It’s OK because it disciplines our women. I think we should allow them to date tulio and Car Guy (commenters on the site) type Blacks no problem, but when it comes to the ubiquitous more or less Black thug/semi-thug type, the shunning is a great idea.

Most of these White guys don’t lose any sleep over the issue. They tell me, “I don’t care about White women who go with Blacks. It’s only a certain type, and most don’t do that. To me, those women are simply lost to us, and I won’t touch them, so they don’t worry me one bit.”

These guys simply expel these White women from the White race, move on, and don’t get all upset it. Maybe it’s something Asian guys should consider?

Truth is it’s a certain type of White women who likes Blacks. Obviously, she’s the polar opposite of the Jewish/Asian women selecting for Einsteins. The White woman who likes Blacks likes jock type guys. A lot of women like jocks. Blacks are the ultimate jocks. But a lot of White women don’t go for the jock type, so this interracial dating is somewhat limited.

Black guys go on and on about how much better they are in bed than White women and how they treat White women better. I think that’s a bunch of shit. How many different ways are there to penetrate a vagina? What’s involved? Is it some sort of an Olympic sport?

So I won’t grant them that one, plus for sure they don’t treat White women better. In general, they’re abusive, controlling, possessive, and super-aggro. Lot of sick chicks like that. That’s called a masochistic woman. Leave the sickos to their neuroses.

In deference to Black men’s egos, I will say that they are better than Whites in a couple of ways:

1. Sports! Yes, they’re the ultimate jocks, and if there were as many jobs in sports as there are in White collar jobs, Blacks guys would be cleaning up and living large, that is if they didn’t blow every paycheck as soon as it hit their palms. But give credit where it’s due.

2. Rap! Yep, Black men are the ultimate talkers and the world’s premier charmers and bullshitters. Women are pretty stupid (as in gullible), and they are always falling for charming liars and sweet-talkers. Black men probably tell White women what they want to hear. They talk the talk. Women like that. They fall for the talk, even if the guy’s an abusive semi-thug.

Also, a White woman is a jackpot for a Black man. Even an unattractive or fat one will be treated like a queen because he’s so happy to have her. Homely and fat White women are everywhere in White society.

Most White women in their teens and 20’s are going for the Alphas. The Alphas are ~1

Plus no matter how fat or homely they are, like all women, they want to be worshiped like Jackie Onassis. Most White guys, if they get with a fat or homely woman like this, will say, “Hey, you’re ugly! LOL! To make things even worse, you’re fat! LMAO! Now get over on that bed right now.” This is the painful and crushing truth, and if you are a fat or homely woman, you should expect to be treated this way. But being treated like this makes these women angry.

A Black guy will treat even fat and homely White women like they are angels fallen from Heaven.

Another thing going on here is revenge. I have a Yahoo group that is full of single adults. Many are middle aged.

At one point, the group was full of angry single middle-aged White women. They were furious at White men, livid with rage, and like most women, they didn’t make sense.

They particularly hated macho White guys, and they took an ultra-feminist stance. They belittled, attacked, and castrated the White men in the group. Whole mobs of them engaged in regular episodes of what they called “ball-busting” of White men. They were also furious that White men were macho pigs who did not treat women right. Later I found out that a huge number of these women were dating Black men. Who, of course, treat them much worse than we do.

None of this female behavior makes much sense, but women are unfathomable in the best of times.

Feminist Crap and White Knighting Nonsense on an Indian TV Show

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndX2RFHmMNg]

Get a load of this nonsense from an Indian TV show. I don’t know what the show is about. Maybe it’s some kind of dating show. One guy says something along the lines of, “Well, we don’t want to talk to you.” The chick freaks out and says, “Why don’t you go fuck yourself, then?” The guy responds coyly by saying, “You?” (Why don’t you go fuck yourself?). Chick flips out and slaps the guy, hard, on national TV. The guy reacts and slaps her hard back.

Then he starts yelling, “How can she slap?” for the remainder of the sequence, while about 20 White knighting fags pour out of the audience and all start beating on the guy. Pathetic.

White knighting is where a guy tries to protect a woman from another guy. She doesn’t really need to be protected. She’s just being a cunt. They guy who is “oppressing” her is just responding to that. White knighting is also where guys “admonish” another guy, for, say, checking out chicks, “come to the defense” of a woman who some guy is talking up or trying to pick up. It’s also behind most guys’ support for feminism that harms males at the expense of females.

The whole idea behind White knighting is to get laid. It’s generally young guys, often good looking young guys who’ve got it going on, who White knight. They always White knight for good looking women. No one ever White knights for homely women or fatties.  White knighting is a way of competing with other guys for hot chicks. Problem is, it doesn’t work.

How often does White knighting get you laid? I would say ~

The comments on that video show that there is a huge audience of males out there supporting the guy slapping that bitch. I did too! I stood up and cheered for the guy! When I did that, I felt a lifetime of suppressed rage at bitches rising up inside of me. There must be tens of millions of other guys who feel the same way.

Females abuse us all the time, and we can’t do a thing back to them. We can’t even tell them off. We surely can’t hit them. Worse, since feminism, women actually assault us males all the time. Feminism, incredibly, gives females the right to commit minor assaults on us males in any way they choose, at any time they like.

Can we fight back? Of course not! They get to hit us all they want to, but we can’t hit them back! Wow, with rules like that, what are bitches doing? They’re assaulting us like crazy, of course. There’s no downside. Why not? It’s like making crime legal. The criminals would have a field day.

I figure, these bitches say they are equal, fine. Equal means equal. You bitches hit us, fine, no problem, we are going to smack you right back. Now, I don’t agree with beating women black and blue.

But a few women have hit me in my time. I hit them back!

A few times I was at a table with a woman when she was just being really mean to me during the whole dinner. This shit had actually been going on for a long time, like months or even years. What I do in a situation like this sometimes is I will just take a glass of water, look at the bitch, and then just throw the glass of water right in her face! Yo!

Usually everyone at the table flips out and starts yelling at me when I do that. Typically the bitch will jump up out of her seat and start hitting and kicking me like crazy. Then I will punch and maybe even kick the bitch a few times. Good thing I am not a good fighter, since I never do them any damage at all.

A couple of times when I did this, the bitch threatened to call the police on me. It was only others at the table who stopped her. Since then, this bitch has adopted a “abused woman” and “battered woman” persona, apparently due to my “battering her” and her father also “abusing” her. She’s a feminist lunatic, and she pretty much hates men like all feminist bitches.

Here in the US there is some BS called VAWA. The Democrats pushed this Violence Against Women Act through. It sucks. In many US jurisdictions, if you hit a woman at all, you are going to jail, period. The feminists I know think this is right dandy. Women can hit us all they want, but we can’t hit back. If we do, we go to jail. They are very happy with this state of affairs. It’s fair because men are stronger, they tell me.

I remember once a crazy bitch was chasing me around an airport! I was blocking her punches and pushing her away and yelling at her to knock it off. Finally I smacked her a good one, hard, just to get her to stop it. It gave her a bloody lip, and she was dripping blood all over the airport. That ended it all right, but the people in the airport were giving me dirty looks for hitting a woman so hard I made her bleed. I said the only reason I hit her was to get her to stop. Not good enough. She tried to call the cops on me too, but others stopped her.

If a woman hits you and doesn’t cause any damage, go ahead and hit the bitch back! Don’t cause any damage when you do it though. Just make an impression on her. Put her in her place. Show her who’s boss.

Modern Women Have No Understanding of Males Whatsoever

Modern women have no understanding of the male sex drive and what it means to be a male whatsoever. My Mom’s generation and Third World women understand us very well. They’re not wild about our sexuality, but they figure boys will be boys, that’s just the way men are, and what can you do about it?

The feminist generation is the first one to actually declare war on male sexuality and pathologize it. It’s also led to profoundly disturbed views among females about male sexuality. Modern women seem the extremity of a young man’s sex drive. He almost literally has a fucking hardon all day. If not, all it takes is a breeze and he’s got one. And often no place to put it at that.

Hence the epidemic of situational homosexuality among young males (at least when I was growing up). Most of these guys were not the slightest bit gay, but they just were not getting laid. For a young guy, that’s a damned five-alarm fire. If there’s a queer around who will jerk you off or give you head, hey, any port in a storm. I’ve followed up on a number of these guys. Most of them got married, had kids, live in the suburbs, and as far as I can tell, knocked off the situational bisexuality crap.

I once had a friend who was a bisexual guy. I don’t like these guys too much because they always try to screw me, but anyway, after I turned this guy down at his place, he started confessing. The guy was basically gay, but he liked women too. He brought out a collection of pics of young guys, head shots. There must have been 40-50 pics in the collection. They all looked like young, macho construction workers around 20-25. They’d all let this queer suck them off, and not a one of them looked queer themselves.

A friend of mine served on a ship as a young man.

“There was this fag on the ship,” he told me once over some wine and weed. “He was going around sucking guy’s cocks on the ship.”

I winced. I didn’t want to hear that.

“I guess he sucked a lot of cocks,” nodding his head with dead seriousness in his eyes.

“I guess so,” I said, wincing again, this time twice as hard.

Modern women don’t understand how often a horny young guy will jerk off. A young man with no partner may well jerk off every single day, often more than once. I know guys who told me they did it for hours a day, for weeks and months on end. Modern women think there is something sick, weird, strange, or stupid about that. There’s an attitude that only losers jerk. No, you silly dames, only men jerk off.

In marriage it’s even worse. Apparently even most young married men keep on masturbating. Modern women think this is horrible and consider it perversion and infidelity.

Same with porn. Young single males nowadays often look at tons of porn. I know guys who have hard drives full of the stuff. Even young married men probably look at the stuff. Modern women are freaked, once again consider it cheating (LOL!) and are divorcing men for looking at porn, accusing them in court papers of sexual perversion and “pedophilia” for looking at porn. There are a few cases right in my town.

A surprising number of modern women think that single guys can have sex anytime they want to. They don’t get it. Who can have sex anytime they want to? Females! Attractive females spend every day swatting away horny males. Surely it must be the same for guys.

Nope.

I’ve had women repeatedly tell me that any single guy can get as much as he wants, anytime he wants. There are all these women out there who want to make “sexual arragements” with you, you know. You know, you fuck her, she fucks you, no wedding bells, no babies, no mortgage, everything’s cool.

Yeah right.

Hell, women are ringing my phone off every day here asking for these sexual arrangements. At least 10 a day. I’m gonna need to change my number!

Well, if there’s no women around, a guy can always buy it, right? That’s not an option for most middle class White males. I know very few men who ever admitted to me that he bought sex. As a rule, if a young middle class White guy admits he bought sex, all of his idiot friends are going to pound him for him. “I’ve never paid for it!” They will all exclaim. Yeah right. Like Hell you haven’t.

Funny thing is I’ve never heard any man over 40 give me that line, “I’ve never paid for it.” You always pay for sex, one way or another. All men know this. That’s what is so retarded about the, “I never pay for it,” line.

I know one guy who had sex with a lot of whores. He also did it with a lot of women. I figure he’s had over 100 partners easily. He’s a great looking guy, sort of Alpha, and he’s horny as Hell. He just never got married, that’s all.

He’s screwed a bunch of whores, but he’s done a ton of so-called “non-whores” too (who also charged him). Back in the 1980’s, he used to buy high class call girls in Hollywood. Going price was around $65 if you were lucky. In addition to getting laid, you also got a Herpes infection. As he already had it, he didn’t give a fuck, but he kept getting new infections in different places, from both prostitutes and non-prostitutes, but the whores were the worst.

He also went to Oriental Massage Parlors a lot. You can get seriously get laid in these places, but they are also a serious bust, since they operate with open signs, advertisements, you name it. The women in these joints are Asian, often young and very often attractive to extremely beautiful. Going rate was $65-85+ for 30 minutes to 1 hour.

Thing is, you often had to seduce the masseuses. They make a decent wage just giving massages, and a lot don’t want to go to jail or screw every client, or any client. If you’re not Joe Slick Alpha, you might never get laid. Even this guy, who is Joe Cool with chicks, often struck out in massage parlors. In that case, you just get a nice $55 massage. The sex is extra, tipped directly to the girl.

If you’re slick and cool, you can often seduce them. Then you get handjobs, blowjobs, even eat pussy and 69 if you like that sort of thing. Sex is rarer. The women are very clean, and he said he never caught a thing.

He also sampled street whores, who he said were a disaster. Often Black, often on drugs, often with very bad, sleazy attitudes, and yes, they have lots of diseases. They were cheap, $20 back then, but no sane guy goes there.

Here it is 20-25 years later, and the price must be around $150 for Oriental Massage and $130 for call girls, or possibly much more. Even street whores must be $40 at least.

There is another thing to consider. Prostitution is against the law. You can be busted as a john for trying to buy a whore. Oriental massage joints are often busted. The cops take over the joint and send in Oriental female undercover cops. You go in there, offer the chick $40, and you’re cuffed for soliciting.

My friend made good money, but even back then, he could only afford whores maybe once a month. That’s not enough sex for a typical young man. At the going price of ~$150 a shot, how many young guys can afford to buy whores?

Even if, as a single man, you find a women willing to give it to you, she’s charging. Dinner, movie, bar afterwards, is what? $100. I don’t know, it’s been forever since I did it. If you’re getting it regularly, she probably wants to be taken out once a week, if not 2-3 times a week. Figure $100/week easily for the girlfriend. I paid my dues as required, but my memory was endless bitching about how I needed to start making more money. And how the women I was dating were always making more money than I was, but would never even so much as pay the fuckin tip.

