Annoying Teenage Girls

I am looking for translators to translate this post into German. Email me if you are interested.

I'm normally sympathetic to the teenage girls in these kinds of cases, but something about this stuff makes me worry. What exactly is it that men are not supposed to do in these cases? What exactly did this guy do wrong? Following them? Ok, that's pretty damn weird. Stopping ahead of them several times? That's strange.

Leering at them as they walked by? Shit. That's a crime? I check out teenage girls myself if they're hot enough, and teenage girls look at me too. For some reason, Felony Leering Molestation creeps me out a lot more than this guy's behavior.

But this guy's basically acting like a stalker.

Here's another one. This guy pulled over to talk to some teenage girls walking home from school. I wonder what he said?

Then they found porn in his vehicle! Oh no! What a sick fuck! Only sick pedophiles read porn! The porn had "young adults"! Ew! Child molester! We know he's a child molester because of the word "young." Non-pedos only read MILF and old lady porn, that's how we know they are non-pedos.

He also had pregnant porn in his car! Ew gross! Big fat gross pregnant chicks getting laid! What a creep! Only a sick creep would have sex with a pregnant chick. Normal guys won't even look at their wives until after they drop.

They arrested him for felony talking molestation.

Ok, so if talk to an underage girl, am I annoying her? Can I go down on Felony Annoying Molesting, whatever the Hell that is? Do any of you all find this stuff worrying? How does one even know when one is breaking the law anyway? I talk to kids sometimes. What the heck? Am I breaking the law or what?

I'm wondering if it is a crime to "annoy" adult females in this way? At what point are we annoying an adult female anyway? What the Hell? I don't know about these laws. They give me a bad feeling.

Here's a coach. I think what he did was pretty cool. He tied up some teenage girls, then he put tape over their mouths. He didn't have sex with them though, he just temporarily restrained their annoyingness with some binding and gagging objects. Dude! You're awesome. You got a defense fund?

I like this guy too. He's a male witch, a warlock. How evil can you get? And he enslaved teenage girls! How did he do it. Mind control, baby, mind control. He swung a watch in front of them til they turned into kinky teenslut Stepford Teen automatons! He turned them into "sex slaves." Yo! All women should be like this! Specifically, he used "hypnotism and mind-altering techniques to entice two 15-year-old girls into prostitution, sado-masochism and black magic." Yo!

This is too funny:

The self-proclaimed warlock enslaved two troubled 15-year-old girls who came to him for counseling and used black magic and mumbo jumbo to entice them into prostitution and sadomasochism.

The girls were fed illegal drugs and Fletcher used mind altering techniques and hypnotism to dupe them into believing kinky sexual acts - in which they were tied up and whipped - were pagan rites.

He also advertised one of the girls on the Internet as a submissive teen schoolgirl...bruisable and will take belt and paddle...wears dog collar and nipple clamps."

The sorcerer's evil spell was broken when he was jailed for ten years with a minimum of eight years.

No problem jailing the dude, but I think the girls should go to jail too - for aggravated felony stupidity. From the article: "He duped them into believing that kinky sexual acts were actually pagan rites." LOL! Hey, are there any adult women this stupid? I want to get into this warlock thing; it sounds promising. Do they offer courses anywhere?

No wait. There's a punch line:

Authorities are also trying to determine if the girls were forced or had consented to take part in the tie-ups.

Haha! Actually, they filled out job applications for the position, and there was a long waiting list, but these were the lucky girls who got chosen for the Bondage Model position.

On the other hand, these guys here, here, here, here, here, here and here are engaging in some pretty messed-up behavior.

Good legal case where a state Supreme Court ruled that "annoying" was so vague a crime that one could hardly figure out when one was breaking the law and when one was not:

On the other hand, conflicting Nevada case law suggests that this court will consider whether an enactment is facially void for vagueness, even if no First Amendment interests are implicated, when the challenged statute is so vague that it fails to give persons of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is permitted or forbidden.

For example, in Cunningham v. State, this court upheld a facial vagueness challenge to a statute under the Due Process Clause of the Nevada Constitution as appropriate, where the challenged statute prohibited "the doing of an act in terms so vague that people of common intelligence [were required to] necessarily guess as to its meaning" and where the statute was "so vague that it [did] not provide a constitutional basis for criminal prosecution."

