Yes, Jews were influential in all of these movements at the start. But they’ve all gone mainstream now and there are not a lot of Jews to be seen. I get the feeling that once a movement loses its subversive “shock the Gentiles” character, the Jews get bored and take off for greener pastures.
Jews aren’t the source of all of White people’s problems. Every Jew in the US could go to Israel tomorrow and anti-White politics and the rest of the Cultural Left would keep chugging right along because racism against Whites has simply gone mainstream. A lot of non-Whites are drinking this Kool-Aid and there are plenty of self-hating Whites out there flagellating themselves.
For instance, let’s look at modern antiracism, especially Critical Race Theory, which is what almost all modern antiracism is anymore. CRT didn’t get cooked up by a bunch of Jews. Actually it came from intellectual Blacks, particularly Derrick Bell in the 1970’s, a Black legal scholar. Almost all of the big names in CRT nowadays are Blacks or other non-Whites. The few Whites seem to be Gentiles.White-hating doesn’t need Jews anymore. It’s on automatic.
Same with feminism, gay rights, trans rights, hatred of the West, worship of non-Whites and the rest of the loony Cultural Left. None of these things need Jews to keep going anymore. America’s Jews could all go to the moon and this sort of thing would keep chugging right along.
Feminist man-hatred has gone mainstream. There aren’t even many Jewish feminists at the top anymore.
Gays don’t need Jews to push a radical gay agenda. There aren’t even that many Jews at the top ranks of Gay Identity Politics (IP). There are just a bunch of homosexuals pushing a homosexual project, exactly as you might expect.
Trans IP gets called a Jewish project because a few rich Jews such as the Pritzkers fund it to some extent. On the other hand, this has also gone mainstream and even more disgustingly, a huge corporate capitalist Trans Industry consisting of sleazy pharmaceutical companies, surgeons, hospitals, and clinics doling out hormonal toxins and mutilating the bodies of anyone dumb enough to avail themselves of one of their hospital beds. Trans IP is now the Trans Industry, as capitalist as the tobacco industry and about as sleazy.
This is a mistake of crazy antisemites. Where the problem is capitalist corporate sleazeballs of any ethnicity, the crazy antisemite just sees a bunch of Jews. The antisemite says we don’t have capitalism in the US. Instead we have “some Jewed up bullshit.” Get rid of the Jews and Gentile capitalism will be all warm and fuzzy and nice. It will even cuddle up with when you go to sleep and lick your face lovingly.
This is folly! Ok, let’s try an experiment. Let’s let all of the US Jews take off for the moon. You think US capitalists will suddenly turn into nice people?
I’ve got some news for you. Jewish capitalists are capitalists. Gentile capitalists are capitalists. Capitalists of both groups act like…get this…capitalists! Isn’t that shocking?
Nevertheless, this has gone on automatic and it doesn’t need Jews anymore either. Jews aren’t any more tranny or gay than non-Jews.
Porn doesn’t need Jews either. Ever checked out Japanese porn? Not a Jew in sight. Swedish, Danish, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Turkish, Greek, Dutch, Spanish, French, Russian, Ukrainian, Czech, German, Colombian, Mexican, and Argentine porn is being pushed by…people of those ethnicities! Isn’t that surprising? Not a bunch of Jews. Probably not a Jew in sight in any of those national porn industries. British porn seems to be run by British Gentiles last time I checked.
Gentile men are just as perverted, sick, and twisted sexually as Jewish men. We’re not choirboys and Jewish men don’t have a patent on depravity. Gentile men are men. Jewish men are men. They act like…get this…men! Amazing, huh?
And in case you are wondering, yes, I have seen national commercial porn from all of those countries.
Think about it. Suppose all the Jews in the US moved to the moon tomorrow. Do you have the slightest doubt that Gentile perverted men wouldn’t continue to run the porn industry? And the porn industry is full of Gentiles too.
The Jewish era of porn was in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Yes, there were many Jewish directors, actors, and actresses back then. Yes, there are still some Jewish directors. There are a few Jewish actors and actresses, but frankly their numbers are quite small. I can only think of one male and one female Jewish porn star. Jews were in porn when it was dissident and subversive. Once it went mainstream, I assume they got bored of it as it doesn’t give that “shock the Gentiles” kick anymore.
The 1970’s was also the Italian or Sicilian era of porn. If you watch one of those old porn movies, you see a bunch of Italian names on the credits at the end. Obviously the mafia was running the porn industry back then.
This was previously posted as a page, whereas it is just a post, so I am reposting it.
Polar Bear: I’ve been called creepy by a women that really liked me or want to sleep with me. Creepy or creeper is thrown around freely by young women nowadays. In day to day casual encounters I believe it’s better to look good than be rich.
Homely rich men seem to swear by prostitutes, college girls that would see them as creepy in the streets. Blue collar, older, and homely you’ll be labeled a creep more for sure. I’ve heard women say, “He looks like a pedophile” about the same type. I’m getting by on faded but still above average looks. Western women need to be less superficial.
LOL what about poor, older, and good-looking? Women say I look better than 90% of men my age. I’m basically a creeper I guess, though I haven’t been called it in a long time. Young women absolutely do not want to talk to me at all, no fuckin’ way, man. Whether they think I’m a creeper or not, I have no idea. Some of them absolutely do not like me though. I would venture to say that they hate me, and I consider them to be my enemies. I’ve wised up and I don’t talk to young women anymore unless they give me some sort of a reason, which happens about never.
I’d say any man viewed as “unattractive” for whatever reason – money, age, job title, looks, or weird, awkward or geeky/nerdy behavior is automatically labeled creepy.
All creepy means in bullshit woman-speak (and most things women say that we men don’t say are definitely bullshit) is “an unattractive man who shows sexual interest in me.” I’d venture I’m not creepy at all, but the minute they think I’m paying attention to them, looking at them, etc., I’d imagine that could well be what they think of me.
After age 30, women somehow miraculously grow a brain where none existed before. Don’t ask me how they do it! Perhaps it’s divine intervention. Who knows? But they get a lot more sensible about this stuff. Women over 30 are unlikely to call you creepy.
Men shouldn’t call other men creepy at all unless the guy is seriously out of line. Men! Do not call other men creepy unless they seriously deserve it! When you do that, you sound like a pathetic Normie faggot! Don’t do it!
When you do that, you go over to the other side. This is basically a War. The War of the Sexes*. In the War of the Sexes, as a man, you choose the side of the men. Men who don’t are faggots, sissies, girls, wimps, girlymen, cucks, and feminists. They’ve basically defected to the enemy, and they need to be treated as the traitors they are.
I’ve noticed that gay men or faggoty or wimpy guys of unknown sexual orientation are truly horrendous as far as this goes. I have had them literally try to stop me from talking to young women. One time a young woman smiled and wanted to serve me and this faggy idiot (sexual orientation unknown except he’s a huge pussy) got in front of her and totally cockblocked me. Sometimes I have a word or two with a young woman and he acts completely outraged. If he doesn’t stop, I swear this cuck is going to get hit.
I don’t mind gay men, but when they start cockblocking us in front of women, they can just fuck off or get hit. Generally the more wimpy and pussy the man is, the more feminist he is, the more he talks about sexual harassment, rape culture, toxic masculinity, and other bullshit, and the more he cockblocks you in front of women and white-knights (to save them from the predators!) and acts as Captain Save-a-Ho for women.
Any ideas on why gay men white knight for women, cockblock us men, and are totally feminist cucks? Gay men should be for the men. One thing I really appreciate about gay men is that they really really love us men. They’re worth keeping around for that reason alone.
Men, do not do this! If you’re a pussy or not a very masculine guy and you feel comfortable that way, please don’t go over to the enemy! Fuck that. The only brothers you have in this world are the men. We’re the only people who will ever have your back. Masculine or feminine, pussy or macho, gay or straight, none of it matters as long as you with the boys, and there’s one rule and one rule alone for all:
Bros before hos!
*Men and women want different things in life and hence they are always at odds in a sense. So in a sense they are our enemies and we are their enemies. This is true even if you completely love the opposite sex. Some women go over the side of us men, and generally, those are the best women of all. I don’t blame women for being on the side in opposition to us men. They’re probably just wired up that way naturally and it might be hard to get out of that programming.
I don’t think they’re going out of their way to be evil bitches and scream harassment, assault and rape anytime a man so much as looks at them. That behavior is probably biological, but Clown World and in particular, America or Cuckistan has gone way overboard with female thinking in this regard.
Generally a world where women get everything they want is bad for us men. Probably a world where we men get everything we want is bad for women. Maybe that’s what a patriarchy is. Both sexes have opposing needs and wants and giving either sex carte blanche to impose their “Imperative” won’t work because each sex will end up fucking over the opposite sex when their agenda is maximally fulfilled.
The needs of men and women need to be balanced in any decent society. How to do just that is frankly a never-ending battle, The Battle of the Sexes as it were. The Battle of the Sexes is probably a normal feature of most societies like Class War is normal under capitalism.
Old post but still getting comments, so it may as well get a repost. Plus I just reread it and it’s really cool!
Minorities Who Let Go of Their Identity Politics Seem Happier
I’ve known Blacks who chucked Black Identity Politics and said, “I love White people!” There’s a whole sex kink out there like that for Black women who love White men. I’ve met many Black women with this sex kink. There are Black men who think Whites are the bomb. I’ve met a lot of these folks. They admire Whites. They try to act like Whites. They see them as models of behavior.
And if you’re Black and you love White people, most Whites will let down their guard. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I compared them to Blacks locked into Black Identity Politics, and the Black Identity Politics people seemed much less happy. They were locked into a war. Racism was everywhere, fogging up their glasses, giving them scratchy throats, and causing rashes on their arms. They were living in enemy territory every day.
Gays who dropped gay politics were a lot more relaxed. Gays locked into gay Identity Politics always had their dukes up, surrounded by homophobes, getting in fistfights every day. Gay Identity Politics is a scary place. There’s a gay-basher hiding in every bush. It’s enough to drive you nuts.
IP Is Counterintuitive: The More Their Demands Get Met, the Angrier and Unhappier They Become
All IP people are angry. They’re getting a raw deal! And paranoid. All IP people are locked into war with some binary “enemy identity.” Whites are the bad guys. Men are the enemy. The enemy is keeping us down!
With all IP, curiously, the more the groups realize their goals, first, they keep moving the goalposts, insisting its not enough and inventing new demands, and oddly enough, they get even more pissed off!
Remember the Second Liberation of Blacks in 1964? How did Blacks react to the greatest freedom from shackles since the First Liberation in 1863? For the next half decade, they rampaged though America’s cities with deadly riots, killing people, fighting cops and firemen, getting themselves killed, and most stupidly, burning their own hood, and then complaining their living in the embers of the ash heap. I’ve got a theory about why this curiosity exists. It actually makes complete sense.
I’ll give you a clue? Though they were in shackles, the source of all of their misery was not to be found in the shackles. A lot of it was but a lot of it wasn’t. So the shackles came off and they looked around, and they still weren’t equals. They felt ripped off by a shapeshifting enemy and exploded with frustrated rage. And it continues to today.
As racism declines with each year, Blacks continue to have their usual Black problems. Their ideology tells them that their problems are all caused by racism, so if their problems persist even after all these years of work, racism must truly be insidious, evil, and even possibly mysterious and invisible. Solution: Double down on the anti-racism and Black IP to defeat this racist monster once and for all!
We liberated women, and they still had most of the same old woman problems. Liberation didn’t fix their troubles, so obviously they didn’t do it hard enough. So they double down.
We liberated gays, but of course they’re still all screwed up. They’re far nuttier than straights. Both sexes of homosexuals live 18-20 years less than straights. All of the problems of gay men (Remember Boys in the Band?) remain. All of the problems of lesbians (Remember The Well of Sadness?) remain. All the wars of homophobia didn’t work. What to do? Double down on the anti-homophobia campaigns.
Post from several months ago is still getting comments, so I decided to repost it. I reread and it good God is it vicious! That means it’s perfect for this site, which is about tackling all taboos and pissing off as many people as possible in the process!
Problem? Nobody raped anyone and Virginia (The Liar) Giuffre never got raped one time.
I suppose you could argue that Andrew may have committed statutory rape, but that’s not rape at all. Instead it’s simply illegal intercourse.
Second problem? Virginia Giuffre is a whore. A lowdown, lying, scamming prostitute of the lowest variety, lower even than most disgusting whores, and that’s pretty low.
Giuffre decided at age 17 that her goal in life was to be a whore! That’s right, a prostitute. Such a noble calling. She somehow got in with Epstein and Maxwell’s blackmail ring, and she was basically offered a job working as a little teenie whore for Epstein’s Mossad spying blackmail ring. Of course, since her life dream was to be a lowly prostitute, she jumped at the chance.
Epstein et al were soon pimping her out to famous people, except it’s hard to call it pimping because they let her keep all the money.
The one famous incident with Prince Andrew occurred in the Virgin Islands. Giuffre was paid a measly $15,000 to have sex (excuse me, to get raaaaaaped) by Andrew. She reportedly had lots of fun screwing the guy, since by all accounts she was a little teen nympho slut.
Problem? 17 year old Virginia was not underage! She was legal in the Virgin Islands, perfectly legal fresh teen pussy.
Now we move on to the other fake charges.
Turns out she had sex with Andrew several more times in New York, Florida, New Mexico and the UK.
Problem? 17 year old Virginia was perfectly legal teen snatch in New York, New Mexico, and the UK. No rape. No statutory rape. No any kind of rape, except in her ditzy teen whore brain.
Now, moving on to Florida, we do have another matter. If she had sex with Andrew in Florida, she would have been underage, because the Age of Consent there is 18. But notice she was legal and of age in four different states or countries and illegal and underage in only one state? Big deal! That’s barely even a crime.
Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl is a garbage crime anyway. 17 year old girls are perfectly legal to fuck anyone they want to, even a 90 year old man, in most of the world. They’re only illegal in a few backwards places like Florida.
It’s perfectly reasonable to set an AOC at 16 or 17. Most of the world has it at ~16. Most of Europe has it at 15! There have been absolutely zero problems reported in any of these places by setting the AOC at 15-17.
Now, setting an AOC at 15 is sketchy in the US because we are too backwards, puritanical, and weird to handle that low of an AOC. Europeans, being civilized, can cope with, it but Americans are uncivilized backwards boors and sex-hating super-prudes, so we can’t deal.
However, there is an argument for making a Romeo and Juliet clause for 15 year old girls. In many states they are legal for men up to 18 or 19. Colorado is particularly reasonable in this regard, as 15 year old girls are legal for men up to age 24. I dated a lot of 15 year old girls as a boy and for few years into adulthood. They’re horny as Hell and from the point of view of a young man 18-21, they seem quite mature, about as mature as you are.
Now the problem is that wherever you put that AOC, men are going to start fucking those girls. Put it at 17? Men will fuck 17 year old girls. Put it at 16? Men will screw 16 year old girls. Put it at 15? Men will gleefully bonk 15 year old girls.
And if you put it at 13 or 14, men will jump on 13 and 14 year old girls. I’m not entirely comfortable with that, though sex with 14 year old girls and 18-21 year old men doesn’t bother me. The thing about this sort of sex is it seems a lot more ok when the man is very young because after all, college boys and young men have been screwing high school girls forever. It’s so natural it’s almost set in stone. But as the man gets older than, say, 25, a lot of people start getting a lot less comfortable with it for all sorts of reasons. And as he gets older and older, it gets less and less ok. This is fine with me and I understand people’s distaste for this sort of thing.
I’d like to keep the 13 and 14 year old girls illegal for most adults, though we definitely need a Romeo and Juliet clause for both of them. I’m not sure where to put the limits though.
I met some 14 year old girls at the store a while back. They were fooling around like teenagers. I looked at them real close and I thought, “You know what? These girls need to be protected from us men. And even more so, we men need to be protected from those girls!” We both need to be protected from each other. A good way to do that is with an AOC law because most men beyond age ~21 will start to seriously think twice about underage girls, and men significantly older than that will avoid them as if they’re radioactive. Which they are, in a sense. Teenage girls are dangerous!
I think 13-15 year old girls ought to be legal for boys 13-17 though at the very least. We really need to stop putting kids in jail and on sex offender lists for having sex with each other. Guess what? Teenagers have a sex drive, often a raging one. And many, many of them engage in sexual behaviors and even have intercourse before age 18. It’s as common as dirt.
Now we do run into problems with Andrew and Giuffre due to the fact that Giuffre was more than just a teen slut. In fact, she was an out an out real thing teenage prostitute! What a noble, morally elevated female!
Now the problem is that in most of the US at least, it was perfectly legal to screw Giuffre for free, but automagically, one you pay her, you’ve committed a crime. You can screw them all you want, but you just can’t pay them for it! I sort of like this law. We should extend to all women, not just the teenies. It sure would save us men an awful lot of money!
Now, buying a teenage prostitute under age 18 is illegal in the US. It doesn’t strike me as much of a crime because there are many enthusiastic schoolgirl prostitutes. But I don’t see how you make it legal either. Make it a misdemeanor. Instead, it’s a serious crime and worse that, it’s somehow or other sex trafficking!
Now sex trafficking is a completely abused term once the US Justice Department got a hold of it after Congress made a retarded law in the midst of a Sex Panic. Sex trafficking used to be pretty serious. It meant more or less sex slaves. These women are out and out sex slaves, being imprisoned or locked into service by evil pimps, mostly men. A lot are literally locked in and can’t escape while they are ordered to have sex with man after man.
It’s really gross and it’s a very serious crime. And the truth is that most pimping probably is trafficking. If the prostitutes are free to leave the pimp, it’s not, but when are they ever free to leave? Not real often. Pimps threaten to harm, hurt, or kill any prostitute who leaves their harem, so most prostitutes with pimps feel locked into them. Obviously, pimps are one of the dirtiest aspects of this dirty business.
However! The Justice Department decided to somehow include all underage teen prostitutes under the rubric of “trafficking,” which is quite dubious. I don’t mind a crime called Prostituting a Minor, but it sure as hell isn’t “trafficking.” Even worse, any man who patronizes an underage teen prostitute is himself somehow guilty of trafficking! You paid this 17 year old whore for sex, did the deed, and walked out. Turns out you just committed an act of sex trafficking! That’s absolutely ridiculous, but that’s the crazy new law.
