The PC Crowd's War on Male Sexuality

Updated November 18:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peeping Toms

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated September 2:

I was doing some research on paraphilias for the Joseph Duncan stories when I came across voyeurism. I don't think I've ever engaged in any voyeurism, certainly not the criminal kind. But one thing always bugged me about this law.

What exactly does it mean? It bothered me because the law seems to imply that there's something perverted about watching a woman take her clothes off, take a shower or walk around naked. That doesn't sound so perverted to me. That sounds like my idea of a good time!

In reading some stories about some voyeurs that got arrested, it turns out that almost all of these guys are engaged in obviously criminal behavior. They typically are on private property, and they are up against someone's bedroom or bathroom window, looking at a woman undress. Ok, that's clearly a violation and a crime.

Another case involved a guy who poked holes in the ceiling of a woman's bathroom so he could spy on the. Ok, that's a crime too.

A woman has a reasonable expectation of privacy in her own home or in windows accessible only from her own property, and in a ladies' bathroom.

But one thing has always bugged me. I've lived in plenty of apartments. Now, what if I'm sitting in my apartment on night and I look across at the apartments across the way and there's a woman in there, undressing, or walking around naked, or whatever. Ok, so do I get to look at her? Or am I a voyeur?

I don't think such a thing has ever happened to me, but I would think that would be legal. If you don't want people to look at you, draw the fucking curtains or blinds. If you're walking around in your apartment naked in front of an open window, you're an exhibitionist or a future stripper!

This article in particular bothered me. This woman thinks that all people with "paraphilias" should go on sex offender lists forever. WTH? She particularly singled out voyeurs for abuse.

Here's a couple of interesting cases. These stupid women were walking around in their apartments that had broken blinds. I don't know if they were walking around naked or what. Well, anyway, this guy was watching them walk around their apartments. They called the cops on him and said he was a peeper. He said if you don't want people watching, fix your damn blinds! The cops told the women to fix their blinds and let the guy off. Good job cops!

Here's another one. These two stupid college women, Rosanne Strott and Emily Niland were in their dorm room at Wentworth College having lesbian sex at night. With the fucking light on. With the fucking blinds up.

So, of course, some guys across the way settle in for the show. Why not? I might have settled in for the show too! Grab me a beer! Then the guys make a video out of it and put it on the damn Internet. Now, the Internet stuff may have gone too far, but these dumb bitches are just stupid. If you want to have lez sex without an audience, either turn out the lights or draw the blinds or both.

"You can't violate people's privacy like that and expect to get away with it," said one silly bitch. Jesus Christ woman! You decide to have sex with the lights on and the blinds up for the whole damn world to see and guess what? You have no privacy.

I decided to ask Sexmaniacman about this because he's an expert on all sex stuff:

Bob, this has been bugging me for a while too. I'm not sure if I've ever been a voyeur either! I've watched plenty of porn, and I've been to a ton of strip shows. Hell, I used to practically live in porno theaters and strip joints! I'm a pervert! Haha! Fuck you, puritans!

It was the summer of 1977 and I was working and living at Yosemite National Park. I was living on park food, marijuana, and young women! Good diet! Haha! Well, one day I was off work and I saw these two women sunbathing by the beach of the Merced River. I thought they had black bikinis, but then I figured out they were naked. You do the math! This was before the shaving era! Haha!

So I strolled down there, looking at them all the time. Ok, so am I a fucking voyeur? Yeah, I was looking at em. They're naked women, you think I won't look at em? I get down to the beach, and there's these two naked hippie chicks, both 19. I introduce myself, and say hello.

Now, according to the psycho feminist cunts from Hell, I'm sexually harassing these chicks! Women have a right to lay around fucking naked anytime they want, and if any man looks at em or God forbid walks up to them to chat or join them, he's harasser and a misogynist. Well, fuck me, feminists!

I take off my sandals and shirt but not my shorts. So I go into the river with my shorts on cuz I'm too shy to take them off. In the water, I take my shorts off and I'm naked. Now, according to feminazis, I'm a fucking rapist! You see, I need to ask permission to do this shit!

I look back at the women and the feminazis would predict they'd be throwing their clothes on and screaming rape and calling the cops on the sex offender! Well, instead, they're nudging each other and going, "Hey look, he's naked, whoo-hoo,yeah, check him out, he's hot!"

What do you know, feminist cunts! Amazing! Some women actually like naked men and don't scream pervert and call the cops every time they see one! What's bugging me is, what if they didn't want me to take my shorts off? Am I a rapist? A paraphiliac? A sex offender? An exhibitionist? A sexual harasser?

WTF? One part of me says screw these damn laws. Give em to the lunatic feminists, and they'll just use them as a sledgehammer to destroy innocent men.

Nothing happened afterward, no sex. I got out of the river, and we all put out clothes on and walked away. We met some hippie dude they knew from their travels around the country. I think they went off to smoke some dope. They promised to stop by my place at night, but they never did, of course.

Let me tell you another story. I was living in the Sierra Nevada in the early 1990's. I used to walk down the roads all the time and take hikes. I always had my binoculars with me and I was always looking at stuff with em.

After a while, I learned that some shitty rumor had gone around the whole neighborhood about me and about 100% of the fuckwads who lived up there believed it. They said I was peeping into people's houses with those binoculars! They said I was a voyeur! WTF! That hit me like a brick when I heard it.

Yeah, I was looking at stuff. I was looking at birds! I'm a birdwatcher! I even had a Petersen's Guide in my pocket the whole time. Did I ever look at any people? Dunno, maybe I saw some walking around. In their homes? Doubt it. Did I ever look at anyone's home with my binoculars? Doubt it, unless maybe there was a bird in the yard!

Did I ever look inside anyone's home with my binocs? Don't recall, don't think so, why the Hell would I do that? Was there a bird in the house? If no, I'm probably not gonna look. I'm one of those weirdo birdwatchers, remember? We're into birds, not humans. You can see humans anytime, but when do you ever get to see a really hot bird?

This is what I hate about these shitty laws. I bet a lot of innocent people go down on this stuff and then on sex offender database's for life. I could have easily gone down on them myself. I had a whole neighborhood full of retarded White middle-class American fuckheads ready to swear to the cops that I was peeping on them. WTF?

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Some Choice: Nazi or PC Nutjob

The latest death toll figures from Hurricane Katrina can be seen on this website here. The famous Russian neo-Nazi video is on this blog here.

Updated August 23:

Boy, the Left has really gotten us into a pickle here, haven't they?