In Coates v. City of Cincinnati , the Supreme Court considered the use of the word "annoy" in an ordinance that made it unlawful for three or more people to assemble on a sidewalk and "conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by." In holding that the ordinance was "unconstitutionally vague because it subjects the exercise of the right of assembly to an unascertainable standard," the Court reasoned:

Conduct that annoys some people does not annoy others. Thus, the ordinance is vague, not in the sense that it requires a person to conform his conduct to an imprecise but comprehensible normative standard, but rather in the sense that no standard of conduct is specified at all. As a result, "men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning."

We conclude that the standard of conduct proscribed by NRS 207.260, namely, conduct which is "annoying," does not provide fair notice because the citizens of Nevada must guess when conduct that bothers, disturbs, irritates or harasses a minor rises to the level of criminal conduct.

I agree with the majority that the conduct of "annoying a minor" is unconstitutionally vague. That charge is unconstitutional because it "fails to notify individuals what conduct is prohibited, and it encourages arbitrary and capricious enforcement by police." If annoying a minor alone were unlawful, virtually every parent would at one time or another be a lawbreaker.

The bolded text is hilarious.

The case above is a pretty standard reiteration of how many US courts have thrown out statutes on "vagueness" grounds.

I do agree that annoying children (noun phrase) should be illegal, but I'm a bit worried about annoying children (verb phrase) being illegal.

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.

Sex Offenders: Second Thoughts

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 4:

After I posted a couple of pieces on child molester mass hysteria, they got linked to some sex offender support groups and I got some comments. I started doing a lot more research, and I must say, I am not impressed with the sex offender support groups or their research. One of their favorite papers claims to show only 5% recidivism rate over 3 years or 10 years or 15 years or whatever, but apparently that's fraudulent.

One good study did find a 25% recidivism rate after 15 years. This is the same study that the RSO (registered sex offender) supporters quote as having a 5% relapse rate. At that's only for reoffenses.

While at Fresno State in the early 1990's, I did a ton of reading in journals. I liked the psychology journals a lot.

In one I found a study that used confidential interview procedures to determine the true rate of recidivism, because a lot of these guys reoffend and don't get caught.Anyway, these guys can admit to molesting kids online or in an interview, and there's usually nothing that can be done, since we don't know who the victim is, when the crime occurred, etc.

That study found a re-offense rate (not a re-arrest rate) for child molesters of 50% over 25 years. I think that's about right.

There's tremendous debate about what constitutes pedophilia, but this site, Wikisposure, ought to give you a pretty good idea. It's an anti-pedophile site set up the To Catch a Predator folks (Perverted Justice), and profiles lots of sex offenders, most of whom are out and out pedophiles. Looking through the profiles gives you a pretty good idea of what these guys are all about.

I'm even listed in the "articles to be done" category, which is either scary or hilarious, since I signed a petition calling for reform of these crazy laws. So anyone who wants to go there and say a bunch of evil stuff about me, just get yourself an account and log on.

According to the FBI, a large number, possibly a majority of cases, are not committed by opportunistic non-pedophilic molesters, but by males who are actually pedophilic in one way or another. To what degree, I'm not sure, but most of those profiled at ikisposure are obviously preferential molesters.

The sex offender propaganda says that 90% of molestations are just opportunistic crimes by non-pedophilic males. Apparently that's just not true.

However, all normal heterosexual adult males are maximally attracted to females aged 16, 17 and up into adulthood, so I strongly disagree with calling men who have sex with these girls pedophiles or even sex offenders. It's not called "pedophilia"; it's called "fucking a teenage girl".

All males also have very high, though not maximal attraction to girls aged 14 and 15, so that's not really abnormal or pedophilia either. Once you get into girls aged 13 and below, no adult of any age should be messing with them, period. They're just too young, and at some point, it is out and out child molesting. However, I do not think that persons under age 18 having sex with a 13 year old is abnormal.

