Anxiety disorders are considered minor mental illnesses because for the most part, they’re not crazy at all. Also it’s pretty much run of the mill stuff that a lot of totally functional people have, and many of these people appear quite normal if you meet them.
Also they are quite harmless due to fear being omnipresent in all of these and the disorders striking at introverted, guilty, etc. types. I would also argue that fear is a “freezing agent” for action. It seems to propel you backwards and make you stay in place, causing inertia. It stops you from moving forwards. There are times when I feel frozen in my chair with a huge weight-like a force forcing me back into it so hard, it’s hard to get out of the chair.
Energy either goes forwards or backwards, into the self or out at others.
With all that fear energy going backwards inside the self, along with the fact that anger’s not usually combined with it, it simply freezes the person in place, and there’s no more energy left to project outwards towards other persons as aggression and violence. I suppose you could argue that fear is aggression directed inwards and aggression is fear projected outwards. This is why people with anxiety disorders and introverts have such low rates of violence. The extreme energy propelling the life forces backwards into the person leaves no energy left over to propel outwards at others as violence.
In other words, they couldn’t commit an act of violence if they tried! Something would stop them and they would say, “I don’t have this in me.”
Like the guest writer, I also have a very strong, mostly unconscious, dislike, and disgust for any male homosexual behavior. It’s very common among straight men. I doubt if there is anything we like less than that.
A recent study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay pornography than by literal trays full of live maggots! Gay sex is worse than maggots! That’s pretty bad. One can argue where this revulsion comes from, whether it is genetic or cultural. It’s certainly cultural and whether it it inborn is up for dispute. At any rate, it exists. Gay men usually refuse to believe that this revulsion even exists at all. We also very much do not like people thinking we are gay, especially if they think that way because they think we act gay.
There’s probably no worse insult to a straight man than saying he acts like a homosexual, and straight women hate it just as much as straight men, if not more. That said, straight men are terribly ignorant about male homosexuality to the point of utter absurdity. They are always accusing other straight men of being gay. In fact, I think more straight men are gay-bashed that gay men.
Despite our disgust for male homosexuality, a lot of us hate homophobes even worse. I used to be mistaken for being gay a lot when I was younger and it’s still said from time to time, though now it’s not as much of an insult because it is “I’m a straight man who acts gay” which is not nearly as insulting to me as saying that I am gay! At least they acknowledge that I am straight!
This shows that it is not so much the accusation that we act like homosexuals that bother us but that that observation leads to the accusation that we are gay. So what we really do not like to be accused of is being gay, not so much acting gay. If all people ever said to be was that I was a straight guy who acted gay, I would not be so angry.
This is especially true because you do not have to be effeminate to be accused of acting gay. I don’t think I’m an effeminate man, and I’ve never seen myself that way. I really dislike that behavior and I think it’s contemptible. So saying I act that way is a particular insult.
I’m just a soft guy. On the other hand, most soft men I’ve known got called gay constantly. They were also often very handsome in a female or pretty sense – they were pretty boys. That seems to add to the gay accusation, though I’m not sure if looks alone is enough to get you accused of that though that’s happened a few times in our lives.
It is interesting, once again, that the insult that we are gay is what really bothers us, not so much that we act gay. That implies that this is the true insult – that one’s heterosexuality is not acknowledged. However, this much isn’t really the whole of it either because many people, especially women, thought I was bisexual because any women who can’t figure out a man likes women is too stupid to live. But this was almost as insulting. Just recognizing that I liked women was not enough, and in some ways it was almost worse because it was half of an apology, which is almost worse than no apology.
So looking at this anew, I think what makes us mad is not the suggestion that we don’t like women because that’s not often heard. It’s more the very suggestion that we have sex with men. That right there is the supreme insult – that we would dare to do these things at least on a regular basis.
However, there were quite a few times when even women accused me of being gay in the sense of not wanting to being attracted to women at all. This was particularly insulting.
So the insult is threefold.
That we are effeminate. Not so much that we “act gay” because no one knows what that means. But saying we act like a stereotypical homosexual man is very harmful and hurts us a lot. It’s a horrendous insult.
That we are not attracted to women and therefore have no interest in having sex with them. This almost worse than saying we are effeminate. There is something horrendously insulting to a straight man about someone saying that to him. We want our heterosexual component or our attraction to women acknowledged. You are taking a huge aspect of our lives and saying it doesn’t exist and then hating us on that basis.
That we have sex with men. Of course this is insulting but what is more insulting is other straight men acting uncomfortable around us because they think we screw guys. The idea that this guy won’t talk to me because he thinks I want to fuck him is unbelievably insulting. Furthermore, it’s completely untrue. It’s like being falsely accused of a crime. There is also a huge sense of disappointment there. In the neighborhood I live in, those are fighting words. You say that to a man around here and you are likely to get hit. You will first be asked to take it back and then if you don’t, you are probably going to get hit, at least once, in the face. And you will deserve it. 90% of the men around here will say you deserved it and no one will call the cops. It’s even worse than that. You can be killed for saying that to a man around here. I have wondered why these are fighting words around here and the conclusion I arrived at is that those are fighting words not because you say he acts gay or because you say he has no interest in women but because you are implying he has sex with men. It is for that reason that you might get hit or even killed. That’s the ultimate insult right there.
All three of these are extremely insulting and it’s hard to say that one is worse than the other. I’ve had people who thought I was gay change their minds and say I was bisexual and like me 10X more on that basis, and it didn’t feel 1% better. It almost made me even more mad.
I guess what it boils down to is people really do not want to be misjudged on the essential basis of what they are.
I’m not sure if I care if someone thinks I had sex with guys a few times experimentally. Not that I would ever say such a thing. Such behavior is epidemic among straight men. I’ve known 5-10 men who told me they had sex with men a few times experimentally but then they decided they didn’t like it and never did it again. And the number of women who say this about sex with women is epidemic too. I keep running into women my age who told me they had sex with a woman once or twice (usually once), apparently experimentally.
A number of times they concluded that they didn’t really like it and they were basically straight, so it was a sort of testing the waters sort of thing. Interestingly, all of the men who admitted this to me were outrageous playboys. I think every one of them had a 3-figure laycount. This implies that this sort of behavior is simply a byproduct of an extremely high sex drive. These men are “sex maniacs.” A former female commenter on this site said that a lot of such men were bisexual or had had sex with men before. A very high sex drive may include a tendency towards experimentation.
Many people used to think I was gay, but it was never everyone. Especially most people who grew up with me somehow knew it could not possibly be true. It was always the new people thinking that.
As such, I’ve been on the receiving end of a lot of homophobia. I must tell you that homophobia feels pretty terrible. There is something awful about it, and it is some sort of hate on one level or another. And you get it from women as much as from men. I’m not sure if it is worse to be accused of being gay if you are straight because you are being misunderstood on an essential level than it is if you are actually, gay and they are telling the truth about you.
But there is something awful about being misunderstood on a basic level like that.
When you meet a new person, you assume that they figure out certain things about you – your age, your dress style, your level of politeness, perhaps your intelligence or education, perhaps your moral level, whether you are white or blue collar, your level of masculinity or femininity, your ethnicity or race, obviously your sex or gender (same thing), your level of attractiveness, whether you are a pleasant or unpleasant person, your cultural level, your subculture (often based on hairstyle or clothing), your income, your hygiene and general level of cleanliness, your income (often based on your clothing), your relationship status (as in if you are married or if you have a SO), and last but not least, your sexual orientation!
So when I meet a new person, especially a man, I assume that he thinks I am a straight man. If he doesn’t think that, it’s a rude shock, and it seems like there’s no way I can talk to him. By the way, men make this assumption about other men all the time – we always try to guess the sexual orientation of every man we meet. Usually it just defaults to “this guy is (more or less but please don’t tell me the details) straight,” but in a few cases, it doesn’t.
The only distinction is something like “Basically Straight and I don’t want to hear anymore details about that please” versus “Gay and that means gay with a capital G.” We don’t try to negotiate the ins and outs of all the men who fall along the bisexual continuum or have sex with men at least sometimes but are not gay. It’s a black and white thing. Any man who tries to break it down past that very basic assumption is paranoid about male homosexuality – but the percentage of straight men who are absurdly paranoid about male homosexuality is extremely high.
There is even a certain way of conversing – I call it “straight man to straight man.” It’s a real style and almost all straight men will mimic this towards you. One thing about it is there an utter and absolute absence of any sense of sexual attraction about these interactions. Further, there is no mention of male homosexuality in any way. Or even sex if the friendship is new. Talking about sex too soon is seen as gay.
I remember my mother and her relatives though my cousin’s new husband was gay due to his behavior. But I never thought he acted gay. I told my Mom there was no way he was gay because when I talked to him for 15 minutes, there was a straight guy to straight guy vibe about it, a holistic one that cannot be put into words. Based on that, I told her there is no way he was gay.
The thing is that most gay men, even deeply closeted ones, cannot do this “straight guy to straight guy” vibe thing. They might be able to do it for a few minutes, but if you are one on one with them, their homosexuality almost always reveals itself. They just can’t keep it out of their presentation.
This is also interesting because it implies that in any significant interaction between men, men are not able to keep from revealing their sexual orientation. Our sexuality is such a huge part of us that it seeps into every interaction we have – even a basic conversation about the weather.
This is a strong argument against the Sex-Hating Left as seen in #metoo bullshit, which seems to want to ban any expression of sexuality, at least by men, overt or convert, from all public space (apparently sexual expression by women is fine and dandy).
We just can’t do that, or at least we men can’t. Our sex drive is so strong that it’s seeping out of all our pores all the time. Asking us to shut down such an overwhelming drive is not only ridiculous but unhuman and even downright anti-human. That’s why feminism is not only deeply man-hating but it is also at its core anti-human by seeking to suppress the very essential human aspects of males. The feminists are literally asking us to stop being ourselves. Not only is such a folly impossible but there is something terribly cruel about such a demand.
Also, gay men can’t help but reveal their homosexuality to you in any extended conversation. They usually act like they are attracted to you. Also, it is very hard to get close to these men.
One part of this straight man to straight man vibe is an extreme casualness and very much a lack of intimacy. Say we are hanging out for an evening. This right there raises a strong question of homosexuality – you are alone together, no one else around, other people will often see this behavior as homosexual, there is a possibility of some vague homosexual feelings leaking out, etc. Hence there is a strong need to defend against not these feelings but more their very potential. This what I could call the “gay tension” in these encounters. It’s not a resistance against something that is there but more against something that might be there. It’s a huge wall against a very possibility.
There is a distance or a lack of intimacy there expressed by an extreme “I don’t care” attitude and a lot of joking. Perhaps seriousness seems gay on some level. We also don’t even look at each other all that much. You aren’t supposed to. If you do, it’s seen as gay. You don’t talk about deep things. That might be seen as gay. You are supposed to talk about women at some point or another. If you don’t, it is suspicious. It also relieves a lot of the gay tension. This is sort of a test to make sure the other guy is not gay, but it’s also just a way of being straight.
I often feel that a lot of straight male intimacy or closeness is constructed around a lot of barriers against homosexuality. That’s why we do a lot of the things we do above – why we don’t look at each other all that much, why we joke and act frivolous, why we avoid deep discussions, especially about feelings. Perhaps this is all a defense against having any homosexual expression. We don’t feel this way anyway, but we still need to defend against the possibility that we might. Once again, it’s hard to explain.
We do feel very close to each to other. I have even been “in love” with some of my straight male friends before, but I would never do anything sexual with them. If you want to call me gay for making that statement, go right ahead. I’m not worried.
It was more of the platonic love one feels between oneself and a parent, sibling, or relative, something like that.
I once thought, “You know, if I was gay, I would fuck this guy.”
Once again, if you feel that makes me gay, go right ahead. I’m not worried. That’s how much I loved him. But since I wasn’t gay, I wouldn’t dare even touch him. I often feel that the platonic love between two straight male friends is one of the deepest relationships a straight man can feel. I often wonder if we feel deeper love towards our straight male friends than towards our girlfriends or wives. It’s hard to explain how deeply we feel for each other. Yet this love has an utter prohibition on any physical sexual expression similar to your love for your father or brother does.
LOL just got banned from another Facebook group! Yay! First thing you need to know is I get banned from almost all Facebook groups. When I come to a Facebook group, if I hate it, I usually think, “How can I get banned from here as quickly as possible?” And then I proceed to do just that. And I’m usually banned in less than an hour. Half those Facebook groups? Why do they even exist? I figure they exist for guys like me to troll them and see how fast I can get banned, right? What other reason could they possibly have for their pathetic existence?!
The group is called This Is Why Conservatives Call Us Snowflakes. I figured the group is Alt Left, but it’s really not. It’s just the usual SJW idiots, except that they are slightly less crazy than the ordinary SJW idiots. There are a lot of these “lesser brands” about nowadays. I’m not real happy with this trend. It’s still the same poison, just more diluted this time. If you’re going to make a break with the Cultural Left, it has to be total.
Here’s the problem right here:
Hate speech of any kind is not allowed. No racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc allowed. Respect people’s pronouns & identities. No slurs of any kind are allowed. Mayo, Karen, etc are allowed tho
Ok, that’s not Alt Left at all. No Alt Left group would ever put anything that stupid on there. Of course, I think Alt Left groups should ban people for using certain slurs or possibly for severe bigoted language. Emphasis on severe. Every time I see one of these No Hate Speech signs, I want to bang my head on the desk. Because anyone who puts up a sign like that thinks “hate speech” is, just about, anything. And everything. And the kitchen sink.
There’s no attempt at nuance, and if you’re not doing nuance, you’re nowhere near being a self-actualized humans. Because one of the only things separating us elevated types for the usual fucktard rabble is…nuance, a sense of proportion, taking things case by case, the spirit of the law and not the letter, take each case separately and evaluate, things like tone, intent, humor, basically, a sense of scale. All of which is always missing in any idiot tard who puts up a NO HATE SPEECH sign.
Notice that the only slurs they allow are mayo and Karen. Karen is just a slur for a certain type of nosey and annoying suburban White woman. More globally, it is a slur against White women period. Mayo is a shitty slur against White people. So these are just standard SJWtards. The only people it’s ok to hate are White people and White women. Everything else is bigotry, including calling trannies trannies, which, by the way, is one of my favorite pastimes.
I probably got banned for transphobia. That’s what I usually get banned for nowadays. I love to misgender these people because to me, it’s misgendering when you refer to a man who thinks he’s a woman as a woman. He’s not a woman. He’s a man who thinks he’s a woman. Likewise, it’s misgendering to refer to a woman who thinks she’s a man as a man. Of course she’s not a man. She’s a woman who thinks she’s a man.
And I just love to call those people trannies. How can you not love that word? Listen to it. Swirl it around on your tongue like a fine wine. Savor it. Smack your lips a few times. Doesn’t that word tranny just have the greatest mouthfeel?
I also love to call trannies mentally ill because that’s exactly what they are. If you are a man who thinks you’re a woman, 90% of the time, I would say you’re nuts. If you are a woman who thinks she’s a man, 95% of the time, I would say you’re nuts. Except for a few early onset cases which I am willing to make amends for (though they’re still not the opposite sex), a man can never be a woman and a woman can never be a man.
No one even knows what any of that shit above means. What’s hate speech? Define it. Give me a good, concise definition that everyone can agree on. I don’t usually use other racial slurs when I write, but boy is it tempting! I so wanted to call a Japanese guy a Jap the other day! Why? I dunno. Because these shitwad SJW’s told me I can’t, that’s why! If you tell me there’s words I am banned from saying because they are offensive, those are probably the first words I am going to use in my next sentence to you.
Come on. We came out of the punk rock movement, Goddamn it. You have any idea what the punk rock movement was like? Like, nothing is sacred. Like, giving the finger to everything. Like, breaking all the rules. Like, saying all the words you’re not supposed to say. Why? For the living fuck of it, that’s why. Which is to say, no reason at all!
We came out of the Goddamned punk rock movement, and you think we’re going to listen to SJW Miss Manners telling us to watch our language? LOL. Get out. Half of our songs had slurs in them. That was the whole idea. Not to hurt people’s feelings, but just to piss all over everything, the whole system. Tell us we can’t say something, and we’d say it. Tell us we couldn’t wear something, we’d wear it. Tell us not to say, do, or wear something because it’s mean, Hell, that’s even more reason to break the rules! It was all about pissing people off? Who? Everyone! Why? For no damned reason at all!
I won’t say those words for any particular reason and certainly not to hurt people. I’ll only say them because you, an authoritarian shitwad, ordered me not to! Hey, I’m still a rebellious teenager in a 63 year old body, sorry.
I do use words like this in my personal life. But not commonly and even then, only a few special words for certain folks who’ve really got it coming to them!
Growing up, I lived through true systemic racism. Trust me when I tell you it is real. The problem is, it is not coming from White people. Systemic racism in the US is Black racism against Whites! American Black culture was born out of rebellion and resistance towards an unfair system at that time. Yet it has failed to change with the times in society.
Black African Culture is not one that can mix with other cultures because it is by design rebellious and resistant. Everything from language to appearance is almost the direct opposite of “White culture,” for lack of a better term. Asking White people to accept or adapt to the Black culture that has formed in America is not practical or even possible because it is in direct conflict with and geared to rebel against White people and to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.
This really isn’t hard to understand. In American Black culture, all White people are “the enemy” from the start. Whites built the civilization that Blacks aspire to but which they aren’t capable of creating among or by themselves. The core mentality – that White people and what White people have created are “the enemy” which must be destroyed – has to change before anything else can.
Black American culture, which is inherently rebellious and based on resentment or hatred of others, is not sustainable, even for it’s own people. Once the rest of society distances itself from that culture, the same rebellious, resentful mentality will cause the people to turn inward against each other because that is all those people know. We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.
They are right about systemic race problems, but they are looking to make changes in all the wrong places.
Everyone’s going to scream that this is racism or even ultra-racism. The automatic assumption is he’s a White nationalist, except he’s just some Black guy who got to know his people a little too well.
The truly disturbing thing about this post is: Just how much of it is really true?
For starters, I don’t think Blacks are out to destroy White civilization. The ones here seem like they are, but they’re just idiots. Blacks in general in most of the world do not have destruction of White civilization on their agenda. Further, Blacks are only 13% of the population. 13% of the people will never destroy the civilization of the majority. They just can’t, and most of them don’t even think about it anyway. They’re too busy fucking, getting high, and Holocausting each other to think about us very much, if you ask me.
I agree that Black culture doesn’t mix well with other cultures, but Arab and Islamic societies seem to have figured out a way to work them in. In Latin America, everyone is so mixed that there is no Black culture, for all intents and purposes.
It is basically rebellious and resentful here in the West, but is that true in the Caribbean? Dubious. In Africa? Not really. Only in South Africa.
I agree that here in the US, the rebellion and resentfulness have turned inward onto themselves. That’s clear to me.
I agree that Whites are the enemy, yet nevertheless, many Blacks (a majority?) all want the society that the White Man Built. Except left to their own devices with such a society handed to them on a silver platter, indeed they cannot maintain it. Look at any majority Black large city.
Black people need to live with others. Gathering together masses of Black people unmixed with others just doesn’t seem to work out well.