At $100/week for a girlfriend, how many guys can afford that?

Don’t forget anniversaries. It’s our one month anniversary, our two month anniversary, our one year anniversary. Don’t forget holidays. Christmas, Easter, Valentine’s Day, on and on. Fork, fork, fork. Now you’re going to be asked to actually buy some stuff. Jewelry, outfits, cellphones, computers, Hell, even cars!

Yeah, free love, right. What were we fighting for back then anyway?

Lots of Folks Having No Sex At All in These Post-Sexual Revolutionary Times

This does not surprise me at all. 2

Age 35 is about the key here. This is what the fairer sex starts losing interest in sex. Around 35, 2 or 3 kids, yep, no more sex, married or unmarried. I don’t know much about this, but I have known two women, both married, one 40 and the other 45, who simply told me that they didn’t like sex. Why their husbands were still with them is anybody’s guess. I assume it only gets worse later on.

I’ve never been married, but there are plenty of married men masculinist blogs out there. Cruising around a bit, a lot of them are pissed. Seems there’s often tons of sex at first. After about seven years of marriage, if you’re still getting much at all, you’re lucky! There’s that 7-year itch thing. So after 5-10 years of marriage, a lot of women don’t want much sex anymore, and the guys still want tons. The feeling from the men is rage and desire for divorce.

Honestly, the old way and the 3rd World Way was just better. Women were not necessarily supposed to like sex all that much, but it was definitely a wifely duty. You didn’t get a lot of reports of young women holding out in marriage. Men took sex with their wives any way and time that they wanted to, dammit. Women either enjoyed it or put up with it, at any rate, they didn’t feel it was within their duties to say no. Who knows how happy the women are?

From tales from women from my Mom’s generation, this sort of sex didn’t exactly make them miserable. They seem to be a happy lot. Of course the guys were quite happy.

Now the women have a right to say no, and they are doing so in army formations. The men, especially the young men, are furious. What the fuck? Why else would a guy get married if not for the sex? What else is there? The feminists are cheering this as some sort of bullshit female empowerment. The power to be a sexless prude. Some revolution, feminists. You proud of yourselves now?

From skimpy US statistics, at age ~60, only 4

That’s one major turnoff of women my age. They just don’t seem to be into it that much. Young women, whatever their faults, well, they’re generally pretty damn horny, or at least fairly horny. Some young women actually get frustrated if you don’t put it to them pretty quickly in my experience.

There are quite a few women, especially around 35-45, who actually want to get fucked every single day, and get pissed if they miss a day. They are often regular masturbators. I knew a 45 year old woman who masturbated once a day and looked toward menopause with utter dread.

One amazing figure from the article is a 3

“A Guess About Why Men Went Along With a Feminist Agenda,” by Alpha Unit

The Vietnam War is to blame.

It’s because of the Vietnam War that so many men today can’t stand women.

There isn’t a force in creation that can stop the attraction between male and female, but if you listen to the way a lot of young men talk about women, you are struck by the degree of intense loathing so many of them express. And the seeds of this loathing were apparently sowed by feminists.

Not those suffragette-type feminists you see in old photographs, with the long skirts and hats and sashes – the ones who wanted women to be able to vote. No, all this trouble was begun by those other feminists – the ones who were so vocal and demanding in the late sixties and early seventies, when men were being exposed as The Font of All Evil.

Evil like the oppression of Blacks in the South. It was men – older ones – who were causing Blacks to get beaten up and hosed in the streets and attacked by police dogs, and killing Black people and White people who were trying to register Black people to vote. And it wasn’t just the South where Black people were being mistreated.

Everyone had seen this on TV.

It was men, that same generation of older ones, who were sending young men to Southeast Asia to fight a war that many of them wanted no part of. It was a war you could see everyday on TV, and you did.

A lot of these young men who wanted no part of it were being incredibly disrespectful to authority in ways their fathers wouldn’t have dared. Gathering to display contempt for the military, chanting rude slogans about the President of the United States. And then, after an unfortunate incident on a college campus, singing inflammatory songs about tin soldiers and Nixon coming…it was deplorable, really.

Why couldn’t more of these kids today be like The Carpenters?

It was too late. People were getting killed in Vietnam and Ohio. Older men were ordering these deaths. Older men were not to be trusted. Older men were liars.

Older men had made life hell for everyone, and that included women. Anyone who had a beef against older men was to be listened to and deferred to. That included women.

Young men nodded in agreement with young women. The young women were right about men. You know, those older men who had screwed up so badly. The young men had seen for themselves how screwed up the older men were.

The sins of men were being broadcast everyday on TV.

The old way, created by men, had to go. The older men got the message, didn’t they?

They did get the message. Once your message has gotten through, you don’t stop. You keep pushing. And pushing.

Women and the men who agreed with them kept pushing. They’re still pushing. And now we’ve got young men who want nothing to do with women in this country.

At some point people push back.

Interesting Article About An Alliance Between Alpha Males and Feminists

I don’t really agree with the premise of this article, that there is some nefarious alliance between Alpha Males and feminists, but it makes an interesting point. The suggestion is that Alphas are benefiting disproportionately from feminism, and the rest of the guys are losing out. There may be a point there, but I doubt if the Alphas set it up that way.

Anyway, under feminism, females are free to pursue their basic Cavewoman natures, which is not that great for most guys. Life ends up being an endless replay of high school, where 1

I am in my 50’s, and I must say, this is still ongoing! There are not many single Alphas left in their 50’s. Life, marriage, illness, death, disability, alcoholism, defeat, economics, takes its toll on most men by this age. If you’re still strutting around past 50, either you’re fucked in the head or you deserve a medal for survivorship if nothing else.

There are only a few Alphas left around age 50 or so, like I said. Nevertheless, all of the best women around my age (Yes, there are still some good women left at age 45-55) are all flocking to the few Alphas, and the few Alphas are cleaning up with all of the good women! And I know plenty of guys age 40-56 or so who are not getting anything at all. They are alone and lonely.

Now this is the age bracket where single females start outnumbering single males, and women supposedly start getting desperate and chasing any decent guy out there, so I was getting my hopes up. Forget it. The best women are as picky as ever. I don’t know about the less desirable ones, because I’m not interested. I know a beautiful woman aged 55. I saw her dating profile on a dating site. She is deluged with good-looking, moneyed guys around her age who are all fighting for her.

Anyway, single middle age is not exactly a sexual paradise.

There is a lot of good commentary at the end of the piece. As the piece points out, under feminism, 1

The PUA and Game Community have been playing up the increasingly desperate state of the Betas under feminism.

This situation is best summed up from this quote from a PUA blog:

They are free from social, religious and economic constraints to revert to their Neolithic programming of seeking the best male genetic specimens (strong+ attractive +willful) and reject the genetically mediocre. Nature is cruel – Do not blame women for it!

The reason for this state of affairs is that women no longer need men economically. The old way was really better. Enforced marriage at an early age, followed by female economic dependence on men. Those that don’t marry early, their relatives set them up in more or less forced marriage later on. Everyone gets married, everyone gets sex, and frustration level is low. Feminism has gotten rid of this nice, stable state of affairs.

Thing is, Alphas make lousy mates. These guys are not reliable at all. Most women refuse to stay with them and leave them sooner or later. They’re fun for a while, like Spring Break in college, then it’s back to the serious stuff. Women, even the best women, often marry Betas later on, because Betas are good providers. I’m not sure how the marriages work out. Nowadays, a lot of these guys are probably pussy-whipped at home. At worst, he’s a Meal Ticket. At best, he’s a Reliable Husband.

There are endless debates about the meaning of the terms Alpha, Beta, etc. There are said to be high Betas and fake Alphas. That makes sense. If you cut off the Alphas at 1

I don’t think these labels are important so much as if a guy has what it takes to get women.

I define an Alpha as a guy who is charismatic and dominant, with leadership qualities, whether he uses them or not. He’s the guy who walks into the room and every woman turns around to look at him. These are the guys who get most of the best women, or they could if they wanted to. They’re not necessarily unfaithful, but they often are.

Many marry, but they tend to be unfaithful after marriage. In marriage, Alphas rule the roost. Being pussy-whipped at home is basically a disqualifier in terms of Alphahood. This is where you see a lot of your fake Alphas. I know a lot of guys who try to act really Alpha, but they’re p-whipped at home. Forget it. Fake Alpha or High Beta.

Alphas do not always make a lot of money. In fact, even far into adulthood, quite a few of them are broke. Many more or less live off wives or girlfriends who bring home the bacon. Even in relationships or marriages, they tend to come and go as they please. They’re not always phoning home and asking Wifey permission for this or that. They don’t need her permission for all that much. Many have continuous affairs while married, toning them down somewhat as they move into middle age.

Many Alphas are not very nice people. Quite a few are criminals. Many are ex-cons and even ex-felons. Some are killers. Serial killer Ted Bundy was an obvious Alpha.

Here is an Alpha who is not a very nice person, doesn’t treat women very well, is a criminal and ex-con, yet has women crawling all over him. He has sex with 200+ women a year (hard to believe but anyway you get the point). My opinion of women just dropped 9

On “harems”-

A guy i was friends with in high school is now an ex-con neo-Nazi drug dealing “enforcer” for a gang in his blue-collar town. He is extremely popular with women and definitely has a harem, though he probably doesn’t even know what that word means.

A couple of years ago I went out for beers with him and women were literally running to him and letting him grab and squeeze their breasts, hard. He would also scream in their face “I am going to fuck you in the ass until you bleed and then I’m going to stick it in your pussy,” and they would giggle and squeal like he was George Clooney. He says he sleeps with hundreds of women a year and I believe him.

I learned more in that night about the true nature of women than any library of books could have taught me.

There’s a notion that Alphas are all assholes, but I doubt if this is true. For sure some of them are. But I’ve known quite a few who were nice guys. Alphas are leaders, and they are dominant. In order to be a good leader, you have to get people to like you. If you’re a natural leader, you don’t have to be an asshole. Everyone knows you’re in charge, and you don’t have to be a dick to prove it. Nevertheless, quite a few Alphas are bastards. In particular, they are often highly narcissistic and can be very much the fair weather friend.

On PUA sites, there is endless discussion about Alphas and how to act like one. PUA is really about teaching the 7

Women hate PUA because it confuses them. They all want the 1

This is behind a lot of the rage against PUA. That only a select group of men has a right to access the best of women. Rightfully, PUA rebels against this.

In the discussions about Alphahood, there is a lot of discussion about developing an Alpha state of mind, about sizing up other guys as far as their Alpha or Betaness and being submissive or dominant to them in return. Supposedly, when Alphas meet a Beta, they express dominance over him and basically treat him like shit somewhat.

I don’t buy it for one second. First of all, real Alphas are not walking around all of the time thinking, “I am an Alpha.” They are not sizing up other guys regarding their Alpha or Betaness. An Alpha could quite well be very nice and friendly to a Beta or even an Omega. After all, the Betas and Omegas are no competition, so why worry?

So I don’t believe that Alphas think this way at all. To me, and Alpha is thinking of two things:

1. What am I doing now?

2. What am I going to do in the (immediate) future?

That’s it. He doesn’t think of the past much (What for?) and he doesn’t worry about the future either (Do animals worry about the future?) No Alpha consciousness, no sizing up other guys, no dominating them, none of that. An Alpha is like an animal, or a machine. He’s almost a sociopath (in some cases he is) but not quite.

Also, one can probably fade and in and out of Alphaness. There are guys who had it in high school and/or college, then lost it, as what it takes in school is not really what it takes to do well in life after school. There are guys who move in and out of Alphahood in various phases of their lives. I know guys who have lived as Alphas, Betas and even for a while, lived the monastic, no date in 100 years of solitude life of Omegas. Life is strange.

But as much as Alphahood can be lost in one who once had it, and then regained (as the base is already present in the mind), I’m not sure that Alphahood can be created out of scratch. My Mom loves men, so she finds Alphas fascinating. As she said about Alphas and the PUA notion of creating them out of thin air, “I doubt if it can be done. You’ve either got it or you don’t.” If you’re not an Alpha and you’ve never been one, past a certain age, you may never become one.

This is an interesting subject, and I hope to write more about it in the future.

Man, This Is So Wrong

Here.

Along the same lines, and in the same backwards land, here.

This makes me sick.

Age of consent laws are there for a very good reason. Some humans are just too young to be having sex. Leaving the moral and mental health issues aside, if for no other reason than basic biology and anatomy, we ought to oppose the radical pro-pedophile activists.

I don’t think a 12 year old girl should fucking anyone, except herself maybe, and if she, God forbid, gets pregnant, she probably needs to be forced by the state to have an abortion for the sake of her own health. After all, she’s a minor, and via in loco parentis, the state has the right to intervene and force treatment of minors to safeguard their health.

I know some Yemenis, and they are nice enough people, but Yemeni society is viciously misogynistic. The Yemenis I know tell me that their sisters all stay home and don’t work, since Yemeni men don’t allow their women to work. Such wonderful Medieval reactionary cultures the multicultural Leftists are flooding this modern Western land with.

The second link is to a feminist site, and the feminists are roaring furious about this. It’s about time, and three cheers for them.

Western feminism is all about the evils of Western White men. Truth is that no group of men on the face of the Earth treats women better than Western White men, and what do we get for it? A kick in the balls. Thanks a lot, bitches.