As expected, the feminists took the ball, ran away with it, and were never seen again. The feminists have somehow decided that not only are sex slaves and teeny prostitutes being “trafficked,” but in fact, every single woman who is engaged in prostitution is engaged in sex trafficking! More properly, since feminists insist that women have no agency, they are “being trafficked (by others, basically men).”
Notice how when feminists talk, women never have any agency? That means that they’re basically children and not responsible for any of their actions. Women never do anything. Everything that happens to a woman is not because she did it because I guess she can’t do anything, but instead it got done to her by someone else (typically an evil man).
I would say that according to this silly logic, prostitutes in business for themselves, which is lots of them, are apparently trafficking themselves! But feminists logically say this is not possible, and I agree. Instead they are argue that prostitutes in business for themselves are being trafficked by the male customers who purchase their services! So every time a man buys a whore, he’s “trafficking” her. Ridiculous, huh?
So it appears that the morally upright Ms. Giuffre, now older, wiser, and probably a lot less horny, was never raped even one time, ever. Statutory rape doesn’t count. It’s a bit hard to argue that she was being trafficked, but Maxwell and Epstein caught her trying to leave them a couple of times and brought her back and threatened her. Ok, now they’re trafficking her, so she was trafficked some of the time.
Giuffre was working very profitably for as a prostitute for the rich and famous from ages 17-23. So for most of her career, from ages 18-23, she was an adult, a grown woman. Giuffre claims that during this entire time, she was being “sexually abused” or “abused.” She never had real sex the whole time. Instead she had some weird abuse masquerading as sex. Are you sure you didn’t like it, Ms. Giuffre? A lot of women like that sort of thing, you know.
“Sexual abuse” is a term that has been tortured, raped, and murdered by sex-panicked morons for a very long time now. It used to refer to child molestation, which involves adults and children under 13. From 13-17, depending on the laws, there is no sexual abuse. There’s just statutory rape or illegal intercourse. It’s not possibly to sexually abuse a teenage girl and you certainly cannot abuse a grown woman because no matter how infantile her silly little brain is, she’s still an adult, at least chronologically. Sexual abuse literally means child molestation and I don’t mind referring to child molestation and sexual abuse. It’s a logical way to see it.
Somehow now teenage girls with ravenous, nymphomaniacal sex drives get “sexually abused” a good part of the time when they have sex, even when it’s consensual. In other words, the term for child molesting got inflated by dumbshits all the way to teenage girls and from there all the way to so-called adult women, assuming there even are any in an emotional sense.
It’s bullshit. It’s nonsense.
Poor Virginia suffered through the horrific ordeal of getting paid $15,000 to fuck a hot, sexy older man. It boggles the mind. No doubt this indignity was inflicted on the poor virginal Virginia endless times. How did she ever recover from getting paid $15K to get laid by some hot dude? Obviously, she’s a survivor. How she survived such a horror is simply beyond me.
Poor girl! Girls are crying! Poor Virginia! Virginia is crying! Poor women! Women are crying!
She never got sexually abused even one time except in her tiny little pea brain. And of course she never got raped even one time except in the fever dreams of her mind. Now she may well have been trafficked.
Virginia, I will take time out for abusing your sorry ass here to tell you that I am very sorry that these low lifes basically imprisoned you as a sex slave. I really am truly sorry.
And I hope whatever damage this may have caused you – and it may well have done so – you are able to get over it and move it. I’m sorry you got taken back and threatened when you tried to run away. At that point, Epstein and Maxwell were trafficking you. That’s a serious crime, and I hope you can make peace with it, and I mean that with all my heart, dear.
Now that I am done addressing Ms. Giuffre, back to the story.
95% of Virginian Giuffre’s story is a pathetic joke. It’s not even true. She’s just another silly bitch trying to milk us men for everything we’ve got like so many of her sisters. I hope she decides to do something more productive and dignified with her life than act like a baby, be a permanent victim, and make a living scamming men.
At most Andrew is guilty of statutory rape if he indeed had sex with her in Florida. Statutory rape of a 17 year old girl (and a high-flying, globetrotting, high priced call girl at that!) by a 40 year old man is pretty much a joke of a charge. He definitely didn’t rape or abuse her. The sex was 100% consensual and she got $$$$paid $15,000 for suffering through this horrifying rape and abuse.
The rape and abuse was so horrendous that she called up her friends and bragged to them about how she just had sex with Prince Andrew! Later on, she wrote a book about what a blast it had been to be a $$$$high-priced, globe-trotting call girl to the rich and famous. Throughout the book she talks about what a blast it was to live this $$$$$lifestyle.
Then comes the Epstein affair and she and the other little whores (because that is exactly what they were – teenybopper whores) decided that they had all been raaaaaaaaaaped and abuuuuuuuused and cried all the way to courthouse hoping to $$$$cash in on payouts of $$$$$$tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars for all the raaaaape and abuuuuuuse they suffered.
The rape and abuse was so horrible that many of them went back to be raaaaped and abuuuuuused over 40 different times! To give handjobs for $$$$$400 a shot! How traumatizing! Poor babies! In fact, it was so horrible that most of them went out and recruited a bunch of their little whore girlfriends to get raaaaaaped and abuuuuuuused via handjob for $$$$$400 a shot.
Just a bunch of lying, scamming, crybaby whores trying to $$$cash in and get their $$$$tens or hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars from this guy’s estate. It’s all a gigantic $$$scam.
Great music. I had heard of her way back in 1976 when she was with the Runaways, an all-teenage girl band. I met their ex-manager once and he told me that all four of the girls were bisexual. I’m not surprised. Quite a few women are like that. She was one of the first punk rockers. And I mean she was a real punk rocker. She’s also a lesbian, apparently a true blue biological one. I first heard of this in 1981 when I was dating a woman named Janet and she told me, “She likes girls.” That had always been the rumor anyway.
She refuses to comment on it, but she’s never been married or linked to a man. I read an interview with a guy from the Avengers who was living with her in Sweden for a while. He said they would both go out to bars and pick up women and bring them home to have sex with them! At a recent concert, the front rows were filled with lesbian or bisexual women wearing “Wett for Jett” t-shirts. I’ve heard that she has a lot of female groupies who act about like groupies do with male bands. And I’ve heard that she has sex with the hottest groupies all the time. She gets hot women! I don’t care if she’s lez, and it’s obvious she got wired up that way. I think she grew up in LA. Lakewood if I am not mistaken.
This is pretty much my theme song too. I’ve had a bad reputation forever, and apparently I still do. What do I have to say about this bad reputation? See this middle finger here? Ok, you got the message. I’d like to say I’m understood, but who knows? Maybe I’m a scum after all, right? Anyway, I might as well just embrace it and call myself a Scumfuc like GG Allin called himself. Fuck it, man. They’re never going to quit saying terrible things about me. It’s hopeless to fight it. I’m going to have a terrible reputation for the rest of my life. If you can’t beat em, join em!
Polar Bear: Bowie and Jagger rumored to have slept together. Strange to a seasoned rockstar or porn star would take a lot. Kinkiness can snowball. The gay-acting PUA guy I saw seemed more into his PUA bros. How into pussy can a truly gay man be? They’d have to be bi or possibly emotionally gay.
This whole idea of “gay womanizers” is pretty nutty, but there have been a few. A few very handsome gay men screwed a bunch of women as teenagers and young adults until they figured out that they were truly gay. I really don’t understand how that works. If you see some guy who has a reputation as a player or a womanizer and he’s screwing half the chicks in town, generally speaking the last thing on Earth he is is gay. In fact, guys like that are the extreme, ultimate contradiction of homosexuality. They are the Antigay to gays as the Anti-Christ is the absolute contradiction of Christ and God.
Gay men are not into pussy at all. At all. Zero, zip, zilch, nada, nothing. There’s literally nothing there. If they are truly gay, just forget it. They have no sexual interest in women. They never look at women. They never talk about women. They never fantasize about women.
And they certainly never fantasize and masturbate about women. In the lab, they typically score “Maximum homosexual, minimal heterosexual.” I guess there’s a bit of a reaction, but it’s barely enough to reach statistical significance. Straight men typically score Maximum Heterosexual, minimal heterosexual. I think they do react to men but only at a very low level, maybe 10% of max.
I just read an article about this by Raymond Blanchard, Seto and Freund, along with comments by Michael Bailey. All are considered some of the top sexologists in the world.
The article asked why non-pedophilic men molested little girls. The hypothesis was that they had a significant though lesser attraction to them such that they used them as a substitute for mature women.
Also for age, straight men
Females 15+: Maximum arousal
Pubescent girls 12-14: 73% of maximum
Prepubescent girls 2-11 48% of maximum
Men both boys and men: 10% of maximum (barely reaches significance).
50% of men who molest little girls are not pedophiles at all. They’re just like the rest of us. The question is why do they do it? You can see from the studies above that men do react to pubescent and even little girls at a fairly significant level ranging from 1/2-3/4 of max. The best theory out there and the one posited in the paper is that these men molest little girls as a substitute for women.
Sort of like, “What would you rather eat? A steak or a hamburger?” A steak’s probably twice as good, but if there’s a hamburger around and you’re hungry, you’re probably going to eat it anyway, even if it’s not your preference. Normal men are far more attracted to little girls than they are to boys or men, so it’s logical that they might substitute a little girl for a woman. That’s probably what’s going on in a lot of molestation.
Very old post still getting some comments. Interesting post though.
A commenter, apparently a crazy woman, suggests:
Most womanizers are gay or bisexual…don’t believe this B.S.
This commenter must be a woman. This is one of the ways that females get their revenge on the enigma of the womanizer: the only reason he is doing this is because there is some secret homosexual bugbear lurking somewhere in his psyche. The Don Juan is in desperate flight from his latent homosexuality.
I think this crap originally came from psychoanalysis, and the whole concept of latent homosexuality doesn’t make sense. As Otto Weininger would say, homosexuality is one of those A or not-A things. Something one either is or is not. It’s a pair of concepts. All humans, except the asexual, are either homosexual, heterosexual, or some combination of these these things (what we call bisexual). There is no third category. There is no such thing as latent homosexuality. One is either gay, straight, or some combination called bisexual.
Anyway, what a nutty idea! I’ve never met a gay womanizer in my life! How ridiculous can you get? They idea of a gay man sleeping with half the women in town is preposterous. Why? Why would he waste his time?
Are womanizers bisexual? Hard to say.
Most of the ones I’ve known were not, but two of them were, one a very dear friend of mine. He originally was a wild womanizer, one of the most insane I’ve ever known. But he did have a gay side. I know because he used to whistle at me when we were changing to go swim in the pool. Not really whistling as a joke either. Yikes.
Later on, he moved in with this queer in West Hollywood. Then he lost his job. The queer said either put out or get out. Disgusting, huh? I told everyone the fag was a scumbag, and my whole friend circle screamed at me. It’s perfectly acceptable to force a straight guy to screw a fag or else live on the streets!
He came and stayed with me for a while, but then he mysteriously went back. I was up in LA hanging out at nightclubs with him trying to pick up model/actress types, and I went back to his place. I woke up in the middle of the night, and he and the fag were going at it in the next room. Don’t ask me how I knew. I said, “Oh well,” and went back to sleep.
I woke up the next morning, and he was a bit defiant. I temporarily lost a contact lens, and the fag made a fake show of tying to “find it” by putting his hands all over me. Even my friend got in on it. I guess he had come to discover the pleasures of men. I ignored their crap and let them carry on and get their vicarious thrills. Later we found the damned lens.
We had breakfast, and the fag laid some bizarre and ugly psychological trip on me to try to seduce me. Didn’t work.
Later that morning I left, and I said a very warm goodbye to my friend. I decided, in my progressive and multicultural humanism, to love him whether he was fagging off or not. We had a long history together. But I never went back.
I saw him a few times later. A friend of mine saw him too. He was living with the fag and hanging around with this crowd of queers. They would go on trips together, like down to Laguna Beach. No idea what they did down there. Yikes.
Once he passingly remarked that he has a fistula in his anus. He got it from “driving a truck.” Yeah right, dude. He was drinking more, now in the mornings, but he’d always been a bit of a drunk. He had a cute girlfriend with him, a drunk herself. Later I heard he moved up to Santa Barbara to live in a house with her. He might have even married her.
Another guy was basically straight, but I’m sure he was known to do it with guys if times got desperate. I know this because he asked me once.
Teenage girl CP is completely different from the little kiddie kind.
First of all, most people would not be freaked out seeing teenage girl porn. In many cases, they would probably assume it was legal because it doesn’t look any different from adult porn. Even where they obviously not 18, it doesn’t have that creeptastic shock factor that throws you out of your seat. Also even in those cases, the girls have an adult sex drive (which makes all the difference), and they typically look like they are enjoying themselves.
So who’s harmed by this stuff? The typical argument is that child porn is “the record of a crime.” That’s not controversial, but if so, why aren’t videos showing murder and beheadings illegal too?
Arguments against Child Porn (Pornography of Children under 13 or “Kiddie Porn)
It is the record of abuse. In a lot of cases, that’s not even true, but in other cases, it is.
By being out there and people possessing it, it creates more demand. I agree with that.
The child is harmed every time someone downloads a photo of her CP. This seems dubious. What if she doesn’t even know it’s out there? Even if she does, does she get a notification every time someone downloads her movie? How does that work? If it gets downloaded 1,000 times, how is she anymore harmed than if it’s downloaded one time? She isn’t.
The child did not consent to having their CP spread far and wide all over the Internet. I’m sure that’s true in most cases, so that’s quite a violation, one that can follow the child until adulthood if they know their CP is still floating around out there.
The more pedophiles look at this stuff, the more it arouses them to actually molest. That’s not a good argument and the limited studies we have shows that legal CP makes rates of molestation go down.
A lot of this stuff is not consensual but forced or coerced. That’s a good argument, but would videos of a rape also be illegal. How about videos of a murder? But that kid should be protected from having his abuse put out there for everyone to see. No argument there.
This stuff is just weird, freaky, and gross. I would certainly agree there. If you’ve ever seen this stuff, there’s a yuck factor involved that’s hard to put into words.
The victim was a kid when it happened, kids need to be protected from having crimes committed against them broadcast for all to see, and the depiction of the crime is against the law in the first place. You’re not allowed to take pictures of this crime, while you probably could of most other crimes. This is an argument to show how the photographing of the crime of child molestation is different from the photographing of other serious crimes, such as battery, homicide, etc. Also the others are adults and presumably they could handle their victimization being out there better than a kid could.
What about Teen CP?
Almost all of the above arguments fall apart when you talk about teen CP. Show me one argument that still holds up when we apply it to teens.
It is the depiction of a crime, typically statutory rape. Sure we can photograph other crimes, but this is one crime we cannot photograph because photographing this crime is illegal itself.
It’s yucky, awful, and horrible – it’s upsetting to the senses. The yuck factor argument here falls apart because I imagine a lot of doesn’t even look yucky. Does it look any different from “barely legal” porn out there? Probably not. Even where they look underage, though it does look weird and somewhat disturbing to me, it’s not on the same level as real CP, which almost flings you out of your chair when you see it.
Although most of this activity is probably consensual, some may be forced. Now we get into the argument of whether videos of rapes would be legal. But once again, this is one crime we are not even allowed to photograph, whereas we can photograph just about any other crime, I assume.
If men looked at teen CP, this would arouse them to go out and have illegal sex with teens. That’s dubious, and it’s not the end of the world even if it does happen. In European countries, the age of consent is 14 or 15, and there’s no epidemic of older men hanging out outside high schools to prey on the girls. Nor is there much in the way of 14 and 15 year old girls having sex with older men. 15 year old French girls are capable to telling men to get lost. In other words, just legalizing something doesn’t necessarily increase the rate of it.
The teen did not consent to having their porn all over the Net. Unfortunately, that’s probably not even true in most cases. In most cases, they probably made this stuff themselves as almost all of the teen CP out there is made by girls themselves and their boyfriends. Then they put it up on the Net and apparently don’t care if it goes far and wide, and it can’t go too far and wide anyway.
The teen is harmed every time someone downloads the video. This suffers from the same flaw as the real CP argument, with the added factor that the girl probably doesn’t even feel harmed by the material in the first place as she produced it herself.
By being out there and people looking at it, it creates more demand for the product. I’m not even sure that’s hard to prove because it teen CP doesn’t appear to be a commercial enterprise, probably because it’s so hard to tell it from real porn. Anyway there doesn’t appear to be much of a market for it anyway.
Teen CP is the record of abuse. That’s probably almost never true unless it’s coerced and porn with adult women who were coerced would also be a record of abuse. There’s nothing “abusive” about adults having sex with teens.
It is the record of a crime. Once again, why are homicides of beatings, homicides, presidential assassinations, etc. legal then? Those are records of crimes.
Good Arguments to Keep Teen CP Illegal (with Some Modifications)
I would not be opposed to teens having these photos and videos of each other. Millions of them already do and mostly nothing happens to them. All of the above arguments fall apart in the case of teens keeping porn of each other.
But then it should be restricted. I would say you can have it in your possession, but you can’t distribute it, say put it up on the Internet or sell or give away DVD’s of it. This would seriously limit the spread because how much can anything spread if it’s not on DVD or the Net? Hardly at all. But one thing I dread is going on the Porn Net and getting bombarded by offers to go to sites featuring 16 and 17 year old girls! Because as soon as you make that stuff legal, pornographers, being the sleazeballs that they are, are going to flood the Net within weeks with underage girls naked and soon enough in full hardcore porn.
If you put teen porn up on the Net for everyone to see for commercial purposes, you can and should go to jail. Most of this stuff is distributed in discreet networks that are hard to get to if you don’t know exactly where they are. Teen porn posted in these networks stays where it is. It’s almost all made by teenage girls themselves either alone or with their boyfriends. As long as it’s not spreading wildly to the wide-open web and staying on secretive channels, I don’t see the harm.