In a lot of ways, Black Culture is the polar opposite of White Culture, but when you get towards more middle class and/or educated Blacks, the differences between them and us are not severe. Sure, there are differences all right, and I don’t necessarily want a Black girlfriend who hangs mostly with Blacks unless they act pretty White. I’m just not into that culture of theirs, not that it’s terrible in modified form, but it’s just not my culture, and it’s not for me. They can have it.
It is true that asking Whites to adopt Black culture will never work, though many wiggers are trying their darndest. Still, most Whites find this culture abhorrent and want nothing to do with it. It’s like a negation or a polar opposite of everything we believe and value. In addition, this culture is opposed to us, so why would we join a culture that hates us?
to destroy all of White civilization, replacing it with the violent, primitive anti-civilization which characterizes nearly all of Africa.
Well, yeah, but in North Africa and the Sahel, the Islamic Black Culture is not really so bad. Sub-Saharan Africa has been the Dark Continent forever, probably from the start and certainly before Livingston. This only happens in a place like South Africa, where Whites are 9%, and non-Whites, most of whom are Black, are 91%. Also those Blacks are very unintelligent. US Blacks are much more intelligent than South African Blacks, with an IQ that is ~20 points higher. That’s almost 1.5 standard deviations and this explains much of why US Blacks act so much better in so many ways than African Blacks.
And no, White nationalists, the future of the US is not South Africa! The future of the US is a 91% Black America? Get real.
We see it in every place Blacks live: murder, rape, and other violent crime spirals out of control among Blacks.
I agree that we see it in every case where large numbers of Blacks are crowded together, such as in larger cities, typically where they form a majority.
He’s also probably right that there is far more systemic or institutional racism among Blacks towards Whites than the other way around. I’m not really buying the systemic or institutional racism thing. I think it’s mostly a bunch of crap.
Now I don’t recommend being an asshole, and I’m a piss-poor asshole when it comes down to it, but if you can fake it, I don’t see a problem. Sort of like, “I’m not an asshole, but I play one on TV.” Like that. It’s’ a tragedy for a deep-down inside incorrigible nice guy like me that you just can’t be too nice of a guy to women.
I wouldn’t say you have to be a dick or an asshole to women like so many guys say. That may be true but I’m too nice for that. I just…can’t. I would say, though, that you can’t be too nice. They don’t like it. They think it means you’re a pussy, and they will try to walk all over you, wear your pants, and even break your balls in escalating order. Which are three things that will happen in most any serious relationship with a woman but that ought to be kept to a minimum.
Equality is not possible between the sexes. At the end of the day, we are just mammals like those dumb dogs and cats running around your house. Nor are we all that different. The truth is just as in nature, somebody’s got to be the dominant one, and someone has to be the submissive one. Just like in that pack of cats in your house. There’s always Top Cat and there’s always Designated Victim Cat.
You got a choice. You either dom her or she’s going to dom you. Which way is it going to be? Most women don’t want to dom men, which is why ball-breaking bitches are so miserable with their wimpy husbands. She wants you to dom her. If you can do it as kindly and decently as possible, you reached the Golden Mean. And God bless ya.
I’ve always wondered how many of my girlfriends who insisted that they loved for all the world to my face really talked about me behind my back. One woman who loved me more than any woman ever had later turned into the worst enemy I’ve ever had. Because that’s how it works.
She, Woman #1, got together with another ex, Woman #2. Well, I was cheating on her with Woman #2 at the time. Why? Because I’m an egotistical dick who likes to have two girlfriends at once! Problem is when you do that, after a while, both girlfriends find out about the other one, and they both dump you. Then they become best friends and sit around talking about what a shit you are. Because of course. Anyway, Woman #1 congratulated Woman #2 for dumping me.
“Congratulations! You just broke up with the worst man on Earth!”
I don’t know if it’s my bad boy genes or not, but I’ve always considered that a compliment.
I even brag to new women I date that a former girlfriend told me I was the worst man on Earth and I considered it a compliment. How do they act? Just as you would expect! They think it’s funny, start giggling, and a lot of times they start acting a lot hornier. And they mention it later, more than once too, and they always giggle when they say it.
Women love assholes. That’s why they’re always getting involved with abusive men. Because, duh. They deliberately seek them out and then act surprised when abusive men act, duh, abusive! Sometimes I think the entire female gender deserves a Darwin Award. I swear they’re their own worst enemies. The nice thing is that as they get over, they manage to overcome a lot of this silliness.
They act this way when they’re young because that’s what their Cavewoman Genes tells them to act. As they get older, women figure out that their emotions, and hence their Cavewoman Genes, are lying to them half the time. And they learn to think their way past their emotions. Older women are still women, but they’re way less crazy, far more sensible, and a lot more wise. You thought that was impossible, right? Well, women may be nutty, but they’re still humans. Live and learn is the way of the world, for people as well as for every other intelligent critter out there.
Women simply don’t understand what it’s like to be a man. They’re too wrapped up in being an utterly solipsistic woman to be any good at that. It’s not that women don’t care about men. It’s more that their solipsism prevents them from understanding us. They’re so busy thinking about themselves all the time (and women are the vainest creatures on God’s green earth) that they simply don’t have time to think about us!
After age 35 or especially 40, most women have come to figure us out pretty well, and the ones who still date us have made some sort of peace with us, usually along the lines of:
“Yes, men are dogs, but I kind of like dogs. In fact, it’s nice because when I get a boyfriend or a husband, I also get a pet dog at the same time! I don’t even have to go to the pet store! And he’s housebroken to boot. Two for one deal!”
I have women aged 35-50 tell me:
“Men will fuck anything.”
A 50 year old woman I dated said afterwards:
“Men will fuck anything. Sad but true.”
A 43 year old woman I dated said women don’t dress up for men.
“There’s no need to dress up for men. Men will screw anything.”
They dress up to impress other women! Basically we men don’t care what clothes women wear, and most of us would probably prefer that a lot of them don’t wear any at all.
A 35 year old woman I dated and who was unfortunately a girlfriend for a time told me matter of factly,
“Men will screw anything.”
As she’d probably screwed half the men in LA, I’d consider her a reliable source.
These women make this comment above matter of factly as if you were talking about the nature of atoms and molecules: that’s just the way it goes.
Of course this is true and it’s only mostly men who have argued with me about this, but I think they doth protest a bit too much.
A man will fuck a woman, a teenage girl, an old lady, a little girl, a man, an animal – Hell, a man will probably fuck a hole in the wall if you grease it up enough.
This is how a nonpedophilic man can have sex with a little girl, or an 18 year old man can rape a 70 year old woman, or a pedophile can brutally rape an 80 year old woman. This is how a straight man can have sex with a man, and trust me, quite a few of them do. When it comes to sex, men are simply downright animalistic.
Sex is utilitarian for men. It’s like stuffing your face when you’re famished. A pole wants a hole. It’s pretty simple.
By age ~50, a lot of women have more or less started to figure us out, which is often a case of discovering a lot of rather unpleasant truths.
If you want to understand men, ask an older woman. Ask an old lady. Hell, if you want to know the truth about anything, ask an old lady! They’ve got a lifetime of wisdom and nothing to defend anymore, so they won’t have defenses getting in the way of brutal truths.
If you want to understand women, ask a man, especially a player or a womanizer. The men in my life who understood women best of all were all players and womanizers.
Neither sex can be objective about the other. Women can’t analyze women because they refuse to believe there is anything wrong with women, and boy is there! This is the essential flaw of feminism and it is why feminists, who claim to be the world’s leading experts on women, paradoxically often don’t seem to know shit about them.
I will give feminists credit though. A lot of them, especially radical feminists, have the bad side of men down. I’ve never seen better analyses of the bad side of men than from radfems. Of course they think we are all bad side and 0% good side, so they’re only half right.
Men can’t understand men because we won’t say there’s anything wrong with men, although we may be a bit more hardheaded than women in this way.
Want to know who really understands men? Believe it or not, gay men! They literally spend their whole lives studying us under delighted microscopic vision. They get us. They also love us too, which is nice, as it implies that once people truly figure out men, they are still capable of loving us anyway, which I always regarded as dubious.
Sometimes it’s better to be ignorant. There’s a problem called “knowing someone too well.” I love women, but I often feel that I “know them too well,” if you catch my drift.
And a lot of women know men “too well.” Most prostitutes are probably experts on men. Have you noticed how many of them hate men? Well, they hate us because they know us too well. They’ve really and truly figured us out and learned what psychopathic shits we really are. They’ve seen our bad side in Technicolor way too many times.
A female friend once shocked me when she said that players and womanizers hate women. Well, some do and some don’t. Most are cynical about women.
“The reason players hate women is because they’ve figured out what women are really like.”
Well, maybe so. Like I said, sometimes ignorance is bliss, and familiarity breeds contempt. It may be better to stay in dark about a lot of other people and groups of people.
Young women in their 20’s are often outraged about and in total war against male nature, which they think is outrageous, gross, and disgusting. It is indeed all of those things of course, and I would be the first to admit it. This is one of the main things that make young women such silly creatures – getting all upset about things that cannot be changed.
After age 30, most women have settled down and decided that men are just the way they, are and there’s nothing to be done about that, so you might as well accept it as long as you’re not a Lesbian Separatist.
The ones who still can’t accept our basic porcine and canine nature remain riled up and ranting and raving about men into their 30’s, 40’s, 50’s, and beyond. We call these pathetic creatures “feminists.” They are railing against the basic nature of men, which is like screaming that rocks act like rocks. It’s totally pointless.
You either make some peace with us (and most women do), or you turn into a celibate feminist cat lady, or you can always go lez, and a lot of women after age 40 do just that. I dated a 50 year old woman once, and she told me 20% of the single women her age were lesbians. I said, “Huh?” and then I asked if she meant that they had been straight but had a ton of bad experiences with men, so they went over to the other team. She shrugged and said this was the case.
Feminists are basically tilting at windmills their whole lives and screaming at us men to change. It makes about as much sense as screaming at your dog to quit acting like a dog.
We’re not changing, ladies, and you won’t like us if we do anyway.
Thanks, ladies! I’m sure there’s no double standard there or anything like that!
Generally speaking, there’s no such thing as vaginas that are “too tight,” ladies, although mostly young women complain about it a lot. 21% of women experience painful sex. Some of the time? All of the time? No idea. I haven’t noticed it much in my life. Really the vagina is an amazing organ, a muscle in fact. And it stretches and shrinks to accomodate whatever penis happens to be parking in its garage at the time.
A woman on the Net said she knew a couple, a little Filipina who was 5’1 married to this big tall Black guy who looked like a football player. Apparently he was pretty big too if you know what I mean. She asked the Filipina about it and she giggled and said, “Well, yes, it did hurt a bit, but it seemed to fit in pretty well anyway.” As I said, a vagina is this amazing expanding organ. So too tight is bullshit. You aren’t too tight. You are too “uptight.” These young women have some inhibitions about sex, and that’s the reason for the “too tight” bullshit. The solution, as with so many things in life, is to relax, but that’s often easier said than done.
“Too tight” is something like vaginismus, though in the pure disorder, you simply cannot even get in at all, not even with a crowbar. It’s due to emotional inhibitions about sex, mostly inherited from your wonderful parents. There are videos on the subject on Youtube and all these young women are chiming in saying it’s not their fault that their parents saddled them with this problem.
Of course female sexual dysfunction is regarded as a tragedy by women, including my mother. I’ve told her about these women, and her face got long, “That’s sad…” she said. Ok, sure, give them solace. But have you ever seen the way the same women, including my mother, react to male sexual dysfunction? Ahem.
My Mom is furious at the very idea that any young man would ever be impotent at any time for any reason. She’s hopping mad about it and she thinks it is ridiculous, preposterous, and contemptible that any younger man should ever experience this. Obviously, my Mom doesn’t have a dick because if she was honest and she had a dick (admittedly few of us dick-havers our honest about our possession), she would never say that.
I’ve met a number of other women with the same notion. Obviously, women don’t know much about dicks. The truth is that sporadic or occasional impotence is absolutely normal in any man of any age. Any negative emotion can cause it. It’s mostly caused by performance anxiety and not so often by inhibitions of homosexuality, which is what everyone thinks causes it, except they’re wrong as usual.
And if you can get it up at some point, you’re not really impotent.
If you can’t get it up, just go do something else. Eat her pussy or something. Focus on her. Forget about your stupid defiant dick. You’re thinking about it and that’s why you have a problem right there. You do that for a while, and sooner or later, you’ll get it up and be able to have sex. It’s estimated that by age 40 all men who have had a lot of sex have been impotent at least one time. Any man who hasn’t is either lying or hasn’t had much sex. Or he has a Viagra prescription.
The more sex you have and the more women you’re with, the more likely it is to occur because sex gets better as you get comfortable with a woman and start doing it a lot. Each new woman you sleep with is a whole separate universe and brings a whole new set of everything to the sexual table, and each new woman is a remarkably new and rather frightening experience. So players and womanizers have tended to experience more impotence than most men, if only as a consequence of having much more sex with many more women.
A study estimated that it takes six months for a couple to get their sex completely worked out and compatible with each other.
Another study found that in the case of a quick, highly desired encounter with a new, highly anticipated woman, 50% of men are impotent.
As I said, sporadic or occasional impotence is normal in any man of any age. Now when it starts happening all the time, you have yourself an impotence problem. Secondary impotence, it’s called. Even these tend to be time-limited. I read an article recently about a young man who experienced performance anxiety impotence that went on for some time. He told his father and his father said he had had a couple of bouts with it too, once at university and another time when he had caught his wife having an affair.
Of course women are complete shits about this subject but it’s more due to ignorance then evil, Women are total emo cases, and the more emo you are, the more likely your dick’s emergency light comes on. In other words, if women had dicks, they’d be dealing with impotence quite a bit. I’m sure of it. The only way to be sure you are never impotent is to be a machine and have no emotions, but even stud bulls have off days.
I advise you to get away from all such people. Unless the behavior is being caused by a mental disorder (which it often is, particularly a mood disorder), and the disorder clears up (which does happen with mood disorders sometimes), these people pretty much never get better. In fact, as they age in life, they have a tendency to get worse and worse, as the entire strategy is a defense against their own perceived failures in life (which we all have), and as you age, you pile up more and more failures, so there is more to defend against with each passing year.
If you can’t admit you are wrong, ever, ever then there is something horribly wrong with you.
My whole family is like this.
My father was this way.
My middle brother has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, so of course he’s never wrong.
My sister is mentally ill and has suffered from Major Depression her whole life. She doesn’t work and collects disability, but if you met her you would not think there was anything wrong with her. She never, ever, ever admits she is wrong about anything. She’s frankly completely fucked in the head for the rest of her life. If you even suggest in the tiniest voice that she might be in error, her voice starts to rise in anger, and she very quickly gets out of control if you don’t tamp down on it very quickly.
This ridiculous person has had decades of psychotherapy, and it has done absolutely zero in my opinion. She hasn’t gotten a thing out of it. She’s just as nuts and screwed up as when she started.
Her Depression, which has wrecked her life and is frankly the dominating theme of her existence, can never be mentioned even one time. For a long time, she was on meds, but that fact could never be mentioned, nor could you ever ask which meds she was on, etc. It’s the dominating theme of her whole life, but it can never be discussed. Furthermore, you can’t even mention the subject of mood disorders or depression in general because, you know, that means you are secretly talking about her.
She has been very overweight forever, and this has given her diabetes. Her weight can never be discussed, ever, not even one time, though it’s one of the most important subjects in her life. You can’t even discuss the subject of weight or overweight people at all because her voice will start rising very quickly and if you don’t shut down the conversation, she will throw a temper tantrum. This because when you talk about weight, you are obviously talking about her.
She throws minor temper tantrums all the time, and when you are around her, you are walking on eggshells all the time so as not to set her off. She, like most of my family, is an emotional volcano.
I will say that my narcissist brother at least has a formidable defensive system set up to where he doesn’t seem too unhealthy and babyish like the rest of my stupid family. If you suggest he is wrong, you will get this sort of narcissistic defense as if he is activating some of the structures in this vast fortress he has constructed to protect himself. He won’t like it, but he won’t act babyish like the rest of them.
He’s insecure too (because the inability to admit you are wrong is evidence that you are insecure), but he is insecure in a much more structured and seemingly healthy way. That is because his defensive structure is very elaborated.
The idiot I discussed above has a poorly elaborated and very brittle and weak defensive structure. That’s why it is so easily penetrated, and they blow up all the time on the flip of a dime. I will say that my brother has a more mature defensive system because when he’s activating his defenses, he seems more like a grownup than a baby like the rest of my family. He’s exasperating, but in a way, he’s actually easier to deal with that the rest of them, and in an odd way, he’s actually healthier than the rest of them.
Or perhaps I just break down his defenses. I make it obvious that I won’t speak to him unless he acts like a human being, and I enforce that rule with a stick. He knows this so he’s sure to be on his best behavior when he talks to me, which is almost never. Or perhaps his personality disorder is fading as he ages, which is often the case. No one is quite sure why personality disorders often fade as we get older. It’s a good question. Schizophrenia and anxiety disorders also tend to get better in middle age. I guess we just settle down in our middle years.
When he talks to me these days, which is rarely, he’s as healthy as he’s ever been. We’ve had a rocky relationship forever, but there were times all along where we got along famously like two loving brothers. Then a while later it would be war again. This shows when you put very strict rules on people and enforce them with a stick, you can often force even some pretty pathological people to act better. There is no way to force any such rule on my sister because she’s too unhealthy, poorly defended, and insecure to follow any sort of rules. She would see it as an insult that she is even being required to follow rules at all.
Whereas my brother knows deep down inside that he’s an asshole and that everyone hates him for it, and he knows a lot of us won’t put up with his shit. It’s weird how the only person in my family with an actual full-blown Axis 2 disorder seems healthier deep down inside than the other members of my family. Maybe because he has such a highly elaborated structure, and furthermore, he is very interested in “acting adult” at all times – something my other family members are not interested in.
Perhaps an elaborated structure is more well-defended and robust than an immature, brittle, poorly defended structure. Throwing temper tantrums is generally not a good way to defend your ego. That’s what children do.If you habitually throw tantrums, you are not a grownup. You are a Goddamned child. Now quite possibly many to most people are overgrown children who never grow up and stay babies their whole lives. Well, fine, but I would appreciate if my readers were more healthy than that.
If I’m talking about you here, just realize that I am not saying you’re bad. I’m saying you’re unhealthy and you need to get more healthy. That’s all! And what’s wrong with that? If you can’t get more healthy, at least get a better defended and more mature and adult-appearing defense structure. Temper tantrums look adult 0% of the time.
Now we come to my father.
Sigh. I don’t really remember what he was like in the early days up until age 9 when he was a pretty mellow dude. The problems with his career, entirely self-generated, started when I was nine.
This is when his personality totally fell apart also, though he kept a highly elaborated defensive structure his whole life. Nevertheless, it was brittle and annoying on the surface, and he blew up in temper tantrums all time. He was a human volcano, always exploding if not in a big way, than a small way. He was always gritting his teeth and pounding on the table. Of course he was never wrong too. None of these people are. If you corrected him, he flipped. He would pound the table and say, “That’s a quibble!” Well, if you are mature, you should be able to handle people correcting even your quibbles. I am. Me erroring in a quibble is better than me erroring in a big way.