Recently, a bill was introduced to the Yemeni Parliament to raise the marriage age to 17, but the Islamist idiots shot it down, saying that it violates Sharia Law. What the Hell does Sharia Law say about this matter?

Everywhere on Earth, Islamists are always reactionary and backwards. In Jordan, Islamists have blocked efforts to increase the penalties for honor killings, even though all Muslim scholars agree that honor killings are un-Islamic.

In Iraq and elsewhere, Islamists fought land reform, since the Koran says it is natural for there to be rich and poor. In addition, in Iraq at least, the mullahs were in bed with the large landowners and were very corrupt. In Palestine in the 1930’s, Islamists and mullahs once again were in bed with the large landowners, in this case mostly absentee landowners.

Incest Should Not Be Illegal

I was visiting some silly White people recently and I managed to infuriate everyone at the gathering by suggesting, like a typical jerk, that incest should not be illegal.

Thing about middle class White people is that there’s like 899,943,097,107,165,221,669,507 things that are never allowed to be discussed because some uptight White weenie is going to get offended. Not just not discussed at dinner. I mean not discussed ever. Whenever I piss off some uptight White middle class Professional Offended Persons, I always figure it’s a great subject for a blog post!

I’m a libertine, and my libertarian argument is that incest laws are no damned business of the state!

The most typical type of incest is father-daughter, in fact, these are really the only kind that are ever prosecuted. The reason for the societal hatred and outrage over incest is due to societal hatred of normative male sexuality. Incest means fathers screwing their daughters. Since male sexuality is evil under the current Matriarchy-Mangina Dictatorship, fathers screwing their daughters is normative male sexuality. All fathers are evil horny bastards who wish to take advantage of their pure as the virgin snow (on account of being morally pristine females) daughters.

Mother-son incest doesn’t happen too much, so no one cares. Brother-sister incest occurs quite a bit, but no one ever goes to jail for it, so the laws are ridiculous. And if anyone ever did go to jail in the case of brother-sister incest, it was be the male, since it’s male sexuality that is evil, naturally predatory and malign according to the feminist maggots and wussieboys who run society. The female in the brother-sister incest would always be innocent because feminist cunts and their fagboy buddies say females are perennial innocents.

I would argue that in most cases of brother-sister incest, there’s no predatory behavior involved. In which case it’s no business of the law’s. Brother-sister incest is not a good idea, and it ought to be stopped (But not by cops!), but it’s often just two adolescent innocents exploring their budding sexuality. Just what business is this of the state’s? None whatsoever!

As far as father-daughter incest, it’s surely covered under existing child sexual abuse abuse statutes. There’s an argument that father-daughter incest is a particularly nasty form of child abuse, and the victims are harmed worse than others. Fine. Have incest as an enhanced penalty statute in cases of child abuse.

Since no one ever goes down in brother-sister incest, and it’s just silly kids who don’t know what they are doing anyway, why is it even illegal in the first place? Good question. Probably to police those evil brothers with their persistent 16 year old erections that threaten their permanently hymened sisters of ivory white goodness and rectitude.

In cases where both parties are over the age of 18, why is incest against the law at all?

It doesn’t happen very often, but sometimes a father has sex with an adult daughter. A mother having sex with an adult son is even rarer. No one ever goes to jail for adult-adult incest, so why is it against the law in the first place? Once again, it’s only to police those evil fathers, who never stop wanting to fuck their daughters, even after they are all grown up into womanhood.

In many US states, any sexual contact between first cousins of any age is illegal. This is particularly preposterous, as cousin incest is extremely common worldwide, even in the US.

A silly argument against these rarely enforced laws is that incestuous sex leading to pregnancy leads to inbred offspring and birth defects. This can be dealt with via laws against incestuous marriage. In most civilized states, incestuous marriage is rare enough anyway, so there’s no reason for the state to worry about it.

Incest laws exist due to moral panic. What’s going to happen if we get rid of the laws? Why! There will be a huge wave of incest, followed by a tidal wave of babies, most of them with ears growing out of their groins!

Some sensible states have seen the light recently and gotten rid of their stupid incest laws. Rhode Island sensibly eliminated all incest laws in 1989. Ohio’s law only targets parents as offenders. In New Jersey, incest is legal, as it ought to be, for adults.

Incest, reasonably enough, is completely legal in Russia, Belgium, Portugal and India at the very least.

Incest ought to be legal not because it’s a good idea, but because it’s none of the state’s damned business. The most harmful kind, father-daughter sex, is readily dealt with under existing child sex abuse statutes. Incest involving adults, problematic though it may be, is simply none of the state’s damned business.

Although I’m a libertine, I am troubled by incest at any age.

Father-daughter incest is often quite harmful to the underage daughter. Father-daughter incest with an adult daughter is typically not harmful for the father, but the daughter often comes out of it feeling harmed. Mother-son incest is very rare. In a few cases, mothers have had sex with adult sons. The mothers escape unharmed, but the sons often feel it was a bad idea.

Brother-sister incest is often not a good idea. One or the other, the brother or the sister, frequently feels harmed by the experience. If it’s going on, parents need to intervene and separate the sexual explorers. Cousin incest should simply be legal, though cousins should not be allowed to marry. It’s dubious whether cousin incest is any more harmful to participants than any other sexual behavior.

A lot of harmful things in society are no damned business of the Nanny Cop State’s. In fact, many harmful activities, are, properly, not even illegal at all. The Nanny Cop State has no prerogative, and indeed no right, to legally sanction all harmful behaviors.

Great article here on the subject, and the great William Saletan of Slate asks the same question here. From Saletan:

This week, the Associated Press published an interview with Rick Santorum, the third-highest ranking Republican in the U.S. Senate. Referring to a pending case involving sodomy laws, Santorum argued, “If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery.”

Surely, Santorum is right. Now there’s one principled fundamentalist wacko! Surely, no one should go to jail for bigamy, adultery, polygamy or incest involving siblings, cousins, or adults. The piece then goes on to interview gay rights ultra-liberals arguing, absurdly, that the state should be able to ban adult incest but not ban gay sex. It’s always sorry when the conservative crazies make sense and we Lefties are the nuts. It’s worse than sorry. It’s embarrassing!

Reading the arguments in favor of incest laws, most of them seem to revolve around the same misandrist feminazi-Mangina fag argument that incest is all about power. In other words, it’s evil humans with dicks preying on poor innocent forever children humans with vaginas. The permachildren with mammaries being too stupid to look out for their own good and avoid being talked into doing stupid things, we (The Cops!) have to watch over them like shepherds until they are dead, protecting the Braying Female Lambs from the Evil Male Wolves.

One more thing. You know what else is “all about power?” Heterosexual sex. I’ll give the Feminazis like Andrea Dworkin credit for at least figuring out the obvious. C’mon Nanny Staters, lets make fucking illegal too!

This article from the Harvard Law Review makes the logical assumption that most laws against incest lack a rational basis and argues instead for a reforming of such laws on the basis of consent vs. non-consent. The article points out, unbelievably, that incest and even marriage is often illegal even between adult step-relations, and even between adult ex-step-relations, when there is no reason for this.

Since adult step-relations have no blood relationship, there is no reason for that sex between them should be illegal, nor should marriage between them be illegal. The usual argument against this sort of thing is moral revulsion, but recent cases striking down laws against gay sex indicate that moral revulsion is no reason to outlaw any private sexual behavior.

References

Inbred Obscurity: Improving Incest Laws in the Shadow of the ‘Sexual Family’. Harvard Law Review. June 2006.

If you think this website is valuable to you, please consider a contribution to support the continuation of the site.

"Postcards From Dream Land," by Alpha Unit

In I’m So Sick and Tired of This Shit, Robert talks about the infantilization of women – something radical feminists have brought about, either wittingly or otherwise. Street harassment of women has been one focus of this move to give women some kind of permanent protected status. Like almost every other woman, I’ve been subjected to harassment by males in public places. It has been mainly verbal – no one’s ever put his hands on me. I can tell when someone is being friendly and “complimenting” me and when someone is really aggressively interfering with me. And the latter pisses me off. It’s not so much that I’ve felt afraid in these situations (although I have a time or two); I’ve mainly been annoyed. And what made me angry was the sense that I had to placate this individual somehow to get past him and be on about my business. How you react to this harassment can make a difference in how swiftly you can get away from it. In other words, if you say something like “Go to hell” or “Leave me alone,” you have committed the sin of deflating this male’s ego. Retaliation is sure to follow. All of a sudden your great beauty and desirableness, those things that supposedly got his attention in the first place, fall away and you become the ugliest, most loathsome bitch that ever crossed his path. I understand the impulse in some activists to do something about this. And in litigious America I can even see why some women have the idea of outlawing street harassment. There’s nothing new about the idea. Ages ago, in 1993, law professor Cynthia Grant Bowman wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review called “Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women.” According to Professor Bowman:

Typically, unacquainted persons passing on a public street, particularly in large cities, do not address one another, but instead perform an avoidance ritual…Staring at a stranger is a well-established cultural taboo.

She goes on to say that breaches of this “civil inattention” are reserved for people who are really unusual, those who are unusually similar to you in some way, or those who are in what she calls an “open” category – dogs and children, for example. Men seem to put women in this “open” category.

Unlike men, women passing through public areas are subject to “markers of passage” that imply either that women are acting out of role simply by their presence in public or that part of their role is in fact to be open to the public. These “markers” emphasize that women, unlike men, belong in the private sphere, the sphere of domestic rather than public responsibility. Ironically, men convey this message by intruding upon a woman’s privacy as she enters the public sphere.

Professor Bowman says that some women react with fear to street harassment because they don’t know if the stranger will turn out to be a rapist. She then asserts that women have good reason to see street harassment as a precursor to rape.

Furthermore, rapists often harass women on the street and violate their personal space in order to determine which women are likely to easy targets – a practice called “rape-testing.” Because potential rapists frequently select their victims by looking for women who appear vulnerable to assault, they may approach a potential victim and “test” her by a variety of means, including making lewd or insinuating remarks, to see if she can be intimidated.

Much of what immediately follows is an explanation of how uncomfortable and distressed women feel when they are subjected to this harassment. Don’t women have recourse under current civil law? That is, can’t she sue for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or invasion of privacy? Each of these options is inadequate, due to issues of intent, First Amendment protections, and the idea that a “reasonable” person (or, “man,” actually) wouldn’t see the conduct as offensive enough to warrant the intrusion of the law. Professor Bowman is optimistic, however.

Women have made substantial gains in the last few decades in the field of workplace harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence; similar pressure may create remedies for street harassment…it would be necessary to overturn longstanding statutory and case law to hold that the intent of the harasser is irrelevant to criminal assault.

Finally, we get to what I see as the centerpiece of this article – a proposed statute or ordinance to be enacted:

Street harassment. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $250, to engage in street harassment. Street harassment occurs when one or more unfamiliar men accost one or more women in a public place, on one or more occasions, and intrude or attempt to intrude upon the woman’s attention in a manner that is unwelcome to the woman, with language or action that is explicitly or implicitly sexual. Such language includes, but is not limited to, references to male or female genitalia or to female body parts or to sexual activities, solicitation of sex, or reference by word or action to the target of the harassment as the object of sexual desire, or similar words that by their very utterance inflict injury or naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, even if the woman did not herself react with violence [emphasis mine]. The harasser’s intent, except his intent to say the words or engage in the conduct, is not an element of this offense.

With all due to respect to Professor Bowman and to all of the women who continue to endorse such a proposal, this is Dream Land. Set aside for a moment the idea of legally prohibiting men from publicly expressing their lust for attractive women on the street. Such an ordinance wouldn’t even require that the targeted woman be offended by this behavior. That one sentence in this proposed law reveals the real intent of this proposal: to put a muzzle on men. This is a truncheon to bring men into line and force them to behave civilly toward women. These women want to enjoy the benefits of moving about in public but they don’t want to deal with the reality of actually being in public, a reality which includes the probability of receiving unwanted attention or being subjected to unwanted speech. As I’ve said, I don’t appreciate being harassed in public any more than other women do. But here’s what I think: men really only respect and fear other men. I’ve said this before, and I’m convinced of it. A woman often gets respect only insofar as men understand that she is under the protection of some man or group of men. In other words, they have to know that to mess with that woman is to mess with some man – a man they don’t want to cross. This is ultimately the only real deterrent to this type of behavior – male protection. Women who assert their right to be out and about without male protection now circle back and demand male protection! And yes, the demand for men to be civil and restrained toward women in public is a demand for their protection. It’s a demand for them to set aside their own instincts and even freedoms for the benefit and comfort of women. More importantly, it’s a recognition that it’s men who actually wield power in the public sphere. Is everybody listening? It’s men who actually wield power in the public sphere. Don’t get mad at me about it. It’s the way the world has always been. Feminists know it, too. And to all of you men who want to go on and on about how men have been “emasculated” and made subject to women’s demands, you need to ask yourselves: Who relinquished so much of their power and allowed themselves to be gelded?

References

Bowman, Cynthia Grant. 1993. Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association.

“Postcards From Dream Land,” by Alpha Unit

In I’m So Sick and Tired of This Shit, Robert talks about the infantilization of women – something radical feminists have brought about, either wittingly or otherwise. Street harassment of women has been one focus of this move to give women some kind of permanent protected status.

Like almost every other woman, I’ve been subjected to harassment by males in public places. It has been mainly verbal – no one’s ever put his hands on me. I can tell when someone is being friendly and “complimenting” me and when someone is really aggressively interfering with me. And the latter pisses me off.