But how are you going to differentiate between keeping it on discreet channels and putting it out there for all to see? I have no idea. The main purpose of prosecution ought to be to keep teen porn off the Web in the sense that it is outside of the eyes and ears of your average person. You also need to keep it off of all large commercial, ad-supported, or porn video sites like PornHub. But how do you hold PornHub liable for teen porn it’s users put up there? You can’t. But where the girl is obviously not 18, you could make a case that PornHub should be liable if there is a complaint. You can’t expect them to sort through all the videos, but you can expect them to look at anything that generates complaints.
Society doesn’t want men approaching underage teen girls on the Net and trying to get photos and videos out of them. That the girls willingly hand this stuff out is no matter. This is just something society doesn’t like, along the lines of statutory rape. The penalties ought to be similar to statutory rape instead of CP. It’s hard to argue that having a video of a teenage girl having sex is 5-10X worse than actually having sex with her, but this is what the law will say. I’d want to make the penalties strict enough to deter men from doing this though.
What about adults in legal relationships with teens who have photos and videos of the teen, even in sex acts. It’s even harder to make an argument that this should be illegal or that it’s even CP. It’s legal to have with this girl every day for a year, but if you snap a picture of her naked, you get 10 years? That’s just getting weird. I suppose I would argue that the “personal possession ok, distribution illegal” argument ought to apply here. If it’s legal to have sex with a girl, it ought to be legal to take sex photos and videos of her for your own personal use. The law might require that you prove you were in a relationship with her.
Teens who take videos and photos of themselves is not really CP. There are people getting arrested for making sex photos and videos of themselves when they were underage. One man is on the sex offender list for possessing, when he was 21, a sex video of himself alone he made when he was 17. That’s just nuts. And putting girls in jail for making their own solo porn and keeping it on their drives is crazy.
As with so many sex laws, this issue runs up into all sorts of thorny issues and arguments that make little if any sense. It boils down an emotional revulsion towards this sort of thing and society’s decision to encode its revulsion in law. Many of the justifications for such laws fall apart when you analyze them. And justifications for some laws, for instance CP, change constantly, along with the definitions of it. The best policy is whatever protects the morals and norms of the majority while interfering with the privacy and individual rights of the potential criminal as little as possible.
A commenter in the private group told about how the husband of a woman she knows got arrested for child porn and now he’s on a sex offender list. Apparently he was talking to one or more underage teenage girls online, and I guess they were sending pics back and forth and his wife found out and turned him in. It’s not really child porn to me. To me the only child porn is the yucky stuff with little children and adults. Gross. A teenage girl looks like a woman. Most men like to look at videos and photos of naked women either posing or doing sexual things. Videos or photos of teenage girls doing the same things probably wouldn’t look much different.
There is a technically illegal video up on the web. Some porn company in Florida shot it. A 15 year old girl lied about her age to do the shoot. It has stayed up on the web for some reason. I think they said 25 million people have watched it so far, so I wasn’t really worried. It was just typical porn, nothing too weird. The odd thing was that if I did not know that girl was 15, there is no way I would think she’s underage. She didn’t look 1% different from a lot of the young 18-19 year old girls in porn, and there are lots of them.
On the other hand, society doesn’t want us men looking at that stuff and it doesn’t want us men to exchange dirty photos and videos with underage teenage girls. The fact that it’s pretty normal behavior is irrelevant. Most crime is probably normal in the sense that it’s not nuts or crazy. We dislike crime not because it’s nuts or crazy but because we think it’s wrong, bad, evil, on and on. It’s a right and wrong, good and bad societal morals thing.
Society has a right to whatever reasonable morals it wishes to have, and not allowing adult men collect or trade pics with minor girls is a legitimate moral value for a society to have. Same with age of consent laws. Society has a right to put the age of consent for sex wherever it wants, anywhere from 14 in much of Europe to 18 in US federal law.
If people tried to set it higher than 18, I’d get mad because now society would be acting ridiculous. Below a certain age, different societies, states, nations, do not want us men messing around sexually with those girls. The fact it’s a normal aspect of male sexuality is irrelevant. As noted above, lots of “normal” behavior is against the law not because it’s nuts because it’s wrong. Society happens to think sex with men and girls below a certain age is wrong. We live in society. The age of consent in my state is 18 and I’m perfectly happy to obey that law and I have since age 21.
I think the AOC here is too high and it’s silly, but I still have to deal with society’s morals. If I violate society’s morals because I think they’re stupid, I might go to jail because society has decided that a lot of what it considers immoral, wrong, bad, or evil behavior should be against the law. This is why we have criminal codes.
I don’t have a lot of sympathy for older guys going down on these stat rape crimes, though the sentences are bizarre, absurd, and almost cruel and unusual. I look at a guy like that and I think, “What an idiot. He knew it was against the law but he did it anyway all because he couldn’t control himself.” There are a lot of stupid things you can do that might land you in jail. The solution is not to do stupid shit that might put you behind gay bars.
About “Child Porn” Involving Teenage Girls
First of all, there has to be “lascivious display of the genitalia” or she has to be engaging in some sort of sexual behavior. Just nudity doesn’t cut it. If she’s standing naked in front of a mirror it’s probably legal. If she has her top off and is flashing her tits, it’s probably legal. Nevertheless, I still probably would not want to have that stuff on my drive, legal or not.
The crazy “child porn” laws change all the time and the definition of “child porn” increasingly whatever the Hell the FBI thinks it is at that moment. I think a lot of these convictions where people thought they were obeying the law but went down on this stuff anyway should be vacated. You can’t have vague laws that nobody knows the definition of. You can’t have crimes where the definition of the crime is always changing so you never really know if you’re breaking the law or not.
Nudist photos are legal. There are nudist sites all over the Net with adults and kids of all ages strolling around naked in the woods, at beaches, at pools. All perfectly legal.
As far as getting arrested for that stuff, you have to either know she was underage and you saved the material anyway (as in she told you how old she was) or else, looking at the material, there’s no way she could possibly be 18. If she doesn’t tell you her age and she could plausibly be 18, it’s basically legal.
I’ve had underage teenage girls come to me several times over the years wanting to trade pics with me. They tended to be 15-17. I’m not going to say what happened other than I ain’t keeping that crap on my drive. It’s probably also a bad idea to send nudes to those girls. I know they ask for them. You’ll probably get away with it, but you might not. I doubt if it’s worth it.
Most of the recent ones came to me on Kik. I was in some Younger Women for Older Men groups on Kik. I guess they see my pic in the members and decide to come talk. One came to me recently on Kik. A really hot 15 year old girl came to me a couple of months ago and wanted to trade pics. You show me yours and I’ll show you mine. If she’s talking like that, good chance she’s not a cop because cops don’t send out pics. I knew she was 15, so told her I was afraid to do it because it was illegal, and she took off just like that. I felt like a pussy but at least I didn’t break the law.
Sometimes they just pop up and send me a pic with some text and then go away. I had one pop up recently and send me a message, “Me Daddy.” She’s nude standing in front of a mirror. I doubt it was CP. She was really hot. I tried to talk to her to ask her how old she was, but she went away. I looked at it for a while and concluded that while she was definitely on the young side, she could plausibly be 18, so I kept it. Really any 15-17 year old girl could plausibly be 18, so unless they can prove that you knew her age, it’s basically legal.
Below 15, things get really touch and go. Nudes and videos with 13 year old girls (or what look like them) just look “way too young.” How do I know? I’ve seen some that look to be about that age. And I ain’t putting any of that garbage on my drive either. When they’re that young, the stuff just looks illegal. Some idiot sent me a pic in a private chat son Kik the other day. I have no idea how old she was, but she was a young teenage girl, and I just got that “way too young” vibe off it. I didn’t save it and I blocked him right away. I was a bit pissed that he sent me that crap.
97% of all CP convictions are for material with minors under 13 having actual sex with adults. In other words, the really bad stuff. There are a ton of people collecting that – so many that there’s no way they can keep up with all of them. There are so many adult men collecting pics and videos of teenage girls 15-17 years old that the cops don’t have the time to waste going after those people, so most of these cases are ignored.
If they went after all the men who have teen stuff on their drives, the cops wouldn’t have time to do anything else, and they still wouldn’t make a dent in it. In the Black Cat Scans case (which was creepy stuff but the girls wore clothes) that site had 25 million unique visitors. That shows you how many men are looking at that stuff. The cops are going to arrest 25 million men? Really? That shows you the scope of the problem. The cops have to triage.
I’ve been in some Kik groups that were literally set up by underage girls themselves. I think one was 13 (but didn’t look it) and the other was 16. They just like to talk to grown men for whatever reason and they want the chat clean. I’ll stay in there a bit but it starts to get a bit boring. Just some silly teenage girl talking about how school went that day or how she needs to lie down and take a nap. It’s more boring than anything else. They want the chat clean.
If you start talking about sex in there, they often shut the conversation down. And they don’t want dick pics. Some idiots send dick pics and the girls just throw them out of the room. I’m not sure what their agenda is except both are always posting cheesecake sexy photos of themselves in bathing suits or whatever. I think maybe they want to post sexy pics of themselves to get attention from men.
Every now and then, some joker posts something illegal in the group. Someone did a couple of months ago, a video. The girl running the group just said, “Way too young” and threw the guy out. It was a video of a couple of teenagers having sex, but there was no way that girl was 18, so it was illegal. I got the impression that the girl and her boyfriend made this video themselves and then put it on the web. I am hearing that more and more teens are taking porn videos of themselves when they’re having sex. It’s illegal but I doubt if they care, and 98% of them will never get caught.
Also there’s a lot of porn out nowadays that’s not just “barely legal” but they specifically choose adult women with childlike features and bodies so they look like underage teen girls. I think it’s lame myself because as far as females go, whatever the Hell age they are, I want them to look like a woman, not a girl. If she’s 15 and looks like a woman, she’s hot in my book. If she’s 18 and looks underage because she’s so childlike, I’m almost uncomfortable and creeped out by it.
I remember once I was having sex with this 18 year old Korean girl I picked up in LA. I’m not going to say what sort of sex we were having, but she had this curious delight about her her and she was looking at my cock with her eyes down right next to it like it was a cobra that was charming her into a trance. She acted so much like a “kid” even though she was of age that it honestly creeped me out, and for a while I couldn’t get it up. But later I did and it was all good. I still didn’t want to repeat the experience, and that was the only time I saw her. I almost felt like a pedophile having sex with her, and she was a grown woman!
I think there should be lower penalties for “teen girl porn” because let’s face it, it’s not really CP. And all of the arguments they make against CP, including the main one – that it is the depiction of a crime or the depiction of the abuse of a child – totally fall apart when it comes to photos and videos of teen girls.
Polar Bear: Some women like meanness. Women out of abusive relationships often want that abuse repeated. Robert has mentioned a girl forced to wear diapers by an uncle developed a diaper fetish. Rape victims I’ve met want a man to take charge even more.
Many women like Ashley Bennett from Ink Master let their emotions takeover. I’ve met many women like this, they often want a man to stabilize them.
Being too good is a turnoff for many women. I know a guy who does everything women say they want and many women are encouraging him. Yet, none of these cheerleaders step-up and date him.
A woman’s ideal can do whatever he wants. Women tend to understand weakness more than strength. Weak men are exploited by women often, and even a very weak man can overpower most women physically. Being weaker does give some women a foxy cleverness.
You know how many young women, as in 18-20 years old, have dumped me recently for being too nice, or really for not being mean and evil enough? There have been a number of them! I keep wondering if I should start acting evil and mean just to screw some barely legal hotties, but I just can’t do it. I don’t have it in me.
They seriously wanted to be mistreated. They literally wanted a guy who treated them like shit.
It’s no secret that women eroticize their abuse. Lots of females who get raped develop rape fantasies and even rape fetishes. They only like sex is it’s rapey-type sex. And a lot of girls who got molested eroticize their experiences and develop older man fetishes. They often become promiscuous too.
I knew one who’s uncle had started molesting her when she was 9, he brought these friends in to join him when she was 12, and then it went on until she was 18. A lot of gangbangs. They took a ton of photos and movies of it too. She was all screwed up from it for a while, but then she decided, “Hey, I need to get over this. I’m just going to say it was fun and I liked it to help me get over it.”
So she did just that. When I met her she was 24 years old and hot, and her sex life was having sex with all these different older men, and I mean 20+ years older. She was a bit of a robot but I guess she was healthy. As she had eroticized all of those experiences, they were part of her fantasy life. She had even become fascinated with all the photos and video they took of her and she had gone on a quest to find some of it.
Obviously it would be totally illegal but how many cops would arrest you for having child porn of yourself where you’re the minor having sex with the adults? A number of people had sent her stuff that they thought might have been her, but none of it was. I guess it was “teenage girl” CP but that’s typically hard to prove because with a lot of them, you can just say she could have been 18. Perhaps some of it was with teenage girls who were obviously too young.
A lot of girls who get molested develop older man fetishes, and the men are often 20+ years older.
And a lot of normal women want to play age-play games in sex. You know how many women have asked me to act out that stuff with them? “Ok, I’m the teenage girl, and you’re my father…” Do teenage girls really want to fuck their Dads? If not, why do so many have this weird fantasy?
This is the sort of thing I read for sheer kicks. That is a 152-page document called Child Molesters – A Behavioral Analysis For Law Enforcement Officers Investigating the Sexual Exploitation of Children by Acquaintance Molesters, written by the FBI’s top expert on child molestation, Kenneth Lanning. I read about this stuff because I am very interested in sex offenders and paraphilias. I’m a teleiophile, and I’ve never molested a kid, thank God. And I never got molested myself. Similarly, I know few people who got molested. It’s just something that interests me.
I will say though that that document is hard to get through. I’ve had it up there forever and I still haven’t gotten through it. Trying reading about child molesters for 152 pages some time. It’s pretty hard to do and it gets to you after a bit.
About this paper, I don’t think too much of Lanning or his document.
The “Pedophile As a Word with No Meaning” Bullshit
First, he doesn’t seem to know what a pedophile is. He keeps lumping in pedophiles with a preference for small children who molest kids with men who engage in statutory rape with adolescents. The two crimes could hardly be more different, and people who commit them are often extremely different. Few pedophiles even have an interest in a 13 year old! There is no mention of hebephiles. There is no mention that it is quite normal for adult men to have sex with adolescent girls, as we’ve been doing it for 99% of our evolution as a matter of course with no ill effects recorded since. Instead, he calls men who have sex with teenagers pedophiles! Ridiculous!
Second, he’s a pig. A real pig. A fed pig, by far the worst pigs of them all. I actually don’t mind a lot of local cops. But I truly despise feds.
He has an extreme attitude towards child pornography and claims that if a pedophile is using a photo of a child to masturbate, it’s child porn! So a pedophile has an innocent photo of a kid in a bathtub taken by some doting parent. He’s using it to masturbate. According to Lanning, it automatically becomes child porn. Typical fed pig.
Further, he twists himself in endless circles trying to justify bans on child porn.
First of all, the real deal is a record of a crime. This is a fact.
It’s also a record of horrible abuse. This part is much less certain.
He says the child is victimized by having their photos passed around the world among pedophiles. I agree to a point. However, suppose the child has died? Sure, it’s a record of a crime, but so what? The victim is dead. As the victim is dead, they’re hardly being harmed by their photos being passed around. So there are issues with even the standard justification for making this stuff illegal.
The “Child Porn Is Whatever the Cops Think It Is” Bullshit
In the past 30 years, due to mass hysteria about the subject, courts have bent over backwards to endlessly redefine child pornography. It’s now like the feminist definition of rape – as big as the Atlantic Ocean, expanding all the time, and constantly changing so no one can even define it anymore. Child porn means whatever the pigs think it means. Rape means whatever some feminist thinks it means.
It turns out that if a pedophile has perfectly legal photos of nude kids, but writes lewd things on them or has balloons showing the child making lewd statements and he’s using this stuff to masturbate, it’s child porn! Oh, for God’s sake! Don’t these poor sods have a right to jerk off in peace? Life must be difficult enough for someone with an orientation like this. As you can see, the “photo of a crime” and “kid in the photo is being victimized as the material is used by pedophiles” arguments wash out completely in these cases.
Turns out we need to make up some new arguments to cover this stuff! When you have to keep making up all sorts of different arguments to keep something illegal as circumstances change, chances are the illegality of the behavior is on pretty shaky grounds.
He also agrees the pedophilic cartoons should be illegal, though once again, the child in the cartoon doesn’t even exist and is a fictional character.
By the same token, he wants 2-D CGI child porn to be illegal.
He also wants child sex dolls to be illegal.
And apparently though the FBI has said that child porn must depict nudity, Lanning argues that there are cases where a clothed child is somehow child porn.
Child porn fiction has always been legal until earlier this year, when suddenly it wasn’t. The fact that no one even knows the definition of child porn and that things are perfectly legal until one day the pigs decide without telling anyone that they’re not is very disturbing. Vague laws are unconstitutional. Laws that constantly change their definitions without being so changed by a Legislature or court are unconstitutional. In order to not break the law, you have to know what the law is. If there’s no way to even figure out what’s legal and what’s illegal and where the line between the two is, it’s unconstitutional.
I figure that anything that doesn’t show an actual kid being molested should be legal, sorry. If there’s no kid being molested, there’s no record of a crime. The kid in the pic is not being harmed either, as nothing is happening in the photo.
Anyway, Lanning ends up having to make up more and more new arguments to keep more stuff illegal. Turns out that photos of kids in bathtubs, child porn stories and cartoons, legitimate photos with lewd writing on them, and kid sex dolls all need to be declared child porn and be made illegal because…get this…pedophiles use them to masturbate! Apparently everything a pedophile uses to masturbate is illegal! That’s just crazy.
The “It Makes You Dangerous So It’s Illegal” Bullshit
He also says that all of these things that the pedophile uses to masturbate increase the likelihood that he will offend and molest a kid, which is justification for wanting to send them packing for everything they use to jerk off.
The problem is there’s no evidence of that.
In fact, what little evidence exists from countries in which child porn was legal for a while before being made illegal shows that molestation rates were quite a bit lowerwhen the material was legal and went up significantly when it became illegal. I know the Netherlands is one such case. Apparently as rapists watch porn instead of raping, and porn makes rape rates go down, pedophiles look at child porn instead of molesting, and molestation rates go down.