These people are all “emotional terrorists.” If you correct them, tell them that they are wrong, criticize them, or bring up one of their countless banned subjects (banned because they are too babyish to discuss them), they terrorize you with a tantrum.
So you stop doing it. You stop correcting them, telling them that they are wrong, and criticizing them because of the threat of a terrorist attack called a tantrum. You avoid the banned subject so they don’t set off their tantrum suicide bomb vest. They often get their way by throwing tantrums until people give in to their selfish demands. “If you don’t give in to my selfish demands, I will throw a terrorist temper tantrum!”
Most people just cave in rather than try to enforce any reasonable rules on these people. Oh one more thing. These people all hate to have rules of boundaries on them. Rules and boundaries are insults because in their selfish, shitty minds they should be able to do whatever the Hell they want. These people are not babies. Instead they are permanent teenagers! They’re perverse. Perverse means you tell someone to sit down and the stand up. Like that.
Further, the implication is that the rule needed to be set because you were acting bad in some way, and that’s an insult right there because all of these people are never wrong. If you set rules for these people, they often resentfully and deliberately break them in a passive-aggressive way. They break the rule simply to show their contempt for it. It’s also more terrorism. “If you don’t let me do whatever the Hell I want to do and try to put some boundaries or rules on me, I will violate all of your boundaries and break all of your rules in mini-terrorist attacks against you!” More emotional terrorism.
With these people, when they talk, they will of course say all sorts of wrong things and get their facts wrong all the time because all of us do that, yours truly included.
Hey. My name is not God. I don’t know everything. I want to know the facts. I don’t want to know any lies about anything. So when I say things that are wrong, I am grateful to be corrected. Thank you for fixing one of my many errors in facts!Now I have a more factual way of looking at life, as small as it is.
I don’t wish to be deluded about much of anything except maybe things regarding myself, but deep down inside, I am not even deluded about those things either. I walk around believing complete lies about myself all the time because I function so much better that way, but deep down inside, I know they are lies. The truth is unbelievably depressing and even though it is true, I don’t care to believe it. If I walk around believing those depressing truths all the time, I will almost appear down, unhealthy and lacking in confidence. I don’t wish to come across that way because it seems like that doesn’t work very well.
“Facing reality” is often one of the worst things you can do. Escapism of all sorts has its benefits in greater mental health and probably even greater life expectancy via reduced suicidality.
I was visiting my Mom the other weekend, and I was talking to her in the driveway. We were talking about my sister’s Depression, as that’s one of the most important issues in her life. I said to my mother that it was spring and she seemed to be getting better than she was in the winter. She was getting more activated as opposed to the winter when she slows down. The one thing is that when she is deeply depressed, she is so slowed down that she is pretty damn nice. As she gets more activated, she gets more difficult, but maybe we are all like that. Anyway, she heard us and she exploded and screamed, “I can hear you!”
First of all, this is stupid because we were talking about how she is getting better. So were saying positive things about her. But we were discussing one of her hundreds of banned subjects. She enforces these bans with the emotional terrorism of throwing a temper tantrum if you discuss any of them. Because the fact that she was getting better means that earlier in the winter she was worse, otherwise meaning she was in bad shape.
Even though she was in bad shape, this is something that can never be noted because it insults her and she has a brittle and frail defensive system that reacts and blows up with the tiniest slight. Also we were discussing her Depression, even though she has had it and been on disability for it her whole life, and it’s the main theme of her life. Nevertheless, it can never be discussed because she’s too babyish and insecure to handle it.
Look. Don’t do this, ok?
If you ever hear people talking about you behind your back and saying things that might not be too pleasant to listen to, don’t burst onto the scene throwing a tantrum saying how you just heard them talking crap about you. People have been talking about me behind my back my whole life and saying things that are not pleasant to listen to. I never once burst onto the scene like a gigantic baby screaming how I just heard them talking about me behind your back.
As difficult as it sounds, just listen to them. They are often saying important things about you. The sad truth about my life and probably all of yours too is that every time I heard people talking shit about me like this, they almost always were making some pretty legitimate criticisms about me, as painful as they were too listen. And this stuff can be wrenchingly painful to listen to. You are tempted to burst onto the scene and tell them to shut up, but grownups don’t do that.
Listen to what they are saying. See if you can improve the areas they are complaining about. It might be stuff that’s bothering you, too. And they are probably talking about some real faults of yours. The crap they are saying about you is probably straight up true, as brutal as it is to listen to it. You may be able to change it or you may not be, but at least realize that this is probably how you are coming across to others. The opinions of the people talking crap about you, whether they are valid or not, are probably shared by most other people too. You are being shown a window into how you are coming across to other people. If you’re not coming across well, you will find out why.
If you can change it and want to, try to change it. If you can’t, just realize that this is how you come across. Sometimes after they were done talking about me, I brought up some particularly shitty and frankly untrue things that people were saying about me. And I did angrily challenge one of them about it later in private. You are free to do this if the complaint about you isn’t really true. They get taken aback.
Later I heard my parents talking, and my Mom said, “Shhhhh. He can hear you. He listens in on these conversations.” Damn right I do. Whenever you hear people talking crap about you, always listen in to the whole brutal session. Never burst onto the scene. Consider it an important life lesson that there are certain things you really ought to change because you’re turning off other people. If what they are saying is unfair, don’t burst onto the scene like a baby but instead maybe confront one of them in private later on. They will be angry that you were listening in, but so what. Everyone has a right to listen in when others are talking shit about them, and frankly, you’re stupid if you don’t listen in.
Part of the essential Female Character is an insane level of Puritanism. Of course it’s combined with a Nymphomaniacal Sexuality. To observers, this makes no sense as it’s a contradiction, but you will never understand women until you figure out that both of these things running at the same time are an essential part of the Female Character.
Feminism is a problem because it took Female Thinking, which is part functional and adaptive and part retarded and dysfunctional (like Male Thinking), and institutionalized, weaponized and finally coded into law this screwed up thinking.
Furthermore, feminism as a science and a way of perceiving reality if forever fucked because it says that the Ultimate Truth about Reality lies in the female view of the world and the Female Character. Well, no it doesn’t. The Female Character, like so many things (or everything?), is half good and half bad. Half of the stuff women believe makes sense, and the other half is a bunch of stupid crap best ignored by any man. Anyone claiming that a philosophy that is 50% stupid bullshit is a proper tool for the analysis of reality is out of their head.
It’s not pathological for a man of any age to have sex with a teenage girl of any age. That’s clear from the debates around DSM-5 Hebephilia which wished to pathologize men who have a preference for girls under 15 over mature females. The criteria would probably have been been severe and persistent fantasies of pubertal girls, so that would rule out most men. However, fully 21% of all men are more attracted to girls under 13 than they are to mature females!
I realize that figure is shocking, but bear with me. It’s been born out by study after study.
I did some research on the local Yokuts Indians from a site in the 1600’s-1700’s. They had a series of skeletons of young women who had all died. They were between ages of 27-35. The assumption was that this was a woman’s lifespan among this primitive tribe. She was dead by age 31! If a woman is going to be dead by age 31, she’d best start having kids at age 16 or maybe even younger. If she starts breeding at age 16, her children will be 15 when she dies. Starting at 15, her kids would be 16 when she died. Starting at 14, her kids would be 17 when she died.
In Mexico, they marry their women and start breeding them at age 14, and it is usually an adult man who marries her. In most primitive tribes, there is a coming of age ceremony around age 15. Even today among most primitive tribes, girls and boys are both considered full adults at age 15. According to modern, advanced American thinking, 100% of the people in primitive tribes today are child molesters and pedophiles! See how stupid that sounds? 95% of the American population actually thinks like this.
You might think it’s terrible for a teen’s mother to die when the teen is 15-17 years old, but back then, that was just normal. The kids would not be left adrift anyway as by that age, they were all no longer boys and girls but full-fledged men and women.
Furthermore, sad events that are normalized in your society may not be very traumatizing. Much of the trauma occurs because people are told that something horrible has happened to them. Before they get told that, they were often not sure of how to process the event. If instead we told that that what happened was wrong or bad but it was no big deal and they would get over it, you would see the trauma rates collapse.
Tell someone they’ve been traumatized and guess how they act? They act traumatized! In our society, we’ve decided that 50% of life is traumatizing, especially with the snowflakes and their safe spaces and microaggressions. No wonder so much young people seem so nuts these days. We’ve been yelling at them that they’re being traumatized all the time all through childhood and teen years and it doesn’t even get better when they grow up. So they act, duh. Traumatized! Of course once you have a Traumatizing Society, you need to set up a huge Trauma Industry dedicated to making mountains out of molehills and ensuring that grown adults remain pussified babies long into adulthood.
The modern notion that people are all little tiny children until the day they hate 18 is insane. It’s backed up by notions that the brain is not fully matured by 17. Well, it’s not fully matured by age 24-26 either, so let’s put the age of consent for sex and the majority at age 25! After all, you’re only an adult when your brain is mature, right?
Truth is that people mature at different ages. In early times in the West, children were considered “little adults” and were often treated as such. It’s not known if they matured earlier then but maybe they did. Treat someone like a kid, they act like a kid. Treat someone like an adult, they act like an adult.
Although this sounds very groovy and compassionate to our postmodern, late capitalist, metrosexual, 3rd Wave feminist ears, the truth is that for 200,000 years of our evolution, no human gave two shits that the brain didn’t fully mature until age 25, although they probably had some notion of the idea. They simply didn’t feel it was worth thinking about because frankly it isn’t.Our present culture infantalizes teenagers and young adults to an extreme degree. Infantalizing humans doesn’t seem to be a good idea to me, but maybe “modern people” have other ideas. After all, treat someone like a baby and they act like one, right?
Further, most primitive tribes allow both boys and girls to start having sex at puberty, around age 13. The girls often have sex with boys, but sometimes they have sex with men. For instance, the typical marriage among the Blackfoot Indians was between a man aged 35 and a 15 year old girl. Our “modern, scientific, compassionate” society would state unequivocally that all Blackfoot men were pedophiles or child molesters for the thousands of years that the tribe was in existence.
Isn’t that a stupid way to think? Look how stupid we are! We’re surrounded by all these damned gadgets, we are so technologically advanced that we’re about to become literal aliens, we can cure or help most diseases, we understand most of the most important questions, including the biggies or we’re on our way to figuring them out. Unified Theory, here we come!
But some goddamned primitive Indian with a digging stick and a rock to grind acorns in who doesn’t know the first thing about technology, science, or medicine has more wisdom we “advanced” clowns do. For Chrissake, we may be advancing technologically, but we’re going backwards in terms of wisdom. How pathetic is it that Silicon Valley ultra-technologists have less wisdom that some primitive tribe eking out an existence in the jungle? Are we too civilized for our own damn good? It’s possible to get so “civilized,” protective, pampering, and fussy that you’re not even rational anymore. That my modern colleagues have less wisdom than some spearchucker in the jungle is a pretty sad statement!
From age 13-15, most girls are not very fertile, so it’s hard to get pregnant.
The debate around Hebephilia ended up concluding that even having a strong preference for pubertal children as sex partners was not mentally disordered. Further, it wasn’t even abnormal! Having been in chatrooms full of these guys, I’m not so sure about that, but it’s best to keep as much sex crap out of the DSM as we can.
It was even decided that having sex with 13-15 year old girls if one had a preference for them was not mentally disordered either because most crimes are not mental disorders and most criminals aren’t nuts. Instead, the argument was that these men weren’t nuts – instead they were just criminals, with being criminal and being nuts as two different things!
Of course most crooks aren’t nuts. They’re just bad. Are there disorders called Murder Disorder, Mugging Disorder, Fraudster Disorder, Batterer Disorder, Attempted Murder Disorder, Burglar Disorder, Robber Disorder, Forger Disorder, etc.? Well, of course not.
In mental health all we care about is if something is nuts or not. Hence we don’t care much about criminal behavior because most crooks aren’t nuts. We leave that to the judicial system to deal with and moral philosophers to decide what to allow and forbid. If people are disordered, we say they are abnormal. If people are not disordered, we say they are normal.Obviously a lot of real bad people are not disordered. So we are forced to call a lot of criminal behavior and most criminals normal because neither one is generally crazy. So a lot of very bad behavior and people are “normal” in the sense that they’re not nuts.
So a man of any age having sex with a teenage girl of any age does not make him sexually abnormal, as it’s completely “normal” behavior, as in, it’s not nuts, and even, looking at human history and other cultures, in most places and times, it was more or less normal.
But normal behavior doesn’t necessarily mean ok behavior. It just means that the behavior is not crazy.
The statutory rape matter is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
We in mental health do not like to pathologize crimes and morally unethical behavior as psychological disorder. This is outside of what we care about and off into the lands of moral philosophers, religious thinkers, and legal theorists. It is in the area of right and wrong, good and bad, and good and evil. Most criminal behavior is not driven by psychological disorder. It’s driven by a defective moral conscience.
So whether it should be legal for a man of whatever age to have sex with a teenage girl or whatever age is a moral matter, a moral question. Perhaps you feel it is the worst behavior on Earth. Perhaps you think it’s completely ok and should be legal. Probably you are somewhere between those views. All of those views about this behavior are valid, as everyone and hence society itself is entitled to reasonable moral values of right and wrong.
Why was there an attempt to shove Hebephilia into the DMSO category in the first place. Because it was a game. A game called “Call Em Crazy, Lock Em up as Dangerous Forever, and Throw Away the Key.” Otherwise known as preventive detention. Or putting people in prison for life for the crime of “dangerousness.”
The game here is make a lot of the sexual behavior we dislike into “mental illnesses.” Because the only way we can lock someone up forever on the bullshit charge of “dangerousness” (there’s no such crime) is if they’re nuts. Yep. You can be dangerous as Hell, and as long as you’re not officially crazy and you’re just a mean SOB, it’s all kosher.
Obviously most sex offenders are not the slightest bit nuts, so a scam was made up to call them crazy so we could lock them up forever in preventive detention (which is probably illegal) for the rest of their lives because we think maybe they might sort of kind of a little bit possibly theoretically plausibly do something, we don’t know what, to someone, we don’t who, somewhere, we don’t know where, somehow, we don’t know how.
That’s unconstitutional on its face.
The only people you can lock up like are the dangerously mentally ill, and you are supposed to release them when they get better, except we never do because no matter how much better they get, we always say they’re not better enough. So we wanted to lock all these poor sops away forever, but we couldn’t because they weren’t nuts, they were just bad people, you know, like most criminals? So a scam was created to make up a bunch of “mental disorders” out of what are mostly just kinks and sexual perversions, when it’s doubtful whether any kinky or perverted people are actually nuts.
Generally they’re not nuts. They’re just perverts. Perverts aren’t nuts. They’re perverted. Two different things.
So they made up a fake mental disorder called Pedophilia to lock up all the child molesters forever, although most men in preventive detention are nonpedophilic molesters. Also they never let them out even when they get better because no matter how much better they get, the cops still say they’re not better enough yet. When will they be better enough? When they’re dead! It’s right out of Kafka. They just sit and rot forever. All because, you know, think of the children! And the usual pearl clutching we Americans so excel at.
So we decided all the chomos and short eyes had a “mental disease” called “Pedophilia” that made them “insane” or if you prefer “crazy.” Well, it doesn’t make you insane and it doesn’t even make you crazy. It might make you do bad things, but it doesn’t make you nuts. And since we decided on no rational basis whatsoever that all of these people were permanently dangerous, we have locked them all away forever on the basis that they are “dangerously mentally ill.” It’s all a big joke.
Dangerously mentally ill is supposed to be for the paranoid schizophrenic who grabs a gun and climbs a tower. It’s not for run of the mill criminals. Merely being dangerous as opposed to being nuts and dangerous is not granted the penalty of preventive detention because it’s decided that as long as you’re not nuts, you have at least some ability to control your dangerous behavior because obviously if you’re nuts, you lose that ability.
How about all the other paraphilias? Why don’t we decide they’re all dangerously mentally ill too? There’s nothing preventing it. The peeping toms? The flashers? The fetishists? The masochists? The sexual sadists? The first two are low level criminals so no one cares, the third are harmless except to women’s panties, shoes, and pocketbooks, the fourth only hurt themselves so no one cares, but the fourth? The sexual sadists? One might make the case that some convicted sexual sadists are dangerously mentally ill, but they never go down on this stuff. Only the Chesters. Because, you know, everyone hates Touchers. Think of the children!
One might think that as Antisocial Personality Disorder is in the DSM, a lot of these guys could go down on dangerously mentally ill, but there’s a serious argument whether any personality disordered person is mentally ill per se as opposed to be what I would call sick, character disordered, twisted, etc. Axis 2 people are what I call “soul-sick.” They’re permanently disordered, but the issue is at the core of their selves so they’re not really mentally ill. Instead, they are “sick.”
But nope, no PD’s go down on dangerously mentally ill. We save that for the sex criminals! Because, you know, the sex criminals are really so much worse than your ordinary variety criminals who burgle, rob, thieve, defraud, beat, maim, mug, shoot, stab, torture, and kill people because as long as they’re not fucking anyone while they’re doing it, it’s never quite so bad, you see? Because Puritanism. Obviously it’s so much worse to do bad things when you are fucking someone as opposed to just, you know, doing bad things when you don’t happen to be fucking anyone. Because whether you’re fucking someone or not when you commit your crime makes such a difference!
There has been a very devious attempt lately to sneak another mentally disordered sex offender (MDSO) into the mix.
But first notice that they singled out the sex criminals for permanent preventive detention as opposed to, you know, your garden variety maniacs. But why? Why do only sex criminals deserve preventive detention as opposed to regular murderers, muggers, and robbers? Because moral panic. That’s why.
They went after the rapists. Because of course everyone hates rapists. Except we live in a rape culture that says it’s ok to rape and encourages all men to go rape all they want. But at the same time everyone hates rapists. Makes sense, huh? They tried to sneak in a Rape Paraphilic Disorder in order to round up all the rapists just like they rounded up all the Chesters.
Problem? The vast majority of rapists do not have any sort of a paraphilia about rape. They do it for all sorts of reasons. Some like to hurt people (sadistic rapists), some are angry at or hate women (anger rapists) and two different types do it for different power trips – the Power Reassurance Rapist and another that slips my mind. One of these types is the “gentleman rapist” who actually feels bad about raping you! So there are different kinds, and almost all rapists won’t kill you, except the Sadists (5%) are very dangerous, and the Anger Rapists (30%?) may well hurt you but generally won’t kill you unless you fight them, in which case they might.
But men who have a specific paraphilia about rape? That is, they get aroused more by the idea of raping women than by anything else, possibly to the point that unless they rape or pretend to rape, it just doesn’t move the meter? It’s either very uncommon or nonexistent, depending on who you listen to. But of course, once they sneak in Rape Paraphilic Disorder, they’re going to label allthe rapists mentally ill with this fake illness, and lock them all away as MDSO’s! Neat trick, huh? Thankfully the DSM-5 committees stopped that one coming and dodged the bullet.