It’s not so much that I’ve felt afraid in these situations (although I have a time or two); I’ve mainly been annoyed. And what made me angry was the sense that I had to placate this individual somehow to get past him and be on about my business. How you react to this harassment can make a difference in how swiftly you can get away from it.

In other words, if you say something like “Go to hell” or “Leave me alone,” you have committed the sin of deflating this male’s ego. Retaliation is sure to follow.

All of a sudden your great beauty and desirableness, those things that supposedly got his attention in the first place, fall away and you become the ugliest, most loathsome bitch that ever crossed his path.

I understand the impulse in some activists to do something about this. And in litigious America I can even see why some women have the idea of outlawing street harassment. There’s nothing new about the idea.

Ages ago, in 1993, law professor Cynthia Grant Bowman wrote an article for the Harvard Law Review called “Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women.” According to Professor Bowman:

Typically, unacquainted persons passing on a public street, particularly in large cities, do not address one another, but instead perform an avoidance ritual…Staring at a stranger is a well-established cultural taboo.

She goes on to say that breaches of this “civil inattention” are reserved for people who are really unusual, those who are unusually similar to you in some way, or those who are in what she calls an “open” category – dogs and children, for example. Men seem to put women in this “open” category.

Unlike men, women passing through public areas are subject to “markers of passage” that imply either that women are acting out of role simply by their presence in public or that part of their role is in fact to be open to the public. These “markers” emphasize that women, unlike men, belong in the private sphere, the sphere of domestic rather than public responsibility. Ironically, men convey this message by intruding upon a woman’s privacy as she enters the public sphere.

Professor Bowman says that some women react with fear to street harassment because they don’t know if the stranger will turn out to be a rapist. She then asserts that women have good reason to see street harassment as a precursor to rape.

Furthermore, rapists often harass women on the street and violate their personal space in order to determine which women are likely to easy targets – a practice called “rape-testing.” Because potential rapists frequently select their victims by looking for women who appear vulnerable to assault, they may approach a potential victim and “test” her by a variety of means, including making lewd or insinuating remarks, to see if she can be intimidated.

Much of what immediately follows is an explanation of how uncomfortable and distressed women feel when they are subjected to this harassment.

Don’t women have recourse under current civil law? That is, can’t she sue for assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or invasion of privacy? Each of these options is inadequate, due to issues of intent, First Amendment protections, and the idea that a “reasonable” person (or, “man,” actually) wouldn’t see the conduct as offensive enough to warrant the intrusion of the law.

Professor Bowman is optimistic, however.

Women have made substantial gains in the last few decades in the field of workplace harassment, sexual assault, and domestic violence; similar pressure may create remedies for street harassment…it would be necessary to overturn longstanding statutory and case law to hold that the intent of the harasser is irrelevant to criminal assault.

Finally, we get to what I see as the centerpiece of this article – a proposed statute or ordinance to be enacted:

Street harassment. It shall be a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $250, to engage in street harassment. Street harassment occurs when one or more unfamiliar men accost one or more women in a public place, on one or more occasions, and intrude or attempt to intrude upon the woman’s attention in a manner that is unwelcome to the woman, with language or action that is explicitly or implicitly sexual.

Such language includes, but is not limited to, references to male or female genitalia or to female body parts or to sexual activities, solicitation of sex, or reference by word or action to the target of the harassment as the object of sexual desire, or similar words that by their very utterance inflict injury or naturally tend to provoke violent resentment, even if the woman did not herself react with violence [emphasis mine].

The harasser’s intent, except his intent to say the words or engage in the conduct, is not an element of this offense.

With all due to respect to Professor Bowman and to all of the women who continue to endorse such a proposal, this is Dream Land.

Set aside for a moment the idea of legally prohibiting men from publicly expressing their lust for attractive women on the street. Such an ordinance wouldn’t even require that the targeted woman be offended by this behavior. That one sentence in this proposed law reveals the real intent of this proposal: to put a muzzle on men.

This is a truncheon to bring men into line and force them to behave civilly toward women. These women want to enjoy the benefits of moving about in public but they don’t want to deal with the reality of actually being in public, a reality which includes the probability of receiving unwanted attention or being subjected to unwanted speech.

As I’ve said, I don’t appreciate being harassed in public any more than other women do. But here’s what I think: men really only respect and fear other men. I’ve said this before, and I’m convinced of it. A woman often gets respect only insofar as men understand that she is under the protection of some man or group of men. In other words, they have to know that to mess with that woman is to mess with some man – a man they don’t want to cross.

This is ultimately the only real deterrent to this type of behavior – male protection. Women who assert their right to be out and about without male protection now circle back and demand male protection!

And yes, the demand for men to be civil and restrained toward women in public is a demand for their protection. It’s a demand for them to set aside their own instincts and even freedoms for the benefit and comfort of women. More importantly, it’s a recognition that it’s men who actually wield power in the public sphere.

Is everybody listening? It’s men who actually wield power in the public sphere. Don’t get mad at me about it. It’s the way the world has always been. Feminists know it, too.

And to all of you men who want to go on and on about how men have been “emasculated” and made subject to women’s demands, you need to ask yourselves: Who relinquished so much of their power and allowed themselves to be gelded?

References

Bowman, Cynthia Grant. 1993. Street Harassment and the Informal Ghettoization of Women. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Law Review Association.

"Liberation," by Alpha Unit

Henry Miller wrote a novel over seventy years ago in which the narrator spoke fondly and admiringly of prostitutes – and low-rent prostitutes at that. One of them was quite exuberant in her whoredom – “a whore all the way through,” the narrator says proudly, because she acted the part “with feeling,” even though it was a part she acted for anybody. The novel was Tropic of Cancer. The narrator is an expatriate American writer, committed due to circumstance to live in the present, with a focus on the satisfaction of bodily needs, sort of the way animals live (at one point, he declares himself, happily, to be “inhuman”). The descriptions he gives of how these needs were satisfied – especially those satisfied by prostitutes – shocked and mortified several states and the U.S. Post Office, leading to an obscenity trial that eventually produced a ruling in the publisher’s favor in 1964. I’ve read the opinion that this ruling ushered in what some call the Sexual Revolution – a distinction it shares with some other cultural shifts in post-World War II America. At the very least, it was part of a trend toward more and more openness in the discussion of sex in the United States. Those who came along in the generations after Tropic of Cancer was published sometimes applauded it as an example of a modernistic, stream-of-consciousness style of literature that broke through convention in the same way some earlier novels had. But a lot of people were impressed with it in a different way – they were appalled by the graphic descriptions of sex acts, in the context of sordid encounters, and by the way Henry Miller wrote about women. Women were “cunts.” If they weren’t “cunts” they were “sluts” or “bitches.” But they were mainly “cunts,” whether they were whores or respectable. Feminists have long had a problem with Henry Miller, n’est-ce pas? Seen as some kind of maven of sexual liberation (and perhaps excess), Miller was interviewed during the 1960s by Esquire magazine and others. Naturally, he was asked for his assessment of the “new” sexual climate in America. The interviewer David Dury asked Miller if he was bored with sex – referring to the openness with which Americans could speak of it and partake of it. Miller responded:

One can’t get bored with sex. But one is bored with making such a tremendous issue of it. This constant harping on sex all the time is so immature, not just sexually, but socially and politically. It’s as though we’re a race of adolescents.

Dury tells Miller, that it is he, Miller, who harps on it in his books, but Miller’s not having it.

I harped on trying to get at the whole truth of one man: myself. Sex was a big part of that, but no matter how you add it up, in pages or print or words or volumes, it was only a part. It just happened that this was the part that had shock value.

Miller agrees with Dury that all the talk about sex is better than the old ignorance and secrecy that once prevailed. He adds:

But because in the past we have been so Goddamned backward about sex, this revolution is causing sex to become a preoccupation. This I find sad, and even deplorable in many ways.

According to Miller, sex is now a commodity, but what’s worse is that women were becoming commodities. There is a lot of promiscuity, but no passion or vitality. Miller lets Dury in on what things used to be like in the “bad” old days:

During my time, the girls were so shut in, and you were always watched. Now everybody’s free about sex, but they’re shut in in other ways. In the old days the great difference was that when we were committing these – What are they calling them? Adulteries? Fornications? Illicit sex? Ridiculous words! When we did it, we did it! We didn’t sit around and talk about it first, intellectualize it. There was always pleasure involved. I mean, great fun! For everybody! Joy, do you see? That’s the big difference, that element of joy! Joy in sex! You’d have to be a blind man not to see it. In my time, either they weren’t having any sex because of too much guilt, or they were having wonderfully joyous sex. Now everyone’s having sex, the guilty ones probably more than anyone – but it’s so joyless, so much of it.

Dury asks Miller, “Do you consider sex without love to be harmful?” To which Miller replies:

There’s nothing wrong with sex without love. But much more is needed, because just to have a good sex fling isn’t enough, there has to be something more. A man has to fall in love. He has to want something more of the woman and see more in her than an object to be used.

Does this sound like any misogynist you know? The next question is, “What exactly do you think men are missing in the way they relate to women sexually now?” I love Miller’s response, as most women probably would!

They’re missing a lot of things. For one, there’s no adoration for women! Now there’s another word I would like to emphasize – adoration! Where do we have any adoration today in our talk about women and sex? I believe in adoration, not only in relation to women, but in relation to men as well, where the man above you is someone you adore and admire and want to emulate, the adoration for a master. This is completely lost in our society today. Instead of adoration for women, men seem to be just always on the chase.

This was all from a man who was seen as someone who despised women and saw sex as nothing but an outlet for a crude impulse – a conclusion people arrived at on the basis of a work of art. Miller gave this interview back in 1966. I can only imagine what he would think of the way a lot of men see women today. The contempt with which some of these pickup artists speak of women would probably be gravely disturbing to him! But, as always, the problem is not that simple. The feminism that opened so many doors for women and created so many opportunities for them – a development Miller looked upon favorably – has contributed enormously to the disgust so many men exhibit toward women. In another interview with Dury, Henry Miller expressed a fear that the sexual revolution was “masculinizing” women – something that would be to their detriment. With foresight, he told his interviewer:

These aggressive females, particularly the American type, aren’t improving their situation vis-a-vis the male…I am sincerely convinced that a woman’s greatest reward comes from the role of – what shall we call it? – stimulator and comforter. Now if she takes the greater independence and equality necessary for her own development, and becomes masculinized by it, then she is the tragic loser, as much or more than the man. She loses her powers as the seductress, when she becomes masculinized…She’s best when she’s that way. And it’s also best for the man. It brings out all that is masculine about him.

But Dury isn’t giving up entirely on the idea of female independence and equality. Couldn’t these make the woman a better seductress? Miller answers:

Yes, it really should. But if it makes her equally aggressive in the male sense, instead of truly seductive, then it will be like two machines coming together…put a coin in the slot and bang! bang! You see? The poetic prelude and the art of it all will be gone. Just get it over with, bim-bam! I still believe a man really wants to woo a woman. It gives him great satisfaction, don’t you think?

Henry Miller dismissed the idea that he had ever set out to be some kind of expert on sex or love. But for someone who for decades endured a reputation for being some kind of hypermasculine woman-hater, the truth about him is quite refreshing. Could it be that lurking inside your average latter-day misogynist is a romantic who, sadly, has given up?

References

Miller, H., Kersnowski, F. & Hughes, A. 1994. Conversations with Henry Miller. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

“Liberation,” by Alpha Unit

Henry Miller wrote a novel over seventy years ago in which the narrator spoke fondly and admiringly of prostitutes – and low-rent prostitutes at that. One of them was quite exuberant in her whoredom – “a whore all the way through,” the narrator says proudly, because she acted the part “with feeling,” even though it was a part she acted for anybody.

The novel was Tropic of Cancer. The narrator is an expatriate American writer, committed due to circumstance to live in the present, with a focus on the satisfaction of bodily needs, sort of the way animals live (at one point, he declares himself, happily, to be “inhuman”). The descriptions he gives of how these needs were satisfied – especially those satisfied by prostitutes – shocked and mortified several states and the U.S. Post Office, leading to an obscenity trial that eventually produced a ruling in the publisher’s favor in 1964.

I’ve read the opinion that this ruling ushered in what some call the Sexual Revolution – a distinction it shares with some other cultural shifts in post-World War II America. At the very least, it was part of a trend toward more and more openness in the discussion of sex in the United States.

Those who came along in the generations after Tropic of Cancer was published sometimes applauded it as an example of a modernistic, stream-of-consciousness style of literature that broke through convention in the same way some earlier novels had.

But a lot of people were impressed with it in a different way – they were appalled by the graphic descriptions of sex acts, in the context of sordid encounters, and by the way Henry Miller wrote about women. Women were “cunts.” If they weren’t “cunts” they were “sluts” or “bitches.” But they were mainly “cunts,” whether they were whores or respectable.

Feminists have long had a problem with Henry Miller, n’est-ce pas?

Seen as some kind of maven of sexual liberation (and perhaps excess), Miller was interviewed during the 1960s by Esquire magazine and others. Naturally, he was asked for his assessment of the “new” sexual climate in America.

The interviewer David Dury asked Miller if he was bored with sex – referring to the openness with which Americans could speak of it and partake of it. Miller responded:

One can’t get bored with sex. But one is bored with making such a tremendous issue of it. This constant harping on sex all the time is so immature, not just sexually, but socially and politically. It’s as though we’re a race of adolescents.