The “It’s Illegal to Be Dangerous” Bullshit
So these guys are being arrested for the crime of “dangerousness.” I wasn’t aware it was against the law to be dangerous. Generally speaking, any law allowing cops to arrest people for “dangerousness” is unconstitutional. Of course there are some exceptions, mostly in terms of red flag laws.
In most other cases, you can’t be arrested because people think you’re dangerous. You can be as dangerous and scary as you want, and it’s perfectly legal.
However, if you are crazy and dangerous, we can hospitalize you.
The MDSO Ultra-Bullshit
This was the basis for the ridiculous and unconstitutional Mentally Disordered Sex Offender laws, where, incredibly enough, people who have served their full terms and paid their debts to society are re-sentenced just before they get out on the grounds that they are “dangerous.” Hell, 90% of the people we let out of prisons are probably pretty damn dangerous. It doesn’t mean we keep them locked up beyond their terms!
And because it’s perfectly legal to be a menace, the courts have twisted themselves into Octopus-like positions to claim that these men are both mentally ill and dangerous because if they are nuts and dangerous, we get to hospitalize you. These laws also operate on the bizarre and insane notions that locking these guys up for the rest of their lives after their terms are up on “dangerousness” chargers is…get this…not a form of punishment! Because if it was a form of punishment, it would be illegal!
I guess it’s actually a huge gift and a favor to these shmucks to lock them up for the rest of their lives on bullshit “dangerousness” charges.
Turns out that you don’t even have to be seriously mentally ill to get locked up this way. Most of these folks aren’t the tiniest bit crazy. All you have to have is a mental disorder that makes you dangerous! In practice, these are paraphilias, typically pedophilia. However, non-pedophiles keep getting socked away under these laws, particularly hebephiles.
The “Let’s Make Up Some Mental Disorders” Bullshit
Turns out that when you can’t figure out what paraphilia the person has, you get to make one up! So the hebephiles go down on Paraphilia Not Otherwise Specified or Paraphilia NOS. Turns out that hebephilia is not even a documented paraphilia in the DSM. Turns out it’s not even mentally disordered behavior. Turns out it’s not even abnormal! Nevertheless, it can get you socked away forever on some bullshit law after you get out of prison.
One more thing. Locking people up as they are walking out the door for made-up crimes, or really for the crime they went down on, is obviously convicting someone twice for the same offense. They get around this by saying they’re not punishing these folks. Instead they’re doing them a favor!
This is just abuse. They’ve also invented brand new paraphilias where none exist. They’ve invented some Paraphilic Rape Disorder where the rapist is specifically and preferentially aroused by the thought of raping. Turns out this sort of thing is quite rare, and rapists, like most men, get turned on by a million things. Furthermore, the American Psychiatric Association says there’s no such thing as Paraphilic Rape Disorder. No problem! Just make up a diagnosis! They simply say the man has Paraphilia NOS, and he goes down on that. Who knows what Paraphilia NOS even means. As with child porn above, apparently it means whatever some prosecutor thinks it means!
RL: Liberal White snobs with money beating up poor White proletarians and lumpens. If anyone is being oppressed in our society, it’s these poor sods. I’m for the oppressed and against the oppressors. White liberals and the Left in general have demonized these poor shmucks, and it’s disgusting. They’re literally oppressing these poor guys.
There’s also a thing from liberal White males along the lines of, “Ha ha. We get laid a lot, and you guys don’t!” Wow, so this is the Left right now. Sex-havers showering contempt on the sexually unlucky? How pathetic. Anyway it reminds me of rich snobs gloating in their success and hating the poor for being financially successful in life.
1-800-Whatever: Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think these “liberal” or (pseudo) leftists are getting laid all that much. Most I’ve seen are pajama boys. I think they get married more, but I don’t know they are getting laid all that much. I could be wrong of course.
I’m not sure myself because they are all male feminists! And a lot of them are really angry about PUA’s on the Left who are “oppressing” the women of the Left by trying to fuck them! How dare they! I call them fags, girls, and cucks even though most of them are straight because I want to attack their masculinity for abandoning their brothers and going over to the other side. As it’s uncool to act like a real man on the Left and masculinity is seen as toxic, it’s a mystery to me how they get laid or why leftwing women put up with this pussy, faggy bullshit.
I really don’t know if they get laid or not. I know they despise PUA’s. They say all PUA and Seduction Theory is a lie, which seems crazy. You mean there are not better and worse ways of getting women? There are not men with great Game and men with zero Game? There are not men who can improve their Game or who lost their skills?
It’s madness. Everyone knows that some guys are very good at this and other guys can’t get laid with God’s help, and YES, Game does matter. A LOT. Maybe not as much as Looks, but if you are Chad with shit Game, it’s not such a great thing. I have Game-less Chad’s go years, maybe even over a decade, without a single date.
One guy was the best-looking man in town for his age and he went a decade without a date. No one liked him. All the women hated him and thought he was a weirdo. I’m not sure what was wrong with him. He seemed to have some sort of an anxiety disorder. Often had a weird blank stare on his face like he was in his own world. But you sat down and talked to him, he was completely normal. Everyone thought he was “dangerous” too, but I spent some time around him, and he was the most harmless guy you ever met. People can’t read others for shit a lot of times.
They also really hate Alpha, Beta, Omega, etc. Everyone knows that those categories are completely true. I knew it by high school. But they say it’s all just fantasy and they laugh about and make fun of it. How the Hell do you get laid at without understanding the very basics such as Alpha, Beta, Omega, etc.?
I did see one of these idiots on a Left thread asking how to flirt with women without being seen as a creep and getting #metooed. Of course it’s impossible because metoo makes all flirting potentially illegal because you never know if an advance is unwanted or not. It’s also reclassified all dating as sexual harassment because you can’t date women without grabbing or touching them at some point, and no, you don’t ask permission to grab, touch, or kiss a woman on a date. You just do it! If she doesn’t like it, she’ll let you know.
I’ve dated hundreds of women and I did this with most of them, and I rarely got a negative response. It’s all about reading the vibes which are completely unspoken and almost like an electrical feeling you can sense in the air. I imagine a lot of folks find that sort of thing completely baffling. It’s also about reading the situation in what she says and does and even how she is thinking. You tell what she is thinking by studying her and trying to read her mind, which can actually be done to some extent.
Of course, I know how to do it and I don’t completely jump them unless I’m pretty sure it’s going to go over well. I read accounts of these guys getting metooed and I thought, “Damn these guys don’t know how to talk or act around women!” I would not have acted like that at al. Also a lot of them were way, way too rapey. A lot of others were pretty sleazy about how they went about trying to get laid. Over and over I found myself cringing and saying, “I wouldn’t have done it that way.” I suppose I could go over some of those cases and show where those guys screwed up if you want.
And most sex is apparently rape.
He got a bunch of really stupid answers that showed that these idiots had shit Game and didn’t know their asses from a hole in the ground. One woman suggested, “Well if you want to flirt with a woman, just ask her if it’s ok to flirt with her.” LOL! That’s the stupidest crap I’ve ever heard. Don’t ask for permission for anything from a woman if you’re not in bed. In bed it’s a bit different, but you still don’t ask permission! Fuck this “Momma may I!” There’s a way to do this, but “Momma may I” ain’t it!
It would be interesting to talk about female pedophiles and how they are different from men.
Apparently, there are no female pedophiles, pedophile meaning someone who has a preferential interest in children under 13; that is, they are more attracted to children under 13 than they are to adults. Any female child molesters are likely to be non-pedophilic molesters or situational molesters. Apparently only men are preferential molesters; i.e., pedophiles.
The use of the word pedophile for anyone other than a preferential child molester or someone with a preferential sexual interest in children under 13 is simply false.
In the overwhelming number of cases where the word pedophile is being used nowadays, the person is either teleiophilic – that is, completely normal in age orientation, being maximally attracted to females 16+ and attracted to adults. That is 81% of all males, including me, believe it or not. Maximal attraction to 16 and 17 year old girls is not pathological at all. Not only is it not disordered, but it’s not even abnormal. In fact, it is much more abnormal to not be not maximally attracted to 16 and 17 year old girls. This means you are either a pedophile, a hebephile, gay, or dead.
Pedophile is also false when it means “attracted to girls 13-15.” Even teleiophilic men react to pubescent girls at a very high level of 86% of maximum. Literally the only difference between hebephiles and normal men is that hebephiles have preferential maximum attraction to 13-15 year old girls, and normal men have an attraction of 86% of maximum. That’s not much of a difference. Also a number of hebephiles have little to no interest in females over 15, which is odd to me.
Attraction to very young girls under 13 is not necessarily pedophilic either. Normal men are attracted to little girls at 60% of maximum. Pedophiles are attracted to them at maximum and often have little attraction for adults. Those are the main differences between pedophiles and normal men.
Adult men having sex with 13-17 year old girls is not pedophilic behavior. In fact, the American Psychological Association has said that it is probably a part of normal male sexuality if we speak in historical or anthropological terms. Legally speaking, this behavior is often statutory rape, and men who do this are called statutory rapists. In cases where it is legal, it is properly considered legal and normal behavior in a psychological sense anyway. Granted, many people have moral objections to this at least at certain ages anyway.
Most child molesters are non-pedophilic or situational child molesters. So pedophile isn’t even a correct word to use for most child molesters! The crime itself is called child molestation, not pedophilia. Child rape is a different crime. Child molestation should not be referred to as child rape because child molestation is often psychologically consensual, whereas child rape never is. Further, child rape is a much worse crime than child molestation in most cases.
Sex between teens 13-17 is never pedophilic or even child molestation. It may be statutory rape but mostly it’s just completely normal sexual behavior. You simply cannot molest a teenage girl. Nor can you molest a woman.
Any sex between an adult man and a girl under 13 is properly termed child molestation. In a minority of cases, the adults who do this are pedophiles, but in most cases they are non-pedophilic molesters. The best way to describe non-pedophilic molesters is to call them criminals. They are driven more by antisocial behavior than by deviant sexual interests.
Since nobody seems to be able to use the words pedophilia and pedophile correctly, we should just stop using them. Every time you want to say pedophile, just say child molester. Every time you want to say pedophilia, just say child molestation.
Pedophilia is simply a way of thinking or a sexual orientation like homosexuality or bisexuality, and it is biological in all cases, like a lot of homosexuality. It’s 100% legal. A pedophile is simply a man who thinks in a particular way in sexual sense or has a particular biological sexual orientation similar to male homosexuals. It is not against the law to be a pedophile.
Hari Seldon: So I have to ask, where do you meet these girls? How do you pick them up? You said you have a 98+% rejection rate. So you are actively approaching them? Do you openly proposition them, or indirectly?
Mostly meeting them on the Net these days. In Meatspace, it’s about zero. Literally nobody wants me. I go to porn blogs and Kik groups and meet women in there. Even young ones, too! In those places there are lots of young women who have an older man thing.
The Various Stars and Looks
This never happens to me much anymore, but if she stares at you or catches your eye every time you look at her or keeps looking at you off and on, it means something. It probably means you turn her on on some level. But nowadays I have young women who look at me off and on in a way that always meant she liked me in the past, and now I go talk to the Lookers and it turns out she hates me! So women who hate me are looking at me and staring at me now.
But this just started in the last few years. Before that, if she keeps looking at you, catches your eye every time, or especially if she stares at you, it means she likes you on some level. I think it means you turn her on.
The Robot Hypnotized Entranced Stare
If she goes into this stunned, shocked, robot, automaton stare when she sees you, especially the first time, it means you absolutely turn her on. Often the stare is mixed with hate and fear. That’s because women hate and fear the men they like. I’ve all sorts of theories on that.
She’s Acting Nervous
Another bad thing I’ve noticed lately is some young women act nervous around me. It’s usually when I’m approaching them pretty hard or escalating the flirting. She often asked for by stopping what she was doing with the message “Come talk to me.” Of she was just super-friendly and now you are taking it beyond super-friendly into the sexual flirting realm.
Lately, nervousness is a disaster. She’s uncomfortable with you on some level. Maybe you’re making her uncomfortable by escalating the flirting. Maybe she has mixed feelings about you. She acts like she wants you to talk, then you go over and talk to her and now that you are next to her, she gets scared.
I’m not sure what nervousness means around a younger man. Women don’t typically get nervous around men they like. You would think they would but they just don’t. Actually they get less nervous and more calm because she likes you and you are turning her on and charming her, and that is fun, exciting, and also very relaxing.
Just because you’re turning her on doesn’t necessarily mean she wants to go out with you! It doesn’t even necessarily mean she even wants to be friends.
Women Are Either Friends or Enemies. Know Your Female Enemies, Fear Them, and Leave Them Alone
At my age, I can’t really approach any woman directly anymore. If I try I just get the brushoff. I usually approach and say something, especially if they are behind a counter helping me or ringing me up. I’ll ask their name or something. Lately I get a hard brushoff right there. I just make a note of it and consider her an “enemy” because that’s basically what a young woman is if she brushes you off like that.
You need to stop bothering her and stop hitting her up with even basic orders. I was returning something in Walmart last night and I asked the clerk her name. We talked as bit more and I started to get the brushoff. I get the brushoff from almost all women these days. When you class her as an “enemy” it really keeps you away from her. When they do the hard brushoff, they don’t even want to be friends. If you ask for help, they won’t help you. They will act like you’re not there. When they get like that you need to stop interacting with her 100% unless she’s ringing you up or something.
Some People Just Like to Flirt, Don’t Read Too Much into It
Some of them flirt with me a bit, but I figured out that they don’t want to go out with me or even be friends. They just like to flirt with me. I’m supposedly still goodlooking for my age. A lot of women will flirt with a hot older man because he kind of turns her on. But it’s fake. She doesn’t want to go out with you and she doesn’t even want to be your friend.
Keep a Constantly Updated Database of All the Women You See Regularly so You Know Where You Stand with Them
I make mental notes of every woman I interact with regularly to figure out where I am with her. If she’s fat or homely, I don’t care, but if she’s cute or hot, I want to keep a scoreboard. Say she flirts with me when she first meets me. I go back and see if she keeps doing it. A lot of them will flirt with you the first time, and then they go cold. You have to figure out exactly where you are with every woman you interact with so you know exactly how to deal with her. Otherwise you will mess up act “creepy.” I hate being called creepy so I’m very cautious.
Never Proposition a Stranger of a Woman You Don’t Know Well. Only Proposition a Woman if You’re Pretty Sure She Wants to Fuck
You can never openly proposition any woman anywhere ever. Just don’t. Actually I don’t even proposition girlfriends. Sex is best unspoken. Just start doing things to her, or she will start doing things you to you. I learned a long time ago never to ask a woman if she wants to have sex, especially if you’ve never done it with her before. That will get her thinking, and that’s bad. The whole idea is to shut off her brain the hamster wheel stops spinning and she’s gone over into pure body reactions, as in let her body take over from her mind.
Flirting, Escalating, Etc.
Just sit back and throw out feelers to see how she responds. If she likes you, SHE will bring up sex pretty quickly, usually within the first 20 minutes. If she derails the conversation off into sex after 20 minutes or less, it means she likes you, and now you can start saying sex-type stuff. But even then you have to be careful. Just follow her lead. Read the conversation and see where it’s going the whole time. Note if what you say gets a good or bad response and then adjust on that basis.
Bedroom eyes absolutely means you’re making her horny! And it literally means she wants to fuck right now. Bedroom eyes plus the weird robotic stare means she’s going into a sexual trance and she wants to fuck you. You have to go after any woman who looks at you like that, period.
In order to make bedroom eyes or hooded eyes, put your head down and now look up. That’s bedroom eyes. It’s a bit uncomfortable and you can sort of feel hate and fear in yourself when you do it.
The bedroom eyes mean you put her in a trance, a sexual trance. Women often go into this weird sexual trance when they want to fuck. It’s like they’ve lost control of their bodies and their bodies are just acting on their own. Plus she looks like a weird robot. That means her brain’s not controlling her actions anymore. You’ve sexually hypnotized her, which is how women get turned on, pretty much.
If you have sex with her a first time and you get up to leave and she follows you to the door with the weird robot stare bedroom eyes, she really likes you. She might even be falling in love. A woman in the early stages of love stares at her man. Sometimes you will both be sitting in a room on separate couches and you look at her and she looks at you and you just sit there and stare at each other without saying a single word. This can last up to 15 minutes. It’s actually extremely calming and relaxing especially if you are starting to like or love her too. The whole world shuts down and it’s just you and her, staring, silent, in love. Life and the world doesn’t mean more thing.
She’s basically completely lost control of herself, which is what happens when women get horny and want to fuck. If she’s robot staring you to the door, she absolutely wants to see you again! She’s not necessarily in love. It means she wants to fuck you again. You’ve hypnotized her, sexually hypnotized her. This is the basis of seduction. When you seduce a woman, you are often literally hypnotizing her.
Seduction in general is underhanded and sleazy. The fact that you are hypnotizing her is sleazy right there. But this is you do it. Seduction is a scam, a trick, a con, a lie. Men know it is. Women complain about it but they know it’s a scam too, and with the right guy, she will allow herself to be tricked or scammed.
That’s part of what makes them so submissive in bed. You’ve hypnotized her, tricked her, scammed her, fooled her and she knows it. Her reaction to that is just to go completely submissive and give herself over to you. The female sex drive is all based on submission, and often the more submission, the better. This is what they like, what they want. They want to go completely submissive and lose themselves and give themselves over to this scary bad boy rather psychopathic caveman.
Sex is probably pretty scary for women. We can literally kill them with our bare hands and any time. It takes a lot of trust for a woman to make herself so vulnerable as to have sex with you. She’s scared. In a sense, she is almost risking life and limb by going submissive to this dominant, maybe dangerous, aggressive, and maybe violent maniac caveman. She’s a cavewoman. A lot of times women will negotiate.
“I don’t really care what you do to me. Just don’t kill me, please!”
I’ve had a number of women say that to me. They were all crazy in love with me. It’s actually good because it means she fears you, and woman want to fear the man they are in love with. Don’t ask me why. It’s some cavewoman stuff. The girlfriend who was most terrified of me fell deeper in love with me than any other woman.