DSM-5 Hebephilia was shot down on similar grounds, that this was an attempt to round up men who committed statutory rape with young teens (13-15 year old girls) and missed the deadline for going down on Child Molestation (usually under 13). So this way we get to lock up countless men who bang hot to trot little jailbaits forever as dangerously mentally ill.
Ah, you’re gay. Trust me that whatever you read on here, I love you, my brother, just as much as I love any of my straight friends. Don’t take the “homophobic” stuff on here seriously. We mostly aren’t’ talking about you anyway.
If you occasionally see homophobic stuff on here, it’s mostly directed at straight men. I don’t know if you gays know this, but for a lot of men, we use homophobic slurs mostly at our straight brothers and not so much at you guys, as with us liberals, we are not supposed to talk like that about you guys anymore. It’s bigotry. Not that I care about being accused of a bigot but the accusation of me hating gay men is not one I like because I do not wish to feel that way about them or be accused as such.
Fag is used to an insult for other straight men in the same family as pussy, girl, faggot, little bitch, girlyman, puss, wuss, wimp, sissy, soyboy, mangina, etc. It means exactly the same thing – that you are too feminine or effeminate to be a real man. That’s a supreme insult, but with fag there is the extreme added insult that this straight man really has gay sex on the side, which is about the worst thing on Earth you can say about a straight man. We know that all these guys are really straight, so we are lying when we call them gay. We are just doing it to set them off and hit them in their worst Achilles Heels.
We or mostly I also use it for straight men who are siding with the feminists and the women in the war against heterosexual male sexuality – that is, metoo and all of the rest of the garbage. We see this as a conspiracy by women to try to stop us from getting laid. They’re always conspiring to do that anyway or at least they have since I was a teenager, so it’s really no big, but now it has been weaponized with the added punishments of loss of job, income, career. and even arrest for the crime of getting laid or even pathetically trying to.
This is a war on straight men. These bitches are trying to destroy us for the crime of trying to get laid or getting laid, and they will pay for this shit. Well, they probably won’t, but we always say that anyway because they deserve to get threatened by us.
We are not talking about you guys because you are fellow male degenerates who are way sicker sexually than even we are, so the last thing you guys try to do is try to stop us from getting laid. So we are not talking about you!
Some gay men are with the feminists and those men are faggots, sorry. Faggots faggots faggots faggots. They’ve joined the enemies of the men. We request that gay men line up with their straight brothers in the war on feminism and the enemies of the men. Trust us that these man-haters hate you as much as they hate us. You’re evil because you’re men. They don’t care if you are straight or gay. Anyway, we welcome all gay men into the Brotherhood of the Men at least as partners in the War on Men.
But for a very long time, fag was simply a descriptive word for a male homosexual. It was often neutral or said with an eye-roll or a shrug of accepting dismissal, like, “What are you going to do?” Thing is we hate gay sex and male homosexuality in general, as that is part of the masculinization process all straight men go through as boys.
But then we have to like or love you guys because we have now learned that you can’t help it. So we can’t hate you for being gay. We have to love you just as much as anybody else. So this is the dilemma liberal straight men go through.
Any straight man who tells you he is not homophobic is a liar. If he says that, ask him to stick a dick in his mouth and see what he says. See? He will say that guys don’t turn him on, but that never stopped any man from Ancient Greece and Sparta to current Afghanistan, with some similar dynamics in both cases where male homosexual behavior for those playing the male role is associated with some of the most extreme masculinity on Earth. The reason, I guarantee, is that he thinks that is the worst thing on Earth. Worse than cancer or even death. It’s a living death, and that’s worse than being actually dead. They way we were brought up was, “That’s the one thing you never do.”
On the other hand, friendships between straight and gay men don’t work very well for all sorts of reasons, mostly that they either won’t stop trying to fuck us or won’t shut up about how hot we are and how much they want to fuck us, both of which are most unwelcome. Also a lot do not respect us for being straight and insist we are really gay or try to brainwash us into thinking we are a gay. I’m thinking gay men could do a lot more on their end if they really want to have friendships with us.
But why do they want to anyway? We straight men are assholes. We barely like each other, and women’s feelings towards us are notorious. I think gay men should stick with straight women for friends and gay/bi men for everything else. You have more than 50% of society liking you, which is way more than we straight men have. Don’t bother trying to befriend lesbians. We know they hate you too and everyone knows they hate us.
A lot of straight men have some extremely serious hangups about male homosexuality, so understand that that probably drives a lot of homophobia. A lot of us have been called or suspected of being gay ourselves by other straight men or women and we have a lot of issues about that, especially as that is about the worst insult you could say about us, those insults coming from the latter being almost homicide-inducing on their end. Want to get hit or even killed? Call us gay. Try it. I dare you. We straight hit and even kill over this stuff.
Try to have some sympathy. Those homophobic remarks are coming from places of fear, deep insecurity, and pain. It’s not about you. It’s about screwed up stuff inside of us. You’re just a punching bag.
It’s not that we are gay ourselves in most cases, but it is more than we have a lot of weird unresolved fears about this stuff, which we find mostly nauseating and terrifying. For instance, a recent lab study found that straight men were more disgusted by gay porn than they were by live maggots! Yes. Live maggots! So that gives you some idea of the revulsion.
Hi, I updated this somewhat. From three weeks ago and made some changes. Hope you enjoy.
Under Female Rule, women are always putting in these utopian feminist policies because, well, women are utopians. Whereas we men know the world is shit and we’re just trying to make it half-tolerable before we take off. The whole idea of utopia causes men to cough out cynical laughs. “It would be nice,” they all agree. “Except it doesn’t work, humans being humans and all that.”
For an example, idiotic #metoo nuttiness that made flirting, dating, and sex all potential career-killers for men has had the logical (Duh!) effect of college-aged men avoiding women like that plague so as not to jeopardize their future careers. All men know that women are dangerous, but they’ve never been dangerous like this.
Give a woman some power and watch her abuse it. Give a woman a punishing tool and watch her abuse it.It’s what the weak do.The weak abuse their power. They abuse their tools.In order to respect and not abuse power and dangerous tools, you have to be strong enough to not have to abuse them in the first place.And women are weak, and like all weak people and groups, they will always fight dirty and abuse power because that’s the only way they have a chance.
So now men are mass-ignoring women, an effect that any moron could have seen would result in women taking #metoo in the usual overboard direction they take everything. What did they think was going to happen? Hey women! Men aren’t like you. Men are rational. If they see flirting, dating, and sex as possible career wreckers, every one of you is going to be seen as a Goddamned black widow spider and avoided at all costs.
So, as request:
“Hey women, how bout going back and fixing the dumbass rules you thought up that are now making you so miserable?”
Ha ha. That question makes me laugh right there, but it’s so typical of female behavior that any male knows exactly what it means.
Of course they never do. Admitting they were wrong would cause them to lose too much face, and women are human after all. Nobody wants to admit they screwed up.
So when women make a mass retarded decision (something they do all the time), they sometimes start screaming about the logical result of their decision, and then they refuse to fix it because they’re too prideful. This is what happens when you let women run society and make the laws and rules. Sheer chaos.
Female Rule fails everywhere it’s been tried.
So women create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they often never fix them because they would have to admit they were wrong. On the other hand,men or society at large create things with good intentions that end up being complete clusterfucks, and then they the men will at least to fix the mess because men can admit they are wrong andare at least capable of fixing their fuckups.
It is actually the weak who cannot admit they are wrong. Women never admit they are wrong because they are weak. Same with children. Men who seem powerful and confident and never admit they are wrong are actually insecure. Insecure people are not strong. They may seem strong but they are not because they are too weak to admit that they are wrong. Curiously, it takes a strong person to admit they wrong. The stronger you are, the more you can do it, and the weaker you are, the less you can do it. It’s a paradoxical thing. So men, being powerful, are at least capable en masse of admitting they screwed up.
Men don’t like chaos or idiocy, especially combined as women’s projects tend to result in, and pretty soon men start yelling that somebody screwed up. Who’s fault is it? “Who knows? Who cares!” The men yell. Bottom line is this utopian proposal is not working.
So men dive in with their hands and try to fix it, all the while admitting that someone (maybe them) screwed up when they did it before. Men will take responsibility. “We messed up. We thought this was a good fix but all it did was create new worse problems. Fine, people make mistakes, no problem. Let’s move on, fix them, and do it right!
Because men hate things that don’t work. There’s nothing a man hates more than a nonfunctional object or policy. And they hate things that don’t worse than they hate admitting they are wrong (men hate that too), so if they have to choose between the two, they will admit they were wrong to stop the chaos that they hate more. It’s not a matter of liking something more than something else. People think decisions are based on the concept of liking, but rather they are based on the concept of hating. It’s a matter of hating one thing less than something else, as most decisions in life are.
Men and women both break stuff, but at least men admit they blew it and dive in to fix it, meanwhile women are too ashamed and proud so they do nothing.
Instead, they bitch and live in the chaos, which causes them to bitch more, but understand that women like and need to bitch, so this is really more of a wash than anything else.
We are both breakers. Men break stuff and women break stuff. There’s not a lot of difference there.
The difference is in what you do afterwards.
We’re fixers. Women aren’t fixers.
So Male Rule works but is often unjust while Female Rule fails but is often more just.
Life is about “justice.” If justice doesn’t work then fuck it. Let’s go back to injustice because a lot of time injustice at least works while justice doesn’t work at all.
Problem is most people with genius IQ’s s (1% of the population) pretty quickly figure out that the world is populated by morons and psychopaths. They’re not really morons except that at stratospheric IQ’s, even average IQ people almost seem retarded.
The psychopaths of course run the show and get all the money, stuff, and chicks. Hence why women flock to psychopaths. Psychopaths lie constantly and these lies become known as “culture,” especially as they own the (((media))) and (Hollywood))). Don’t mean to single out any particular ethnic group here but the (((ones))) who run Hollywood and the media are as psychopathic as any Gentile running society.
The morons are too dumb to figure out they’re being lied to, so they go along with the lies. Hence why the psychopaths always try to grab the media, first thing they do. Because most of the morons are so dumb that they actually believe the media, even when it’s lying most of the time.
Genius IQ is hardly a brag. 1 out of every 100 Americans has one. Genius IQ’s are as common as weeds. If you ever went to university, you probably met them teaching your classes and probably sitting next to you.
A famous article called The Outsiders was written a while back. The writer sought out people with IQ’s over 160. Yes, I’ve met one. I also met a 156 IQ woman. She was literally the fastest woman I’ve ever met in my life. Her life was like a rocket to the moon, it was that fast. Most of them were men and most were failures, of course. Most were living at or near the poverty level. If they worked at all it was in basic jobs like at the post office. Most were not married and recent celibacy rates were very high. Most of them were not dating at all. Some were very handsome, too.
Women don’t exactly seek out geniuses you know. They were almost all excruciatingly shy and introverted. There wasn’t any mention of Aspergers Syndrome, though I doubt most had it. Most lived alone in small apartments. As you can see it is actually possible to be so damned smart that you are doomed to fail in society. And almost to a one, they were misanthropes and absolutely hated people. Why? Every single one of them hated people because they said they were idiots.
Well, I concur. Actually, every day I stick around this Clown Rock Flying Through Space, I start to hate people just a little bit more. And I hate them because, yes, they’re stupid. Now, stupid people are just fine. Hey, most humans are idiots, face it. Just because you’re dumb doesn’t mean you’re bad as long as you’re nice. Problem is people can’t settle for being merely stupid. They have been dangerous too! So my opinion is that I hate people more and more every day because they are dangerous idiots. As in so damned stupid that they are a threat to my sanity and maybe even my freedom.
People are dangerously stupid because they can’t think for themselves. They’re all just terrified sheep. They go along with whatever Lies du Jour are being pushed because if you don’t, you get ostracized like me. Of course if enough of them called the liars on their lies, they’d have to give them up and at least go make up some new ones.
Also, people are faddists. They are prone to mass hysterias and moral panics.
To give you an example of how asinine moral panics are, things that were completely normal in the 1970’s (statutory rape) are now regarded as the most evil things on Earth, deserving of life in prison or the death penalty! Dumb or what? Why? Because we’re in the midst of an idiot moral panic about this stuff.
And stuff that was regarded as the most evil behavior on Earth (smoking pot, taking psychedelics, and “drugs” in general) is now shockingly normal, and smoking pot is practically legal. I can’t tell you how many sanctimonious fucks I dealt with back in the day because I smoked pot, dropped acid now and again and like a line of coke at time. And I was never more than a casual user of most of that stuff.
See? The moral panics aren’t even rational! One decade something is just fine. Ten years later you need to get lynched on the spot for it. One decade something is Satan’s work itself. Come ten years and it’s so normal it’s almost laughable.
People who get involved in moral panics are basically sanctimonious shits. I’ve been dealing with hysterical, panicked sanctimonious shits my whole life and I’m really tired of them. I’m tired of being told I’m a bad person. I’m not anyway.
I’m actually starting to look forward to death, and that’s sorry.
Yep, he sure was. Underneath all of that macho bravado, he was just another one of us pathetic introverts. First of all, he wrote every morning from 6 AM – 10 AM. All alone in his writing cottage of course. All of us have to write alone. You can’t write if other people are around. Well, at least you’ve got to shut the door. Admittedly, it’s not a very sociable hobby. After that, he had lunch, then he’d go off to the bar or wherever and drink or rabble rouse with the boys.
What nobody knows is that Hemingway was actually painfully shy. See all that boozing? That’s called liquid introversion, folks. That’s why he drank so much, to kill his shyness. It works for some of us if we’re not too far gone.
We think of Hemingway as carousing it up in wild and dangerous men’s bars, right? Try again. Let’s walk into one of his favorite bars right now. Maybe it’s in Italy, or the Alps, or Paris, or Key West, or best of all, Havana. Sure it’s wild at the main bar where the bartender’s serving up drinks. So where’s Hemingway? Damn! There he is, off in a darkened corner of this particular clean, well-lighted place, drinking alone in the dim light. Which is usually exactly how you found him.
Finally, one more algebraic proof and we will be off. How do we know Hemingway was an introvert? Well, he was a great writer, no? That’s all the evidence you need. All great writers are introverts. No exceptions, ever. Extroverts can’t be great writers. They’re just not wired up that way. For one, they hate being alone. That’ll kill it right there.
People are saying these are different processes, but really they’re the same, no?
By the way, this is a good idea to take out into the world with you when dealing with others. What was the cause of this person’s reaction to me? My behavior or appearance (sort of the same thing but not quite). What was the effect of my behavior/appearance on this person? Their resultant behavior. Even works for bigotry. Bigots are reacting to your appearance mostly, not so much to your behavior. If it seems like self-blaming, well, it is. We are the cause of other people’s reactions to us, right, wrong, or indifferent.
Even if people have evil or immoral reactions to us, we still caused the reaction. Jews caused the evil Nazi reaction by their appearance, by the simple fact that they were Jews. It’s not the Jews’ fault, but that was the cause of Nazi behavior. Why did that woman get raped? She was an attractive young woman who happened to be in the general vicinity of some raping maniac, and her appearance and behavior caused his urge to rape her to unfold. She still innocent because all she was doing was existing as a human being, and he still gets all the years in prison you want to throw at him, but she’s still the cause of his behavior. This is true for just about anything.
Cause and effect. Cause and effect. Cause and effect. It’s how the world goes round. Or the universe, if you prefer to get expansive.
I was on Twitter and had a conversation with SJW’s. The men were all cucks and fags, and the women were all dumbass feminists. On the other hand, they were human after all, so there were occasional flashes of sanity.
Unfortunately I was in a debate with a bunch of SJW’s, mostly “men,” which means fags, queers, girlymen, wusses, girls, cucks, queens, and sissies. Literally all leftwing men nowadays are faggots. No man on the Left could possibly be straight or a real man anymore. All you can be is a dick-sucking faggot. All leftwing men subscribe to radical SJWism. SJWism is nothing but feminism and faggotry. All male feminists are fags. You can’t possibly be a real man and a feminist at the same time. You have to be a homo taking cock up the ass or a cuck who locks up his dick and lets his wife get fucked by bulls.
They were feminist fools trying to figure out what’s more important, the bullshit feminist nonsense theory swirling around their prefrontal cortexes or that throbbing clit between their legs. It’s the dilemma of all heterosexual feminist women.
Feminism teaches women to hate men, and a lot of women eat it up because face it, we men don’t treat women very well. At the same time, if they are straight, you know how it is, especially nowadays. As a woman I knew recently told me, “A girl’s got to get laid.” Right, ladies?
Which is why feminist women who are still having regular sex with men are limited in how much they can hate men. In order to truly hate men, you have to get away from them and become celibate or a political lesbian, who are mostly celibate anyway because these are just straight women who hate men so much they refuse to have sex with them. But, being straight, most aren’t much into women. So they become the caricature of the raging, aging, celibate feminist cat lady with a vibrator for a live-in lover. A rather pathetic creature.
Some liberal cuck posted about how he can’t figure out when it’s ok to flirt with women and when it’s not. I should be nice to this poor guy. He’s trying to suck up to silly women, which is the worst thing any man can do. Much of the time, women are simply best ignored. Smile, nod your head, say, “Yes…mm hmmm, ahhh, ohhh, uh huh,” while they are going on, but otherwise don’t listen to a word they say. I’ve been doing this my whole life, and all I ever hear from women is gushing compliments about what a great listener I am. Ha ha. If they only knew!
Obviously #metoo idiocy has muddied the waters, as #metoo says all flirting is potentially harassment, all dating is potentially sexual assault, and all sex is potentially rape.
This has had the logical result of many young men avoiding women altogether and sitting at home with beer, videogames, bros, porn, and their dicks in their hands. And now (especially young) women are yelling that men won’t talk to them anymore and avoid them like they’re lepers. They’re furious.
Take the lead and get aggressive with men? Women refuse to do that. They’re genetically programmed to be chased, not chasers.
Hence, many young men, quite logically enough, are going MGTOW. Who could blame them? Modern feminism almost demands that men go MGTOW. In fact, going MGTOW is probably the only rational way to respond to modern feminism. On the down side, you pretty much never get laid.
But you’ve got your bros! So what?
A lot of us are pussy addicts, and we can’t go long without our fix, no matter how frustrated we get with women.
Thing is though is a lot of women feel like they are in the same boat in the opposite direction. We drive them crazy and often treat them terribly. Who could blame them for hating us? On the other hand, there’s that growing puddle between her legs. Which is screaming, “Fulfill me, dammit!” And trust me, after a while, wands, vibes, and rabbits just don’t cut it for most women. They want the real thing. So they hate us but they need us and love to fuck us.
The problem with SJWism is it says Reality isn’t reality. What’s real for SJW’s is this fake Utopian SJW world they believe in.
Except the real world doesn’t work like that. In the real world, we are cavemen and cavewomen, and he world runs on hate, jealousy, envy, lust, greed, lying, manipulation, sociopathy, Machiavellianism, and other awful things, and as far as sex goes, being mammals, we like to rut in the mud like pigs in a pen. And when it comes to sex, SJWism is off on some other planet.
So SJW’s are constantly running up against a world that doesn’t work the way their utopia says it’s supposed to work. Instead of saying their utopia is crap because humans are predatory mammals barely a step above grizzly bears when the real world doesn’t match up with SJW Utopia, to SJW’s that means the real world (reality) is wrong because the SJW Utopia (the fake world) is always right.