Dury tells Miller, that it is he, Miller, who harps on it in his books, but Miller’s not having it.

I harped on trying to get at the whole truth of one man: myself. Sex was a big part of that, but no matter how you add it up, in pages or print or words or volumes, it was only a part. It just happened that this was the part that had shock value.

Miller agrees with Dury that all the talk about sex is better than the old ignorance and secrecy that once prevailed. He adds:

But because in the past we have been so Goddamned backward about sex, this revolution is causing sex to become a preoccupation. This I find sad, and even deplorable in many ways.

According to Miller, sex is now a commodity, but what’s worse is that women were becoming commodities. There is a lot of promiscuity, but no passion or vitality.

Miller lets Dury in on what things used to be like in the “bad” old days:

During my time, the girls were so shut in, and you were always watched. Now everybody’s free about sex, but they’re shut in in other ways. In the old days the great difference was that when we were committing these – What are they calling them? Adulteries? Fornications? Illicit sex? Ridiculous words!

When we did it, we did it! We didn’t sit around and talk about it first, intellectualize it. There was always pleasure involved. I mean, great fun! For everybody! Joy, do you see? That’s the big difference, that element of joy! Joy in sex! You’d have to be a blind man not to see it.

In my time, either they weren’t having any sex because of too much guilt, or they were having wonderfully joyous sex. Now everyone’s having sex, the guilty ones probably more than anyone – but it’s so joyless, so much of it.

Dury asks Miller, “Do you consider sex without love to be harmful?” To which Miller replies:

There’s nothing wrong with sex without love. But much more is needed, because just to have a good sex fling isn’t enough, there has to be something more. A man has to fall in love. He has to want something more of the woman and see more in her than an object to be used.

Does this sound like any misogynist you know?

The next question is, “What exactly do you think men are missing in the way they relate to women sexually now?” I love Miller’s response, as most women probably would!

They’re missing a lot of things. For one, there’s no adoration for women! Now there’s another word I would like to emphasize – adoration! Where do we have any adoration today in our talk about women and sex? I believe in adoration, not only in relation to women, but in relation to men as well, where the man above you is someone you adore and admire and want to emulate, the adoration for a master.

This is completely lost in our society today. Instead of adoration for women, men seem to be just always on the chase.

This was all from a man who was seen as someone who despised women and saw sex as nothing but an outlet for a crude impulse – a conclusion people arrived at on the basis of a work of art.

Miller gave this interview back in 1966. I can only imagine what he would think of the way a lot of men see women today. The contempt with which some of these pickup artists speak of women would probably be gravely disturbing to him!

But, as always, the problem is not that simple. The feminism that opened so many doors for women and created so many opportunities for them – a development Miller looked upon favorably – has contributed enormously to the disgust so many men exhibit toward women. In another interview with Dury, Henry Miller expressed a fear that the sexual revolution was “masculinizing” women – something that would be to their detriment.

With foresight, he told his interviewer:

These aggressive females, particularly the American type, aren’t improving their situation vis-a-vis the male…I am sincerely convinced that a woman’s greatest reward comes from the role of – what shall we call it? – stimulator and comforter.

Now if she takes the greater independence and equality necessary for her own development, and becomes masculinized by it, then she is the tragic loser, as much or more than the man. She loses her powers as the seductress, when she becomes masculinized…She’s best when she’s that way. And it’s also best for the man. It brings out all that is masculine about him.

But Dury isn’t giving up entirely on the idea of female independence and equality. Couldn’t these make the woman a better seductress? Miller answers:

Yes, it really should. But if it makes her equally aggressive in the male sense, instead of truly seductive, then it will be like two machines coming together…put a coin in the slot and bang! bang! You see? The poetic prelude and the art of it all will be gone. Just get it over with, bim-bam! I still believe a man really wants to woo a woman. It gives him great satisfaction, don’t you think?

Henry Miller dismissed the idea that he had ever set out to be some kind of expert on sex or love. But for someone who for decades endured a reputation for being some kind of hypermasculine woman-hater, the truth about him is quite refreshing.

Could it be that lurking inside your average latter-day misogynist is a romantic who, sadly, has given up?

References

Miller, H., Kersnowski, F. & Hughes, A. 1994. Conversations with Henry Miller. Jackson, MS: University Press of Mississippi.

"Female Logic," by Alpha Unit

In case you wondering, this is satire. It’s Alpha trying to get into the head of the modern militant woman. She doesn’t feel this way herself. Hi, guys. This is Modern Militant Woman. Listen – there’s something you’ve got to stop doing. You’ve got to stop talking about how illogical I am all the time. Men have been saying this about women forever. And you guys love to entertain yourselves with little nasty comments about how “female logic is an oxymoron” and how men have to “abandon all logic” to talk to me. For your information, I am every bit as logical as you are. It’s just that there are certain realizations that create a slight cognitive dissonance in me, and I’m still working that out. But Modern Militant Woman doesn’t back down. If I did, the Bad Old Days would come rushing back upon us, because you guys would just go back to your old woman-oppressing ways if someone didn’t make sure you treated me as an equal. One of the things you’re gonna have to do to keep us equal is make sure I can go everywhere you can go and do everything you can do, pretty much. Look, I know guys take risks out in the world all the time, day and night, and have to go it alone in all kinds of situations where they have to be able to hold their own with other guys. Well, I want to be able to do all those things, too, if I ever feel like it. Except, I don’t really care for the “risk” part. Because that just wouldn’t be fair, since I’m a woman. I can’t really hold my own with one of you guys; haven’t you heard about the significant physical differences between the sexes? They’re genetic, so it’s not my fault. So if you ever see me out there acting free and equal, and getting into some of those risky situations, just cut me some slack, okay? It’s not right to take advantage of people who are weaker than you are. I mean, doesn’t that make perfect sense? The strong have an obligation to look out for the weak. And I’m the weak. Hey, I’m not stupid. I know I’m the weak. After all this time, some things are still the same. I’m still in this female body that’s just no match for yours, if things ever got down to it. So it makes perfect sense for me to constantly keep you on the defensive. And that’s what I do. You see, I have to protect myself every way that I can. And if keeping you on the defensive works to my advantage, I’m going for it. After all, a woman’s gotta do what a woman’s gotta do. You know. To stay safe.

“Female Logic,” by Alpha Unit

In case you wondering, this is satire. It’s Alpha trying to get into the head of the modern militant woman. She doesn’t feel this way herself.

Hi, guys. This is Modern Militant Woman.

Listen – there’s something you’ve got to stop doing. You’ve got to stop talking about how illogical I am all the time. Men have been saying this about women forever. And you guys love to entertain yourselves with little nasty comments about how “female logic is an oxymoron” and how men have to “abandon all logic” to talk to me.

For your information, I am every bit as logical as you are. It’s just that there are certain realizations that create a slight cognitive dissonance in me, and I’m still working that out. But Modern Militant Woman doesn’t back down. If I did, the Bad Old Days would come rushing back upon us, because you guys would just go back to your old woman-oppressing ways if someone didn’t make sure you treated me as an equal.

One of the things you’re gonna have to do to keep us equal is make sure I can go everywhere you can go and do everything you can do, pretty much. Look, I know guys take risks out in the world all the time, day and night, and have to go it alone in all kinds of situations where they have to be able to hold their own with other guys. Well, I want to be able to do all those things, too, if I ever feel like it. Except, I don’t really care for the “risk” part. Because that just wouldn’t be fair, since I’m a woman.

I can’t really hold my own with one of you guys; haven’t you heard about the significant physical differences between the sexes? They’re genetic, so it’s not my fault. So if you ever see me out there acting free and equal, and getting into some of those risky situations, just cut me some slack, okay? It’s not right to take advantage of people who are weaker than you are.

I mean, doesn’t that make perfect sense? The strong have an obligation to look out for the weak. And I’m the weak.

Hey, I’m not stupid. I know I’m the weak. After all this time, some things are still the same. I’m still in this female body that’s just no match for yours, if things ever got down to it. So it makes perfect sense for me to constantly keep you on the defensive. And that’s what I do.

You see, I have to protect myself every way that I can. And if keeping you on the defensive works to my advantage, I’m going for it. After all, a woman’s gotta do what a woman’s gotta do. You know. To stay safe.

I’m So Sick and Tired of This Shit

This.

Granted, there are some times when it exists, especially the egregious quid pro quo, the aggressive types, or won’t take no for an answer types. A straight male friend of mine was fired for not having sex with his gay boss! As an undergrad, I got to watch my married male professors parading their latest coed conquests in front of class, and I thought it was disgusting.

But I’m convinced that these diabolical feminists just want to eliminate any and all sexual behavior period from the workplace and all educational institutions.

This is a prime example of Female Rule run amok and gone insane. Most women won’t push very hard for these mad rules to be put in place, but once they are in place, most women (women being followers and not leaders) will just go along with the Puritanical project.

I lived through the whole 1970’s and early 1980’s with tons of sexual stuff going on in the workplace or halls of education. There was very little fuss about any of it.

There are way too many love-shy men as it is. Sexual harassment is a dagger to the hearts of love-shy men.

One wonders what the boundaries of this sexual harassment crap are. The feminist idiots have already walled off the entire workplace and halls of education from anything hinting of sex, so what’s to stop them from stopping there? Why not make it civilly actionable outside class and work? Like, at the coffee shop, the doctors’ office, driving down the road, the grocery store, the insurance office, the bank, the sidewalk, the gas station, the apartment complex? I mean, why stop at work or class?

Our females, these silly dames, are fragile little girl-children in women’s bodies, and they just go to pieces every time a man lays his evil lecherous eyes on them. We need to protect them, these double X perpetual infants!

Lunatic Lady Raine actually wants to make illegal any and all sexual attention men display towards women outside of designed pick-up spots. She would wall off certain places in society as designated pick-up spots and make illegal any and all male sexual attention towards women outside those meat markets.

All this so these poor jellyfish-like damsels can be spared the soul-dissolving leers and dagger-like suggestive comments of perpetually-erect males. Most women would probably say, “Oh, that’s crazy!”

But the problem is that in their hearts, this is what they want. To be free from men’s evil attentions, to carry on with their desultory shopping or whatever bullshit they fill their hours with.

Once the loons put this nutty project in, most women would line up behind it. Get out the knee boots and the leather whip and round up the 2

This is one thing I find scary about women. Projects laughed off as ridiculous, once implemented by the Sisterhood, will see women lining up with their gender when the cards are down.

Women are emotional thinkers, not logical thinkers. Their thoughts are like wind chimes or flags in the wind, blowing this way or that. That can be easily brushed off by the logical male mind, but once the Women implement a “pro-woman” position, it’s unlikely the rest of the Followers will overturn it, if that means going over to the Male Enemy.

This is already starting to happen. Workers at a coffee shop in Oregon tried to ban a friend of mine for “looking at the waitresses.” What the Hell? Considering that most of them were 18-22 year old cuties, how exactly was he supposed to react. So you can see the lunatic sexual harassment BS is already creeping outside of work and school into ordinary public space.

I remember once I worked at an office. Some guy asked out a chick. Much of the office, including most of the silly females, were up in arms over this affront for weeks afterwards. Mostly the guys didn’t care, but the women were outraged. The guy had reason to do so, but he was pretty weird, so in Female World that means he didn’t get to ask out any chicks, ever, in his lifetime. The guy said Fuck You to that proclamation, and all Hell broke loose. He asked her out! What an outrage! Oh boo-fuckin-hoo!

I felt sorry for the guy. I figured he hadn’t been laid in months, or maybe years. Who can blame a guy? He got called in on sexual harassment for asking a chick out, a co-worker at that. He asked her once, she didn’t respond either yes or no, just gave him a weird look, and the guy dropped it. This is sexual harassment? Huh?

Secondary schools have now implemented policies banning any and all physical contact between students of either gender, presumably even boyfriends and girlfriends. This was too much even for the girl students, who being kids still have some sense about their primal urges. The girls complained that they liked to hug their female friends and the new policy banned that.

A famous sexual harassment case outlined by Daphne Patai in her luminous Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism involved a male and female graduate student.

The male sent the female an email saying various things, including how much he valued her friendship. Then he said that he had been sexually abused in the past and was now impotent as a result. He requested her physical assistance (LOL) in overcoming his sexual dysfunction. The woman sent him an email back, saying thanks but no thanks. He mailed back, said thank you very much, I still value our friendship anyway.

She then learned that he send identical letters to several other students that they both worked with (LOL). This infuriated her and it was this, not the approach itself, that set off the idiot sexual harassment suit.

Where does this crap end anyway?

I like Alpha Unit’s take. She says that all, most or many male-female interactions, especially involving attractive people, are going to be somewhat sexually charged, and this is just the normal state of affairs. Well of course. We are mammals after all, no?

References

Patai, Daphne. 1998. Heterophobia: Sexual Harassment and the Future of Feminism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Tom Leykis

Continuing on with our Game/PUA theme these days (LOL, is this turning into a Game/PUA blog?) check out these three videos by Tom Leykis. He’s a radio shock jock here in the US with an explicitly pro-male POV.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVE6B1-tOPM]

This first video is somewhat disturbing. It’s called Tom Leykis Talks About Women Over the Hill. In it, he says some smart things, but also some disturbing things. Like a lot of these Game/PUA guys, Leykis promotes Asshole Game and comes off rather misogynistic.

I don’t see the point. The whole male critique of feminism is that these bitches hate us, they hate us guys. We are understandably upset about that. So our response is, what? To be misogynists and hate all women? Forget it. If hating us men is wrong (and we say it is) then hating all women is wrong too.