If you are on the Left, support any degree of socialism, or are even a liberal, you are obligated to go along with the whole PC nutjob package: support for the craziest notions of man-hating Western feminism, for White-hating and non-White-worshipping lunatic anti-racism, for the insanity of mass immigration, not to mention illegal immigration of all things, for the idiotic and suicidal notion of Open Borders.

I talk to regular White people all the time. The Western Left has precisely nothing to do with the realities of how most White human beings in the US live their lives. Most of them hate illegal immigration and want cuts in legal immigration. Most of them dislike mass immigration turning the US into a United Nations on every block. Most of them reject White-hatred and non-White-worship.

And fanatical Western feminism is increasingly trivial to the lives of hundreds of millions of non-Western women who labor under the horrors of misogyny and male supremacy vastly worse than what American women endure.

What I have noticed is that Western feminism seems irrelevant to the realities of how heterosexual males and females negotiate sex and relationships in modern times. It is as if Western feminism is broadcasting from some bizarro alternative universe that has nothing to do with the one most of us negotiate on a daily basis.

What I am trying to say is that the Western PC Left, as its constituted, is irrelevant.

It's hostile to men and Whites, and double so to White men. Any White man who buys into the bullshit of the Western Left must be out of his fucking mind.

It says right on the sidebar that I'm heterodox. You got it. For one thing, I'm a race realist. There are differences between the races and even within the races in terms of minor races and even ethnic groups. These differences are observable on a wide variety of metrics. It is irrelevant whether these differences are due to genetics or culture, since both intertwine anyway.

To see a particularly nasty view of race realism, shot through naturally all the way with racism, check out this book by Ricard Fuerle, a PhD in Economics and a patent attorney. The book is called Erectus Walks Among Us. The premise of the books is that Black people are monkeys, or apes, or Homo Erectus, or a much more primitive type of man. I'm almost done reading it. It's pretty entertaining, but I'm warning you, this is toxic stuff.

While most of us don't even want to think about stuff like this, he does marshal an awful lot of data showing that there are significant differences between the races. Philippe Rushton has done something similar lately and has been raked over the coals for it.

I will say right now that Rushton, Fuerle and the rest may be correct in some of what they say: there are more differences in the races than the obvious ones such as skin color. A quick rejoinder to this argument is typically shot from the Left: that in saying so, we are classifying ethnic groups and races in the same way we classify species and subspecies of animals - as having invariable behavior.

Like most Left rejoinders, this is garbage, but many racists sadly do think this way. I'm not much of an artist, but if I was, I would draw a scatterplot for you. That is what differences, particularly behavioral, psychological, intelligence and other such, but also including athletic ability, would look like between the races if you plotted them out on a graph.

On athletic ability, you would find Blacks more likely to plot superior on certain variables. Some Whites and even Asians would be over with the Blacks. Some Blacks would have very poor athletic ability. Racial and ethnic tendencies are only averages, and there will always be all sorts of individuals who will fall outside the stereotypes for their races.

Unless you understand what a scatterplot looks like, or unless you understand averages and statistics, you can't discuss racial differences at all.

Why discuss racial differences at all?

Because, for one, the Right keeps throwing them in our faces.

And because the Left's reaction to any racial or ethnic differences in outcome is wrong. The Left says that all races and ethnic groups are equal, and therefore, any differential outcomes must be the result of racism.

This leads the Left into insane, decades- to centuries-long, never-to-be won wars against racism, sexism, homophobia and whatnot. These things will probably always be with us. The insanity of the Left is the folly that they dream they can eradicate these aspects of human nature.

All you can do is reduce or increase things like that. I am certain that when I die, racism, sexism and homophobia will be alive and well, and the Left will be insanely waging war "to rid them from the Earth".

Scientifically speaking, it is certainly not true that if one race or ethnic group scores worse than another or does worse on any sort of variable, it must be due to racism. Surely there are all sorts of reasons why this might happen. The folly of the Left is its refusal to consider that there may be things other than racism causing this.

Problem is that almost anyone online taking a race realist position is simply a racist. And almost all such folks are Whites who are arguing at least for getting rid of all civil rights and anti-discrimination legislation and and at most for outright White separatism, apartheid, race war, or ethnic cleansing.

Wow. Breathtaking. You mean that if one acknowledges differences between the races on a variety of controversial variables, one must be a racist, a separatist, a fascist or a Nazi? Yes. This is what it means. Any socialist who steps outside of PC idiocy on race will find himself embraced by some other funny socialists. Almost all such persons will be sympathetic towards White racism, White separatism, fascism and Nazism.

Whew. Well, allow me to step out of the box here for a second. This blog will make the outrageous statement that race realism (a recognition that there are non-trivial differences between the races) and anti-racism can go hand and hand. Just because there are average differences between races does not mean we have to turn into a bunch of racist assholes, much less racial separatists.

There are specific, subspecific and racial differences all across the natural world of biology, and none of it necessarily leads to hating this or that brand of organism or critter. For instance, here in California, we have various threatened and endangered species that I know a lot about. We have Tipton Kangaroo Rats and California Red-legged Frogs and Alameda Whipsnakes.

I assure that all of these damned critters act different. I will assure you that a California Red-legged Frog acts a Hell of a lot different than a Foothill Yellow-legged frog, and an Alameda Whipsnake acts a Hell of a lot different than a Pacific Gopher Snake, and a Tipton Kangaroo Rat acts a lot different than a Dusky-Footed Woodrat. I, lover of nature, love all of these critters.

Why be a speciesist, a critter racist, lining up with the Tipton Kangaroo Rats and swearing to drive the California Red-legged Frogs to extinction? I, lover of humans, love all humans. Why should I be a human-critter racist, lining up with the White human critters against this or that non-White human critters? They act different. So? So do all the other critters.

The reason for the Left's opposition to race realism is quite simple. All we have to do is look at the agenda of those big names promoting hardcore race realism. They're all White, and almost all, or all of them are on the Right or the Far Right, and I haven't found one yet who was not a hardcore racist.

Furthermore, every prominent race realist out there supports getting rid of civil rights and anti-discrimination laws. The reason being that if there are average differences between races, people ought to be able to discriminate racially or ethnically against individuals on the basis of those averages.

But average differences mean nothing when it comes to individuals. Individuals are individuals and groups are groups. You can't tally up group stuff and use it to thumbs up or thumbs down on individuals in the group. Forget it. Group differences be damned, one still must treat individuals as individuals.

With such a bunch of ugly creeps running the show, is it any wonder that decent people run away from race realism in droves?