Except it’s never been tried except on paper. And what little evidence of it we do have in practice shows that it causes nothing but chaos and dysfunction, just like Female Rule. Which makes sense because feminism is at the core of SJWism, and as feminism (Female Rule) doesn’t work, neither does SJWism.
It would be all very nice if humans were as groovy and kind and nice and utopian and pretty and empathic and free of evilheartedness as the SJW Utopia demands, but alas, people are people, and humans are massively flawed in the Goodness Quotient because our mammal brains keep ordering us to act bad, wherein “acting bad” just means “acting how a typical amoral, surivival-oriented mammal always acts.”
Because the Real World runs screaming headfirst into the fake SJW Utopian World, smashing it all to bits, this logically infuriates SJW’s, who say the Real World is wrong. Not just wrong but Evil. Hence all the wild efforts of Cancel Culture to “cancel” people for acting like people instead of programmed utopian robots.
The Real World is fake! The true real world is our fake Utopian SJW World!
You can’t fool all the people all the time, thank God, and obviously illogical-on-their-face arguments like the bolded above are eventually going to run up against the Logic crowd who are going to figure out, brainwashed though they may be, that’s it’s the Real World, flawed and shitty as it is, that is the real thing, and the Utopian World, full of goodness and light and everything nice, that doesn’t even exist except in people’s heads. Sooner or later people open their eyes and figure out the SJW Emperor hasn’t any clothes after all. Let the rest of the Woke scream about his great outfit. We, the rational, can see that he’s naked as a jaybird.
Age increases wisdom and sensible behavior in women, which is why most young women are crazy idiots, while as they get older, especially over 40, into the 50’s, and even into their 60’s, women become progressively more rational and reasonable. They’re still nuts of course at least some of the time. They’re women after all. Especially after menopause when the sex drive often goes down, women often become dramatically saner and less crazy. This implies that the very thing that makes many premenopausal women so ravenously horny nymphomanical perverts and sluts is precisely the same thing that makes them often pretty damned insane.
It’s the hormones. The same hormones that make women nuts also make them horny. The hornier she is, the nuttier she is. The nuttier she is, the hornier she is. So if you want to get laid by sluts who love sex instead of hating it, you have to put up with all sorts of irrational drama, bullshit, nonsense, idiocy, and chaos. Don’t want to put up with it. Go home to your dick in your hand. And prepare to never get laid and die a virgin. This is why straight men can love women with all their hearts and souls but at the same time be pretty damned sexist and misogynistic.
They don’t completely love women, and most don’t hate women no matter what feminist retards say. They have mixed feelings towards women. Men can feel wild love for women and sheer ugly hate. And of course everything in between. A man who likes women is simply one who likes them more than he dislikes them. A man who loves women is simply a man who loves women more than he hates them. And vice versa. Note that a man can like or love women at the same time he dislikes or hates them.
Now I love my Mom more than any woman on Earth, maybe even any current girlfriend.
Face it, damn it. My Mom’s the only woman who never left me! No matter what, through thick and thin, she was always by my side giving me support even when I didn’t deserve it. Whereas girlfriends came and went with the wind or even the breeze when I was on a losing streak.
After all, let’s face it, girlfriends come and go, but you’ve always got your Mom, and if she has any sense, she lets you be a man even though she might not like it. And she loves you with all her heart and all her soul probably even better than any of her daughters.
Guys get out of prison. They give them $200 and a bus ticket. Most of these hardasses head straight to Mom’s house, at least for a bit. And all but the very worst ones are taken in by their mothers. “He’s my boy!” And at the same time, the mom and the daughter might barely have spoken in 20 years.
So in that way, most of us men are momma’s boys in a sense. We aren’t momma’s boys in the sense of pussy-whipped cucks who need Mom’s permission for everything. We are momma’s boys in the sense that we all love our mothers, even the biggest players. In fact, the more of a player a man is, the more he tends to love his Mom. After all, players love women, and your Mom was the first and most important woman in your life and you will always see at least a bit of your mother in every woman you date. If you love your mother, you love women. If you hate your mother, watch out. You may have problems with women.
But I love her in a different way than I love my girlfriend. Perhaps it’s better to say that they are both way up there on some elevated level. But I guarantee that at any given time, my Mom’s making me way less crazy than whatever woman I am with. On the other hand, I can’t fuck my Mom, and the love I have for her is not satisfactory. I need the romantic love of a girlfriend.
Claudius said he’d never met one person in his entire life who liked Jews as a collective or as a group, himself included. However, he and many of these others he quoted all said that they liked individual Jews, often very much, depending on their behavior of course.
I’d concur, except like an idiot, I was a Judeophile for the first 43 years of my life until I started researching the Palestinian issue in 2001 in the first Intifada, and I figured out those Hebrew fuckers had been lying to me my whole life, and I got pissed.
Then I went into some Jewish newsgroups and found that not only were the stereotypes true, but they were true in belligerent spades. I was nearly knocked out of my chair for weeks on end by how outrageously the Jews in those acted out the very worst anti-Semitic stereotypes. They could have strolled right out of the pages of Der Strumer, and perhaps some of them did.
Because you see, I had been taught my whole life that all of those ugly anti-Semitic stereotypes of Jews were complete lies made up by evil Nazi anti-Semites who hated Jews for absolutely no good reason at all. Like an idiot, I had believed that, and here was this newsgroup full of Jews, dancing right off the pages of the Protocols. Color me shocked, to say the least.
After my Pauline Demascene road conversion from Judeophilism to sanity, I still didn’t really hate them per se, more like I became Jew-wise or Jew-cynical, which probably the best attitude to take towards any ethnocentric human tribe of bastards and sonsofbitches.
Wait. I actually did go through an anti-Semitic phase, sadly enough, and I must report that obsessive and conspiratorial anti-Semitism is most definitely a mental disorder. Because when I was an anti-Semite, I was definitely crazy. It’s odd how it creeps up on you like that. I suspect that’s true of most any passionate ethnic or group hatreds unless you’ve got a good reason to hate ’em based on personal or group history or as it usually is, both.
My longest relationship – 5 1/2 years – was with a Jewish woman. Granted she was kind of a bitch (stereotype again), it was my longest. I was even going to convert to Judaism just for her. Mostly I just to be one of those Chomskyan self-haters and stick my finger and in their Hebraic eyes and say neener neener, but also because a part of my spirit, alas, is Jewish, having been born and raised a Jewish country – the United States – and not just a Jewish country but the largest one of that.
And there was always that faint hope that I could slide my way into some of that legendary tribally-distributed loot of theirs.
As far as the religion itself goes, it blows of course, like most shitty religions, and in fact, it might just be one of the worst ones of all. But you can always just go Reform, bake your own cake, and create a nice little religion out of it by throwing out all the bad parts and keeping all the good parts. Or go Left and become a guiding light unto the Gentiles, leading the way to a better world. Many leftwing Jews have taken this route, from Marx to Sanders. It sure was nice of the Jews to give themselves an out like that. Well, God bless em.
Hate the collective, love the individual.
This probably applies to lots of things – a number of other races, Bronies, trannies, gay men, lesbians, rednecks, Muslims, pitbulls, Republicans, Gypsies, and feminists, except there probably aren’t any good Gypsies or feminists, so you may as well go ahead and hate ’em all. We hate the collective because we stand back and look at the collective forest from the nearest hill, and as a whole – holistically – it simply sucks, or worse, blows to the high heavens. But then when we hike down into the woods, and we peek at the individual trees in the forest, we find that a lot of them are ok.
Also, most group members act better as individuals than as a collective. Something about the madness of crowds I gather. Or human tribalism itself.
Related to the Delphi Murders, as you well know, I am widely hated. People say have never been right even one time, lie about and make up everything I say and in general am not a credible source. I will use this piece as a general reference to my credibility instead of addressing it endlessly in every post.
However, they have been saying exactly this about many different things I ever written over the last 15 years, Consistently, I was shown to be right and they were wrong. Not one hater ever apologized and all continued to describe me as discredited and said that nothing I had ever said had been shown to be correct.
Particularly that I have no credibility and have never been right about anything. On the contrary I have been right about many things. I’m even correct about many of my political, philosophical, and other intellectual views because I think over all of these positions intensively before I make a decision about which position or philosophy to take.
As far as the matter at hand, many of my Delphi rumors have been proven correct, mostly correct, or somewhat correct over the years. When Leigh Kerr came out with his leaks from case documents, many of my haters on Reddit kept remarking at how similar Leaker’s shocking leaks were to and how closely they resembled many of the things I had been saying for years. Well, of course. It’s always like that. The thing is these same people who said so much of what I said was proven right are now saying I have no credibility and I’ve never been right about anything. See how people are?
I recently had a long relationship – mostly just a friendship – with a young woman aged 27-28. She was 30 years my junior. One thing she kept saying over and over is how wise I was and how I had so much wisdom. Of course. I have had other young people on the Net who called me “sensei.”
I am currently the chosen mentor of a few young men in their 20’s, though I don’t mentor them enough. They chose me as their mentor. And I have heard that there are young women whom I am a mentor to, all in their 20’s. They say I’m their hero, idol, or mentor. A man in India recently wrote me and said his father, a very learned man, read my stuff and said that it was most wise and correct view of life he’d ever read in 60 years.
I attracted a huge legion of haters that grew and grew as I got more and more famous, well, Net-famous anyway. Related to this website and the articles I wrote, I have had three offers to be on TV and one offer to be in a documentary movie in Canada. One of the shows that wanted me on was Inside Edition. Yes, Inside Edition invited me on their show. All of you haters out there – how many of you have been offered to appear on the famous TV show Inside Edition? Not one of you.
I’ve been interviewed once on real radio and several times on Net radio, often for a full hour. These have ceased because the politics of the site and mine have drifted apart.
I can’t believe how many well-known people are familiar with this website. I recently had an offer to interview a TV-famous talking head pundit who has been on TV, the radio, and podcasts many times. He has written a few books proving that Republicans have been stealing our elections with voting machines for decades. He asked the name of my site and I told him and he said, “Oh yes! Great website! I’ve read it.” What? What? This famous guy who writes books and goes on TV reads my website? But he wasn’t the first.
I don’t know it requires to be a “professional freelance journalist,” but I would say that anyone with a BA in Journalism who has a blog qualifies. See here on Rational Wiki, where the excellent authors of this website refer to me as a freelance journalist.
Possibly the earliest reference to an “alternative left” comes from the blog of freelance journalist Robert A. Lindsay in August 2015. Lindsay, describing some on the far-left moving away from identity and social justice politics and moving towards focusing more on Economic Populism, proposed the alt-left as a “mirror” of the alt-right and described it as left-wing on economics and right-wing on social issues.
In general the “Alt-Left” could be considered more radical than the “Realist Left”, being to their right on social issues and to their left on most everything else.
It has also been said that I am not a “legitimate” journalist. Look. I graduated from J-School. If you’re doing journalism, you’re a journalist. Julius Stryker was a journalist, an ugly one yet still legitimate. He was hanged for his journalism. Der Strumer was a magazine, a legitimate magazine.
There are no legitimate and illegitimate journalists, newspapers, or magazines. There are only journalists, newspapers and magazines. If they exist they are legitimate.
Really all bloggers who are writing about topical events are journalists. Are they professionals? I have no idea, but some of the better ones may as well be. It really doesn’t matter whether a journalist is paid or not. Does it matter whether an artist’s work sells or not? Does it matter whether a musicians is in an actual money-making band. Does it matter if a writer’s work is published or unpublished? Not really. Plenty of great artists who never sell their stuff or make a nickel off of it.
Also I have published numerous pieces for money in magazines and small local papers. I have even published short fiction in literary magazines. In addition, I recently published a chapter in an academic book on Linguistics published out of a university in Turkey. It took me five years to write it. I had to make it through two peer reviews with the top names in the field and it passed. So, yes, I am a published author.
I also write for peer reviewed academic journals. In addition, I have refereed for a journal. That means serving on the peer review board. The field I published in is Linguistics.
Yes, I was an assistant editor of a large magazine for a while, but that was 40 years ago.
My enemies trash my writing skills but the general opinion is that I am very good. They’ve been saying this since I was seven years old, believe it or not. I started a novel at age nine. In particular, I do not see many grammatical or spelling errors in my work. This is another accusation. My writing has better punctuation and spelling that most people I write to on the Net.
Since my enemies insist that I am seriously mentally ill, I may as well come clean. I’ve been diagnosed probably ~30 times over the years by clinical psychologists and psychiatrists. It is true that I do have a mental disorder, and I do take psychiatric medication for it. Not that there’s any shame in that, despite what my enemies think. I have been diagnosed with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, which is an anxiety disorder. Most people with OCD are not crazy and do not appear crazy. Maybe a bit distracted. Maybe a little nervous like most anxiety disorder types. Most people I meet don’t treat me like I’m nuts. I don’t say weird things or engage in strange behavior. I’m the most normal guy around.
Furthermore, I’m pretty shy, so I don’t even talk much, and when I do, I have a very soft voice. If you meet me, I look like this brainy nerd soft spoken intellectual college professor guy with preppy clothes. Some people from the Net – my fans – came out to meet me and they were shocked at how introverted I was. I pretty seem like this nicest guy you’ll ever meet. This is of course the complete opposite of how my enemies describe me. If you told people who know me all the crazy stuff my enemies say about me, they would probably fall over laughing because I’m not anything like that.
I do not have any personality disorder on Axis 2. My personality is healthy. I don’t have any issues with sociopathy. I’m not narcissistic at all, but I do have high self-esteem, which is not the same thing.
I generally do not have any serious mood disorder, but I do feel a bit down a lot. I doubt it meets criteria for anything. I don’t suffer from mania.
I don’t have any psychotic disorder and I never have. I’ve never been psychotic for a day in my life.
Perhaps my writing rambles a bit. Who knows? A lot of us writers ramble on. It’s not pathological and it’s not even a sign of bad writing. Read James Joyce, Virginia Woolf, Thomas Wolfe, or William Burroughs some time. Some of the greatest authors of all “rambled.” We ramble because we write too much. That’s why they have these people called editors. Because most of us serious writers ramble and go on and on and write forever, as in way too much. Editors exist to cut the typical good writers prose down to size.
I’ve already stated many times that I never made up a lie one time on here. I am a professional, and this is a violation of professional ethics.
Many critics think it’s ridiculous that I get access to good sources, official documents, including confidential sources with important people who give information that is secret or supposed to be under wraps. I was trained to do this. I know how to interview and how to acquire, cultivate and keep sources around. I know how to get secret and official documents that are supposed to be confidential.
I talk to people all the time who tell me they will get in trouble if it gets out that they talked to me. I honor strict confidentiality and will do anything to protect my sources. So, yeah, I do know how to get “inside sources,” “special sources,” etc. I’m trained to do that. I’m sort of an investigative reporter because I specialize stories where a lot of the information is supposed to be secret. I’ve also broken some pretty huge stories that even caught the attention of documentary film makers.
In addition, I founded a brand new political movement, so I am a political activist. At one time this movement had 18,000 members on Facebook groups. It’s a movement with its own carefully thought out political philosophy with position statements, manifestos, etc. A political scientist, a professor at a university in Poland, found out about my movement and wrote a couple of articles about it for political science journals. So it was important enough to get written up in the journals.
I don’t appreciate the standard SJW and Gay Politics trope that homophobes are all homosexuals. I’ve met many homophobes in my life, and it was correlated with extreme expressions of masculinity as in hypermasculinity or toxic masculinity, if you will. It’s also associated with straight men who are successful with women. In other words, it’s associated with hypermasculinity, including being a player, etc. It’s just reinforcing the fact that they are hypermasculine by attacking gay men to show how masculine they are.
I’ve never met a homophobe in my life who was actually gay. I’ve been unfortunate enough to know many closeted gay men in my life, and while most of them are unbelievably fucked in the head, I’ve never met one who was a homophobe.
The most viciously homophobic societies on Earth such as Jamaica where up 90% of the population think gay men should be killed actually have very low rates of male homosexuality, whereas according to this theory, 90% of men in Jamaica should be a gay. It’s not true. My father was a homophobe. According to this theory, he was a screaming queen. Going back even to the 19th Century and long before, the vast majority of men were extremely homophobic. Sodomy was often punished by prison or execution. Oscar Wilde went to prison. Alan Turing got castrated. According this theory, men from 19th Century to far back in time were a homosexuals. It’s ridiculous.
All men who are biologically gay or bisexual should be respected in that because they were probably born or at least got wired up that way, so it’s not their fault. You going to beat up people with cystic fibrosis? How about dwarves? No one is responsible for any biological condition they are born with and can’t be changed. On that basis, gay men must be accepted and even loved and supported in the sense that we want the best lives for them just as we want for everyone else.
On this site, we don’t like men who are voluntarily engaging in gay sex just to be groovy or perverted or whatever. And yeah, I might call them anti-gay slurs. Why are they doing this? They don’t have to. Nothing is forcing them to be this way. They’re just choosing to engage in this behavior that we think is disgusting. They could stop anytime they want. On the other hand, I don’t want to attack these guys too much because society is full of stupid straight men having gay sex for all sorts of weird and ridiculous reasons. They’re everywhere. I’ve even had some friends who took that idiotic route.
On here, we use faggots to mean straight men “who are not men.” They’re with the feminists. I’m not really talking about gay men. I don’t think a gay man would have reported my tweet unless he was an SJW. Most of the use of that word and similar words is to describe SJW straight men, to attack their masculinity and say they’re not men.
Straight men use anti-gay slurs towards other straight men all the time. Those men are often male feminists and SJW’s are the enemies of the men, especially the real men, and so we are attempting to humiliate them, attack their masculinity and say they’re not men in an effort to shame them and get them to quit being our enemies. This site is anti-SJW, not particularly anti-gay.
Straight men also use anti-gay slurs to describe straight men who are pathologically unmasculine. We also call them pussies, wusses, little bitches, women, girls, girlymen, etc. We don’t use those words towards gay men. We use them towards straight men in order to police masculinity, which I believe is correct. Straight men should be shamed over grotesquely anti-masculine behavior by other straight men. They should be called names to attack their masculinity. Maybe they will come to their senses and man up.
For instance there is a #metoo movement right now that is attacking straight men by saying that flirting with women is harassment, dating is sexual assault, and sex is rape. This is all coming out of feminism, and it is part of war on straight men. A bunch of pussy straight men are lining up with the women in that war. They are our enemies. In general, gay men don’t care what we do sexually with women, being libertines themselves. I really doubt if most gay men are trying to get us fired for talking to, flirting with, dating, and having sex with women. They’re mostly on our side in this issue. As sexual degenerates, they’re mostly of the opinion that it’s ok for straight men to be sexual degenerates too.
For instance, we call Starbucks Fagbucks not so much because it is all that gay, though there are some gays working there, including some most idiotic and obnoxious ones who are basically SJW’s. Mostly it is because Starbucks has gone insane on feminist SJWism and #metoo crap. They are banning men from stores for looking at women! They are banning men for trying to talk to men in a completely nonsexual manner, as in just saying hi or talking about the weather. They’re basically banning straight men’s expressions of sexual behavior towards men. We would call them “homos” for doing that.