A conversation with a girlfriend. We had broken up. She calls me. What are we doing? I ask her if she has a guy because she usually does. She says she does but he’s boring. And she wants to get back with me.
Me: So who is he? (not getting jealous or angry, just acting like I could care less).
He’s just some boring old man (in a tired, bored voice)
I see (no particular emotions still no jealous anger)
I like you better. You’re scary, but scary’s hot (philosophical tone of voice, like she’s admititng some uncomfortable truth.
You’re scary, but scary’s hot.
Why do women like bad boys. Why do they like men who abuse and mistreat them? Why are so many of them weird masochists in one form or another. Why do they like psychopaths, ex-convicts, and convicted serial killers. Same reason.
He’s scary, but scary’s hot.
I’m not telling to scare your woman. I’m just saying some interesting things start to happen when the woman who loves you also starts to fear you. Like fear you a lot.
She’s giving herself over to you, but you don’t get to take her life. And she will often tell you whether she likes pain or not. A lot of women don’t like physical pain. They don’t want you to inflict physical pain on them. They might be open to verbal of psychological pain and aggression. But they don’t want to give themselves over to physical pain and the concurrent aggression.
She’s totally submitting to you but she’s putting down some hard lines. She’s also assuming complete trust that you will respect her boundaries. You need to respect women’s boundaries. If she doesn’t want to do something, don’t pester or bother her to engage in some sex act. It’s shitty. If you connect well you negotiate in bed, often before sex. Ok we are going to do this and that but not this other thing. I always say, “If I ever say or do anything you don’t like, just tell me and I will stop.” They always say ok. Then I proceed to dom them hard and they never say they don’t like anything I said or did.
Polar Bear: What would you do if your perfect little angel, that you love more than anyone, is violently raped by a grown ass man?
Child Molestation and Child Rape Are Two Completely Different Crimes
Most child molesting isn’t violent rape.
That’s usually a different crime called child rape. And child rape does occur. It happened to my sister at age 11. Guy pulled a knife on her and her little friend while they were walking in this fairly wild area. We never heard that this had done anything bad to her. Certainly she never talked about it. But she flips if you say the words “rape” or “molestation” and shuts down the conversation. So I spell the words out sometimes when I’m around her. But other than that, I’ve never heard that she suffered any long-term harm from this very violent rape.
Much child molesting is more or less consensual. That is, the kid goes along with it. Of course kids can consent to sex past a certain age. Psychologically they can. They can’t legally though. I think 90% of molesting is in the family and it’s often consensual. What about brother-sister sex? All brother-sister sex is now called child molesting! WTF. What about men screwing 14-17 year old girls? A lot of people don’t like it, but that’s statutory rape, and stat rape is completely different from child molesting in so many ways.
What If My Daughter Got Molested or Raped by Some Man?
It depends. If it was actually child rape via a stranger and a weapon, sure it would be bad, and I don’t really know how I would deal with it. If he was molested with coercion, that’s also very bad. I’m not sure how I would deal with that either. But if she was molested consensually and had a neutral or even positive attitude towards it, I would act differently. And believe me, it’s very common for kids to react to consensual child molestation by saying it was fun of pleasurable. Neutral actions are also extremely common.
Not every kid flips out and gets horribly traumatized by getting molested. I think I would tell her that I didn’t want her letting any more grown men to do that to her. I would say it’s weird, strange, and not right. You really need to stop. If you keep doing this, it could be harmful to you. Mainly I would want her to start resisting if a man did this to her.
If she had a neutral or even positive attitude towards getting molested, I would be very happy because there’s usually no long-term harm in those cases.
I would say:
Look it’s not bad or awful or horrible or anything like that. It’s nothing! It’s no big deal. It’s not something you should make a big deal out of. That’s just something weirdo men do. Ever seen weird men doing weird stuff with kids, like yelling stuff at them or doing creepy stuff? Well, it’s like that. Weird idiot men are everywhere and they often try to do weird, stupid things to kids.
I would tell her not not see it as a trauma and freak out and make a big deal out of it because that what causes the harm. I would just brush it off with a great big attitude like this:
It’s nothing, forget about that stupid idiot, let’s move on. Don’t even think about it anymore. It was just a stupid thing some weird idiot man did to you. But it wasn’t harmful.
But I would tell her to be careful who she told about it. I would also tell her not to feel guilty about it as she did nothing wrong. I would tell her that girls who freak out about getting molested and adults who run around screaming how horrible it is is what causes the harm in cases of consensual molestation.
If it was consensual and she had a positive or neutral attitude towards and did not incorporate any negative feelings about it, by college she would be completely over it. Maybe even a lot sooner.
In a sexology book, I read that consensual child molestation used to not cause much harm back before 1950. They treated it like it was no big deal, brushed it off, and told the girl to forget about it. My mother told me that my aunt got molested as a girl when she was ~7. This might have been ~1940. I will have to check. I told my Mom about how people used to treat it like it was nothing, and the kids suffered little harm. She said my aunt had gotten molested at age 7 and everyone just brushed it off, told her it was nothing and to forget about it, but to not let any man do that to her anymore. My Mom said my aunt suffered no long-term serious harm from getting molested. In fact she may have suffered little to no harm at all!
Most of the Harm from Consensual Child Molestation Comes from Everyone Freaking out and Making a Big Deal out of It
In cases of consensual molestation, everybody running around screaming:
How horrible! You got ruined! You’ll never be the same! He stole your innocence! He committed a terrible crime against you, a horrible violation! He violated your body! Your personal space! You need to go to the police and then go to court to testify against this evil man who did this evil thing to you! You got abused!
He abused you! You got molested, one of the worst crimes of all! Pure evil! You got raped! He raped you, the worst crime of all! He’s the worst evil maniac on Earth! Here, we have to send you to a psychologist right now because many or most women who got molested as girls can suffer long-term lifelong harm, and we don’t want that to happen to you!
Then they shuffle her off to a bunch of therapists. I’m not sure they would even say the last sentence because the popular nonsense nowadays is that child molestation causes intrinsic and automatic harm to any kid who gets molested:
It causes trauma! And the trauma lasts a lifetime! No woman who ever gets molested as a girl is ever over it! It effects her for life!
First of all, this is not true. It’s not automatically and permanently harmful, and up to 50% of kids say they wouldn’t even consider it abuse. But telling victims that they suffered unavoidable long-term trauma that will effect them horribly their whole life is about the worst thing you could tell them! It literally causes the very horrible symptoms that they scream about.
Four Women Who All Got Over Being Raped, Molested, Beaten Up, Imprisoned, and Horribly Abused by Men
I knew four women around age 50 who all got molested as little girls.
One was a 50 year old woman who I got involved with for a short bit who was molested at church at age 8, church youth leader, apparently a pedophile. She told me she was totally over it. She said, “It’s weird because it feels so good but it’s wrong.”
Another was a 50 year old woman who I dated for a bit. She got molested by an uncle or a family friend, probably a pedophile. She was a little girl. She told me she was totally over it.She’d also been raped violently a few times. One time the guy broke in and almost killed her. Another kind was a date rape gone bad. She was over the molesting and she told me she was over the rapes too.
She’d also had a number of men pull guns on her in cars and burst into her house with guns pointed at her. She had a husband who beat the shit out of her for years. She told me she was pretty much over all this abuse men had done to her in her life. Weird thing was she still totally loved men.
And when she talked about a particularly horrific rape where she was beaten, imprisoned, tied up and raped for hours, she had a weird twinkle in her eye and a sly sexual smile on her face as she talked about, like it turned her on! I thought, “What the Hell is wrong with this chick?” Women tend to eroticize their sexual abuse, either molestations or rapes. That’s just the way they are.
Another was 55, a girlfriend for 5 1/2 years. She was 11 and a 13-14 year old boy on her street had sex with her. I don’t think that even counts! That’s practically childhood sex play. She also got raped at age 18-19. Almost date rape. It wasn’t violent. Black guy in Jamaica. She told me she was over both of the incidents.
One was a 52 year old woman, a girlfriend with 1 1/2 years, who had a brother who had sex with her when she was 5-8. I think he was 13-17. It was their “little secret.” Unfortunately this crap goes on a lot. They usually don’t even call it molesting if it’s another minor doing it.
She was into really perverted, dirty sex where she liked to be totally dominated and even degraded. She liked to be “treated like a slut” as she put it. Pretty quickly after I met her she referred to herself as a slut and a whore casually.
She liked the idea that I “owned her” as property like she was some sex slave. She wanted me to “mark” her or “leave my mark on her” to show that “I owned her and she was my property.”
She told me she was over the molestation but she had had a very rapey, weird, and sick relationship with a sexual sadist with serious sociopathic tendencies who was definitely dangerous to women over a 5 year period. She said she got raped every day over 5 years. How is that even possible? And she didn’t even try to stop him. “It would be no use,” she said. She claimed that this was a time of horrific rapes but she always talked about all the extremely dirty sex they had and she had this look of fondness in her eyes as she talked about the sex. And she always talked about the sex during the five years of horrible rape when we were having sex. I think she eroticized her abuse.
I told her I liked to hear about the dirty sex she had with this guy, and she flipped out and told me I was fantasizing about her being raped! That’s bullshit. No one lives with someone and gets “raped” every day for 5 years if you’re not even fighting back or protesting. Fight him off! Resist him! Hit him! Call the police on him! And for God’s sake, leave him!
Also he had some very dirty sex acts she liked to practice and she was always asking for me to do that stuff with her. So she had basically eroticized getting “raped” over 5 years. That relationship turned abusive and he turned very mean. She told me there might be five good minutes in a month. The rest was just pure evil, living with a hostile monster. Yet there was still continuous sex!
She had a bad bone condition where she needed regular operations or her joints might literally fall apart. Once she needed an operation so she told him to go easy on part of her hip. Well, he started specifically making the sex where he singled out this hip area and almost attacked it during sex. If the joints would have broken, she might have died. She said he was basically trying to kill or at least seriously harm her.
She ended it after 5 years and had to move back into her Mom’s house to put herself back together.
I don’t think she was over this trauma, but she didn’t seem all that screwed up by it and she never talked about any bad symptoms she had from it. In fact, she had eroticized it and she often talked about this horrible monster rapist maniac with an attitude of fondness in her face, eyes, and voice.
She did suffer from depression and had attempted suicide before I met her. And she was suicidal part of the time I was with her. But I could never make any connection between her depression and suicidality and this rapey relationship. I never asked her if she had any trauma symptoms from this relationship, but I knew her for 1 1/2 years and she never mentioned having carry-over trauma symptoms even one time.
There are places you can go on the Net to meet perverted and horny women of all ages. Mostly they tend to live way too far away, as the site has people from all over the world. I’m thinking in particular of porn blogs. There are sites that are full of porn blogs. They used to be on Tumblr until Tumblr took them down. You just go there and make a blog. You can put stuff up there but I usually leave it blank. Then you cruise around the blogs and there are lots of really perverted and nasty porn blogs full of the most misogynistic, degrading, humiliating hardcore porn that the feminists complain about. And a lot of those fucked-up porn blogs are run by women!
Thing is there are lots of women who get off on degrading porn and even like to be treated like that in bed. I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who want you to call them degrading names in bed. There must be tens of millions of women like that in the US alone. I’ve met others who wanted me to tie them and handcuff them to the bed. They’re into the dirtiest sex acts you could imagine. I met a young woman recently (29 years old) who wanted to me to fist and piss in her vagina! Crazy. She wanted about as much anal sex as vaginal sex.
And a lot of women from 19 to 52 love to be spanked. You ask, “Harder?” and they always want it harder. I quit at some point as I don’t to put marks on her, but you wonder how far they were going to take it.
I meet women who want to role play, “She’s the teenage girl and I’m her father” games. I go along with it. I wonder how many women wanted to fuck their fathers as teenage girls. Why do they all call us “Daddy” nowadays anyway?
What’s the message here? I don’t know the exact science of whatever men really feel, but they should be quiet, and especially they should know if they do something with kids, the consequences could be fatal, and the vigilante etc., might not be punished.
Yeah, I refuse to keep quiet about this stuff. My conscience is clear. I’m a teleiophile and I’m no more interested in little girls than any other man. I’m not even into junior high girls. Looks like way too much of a young girl. Of course I don’t molest little girls and I’ve never done anything like that in my life other than some weird childhood sex play with girls who were around my peer age around puberty. We were 13 and she was 11, if you want the details. My conscience is clear.
I advocate that all men not molest little girls and not collect obvious child porn because you can harm the girl and also I think it’s weird and you can go to prison hard. I don’t care much about CP except that the real thing is evidence of a crime. The main thing is if you have that crap on your drive, you can get arrested and you will go down hard.
I advocate that all men respect the statutory rape laws of the state or country where they reside, if only because I don’t like to see my brothers going to jail on this stuff. And I’m not wild about men having sex with 13 year old girls. A lot of places call it child molesting and let’s face it, that’s an awfully young girl.
Other than that, of course you can think anything you want or do anything legal you want to with any willing minor of any age.
This is what I advocate. Why would I get murdered by a lynch mob for advocating something reasonable and law-abiding like that? I don’t get it. And no one who kills or hurts me over this stuff is going to get off the hook by some judge because he talked about weird stuff like pedophilia, child molestation, rape, child porn, and statutory rape. So what! Anyone can talk about anything. No judge is going to let someone of the hook for “killing some guy who talks about weird stuff.” Forget it.
As you can see below, the things I do in my life are pretty much legal and I don’t do anything outrageously bad or illegal. I don’t download and save CP on my drive. I don’t engage in any sort of sexual behavior with jailbaits. Sometimes I talk to them as they are in those Kik groups below. But in California it’s perfectly legal to talk to teenage girls. I usually don’t want to get too sexual in my conversations with them though.
I don’t know if it’s my looks, but if I talk to one of those girls for 20 minutes (and I’m very careful how I talk to them), I can guarantee that the devious little nympho seductress will figure out a way to shift the conversation over to sex! See? They go after us men! A lot of those jailbaits are horny as Hell and they love men. I prefer to see them more as dangerous than anything else. They’re almost a menace.
I’ll talk to them after that. A few have sent me pics, but the pics were mostly legal as far as I’m concerned. Erotic but legal. I try not to get into actual sexting with them, though I did it a lot (mostly with women but also with a few 14-17 year old jailbaits) in Yahoo groups 20-25 years ago, but all this stuff was way more wide open back then. Nobody was worried about anything. The situation has completely changed now 20-25 years later. Everyone is paranoid, cops are arresting men on all sorts of vague, weird, and stupid sex law bullshit, and this whole area has gotten a whole lot scarier.
I absolutely like to look at 15-17 year old girls because they are highly sexual to me, and they really turn me on. I haven’t touched a jailbait since I was 21, and I don’t anticipate doing so in the remainder of my life.
I don’t collect child pornography and when I see the really bad stuff, I report it right away. I have pics of teenage girls on my drive. Most I knew were 18 or 19. I get photos like this quite a bit. I have a huge folder full of pics young women, mostly 18-23 but up to 27, sent me.
A couple wouldn’t tell me their age. They just sent me nudes with a message, “Me Daddy” and went away. I look at it closely, and if she could possibly be 18 by any stretch of the imagination, I keep it. Once girls get into the 12-14 year old age range, it’s pretty obvious that they are way too young and I don’t touch that stuff and I block anyone who tries to send it to me.
I see that stuff posted in Kik sex groups once in a while, and idiots on Kik try to send me pics with that stuff that they are selling. I delete the pics and I don’t download any of those videos or photos. I’m not putting any of that stuff on my hard drive.
I was in a Kik group the other day and someone posted a video with a very young as in way too young teenage girl sucking her boyfriend’s cock and him cumming in her mouth.
The group was literally run by a teenage girl, a 16 year old girl. It was mostly just her, a few other mostly women and girls, and a bunch of men. Those groups are all called something like Younger Women for Older Men. Another group like that is run by a 13 year old girl!
These are just jailbait teenage girls who like to talk to adult men. They pose pics of themselves now and again to show off or get likes, but the pics are never pornographic. They tend to be cheesecake-like, maybe her in a bathing suit. Any kind of porn is rarely posted in the sites run by those girls because they’re not really into porn. If you post porn or dick pics in there, the girls who run the group throw you out right away. And the conversation is not supposed to stray into overtly sexual territory because the girls don’t really want to talk about that stuff.
But with a name like that, idiots post obvious CP or what we call “way too young” teenage girl (13-14 years old?) videos and photos now and again. The girl who runs the group will say, “Whoa that looks way too young,” and they usually just throw the guy out right away. I might look at it, but Hell if I am putting that crap on my drive.
This is a comment from Bumface, a regular commenter from the UK. He’s a bit of a volatile fellow, but I’ve kept him around anyway because he’s also nice sometimes, and he can be interesting. I might as well point out right now that it is more than obvious to me that Bumface is a hebephile, that is, he is preferentially attracted to girls in the pubescent 11-14 age range.
However, the American Psychiatric Association has stated flat out that Hebephilia is not a mental disorder. They also said that it’s not even abnormal! The APA said that hebephiles who act on their feelings and have sex with girls in that range would in most countries be called criminals. So if you just have these thoughts, it’s nothing, but if you act on them, in most places, you would be a criminal.
I’ve done some research and hebephilic attractions are very common in men. In fact, 19% of all men are like Bumface – they are preferentially attracted to 11-15 year old girls! In most cases, they probably have a strong attraction to mature females too, and in that case, you can always suppress or repress your antisocial hebephilic urges and focus on your prosocial attraction to adult women.
I suspect this is what most such men do, and actually, I would advocate this for anyone in this category. Nevertheless, there are hebephiles who have no attraction to girls over 15! I’ve been on their forums. People post photos of 16 year old girls and the hebephiles start yelling, “Ew gross!…No grandmas!,” etc. It’s actually pretty hilarious. That doesn’t strike me as real normal behavior, but I’ll defer to the APA on this one.