It's really sad that socialists have to choose between fascists and PC airheads. There's got to be more space in the room than that. Come on.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Sexmaniacman is a Rapist

Updated August 23:

I thought this definition of a the crime of sexual violence was interesting:

Regarding the "incapable of giving consent" hypothetical you posited, my response is, violence and/or a crime occurs when anyone's body is touched beyond incidental contact or for more than a brief instant unless the person being touched affirmatively gives permission for such contact.

It is not the "responsibility" of the person being touched to give permission. It is the responsibility of the person doing the touching to ensure that the other person has voluntarily given permission. If the other person is "incapable" of giving permission, for whatever reason, that means no permission has been given, and a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, the feminazis says every time you have sex with a drunk woman, you are raping her. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion on this definition of rape.

Sexmaniacman:

According to that definition, I've been raping women and girls all my life! I've always touched women, I've reached around and jumped them and started kissing them, I've grabbed them, thrown them up against walls in public and kissed them, I've done all these things. I always grabbed women or touched them, and I never asked permission first.

In general, most of the time, permission was granted, though sometimes, when I tried to go beyond kissing, she stopped me.

I picked up a hot 20 yr old woman at a Hollywood nightclub, the Anticlub, two minutes after walking in the door, then had sex with her in my car while driving around Hollywood at 1 AM (to the extent you can have sex with someone while driving a vehicle) then after the show, she tried to weasel out of coming home with me.

I pointed to her, pointed to the car, and said, "You are going home with me. Now get in the car." It was an order, but she was free to refuse, and I was laughing. I sneered at her like Johnny Rotten. She smiled, sneered back, and said, "Says who?" I said, "Says me." Women love guys who give them orders and they love to follow orders. So she got in the car. Quite willingly.

I drove her home and we had sex on the 5 Freeway in Downtown LA at 3 AM while going 55 miles an hour, to the extent one can do such a thing. Good thing I didn't crash the car. I deny that this was either kidnapping or rape, but it was pretty fun.

Another time I had sex with a drunk 14 yr old (I was 16) on the rooftop of an apartment building at 2 AM, and later she went around telling everyone I raped her. I didn't rape her; she was drunk. I deny that this was rape.

Another time I went to a punk rock show with this beautiful 20 year old named Linda and we both came back, drunk, to my house. I got her on my couch, pulled up her top and started feeling her breasts. "Pleease let me go home," she whined unconvincingly in her best little girl voice.

"No!" I said. "You're staying right here!" I was pissed that I went to all this damn trouble and she was trying to weasel out of the dicking, like they always do.

Plus, earlier in the evening, both of us drunk, she had put me in a shopping cart and raced me up and down some 2 AM streets. She kept "dropping her lighter" on my groin in the cart, and then "having to fish around to find it". Now she was trying to get out of the boning. Well fuck that. The Hell you are, woman.

She was free to leave at any time, as the cops say. "Now get over on that bed right now!" I said, half-smiling and not really threatening. I'm not sure what happened later. Finally I just said, "Fine, you don't want to have sex, I'll just sleep on the couch. You take the bed. See you in the morning."

Then I lay back on the couch and closed my eyes. Next thing I remember, she was saying, "Come on over to the bed." And so it went. I deny that this was false imprisonment or rape, but it was pretty fun, except when she started to puke in bed while we were having sex, grabbed her mouth, and ran to the bathroom and puked for a while.

Basically, with women, you have to read their minds. At some point, via telepathy, you figure you can make your move. At that point you just grab her and start kissing her. You can do it really aggressively or you can do it real soft and nice. Most of the time, it goes just fine. Having to ask permission for everything you do sexually is insane. If we had to do that, no one would ever get laid.

I've been having sex with drunken women most of my life, and I hope to continue doing so. A lot of women are way less inhibited when they're drunk.

I'm embarrassed to admit that there have been quite a few times when I grabbed at women and they did not want to do go along, so they pushed me off or said no in some way or another, along the lines of, "Hey! Knock it off, asshole! Get your hands off me!" Most of the time, I did just knock it off right then, though sometimes I kept trying my luck, and she kept knocking my hands away, raising her voice.

I deny that this is rape or attempted rape or any crime at all. It's actually something called "dating", and I never got any sex any of those times anyway. Once they brush you off once, you might as well give up, because you aren't getting any.

I don't believe I've ever raped a woman according to the legal definition of the word. If she's not interested, no problem. She has ownership of her body and the right to decide not to do this or that with me. As far as the feminist version of rape law above, well, they can just fuck off.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Sexmaniacman Is A Creep

Updated August 23: Warning! This post contains rank sexism! If that offends you, then just don't read! And if any of you ladies find it ruffles your frilly little panties, come on over and take Sexguy's picture with your cellphone and post it on your feminazi blogs. Further, Sexmaniacman invites all the silly little overexcited females who are upset by this pig post to come to the blog and throw their panties at him.

It's official. Sexmaniacman is a creep. And a pervert. And he's proud.

Sexmaniacman just learned the definition right here. First of all, "creep" is a woman word, and no real male would commonly use such a word as a noun or a verb. Sexmaniacman just doesn't use it in general, because he's a real man, not a pussified ally of the females, but every now and then, it's appropriate.

For instance, Sexman's Mom works at a college. There was a male student there for a while, socially inept, who used to hide under and behind cars out in the parking lot and jump out at the college girls. I guess he thought it was funny or something.

The girls were not amused and they kept complaining to the administration. With some regret, Sexmaniacman will admit that this guy's behavior is creepy. But really, it's only creepy in that they don't find him attractive.

If Leonardo DiCaprio was hiding behind cars and jumping out at them, about 50% of these fine upright examples of innocent American feminine goodness, purity and light would have fucked him already (Not that they're sluts or anything like that!), and most of their "sweet and innocent" friends would be waiting in line.

So it's not necessarily the behavior that these silly little woman-children don't like, it's the fact that the guy is unattractive, unwanted and unappealing, and then he's trying his luck with them.

He realizes this was frightening to the girls, but Sexmaniacman happened to know the idiot who was doing this, and it's just his opinion that the guy's completely harmless, though obviously a social retard.

These strong, modern, rough, tough, feminist puffed-up ladies should have just told him to fuck off a few times, and probably it would have all stopped. But apparently they kept running away like the little girls they really are deep down inside, so the behavior continued for too long.