The truth is that the best of us really love women, or we should anyway. That’s where I’m coming from. Sure women are sort of nuts, but I love em anyway. They’re lovable nuts, well, most of the time anyway. Anyway, who says guys are better. We guys are psycho and dangerous. That’s better than being nutty? Why? At least a wacky woman won’t try to kill me.

And what kind of woman do we like? The feminists who hate us? No. Or the women like Alpha Unit who unabashedly states, “I love men!” Sure, she slams us in some of her pieces. She makes it clear that we are congenitally dangerous and as a class, have rape tendencies. So we’re brutes. But we’re lovable brutes, AU would say.

So AU and I are coming from the same place. I love women, and she loves men. We both tell it like it is about the opposite sex and have no illusions about the other, but we love em anyway.

Leykis is Greek, and may be coming from a Greek POV. A commenter notes that his Greek parents ordered him never to go down on a woman. “Don’t you ever get on your knees and do that for any woman!” “No vasectomy…Make her get surgery!” His aunts were emphatic that all women were skanks and trash and never stopped warning him about women. An interesting culture. The misogyny has been accepted as fact by both sexes!

Leykis gives some disturbing advice.

Don’t ever compliment her, not on her looks, not on her intelligence, not on anything. Wow…Don’t ever sleep over at her place. Pretty soon she’ll start asking you to move in. Get off the phone! Quit calling her all the time, quit texting her all the time.

This is more or less Asshole Game. It’s depressing that this crap works at all with women. You mean the less I call her and the less I text her, the more she likes me? How depressing. My opinion of women just fell another 9

The real womanizers I’ve known did not ignore women. They chased women fulltime. It was almost a fulltime job for them. They didn’t get success with women by ignoring them. Sexmaniacman told me that he used to call women all the time, and it never bothered them. But mostly for dates, not just to talk. And here we may have the crux. Women despise weakness. The player is goal-oriented. He’s calling her all the time with a goal in mind. A guy who calls her all the time just to talk about nothing seems sort of, well, wimpy?

AU says that women don’t mind guys who fall all over themselves for women, complimenting them, praising them, calling them, giving them gifts. Just not at the start of the relationship. Deep into the relationship, it feels great. But at the start, it seems like the guy is trying too hard or being self-abasing.

He also says to stop taking women’s calls. I don’t agree with that at all, but hey, maybe I’m wrong? Sexmaniacman regularly answers the phone for women, and he’s done all right.

He is right in a way that women like a guy who seems to be wanted by other women. If no women want the guy, he’s a loser and no women want him. Once you get a woman, now all the others want to take her away from you. Even a steady girlfriend often wants to feel like you are desired by other women, but you are not going for them out of duty to her. Basically, everyone loves a winner. This stuff applies more to younger women and not to older women. For us older folks, it’s not uncommon at all that we have nothing going on Friday night.

Not complimenting the woman is Asshole Game. They’re against it because it builds up her self-esteem. The Asshole Gamers want a woman with low self-esteem.

I don’t know, man. I’m going to disagree. Sexmaniacman usually tries to build up women’s self-esteem. That’s what they use him for, and that’s what they love him for. Women often lack self-esteem, but they like a strong man to encourage them and give them the self-esteem that they lack, to build them up. That’s what makes her secure and less nutty. A secure woman is a mellow woman, as AU says.

Anyway, Sexmaniacman has had great results complimenting women. It works great! It fact, it makes them melt in your hand, and maybe even in your mouth. You just have to say it right. The reason showering her with compliments often doesn’t work is that too many guys are too liberal with the compliments, so a lot of females just think it’s stupid or a line.

Thing is, be honest. If she doesn’t look that great, Sexdude would not say much. But if she’s hot or even beautiful, he would say so. But he would say so clearly, honestly and shamelessly, with no hint of dishonesty or charlatanism. Say it like you mean it, and do mean it. Then it works. Women love compliments properly done, and compliments have led Sexman to lots of sexual situations, including with some really beautiful women.

Another issue is more humanistic. If I have high self-esteem, don’t I want to be with a woman who has high self-esteem too? Why not? Self-esteem feels good, in men and in those who associate with me.

He also says not to have women over at your place, because then you can’t get rid of them. That’s not necessarily so. Women are independent actors these days, and Sexmaniacman said it was pretty common for them to take off in the morning, often a little ashamed at what they had done. Some took off in the afternoon. What’s wrong with sleeping with a woman anyway? Is it really so bad?

He also says not to sleep with a woman at her place either. Well, it can be a bit difficult sometimes in a new bed or place that you’re not used to, but it’s not so bad.

Leykis also says not to cuddle or spoon with women. Come on! That’s what they love more than anything; some say they like it more than sex. Sexmaniacman has been cuddling with women his whole life and they love it.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caLNFgAF5jw]

The next videos are downright disturbing. Leykis notes that he went to some seminar with pro NBA players where they revealed that women were taking the sperm out of condoms after the NBA guys had sex with them and then using it to impregnate themselves. Some guys were being hit with paternity suits afterward. This seems to hard to believe, but I guess it’s true. I always thought it was an urban legend.

So Leykis gave advice to his listeners to put Tabasco sauce in the condom after they threw it in the trash in the bathroom afterwards. Sure enough, the bitch took the sperm out of the condom and put it up her and got burned in her pussy. Then she sued the guy for damage to her pussy! I don’t think Tabasco sauce would actually injure a vagina though. Anyway, the judge apparently laughed it out of court.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA6tP_DV-Oc]

The next one is similar. Another guy listening to the show did the same thing, but this time he put horseysauce from some restaurant in the condom. Same thing, bitch went in the bathroom afterwards, used to turkey baster thing to shoot it up her, and started screaming like a banshee. Same thing again, the crazy bitch sued the guy for damage to her vagina (GMAB! There’s not going to be any permanent injury down there.) The case is slated to go to trial soon, but it will probably be thrown out soon.

Is this a new thing, females tricking guys into getting them pregnant? Or has it always been going on? Good Lord. It’s really appalling. Makes you almost want to swear off sex. I think we need to change the laws to where this is fraud and at the least, the guy’s not responsible for the ensuing kid.

"What Is It With Feminists and Rape?" by Alpha Unit

New Alpha Unit. I’m the one who put the question to AU, “What is it with feminists and rape anyway? It’s all they ever talk about. They’re like a skipping record.” This is her response, and I think she’s onto something. When will men quit raping women in the US? Never. When will women be able to walk around anywhere in the US without fear of being raped? Never. That’s the reality, and all the feminist screeching is never going to change a thing. First of all, I have to admit something. I have never been raped. As I’ve stated earlier, I’ve put myself in harm’s way, particularly as a very young woman. But I’ve never been raped. So I don’t know what it’s like to be forced into sex. I don’t know what goes through a person’s mind when this is happening, and I don’t know what that person goes through afterward. But the question has been put to me: Why do some feminists focus so much on rape? Is being raped any worse than some of the stuff men go through? Clearly there are worse things in life than rape. Murder, for instance. Is there anyone who would say, “I’d rather be murdered than raped”? But rape continues to be of pressing concern in the “war” between men and women. Behind all the sound and fury concerning rape is something a lot of women simply find hard to acknowledge. It is fear. Women fear men. They don’t like knowing this, and they won’t admit it, some of them. But fear of men is what drives all this angst over rape. Isn’t this apparent? Feminism has done a lot to change the thinking of women. But to the dismay of many of them, it hasn’t done much to change men. And this is problematic. This whole issue of rape is what makes it clear that on the most fundamental levels, nothing has changed. Women still have to be on guard with men they don’t know. They still can’t walk around at night all alone. They still have to actually look out for their safety, because that nice guy who seems so harmless right now could be up to no good. He might slip something into your drink. He might use “game” on you to get you to do what he wants. He might get into your house on some pretext and then, once inside, rape you. When are women going to be able to feel at ease? To walk around freely without fear of being attacked? When will a woman be able to go to the hotel room of a man she doesn’t know and be assured that nothing bad will happen? Or get wasted at a party and be assured that she will be left in peace? Not any time soon, it seems. It seems there is still reason to be afraid. And who wants to be afraid all the time? It’s humiliating to realize that you are afraid of someone. Or afraid of a certain group of people. Having to pretend you are unafraid isn’t much better. Demanding that those people stop scaring you is worse. What’s even crazier is insisting that you have some kind of right to go through life unafraid or unmolested. You can believe you have such a right; in fact, you can insist on it. But other people are not necessarily going to comply with your wishes. In some places you can expect people to agree with you. But in other places people won’t agree with you at all. Most people in this world don’t know you. Most don’t care about you. It is foolish to assume that strangers will uphold your own notions of reality. Women are always going to have to be careful, or even defensive, in their dealings with men they don’t know. This is just a fact. Do some of these angry, rape-obsessed women actually believe a day will come when people have no reason to fear other people? These women aren’t really crazy. They’ve already decided on a “solution” to this problem. Yes, they berate men for their brutishness. But look behind the outcry and what you’ll see is a demand that men protect women. Yes, protect us! In any sexually charged encounter with a woman, it doesn’t matter what the woman is saying; she may not realize what she’s saying, or she may say something she really doesn’t want to say. And it doesn’t matter what she does before, during, or after the encounter; she may not really mean what she’s doing. It’s up to you, the man, to look out for her interests, protect her, and make sure she’s safe. And happy with the outcome. Because men have a duty not to harm women and to keep them safe! We’ve come full circle.

“What Is It With Feminists and Rape?” by Alpha Unit

New Alpha Unit. I’m the one who put the question to AU, “What is it with feminists and rape anyway? It’s all they ever talk about. They’re like a skipping record.” This is her response, and I think she’s onto something. When will men quit raping women in the US? Never. When will women be able to walk around anywhere in the US without fear of being raped? Never. That’s the reality, and all the feminist screeching is never going to change a thing.

First of all, I have to admit something.

I have never been raped. As I’ve stated earlier, I’ve put myself in harm’s way, particularly as a very young woman. But I’ve never been raped. So I don’t know what it’s like to be forced into sex. I don’t know what goes through a person’s mind when this is happening, and I don’t know what that person goes through afterward.

But the question has been put to me: Why do some feminists focus so much on rape? Is being raped any worse than some of the stuff men go through?

Clearly there are worse things in life than rape. Murder, for instance. Is there anyone who would say, “I’d rather be murdered than raped”? But rape continues to be of pressing concern in the “war” between men and women. Behind all the sound and fury concerning rape is something a lot of women simply find hard to acknowledge. It is fear. Women fear men. They don’t like knowing this, and they won’t admit it, some of them. But fear of men is what drives all this angst over rape. Isn’t this apparent?

Feminism has done a lot to change the thinking of women. But to the dismay of many of them, it hasn’t done much to change men. And this is problematic. This whole issue of rape is what makes it clear that on the most fundamental levels, nothing has changed. Women still have to be on guard with men they don’t know. They still can’t walk around at night all alone. They still have to actually look out for their safety, because that nice guy who seems so harmless right now could be up to no good.

He might slip something into your drink. He might use “game” on you to get you to do what he wants. He might get into your house on some pretext and then, once inside, rape you.

When are women going to be able to feel at ease? To walk around freely without fear of being attacked?

When will a woman be able to go to the hotel room of a man she doesn’t know and be assured that nothing bad will happen? Or get wasted at a party and be assured that she will be left in peace?

Not any time soon, it seems. It seems there is still reason to be afraid.

And who wants to be afraid all the time? It’s humiliating to realize that you are afraid of someone. Or afraid of a certain group of people. Having to pretend you are unafraid isn’t much better. Demanding that those people stop scaring you is worse.

What’s even crazier is insisting that you have some kind of right to go through life unafraid or unmolested. You can believe you have such a right; in fact, you can insist on it. But other people are not necessarily going to comply with your wishes. In some places you can expect people to agree with you. But in other places people won’t agree with you at all.

Most people in this world don’t know you. Most don’t care about you. It is foolish to assume that strangers will uphold your own notions of reality.

Women are always going to have to be careful, or even defensive, in their dealings with men they don’t know. This is just a fact. Do some of these angry, rape-obsessed women actually believe a day will come when people have no reason to fear other people?

These women aren’t really crazy. They’ve already decided on a “solution” to this problem. Yes, they berate men for their brutishness. But look behind the outcry and what you’ll see is a demand that men protect women.

Yes, protect us! In any sexually charged encounter with a woman, it doesn’t matter what the woman is saying; she may not realize what she’s saying, or she may say something she really doesn’t want to say. And it doesn’t matter what she does before, during, or after the encounter; she may not really mean what she’s doing. It’s up to you, the man, to look out for her interests, protect her, and make sure she’s safe. And happy with the outcome.

Because men have a duty not to harm women and to keep them safe!

We’ve come full circle.

Feminazi Rape Laws Gone Berserk

Here. From 2008.

Two boys, 15 and 16 years old, were with an 18 year old woman and another young woman. The second woman sees the bad vibes surrounding the situation and gets the Hell out of there fast. The 18 year old sticks around, but things get ugly.

First boy apparently date-rapes the girl. Second boy asks, “Me next?” Woman says fine, but you need to stop when I tell you. As soon as he’s in, she says, “Stop!” Guy pounds a few more pile-drivers for five more seconds, then pulls out.

Later the ditzy broad goes out to MacDonald’s with the two guys. She makes out in the restaurant with the first “rapist” and gives the second “rapist” her phone number. Later she files rape charges against both boys.