Main thing about pedophiles, if you look at Wikisposure, is that it's obvious that the vast majority really don't have much interest in adults. A few do, but those are the minority. What turns em on is kids, and they usually have a preferential AoA, or age of attraction. It's usually phrased something like, "My AoA is 6-11."

A few of these guys are completely out and well-known in the community. Some have admitted to molesting kids and just got away with it. That's not enough to arrest or convict someone. A number of the older ones are roaming around the world. Mexico seems to be a favorite place. Boylovers do seem to dramatically outnumber the girllovers, despite the gay rights protestations.

I'm very sympathetic to teens going down for consensual sex and to young men aged 18-21 going down for sex with girls 14-17. The Romeo and Juliet cases are the most tragic of all. I'm also sympathetic to guys aged 21-29 going down sex with girls aged 15-17. The latter is surely illegal, and you're a fool if you do it, but whatever it is, it's not pedophilia.

I would prefer to see the age of consent lowered to 15 for both sexes.

For 14 year olds, sex with 14-21 year olds should be legal. Adults having sex with those 13 and under would be a crime. For 13 year olds, sex with 13-17 yr olds should be legal. These are Romeo and Juliet cases.

I'm primarily opposed to the conflation of this sort of sex with actual pedophilia and child molesting.

I also find the whole Child Molester Mass Hysteria thing very alarming. People are being accused of being child molesters merely because others regard them as odd or eccentric, for trying to make pleasant conversation with teenage girls, even when they have jobs that require them to interface with the public, or for ogling older attractive teenage girls.

These people have not been convicted or accused of any sex crimes whatsoever, and these are the most tragic cases of all. It's normal to try to talk to anyone who has a job interfacing with the public. All normal males are attracted to pretty 16-17 year old females. In this way, utterly normal behavior is insanely conflated with "child molesting" by an insane, puritanical, man-hating public.

Teens trading naked pics of themselves on videophones are going down on child porn trafficking charges. 15 year old girls take crotch shots of their pussies and send them to 18 year old males, and the guy goes down on child porn charges. How bout the girl? One thing I noticed about all this stuff above. It's always the boy who goes down, never the little teenage slut running to the cops. Some justice.

Nor do I think pics of naked 14-17 yr old girls, having sex or not, is the same thing as "child porn". I imagine your average male would like to look at something like that. But please, if any of you guys out there have any such pics on your computer, get rid of them. Society has gone insane about this stuff these days.

I still think that the residence and lifestyle restrictions for these guys is absurd. Screw a 15 year old girl and you can never be in any place where "children" are present! That means Starbucks. That means the supermarket. That means anywhere. What a bunch of police state bullshit.
GMAB.

I think Perverted Justice, which puts real adults behind fake profiles of mostly 13-15 year old girls, is silly. Most of these guys aren't "pedophiles" anyway. Jerry Lee Lewis married his 13 year old cousin when he was in his 20's.

They arrange a meeting with the guy, the guy shows up and he gets busted, and he never even bopped any girl, and there was no girl anyway. The guy gets 3-16 years (WTH?) in prison. Entrapment anyone? Guys, don't talk sex to teenage girls on the Net. Don't go meet them for sex. There are traps everywhere.

But I'm not particularly sympathetic to guys who committed what I consider actual sex offenses. You guys messed up and a lot of you have got a problem. You need to get it under control, quit blaming the victims, and try hard to make sure you don't do that again. Yeah, it's a witch hunt, but there's also a bunch of twisted idiots out there we need to watch, and a bunch of others who fucked up bad and need to clean up or else.

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.

Could I Be a Criminal?

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 have very little in the way of a criminal record, and I'm 50 years old. In addition to not having a record, I did little to nothing in the way of serious crime and not getting caught, and what was done was ages ago anyway.

First of all, it is essential to note that with some crimes, it is almost impossible to start doing them at a late age. Strange, isn't it? Serious cops who stayed awake in Criminology class, especially detectives, know all this stuff, but your average citizen is a moron.

Let's start off with everyone's favorite: child molesting! Yeehaw!

I'm 50 years old and I'm going to say I've never molested any kids. I'll admit to what I call statutory rape, but that was very long ago. If you want to call that pedophilia, cool, then I guess I'm a pedo. No worries.