So we call it Fagbucks to shame them. Any man trying to prevent straight men from having sex is a “fag” because it’s “gay” to try to stop us from getting with women.
Keep in mind that most times you see anti-gay epithets on here that they are directed mostly at straight men and at gay men only to the extent that they are SJW’s. Mostly we are not referring to gay men at all – just our SJW straight male enemies.
I try not to use fag and faggot and anti-gay slurs on here towards gay men because I think it is a bit shameful, and I don’t want to hurt gay men’s feelings by attacking them just for being gay. They can’t help being gay so we should not attack them on that basis. Granted, all straight men hate male homosexuality, the idea that they themselves or their friends being that way, and gay sex itself, but we should not be attacking gay men just for being gay because it’s not something they could control, and it’s not their fault.
If I ever use anti-gay slurs, it will just be towards some particularly unpleasant gay men or to over the top public expressions of male homosexuality, as in I might say, “faggoty gay pride parades” because I think those parades are gross and disgusting outrages. Gay men are not gross and disgusting outrages, but those parades sure are.
I apologize to the feelings of any gay men reading on here, but when you see an anti-gay slur on there, keep in mind that I’m attacking feminist and SJW straight men who are waging war on their brothers. It’s part of a tactic to attack their masculinity for attacking brothers and basically going over to our enemies.
This post has now been updated. See here for the April 4 update. It’s even crazier than this update!
This post is very long. It runs to 29 pages. I’m sorry but I’m afflicted with both graphomania and logorrhea (same thing). We writers love to write and once we get started, we just can’t quit, like any other addiction to dope, gambling, sex, porn, or whatever. Except you never get the peak high, and there’s no post-high crash. The high continues the whole time, and there’s relief when you’re done as in an accomplished chore instead of a crash. Sort of, “I’m sure glad that’s over.” We love it yet it’s a chore. Kind of like, you know, life.
You just can’t stop. Supposedly writing too much is a sign of a lousy writer, but then we must convict Balzac and Dickens, not to mention encyclopedists like Pynchon and the king of the graphomaniacs, Proust. I’d rather not do that.
It’s not so much the sign of a lousy writer as the sign of a writer, as in a born writer, a real writer. Just as there are men and real men, so there are writers and real writers.
Obviously it’s a flaw. It’s violates White’s Manual of Style (Keep it simple, stupid) and a lot of other things, including the reader’s precious time. But all great things come with flaws just as there is a bit of good in even most horrors.
Anyway, what do you think editors are for? To mop up our Niagra of words, that’s what.
A bit here on my ever-growing army of haters. I’ve met some new folks lately, and they all say, “You know, I heard all these horrible things about you, but I wasn’t sure if they were true. Now that I contacted you, I know it’s all garbage. You’re like the nicest guy in the world.” Well, yeah. The obvious conclusion of someone who really knows me. Which is like…just about no one.
Anyway, haters, oh haters! If you hate me so much, why do you read? I don’t get it. I don’t read people I hate. I might use their prose for toilet paper or lining bird cages, but I certainly won’t read it. I have better things to do, like enjoying life instead of hating it like you do. If you hate me that much, just go away. Don’t read. Unless you’re someone to whom hate is as valuable as oxygen. In that case, do come and get your fix.
One more thing. Nothing the haters ever said about me is true except that I’m broke, don’t have a regular job, and at one point my car broke down and I didn’t have the money to fix it. None of the sexual proclivities or obsessions they say I have are true. I don’t mind people who think that way, but it’s not for me, sorry. Once again, anyone who really knows me figures this out. Which, once again, is like, just about nobody.
How bout one more one more thing, just to try your patience? There’s a lot of graphic commentary below, including gruesome descriptions of the brutal murders of two young teenage girls. True crime is a nasty beast by its nature. There’s no way to pretty up this pig. If your true crime commentary isn’t brutal, you’re avoiding the facts. If you have a sensitive stomach about such things, just don’t read. Go read about flowers or something instead.
Oh, one more two more things. There are are blown up and edited to Hell images below taken from a helicopter hovering over the crime scene. In the images, some can make out the outlines of the two young victims. Not much is visible. They may as well be stick figures. Nevertheless, a lot of tender folks freak out on such things. So don’t look at them. Have a cup of coffee and think of sunshine and smiles instead.
Oh and one more three things. I would like to officially thank “Cory Ahlm” and “Ryan Vanslooten,” whoever the Hell they are, assuming they even exist in the first place, two of my very best friends going so far back I can’t even remember when we first met. They’ve been with me from the start and the start of this case, and I couldn’t have done anything without them. I could barely have existed without them! Speaking of which, I wish I was in California! The weather here is fit for Polar Bears and few else. By the way, I’ve heard of doppelgangers, but who ever thought there could be a double doppelganger? Only in the movies!
This will be a follow-on to my earlier post here. Anything published in the early post that has not changed will not be republished here. Only new items and old items that have changed will be listed here.
First of all, about the purpose of this website. The purpose of this site has simply been a clearinghouse for rumors about the Delphi Murders on Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi, Indiana, on February 13, 2017. That’s all we ever wrote. It’s true we were fast and loose with some of those rumors, reporting them as truth, and that is unfortunate. But that’s how it goes in this business.
So every time you hear people bashing the Hell out of this site for something we printed, keep in mind that that was just some rumor we heard and printed. That’s all it ever was. Of course, we have been trying to winnow the rumors down into those we have more confidence and less confidence in from the very start, but that’s easier said than done.
I would estimate that 95% of the rumors I have printed about this case have proven to be false. In fact, 95% of anything you have heard about this case anywhere over time is probably false.
I suppose I should go over some of these old dead rumors because idiots keep accusing us of pushing these theories. Now, when I say a rumor is considered dead, not credible, false, not true, etc., please leave me alone and quit accusing me of pushing an old story I’ve long since discredited. I will start with dead rumors or highly dubious rumors. After I do that, I will discuss rumors that have more credibility.
Dead or Highly Dubious Rumors
The barn theory: Has to do with the Mears barn across the street from Ron Logan’s house. We have a photo of cadaver dogs searching the barn. Also there was a small shrine with flowers inside the structure. And the owners acted very strange when we asked if the barn had been used in the crime. The barn theory is continuing to be pushed by a woman who says the girls were removed from the area, taken to the barn, killed there, and then returned to the dump site. Despite all of this, we regard the barn story as dead.
The initial K was carved in trees at the crime scene. We got this secondhand from a LE source. Turns out it was a bad rumor. As you can see, LE sources are not so reliable.
The White Dodge Dart: We formerly thought this had something to do with the crime. Turns out it was a great big dead end, one of many in this case. A white Dodge Dart is not involved in the case.
The crime had Satanic overtones. Indeed, we theorized this in the early days after the crime. In part it was due to bizarre reports from people who saw crime scene photos that the crime appeared to have occult or Satanic overtones. We now feel that this is false. There is no evidence of occult or Satanic overtones to this crime.
A previous report said that Abby was raped via PIV sex and fluids were left at the scene. This rumor is now judged false. The rumor also stated that the motive of the crime was the rape of Abby Williams. This is also false.
A previous report stated that the girls were bound with ropes around their backs. We judge that false. Instead, we believe that they were handcuffed.
A previous report said that the crime scene “begins in the Robertson’s backyard and continues for 1,000 feet.” We regard this as unconfirmed to say the least. Probably best disregarded for now.
A previous report said that at least two searchers touched the bodies and one tried to revive the girls with mouth to mouth resuscitation. We now regard this rumor as probably false and unconfirmed to say the least. There’s no evidence for it at the moment.
A previous report said that the cause of death of Abby Williams was a knife wound to the heart. We now judge this as rumor as false. Instead, we feel, via Leaker, that Abby was struck over the head with a blunt object (we believe it was the killer’s gun). She was also stabbed in the main artery of her neck. It is not known which assault was fatal.
A previous report said that some sort of bleach or toilet bowl cleaner was thrown on the girls’ bodies, in particular their genitalia, in order to destroy DNA evidence of the crime. This is rumor is unconfirmed.
Our POI: We had a sleuthing group with 200 members. I had a POI and I built quite a large case against him. In fact, LE contacted us and asked us to send them everything we had on this man. In addition, the Indiana State Police were verified as harassing this man at one point by repeatedly calling him on the phone. I know the name of the detective who was doing that, too. In addition, this man was a suspect according to the FBI, who tricked him into coming up to Michigan, only to detain and get a DNA sample from him.
As you can see this man was a considered a suspect by both the FBI and the ISP, so please stop accusing us of harassing him. We never published his name one time over the years, and I will not do it now. I won’t even publish his initials. We had a private pay-only group where we discussed him, but that was it. That’s like talking about someone within the confines of a private home. This man also made a series of videos where he seemed to be confessing to being the Bridge Guy (the UNSUB in the murders). In addition, he seemed to be taunting LE and viewers in these videos. Excuse me for suspecting that a guy who making videos almost literally confessing to being BG might actually be the killer!
This man is not a very nice person, but I no longer feel that he had anything to do with this crime. His quasi-confessions go down on the list of false confessions in this case. Counting hazy cases like this, I count four false confessions so far.
I would apologize to him for falsely accusing him behind closed doors, but he threatened to murder me many times, so I’ll pass on that. In cases like these, possible suspects who seem like good possibilities for being the culprit are often run through the ringer, only to be dismissed. They’re often pretty suspicious people. I’d appreciate it if people would leave this fellow alone. He’s not very pleasant anyway.
Rumors That Have More Credibility
The girls’ bodies were violated with sticks and branches. We have caught Hell and high water for this one, however, this rumor has some staying power.
It showed up quickly within a week of the murders when a local young man published photos of the crime scene that he had somehow obtained. He described the murders as “occult-like” and wondered if there was an occult or Satanic connection. He described a branch plunged into the body of one of the girls.
Next, we received confirmation of this via an associate of a detective working on the case. He had told his SO details about the case, and we got the data from there. This person said the detective had told them that the girls’ bodies were violated with sticks and branches, in particular, that sticks had been inserted into the girls’ vaginas and anuses. That sounds pretty awful but this is one terrible crime.
Finally, a woman came to me and apologized. She said she had been mad at me for spreading this rumor but she had recently been able to confirm its truth via a detective in another area of LE who had seen crime scene photos. This man added that Abby had a branch plunged into her body just below her solar plexus in her chest. So far we have three verfications of this rumor, two from people who saw crime scene photos and two from LE with some overlap. Nevertheless, we still regard this rumor as unconfirmed though definitely possible with the two LE confirmations.
And the more you learn about this crime, believe me, the more you would not be surprised at the cruelty and bizarreness of abusing these girls’ bodies in this way because that seemed to be a major focus on the crime – violating, dishonoring, shaming, and debasing these girls with cruelty and contempt and then posing them in a degrading and humiliating manner. In addition, the killer’s behavior a few hours after the crime was another taunt and a cruel dancing on these girls’ graves after their deaths. This is one Hell of a dark crime.
One girl was pregnant: This has been a rumor from the very first weeks after the crime. The same woman above also apologized for being mad at me over this rumor. However, she told me that she was able to confirm this rumor via a sheriff’s deputy in nearby county. Nevertheless, I suppose it remains formally unverified, and keep in mind some of our LE sources have told us false things. The rumor is that one girl was in the very early stages of pregnancy. We are not going to say which girl it was. Based on the recent verification we got from LE, we regard as it quite possibly true, but it would be nice to get some more confirmation.
A longstanding rumor is that Libby German was killed by a deep knife cut to her neck. This was recently confirmed by a new source named Leaker, who I regard as credible. Apparently his wife accessed documents relating to the case at her job at the courthouse. I have also verified this sad fact via the girl’s own mother who saw the wound. This rumor is 100% confirmed.
A previous report said that Libby was attacked with a gut knife in her abdomen, resulting in a partial disembowelment of this poor girl. If this wound took place, it was after she was dead. A gut knife is one of the knives that would be present in that deer kit (a deer hunter’s kit containing five knives) that BG has around his waist. Partial verification of this is in the form of reports of detectives going around to local hardware stores in the weeks after the murders asking if anyone had bought a gut knife recently.
Presumably one of the wounds to the girl(s) was via this sort of a knife. On the other hand there is a new rumor that a gut knife was left at the scene. This man also lists a number of items the killer left at the scene that stretches credulity. Leaving a gut knife at the scene is unverified and seems quite dubious. A knife with no DNA? That the girl was attacked in this terrible manner is also completely unconfirmed. However, detectives definitely feel that a gut knife was used in this crime.
New Information from Leigh Kerr (Leaker)
Quite a bit of new information came out a few weeks ago via an appearance by a man named Leaker, identified above. He is a pastor who lives in Lafayette. His access to investigation documents is described above. Leaker was extremely controversial, yet for a variety of reasons, I regard him as credible. He gave us a lot of new information, much of which may be correct. Keep in mind that both local LE and FBI have commented on Leaker’s remarks, saying that nothing he said was true. But that is to be expected.
Leaker says that there is a prime suspect in the case. Based on the facts laid out, he can only mean a Delphi resident, recently moved to Monticello, who I will call Mr. X. I could use his initials but that doesn’t seem right. This man is either the prime suspect or Leaker is trying to frame him, one or the other. I think he’s the prime suspect.
According to Leaker, Mr. X was involved in the search party. At some point during the searching, he claimed to have lost his keys. His truck was parked overnight, hidden in the cemetery right above where the girls were found. It was still there the next day when the cemetery was full of police vehicles. This is because Mr. X lost his keys at some point. I believe he claims to have lost his keys while searching. Although Mr. X claims that he called his wife to come bring an extra set of car keys, his truck stayed there overnight and into the next day, which seems odd. On the afternoon after the bodies were found, Mr. X’s truck was towed.
At 6 PM, Mr. X asked permission to search Ron Logan’s land. Permission was granted. This request can be linked to the truck hidden at the cemetery as this is where he obviously was parked when he made this request, however, we do not know when the truck arrived there. Mr. X then searched Logan’s land. Although it was dusk, it would seem to be hard to miss the girls right below where his truck was parked.
Mr. X was back searching in the area on Logan’s land at 12:30 PM February 14. He and 1-3 other persons spotted the girls bodies. There is a rumor that Mr. X looked through his binoculars, spotted a deer, and then looked down and saw the girls. This seems credible to me although some say that LE just made this up as a ruse. The searchers did not come very close to the bodies. Who all found the bodies is still quite up in the air. After he found the bodies, there is a rumor that Mr. X was so traumatized that he ran from the scene. He then needed psychotherapy for some time after discovering the bodies. Both of those behaviors seem pretty over the top, even for such a gruesome crime.
Mr. X is the prime suspect for a variety of reasons. For one, there was a small change in his story.
Leaker said, in shocking news, that Mr. X’s phone was pinging at the abandoned Child Protective Services (CPS) building for several hours around the time of the murders. It is the opinion of LE that the killer parked at the CPS building while he committed his crimes. There vehicle may have been a truck. A persistent yet unconfirmed rumor is that it was a white truck. However, Mr. X’s truck is orange. LE would like very much to speak for anyone who spotted that truck at the CPS building during that time to contact LE. If the truck can be linked to Mr. X, an arrest will be possible.
Mr. X does not have a good excuse for his phone pinging at the CPS building for hours. However, cellphone data is generally not admissible in court, and anyway, Mr. X can always say that he was elsewhere and his phone just happened to be pinging at the CPS building looking for a signal, so this evidence cannot be used in court. However, it is suspicious to say the very least. If Mr. X’s truck was not there the whole time, it is possible that he left his phone at the building for several hours while he committed the crime. That way his phone could not be tracked to the crime scene.
Leaker says that Mr. X had an alibi, a friend of his. This friend says he saw Mr. X elsewhere in town around the time of the murders. LE was unable to break Mr. X’s alibi via his friend. It is considered to be a solid alibi in terms of taking the case to court. Unfortunately, this friend is has since died. This complicates the case immeasurably.
According to Leaker, the only DNA on the girls’ bodies is from Kelsi, Libby’s sister. Kelsi has been cleared. Mr. X’s DNA is in the area, but he was part of the search team that discovered the bodies, so it’s not usable. Assuming he did it, see how he contaminated the scene by finding the bodies?
Leaker also said that there were religious aspects to the murders. Although the exact nature of these aspects is unknown, a rumor that a crucifix was left at the site seems credible.
Leaker also said that the girls’ bodies were posed in a sexual tableau. This seems to be correct. More on that below.
A previous report said that the killer took photos or video of the crime and sent it to Abby’s phone after the murders. This is correct, and I have additional evidence that will prove this.
A previous report noted, in stunning news, that the killer had known Libby for 3-4 months before the murders via social media. According to Leaker, this is correct. The killer contacted Libby on social media using the “catfish” of a young man aged 19. Libby had gotten smitten with this young man and wanted to meet him. The catfish appears to have been the killer himself. Leaker says the second sketch is a sketch of the catfish photo that the killer used to lure Libby on Snapchat where she was catfished. One of Libby’s friends had seen a photo of the catfish, and her description of it is what the second sketch is based on.
At the start of this case, LE said “be careful of what your kids are doing on social media.” The usual idiots who have swarmed this case from Day One have insisted all this time that that means nothing. However, we have been reporting for some time on here that the girls may have been catfished via social media. In fact, we were ripped up pretty severely for promoting that theory. As with so many aspects of this case, a number of the “wild, outrageous, and offensive stories” we were reporting on here from the start are turning out to be true. It’s no surprise to me. I’m a professional journalist. I have a BA in Journalism. I worked as an assistant editor of a magazine. This is one of my professions.
According to Leaker, LE feels that Libby may have posted on Snapchat that she was going to the bridge that day. We reported in a previous post that the trip was not a last minute decision, and instead, adults were discussing it in local bars on Friday night. We have been saying all along that the killer must have known the girls were going to be there that day, and he came quite amply prepared to commit this specific crime. The crime may have been plotted for four months prior to carrying it out. You can see how BG was loaded up with all that murder equipment. He’d obviously planned this out in advance.
Of course, we have been bashed for this too, and an absolutely insane theory that fails all logic tests that the killer came to the bridge that day looking to kill any victim that he might happen to spot there has been suggested in its stead. This theory fails so badly on logic alone that it’s amazing how much traction it got.
Too many people on this case seem to be afflicted with a disorder called Pathological Doubting Disorder. They have pathologically doubted everything and anything that anyone ever said about this crime. They beat their fists on the table endlessly that only verified information, not rumors, must be discussed. The problem here is that LE hasn’t told us a damned thing. If we were restricted to merely discussing what has been verified by LE, there’d be nothing to talk about. We’d all be sitting around talking about the weather instead.
Leaker also said that if the catfish can be connected to Mr. X, an arrest will be possible.
However, this will be hard to do. All attempts to find the killer’s IP addresses or texts or photos of the catfish on Snapchat have come up empty for whatever reason.
According to Leaker, Mr. X has completely cooperated with the investigation. At the time of the crime, Mr. X lived two miles from the crime scene.
Leaker also said that the crime was committed in a ravine that is hard to see from most angles. It may also be sheltered sound-wise too.