*The facts around this case are quite a bit murkier than the site I linked to made out. Please see the comments for details. However, the fact remains that under the Female Rule that the feminist crazies want, men will go down on rape for continuing with initially consensual sex for five seconds after she tells you to stop. That’s the take home point here.

The Latest Salvo From the Feminist Enemy

I don’t know what it is with radical feminists. They just seem to get nuttier and nuttier.

Denise Romano, M.A., Applied Lunacy, M.A. Advanced Feminist Batshittery, touched on earlier. Females have always been censors. Males tend to be civil libertarians. A society based on Female Rule will not be a civil libertarian one, because at their core, most females simply do not believe in basic civil liberties.

They love to censor and ban speech, especially hate speech (whatever that is), pornography and God knows what else. Females are just natural born censors; that’s all there is to it. Which is one more reason that Female Rule must be opposed with all of our might.

Crazy feminazis like Denise Romano claim that any sex with a “drugged or drunk” female is rape. Well, maybe so, but maybe one guy in 500 billion cases goes down on this charge, if that. In general, all of these charges are laughed out of court, when they are even filed. Women “raped” in this way never even bother to file.

Truth is, lots of women like to drink. Plenty of women are heavy drinkers, and many of those are alcoholics. It’s reasonable to assume that many bar-hopping, heavy drinking and alcoholic women can never consent to sex, since they are probably loaded most of the time they are in bed.

Many females nowadays like to take drugs, especially cannabis, cocaine and methamphetamine. Ecstacy, LSD and other hallucinogens are very popular. Quite a few women use heroin. Female users of all of these drugs very commonly have sex when they are flying on this or that illicit substance. Many find this drugged sex experience quite rewarding. I’ve never in my life heard of a guy going down on rape for having sex with a stoned female.

Recently, the UK, which has recently started to come under some serious Female Rule, has decided that any sex with any “drunk” female is rape. There have been a few charges here and there, but most have been laughed out of court, as should be the case. In one recent case, a judge said that just because a woman was drunk, it doesn’t mean she was raped. Well, of course.

Now it’s another thing to see some chick who is falling down drunk at a bar or a party and hone in on her and take advantage of her just because she is wasted. That’s a dishonorable thing to do for any man.

If she’s so wasted she is on the verge of passing out, why are you targeting her? To get laid? Sleazy.

I must say, I’ve never been seduced in my life. I’ve been drunk off my ass more times than I can count, and I’ve been blasted out of my skull on just about every drug known to mankind more times than I can count.

Plenty of women have made plays for me when I was totalled, and a lot of the time I said no. Sometimes I agreed, but it was something I wanted to do at the time. I had buyer’s remorse in the morning, but that’s not a crime on her part. Gay men have made plays for me many times too, often when I was pretty wasted. Of course I never let them seduce me. Why are women so stupid that they allow themselves, like children, to be seduced?

Denise and Raine complain that PUA is teaching men how to hypnotize and brainwash women into sleeping with guys. They say this is rape. No it isn’t. It’s seduction. I’ve been trying to brainwash and hypnotize women and girls my whole life into getting sexual with me, although I never thought of it that way before. “Hypnotism” and “brainwashing” is just Seduction 101, always has been. What of it?

I’ll make you an offer. Any woman I find unattractive or even any man can try to brainwash me or hypnotize me all they want to to try to get me into bed. It’s not going to work, especially for the guys. No guy can use mentalism to get me into bed, and if I don’t like the woman, it’s going to be hard for her too.

I’m having a hard time understanding the feminist hysteria about rape.

I’ve been beaten over the head with a baseball bat so bad I had to go to the neurology ward.

I got my lights punched out repeatedly.

I got jumped and pummeled by five guys in a nightclub.

I got assaulted at a party, fought back, picked the guy up and threw him onto a table, smashing the table to bits.

After a party, another vehicle accused me of cutting them off. They chased us in their car, drunk, throwing loaded cans of beer at us. Somehow they cornered us on a street and I was lugging the gears. They were out of their car and attacking us on foot, kicking the car, beating it with their fists, trying to pull the doors open. If they would have gotten the doors open, we would have been seriously beaten or maybe even killed.

I finally put the car in first gear and floored it. A maniac was running headlong at my car from the side. “Watch out!” my friend yelled. I didn’t care. I floored it. The car hit the guy and he went flying like in the movies, maybe 5-10 feet. I hit him with my car. On purpose. I don’t know if I killed him, but I hope I did.

This is normal Growing Up 101 for guys. How many guys have been pummeled, robbed, mugged, assaulted, etc in their lifetimes? Most of us. Is rape really worse than this? Why? Prove that it’s worse than the typical life-threatening or life-terrorizing beatings, attacks and tortures many or most of us males experienced when we were young men.

Even more, I’ve been raped (or sexually assaulted), by feminist definitions. I picked up a sociopathic hitchhiker, he commandeered my vehicle, tried to destroy the engine, sexually fondled me, pummeled me and poured beer over me, all while I was driving on a freeway. I was a psychological wreck for 3 1/2 weeks, then I said, “Screw it, I’m moving on.” Isn’t that as bad as what a lot of female rape victims experienced? Was what they experienced worse? Why? Prove it.

Hey, come on. Life’s tough for everyone. Women get raped. So do some guys. And lots of guys get kidnapped, pummeled, gang-beaten, beaten with objects, often over the head, robbed, mugged, threatened with death and, by the cops, arrested, brutalized, beaten, threatened with death and imprisoned in the Hell of incarceration, on and on. Who says females have a Pain Monopoly anyway?

No one gets out of this shit called life unscathed. No one. Females have not patented Victim Status.

“Are All Men Rapists?” by Alpha Unit

New Alpha Unit. Good stuff. I agree with her though, we men are basically dogs, it’s true. But that’s the way we are supposed to be. It’s natural, normal.

By my own reasonable definition of the word, I’ve never raped a woman. Yet I’ve been accused of rape by a woman, actually a girl, Hell, a 14 year old girl at that! It didn’t happen. I had sex with her all right, but I sure didn’t rape her. She was drunk, but so was I. So what?

By the daffynitions of Lady Raine and Denise Romano, I’ve been raping women all my life. I don’t agree with that daffynition, but hey, if that’s the newfangled Feminazi daffynition of rape, so be it. In that case, I’m a rapist. And much worse than that. As far as their redaffyning seduction as rape goes, in that case, speaking of seduction-rape only, I also say that rape is fun! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, feminists.

I’ll have more to say about this in a bit.

Clint Eastwood, whose name I brought up the other day in one of the comments threads, has always been one of my favorite actors – at least in his Westerns. He played a number of roles in which he is this stranger who rides into town and sets things straight. He’s tall, lean, rugged, laconic – his entire demeanor says, “I don’t know you. And I don’t need to know you.”

His name? What do you care?

In 1973 he appeared in a film called High Plains Drifter. Critics praised it; audiences enjoy it to this day. But as you might expect, some people have a problem with a particular scene that occurs at the beginning of the movie. The Stranger drags a woman into the stables and rapes her.

What’s even more appalling is that after a while, she seems to enjoy it.

What?

What is this scene doing in this film? Were the writers misogynists? Was Clint Eastwood a misogynist?

Some people who comment on this scene call it “disturbing.” I think people find it disturbing not because of what it suggests about men but what it suggests about women.

In another scene, he grabs the hotelkeeper’s wife to force her into bed with him – in the presence of the hotelkeeper! She fights and resists and calls out to her husband to stop what’s happening. But later she is seen lazing about in the bed in which she has been raped, quite contented.

There is no doubt about it. The Stranger is a rapist.

The first woman he raped is the stereotypical Bad Woman – the town tramp. In fact, it’s clear from the beginning of the scene that she sets her sights on The Stranger and deliberately makes a play for his attention. She runs into him on purpose and proceeds to insult him. He tries, in fact, to walk away from her, more than once. But she won’t let him.

The second woman is the Good Woman. The only person who tried to intervene in a lynching – a pivotal incident that is shown in flashbacks.

Both women get raped. Both apparently derive enjoyment from it. And the rapist is presented as The Good Guy.

Do good guys rape women? Or is that something only done by bad guys?

This is a difficult question, only because there are men out there who consider themselves good guys, in spite of the fact that they have raped. There are ostensibly good guys out there who feel that it’s okay to rape under certain circumstances. Some male college students who have been surveyed in the United States and elsewhere report not only that in some situations a woman is “asking for it,” but if there were no chance of getting caught, they would definitely rape!

Many of these young men are “good” guys. With good upbringings in good homes. But if they could get away with rape, they’d go for it. Are we to believe that there’s something abnormal about them?

As I’ve mentioned previously, armies throughout history have engaged in the systematic rape of female civilians during war. Military commanders have at times encouraged it. Aren’t some of the soldiers who succumb to this pressure “good” guys?

There are many men who report that under no circumstances is it okay to rape. If some wholesome-looking young man were to say to me, “I’d never do something like that,” I’d admire his sincerity. But I’d probably be thinking to myself, “Never say never.”

"Are All Men Rapists?" by Alpha Unit

New Alpha Unit. Good stuff. I agree with her though, we men are basically dogs, it’s true. But that’s the way we are supposed to be. It’s natural, normal. By my own reasonable definition of the word, I’ve never raped a woman. Yet I’ve been accused of rape by a woman, actually a girl, Hell, a 14 year old girl at that! It didn’t happen. I had sex with her all right, but I sure didn’t rape her. She was drunk, but so was I. So what? By the daffynitions of Lady Raine and Denise Romano, I’ve been raping women all my life. I don’t agree with that daffynition, but hey, if that’s the newfangled Feminazi daffynition of rape, so be it. In that case, I’m a rapist. And much worse than that. As far as their redaffyning seduction as rape goes, in that case, speaking of seduction-rape only, I also say that rape is fun! Put that in your pipe and smoke it, feminists. I’ll have more to say about this in a bit. Clint Eastwood, whose name I brought up the other day in one of the comments threads, has always been one of my favorite actors – at least in his Westerns. He played a number of roles in which he is this stranger who rides into town and sets things straight. He’s tall, lean, rugged, laconic – his entire demeanor says, “I don’t know you. And I don’t need to know you.” His name? What do you care? In 1973 he appeared in a film called High Plains Drifter. Critics praised it; audiences enjoy it to this day. But as you might expect, some people have a problem with a particular scene that occurs at the beginning of the movie. The Stranger drags a woman into the stables and rapes her. What’s even more appalling is that after a while, she seems to enjoy it. What? What is this scene doing in this film? Were the writers misogynists? Was Clint Eastwood a misogynist? Some people who comment on this scene call it “disturbing.” I think people find it disturbing not because of what it suggests about men but what it suggests about women. In another scene, he grabs the hotelkeeper’s wife to force her into bed with him – in the presence of the hotelkeeper! She fights and resists and calls out to her husband to stop what’s happening. But later she is seen lazing about in the bed in which she has been raped, quite contented. There is no doubt about it. The Stranger is a rapist. The first woman he raped is the stereotypical Bad Woman – the town tramp. In fact, it’s clear from the beginning of the scene that she sets her sights on The Stranger and deliberately makes a play for his attention. She runs into him on purpose and proceeds to insult him. He tries, in fact, to walk away from her, more than once. But she won’t let him. The second woman is the Good Woman. The only person who tried to intervene in a lynching – a pivotal incident that is shown in flashbacks. Both women get raped. Both apparently derive enjoyment from it. And the rapist is presented as The Good Guy. Do good guys rape women? Or is that something only done by bad guys? This is a difficult question, only because there are men out there who consider themselves good guys, in spite of the fact that they have raped. There are ostensibly good guys out there who feel that it’s okay to rape under certain circumstances. Some male college students who have been surveyed in the United States and elsewhere report not only that in some situations a woman is “asking for it,” but if there were no chance of getting caught, they would definitely rape! Many of these young men are “good” guys. With good upbringings in good homes. But if they could get away with rape, they’d go for it. Are we to believe that there’s something abnormal about them? As I’ve mentioned previously, armies throughout history have engaged in the systematic rape of female civilians during war. Military commanders have at times encouraged it. Aren’t some of the soldiers who succumb to this pressure “good” guys? There are many men who report that under no circumstances is it okay to rape. If some wholesome-looking young man were to say to me, “I’d never do something like that,” I’d admire his sincerity. But I’d probably be thinking to myself, “Never say never.”

Statement on Game/PUA Community

The “Game” and PUA (Pickup Artist Community) guys is a movement of guys who are trying to teach other guys how to get women. More crudely, you can say they are teaching them how to get laid. However, some married men with no interest in cheating are just using game to try to control their out of control wives, or as one man put it, “to deal with the insanity of the typical American wife.”

Game teaches you how to manipulate and control women in order to get them to do what you want them to do. Women use Game on us all the time. They constantly try to manipulate and control us to try to get us to do what they want us to do. Each sex is entitled to use Game or any other legal techniques to try to get their partners and love interests to do what they want them to do, assuming everything is legal.

There are no moral issues here, because all’s fair in love and war. Tell you what, women? You first. You stop fighting dirty first (Women are the ultimate champions at fighting dirty; men are just cheap penny pikers), then we’ll follow suit.

What the PUA community does and the techniques it uses go for beyond the scope of this post.