So, yeah, Sexmaniacman is obviously a fucking creep according to the definition below. Plus he's a pervert. He never was one, but then he hit 47 or so, and now he can't look at young women anymore in case he gives them a heart attack or induces post-traumatic stress disorder or molests them with his eyeballs requiring years of weepy and bank-breaking therapy sessions to untwist their poor fragile psyches.

Sexguy is perfectly aware that the vast majority of young women don't find guys his age attractive anymore. That's very painful for him to realize. He looks at younger women, and he doesn't think, "Wow, I have a chance with her." Instead, she often reminds him of so and so who he dated or slept with back in 1978. So he's looking at them and reminiscing, wistful memories of days gone by. And if that pisses you little bitches off, well he says too fucking bad.

They looked great then, and they look great now.

Beauty contestants focus on females aged around 18-20. Other than the fact that they probably can't use minors, the reason they do this is because at this age, females of all races, in all cultures, and at all times, are at the peak of their physical beauty.

It's a common myth that a guy hits 45 and 50 and can't get an erection anymore. Actually, many of us guys still can and do, believe it or not, Sexmaniacman noted. We may be old, but we're not dead. You can't touch a 16-17 year old girl with a 10-foot pole and an 11-foot extension, but they sure are nice to look at. If acknowledging this makes Sexdude a pervert and a fucking creep, then he will wear that badge proudly.

Sexmaniacman probably wouldn't want to sleep with them even if it were legal, because it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with these silly girly things. Not that older women are much better!

Sexmaniacman will aver that when he was 43 years old, he had an 18 year old Korean girlfriend from LA. Eat your heart out, bitches.

You hate that sooo much, don't you?

Good.

From the site:

I think I've generally come to the conclusion that a lot of women's definition of a "creepy guy"/pervert is:

A guy they find unattractive, who checks them out.

Most straight women, of course, liked to be noticed by guys they find attractive, and a lot of women will dress to attract men they fancy. The problem a lot of women seem to have is, is that there's an unwanted side effect. If they dress sexy, they not only get looked at by the sexy guys, they also get looked at by the guys they don't fancy.

Well, yeah, duh. If you don't want us to look at your fucking tits, Sexmaniacman suggested, then don't walk around with your boobs hanging out. If you're showing cleavage, or God forbid have your tits halfway hanging out, Sexbro is going to look right at them, Goddamn it, and fuck you if you don't like it. If it pisses you off so much, dress like a lady for Chrissake.

It's like during the 1980's when all political correctness issues came to the fore with a vengeance. In a work setting, a bloke could chat a woman up. If she fancied him, it was fine and dandy. If she didn't, it was called sexual harassment.

Yeah.

Sexcat figure that's probably what's going on in a lot of this sexual harassment bullshit. He remembers he worked at a place once where the whole office freaked out because some poor schmuck asked a woman out. To look at the guy, Sexman figured he probably hadn't been laid by a non-professional in at least months, so he had a God-given right to ask, and Sexguy felt deep sympathy for his sex-deprived brother.

She was being nice to him and talking him, and all the silly bitch had to do was say no and that was that. The guy was civilized, he would have just taken it like a man. But oh no, Ms. Silly made it into a capital fucking offense, and it was the talk of the whole office for a while.

Being a real guy, not a wuss, of course Sexbuddy took the guy's side in this skirmish of the War Between Men and Women, but most of the "men" in the office sided with Ms. Silly, like knights running to save her honor.

Afterwards the poor guy told Sexpal that management told him that sexual harassment guidelines said that employees should not be dating. Great. Here it is, in the modern US, where so many of us are working long hours, and we can't date at work. Great. So how are we supposed to get laid?

Sexmaniacman finally had to adopt some new rules to deal with this bullshit, but he realized he was not the only one. He read a sociology paper about guys who moved down to Costa Rica. One guy said when he was 50, an uppity 17 year old girl spit at him for looking at her. I guess that was the last straw, and he high-tailed for the sexually relaxed tropics.

His 43 year old sick, perverted, creepy brother had some advice: "Sexguy! Look. Invest in some sunglasses! I look at them all the time. That's one of the great things about being in junior college - I'm surrounded by 18-20 yr old hotties!"

Sexdude's new rules were to avoid looking at obviously underage girls or sometimes even those around 18-20, but it was so hard to tell ages. He'd look at em a bit, see if they looked back, and if they didn't, he'd try not to look at them too much. Kind of hard to do when they are young and beautiful!

Sexmaniacman also noticed something disturbing about this bullshit. As much as these silly little twats claimed they hated it, he could not help but notice that a certain number of them (Definitely not all but for sure some!), often the better looking and older ones (18-23 or so), relished the attention they got from him.

They deliberately strutted, tipped, weaved, swayed and sashayed, flirted and winked, stole glances and battled lashes. At the stores, they shoved the others out of the way so they could ring up Sexman and reap the harvest of his loving eyeballs. They smiled at him coquettishly and made bullshit excuses to get up and strut in front of him, to nowhere and to do nothing, and then traipse back, basking in the warm, delicious rays of his sick, pervy, aging gaze.

They looked at him out of the corner of their eyes and winked. When he wasn't looking, they moved way too close and pretended to look at store things they weren't interested in. Sexmaniacman would look down, notice a 16 year old just about brushing her tits up against him, and pretend nothing was happening.

It sure was an idiotic little girl game these female things were playing, but females often don't make much sense to Sexguy. Some were jockeying for the eyeballs and others were bitching about illegal looking. Were some of them one and the same? Who knows?

Sexmaniacman thinks we can look at them all we want, that's his position. If they don't like it, they can call the cops, or take pictures of us with their bitchy cellphones and post them on their screechy blogs, or sit around and carp to their girlfriends about us.

There's also a right and wrong way to look, Sexman thought. You look a little bit, you look away, a while later, you look again. Staring is pretty uncool.

Sexmaniacman can't remember the last time he catcalled a woman. That's rude, and he's not rude.

Sexmaniacman doesn't rub up against women, but when he was a lot younger, especially at bars and rock concerts, women were always rubbing up against him and touching him, because he was drop dead gorgeous guy, especially when he wore a beat-up 1950's James Dean leather jacket.

Touching and groping is rude, and he's not rude.

Jerking off in public is illegal, and guys who do that deserve cuffs.

However, he objects to the whole Feminazi mindset behind this bullshit movement, mostly because they haven't specified where harassment begins and where it ends. Supposedly the females get to make up the rules here, on an individual, case by case basis! Great!