Leaker said there is more audio on Libby’s phone, but it is so garbled and hard to hear that LE did not feel it would be useful to the general public. However, Leaker said that LE cleaned the audio up and transcribed it as best as they could. BG accosted the girls and appears to have pulled his gun on them.
In brand new information, apparently one of the trail cams at the south end of the bridge where the abduction took place had been disabled. LE feels it was disabled prior to the crime. So BG came to the south end of the bridge before the crime occurred and disabled the camera. Once again, we see forward planning for this crime.
According to Leaker, after BG accosted the girls, he said he was a police officer and they were trespassing on private property (they were not). He said he had spotted them with his binoculars and had come to arrest them. I can now confirm that BG did have binoculars. BG then handcuffed the girls and said, “Down the hill.” The girls pleaded with him to let them go, that they are sorry and they won’t do it again, etc. but he told them they are under arrest.
Jesus Christ, this case is sad! Just thinking about that scenario with those girls pleading to be let go breaks my heart!
At the bottom of the hill, Libby’s shoe was found by searchers. To me this implies that she tried to run. How else does she lose her shoe?
What follows, according to the families of the girls who LE played the tape for, is six minutes of garbled conversation in which the girls and BG are talking as they walk through the woods, the sound of the forest floor crunching beneath their feet. At the six minute mark, BG and the girls can be heard starting to cross the creek, so the girls were definitely walked across the creek. This has been an odd source of contention. At that point, LE shut off the tape.
Leaker says that the audio continues after the girls crossed the creek and were marched to the kill zone, which appears to have been selected and prepared beforehand due to its visual and auditory seclusion. Next you hear a loud scream followed by a loud thump. This is apparently poor Abby screaming. The thump sound is thought to be BG hitting her over the head with a blunt object. We believe he hit her with the butt end of the handgun you can see in his right hand pocket of his jacket on the BG video. Abby may well have been knocked out cold by this blow.
Leaker concurred that Libby died via a deep knife wound to the throat. He also said that the murder weapon was a hunting knife.
I Was Able to Obtain Official Document(s) Relating to the Case!
And now I can release brand new information! I was able to obtain anywhere from 1-10 documents from the investigation. I am making the claim vague in this way because I have to protect the person I got this data from. They very much do not want it getting out that they were given these document(s). So I have to cover my tracks pretty well here because I don’t want to reveal my sources.
I’m an educated and trained journalist. One of the things we learned in J-school is that you have to protect your sources and value their confidentiality at all costs. We are supposed to go to jail instead of revealing our sources, and some of us have.
Therefore it is disconcerting to see constant accusations of me making up rumors or theories about this crime out of whole cloth. I can’t do that. That’s a gross violation of journalistic ethics, and I’m an ethical journalist. I’m not talking about beating around the bushes of masking facts and truths as I did above with the documents statement. Journalists have lost their careers over doing that, and good luck getting hired again afterwards. It’s as bad as scientific misconduct is for a scientist.
Obviously I’ve been dying to get a hold of official documents about this case for four years now. We did briefly have contacts with a few LE sources, but they didn’t tell us a lot. We had maybe one LE source every two years on this case. So we don’t have any “special sources” about this case as my critics claim. What special sources? What are they talking about?
I assure you that it’s completely legal for the possessor of these document(s) to possess them. That’s all I’m going to say about that.
The document(s) came to me from the owner who lawfully possessed them..
The document(s) came from either LE or from the judicial system or possibly both at the same time. They are signed by official(s).
I was able to learn a number of things about this case from these document(s), some that have been released before, but others that have never been released or even rumored anywhere. I am absolutely certain of the truth of everything I write below based on my belief that these document(s) are authentic.
BG discharged a gun in the course of this crime. Perhaps the most amazing information of all is that this was a gun crime! The gun used was no doubt the one that can be seen in the right jacked pocket of BG. It’s a handgun. After the “guys” in the video, he apparently pulled his gun out and pointed it at the girls. He controlled them with the gun. We have assumed that from the very start of this case. But we never had any idea that a gun was fired during this crime!
We don’t know how the gun was used. We only know that it was discharged. Where, how, and why we don’t know. However, spent cartridges were found by LE, who says they were fired by BG. Did he fire them into the girls’ dead bodies? No idea. How does LE they know that the spent cartridges they found were fired by BG? No idea. But they do have spent cartridges from this crime and they are trying to find the gun used to fire them in order to do ballistics tests on it.
Leaker said that BG had binoculars. He told the girls when he accosted them that he had spotted them trespassing through his binoculars and he decided to come and arrest them. I can now verify Leaker’s statement because the document mentions binoculars. LE is looking for binoculars that were used in the crime.
There is more shocking information that was touched on earlier. I mentioned above that there was a rumor that BG had taken photos and video and had sent them to Abby’s phone after the crime. This rumor was affirmed by Leaker. However, I can now prove this is true because LE is looking for photos, videos, film, cameras, and/or videocameras. Any of those. Video were recorded by BG as he committed this crime. So he videotaped his crime as he committed it. Some people say they can see a Go Pro on BG’s person. We are uncertain about this.
Now how could LE possibly know that BG took video of his crime as he committed it? They can’t. But if he sent some of this video to Abby’s phone after the crime took place, then they know he shot video of the crime. Therefore the rumor that BG sent photos of the crime to Abby’s phone seems to be true.
In addition, the document says that BG recorded 43 seconds of audio, presumably of the crime. No doubt this goes with the video that was shot, the video being of unknown length. We know this because in the documents, LE says they are looking for 43 seconds of audio.
LE is also looking for knives, presumably hunting knives as Leaker averred. The murder weapon in the case was a knife. This was not a gun crime in that a gun was not the murder weapon. That’s not to say the gun was not discharged into the victim(s) after they were deceased. Perhaps it was. We have no idea. But if that was the case, then this is still not a gun crime as the gun was not a homicide weapon. Then all BG is guilty of regarding shooting the gun would be mutilating a corpse.
LE is also looking for blood-soaked clothing. LE feels that this crime was so brutal (in particular the killing of Libby) that BG must have been covered in blood after he murdered that poor girl. The blood spray from such an attack would be serious. So LE is looking for the clothing he wore that day with bloodstains “seen and unseen.” I don’t understand the part about unseen bloodstains, but apparently when you get blood on your clothes, not all of it is visible and some can only be seen with special tools. Ever watched crime shows where they put a chemical on the crime scene that shows bloodstains as bright purple? I suppose they use that to uncover those unseen bloodstains.
Perhaps the most incredible fact in the document is LE stating that BG abducted the girls at precisely 2:13 PM. Why is this important? On what day did this crime occur? On February 13, or 2-13. 2:13 and 2/13. Matches up, get it? Let’s play with this a bit more. He abducted and murdered 2 girls, one of whom was 13 years old. 2-13 again. 2:13, 2/13, and 2-13.
A physician friend of mine who might as well be Dr. Spock, such is his dedication to pure logic, has cast doubt on this connection. He immediately stated, “Coincidence!” (natch) when I told him about the two 2-13’s lining up perfectly.
However, LE thinks these two 2-13’s lining up perfectly was a significant enough event to be mentioned in their documents about the case. So LE thinks that fact that BG abducted those girls at precisely 2:13 in the afternoon is no coincidence.
This is all I have from these document(s). Make of it what you will. Keep in mind that these document(s) went through different people before the came to me.
Owner -> Professional -> Fellow sleuther -> Me.
There are two people between the owner and me. What do I have? I have a photocopy of the document. Could it be faked or forged? Maybe, but the professional would not do something like that. He’s as bound by his professional ethics as I am with mine.
Crime Scene Photos
I was also able to obtain some good crime scene photos for the first time. These have been out for six months now, having first appeared on Youtube in a video. They are from the same media helicopter footage as the crime scene photos we previously released here. They were presumably taken from the part of the footage where you can see many flashes going off in a circle around a location in the woods. Obviously CSI guys photographing the crime scene. These photos have been blown up and enhanced to Hell and back by everyone and their uncle. However, the photos I will discuss today are from this video.
The author is a theoretical physicist. Not that that means much, as kooks roam all fields, and kookery doesn’t discriminate, but I do think that adds weight to his analysis. Talk about logicians. We are talking about field like math where everything you say has to be backed up by formal proof. A fasifiability is a thing, and “not even wrong” is on the tip of everyone’s tongue.
The author claims a number of startling things in this video.
Outlines of the bodies of the two victims. I’ll vouch for that one.
A crucifix. Don’t see it.
A gigantic stuffed animal. No way. I can’t believe how many people believe this. Let’s not even get into the crazy discussion of this stupid stuffed animal and the dolls. That said, many things are possible in true crime, and this is one of them. I’m just not seeing it though. Extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence and all that. God I hate that phrase but there’s a time and place for all things.
Dolls scattered around the scene. Nigga please.
An abandoned bleach bottle. Gong!
Abandoned clothing, in particular a girl’s top. Nah.
Weird messages scrawled all over the scene. I concur that one may be possible, but the rest I can’t see at all.
CSI guys wandering the scene. Nothing but blurs.
Keep in mind that for the above to be true, BG must have constructed this entire Disney World Crime Scene in a mere 45 minutes! Either he has superhuman powers or it didn’t happen. Occam’s forces me to choose the latter. How did he get all these animals and dolls down the crime scene? Come on. This crime’s weird enough as it is without taking things to outright science fiction.
Keep in mind that a lot of people claim they can’t see a damned thing in these photos, including the victims’ bodies, or that they were looking at pixels and graphics software playing games with us. Pareidolia. I hate that word, favorite of scientistic skeptards. But time and place, etc. Even the most abused notions have a proper application.
Leaker said that the girls were “posed in a sexual tableau.” That’s interesting except no one knows what it means.
John Kelly, retired FBI profiler who does excellent work and now makes his living being a media figure, felt in this recent video that the sexual tableau referred to the girls being posed in some sort of a lesbian sex act. He also suggested that BG had a deep obsession with lesbian pornography and that people around him would be aware of this. Assuming the photos below are valid interpretations, the girls are not posed in any obvious lesbian sex act. Perhaps they are posed in a milder, less than obvious one. As you can see, Abby’s hand is close to a “certain part” of Libby’s body. Whether that counts or not I have no idea.
However, assuming the images below are correct, both girls’ legs were spread very wide after they were killed. Libby was nude and Abby was nude from the waist down. That counts as sexual tableau. He did this to humiliate the girls after their deaths. One last Parthian Thrust before he walked away into the woods history. This is the posing part.
I agree with Kelly who says that killers who pose victims (“posers”) are some of the worst ones of all. They’re dark as Hell and they’re at the far end of the psychopathic spectrum. He also said that if he’s a poser, he should have killed again by now because these guys can’t control themselves, a reflection of their extreme pathology. He said that the only reason he hasn’t killed by now is because he’s afraid. Afraid that they’re onto him. Afraid of getting caught. Afraid of that one last knock on the door before the jail bars clang shut.
I have more to say about this crime as usual, but I’ve gone on long enough. More later.
I would like to apologize for the fact that these photos are very small. See if you can enlarge them. I don’t know how to fix this right now.
This term has been grotesquely abused lately, starting with feminists, who equate all prostitution with “trafficking” and then the federal government, which passed a rather silly law 5-10 years against “sex trafficking.” Increasingly what you are seeing in the media is a complete conflation of prostitution and “sex trafficking.”
In particular, anyone pimping minor females is said to be “trafficking” no matter whether there is any coercion at all. Trafficking was originally supposed to mean women who were being essentially enslaved, kept prisoner, held against their will, and forced to prostitute themselves for others. Basically sex slaves. There are a lot of forms of this coerced and imprisoned sort of prostitution in the world, and it is an ugly thing to be sure!
But that silly federal law conflated that with any prostitution of minors. So “sex trafficking” is not just sex slavery but it’s also prostituting of minors. Which seems a bit silly. How are minors being “trafficked” if they are not being held against their will? It’s ridiculous. The crime should be something like Prostituting a Minor, along those lines. Perhaps that’s a serious offense, I have no idea. But it sure isn’t “trafficking.”
Increasingly I have seen articles, many coming out of Texas, about big roundups of “sex traffickers.” They were rounding up 50-60 men at once and the guys looked pretty ordinary. That’s an awful lot of “traffickers” to round up at once. When they do round these guys up, they usually only catch a few at a time as they are hard to catch and not particularly common anyway. So I did some research. It turned out that of those 60 men, only one of them actually trafficked in prostitutes, and even he was just prostituting minors. I have no idea if coercion or imprisonment was involved. The other 59 men were guilty of…get this: buying a teenage prostitute!
Look I’m not saying that buying an underage prostitute should be legal. But you should have to prove that he knew that she was underage or by her appearance, she could not possibly have been 18. The bizarre thing about these laws is that in many states, it is perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16-17 year old girl as long as he does it for free and doesn’t pay her. The minute he gives her some money for her treasures, it’s a crime!
Even knowingly buying an underage prostitute is not “trafficking” in any way, shape, or form. It’s a crime called “Buying a Minor Prostitute.” How in the Hell is buying a whore “trafficking?” It’s absurd.
To tell the truth, many prostitutes with pimps may be being trafficked. That’s because many pimps won’t let the girls in their stables free. They threaten to hunt them down, beat them up, or kill them if they run away from the pimp. Any prostitute in a situation like that with her pimp is indeed being trafficked.
Now buying a teenage prostitute is an odd crime. Minors are not allowed to legally prostitute themselves, but many do it anyway. And 50% of minor female prostitutes are Black. Blacks are only 13% of the population. So there’s massive over-representation of Black teenage girls in minor prostitution. Quite a few of those girls probably have psychopathic tendencies too, or will develop into psychopaths when they are adults because we are not supposed to diagnose psychopathy or any other personality disorder in minors. Fully 45% of adult female prostitutes are psychopaths. Newsflash: whores aren’t very nice women. They not even very nice people.
A lot of them are simply criminals and ripoffs and all sorts of petty thievery and female prostitution go hand and hand. In my opinion, a prostitute and a thief are the same thing. This is what the female psychopath becomes: Histrionic Personality Disorder, the “Mata Hari” or “femme fatale” disorder. Basically what I would call a thieving whore. Many female strippers, porn stars and other sex workers are also female psychopaths or have high scores on the PCL.
Many male porn stars are the same. This was observed as far back as the 1970’s and 80’s. If you look at those old porn movies, look at how mean and evil so many of those male porn stars are. And look at how crass, loud, brassy, and cold the women are. That’s the typical whore personality: hard, cold, brassy, callous, cynical. It looks like a damaged woman. Their emotions look shut down and they’ve gone hard.
Jason: Yeah, the key is self-confidence and leadership ability. Well, there could be some cases where the woman can only find an abusive jerk, the only other option being weak nice guys. I don’t know. However, the dream of a woman would be some nice guy who is strong as you say.
I don’t know. I think 1/3 of women actually like bad men, and they literally want an asshole who is abusive to them. I’ve been dumped by three young women aged 18-20 recently for being too nice and not being mean enough to them. They literally wanted a man who treated them like shit. They were also calling me “sir,” so I think they were way off into that BD/SM shit which is taking the sexual world by storm these days.
As far as the classic advice you get from any man dishing it out about how to get along with women, it’s always “be an asshole,” and “treat them like shit.” This never made any sense to me because women usually took extreme offense to me being a dick to them and that was usually the #1 reason they had for breaking up with me: I had hurt their feelings in some way. Keep in mind that I was a super nice guy back then, so I had always hurt their feelings inadvertently. Which is the easiest thing in the world to do with a woman because every other thing in life hurts their feelings, upsets them, sends to tears or rage, etc.
I think I finally figured it out. They want you to be an asshole to them sometimes. They want you to treat them like shit sometimes. I’ve only done so when they attacked me from a place of evil-mindedness. I think women want to be put in their place. They want you to build a fence around them, sort of like children do. They want to test your limits and see what you will let them get away with.
Kids will try to your limits and see what they can get away with too. They literally want you to build a fence around them and tell them that everything beyond the fence is forbidden. They scream and yell when you do that, but they are secretly happy at you for putting limits on them. Kids think they can’t control themselves, so they want someone else, as in a parent, to put some limits on them.
I think women are much the same. Women always want to see what they can get away with. You let them get away with too much, and they will run rampant on you because they disrespect you for not putting limits on them. Like kids, women think they can’t control themselves; in particular, they think they are at the whim of their emotions which they can’t control very well. Women feel like they are dragged around through life by their emotions like a dog on a leash, the emotions being the leash.
They secretly want to be controlled, just like kids. So you need to put strict limits on women, such as that there are certain things that she just cannot say to you or you will let her have it. She will act furious, but like a kid, she will actually respect you more for putting limits on her and basically putting her in her place. And that respect will come out in the form of intense love for you.
I think the normal 2/3 of women want a decent guy who is a real motherfucker to them when they act bad though. Ever since I started acting that way, I’ve had women fall deeper and crazier in love with me than ever before in my life. They all mentioned that I was “mean,” “psycho,” “dangerous,” “scary,” etc. One even said, “You’re scary, but scary’s hot.”
Keep in mind I did not act that way all the time, only when they were being mean to me to no good goddamn reason. Oh, and I started calling women cunts too. Believe it or not, after I started calling women cunts, I’ve had the wildest, craziest, most over the top love affairs of my life.
The rest of the time, I’m basically a great big pussycat, the nicest guy you’ve ever met. I’ve always been this way. I don’t like to fight.
Also, I took to domming the living Hell out of them in bed for the first time, and that’s also coincided with women falling in love with me deeper than they ever have.
I guess if you want some really evil advice from me, I’d say to cuss her out to the ultimate, and especially to call her a cunt when she’s being evil or mean for no good reason. Diss her out, call her every name in the book. And especially use misogynistic insults. Laugh in their faces when they get mad at you. Keep frame. Don’t get hurt when they insult you. Act like a rock and treat their insults like pathetic, wimpy jokes.
And dom the living Hell out of them in bed.
I wouldn’t threaten her, though I did threaten to kill one woman. Weird thing is that woman loved me more than any woman ever. And she was the only woman I ever threatened to kill!
I especially used gendered insults and specialized in misogynistic insults. I insulted them in the most evil way for being women, told them they were pathetic, that men were superior and women inferior and stupid, that they should behave themselves because ,”You’re talking to a man now, dammit!”
In short I acted pretty bad. Now I am no more of a misogynist than any other man. Which isn’t saying much, granted. I dislike open misogyny and that’s what I have against most PUA’s, MRA’s, and the Manosphere. I love women. I like them a lot more than I like men. So I don’t believe any of that misogynistic crap I rip them to Hell with. I just use it because I know they hate misogynistic insults more than anything else.
If she’s angry at you for a good reason and not out of spite or evil, I would give her a break. I was with one woman for 1.5 years, and I never gave her this treatment. She got mad as Hell at me, but it was all coming from the place of a good heart. If it’s coming from the place of a good heart, I will not give her this treatment. Only if it’s coming from an evil-hearted place.
As far as domming them in bed, I just started doing this. I don’t go full BD/SM at all. Just really aggressive, rough sex, lot of name-calling, etc. But then afterwards I worship her like a princess. Well, not quite but you get the picture. I adore her.
A famous study on childhood sexual abuse was done 20 years ago by Rind et al. I think I still have a copy of it on my desktop here.