The whole idea of sex with a little kid strikes me as weird and bizarre for my tastes, but being polymorphously perverse, I guess I could how a guy could get into it, but then I can understand the mindset behind all sorts of evil and messed up stuff.

At age 50 and with no history, I'm probably unlikely to start off doing something like that with no history, but I guess there are exceptions.

I'm surely not a pedophile. Pedophiles are only interested in kids, and don't get turned on by adults, and you can't "catch it" in late life (it always starts in adolescence).

It's true that a number of guys like me (White, upper middle class background, advanced degrees) are going down on child pornography possession. I know what that stuff is, and whether I've seen it or not is irrelevant, as a lot of us old Internet hounds have seen just about every evil thing on the Net.

Point is, I know what it is, have frankly no interest whatsoever in it, know how to find it (it takes a very long time of searching specifically for it, probably days) but have no interest in the hassle, and don't worry about "accidentally stumbling on it".

I think a lot of these guys are into for the forbidden fruit aspect. They like it the same way people like beheading videos. Sure, some are pedos, but I don't think most are.

And there are varying types of "pedophiles" anyway. The two types to be most concerned about are preferential and exclusive. These are almost always males, and it's been there since adolescence. The preferential one prefers kids, but he can get off without them. The exclusive one can only get off with a kid. Some of these guys will marry a child-like woman and get her to dress up like a little girl to have sex.

It's clear to me that Michael Jackson and John Mark Carr are this type of individual, and I also suspect Woody Allen.

The other type is optional, and it's by far the most common. These guys have normal sexual interests and are mostly attracted to mature males or females, but they can also get turned on pedo stuff too, though they can take it or leave it. I think that the term "pedophile" is wrongly used in such cases, and John Douglas, FBI expert on such things, does not use it.

Guys with my profile are also going down for screwing teenage girls or getting them to pose naked. While I understand the impulse, I certainly try to make sure I don't act it. I don't get any offers anyway, so there's not much temptation to deny. As I get older, your average teenage girl seems sillier and sillier, and I'm not even sure if I would do it if it were legal.

Considering that older guys are now getting 10-20 years and similar insane sentences for bopping 15-17 year old girls, you guys really need to watch it out there. I'm serious!

One thing I can't become at my age is a serial killer. You don't just wake up at age 50 or whatever and decide to become a serial killer. For one thing, I'm getting kind of old, and serial killers need to be young and strong to subdue their victims with sheer physical force.

If I was a serial killer, I would have started a long time ago and would still be running around killing people, never having been caught. I'm going to deny that, but you suspicious types are certainly welcome to your paranoid fantasies about me.

I can't be a voyeur, an exhibitionist or a frottuerist either, because I believe that those start young. You don't just wake up at age 50 and start creeping onto people's property and peering into ladies' windows. Nor do you start running around with a trench coat flashing girls or hang out on subways jacking off in public. Nor do you start rubbing against women and girls nonconsensually in crowded public places.

I'll admit to engaging in frotteurism with a total stranger on an overnight bus trip once, but it was definitely consensual, and it was lots of fun. We never even discussed it, we just did it.

The next question is could I become a rapist. Apparently there are some folks around here who already think I am one. That's ok, but I'm going to deny it. I'm going to cop to what some might call date rape, but I just refer to it as "seduction". You're welcome to differ.

Rape is a young man's crime. For one thing, you have to be strong to overpower the woman, and that is indeed what you have to do most of the time. Furthermore, young men have a very high sex drive, and rape is in part a crime of sex, not violence, no matter what the feminists say.

If I were to be a rapist, I probably would have started a long time ago. Any guy my age still raping probably started young. Further, men with my profile simply do not rape. They might commit date rape, but even that is more likely when younger.

How about robbery? Males with my profile and with no history of robbery don't simply take it up at age 50. Also, robbery is definitely a young man's crime.

How about burglary? I must admit that this sounds like a pretty fun crime, but I've never done it before. If I could have burglarized an evil business or someone I hated, I might have been up for it. Burglary is another young man's crime. Anyone still burglarizing at my age is a drug addict.