I was just reading the hebephile forum for research interests, and there’s nothing illegal on there anyway. At any rate, going to those forums is no big deal. All open pedophile/hebephile forums are about half pedophile/hebephile haters cursing them and saying they’re going to prison and half pedophiles/and hebephiles. In other words, those forums have as many pedophile and hebephile haters as pedophiles and hebephiles.
For self-disclosure purposes, I’m actually a teleiophile. Teleiophiles are maximally attracted to mature females aged 16+. The vast majority of straight men are teleiophiles.
78% of men are teleiophiles, 19% are hebephiles, and 3% are pedophiles. It’s stunning how tens of millions of men in the US are so strongly attracted to very young girls! But perhaps it makes sense, right?
Everyone screams about men having sex with 13-15 year old girls and of course about men having sex with children under 13. Just reading around, there sure seem to be a lot of men engaging in this behavior. Perhaps a good explanation for why this sort of thing is so ubiquitous is that so many of us men have strong attractions to younger girls. Why do we do this all the time? Because young girls turn us on so much, that’s why! Seems like the best explanation for me.
I’m a teleiophile, although I’m also very attracted to 15 girls. As we go down from there, I start getting less interested, and it looks more and more like a “little girl” to me, and I’m not into that.
In particular, 13 and 14 year old girls have what I call “little girl faces,” or baby fat in their cheeks. I don’t like that. Among 15-17 year old girls, the more she looks and acts like a grown woman, the more attracted I am to her. The more she looks and acts like a kid, the less I’m attracted to her. I suspect that my desires are typical for teleiophilic men.
Given that 22% of my fellow men have preferential attractions to pretty young girls, I’m not going to get on the “pedophile”-hating bandwagon. To me this is a men’s rights issue. God or evolution has saddled us men with some pretty weird desires in terms of age. We men so afflicted cannot help feeling this way.
If we truly are going to “kill all pedophiles” as everyone recommends, we will have to kill 24 million men. I’m sorry, I’m not willing to condemn 24 million of my fine brothers to death just because a bunch of feminist screechers and moral hysterics demand it. I’m willing to let all these guys slide as long as they only remain thought criminals. If they molest little girls, they need to be incarcerated, as in many cases, the girls get harmed. Even where the girls are not harmed, I don’t wish to live in a society where men can molest little girls.
Since there is no evidence that a majority of girls are harmed over the long term by being molested, I have mostly an ethical, not psychologicalobjection to child molestation. However, many are still harmed anyway, so I do in part have a psychological objection because you might hurt the girl.
About men have sex with 13 year old girls, I mostly don’t like it, not for any particular reason except I think it’s gross and weird and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
About men having sex with 14-17 year old girls, I don’t see the harm if it’s consensual, and I have no problem at all with it if it is legal, but US society doesn’t agree with me and regards this behavior as morally objectionable to the extreme.
Societies have a right to have whatever reasonable morals they wish. They are free to encode these morals into laws as they see fit. We must live in society. If you break these laws, you might be incarcerated. I don’t like to see my brothers behind bars. I’ve always recommended to all my male readers that they don’t break the statutory rape laws wherever they live because you might end up behind bars.
I also strongly recommend all my readers not molest little girls (under 13) because to me it’s simply immoral behavior. You can also hurt the girl and end up “behind gay bars” yourself for a really long time.
Everything factual I stated above has been proven by science and is straight up scientific fact. Yet if you say it, it’s such a hate fact that you will have a lynch mob at your door screaming “Pedophile!” in ten minutes.
As you can see, my views on adult-teen and adult-child sex are more than reasonable. It’s beyond me why these views have made me into such a pariah. I’m not advocating anything bad.
On a final note, I don’t completely agree with much of Bumface’s hebephilia defense below. Nevertheless, I concur with him that hebephilia is not pathological or even abnormal for that matter.
Hello, I’ve been reading some evo-psych and sexology, and I’ve come across some things I think are very wrong. I just want to explain what I think is wrong about these ideas. Most of what I say will probably just be ignored by people in the field, but I’ll say it anyway.
I’ve often seen it claimed in the Evo-Psych literature that the best females for men to go for in ancestral times were those in their late teens at peak reproductive value. Many people just nod their heads in agreement with this claim without knowing that this is not really how it works in the real world. In primitive foraging societies the girls are actually married off quite a bit younger than that. Most girls are married off by the time they’re 16, so focusing on girls after that age would obviously not have been the best strategy.
In order to stand a chance at monopolizing the females’ reproductive lifespans, the best females to go for are those just prior the onset of their fertility, not after it, and this is what we see happening in primitive foraging societies. The girls are usually married off, and the men start having sex with them a few years before they become fertile.
By getting a female slightly before the onset of her fertility, you can guarantee she hasn’t been impregnated by any other males and still has all her reproductive years ahead of her. The price you pay for doing that is that you’re going to have to wait several years before she starts giving you offspring, but it’s not a big problem.
I’ve seen some Evo-Psychs claim that women about 20 would have been the best for long-term relationships in ancestral times. Now, this is completely out of touch with reality. Girls in foraging societies usually start reproducing before they’re 20, so what these Evo-Psychs are saying is that the best females to go for would have been those that are already married off and up the duff by some other man in the tribe. Complete nonsense.
The best females to go for would have been those that weren’t yet married or starting to reproduce. The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in foraging societies is about the mid to late teens, so men would do best by aiming for girls under that age. If focusing on 20 yr olds is such a winning strategy, then how come we don’t see men in foraging societies using it?
Instead, we see girls get married off much younger than that, and it’s certainly not 20 yr olds that sell for the highest price in bride markets. It’s usually girls much younger than that. In a recent study into child marriage in Tanzania, they found that girls about 13 were selling for over double the price of 20 yr olds. If these Evo-Psychs are going to keep on ignoring real-world data like this, then they can’t call themselves proper scientists.
In his paper arguing that hebephilic preferences are maladaptive, Blanchard claimed that taking on pubescent wives would not be a workable strategy since you’d have to wait a few years before they’d start reproducing, but this argument is just more nonsense that ignores real-world data. We know the strategy works fine because we see it working.
It’s common practice in foraging societies for men to marry girls several years before they reach reproductive age. The most common age is about 14, but that’s only the age they’re officially married. The relationship often begins several years before that.
Sure, the men have to wait a few years before they start getting offspring from their wives, but it isn’t much of a problem and is easily outweighed by the advantages of getting a female who is guaranteed to have all her fertile years ahead of her. If it was as big a problem as Blanchard claimed, then it wouldn’t have become common practice to marry girls that young.
12 yo girls in HG societies on average live into their 50s, so claims that your 12 yo wife may die before she starts giving you offspring are more nonsense. Sure, she might die, but the chances are she’ll live all the way to menopause and be able to give you plenty of offspring along the way. Again, real-world data is being ignored. Two other ridiculous claims in his hebephilia paper are first about the fact that pubescent girls in foraging societies are often closely guarded to protect them from sexual harassment and rape, and second about the reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe.
Blanchard mentioned that pubescent girls are often guarded by their male relatives and claimed that this is somehow evidence that being attracted to pubescent girls is abnormal. Wait, what? If they didn’t have to be guarded that would be evidence that the men aren’t interested in them. The fact they have to be closely guarded just goes to show how much the men want them.
When a girl in a primitive foraging society comes into puberty and sprouts some perky eye-catching boobs, she has now entered her most attractive time of life, and all the men notice. She’s now a perky little Lolita, a young maiden, her body is tight and fresh, her boobs are pert, and her face is young and cute.
She is now at the age she where she will suffer the most sexual harassment and is most likely to be sexually assaulted or abducted by raiders who want to keep her for themselves. That’s why she has to be closely guarded at that age. By the time she gets to about 20 and has started reproducing, she’s past her peak, the men lose a lot of interest in her, and she no longer has to be closely guarded.
Her boobs have started getting saggy from breast-feeding, she has stretch-marks on her stomach, pregnancy has made her fatter, and her face has lost its youthful freshness and sparkle.
The risk of sexual assault follows the same pattern in our societies. Girls are most likely to be victims of sex crimes between the onset of puberty and the beginning of adulthood. The males in our species are focusing on the females just prior the beginning of their reproductive lifespan when their long-term reproductive potential is at its highest.
At the end of his paper Blanchard shows some reproductive statistics from the Pume tribe and thinks he has proof that hebephilia would be maladaptive. Basically, the statistics show that girls who start reproducing under 14 are reproductively less successful overall than those who start at 16+.
He thinks this means that men who commit themselves to girls under 14 would also be reproductively less successful than those who commit themselves to girls 16+. This just does not mathematically follow because the girls don’t start reproducing at the age that men commit themselves to them.
A man may marry a 12 yo girl and start having sex with her at that age, but she won’t typically get pregnant until several years later. If a man married an 8 yo girl, she obviously won’t start reproducing at that age, apart from maybe one time in ten million. You can’t presume that a girl would start reproducing at the age a man commits himself to her because that just isn’t what we observe to happen in the real world.
Men in primitive societies marry young girls, but they don’t start reproducing until a few years later. That’s the whole point of the strategy. In order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, you need to claim and commit yourself to her sometime before she reaches reproductive age. What those statistics are really telling us is that it’s a bad idea for girls to start reproducing in their pubescent years. If a girl starts reproducing at 12, she’ll leave behind fewer descendants than if she starts at 17.
It’s a bad idea to start reproducing at 12, and that’s why it rarely happens. Evolution has selected out a lot of the genes that cause girls to start reproducing at 12, though not completely because it does still happen sometimes. Selection happens on a gradient, it’s not just on or off. What makes Blanchard’s theory even more laughable is that the Pume are actually a good example of how adaptive hebephilic preferences can be.
The typical age of a girl’s first pregnancy in the Pume is about 15, so in order to stand a chance at monopolizing a girl’s reproductive lifespan, Pume men need to claim her before she’s 15. Which is exactly what happens. It’s common practice in this tribe for men to marry and knob girls about 12. Whoops.
I think being gay makes it difficult for Blanchard to understand normal male sexuality. One thing he doesn’t seem to understand is that straight men find cuteness sexy.
For example, Belle Delphine.
He seems to think that men should only find adult features sexy, but this is just wrong. There’s no law of evolution that says males must prefer the fully developed adult form. The only thing that ultimately matters in evolution is reproductive success.
If the males in a species can achieve greater reproductive success by going after the immature females, then they will evolve to do exactly that. This has happened to a degree in our species. It makes sense for men to go for females who are a bit immature and haven’t quite yet reached reproductive age because they still have all their reproductive years ahead of them.
The female physical features that men find the most attractive are often those that indicate a certain level of immaturity. The facial proportions men find most attractive are those of girls about 13-14. Men find soft, smooth, hairless skin highly attractive. The skin of adult women is usually a bit coarser and a bit hairy. Disproportionately long legs are highly attractive to men.
During puberty when a girl has her growth spurt, her legs grow faster than her torso, making her legs out of proportion with the rest of her body. It’s not until adulthood that the rest of her body catches up. The general petiteness and slimness men find highly attractive is not typical of adult women but is instead the physical proportions we’d expect to see in teenage schoolgirls.
The BMI men find most attractive, for instance, is the typical BMI of girls about 13. The female genitals men find most attractive are those that look a bit immature, with small inner labia and overall petiteness – the kind of genitals we’d expect to see in girls about 12-14. Men find pert boobs the most attractive. In primitive foraging societies the boobs of adult women have gone saggy due to breast-feeding. It’s only the young adolescent girls who haven’t had a baby yet that still have nice pert boobs.
This state of breast pertness men find highly attractive is naturally an immature feature, not adult feature. In modern societies women retain this immature pert state longer into adulthood due to having babies at a later age and wearing bras that push up their boobs making them look perkier.
The male preference for blonde hair may be another example. People’s hair is often blonde when they’re kids and then goes darker when they’re adult. In cartoons and CGI the female characters are made more attractive by making them look immature, while for the males it generally goes the other way. And, of course, the image of the schoolgirl is popular in the porn industry all around the world.
Fairy tale men below.
So when sexologists like Blanchard and company claim that men prefer fully developed adults, we can see that this is not true. That is what they want to be true, the way they think men should be. They think men should have preferences for fully developed adults 18+, but that is just not what the data shows or what biology predicts.
The most popular age for girls in the porn industry is 18, but that’s because they’re not allowed to go any lower. Obviously, what the market really wants is girls under 18. It’s like in that Chernobyl drama when the Geiger counter measures 3.6 Roentgens because that was the highest it would go to. The evidence is that if there were no legal restrictions, the most popular age for girls in the porn industry would be about 14.
A few years ago, the most popular porn genre was the barely legal stuff in which they’d use petite 18 yo girls with cute faces who looked about 14. They’d often dress up in school uniforms or role play as a young girl. This practice has since stopped because porn like that is now classed as child porn in most countries, but that’s what the market wants.
According to “experts” like Blanchard and Seto, a preference for girls that age is an abnormal evolutionarily maladaptive sexual disorder. They are clowns. They don’t understand the very basics of how the human mating system works. I think it’s only a matter of time before social attitudes change and some studios are granted a special license to produce porn in which the actresses have been made to look under 18 with machine learning.
Some country, probably in Europe, will decide to legalize this pseudo-CP in an effort to cut down on demand for the real stuff. It will have its own category on porn sites, and each video or photo will be electronically licensed to distinguish it from real CP. I predict that when this happens, it will become the most popular category on porn sites, and the most popular age will be about 14.
The most popular AI girlfriend in China is Xiaoice. She’s officially 18 years old, but she’s clearly modeled on a girl about 14. She has a cute face, a petite little body, and wears a school uniform. We can see what the market really wants.
In this video she explains how she hopes to mature in the future, meaning that she’s immature at the moment.
Samsung getting in on it too. They’ve just brought out an immature-looking virtual assistant Sam.
This preference for immature females can’t be unique to our species. I imagine that in species in which the males try to monopolize the females’ reproductive lifespans, the males have a preference for the slightly immature females just prior the onset of their fertility. One example we see this in is Hamadryas baboons. They live in communities of several hundred out on the savanna.
Within these communities males keep small harems of females with their young. When the males enter maturity and are able to start building their harems, they become interested in the young immature virgin females and want to take possession of them. They often kidnap them from neighbouring communities.
What we see in Hamadryas baboons may be something like the way our Australopithicine ancestors used to live and mate out on the savanna. Over the past few million years of evolution through Homo Erectus and archaic humans, the harem size has gotten smaller and smaller, approaching monogamy.
But…but…don’t the highly scientific willy tests show that most men prefer fully developed adults? I don’t think we should take these primitive dick-meters too seriously. There are a ton of problems with them, the biggest of which is that the way people behave in the lab is not always the same as how they behave in the real world.
According to these dick-meters men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, in complete contradiction with both real-world data and what biology predicts. Teen schoolgirls have double the number of reproductive years ahead of them than 30 yo women, so biology predicts they would be much more sought after, and this is exactly what we see in the real world.
The schoolgirl image is much more popular than the MILFs in the porn industry, teen girls are targeted for sexual assaults much more often than 30 yo women, young teen girls sell for a much higher price in bride markets, and in fairy tales and mythologies around the world, young teen maidens are the most highly prized, etc.
If these tests say that men find 30 yo women more attractive than teen schoolgirls, then we just can’t take them seriously. I think the sexologists who like to rely on them so much are suffering a bad case of physics envy. They like the idea that they can take some scientific measurements of men’s attractions and put them in a graph or equation like they’re doing Real Science. One day we’ll have the technology to do that, but these primitive dick-meters just aren’t it, and if they’re in conflict with real-world data, then we should go with the real-world data.
Menarche and Mammories
In a lot of primitive societies there are taboos against having sex with girls before menarche. A man may marry a young girl, but he isn’t supposed to consummate the marriage until she has her first period. People often take this to mean that this is the way nature intended things to work, as if menarche represented nature’s age of consent. When a girl has her first period, she has now supposedly become fertile and ready to have sex. A little bit of thinking will show that this just isn’t true.
There are no dramatic changes in a girl’s appearance of behaviour when she starts having periods. If a girl sprouted boobs and became interested in sex all of a sudden when she had her first period, we would have good reason to think girls have evolved to start mating just after menarche, but we see no such thing. One month before and one month after menarche girls look and behave the same. Minus the symbolic significance many cultures put on it, menarche is actually pretty uneventful.
Also, menarche doesn’t really mark the beginning of fertility. Girls don’t usually become able to conceive until 2-3 years after their first period. These rules against having sex with girls before menarche are really just as much social inventions as the age of consent in our societies. We have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before age X,” and these primitive societies may have a rule that says “Don’t have sex with girls before menarche.” But is that how people actually behave?
I grew up in a working-class town just outside London in the UK. The AOC was 16, but it was common for men to have sex with girls younger than that. I knew two girls who lost their virginity at age 11 to men in their 20’s. Girls about age 13 would often have older boyfriends in their late teens or early 20’s. That’s what happened with my mum and dad.
I was always jealous of those Bigger Boys taking our girls, but when I was 20, I had a 13 yo girlfriend for a while, so it all balanced out in the end. When she was 15 she hooked up with her 35 yo uncle-in-law, and they’ve now been together for about 20 years and had 3 kids.
I knew a girl who loved older men, and when she was 12, she confided in me that she was screwing a 50 yo man who lived in the flats. I never saw him but I had no reason to doubt her. She also had a 23 yo boyfriend for a while when she was 12, and that was no secret. He was a friend of the family and used to come around her house to visit a lot.
So this is a little taste of reality. We may have this rule against having sex with girls under 16, but it happens anyway. The attitude we basically had was that if a girl had reached puberty and got the boobers, then she was ready. I think this is the way nature intended things to work, and we see the same kind of thing happening in primitive societies.
When Chagnon lived with the Yanomamo, he saw that when a girl got to about 12 and had some boobs, all the men noticed and she had to be guarded to protect her from sexual harassment and rape. The men weren’t supposed to have sex with girls that young because they usually hadn’t started their periods yet, but in reality they did. Most girls would start having sex with their husbands before menarche. In the Ache tribe researchers found that every single girl lost her virginity before menarche, usually with an adult man.