Webpage here, and most of these guys portrayed here are idiots, Sexguy agrees, but he's still worried that there are no boundaries here. Sexman is particularly disturbed by the modern notion that he can no longer talk to teenage girls or young women in any way or at any time or about anything, since they automatically assume he's trying to pick up on them, when usually he's just trying to make some innocent conversation.

Also, the silly feminist bitch idea is that all women hate being looked at. Bullshit.

Sexman's beautiful aunt was in the Castro District of San Fransisco eating at a cafe with Sexman's Mom. His aunt is a silly woman, like most women are at least sometimes.

She's getting all upset. "None of these men are looking at me," she pouted huffily. She's beautiful, and male looks are like vitamins for her soul.

Duh. They're all gay.

Sexmaniacman also knows some older women who love to be or would love to be looked at. One, 50 years old, mournfully told him that she wishes men or even boys would look at her. One delighted in telling him how young men and even boys continued to check her out, and how she loved every second of it, being 50 years old.



This video shows a silly feminazi bitch who's actually pretty good-looking, who got all dressed up in a really sexy and revealing outfit, then strutted like an idiot down a main avenue in New York, then, like a dumbshit, got all pissy when of course most of the guys looked at her. I guess the numerous fags didn't look at her, so they must be better than the straight guys. So the solution I guess is we all just turn queer? Obviously.

This ditzy broad tells one guy he was looking at her breasts. He was, but he did it because her tits were hanging out, you goofy woman.

Sexmaniacman thought a lot of these guys were looking way too long and way too obviously, but last time I checked, it's America, still a free country despite everything, and you have a right to act stupid.

Sexdude was actually trying to control his diabolical and wicked looking behaviors lately, but the young girlies women-children were still getting all hot and bothered anyway. There didn't seem to be any way to appease them once you were past a certain age.

Sexdude doesn't like guys making comments at women without some verbal and nonverbal signals on her part (going far beyond parading around half-naked like the goofy bitch in the video), but all in all, the woman in this video is one dumb cunt.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Sexmaniacman Praises Sex Crimes

Sexmaniacman kept reading the news in the papers and on the Net, and could not believe his eyes anymore.

A US diplomat goes to Brazil and "molests" some "little girls" aged 14-17, which Sexmaniacman assumed is perfectly legal in Brazil. He comes back to the US and gets arrested on "pedophile" charges.

A gay man "molests" a 15-year-old gay "little boy" prostitute in the Philippines, comes home to the US, and is arrested and labeled "pedophile". His arrest is uncovered when he goes to work for a local politician and his career is shot.

A local US mayor with long hair and a beard like a ZZ Top musician "molests" a 15-year-old "little girl". He's sentenced to prison and reviled by a town who hopes he stays away for a long time.

Roman Polanski gives a 13-year-old girl a Quaalude long ago, "molests" her, flees the phony prosecution for the sanity of France, where he remains to this day.

Mark Foley does little more than talk dirty to some "little boy" pages aged 16-17 (some of whom apparently enjoyed it), never touches any of them even once, and is labeled "pedophile".

In the UK, a father takes pictures of his kids on a slide in the park and insane irate mothers order him to stop taking pictures, and when he refuses, they go to the cops. Obviously he's a child molester. Whoops. He's just a father taking pics of his own kids.

Sexmaniacman looks at all the "pedophiles" above and cheers them on, despite the hysteria, although he thinks Mark Foley was an idiot. Sexmaniacman figures that if these guys want to have sex with teenagers, that's their business. Sexmaniacman realizes it's illegal, and he hopes he won't do it himself, but he can't see it as a sin.

We're in the midst of madness. Child Molester Mass Hysteria, to be precise.

Sexmaniacman did lots of "molesting", and had lots of fun, back in the day. He was 18, 19 and 20, and the women and "little girls" never stopped coming. The females were all ages, but plenty were 14, 15, 16 and 17. He had sex with them all, and then he got up in the morning and did it some more. He's proud of it to this very day. Nowadays, he'd be a "pedophile" for doing that. Back in the day, it was just good times.

Sexmaniacman had some "pedophile" friends. One was 28 years old, had a 16-yr-old "little girl" girlfriend, and "molested" her regularly.

Sexmaniacman cheered his friend on for this dastardly "pedophile" episode.

Sexmaniacman had another friend, Killerdude. He was 29 years old, and they were over at Killerdude's Mom's house getting high as kites and laughing their asses off. Killerdude's little sister's 15-yr-old girlfriend walked out of the bedroom and out the front door, waving goodbye. Killerdude confided to Sexmaniacman that he had just had sex with that "little girl" the other day.

His sister had approached Killerdude, said her friend wanted to have sex with him, and would he do it? He obviously obliged. What else could he do but "molest" her, right?

Sexmaniacman approved, and cheered his "pedophile" friend on.

Sexmaniacman gave up on the young girls when he turned 21. After that, they needed to be 18. In dubious cases, he even asked for ID.

Sexmaniacman read a pdf on the Net about Costa Rica. There are all kinds of American men down there having all sorts of sex fun with girls and women. In Costa Rica, a girl is a woman at age 13.

So you could say that Costa Rica is just a nation of sex perverts and child molesting sick fucks, and the whole country needs to be arrested. The males all need prison or castration or preferably both, and the females all need lifetime therapy for "getting molested".

Sexmaniacman cheers on Costa Rica in their freedom of choice and thumbing their nose at Child Molester Mass Hysteria.

There are men down there, American men, the pdf said, older guys, and some are having sex with underage girls. It didn't really give ages, but the implication was they were 14-17 years old. The guys were also doing it with women. They were just screwing anything, like any real man does if he gets a chance. The Costa Ricans wouldn't do anything about it because they didn't think it was a crime.

Sexmaniacman cheered them on, all of them, the American men doing this, the Costa Ricans for shrugging their shoulders, and the girls for having a good time. He didn't think he would want to go to Costa Rica, or any foreign land, and do it himself, since teenage girls hardly interested him much anymore, but he didn't care if another guy did.

The idiots in the US government, egged on by the Child Molester Mass Hysteria sweeping the land, passed a weird and retarded law. Only women and pussy-whipped married men would ever pass such a bitchy law, but pass it did.

It bizarrely extended the purview of US law overseas! If an American man of any age goes to a foreign land and has sex with a girl or boy who is 17 years and 11 months old or younger, he goes down on US child molesting laws!

Although at first it would seem that US law should never extend to crimes committed in foreign lands, which are properly the purview of those foreign lands, Sexmaniacman realized that this happened for a reason.

