A sex poll came out 2 1/2 years ago, but I am only just now hearing about it. Oh, well, it seems like sex is always leaving me standing at the station these days.
The articles on the poll deal with teenagers having lots of oral sex, apparently instead of intercourse. The article all act like this is horrible, but I actually think it is good. Despite my feast or famine bachelor life, I actually do love sex, and I am a sexual liberationist. The articles mostly fuss on and on about all of the diseases one can acquire from oral sex.
First of all, this is part of an insane national neurosis we have long had in this nation about sex. Europeans have long commented on it. We are Puritans yet we demand that Americans be having sex continuously. Even if they are not married. Even if they are not 18.
Yes, it is true. There's a $6 billion dollar a year porn industry and we are in the midst of a Mass Hysteria called Child Molester Hysteria. Although there are reasons to worry about adult sex abuse of children, I really fear that this is part of our neurosis about teenagers, especially teenage girls, having sex.
Child Molester Hysteria, the way I understand it, pretty much makes it illegal for teenage girls to get laid. If she does it, the guy's a molester, no matter what his age is. It is understandable that conservatives, Christians, married men and vaginized males of all types would be behind this Protect Our Teenage Girls! bullshit. What doesn't add up is that the feminists are behind it too.
Yep, feminists, the very women who ought to supporting teenage girls who choose to have sex, who ought to even be urging girls to learn to have an orgasm by age 15 since science shows waiting longer increases the odds she will never get one, are leading the charge of this preposterously chivalrous, putting girls on a pedestal nonsense.
Anyway, on the article . Article says, teenagers not screwing so much, good. Having oral sex instead, bad. Why is it bad? Because, the article worries, you can get VD. What sorts of VD can you get? Well, syphilis, warts (HPV), gonorrhea and herpes. Well, let us look at this notion.
As far as cunnilingus goes, it would be quite hard to catch much of anything from doing that. You would be better off to worry about getting hit by a meteor. So go ahead and do it! To your heart's content! She'll love ya for it, guys!
Now, onto fellatio. It is true that one can get gonorrhea of the throat from doing this, but it's not a common problem, except maybe in the gay community. Syphilis is quite rare outside the gay community, and you always just very noticeable symptoms. So it's not much to worry about.
About herpes, well, one out of every six adults has it anyway and it won't kill you. It comes on strong at first, then it fades to an annoyance, and there are drugs that take out the flareups. So no worries.
HPV is much more troubling here since research shows that you can catch it in your throat, and it apparently can lead to throat cancer. I'm at a loss for words about this, but I don't think it's the worry of the century.
Lesbianism got a lot of writeup in the study. Apparently 14.4% of young women aged 20-24 have tried it with another female. That's interesting, but it's got to be higher than that. Only 6.5% of males that age have done it with another guy. Those figures have got to be wrong.
What's interesting is that whenever they go out and do these face to face surveys about sex and dope, they come with some very low figures for both gay sex and dope. No one wants to fess up to being a fag or a doper, even if they were only gay for a day, or if they didn't inhale.
But recently a new study allowed persons to answer questions about sex and dope anonymously via computer in a locked room. They were assured repeatedly that there would be no way to link up their computer answers with their actual selves, since the testers themselves were not grading the tests.
As one might expect, scores for sex and drug use for young Canadians were much higher when the answers were submitted via computer privacy than via face to face.
The authors considered that maybe people were making stuff up on the tests, but then rejected that. Testers had been closely questioned before about the importance of being honest on their answers. If they were inclined to make stuff up, they were asked not to take the test.
The numbers for current homosexual behavior among this group of young Canadian males were about 13-14%. Most of it seemed to be what we would call opportunistic homosexuality, or bisexuality, among especially single males. I don't intend to have sex with males myself, but as a young men I saw epidemic levels of opportunistic male homosexuality all around me among young males, especially single ones.
This was in Southern California in the late 1970's and early 1980's.
Other studies have shown some fairly high levels of males experimenting with homosexuality. Kinsey got 37% lifetime, but his work has been questioned. The Playboy Survey of the 1970's got 25% lifetime, and I always thought that was about right.
The same computer surveys above also found remarkably higher drug use among respondents than face to face surveys found, especially of hard drugs like PCP or heroin.
One of the major findings of the study was that more and more straight folks are getting into anal sex. 40% of men have tried it, and 35% of women have. That's about double previous surveys. Gay men have always gone in for this kind of sex bigtime for obvious reasons. I'm not going to say much about this for myself except to say I don't have much interest in that sex act.
Porn has made anal sex very popular, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's a good idea.