Out there in the jungle they may have some rule that you should only have sex with a girl when she has had her first period, but in reality probably most girls get screwed before that. Boobs are nature’s signal a girl is physically ready to have sex, not menarche. A girl reaches puberty, sprouts the boobs that signals she’s ready, and all the males notice and want to have have sex with her. This is how nature intended mating to work. It’s kind of obvious when you think about it.
Girls develop boobs a few years before they become fertile and able to conceive, but this is nothing strange. Soon after the onset of puberty, chimp females start getting sexual swellings on their bums that signal they’re ready to have sex, but they don’t become fertile until a few years after that. So we’re just following the same pattern we see in other animals. The females develop sexual characteristics and start having sex a bit before the onset of their fertility.
1-800-Whatever: No Robert, I don’t. I’ve never been on their sites, but I am familiar with their ideas based on their comments I’ve come across but more so from what their “Manospherian” detractors say about them. I try to empathize with them, even though I don’t generally endorse their ‘mood,’ so to speak. I just wanted to point out the (pseudo) cool Gametards that ‘punch down’ at and scorn them. I don’t like that sort of rigmarole.
Sure. We are all incels, are we not? How many of us men have gone for more than six months of involuntary celibacy? And suppose we say buying prostitutes doesn’t count? Now how many have gone at least six months of involuntary celibacy. My God, it must be most of us. If you look at my raw figures like how many females I dated or my laycount, supposedly I’m in the top 6% of men. On the other hand, I’ve absolutely had periods of six months+ involuntary celibacy, especially if we don’t include whoremongering.
So in a way, we are all incels! These guys who call themselves that have simply experienced the worst possible incel experiences: they have been deprived of all or most all female affection for their entire lives, which has logically left them bitter, angry, depressed, self-hating, and even aggressive and violent. There’s a little bit of the incel in all of us is what I am saying. I look at those guys and think, “There but for the grace of God go I.”
I always thought I did well just because I was so fucking cool and had such outrageous Game that females just couldn’t love me enough. In other words, my success was due to my actual superiority to other men. However, some Manosphere types, especially Looksists, schooled me and told me that I was deceiving myself and that much of my success was probably just pure good Looks. It was a bit hard for my ego to take at first, but I handled it well because I’ve always derived a lot of my self-esteem from my Looks.
Now, for sure you need to combine good Looks with other things like good personality and especially Game. Anything else – any status, power, money, fame, intelligence, talent, sense of humor, charm, etc., – can’t hurt, but these are all “add-ons” to the basic Looks requirement. In other words, in many cases, Looks is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for success with women. And many of those other things other than the first four are neither necessary nor sufficient to get women.
I guess there are guys without Looks who do great with pure Game, but I would not want to go that route myself. Hell, even with Looks, the World of Women is a scary enough place as it is. Sometimes it feels like walking through a field of razorblades. Actually it’s felt that way most of my life, even back in the day.
The world of Women is not inherently harmful but there are so many obstacles, you have to watch every step you take or you get hurt, it’s oh so easy to mess up and cut yourself pretty bad, and when you get cut, no one soothes you or patches you up, so you have to lie and say you never got cut. If you tell the truth about getting cut, everyone laughs at you and calls you a loser. So you grit your teeth and tiptoe through the field of knives once again. Our penises that guide and control our frontal cortexes demand that we must walk the razor-sharp minefield again and again.
Booker T: Women want all ugly/older/short/disabled guys to be regulated to the margins of society as unseen, unheard worker drones whose only purpose is to provide the tax revenue that sponsors the lives of women, Chads, and their Chadspawn children. This is no exaggeration. This is EXACTLY what their end goal is!!
You are actually correct. I was a Chad in my youth, so I got spoiled. You would not believe the outrageous shit that women let us Chads get away with! They practically let us get away with murder! No lie!
Now that I am older and apparently unattractive to women, it seems that nothing is more offensive in this world to women than the fact either that I exist in the first place or that I have a sex drive or both.
Almost all young women want absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with me. They won’t even make friendly conversation. We don’t have to have sex! We don’t have to do anything sexual! But we can’t even be the slightest bit of friends. And what really infuriates people more than anything else is that I still have a sex drive. I still look at women. That really infuriates women, especially young ones. It’s outrageous that I have a sex drive at all! I don’t think they would accept me much if I didn’t have a sex drive, but the fact that I have one seems to drive them completely up the wall.
The incels have been saying this for a long time. They have been saying that women seem to be furious that ugly men even exist at all! It’s like an affront to their existence that these guys even share the planet with them. And the incels said that the fact that they have a sex drive seemed to drive these women particularly crazy.
The feeling seems to be that women are disgusted and outraged at the idea of me having sex at all with anyone. I guess I’m disgusting now and it infuriates women that disgusting men have sex. Although I will grant that even some of the young ones are ok with me chatting up and hitting on women more my age. They just don’t want me having anything to do with young ones. Perhaps they’re not disgusted at the idea of me having sex with a woman my age.
I never quite believed the incels until I started to experience this for myself. Now I know it’s true. The incels are right about so many things. I still don’t agree with a lot of their outlook, especially the hatred of women, but the only reason I like women at all is because they were so good to me back when I was a Chad.
The reason those incels hate women is because women have been treating them like toxic waste their whole lives. You hit a man enough times, he might just hit you back! What do you expect? I’m also quite certain that if those incel guys experienced what I got to experience in my youth, there is no way that most of them would hate women. If people are good to you, you like them. If they’re crappy to you, you hate them. It’s not rocket science.
I think you are right. I’m not sure if they care that we exist, but I think instead that they would prefer us to be out of sight. If we existed but they never saw us, I think they would be quite happy with that.
Manuel Rodriguez: I just wanted to mention briefly how i was studying about Game and mating systems for a while and share some of my findings.
In summary, since men have youthfulness as an significant part on how they score attractiveness on a mate, some feminists are trying harshly to outlaw men from being able to have sex with young women (sometimes reaching ridiculousness), which would eliminate them (those girls) as competitors, increasing their own chances in the mating game. Under the logic of sexual market economy/mating market, women “sell” sex to men.
Much like oil producing OPEC countries have in their best interest to make oil as expensive as possible, is in the interest of women to make sexual access as expensive as they can. Under this logic, banning pornography serves to increase the price of sex. That’s not to say that some of their arguments and demands are invalid, like sex trafficking and enslavement in pornography. Still, one can’t deny that this might be a reason too.
I figured out that the people that attempt to ban prostitution, putting aside religious fundamentalists, are mostly upper middle and high class women, and they do it when they manage to get a majority political control.
Sure, but why do upper middle and upper class women wish to ban prostitution. A lot of them are basically the biggest whores of them all. How do you think they got all that money? You think they earned it on their own? LOL. A lot of them earned it on their backs by getting with rich men!
Yes, banning porn does increase the price of sex, or Pussy as I call it.
This is a perfect comment. I call it the Pussy Market. That’s crude, but that’s what it is. It’s in women’s interest to keep the price of Pussy as high as possible and furthermore to restrict the supply of Pussy as much as possible. As there is a chronic Pussy shortage, shortages of products always drive up prices.
Therefore, the more women restrict the supply of Pussy, the more the price goes up. That’s one of the main reasons they want to keep teenage girls, even 16 and 17 year old girls, off the market. Those girls compete with women and they go straight for the best of the best men in my experience. It’s hard for a woman to compete with a jailbait hottie, and hundreds of millions of men will fuck these girls if they get a chance.
In Sweden, feminists are trying to outlaw men taking mail order brides simply to dry up the Pussy supply and drive up the price of Pussy. Swedish women are such horrendous feminists now that Swedish men are just bailing on these bitches altogether. They are going over to Thailand to pick up traditional Thai women, who incidentally do make very good wives. Instead of quitting being such awful bitches so there men might like them more, they are outlawing the competition.
Feminists are also trying very hard to outlaw sex dolls. I don’t really care about these dolls and I’ve never used one. But it’s obvious that these things are used as Pussy substitutes, and men using them drives down demand for Pussy, which drives down the price. Men also use porn instead of having sex with women, so this also drives down demand for Pussy. Declining demand means declining prices. I’m not sure about prostitution.
I suppose if prostitution exists, men can buy prostitutes instead of dating ordinary women, so that might drive down the demand for Pussy. But on the other hand, that prostitution exists at all shows most women that they can get money for Pussy. If women find out you have even bought a prostitute, a lot of them will narrow their eyes, knowing that they have a sucker who pays for pussy. Women find allegiance with prostitutes. After all, prostitutes are doing what all the rest of them are doing, which is charging for pussy.
I had a Black girlfriend once whose eyes lit up when I told her I had bought a few prostitutes in my day. To her that meant I was a sucker idiot who paid for Pussy, and now she felt even more motivated to charge me than she already did. And boy did charge me. By the way, no race of women has a more whorish attitude towards sex than Black women.
As long as all these whores are out there charging top dollar for Pussy, a lot of women look at that and say, “Hmmmm, I should charge too, just like them.” It sets an example. I’m not sure if outlawing prostitution would affect the Pussy market in any way. Obviously it increases the Pussy shortage and increases the demand for Pussy, therefore, it probably drives up the price of Pussy. But I’m not sure if it works out that way in real life.
There is no race of women who has the idea that men need to pay good money to access their pussies than Black women. And no race of women has a prostitution and pseudo-prostitution rate as high as Black women.
I still meet Black women who are frankly prostitutes in one way or another. This race of women also seems to think that there is nothing wrong with prostitution. 45% of female prostitutes are psychopaths. In fact, prostitute is the typical outcome of a female psychopath. Black women have psychopathy rates twice as high as White women. This does not mean that Black women are psychopaths. The Psychopathy Scale ranges from 0-40. Reportedly most people score more than zero, so we are all at least a bit psychopathic. This is no concern to me as a bit of psychopathy in the human is quite normal. It’s pure mammalian beast logic.
Let’s say White women have a Psychopathy score on the PCL of 4, which may well be their average. Then Black women would have a Psychopathy score on the PCL of 8. You need a score of 20 to be a psychopath. My point is that even among us normal non-psychopaths, people can be more or less psychopathic. And you can be pretty damn psychopathic and still score below 20. The 20+ scores are for the true outliers, the pure psychopaths and sociopaths that cause so much damage. So perhaps this more casual attitude towards whoring among Black women is due to increased psychopathy.
A commenter: Crying is for MEN AND WOMEN. For centuries the patriarchy has stuffed us with bullshit where women are considered the weak that cry and men are MEN.
If a man crying will not be respected by the woman, it is most likely due to the fact the man has done some ‘manly’ thing, she is just not interested that much in him, or the woman is just too influenced by the patriarchy.
Advice from another man: Cry your eyes out, experience emotions, you are a brittle and sensitive human being.
You know what? Normally I would agree with you. On the other hand, I have known men who just cried too much. It was pussy, sissy, weak behavior. They were not gay but they were wimpy, and worse, they were male feminists who believed in rape culture and the rest of that nonsense.
I felt like you for many years. I finally gave up and caved in to the patriarchy. Women want toxic masculinity in men. IMHO, that’s pretty much all they want. I would be surprised to find a woman who would tolerate anything less in a man, especially nowadays. I’m a man who has had women troubles my whole life due to the fact that I seem soft. Women interpret that to mean pussy, gay, wimpy, weak, etc., and they get aggressive and try to dom me or bully me or they turn into bitches.
A lot of sadistic bitches deliberately hook up with what they see as weak men so they can kick their asses their whole lives. And some of these women may indeed love their men. It’s terrible to be in a relationship like that. The last thing you want to hear from other women is, “We don’t like the way she treats you! She is really mean to you, and we don’t like it!” It’s nice that they have your back, but it looks terrible. If you are out in public and she is bitching you out, people will look at you with disgust. Hispanics, both men and women, are by far the worst about this.
I used to call myself a pure androgyne along the lines of Bowie, the Dolls, or Mick Jagger. That worked back in the 70’s and early 80’s when everyone was like that and men had the freedom to act that way, but we no longer have that freedom.
Society has gone completely backwards in the way men are allowed to express ourselves. And this change has been enforced by women. Most toxic masculinity is enforced by women. Most men accept me as a perfectly masculine man because I walk the walk and talk the talk. But what works with men does not work with women. Women are far more demanding in terms of masculinity than men are. Further, they don’t understand the meaning of masculinity in the male world. They have a cartoon version of masculinity that does not line up at all with what men experience with other men.
I’ve basically given up and I act a lot more masculine now. I must say my life with women has gotten a lot better. I also cuss out girlfriends in the meanest way possible when they get out of line with me. Since I started doing this, I have never had such deep relationships with women. Women have loved me more than they ever did before.
I think women want a mean man. Not one who is mean all the time, but one is mean sometimes. All you have to be is mean sometimes. You can be a real nice guy all the rest of the time. But you can’t let her get away with shit, and you can’t let her get out of line. If she does, read her the riot act. It is also important that your woman be a bit afraid of you.
The more afraid of you she is, the less she will bitch you out. A woman who bitches you out a lot is often doing it because she’s not afraid of you. If she’s afraid of you and bitching you out, then she’s just a crazy, suicidal bitch. No woman should bitch out a scary man without a good reason, but they do it all the time. I call that “trying to get murdered.” Which, by the way, is also something women do all the time. Unsurprisingly, sometimes when women are trying to do this, they actually achieve their goal. That is, they get murdered.
Mostly just lots of short stories these days. They’re all considered classic literature. One book is a set of French short stories by writers who are considered to write classic literature.
The French book was published in 1960, so we are dealing with dated material here, all over 60 years old:
Charles Baudelaire: Paris Spleen (1869). “Prose poems or proems,” an odd literary form. Very nice. I have read The Flowers of Evil (both are books of poetry), and I cannot recommend them highly enough, especially Le Fleurs du Mal. French Symbolist literature, or more properly, Decadent literature, from the late 1800’s. He hung out with Paul Verlaine, Arthur Rimbaud and Stéphane Mallarmé, all of them haunting Parisian bars in drunken ecstasy.
He as actually straight, unlike some of those other guys who were homosexuals. He was sickly, nuts, erratic, a drug-addict, flake, dilettante, gambler, spendthrift, and heavy drinker who lived his whole life in poverty. He attempted suicide once. Dead at 46. Marcel Proust said Baudelaire was the greatest poet of the 19th Century. He was also praised by Edmund Wilson and T. S. Eliot, who actually referred to himself as a “Baudelarian.” He was claimed by both conservatives and liberals. On the left, Walter Benjamin praised him.
Francois Mauriac: The Grand-Lebrun (1933). First thing I ever read by this guy. Has a James Joyce feel about it, especially Portrait of an Artist as a Young Man.
In the other book, published in 1968, so these stories are all over 50 years old:
Anton Chekhov: Misery (1885) and Rothschild’s Fiddle (1894). These are better than either of the French stories. This is the first Chekhov I have read. He’s 19th Century Russia, so I warn you, these stories, like most Russian lit from that time, are depressing and gloomy as Hell. Someone either dies, has just died, or will soon die, or all three at once. Nevertheless, his style is truly amazing and heartrendingly beautiful and sad. He is said to be one of the masters of the short story.
Ernest Hemingway: Big Two-Hearted River (1925). This one also is almost perfect. Classic Hemingway understated yet perfect prose. He doesn’t waste a sentence or probably a word. His writing is based on the Iceberg Theory. I’ve also read a number of his novels A Farewell to Arms, For Whom the Bell Tolls,The Old Man and the Sea, and The Sun Also Rises. I also read Death in the Afternoon (nonfiction) along with In Our Time and Men without Women, short story collections.
William Faulkner: Dry September (1930). Nice little story, terrible subject matter. He catches the South in all of its casual brutality. I also read Light in August, and it is excellent. Can’t recommend it enough. It’s written a lot in stream of consciousness, so you have to pay attention to whose mind he is in and who’s talking at the time. Also a lot of it is in dialect.
Vladimir Nabokov: First Love (1943). This story is just gorgeous, but it’s not an easy read at all. He’s one of my favorite writers ever, truly one of the greats. However, he is not an easy read at all. Like Hemingway, his work is full of hidden details, references, clues, puns, on and on. I’m not sure if it’s possible for the non-intellectual to read his stuff on an entertainment level.
I’ve also read Lolita and Bend Sinister. Both are good, but Lolita, the story of a pedophile (or hebephile) child molester and relationship with the extremely precocious, gum-smacking 12 year old sexpot Lolita, is out of this world, one of the greatest books of the 20th Century. I do know that it can be read on different levels though, and even at a basic level, it is incredible. If you wish to go hunting for the endless Easter eggs peppered all through this symbolism-shot book, you can do that too. If you haven’t read it, do so. Don’t worry about the disturbing subject matter. It’s something we talk about all the time anyway. We just don’t talk about it like this.
Richard Wright: The Man Who Lived Underground (1944). This is the first I have read of this author, the famous Black writer of the classic Native Son, which I probably need to read sometime. He’s very angry and all of his writing is about racism and Whites’ unjust treatment of Blacks. His writing is cold, vicious, cruel, and often horribly violent. But if you can handle him, he’s quite good. And to be fair, Blacks were treated terribly back when he was writing.
Kurt Vonnegut, Jr.: EPICAC (1950) and Next Door (1955). Both of these were great! Both of them are as good as a Chekhov or Borges short story, and that’s the gold standard. There’s often a wild twist at the end.
I’ve read quite a few books of his. I’ve read Breakfast of Champions or Goodbye Blue Monday!; Cat’s Cradle; God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater or Pearls Before Swine; Happy Birthday, Wanda June; Mother Night; Player Piano; Sirens of Titan; Slaughterhouse-Five or The Children’s Crusade: A Duty-Dance with Death, all novels. I’ve also read Welcome to the Monkey House, a book of short stories (now rereading it). In addition, I read Wampeters, Foma and Granfalloons (Opinions), nonfiction.
Vonnegut is very nice. He’s quite simple and anyone can read him. But his work is nevertheless absolutely brilliant. Because it’s so simplistic, there’s a tendency to see him as overrated, until you read him again and you realize just how brilliant he really is. If you like easy reading, I’d recommend any of the books above. They’re entertaining and funny, too, often in a self-deprecatory way. As a person, he was a huge asshole to just about everyone, but again, that’s not unusual with these genius types. They’re out to lunch in a lot of ways, and socially can be one of them.