Actual Western pedophiles were going to Philippines, Thailand and other places and having sex with really young kids, because it was more or less legal over there, and the locals didn't care. In order to put a stop to this, the US and Western Europe passed some laws to bust pedos when they went overseas to molest little kids.

Otherwise, Western pedos would run around the world seeking out 3rd World hellholes where no one cared about pedo stuff, and dollars shut up everyone. In order to put a stop to this, anti-pedo laws were passed in the West extending Western law to other nations.

Sexmaniacman thought long and hard about this, and finally decided that this was really weird and legally obtuse, but still unfortunately right and proper in the case of Westerners having sex with actual little kids, but not with teenagers.

One thing Sexmaniacman bemoaned with the coming of Child Molester Mass Hysteria was the extinction of statutory rape, a perfectly valid category, and its blurring with actual pedophilia with young kids. Child Molester Mass Hysteria came to America, and quickly, a 17-yr-old girl and a 9-yr-old girl were the same thing. They were both "children", and those of all ages who had sex fun with them were all sick evil pedo fucks.

Even teenage boys were going down on these sissy, bitchy pedo laws for the crime of proving their manliness by sticking it to their teenage girlfriends. It was as if Iraq or Iran had come to the USA. A 13-yr-old boy and his girl have some sex fun, videotape it on cell phones and pass it around. The boy, but not the girl, goes down on charges of distributing child pornography. Just as the feminazi bitches would have it.

The anti-pedo laws, the blurring of teenage sex fun with sick child sex, the idiot wind attacking virile teenage boys and young men - they were all part of the war American women and girls were waging on real American men and boys. The bitches' wormboy boyfriends, vaginized male allies and pussy-whipped husbands defending the chastity of teenage daughters - they were all behind this bullshit too.

Real American men and testosterone-charged American boys, the few that were left, should have stood up to this attack on manliness, but they were too scared of the pedo charge to speak up.

Millions of vaginized males and girlymen all over America stood up alongside their pants-wearing, hysterical girlfriends and wives, screeching defense of the fake honor of hymenless 17-yr-old girls all over our fair land.

There were some serious issues here. Sexmaniacman had to agree. What was to be done?

You couldn't exactly legalize sex between adults and teens all the way down to age 14 or so. Otherwise you would have guys 40 and 50 walking down the street in broad daylight with their 15-yr-old girlfriends in tow. Sexmaniacman decided that that would not do.

How's about we went back to the old days, Sexmaniacman suggested?

Two laws.

One called statutory rape, judiciously prosecuted against egregious cases of sex between men and girls and gay boys 14-17. Another, child molesting, for sex between adults and girls and boys under the age of 14.

Overseas, clearly there was a national interest in the West to stop pedos from heading to SE Asia to have sex with little kids. If the Thais won't stop it, doggone it, we will. Sexmaniacman nodded his approval.

But Sexmaniacman could see no national interest in busting a Western man of any age for messing with a teenage girl in some sweltering foreign land. That was beyond absurd.

Child porn. Sexmaniacman pondered the very phrase, and lately did so frequently, and he didn't even feel guilty. He loved to think about child porn, since it offered so many legal and philosophical quandaries.

Child porn! The phrase alone drove Americans to paroxysms of madness.

It actually posed a most difficult case, Sexmaniacman noted. To merely look at the stuff was a crime. Child porn was on the Net, and you could find it if you really, really tried. Could you stumble upon it? Highly dubious.

Sexmaniacman felt that in analogy, child porn seemed like the case of a book in a library. It sat on a special shelf called the Internet Shelf. The book was out there in plain view, but there were signs next to it saying DO NOT LOOK AT THIS BOOK! ILLEGAL! LOCAL ORDINANCE BLA BLA BLA! Now and again, some maniac thrillseeker would grab the book and sneak a glance at a few pages.

They would almost always be caught, and the police would haul them away. They would be bashed in the press and their communities as sickos for looking at a book in the library, and their careers and lives would be ruined.

Although this scenario seems absurd, Sexmaniacman realized that that's pretty much how it is with child porn. It's out there on the Net, but if you look at it, you're going to prison. It has to be just about one of the only things on Earth, Sexmaniacman noted, that, if you look at it, you go to prison. Think about it, real hard. Anything else illegal to steal a glance at? Anyone?

Sexmaniacman pondered the weird legal and philosophical arguments for why looking at something , say, child porn, or anything, really, should be illegal:


Child porn is the portrayal of a crime.

Therefore, when you look at it, you violate the kid's privacy. Ok, but the kid has no idea you looked at their pic. Sexmaniacman felt it was impossible to argue that by stealing a glance at their porn pic, you have psychically harmed this kid via telepathy.

Furthermore, Sexmaniacman pointed out that there are all sorts of videos out on the Net that depict crimes, sometimes homicides. You can even find them on this blog. Should those not be illegal too? After all, they portray a crime, no? Or should they be allowed because the victims are dead and can't be harmed anymore?


When you look at child porn, you create a market for it, and that makes producers abuse more kids.

Well, ok, Sexmaniacman nodded. But once again, the criminal appears to be the person who made the child porn, not some guy looking at a picture.


What about trafficking? Sexmaniacman agreed this was a tough one. Here things get more dicey. Now you are actually making money off kids getting molested. He noted that this is getting quite close to actual harm, but there are still some problems.

Sexmaniacman offered up the scenario of the stuff being traded back and forth by pedos for free. No profit is involved, but Sexmaniacman figured we can't really legalize it, can we? If we did, child porn trading sites would open up all over the web, and probably those who make the stuff would create more of it. Sexmaniacman felt that society had an interest in preventing that.

No matter that merely looking at the stuff constituted quite a bizarre sort of crime. Sexmaniacman offered up, "What if we acted logical and said it was legal to look at the stuff, but not to peddle it?" But then he noted that child porn sites would pop up all over the web, just for folks to "look at". Society clearly has an interest in preventing that.

As far as the Internet goes, Sexmaniacman felt that probably the present state of affairs is the best. Child porn is quite illegal, hence it is extremely difficult to find, although with enough effort and hours of searching by savvy Net users, it's surely out there. So child porn is rare and very hard to find. It's almost impossible to stumble upon it by accident. This is probably the way it ought to be, he agreed.

Sexmaniacman pointed out that if we allowed folks to look at it, websites would sprout up all over, and hundreds of thousands or millions of people would be looking at the stuff, just like they are feasting on all the other shock stuff out there. And that didn't seem right to Sexmaniacman.