How about embezzlement, fraud, etc? Yes, males at my age with my profile do quite a bit of this sort of thing. It's not violent, and you can steal a Hell of a lot more with a pen than with a gun anyway, and it often requires some brains or a degree to get into a place where you can even try to do something like this.

How about domestic violence? Men at my age with my profile commit little domestic violence. They do sometimes kill their wives, but at a much lower rate than other ages or different profiles. As I'm not married, there's no wife around to kill, so it's rather irrelevant at the moment.

Could I go nuts with a gun and commit a mass murder? I suppose I could, and guys my age do such things, but most of them don't have my particular profile (multiple degrees, advanced degrees). They are often depressed, deeply depressed. They're also very hostile, and I'm not very hostile, nor am I near as hostile as I ought to be.

Usually they are working at a fairly low level occupation, and I'm not working at any occupation. I don't have any guns anyway, and as they scare the crap out of me, I have no intention to get one. I suppose I could go nuts with a butcher knife or a club, but that wouldn't be too successful, and I'd be subdued pretty quickly.

I don't even have fantasies about doing something so antisocial, so I'm not worried, though 20-25 years ago in LA, I admit I used to have fantasies of throwing hand grenades at the teeming, incoherent, 3rd World-like United Nations crowds moving ant-like along the sidewalks, usually when stuck in traffic. I didn't have any grenades, so it wasn't a public safety issue.

So, tragically, it looks like the odds are that I don't have much of a criminal future. I'll have to be stuck with a life of law-abiding quiet desperation.

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 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.

They Were Committing Crimes

And no one ever caught.

Thrillseekerman sold dope for 14 years, and the cops never caught on. He finally quit, and now he's scared to do it again, but the temptation is always there, because he so loved the outlaw dealer life where you never get caught and outsmart the law.

He also loved being a dealer because he loved being a criminal. As a dealer, you can be a criminal without hurting anyone else, so if you have a shred of guilt left, and Thrillseekerman does, it's a great Catholic profession.

I mean, a few months ago, or 10 years ago, Internetman met 15-year-old girls on the Net, and they sent him nude pics without him even asking, and said they wanted to have sex with him right now, but they were too far away.

So what did he do with the pics? Delete them, call the cops and turn himself in, or keep them in an evil secret file to show it to his most evil friends? I bet they are gone now. Internetman is paranoid. Were they illegal?

Internetman went into a chatroom the other night, or was it five years ago? There was a teenage girl in there masturbating on cam, and everyone in the room was watching the fun. Well, she was 13, but she looked like a full-grown to him. The chat room was full, mostly kids but some adults too, both sexes. Was it illegal?

It was seven years ago, or seven weeks ago, or seven months ago, and 14-year-old girls came to talk to Internetman in the chatrooms and ask for cybersex. What's a man to do?

It was a while back, or the other day, or some time ago, or 4-7 years ago, and Internetman did the cybersex thing with them, the 14-yr-olds, the 15-yr-olds, and the 16-yr-olds, and of course the droves of legal-aged women as well, and it was all in good fun.

One of them begged and begged for him to send her porn, so he broke down and sent porn to a 14-yr-old girl. Was that illegal? Now he's paranoid, and he'll never do it again. Or will he? Maybe he better not.

In a chatroom, five days ago, or last year, or five years back, the 17-year-old girl saw he had a cam and asked him to turn it on. Internetman did so. She started whining for him to take his pants off so she could see his stuff, because she had never seen one before. "But I've never seeeeen one before," she whined into Internetman's headphones, but he chickened out again.

Internetman went into these really evil chatrooms, just on a wild dare, and people were all trying to do horrible and illegal stuff in there, men and women of all ages, normal folks and weird. Internetman tried not to do anything illegal. Will he go there again? He doubts it.

Internetman went to this chatroom last year, or eight years ago, or yesterday, and met this guy in Kentucky, a psychopath I guess, who wanted someone to rape his wife. You had to break in, tie her up, rape her, and get away with it.

He described the sex acts he wanted Internetman to engage in with his wife. He said you could not hurt her in any way, and that she would secretly love it. Getting away with it was Internetman's business, and the guy would not call the cops and report the rape.