It provoked wild outrage. Even the idiotic American Psychological Association denounced it, notable as one of the most anti-scientific statements this anti-scientific organization has ever issued. Even the US Congress got in on the act. The Congress passed a resolution condemning the study! Congressmen, mostly Republicans, stood up and denounced it forcefully.
The problem? The study came up with the wrong answer. In other words, the truth was wrong and society preferred to believe pleasant lies over unpleasant truths, so the paper was condemned for discovering the wrong facts.
Usually when theory and facts do not match up, we say that the theory was wrong and go back to the drawing board.
However, in this case and with all ideological arguments by ideologues and politics types, when the theory and the facts don’t match up, the facts are wrong, and the facts are not the facts! Why? Because the theory is said to be automatically a priori true. The theory must be true. It cannot be false. So the facts must be wrong and we need to change the facts, wipe out the truth, and say that reality isn’t real, instead, what is real is some fantasy world that doesn’t exist.
A number of fake “studies” were undertaken by other behavioral “scientists” taking about the Rind findings and finding fault with this or that conclusion. None of the fake studies denouncing it were worth a hill of beans. That they made it into the journals at all shows that pathetic anti-scientific nature of the social sciences, sadly also including Psychology, which has been trying to become more of a science for a long time now.
But by the very fact that it is a social science means that Psychology will always be a fake science in some ways because its findings have to do with people, and the science of people will always be twisted by politics, ideology, bias, and mostly emotional reaction.
It’s hard to get emotional about a new finding in math or physics. Who cares! But findings in the social sciences are inherently emotional because we are always emotional about ourselves and our fellow humans, and anything people are strongly emotional about will always be tainted by bias, propaganda, politics, and ideology. In other words, lies. This is why the social sciences will always be doomed to the charge of being fake sciences and will always carry the guilty burden of physics envy.
Ritter et al conducted a meta-analysis of a huge number of studies on the effects of childhood sexual abuse on children as adults. Child abuse was mostly defined as sexual abuse below age 13, so sex with teenage girls and boys, a massive minefield, was left out.
The available evidence shows that consensual sex with teenage girls and boys and adults causes little if any damage to teenagers. This behavior is illegal not because it is harmful to the teens, as I doubt that it is. Instead it is outlawed because society’s morals say that members of society do not wish to live in a society where adults are free to have sex with teenagers of various ages.
It’s seen as unsavory, unpleasant, disgusting or revolting, and often morally wrong. But this behavior is not psychologically disordered in any way. This is a moral and legal problem, not a psychological one.
Unfortunately we are now in the midst of a truly insane mass hysteria around the sexuality of teenage girls in which 90% of the population has thrown reason out the window and gone batshit insane, out and out lies are widely believed, and science and facts are no where to be seen.
In fact, the people who quote the science and the facts about this question are attacked as pedophiles! Because I guess only pedophiles believe in science and truth when it comes to this sort of thing. If you don’t want to be called a pedophile, just spout the usual lies about this subject. As long as you keep lying and don’t ever resort to facts, you’re in the clear!
Fact: nothing published in an academic journal has ever produced evidence suggesting that teen/adult relationships are harmful or predatory. Literally not even one. Anthropological and historical studies all over the world have found that such relationships are common in many societies and no harm was reported in any society ever studied.
How do I know this? I’ve studied them. A particularly large one was done out of Germany in the 1950’s. You can find this evil science of banned truths on the Net, though I can’t tell you where to look. The pedo advocate sites have links to it, but I don’t want to send you there. I suspect the motives of those who wrote this study, but the science seems good.
Furthermore, historically speaking, I’ve learned from the Psychohistorian sites that teen/adult relations were normal in most of the world including the West up until 1900. Zero harm was reported.
Sadly, mass molestation of children was also reported in the West from Roman and Greek times until 1900. Under the crowded urban conditions that arose with the onset of capitalism and the Industrial Revolution, where families were packed together in tiny spaces, a great deal of molestation went on. I’m not happy about this at all, but it’s notable that no ill effects were observed in Greece and Rome until the pre-1900 West.
Perhaps the reason for this was that molestation of children was simply an expected fact of life. If you grow up as a female and get molested and all of your woman friends also got molested, it’s seen as a normal thing. There’s usually nothing inherently wrong with this behavior absent physical damage. Things that are normalized in any society tend to cause little if any damage.
I disagree here with some folks like psychohistorians who argue that all sexual abuse of children under any circumstances, normalized or condemned, results in inevitable terrible lifetime damage to the person. They also believe that many other things experienced in childhood cannot but cause horrible lifelong damage.
I doubt if that is true. If you grow up in a society that normalizes this or that behavior, outside of extreme perversion, aggression, and sadism, it’s probably seen as normalized and shrugged off. In other words, the damage of most of these things is relative and depends on the degree to which your society condemns or pathologizes the behavior.
However, for small children, the true victims of child molestation, it is quite different.
Granted, the victims were interviewed when in college so the abuse was a long ways away. Conceivably if they had interviewed them earlier as minors, they would manifested more damage. The findings were shocking:
Rind et al found that the long-term effects of child sexual abuse were typically neither pervasive nor intense, and men reacted much less negatively than women. Ritter et al also found that less than 10% of victims were traumatized. The most common effects were shame, blame, and confusion.
To explicate that further, the effects were shame about having been abused, blame for themselves for allowing it to happen to them, and confusion about the abuse itself.
The confusion may manifest in various ways. A female friend of mine from 10 years ago was molested. Of course she absolutely hates my guts now, but that’s not an unusual reaction for women who get involved with me in some way or another. I’m used to it.
She told me that she was molested by a pedophile in her church group when she was 8 years old. The molester was a young man and he does appear to have been a pedophilic or preferential molester. She told me, “It’s confusing because it feels good but it’s wrong.” This is part of the thinking behind the confusion that kids experience after being abused.
She also told me that she had completely gotten over it by age 50, but she seemed to have gotten over it much before then. I knew two other women (I actually got involved with these two whereas with the other one it was more email and hot phone conversations) of the same age who were sexually abused as girls, one by a probable pedophile and the other by her opportunistic teenage older brother. They both told me that they had gotten over it by age 50 but implied that they had gotten over it much before then.
The shame, blame, and confusion are apparently short-term effects in most victims, and at the very least have dissipated by college age.
The implication is that children or minors may experience those effects for some time in their youth, but these effects mostly go away by adulthood, and there is no lasting damage in almost all (90%) of cases. The study also found that where the molestation was consensual or non-coerced, there was little if any long-term damage. However, when coercion was involved, damage was much more likely and could easily last into adulthood or perhaps an entire lifeftime.
Unfortunately, pedophiles have gotten a hold of the Rind et al study and like to wave it around to try to push for legalization of child/adult sexual relations.
That’s not my intention here. I don’t care if most victims get over it. Good for them. I’m happy that they are not damaged in the long term.
Nevertheless, this behavior still needs to be outlawed because I don’t want to live in a society where adults are allowed to have sex with young children below age 13. I don’t have to have a reason. I just don’t like it. That’s all the reason I need.
Repost from the old site. This is a great old article from the old days.
In reference to the title, I was working as a linguist/anthropologist, when one day this new woman from New York came to work for us. She was a bitch from Day One. She knew it all, and boy did she! She was pissed, and after a bit, I figured it out. She’d slaved her butt off to get a college degree, and here she was, slaving as a secretary. What a failure.
She was a vegetarian, and when I told her I ate meat, she gave me these dagger eyes and said pointedly, “I know. All meat-eaters smell terrible to us vegans.” It went on and on like that with her for some time.
Being an introvert and pretty much of a puss at work (I call this the “office puss” role that men who work in offices must play), I kept on smiling and sucking up to her and trying to be nice. Whenever anyone’s mean to us, we introverts usually figure we fucked up and that’s why they are properly treating us with the contempt, scorn, coldness or indifference we deserve. So I kept trying to act better, and she kept being a bitch.
One day she came to me all apologetic and baffled. “I don’t know what’s wrong?” she shook her head sadly. Turned out I wasn’t the only recipient of her bitch-rays. The whole office was.
“The boss told me that I’m not being nice to people, but I just can’t see it. I think I’m nice to everyone but she says everyone says I’m mean. None of this makes any sense to me.”
I’d already figured her out long ago. She was a headstrong, independent type. Within a few weeks of moving from New York to California, she had herself a decent guy and had already moved him in. Good work. Boy, women have it so tough. They can get laid anytime they want. I’m crying so hard for them now I can barely type.
She had the “got it together” mindset that tended to look down on 90% of the population as fuckups. It’s true that I’m a huge fuckup but you don’t need to say it over and over. Look. I get it. I know I’m a fuckup. I heard you the 98,681th time. I don’t need to be reminded of it all the livelong day.
And one thing you need to know about angry people is that 95% of the time, 95% of angry people deny their anger and general shittiness, especially when they are beating up on weaker people, which all angry ever people do anyway. I’m not sure what the psychological mechanism is, but I think it’s important to know this. Ever heard an angry person say, “I’m an asshole but I just can’t stop. I need Assholes Anonymous”? Of course not.
Anyway, she came from New York and brought her New York Bitch attitude with her. Back there, it’s normal. I guess they say, “Have a nice day” the same way we say, “Fuck you.”
She was here to apologize to me for being a bitch, on bosses’ orders under penalty of being fired if not done, though she had done nothing. Would I accept her apology? Sure. Was she being a bitch?
“Well, yeah, she was, I nodded.”
Then I started to explain.
I sat down on the curb with her.
“This is how you do it. You need to start faking your feelings.”
I asked her how she felt about her boss and her co-workers.
I think she hated the boss, but I’m not sure about the co-workers. I’m not sure how she answered that. She liked me just fine even though she treated me like shit, but only for the love of God she just could not not see it.
“Look. The boss pisses me off too. And some of these co-workers really piss me off. But I’m not sure if they know it. What do I do? I disguise my feelings.
“Here is what you do. Go ahead and feel any way you want about your boss and co-workers, but adjust your feelings when you have to actually deal with them.
“Say you have to go talk to the boss. Forget that you hate her. Walk into the room, smile and act like you love her. Don’t fake it, because that shows. Actually brainwash yourself into thinking she really is the greatest boss in the world and believe it as hard as you can.
“Then after you walk out the door, mutter under your breath what a bitch she is. This is what you do. You play roles all the time. I usually don’t show people my true feelings, and I’m always putting on some kind of show or other.”
She was dumbstruck.
“You actually do this? How long have you been doing this?”
“Oh, ten years at least, maybe even longer.”
Then she started in about how this was awful, as it was not genuine and honest. It was lying. This was horrible and dishonest and probably even ought to be illegal. Anyway, it was immoral. In New York, everyone wears the heart on sleeve, and that’s why they are all so ornery. But at least they are moral.
This thing I was arguing, it was so…Californian! To put on a mask, lie to everyone all the time, always fake it, never be real, etc..
“Well,” I suggested. “What good is being honest when it gets you fired?”
She did agree that I had a point.
“Look,” I said. “Another thing you can do is save it up. All day long, no matter how much you hate the boss, every time you think of her, think of how actually you really love her and she is the greatest boss on Earth.”
“At 5:03 PM, as you are pulling onto the highway to drive home, you may begin cursing the evil boss. If need be, you may curse, swear, and pound upholstery all the way home. But the next day at work, you put all that away, and stride smiling into the office to work for the greatest boss on Earth again.”
She acted like this was really evil, but I suggested it was better than getting your ass fired. She nodded humbly. She asked me if I did this at work. All the time, I assured her.
Then she went on her way.
Every time she saw me after that, she was always smiling at me, but she had this weird look on her face like she was looking at me trying to figure out what I really thought of her or what in God’s name was going on in my head.
It’s the way you look at some weird object when you can’t figure out what the heck it is, turning it over, poking around at it, putting it up close and then far away, showing it around.
I was a Goddamned walking enigma, what do you know?
I’d given her the evil secret of lying your life away, but you had to admit, at least it kept her ass off the curb.
Jason writes: Women shouldn’t like this stuff. Nonetheless, they always have a desire for men who aren’t “too nice”. In that case, it’s advised to play “hard to get” a lot. Well, the other option is actually becoming a sadist – lol.
You know how many women, especially young women aged 18-20, have dumped me recently for being too nice to them? A number of them did.
They literally wanted to be treated like crap and not just in bed but outside of it too. I don’t mind rough sex and I can be pretty dominant and dom a woman pretty hard. I’m just really aggressive with them. But it’s all just a big game. When it’s over, I love or like her as much as ever. I love women. I like them far more than men. I like and love the women I am with. I don’t want to hate them and treat them like crap. If I like or love her, why do I want to hate her? It’s perverse and bizarre. If you like or love people, you don’t’ abuse them and treat them like crap.
You know how many women literally want to be with a man who hates them and treats them like crap? A lot! Could be up to 1/3.
Forget that. And like I said, I don’t mind rough sex at all. It’s just I can’t take it all the way into the hardcore BD/SM stuff because that scene is literally the ultimate in sicko stuff. All the men are sick and evil, and all the women are hopeless, pathetic, have low self-esteem, and absolutely hate themselves. There’s no way you can have any kind of love or even “like” in a relationship like that.
Sure, maybe the woman gets hooked into the guy and worships him. But he feels nothing but contempt for her. And most of them take it to 24/7 total power exchange Dom/Sub stuff, which to me is totally sick and weird.
What I have heard is that all women coming out of these relationships after 5+ years seem to have been harmed. The damage to them looks exactly like the damage to a battered women, and a lot of them Stockholm their doms just like battered women Stockholm their abusers. The relationships themselves look exactly like a classic abusive relationship, except the women like it! It’s a consensual abusive relationship.
If you’re into this stuff as a woman, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re crazy.
For the men, number one, you’re sick, and number two, you’re evil.
The guys are not that screwed up. They’re just assholes. A lot of men love being assholes. Look how many men are abusive in their relationships and with their kids.
Men are naturally sadistic at least a bit, and women are naturally masochistic at least a bit. Think of the sex act itself. Of course you can do a lot of sex acts in a very slow, tender, sweet, kind, and loving way, but that’s not how it goes a lot of the time.
A lot of the time, he’s being a bit sadistic and she’s being a bit masochistic. He’s pounding away at her in an aggressive or even violent way, and she’s just laying there while some maniac pounds away at her insides. That’s degrading right there!
In that sense, think a lot of even normal sex is degrading to women. It almost has to be. That’s why so many women like this sort of thing. Not only do most women want to be dominated in bed, but you would be shocked at how many women love gross disgusting, degrading and humiliating sex acts and behavior. I admit I do name-calling. And those are degrading terms that I use with them.
Many women react to degradation, humiliation, and grossness by going absolutely insane horny out of their minds, multi-orgasmic, cum drunk, in another world, forget their own names, won’t remember 90% of it, and are so horny they will do just about anything, you name it.
Of course there are women who dislike this type of sex. I’ve met them.
But there a lot of others who do not! Man, you have no idea. If we are talking about women who like degrading and humiliating name-calling and disgusting behavior and therefore consequently liking being degraded and humiliated to some extent per se, then you would be literally blown away by how many women love to be treated like that.
From 18 year old girls to 52 year women, that’s my experience. I didn’t meet that many JB’s like this when I was young enough to be having sex with them from 16-21, so I don’t know how common this is in 13-17 year old girls, who are absolutely sexual beings in the full sense that any woman is. Anyway, I was way too vanilla back then. But even way back then, a lot of the girls acted like a wild animal in a cage.
But grown women? Hell yeah. From waitresses to heiresses, so many of them love it, though I’ve never been with an heiress yet.
Problem is once you give men permission to act sadistically in bed, a lot of them are going to love it and take that ball and run as far as they can with it. And maybe get carried away. I would advise women to not encourage this behavior in their men too much. You’re playing with a lit firecracker.
With this sort of behavior, as the sadism increases, so does the excitement in the male. It’s almost a blood lust, probably genetic. But who knows how nutty he’ll get? I think a fair amount of these women murdered in bed by their partners or dates are a consequence of letting this sort of sex get out of control. The guy may have not even set out to kill her. He just got wrapped up in the moment, kept getting more excited and consequently sadistic in a feedback loop and lost control of himself.
Have you heard of predators that go into a “killing frenzy?” Bobcats can do it. My neighbor told me once that a friend of his raised ducks. There was a huge commotion one night. He didn’t know what it was but he didn’t check. He got up early. At 6 AM, there was a bobcat sleeping in his duck pen and 19 dead ducks. The bobcat hardly ate any of them. He just went into a “killing frenzy.” Large pet dogs can do it too, especially to chickens and ducks. They don’t even eat them. They just kill them. And tear them apart too.
This exact same mechanism you see in the bobcat can happen to us men if we don’t watch this sadistic part ourselves from boyhood like a hawk if and when you let it out to play. You better keep him on a tight leash.
I sure as Hell do. You don’t even want know what my inner maniac wants to do or at least what I think it wants to do because I think it mostly operates subconsciously. But he’s been locked up in a cage deep inside me for most of my adulthood. And that’s where he’s staying! I have done much harm to innocent people in my life as a result. I will get into a fight if you hit me. I killed a man, or at least I tried to kill him once at age 17.
That makes me sound like a maniac, but you must understand that he and his psycho friends were trying to kill my friend and I. Sometimes in life it comes down to kill or be killed. And you better choose kill. You try to kill, injure the person so badly they can’t get up and chase you, or knock him out cold. And then you flee as fast as you can. If you don’t disable the guy, permanently or temporarily, he’s liable to chase you. And a lot of people can run faster than you do.
I’ve already had 3-4 men try to murder me so far in life, and I’m not even a wild person. But I have a wild side, I love parties and nightclubs and even dangerous scenes. Men are simply dangerous as Hell. Women go on and on about men killing women. Fine.
But 80% of the people men kill are other men. Women get off easy. Most of us men have been in serious fights with other men. Some men were beat up regularly as boys. Many others have been victims of violent crime as adults. I know I was a victim of a serious violent crime once. I was kidnapped (a hitchhiker took control of my car), threatened with death, beaten, had beer thrown at me, and sexually assaulted (Well, he grabbed my penis). He also threw my car into reverse when it was going 55 mph. I somehow got him out of my car but even then he was pounding at the windows trying to get back in. I never even went to the police.
I was a serious mental wreck for about three weeks. I was a student teacher at the time. Then it just went away and I haven’t felt much about it since. God knows how it’s effected me subconsciously though. But we men tend to get over things. Maybe too fast. How? We bury it. Suppress it or better yet repress it. Most men are dormant volcanoes due to all the bad feelings of terror and rage they’ve been stuffing away their whole lives.
This sexual sadism is dangerous stuff if you are a man. I’d advise extreme caution. You’re playing with fire. If you don’t put a leash on this sort of thing, you can end up with an injured or even dead woman, or a serious legal problem, arrest, possible jail or prison, and a lifetime of guilt.
We, especially we men, need to control our lusts. Sexual lusts, avarice, blood lusts, lusts for drugs and food, all of them. We are wired to be gluttons, but gluttony doesn’t work. It tends to be a short trip to a grave. Life is about, possibly more than anything else, controlling that damned wild animal, that predatory mammal, that raging terrified beast, inside of us.