Sexmaniacman bemoaned the fact that child porn, child molesting and statutory rape are subjects that are banned from polite conversation, and frankly all conversation, in today's Idiot America. The only talk allowed about these subjects is to rant about how we want to castrate the sick fucks who "molest". No problem ever got solved by not talking about it, or only talking stupid about it.

Just to piss people off and make them hate him more than they already did, Sexmaniacman deliberately brought up these subjects, especially in public, just to watch the freakouts and hard stares.

Despite the fact that hardly anyone was talking sensibly about this sick stuff but Sexmaniacman, he noted that these areas opened up a lot of interesting philosophical and legal dilemmas that do not have easy answers.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Feminists and "Leering"

I have long noticed an attempt by females to conflate girl-watching or any male looking at any female with sexual interest as "leering". I am now where a group of super-feminists (all over 50) and their vaginized male allies) are once again "taking on the leerers". It seems to me that leering is simply girl-watching in violation of social rules.

I think what matters here is what we in Linguistics call "pragmatics", that is, that there is a difference between say "leering" (what people tell my acquaintance Leonard does) and what I would like to think I do. I've been told that Leonard leers and supposedly I do not. I looked up the word "leer". I always thought it was just a stupid word females used to describe any male look of sexual interest.

The definition said simply a sidelong glance that reflected sexual interest. In that case, leering is a normal thing to do, and it seems females do quite a bit of it themselves, even to me on occasion.

I asked around and it turns out that to leer actually has a creepy connotation. That is, one can "check out the chicks" and "girl watch" (A great way for any male of any age to pass the time!) and then one can "leer". The two things are entirely different, but only in degree. Leering is simply girl-watching done in violation of social norms and rules. Now that I think about it, I have seen some leering in a bar.

There was a woman sitting down next to me, and there were some drunken clueless Mexicans next to her more or less drooling all over all her. I noticed how they were acting and I tried not to act that way myself, as they seemed clueless and moronic.

Social norms say that males should girl-watch in public by looking out of the corner of their eye, looking away, then looking back in a bit. Or they may scan the room back and forth and linger a bit on a woman, then move on.

Or one may just don sunglasses, as my 43-yr-old brother does (he's at junior college now, and he says the 18-20 yr girls are one of the best things about the place!). But he carefully dons sunglasses whenever he does this, positions his face away from the woman, and then looks at her sidelong. Feminists say my brother is a sick, evil, disturbed, perverted child molester because he likes to girl-watch.

Down with feminists!

Leering is staring; it's the way Groucho Marx stared at women in the movies. The gaze is too long, too intense and probably violates other rules.

To characterize all male "sexual-looking" as the creepy and yucky "leering" verges on gender discrimination and smacks of puritanical notions of sexuality.

I supported feminism due to liberatory inclinations; I am a libertine, as readers of this blog may have discerned. There are still sex-positive feminists, pro-porn feminists and whatnot, but so much of feminism has turned puritanical and grossly male-hostile that it really turns me off.

I also blame Western feminists for cultivating a "culture of meanness" among Western women.

Evolution has made male-female sexual interaction such that the male is dominant and the female is submissive. Andrea Dworkin points out that this cannot be overlooked even in the sex act itself, which she mischaracterizes as rape. But the fact remains that one is screwing and the other is being screwed, as I noted in a previous thread.

A culture of meanness turns human evolution on its head. Males are not evolutionarily prepared for aggressive, belligerent females.

They are forced to react to female attempts at dominance (this is what modern feminism is) with compensatory submissiveness (the "wormboy" phenomenon in Western men that women, even feminists, now wail about) or reactive aggression. Neither reaction is evolutionarily normal, so neither one works out well.

As the sex act requires female submissiveness, normal males treat female attempted domination as a gross sexual turnoff. This is why aggressive, domineering women often complain that their male partners are impotent.

Their hyper-aggression, and ball-breaking, castrating mindset is actually deflating the poor male's organ! Men are not so macho and invulnerable as one thinks. I can now have sex with and even reach orgasm with a women who utterly despises me, but the only reason I can do this is because I am now a pretty unemotional guy.

Further, many males regard this attempted domination as a direct threat to their masculinity (there may be evolution behind that too, but I don't have a theory).

Hence you have middle aged men complaining about older Western women with "50 pounds of cellulite and 100 pounds of attitude" and running in droves for Oriental women and even Latinas.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

Kids Lie About Child Molestation

Due to the Child Molester Hysteria that has taken over our society in the past 10-15 years, an awful lot of lies are flying around about child molestation. This hysteria has arguably not helped kids one bit, has made an entire nation into an hysterical, witch-hunting bunch of crazies, and has possibly thrown a bunch of innocent men in jail or at least under suspicion on false charges of child abuse.

Malicious females now regularly make up child porn and child molesting charges against husbands they are divorcing. An older man who admits to being interested in teenage girls - science has shown us that this is an absolutely normal desire - is now accused of being a child molester or a pedophile.

First of all, it is quite impossible for a girl aged 15-17 to be "sexually abused" or "molested". She can have sex. If the man is a certain number of years older, this is a crime on his part called statutory. I am confident that in the overwhelming majority of cases, girls aged 15-17 who have sex with older men do so quite willingly and suffer absolutely no harm whatsoever from these encounters.

Second, it is said that kids almost never make up sex abuse allegations - the number of false allegations is said to be on the order of 2% or less. This is one of the most pernicious lies that feminists are peddling these days, and probably many completely innocent men have gone down on child molestation charges as a result of some kid's lies.

I know a 78-year-old male teacher who was accused of molesting a 13-yr-old Black girl (In the middle of class?!) when he tried to break up a fight between her and another girl. Yeah, he had to pull 'em apart. Nowadays, that's called "molesting"!

A good friend, a teacher, was accused by an entire classroom full of 10-yr-old girls of molesting them during class in full view of all the other students! Tell me how that is even possible?! The girls tried to break out of class one day and raided the door. He barred the door, because if he let them break out, he's in big trouble. 15 girls mobbed him and tried to get the door open. He had to fight them off by pushing them away.

He showed up the next day and there was a lynch mob atmosphere in the hall full of enraged parents. Every one of those little diabolical lying bitches had accused him of molesting them! They said he was grabbing their breasts as he pushed them away from the door. He said that the thought that they had breasts had never even occurred to him as he was pushing them away - in his opinion, they didn't even have breasts.

I assume that all of these little girls got tons of useless therapy for their hallucinated episode, and I bet some are "suffering" to this very day.

After these two episodes of kids lying about child molesting to get an adult male in trouble, if I am on a jury in a child molesting case, I will probably vote to acquit any male without priors who is accused of molestation, if the evidence is only some kid's accusation, unless there is some other evidence.