So Internetman sat there and wondered whether or not he could be a criminal rapist and try to get get away with it, under special circumstances of course in which at least the victim's husband consented, but he chickened out at the end.

Internetman met a girl once on the Net a few weeks ago, or was it seven years ago? She was 17 years and seven months old, and wanted sex right now. She kept demanding and demanding, and she would not knock it off. She was a lesbian, but she wanted to try it with a guy to see what it felt like. Internetman figured it was an evil plot by one of his enemies trying to get him arrested for child molesting.

Good thing he was paranoid, so he never took her up.

The Internet is the most evil place Internetman knows.

You can do just about anything on here, and who knows if it's even legal or what. Where are the cops? What's a cop? There are bulletin boards right now where people are asking for child porn and bragging about their antisocial acts, and Internetman knows where they are. He's been to them, lurking, but he didn't do anything illegal.

Internetman went to chatrooms where sex perverts traded porn pics. Mostly it was fun, but some people sent Internetman really illegal pics without him even asking, and he freaked out and deleted them about as quick as they hit the screen. Was that illegal? Did Internetman commit a crime?

One of his drug addict friends, Killerdude, came over the other day, or was it 22 years ago? He asked Thrillseekerman to be the getaway driver for an armed robbery, and Thrillseekerman considered it, but thank God he didn't do it.

A few months back, or 18 years ago, one of Thrillseekerman's doper friends drove the getaway car for an armed robbery and he told Thrillseekerman all about it.

Then the armed robber himself came over to Thrillseekerman's house with his girlfriend and they sat around and took drugs. He seemed like a smiling psychopath, and those guys are always charming in a way. Later Thrillseekerman called the cops and told them the guy's name, but there was not much they could do.

Last week, or 21 years ago, Thrillseekerman called the cops on his friends and tried to get them busted. Once for selling heroin, because Thrillseekerman thought that was shitty. The other time because Thrillseekerman was mad at his friend who sold pot and wanted to burn the guy.

Dopers work with narcs all the time, mostly for revenge reasons. Most people don't know that. Without dopers to work alongside them, every narc in America would be unemployed.

Once, 11 years ago, or a few weeks back, Thrillseekerman stole Killerdude's car, not to be a criminal or anything, but just because he was furious at him, but he brought it back when the cop's son across the street was going to have him arrested.

One time, it was last month, last year, or it was 20 years ago, and Thrillseekerman drove by a business at 5 AM with a slingshot and blew out a window in a business that because he hated it and it was evil.

Committing street crimes like that, which was actually a revolutionary act in favor of people's power and against the crooked businesses that rip off the people, is one of the biggest rushes that Thrillseekerman knows. You will shake like a leaf. You will shake so hard it will be hard to steer the car after you do it. You will be terrified and thrilled all at the same time, and when you get away with it, there will be no better feeling.

Killerdude came over a while back, or 25 years ago, or the other day, and said he was considering taking an offer to kill some guy, from a woman who was offering big money to have her husband knocked off. So they, Thrillseekerman and Killerdude, sat around for hours blasted out of their minds on dope and talked about whether or not you should murder someone for the money.

They discussed Christianity, as in whether or not a Christian should kill, and whether or not the would-be murder victim deserved it since he was a wife-beater, and Thrillseekerman tried to spy on Killerdude for the cops, but it did not work. Thrillseekerman didn't like the idea of killing for money (even Thrillseekerman had some basic values) and thought his friend was degenerating morally.

They took lots of drugs, Thrillseekerman and Killerdude, while they talked about all this insane and evil stuff. It was last month, or was it 15 years ago?

They sat around for hours at night stoned out of their minds on chemicals, saying, "Yeah! I could play the role of the insane serial killer! I could play that role! I could play any role! I could play as many roles as you could! And that's a lot of roles," as they shook their heads and laughed demoniacally but didn't really consider it, just fantasized about it. About what? Being a serial killer? How many people do that?

It was really weird back in those days, or the other day, or whenever it was, but not too many crimes happened.