Carson McCullers: The Sojourner and The Jockey (both 1955). First I have read of her too. Interesting writer. Sort of Hemingway-like, understated stuff. Overtones of melancholy.
James Allen McPherson: On Trains (1961). I had never even heard of this author before and at first I thought it was just the author trying to be antiracist by throwing in some Black (or other designated oppressed minority) author to get woke points. I was shocked. He’s excellent. If you like Black writers, check this guy out.
He writes about race a lot, but in a subtle, understated, matter of fact way, sort of like Faulkner. But he also deals with the reality of Black-White sexual relationships, which was probably controversial in his day. When he went to Yale, he had already experienced quite a bit of racism, but he seemed more philosophical and “I’m going to show those White boys how good I am” about it. He’s not nearly as militant and angry as Wright.
John Updike: A & P (1962) and The Doctor’s Wife (1962). A & P is one of the all-time greats. Then again, not much happens. But that’s true of the best short stories of all.
Consider For Esme, with Love and Squalor by J. D. Salinger. What happens? Not a whole lot. But it’s one of the best short stories of its time. And Updike is rather like Salinger in that way. His writing is very subtle and to figure it out properly, you need to get down below the basic writing to figure out what he’s really getting at. He shows. He doesn’t tell.
And dialogue is very important. He deals well with shades of emotion, feeling, and mental states that are often pretty hard for us to put our fingers on, and we would probably deny them even if we could. There can be a sense of lost opportunity or hypocrisy. His male characters are often gross sexists.
Misogyny is often apparent. I’m reading a recent novel of his, Towards the End of Time, and the same thing is going on. In many cases, this has to do with the author’s relationships with his ex-wives. But the lyrical Melvillean prose dancing off the pages of of this much later novel is joyous to read just for style alone..
I also read Hugging The Shore, a book of his book reviews and literary criticism. It was very good.
Donald Barthelme: Margins (1961) and See the Moon? (1966). This is literally some of the strangest and weirdest fiction I’ve ever read. It’s like this new fiction style called Weird. That’s about the only way to describe it. However, as an author, he is absolutely brilliant in a lot of different ways. You wonder how one man carried all this knowledge and insight in his 10 pound brain. I liked these stories, but they sure were weird all right. Plus which not much happens, but apparently that’s the idea.
I’ve read Amateurs; Come Back, Dr. Caligari; Forty Stories; Great Days; Sadness; Sixty Stories; Snow White; and Unspeakable Practices, Unnatural Acts, all short story collections. There was a time in the 80’s when I was binging on that stuff.
Jorge Luis Borges: The Secret Miracle (1962) and Funes the Memorious (1967). Borges is the great Argentine writer, one of the best writers of the last century. Nevertheless, he’s not for everyone and he’s a bit hard to get into. This writing is similar to Barthelme’s, but it is on a whole different level. It has been called magical realism. It has been called a lot of things. But there is no writing quite like it anywhere else.
It’s a bit like Gabriel Garcia Marquez of 100 Years of Solitude fame. After all, they are both South Americans and magical realism was birthed on the continent. He’s also rather like Ray Bradbury in terms of showing us fantastic and otherworldly visions of our world which are at once our own world and then again, something else entirely. I’ve always felt there was a bit of Franz Kafka in there too. There’s often a sense of tragedy in his writing, and usually someone dies. Death is always waiting around the corner. I’ve Ficciones and Labyrinths, both short story collections, during my time at university from 1978-1981.
John Barth: Life-Story (1968). John Barth wrote in The Literature of Exhaustion in 1967 that the novel form was used up and there was not much to do anymore as it had all already been done. It caused quite a stir on the lit scene. It appeared around the time that Roland Barthes, a literary critic, wrote The Death of the Author. Both are considered to be seminal texts in the emerging movement of postmodernism. Much literary criticism now continues to echo Barthes in positioning “author” and “reader” as completely different battling entities. It spends a lot of time mining the interplay between the two.
In 1980, he wrote The Literature of Replenishment in which he singled out Borges and Nabokov (see above) as two writers who were indeed doing new things with the novel instead of the same old same old.
Barth’s writing is self-consciously postmodern. After The Floating Opera and The End of the Road, things started getting weird. He became known for metafiction, that is fiction about the writing of fiction. The “writer” of whatever piece you are reading will often make an appearance, say a few things, and disappear.
Perhaps he will remind you that you’re only reading a book. Perhaps he will say that the story you are reading is really a story about an author writing a story. Which is about an author writing a story. And on and on. Get the picture? He was the first professor of Creative Writing in the US in 1953, although that is hard to believe. Now these departments are everywhere and all of their graduates are churning out at least a novel or two. To say we are swamped is an understatement.
His writing is full of a lot of self-conscious talk about novel-writing, how to write a novel, the components of a novel, the various ways one can choose in which to write a novel, the levels on which you can write them, characterization, plot, background, conflict, on and on. He often starts talking about this right in the middle of your reading, so you are reading along and then this “author” guy pops up and tells you there’s going to be a big plot change coming up ahead, so get ready for it. It’s weird and jarring but it’s very interesting.
This stuff is very hard to read and can be quite confusing at times. It’s also frustrating. But if you like to bend your mind a bit, this is a good place to do it.
I have read The Sot Weed Factor. That’s considered to be his best book.
You either like this writer or you don’t. I assure you that he is absolutely brilliant. But he’s not for everyone and some may find him a bore or end up throwing the book at the wall. Caveat emptor.
Saul Bellow: “A Father to Be” (1953): Interesting little story. In his early novels and short stories, the wild goings-on in the heads of his characters, who all have very rich and complex fantasy and emotional lives, is matched by the world, which is about as strange and active as the material in their heads. This can be seen in Dangling Man, The Victim, and even in The Adventures of Augie March and Seize the Day. After that, things start getting really weird and the outside world or the plots start veering way off course from the character’s inner lives. The mismatch between the two offers a lot of the conflict.
I have read Humbolt’s Gift at university, but I found it a bit of a chore honestly, and it was also rather boring. But then, I was 22, so hey. Maybe if I read it again at my age, I might get a lot more out of it.
It’s about the poet Delmore Schwartz, whose live was as wild as his poems. He wrote Under Milkwood, a Play for Voices. I’d never read it but maybe it’s not supposed to be read with your eyes. Maybe as the title implies, it’s supposed to be heard with your ears. I heard it on the radio one and the genius and brilliance of it was almost impossible to fathom. It was as good as Ulysses. Really. I don’t even know how he did it? How can one man do such a thing.
He drank himself to death at an early age like so many of these guys do. The story is he went to a bar and asked how many drinks he would have to drink to die and people at the bar estimated 17. So he proceeded to then drink precisely 18 drinks of alcohol. You know how this story ends, right? He died. Call it a suicide. Or a parasuicide. Anyway, it’s a typical way for this types, men as well as women, to take their final sleep.
I think the most common cause of death in poets must be suicide. And so many of them are depressives or manic-depressives. But it’s a fine line between creativity and mental illness and that’s why so many of us artistic types are so nutty. Yeah, I consider myself an artsy type. If I’m not, sue me. Anyway, it’s a great excuse for being crazy!
Also, an unbelievable number of poets are more or less gay. A lot of the women are lesbian or bi and often dykey or mannish. Gay male poets are almost a stereotype. But then the link between the Arts and Homosexuality was noted as far back as Antiquity. Some have even suggested that should a cure for homosexuality or genetic testing show up, we might want to keep gays around just for their creativity. As with so many questions of some but not great importance, I’m inclined to leave that up in the air or for the Gods to work out, which is basically the same thing.
A while back I was going through a bunch of poets because I had nothing better to do with my time and I kept running into this Gay-Suicide-Poet thing. A lot of the women’s dykeyness was turning me off, and I was terribly sad to find out that some of my favorite male authors were batting for the other team.
Then I achieved an epiphany. I don’t really if so many of these poets are faggots, dykes, and suicides or some combination of first two and the third, their lives were worth it and glorious and beautiful and perfect just for leaving us that sublime silver prose that sings off the pages as we read it. They did not die in vain. And perhaps there’s a place in the world for folks like that. It takes all types to fill the freeways.
The feminists hate Ernest Hemingway and call him a sexist macho pig, but that’s a bum rap. His women are often very good, and it’s not uncommon that they are stronger than the men. In fact, a lot of his men are rather weak and pussy-whipped and the woman is wearing the pants. Considering Hemingway’s macho demeanor, this is odd.
Philip Roth has a reputation for drawing shrewish, screeching harpies for his female characters. Presumably, his wives or ex-wives figure into this. However, an ex-wife of his was interviewed and she said he was more boring that sexist or misogynistic. He wrote a solid four hours a day and then spent eight hours reading literary fiction. 12 hours a day, all used up. He was pretty much inaccessible during those periods. Roth was also a massive narcissist, but that’s not uncommon in famous male writers. Come to think of it, a lot of male artists of all kinds are narcissistic. Sort of goes with the territory.
Saul Bellow had a similar reputation when he wrote about wives and ex-wives, but he married four times. I think it’s a bit of a bum rap in his case.
Henry Miller was grotesquely and ridiculously misogynistic. He was the classic misogynistic player who spent his life drowning in pussy even though he was a huge asshole and he was pretty mean to boot. Anais Nin, who was very close to him, once called him on his misogyny, and he protested that he loved women, after all, he was surrounded by them all the time. But all misogynistic playboys are like this. They look down on or possibly even hate women, don’t treat them well, and women reward these semi-sociopathic misogynists by drowning them in pussy.
There’s also the player or womanizer who loves women or ladies’ man. He simply can’t get enough of them and even prefers to spend his time with women instead of men. He even thinks like a woman, somewhat. He’s often very goodlooking and he’s a bit softer than the other kind. He doesn’t treat women very well either, but he does love them.
Bukowski was a serious misogynist. A drunken raging creep. I remember one interview in his home where he drunkenly picked up a chair and hurled it at whichever Young Woman Writer Groupie Du Jour was staying with him, and he added in a ton of abuse. And she hadn’t done much to deserve it. In addition, he was a proud alcoholic and he was also probably the ugliest man that ever lived, yet he got lots of women his whole life. Go figure.
A lot of people really hate this writer. He’s gay as Hell and his books are just drenched with the grossest scenes of gay male sex. It’s a bit hard to take. With regard to the latter stuff, I used to just sort of skim over them though. They didn’t really bother me. It wasn’t so much gross as I simply felt nothing at all. It was like I was reading something boring about water.
I’ve always felt this way about gay stuff. I saw naked boys in the shower room every day in high school for years. Of course I used to look at them sometimes, more out of curiosity than anything else. I was wondering if guys turned me on. I already knew that females turned me on like crazy. They were on my mind 24-7 back then, and it’s barely let up since. But sometimes you wonder if you want to double your chances of getting a date on Saturday night, you know?
Mostly I was sort of phobic around those male bodies, and I think the other guys might have been too. You would be showering and changing around all these guys, and you pretended you didn’t see them. It was like they weren’t there. I don’t think a gay boy could do that. I looked at boy’s bodies in the showers. I felt nothing at all. Looked at them changing next to me. Felt nothing at all. It’s always been like that.
I wonder how other straight guys feel about being around naked men. Most of us don’t really like it, and it tends to make us uncomfortable, though it probably shouldn’t. Do other men feel disgusted looking at guys’ bodies, or do they feel uncomfortable, yucky, and phobic? Or do they just feel zero, nothing, zip, nada, nope, nothing there at all.
Nevertheless, I always loved Burroughs’ prose. He was one of great writers of the later half of the 20th Century, and he was conceivably a genius. There is something about the style and themes of his writing. He was a master. I remember in The Western Lands where there’s this part when they are on some centipede expedition in the jungle of South America. This goes on for 20-30 pages. All of Burroughs’ genius and style vanishes, and now he is writing the way any ordinary guy with ordinary writing skills writes: good enough but not particularly well. And he keeps this up for 20-30 pages, never missing a beat, all in this lower, less competent register. It was simply amazing.
Burroughs is widely read by straight guys. He’s one of the few gay writers who has an audience outside the gay ghetto other than Gide, Proust, Wilde, Mann, Forster and the other old guys. But they didn’t write about homosexuality much, so they were easier to take.
He was also a king of the beats, so everyone who was into the beat movement read him.
I’m not sure about the hippie movement, but it wasn’t unusual to find a stoned-out long-haired young man in his 20’s backpacking across Europe with a copy of Nova Express in his pack in the 1970’s. It was almost a cliche, you know?
Burroughs was always hip.
And when punk rock came around, all of the punks loved him, and he quickly became king of the punks for whatever reason. His novels were rechristened as punk novels.
I don’t think he’s much read anymore, and the gay sex along with the horrible violence and depictions of death and other disgusting things makes his books a very hard read. The books are also drenched with drugs and crime. A lot of his characters are drug users, often junkies, and criminals of various types from thieves all the way up to the big guys. The books are full of street slang and criminal cant.
I’d say Burroughs is still read, by those who can bear him, let’s put it that way. There’s been an attempt by the gays to “gay ghetto” him like they do to all of their kind, but it didn’t work. Homosexuality is not a very important part of those books anyway. It’s certainly not why I read them.
He received much praise. Norman Mailer said he was
The only American author who could be conceived of having genius.
Samuel Beckett didn’t talk about other writers once, but he was once asked about Burroughs. The day was long and the light was going out of the room. As it got darker, Beckett didn’t turn on any lights or do anything to let more light in. The room just got dimmer and gloomier while he seemed to relish in this change. Of course that’s just like his books.
William Burroughs? William Burroughs is…a writer.
Like a real writer. The real deal. The real McCoy. To be good enough to be called a real writer by Beckett was an accomplishment.
He had great taste in literature, and he read all the time. I recall one interview when they asked him what he was reading:
“Well, Conrad (Joseph Conrad) of course. And Proust (Marcel Proust). I always read Proust. And Chesterton (G.K. Chesterton).
I would say you can see the influence of Conrad for sure in his prose. I can’t say much about the other two because I’ve never read Proust, and I’ve only dipped into a bit of Chesterton, a short nonfiction book he wrote very early in his career in 1903 about 19th Century poet Robert Browning, noted for his difficulty. The book is called Robert Browning.
What’s interesting is that all of those men wrote from 1890-1930, probably 50-80 years before the interviewer asked Burroughs that question. Of course those are three of the greats of the 20th Century, but when you ask someone what they’ve been reading, how often do they list any of those three? How often would they have listed those three when that question was asked of Burroughs, probably in the 1980’s? Same answer. No one reads any of those writers, not anymore, anyway.
On the down side, Burroughs also hated women. He was not afraid to say so, either. This is not unusual in gay men, especially in the more masculine ones like Burroughs. They simply don’t like women. This type of gay man is a lot more common than you think.
Here’s a bit of his prose:
They lounged around Singapore and Rangoon smoking opium in yellow pongee suits. They sniffed cocaine in Mayfair and they penetrated forbidden swamps with a faithful native boy and lived in the native quarter of Tangier smoking hashish and languidly caressing a pet gazelle.
– William S. Burroughs, from an essay written in 1985.
Isn’t that just perfect, glorious, and beautiful? I love the way those sentences slide across the page. I like the way the scenes jolt around from one faraway place to another within a single sentence. It’s like we took a world tour in two sentences.
You write that the Promise Keepers declined after their ’90s heyday because the appeal of their soft patriarchy was fading. What filled the void were outfits like Mars Hill Church, founded in 1996 in Seattle by Mark Driscoll. It was tattooed, cursing, beer-drinking, hypermasculine, and really quite misogynistic.
Driscoll called on women in the congregation to give their husbands oral sex, warned against men being “pussified,” described women as being created by God to be “homes for men’s penises.” By 2019, Mars Hill had more than seven hundred churches all over the world.
Mars Hill was part of something called the New Calvinist movement. What was the New Calvinist movement, and how did it affect the evangelical movement?
I have a MAGA fundamentalist Christian girlfriend these days. She’s practically an MRA. When there’s any conflict between men and women, she sides with the men and blames the women LOL. She also thinks #metoo is bullshit and nothing but complete faggotry. She cheers on men who hit on women or buy whores.
He’s just trying to get his dick wet!…Good for him! He’s just trying to get laid!
She’s also very much into traditional masculinity. When she gets uppity with me, I set her in her place, and she agrees with me:
Just shove your cock down my throat and make me shut up!
I realize this shit is totally reactionary and backwards and against all of my cool liberal leftwing progressive values, but Goddamn is this a breath of fresh air!
I see why this sort of thing appeals to men. It’s basically paradise for men.
A Lot of Women Literally Want to Be the “Consensual Slaves of Men”
Not sure what it is for women, but if it’s slavery, a lot of them want to be “slaves.” Come to think of it, “consensual slavery” seems to be an integral part of the Feminine Character.
I realize there are a lot of women who hate this idea, but you’d be shocked at how many women actually love to live like this. They literally want the man to be above them. I’m not sure if it is a superiority-inferiority thing or a master-slave thing. It’s more like we are all in some sort of a Gender Army and the men are higher ranking officers than the women and they wish to be lower ranking officers and take (reasonable) orders from us. They like to be ordered around. They enjoy being at our beck and call. They see us as as the rock to hold onto in the roiling seas to keep from drowning.
I don’t’ believe women are inferior, and it’s not a scientific question with a real answer anyway. The answer to that question is whatever you think it is – it’s a matter of opinion and not of science. This is in spite of the fact that so many male autists think they can assemble scientific truth of women’s inferiority.
On the other hand, the man has to dominate the woman, if only just a little bit. If you don’t dominate her, she will rip those pants right off of you and put them on herself.
Total Equality Is Not Possible between Men and Women
Equality does not seem possible between men and women. I think the best relationships would be a sort of a kind and benevolent slight domination of the man by the woman.
I believed in equality for many years because that is what my politics taught me was right, but I finally realized that this goes against human nature or Natural Law. And if you spend your life acting as if total equality is possible in male-female relationships, you will be chasing a white whale with nothing but doom and the plunging depths of deathly despair at the end of your battles.
Doing the right thing makes no sense if all you do is tilt at windmills.