AFAICT, kids nowadays are just little lying machines when it comes to child molestation charges. I figure possibly up to 50% of the child molesting charges out there could be totally made up lies.

I do not mean to say that there are not cases of real child molestation.

Obviously, it is a serious problem, and new evidence seems to indicate that kids are often harmed by adults doing this to them, and that the harm may be long-term. But how can we possibly tell whether a kid is lying or not? Sure, maybe they are telling the truth, but maybe they are lying too.

So, if there is no other evidence against a man (eyewitness, forensic, confession, priors), why convict him strictly on the testimony of some little brat? I’m aware that this attitude may cause some really bad guys to go free, but the other way around seems to end up sentencing a lot of innocent guys on one of the worst charges you can go down on. It's not a pretty picture either way.

This post has been linked at the excellent Entitled to an Opinion blog.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.

The Young Girls Loved the Teacher

The teacher had fun. He had fun and fun and more fun. There were girls all the time, from age 13-18, and many were beautiful. He was 26-33 years old, and he loved teenage girls just like any normal man does. He never got any complaints for looking at the girls or even participating in the flirting that they endlessly started.

The truth is that female students, especially aged 17-18 and in particular Hispanics, loved to flirt with the teacher. The teacher loved it! He loved it when the teenage girls looked at him and flirted with him! They loved it too! Everyone was happy. Everyone but the feminists.

The girls would come up to the teacher and give him their phone number and tell him to call them. He would take the #'s home and think about them at night alone in his place and dream and have wild sexual fantasies about sex with 18-yr-old girls.

The teacher sat in the library one day in Compton. The seniors were Blacks and Samoans. By this age, Compton students are some of the best on Earth. No one will do any work at all, but all the bad ones are just gone. The only students there are warming a seat to graduate.

Both Blacks and Samoans, if they are in a good mood, are some of the funnest races to be around. They love life, love to laugh and joke, and take it easy. The 18-year-old Black girl kept staring at the teacher. "How old are you?" she asked. "Thirty-two", he said. "I've been looking for a boyfriend right around that age," she said, and that was that.

The teacher was 27 years old and 13-year-old girls still looked pretty great to him, just like Lolita. The teacher is now 50, and as he has advanced in age, 13-year-olds looked more and more like little girls with each passing year. But back at age 27, a 13-year-old girl was a delicious and wonderful object of fantasy.

The class in Harbor City was yelling at the teacher. The gorgeous 13-yr-old White girl in the back of the room wanted to have sex with the teacher! They were all yelling!

"Hey! She wants to have sex with you!" the students yelled. The teacher looked over at the beautiful and well-developed Lolita and she looked at him and nodded her head enthusiastically, while still looking embarrassed and shy.

The teacher got up out of his seat and risked his very job. He walked towards the girl. "Really?" he asked. "You really want to have sex with me?" She nodded her head enthusiastically with the same embarrassed look. The teacher laughed. "Where?" he asked. "Where are we going to do it?"

"The park! The park!" the kids all yelled. "She wants you to meet her in the park after school so she can have sex with you!" The teacher looked back at her and she was nodding her head once again. "Well, I don't know," he said, chuckling, and went back to his desk and started reading the cheap, tacky detective novel from the 1940's.

One day the teacher taught 10th grade in Lynwood. There were mostly Hispanic girls in the class. It was early in the morning. She girls were all about 15. The teacher was bored and so was the class.

Suddenly the teacher looked up. There was a sea of panties flashing him in class! Around 6-7 of the 15-year-old Hispanic girls had gotten together to conspire to flash the teacher. They had hiked up their skirts in a way that you could see their panties, and yes, they were all wearing panties. The teacher tried to ignore it, but he could not. He kept looking back.

Then the girls all started calling the teacher a pervert! The teacher thought this was most unfair, but the mind of a female is unfathomable in the best of times.

The teacher was teaching Hispanics again, assimilated ones this time, in La Puente. He was 32. In senior class, the girls kept coming up to the teacher over and over, 17 and 18-year-old Hispanic girls, and asking to have their work checked or have notes written for them.

Most of the reasons were completely phony and were just ruses to get next to the teacher. The girls would get right next to the teacher and violate his space totally and try to almost rub up against him with their phony requests. They especially loved to bend over and wave their tits nearly right in his face or up against his body. The teacher went along with it; he was having a blast! A great time was had by all!

The teacher was 29 years old and it was a White middle class school in Hacienda Heights. The class was freshmen - 14 year olds. The teacher walked down the aisle, and as moved by, the girls reached out and tried to grab his ass as he walked by, but they would always miss on purpose, and then giggle to their friends about it. After a while, the teacher figured it out, but he just let it happen.

In Gardena one day at the end of school, the teacher, age 26, felt a hand scratching his back and turned around and see a 15 yr old Black girl back there with a most peculiar expression on her face. The teacher said nothing about it and went back to his business.

In Industry again, the 18 year old Hispanic Homecoming Queen was in love with the 32 year old teacher and everyone knew it. She had been giving him the eye for a while and he had been giving it back to her. They had had talked about a few things.

She got up from the back row and sashayed all the way up to the teacher, flirtatiously spoke to him for a bit, and wiggled her way back to her seat. The whole class ooooed and ahhhed and whoohooed. The Homecoming Queen wanted to fuck the teacher! Yay! Everyone was cheering. The teacher never did anything about it, and has been kicking himself ever since.

As you can see, female students are quite sexual and love to strut their stuff in front of an attractive male teacher in all sorts of ways. The teacher never took any of them up on their offers, but he did give it some thought.

This experience directly contradicts the notion parroted throughout our society by the male-hate propaganda of bigoted, chauvinist, maniacal feminists and their vaginized male allies that girls and young women are perennial victims and older males are perennial abusers.

It's quite clear that a lot of females aged 15-20 or so do "want it" with at least some males aged, say, 26-50. Now whether it's a good idea to pursue that or not depends mostly on the laws.

For a teacher, you need to wait until she graduates, even if she is 18. If you have sex with her before she has graduated and she is 18, you won't get arrested, but you can lose your job and you may also lose your teaching credential. It's considered unprofessional. If she's 18 and she has graduated from school, I assume you can date her. If you do this a lot though, you may make people at the school or in the community mad.

This post has been linked at the excellent Entitled to an Opinion blog.

Note: Readers should carefully read the Commenting Rules before commenting to avoid having their comments edited or deleted and to avoid being banned from the site.