Once they got loaded and made some bombs. It was a few months ago, or 13 years ago, or back in the 80's. Thrillseekerman had these antisocial maniac friends, some of whom seemed like they might snap, but Thrillseekerman wasn't worried, and they liked to make bombs, like all maniacs do. It's so fun making illegal bombs. The psycho dudes showed Thrillseekerman how to make bombs, which is so easy it's scary.

Then they took the bombs and blew up this dude's windshield (who deserved it) with a fused time bomb, and they slashed his tires, then they took another bomb, this time sort of a firebomb that shoots up a flame, and threw it on some other guy's lawn (who deserved it), and it burned a hole in the lawn.

Making little bombs is the easiest thing in whole world to do, and every revolutionary and maniac of any age might want to make them and set off them in the street at least, that is if you have the nerve, just to see what an explosion looks like and to piss off the neighbors.

They called themselves a gang and sat on the front porch of Thrillseekerman's house and shot BB pellets and rocks and dirt clods at the neighbors' house (who deserved it) and dared them to call the cops.

The people did call the cops, but the cops hardly cared because they thought Thrillseekerman was doing a civic duty by getting rid of the real criminal (the neighbor) he was attacking. In other words, Thrillseekerman was a public service vigilante ridding the neighborhood of scum as he saw fit.

The cops paid him a visit on the phone, told him to watch it, and told him to spend $10 to repair the door Thrillseekerman had smashed in with a baseball bat after laughing maniacally and running across the street in broad daylight as a joke just so the whole world could see it and to dare them to call the cops. If you're doing a public service crime, do it in broad daylight. It was just the other day, or long, long ago.

Another time Thrillseekerman sneaked into the ladies room to take a crap because the criminal, feral, 13 year old Black youths were in the men's room threatening with their eyes to attack anyone who came in. A woman called the cops, and the detectives threatened to kick Thrillseekerman's ass if he did not confess to a perverted crime he did not commit.

He only wanted to confess to taking a crap, which was the only crime he did. Well, he was also trying to see if he could get away with it, so there was a thrillseeker aspect. The detectives quickly figured out he was not a pervert, but they kept on torturing him anyway and trying to get him to confess. Don't you just love detectives? How many people in the US just confess unless the cops beat the shit out of them?

He was 20 again, or was he 50, or was he 35? He was jogging in the park, and Thrillseekerman met a 12 year old girl he had known from an old job for a long time, and they chatted a bit and smiled and laughed, and then she flat out asked Thrillseekerman to have sex with her, and smiled when she said it, just like that. Not only that, but she was beautiful, brilliant, wise and athletic.

And Thrillseekerman considered being the ultimate criminal that you can be, a child molesting sick evil scumbag piece of dirt, but then he decided against it. There are Lolitas and teenage girls that want it, 12 and up, with adult men, 18-45. And if you do it and get caught, you are going down in the worst way.

It was yesterday, or long ago in another lifetime. A whole crowd of gangsters came in the door. There had just been a gang fight, and people were hurt. The gangsters were underage, some of them, but they used an 18 year old girl to get in the door because they knew Thrillseekerman's fatal weaknesses.

Later there were shots fired 50 yards from his door, and the cops didn't even want to take any witnesses. They never do in gang crimes, and besides, in Greater Tijuana, here in California, there are pro-gang Hispanic spies everywhere.

Thrillseekerman's White, and he claims Norteno, or does he? Or does the whole neighborhood? After all, he lives in a Norteno hood, so everyone more or less claims in a way. Thrillseekerman wears jogging shoes with N on them for a reason, or does he?

Three weeks ago, or nine months ago, or 12 years ago, someone came by and flashed a United Farm Workers shirt (Do you get it?) at Thrillseekerman and asked him to go out with a shotgun and kill some Surenos. Thrillseekerman had to think about it for a bit, because nothing would be so thrilling and dangerous, and Surenos probably deserved it anyway, but thank God he declined.

There were criminal opportunities all over the place for decades, right under your nose, people enticing him here and there to break the law and commit serious crimes, some of them felonies, if only one was psycho enough, and they seemed to dare you and egg you on. In the barrio anyway, no snitching was the rule, so you might even get away with it, but you could still get caught.

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.

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.