Some of their techniques involve phrases like ASD, LMR and bitch shield. When a woman is not giving you sex or physical affection, she is said to have her bitch shield up. Ok, that’s kind of funny. Me? I just might not call her back unless I have a chance soon. I go to work real soon, and I am manhandling and getting physical by the first date. I get slapped down a lot, and it doesn’t always get me into bed, but in general, it works great. You have to get physical with these women!

ASD and LMR stand for anti-slut defense and last-minute resistance. This is when the woman is holding out on you. Ok, that’s kind of funny too. Usually in my case she has already gotten really physical with me but is now holding out on the best part of the game. Of course I have utilized all sorts of psychological techniques to wear down these common defenses. I recommend other guys do too.

These PUA guys also do stuff called “negs,” and “refusing to validate.” I don’t see the point. Negs is where you insult her, often openly and in front of others. It’s testament to the extremely low moral quality of the female in general that this disgusting technique makes them want to mate with us.

“Refusing to validate” is similar. To some extent, this makes sense, but I’m not going to do it in that callous PUA way. Problem is that most guys fall all over themselves like puppy dogs or babies when they are with women, kissing women’s feet, showering them with stupid lines, gifts, compliments and adoring, puppy-like affection. Reasonably enough, many women find such self-abasing behavior disgusting.

My technique is to act like, “Hey look, I’m too busy to chase women! What the Hell do you want anyway?”

Another one is to act like you have women after you all the time.

“Oh boy, here’s one more, just what I need? So impress me babe. Realize you’re competing with hundreds of other females for my overwhelmingly desired attention? How are you going to show me you’re better than the rest? How are you going to beat all these other women.”

Another thing is to never let a woman know you’re not dating anyone. Traditional women don’t mind hearing it, but American women are psycho. He not dating anyone means, “He’s a loser.” Women only want what others want or better yet have. Never let them know at the beginning that they are the only one. Never let them know that you aren’t getting any. Always give them the impression that you have an easy return no questions asked policy and she can be replaced with a better model anytime.

Never let a woman know you’re lacking in sexual experience. Never let a woman know you’ve been celibate for any length of time at the present. A history of many women works better than a history of few to none. Women say they hate studs, but they can’t stop sleeping with them.

As soon as women figure out you haven’t been getting any, or you lack sexual experience, or haven’t had many women in your life, they will start running their own Game on you, and boy! You think the PUA guys’ Game is evil! Wait til you see this Game she’s about to run on you! The only way to deal with women is from a position of strength. Women see weakness, grab the ball and make a 90-yard dash to make a touchdown in your territory, then throw the ball to the ground and dance a little jig right on your balls.

It’s sad that we have to act this way, but really, these somewhat shitty techniques work great.

Anyway, that’s my version of Game. It’s worked quite well for me in life.

I don’t like the PUA or game community all that much. They say to get women you need to act like an asshole and treat women like shit to some extent. They’ve tested these theories as scientifically as you can, and they’ve proven that they’ve worked. They throw out theory that doesn’t work and try new things all time. It’s a very science-based approach.

This just reaffirms my increasingly low opinion of women. I see. So…the way for me to get women is to be mean to them, do “negs” on them, treat them like shit, “refuse to validate them,” on and on.

Well, nothing new here. I’ve noticed for 35 years that the assholes get most of the women, and the rest of the guys don’t get crap, or get evil carping bitches. Worse, the women are nice to the assholes, and seem to enjoy being treated like shit by a bunch of near sociopaths.

Well, that’s just wonderful, isn’t it? Want to be successful with women? Just act like a quasi-psychopath, treat ’em like crap, insult them, cheat on them, psychologically abuse them, because the damned bitches are masochistic freaks and get off on being treated like shit by a modern day Caveman with a club. And the nice guys get kicked in the balls and then kicked to the curb.

Wonderful, just wonderful. Game isn’t telling me anything new. If mentally ill masochistic females reward the most callous, cruel and sociopathic males with the most love, sex and obedient behavior, while the nice guys always lose, who can blame guys for giving some of these crazy biatches what they want? I won’t.

But it’s not for me. If I have to “invalidate,” “neg,” treat like shit, insult and abuse women in order to get laid, Hell, I’ll just stay home. I have a hard drive full of porn, and that’s all I need, but at least my conscience will be clear.

Lunatic, Psycho Feminists Say Seduction is Rape

And of course, demand prison time and civil liability for men who succeed in talking silly or drunk women into bed. I don’t have time to go into it in depth here, feel free to read on at the site, although it’s very long.

Denise Romano is some kind of academic, and a therapist to boot.

Therapists area always trying to get us to act too nice to succeed in American society. I’ve had quite a few therapists openly call me a scumbag. I usually assume that means they are just calling me a man, so it’s a compliment. I openly refuse any and all female therapists anymore and am regularly raked over the coals in their “community” for being sane in this regard.

Therapy is a kick, and it’s really helpful, even for quite sane people. If you can get it for free, go for it, assuming you have problems in living, which all humans do. I’ve had years of it, and I’m about through. I learned all about myself (Cool!) and all about most everyone in my past, especially the assholes (Mega-cool!) and now there’s not a whole lot left to learn. But it was a very neat experience, and I’m much healthier and happier as a result.

No man should ever do therapy with any female therapist. Your therapy probably involves sex, and all female therapists are insane about sex, since they are females, and come from the Female Paradigm.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with radical feminism. It’s the enemy of all men, but so are women in a way, so that’s right in tune with the circle of life.

Radical feminism is simply the logical anarchy and madness that occurs when males of any society lose control of their women. The women go insane and try to institute Female Rule. Radical feminism is what happens when you give women the power to institute Female Rule over society. It sucks for men, and really for most women too, but it’s what most women want deep down inside. Which is why we need to control these biatches!

I repeat that neither Male Rule or Female Rule should be legally coded. The state is a neutral party in the War Between Men and Women. The War is natural and normal; it is remarked upon in all ethnographies of all primitive societies. It exists because males and females want different things in many respects. Each gender has a right to pursue their own interests to the detriment of the other within the framework of law and society.

The state needs to stay out of this mudfest and be as neutral as possible. Like at a party, where the strong guys hold everyone back and say, “Let em fight it out!” hoping the cool guy kicks the despised idiot’s ass.

In a previous post, I remarked that Male Rule at least functions, though it sucks for women. This is because it is concordant with Natural Law. Female Rule doesn’t even work at all. It causes anarchy and confusion, because it violates Nature.

Anyway, this is the natural result of Female Rule. Everywhere on Earth it’s been tried, the same chaos and idiocy resulted. What was the first thing they did when we granted these silly dames suffrage? They banned booze! Probably one of the stupidest things thing country’s ever done, except invading Iraq. Mega-stupid X10.

But everyone on Earth Female Rule is instituted, this is what they do. In Maoist ruled-India, the fool Maoists put women in charge. What happened? Guess. They banned booze, prostitution, gambling and porn. The four things that keep most guys halfway sane and prevent them from shooting up the fuckin post office. Way to go, chicks!

Everywhere you allow Female Rule, this is what they do: ban booze or dope, prostitution, porn and gambling. Females are a bunch of party-poopers, and they need to be kept in line and not allowed too much power or we’re all living grey Puritan lives.

Even worse, they may even ban adultery.

The Shining Path instituted Female Rule in areas of Peru, and in addition to the death penalty for whiffing coke (Please!) they instituted corporal punishment, up to public execution, for men who sampled the greener grass of their female neighbors. This is what these bitches will do if we let them rule us: they’ll execute you for cheating on your wife.

There are also references in the link to some crazy attention whore named Lady Raine. Whatever she is, she represents how far our Western White women have gotten out of line since we let them off the leash. She’s a former stripper who lectures men about morality. As if this whore has a leg to stand on. She’s furious at men, and she’s raising a son all alone, because she prefers it that way.

Anyway, the less said about Lady Cumstain the better, and if she comes here, I will probably have to ban her.

Guys! This is what happens if you let women rule you! The crazy bitches will make seduction illegal! Damn!

Women must be controlled!

Alt Left: Female Rule Violates the Laws of Nature

In the provocatively titled The Cunts Versus the Men post, perceptive commenter Tyciol writes:

Maybe a better word as opposed to feminism would be equalism or something?

Like it’s relative to position.

Women were certainly downtrodden in the past and lacking rights, so equalism would be feminist in that case.

But in the reverse scenario, if men could not vote, etc., then any resulting equalist movement would have to have a masculinist agenda.

Suffrage to me has never been about focusing on women’s rights but simply more about simple equality, since women are also people and have opinions which should be counted. Similarly, the right to choice (abortion) to me is not about favoring women but rather that people should not be forced to carry parasitic feti for months if they don’t wish to.

I’m pro-choice, and I’m all for equality for women in all of the sane ways. But I wonder if equality ever works. We offered women equality, and instead they took their equality and ran past the 50 yard line heading for our goalposts to try to dominate us and rule us. I guess it’s natural. Neither sex is going to be happy with mere equality. If you give women equality, they’re always going to use that step stool to try to install Female Rule. And I guess we asshole guys will always try to install Male Rule.

Sigh.

Nevertheless, equality is surely something to support. Better than equality: how about this? Rights. Not necessarily equality, but rights. No matter what we think of them, females have basic rights, and in most ways, they have the same basic rights as we do. So do gays, Blacks, lots of folks. It’s not a matter of liking. You don’t have like Black people; a lot of White people don’t. And a lot of straights are not too fond of gays. But how can we deny that gays and surely Blacks have the same set of basic rights that any human does?

I have nothing against Female Rule in principle, assuming they were capable. But I don’t think they are. And I don’t want to live under Female Rule. The chicks will dig it (I guess! Or maybe they won’t?!), but it will suck for the guys. We already have a Matriarchy with the Politically Correct crowd, and honestly, it sucks.

Male Rule sort of sucks for women, but they seem to be happy, and the men surely are happy. Female Rule violates Nature* and seems to make both sexes increasingly miserable.

I don’t think that females ought to be allowed to install their Female Paradigm in society. Think about it. Is there any society that ever let the women rule? I can’t think of one. Why is that? Surely it must have been tried in the past. Not all human males are patriarchal shits, and a lot of us are lazy. Surely there were times in the past when the lazy guys said, “We give up. You do it. You rule. Go for it.” I assume it was tried in many cases in the past, and the result was the same as it is now: chaos. In which case, the sane people realized that either you have Male Rule or you have Chaos.

Allowing the Male Paradigm to rule society works, and most societies work that way, but it also often violates women’s rights at least somewhat most of the time and keeps them down. But in a lot of these societies, like Hispanic ones and many other traditional societies, women seem to like living under Male Rule. You go to these places, and as long as Male Rule isn’t too evil, everyone seems happy. It’s like they know they are Living In Nature.

I don’t hear a lot of complaints from the Hispanic females around here about the Male Rule they live under. Women get to be feminine, men get to be masculine, and everyone is happy. I don’t think Hispanic women want to rule. They want some relative equality, at least in terms of earning power, and around here they are granted that. Hispanic women can make quite a bit of money, and some do here. But they’re still quite feminine.

On the other hand, White women seem to have so much greater freedom than Hispanic women, but they seem to be so much more miserable! It’s like the more freedom you give women, the less happy they are, and the more they complain about Male Rule.

Even when the women are in charge, increasingly the case nowadays, the women keep complaining about the Patriarchy. As Female Rule deepens, the women get angrier and angrier (paradoxically as they get more and more rights and power!) and become more and more masculine. This upsets Nature, and Nature doesn’t tolerate defiance. She demands balance, just like in the forests and jungles.

As the women get increasingly masculine, the males will have to become increasingly feminine to compensate and create the balance that Nature demands. As women become increasingly masculine, they get more and more unhappy, because it violates women’s own nature. On some level, the female organism knows that acting masculine is fucked up, and this throws the organism into disarray.

Of course, as males become increasingly feminine, they get more and more miserable too, because femininity violates man’s own nature. So you end up with Northern California White People, where even the straight people act like queers and dykes.

It follows from this scenario that you would see increasing situational and opportunistic homosexuality in both sexes. As males feminize, they tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality. As females masculinize, they also tend to engage in increasing amounts of homosexuality.

As Female Rule deepens, women will increasingly reject continuous marriage and raise fatherless men. Once again, a violation of Nature. Nature demands that both males and females have fathers. Nature punishes those who defy her. She punishes fatherless males by turning them into criminals who lash out at the world as a surrogate for missing father. She punishes fatherless females by turning them into sluts, trying to screw their way to Daddy’s missing love.

Both criminals and sluts are often unhappy, probably because most men are not supposed to be criminals and most women are not supposed to be sluts. Both criminals and sluts frequently lead at least difficult and often tragic lives.

Women can have power, but only if they either don’t upset Male Rule or at least only try to be equal.

*I am applying Nature in the sense of Natural Law, especially the Catholic or philosophical sense. When I say something violates Nature, I mean it violates Natural Law – that is, it’s unnatural in terms of mankind’s evolution.

Of course violations of Natural Law occur, but as they violate our evolutionary imperative encoded in our genes, there will be ill effects, since humans are not meant to violate Natural Law. Violations of Natural Law will have consequences.

Feminine men and masculine women are miserable. Female Rule (matriarchy) violates Natural Law and results in chaos and even unhappiness for females, since even females dislike Matriarchy deep down inside because it’s unnatural. Fatherless families violate Natural Law and result in criminal boys and slut daughters, both of whom are miserable.

When I say something violates Natural Law, I mean it violates our evolutionary imperatives coded in our genes. The result will be unhappiness and pathology, as our natural and genetic imperatives are violated, thwarted, and twisted.

error

Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)