As a sexual liberationist, I really don't care how people do it. I think people ought to consider that there may be a health downside to this type of sex. I have seen reports on bulletin boards of women aged 30 or so who had lots of anal sex in their 20's who know have to wear a type of diaper because they have lost some control over their bowels. That's called anal incontinence.
I don't know how much anal sex you have to have before something terrible like this happens to you, but it's something people might want to think about before they jump into anal sex too much.
There are all sorts of gay rights types and sex educators that say there is no way this can happen to you if you practice anal sex the right way, but I wish they would spell out their theory in clear science so it's something more than a crap shoot.
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.
Showing posts with label Vaginized Males. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vaginized Males. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 17, 2018
Saturday, August 02, 2008
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:
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.
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: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.
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.
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.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Hardcore Bachelor Blog
Pretty nasty and misogynistic stuff, but I guess, as a 50-yr-old hardcore (straight) bachelor - sorry, I have to say that because a lot of closeted gay guys used to call themselves "confirmed bachelors" - I ought to be cheering this site on in a way. There are definitely some truths here, if you winnow out the misogyny.
I never had anything against married men, but I always resisted marriage. After age 40, I was turning down one woman after another, as they kept frenetically trying to marry me.
Since 2005, I have decided I would like to get married, but I really don't give a damn if I ever do or not. I feel the same way about kids. This is actually a major breakthrough. At age 47, I broke down and not only admitted to horrible and dreaded possibility of marriage, but welcomed it with open arms and cheers of joy!
This article, Fuckers and Suckers, is pretty good. It's written from the POV of a sucker. I guess I must have been a fucker as a young man. Maybe that's why all those women and girls resented me so much. Even my Mom implied I was being a bastard! Horrors!
Or maybe I was a sucker? I remember this one woman, Denice, age 18, who I used to date. She openly said that I was boring, right to my face. Thanks bitch. Hell with her; she never totally put out anyway - it was all halfway stuff.
I don't know what I am now. By age 50, the fuckers/suckers thing has sort of faded away. Both parties are married with kids, the women are all going for the money, and most of them can't use their looks (sex) to buy the rich guys anymore, so the game is sort of up.
I'm not saying that all women use sex, their looks and their bodies to get money from men, but it's pretty common under capitalism. I'm not blaming women. If women paid us guys good money to screw em, we'd probably hold out too (or would we)?
I've heard all the lame female defenses for why "non-prostitutes" should charge money for sex.
1. Men have a much stronger sex drive.
Response: So therefore you have to be a whore?
2. "Non-whores" selling their bodies for top dollar are different from actual, real whores because real whores screw all kinds of guys, and the "non-whores" just screw (and screw over) one guy.
Response: Forget it. Your pussy, your beauty and your body is either for sale to the highest bidder or it's not. If it isn't, pat yourself on the back. If it is, you're a whore. Maybe you're a lot less skanky that the crackhead on the street over there, but hey, there are all kinds of whores in this world.
Maybe this shit made sense when women depended on a man's income to raise their children - then it has evolutionary value to grab a high-value guy who can provide you with sustenance. At this point, they pretty much make just as much money as we do when they aren't taking time off to have kids, so that argument goes out the window.
I've had girlfriends who made more money than I did, but I still had to pay for everything. I dated this one Black woman who was the greediest bitch I've ever met. She more or less charged for visits. In general, I was not even allowed to come over and visit unless I was going to part with some cash.
If I wanted to visit in the morning, I was buying brunch. Afternoon visit, I'm buying lunch. Night visit, I'm buying dinner. After a while I was tempted to just say, forget the food, here's $20, let's fuck. That's not all that much different from buying a hooker, although in this case, I probably would have been better off at the massage parlor or at the call girl's fancy apartment in Hollywood.
This woman was cynical. I got the impression that she hated men and she got this from her Black mother and her Black female relatives. The attitude was that all men are no-good dogs, so just use your pussy and your looks to milk them for every dime you can get out of them.
She loved to hear stories about call girls, and her eyes lit up when she heard how much money they made. So, not only was she a "non-whore" whore, she secretly wanted to be a real-whore whore to boot and double her luck, I guess.
This bitch wouldn't even pay the tip at the fancy restaurant. The way I saw it was all her money was for her and all my money was for her. This is progressive and egalitarian and feminist equal rights and all in exactly what way now? How about, it's none of the above? It's just a way for women to rip off men, and I'm calling 'em on it.
At this point, I'm pretty much resigned to it, and I figure women cost money, especially the really good-looking ones. Especially if they don't have much money themselves, I don't feel bad about throwing money in her direction. I do resent spending money on a woman who has plenty herself though. Screw that.
How come we never hear feminists talking about this? Where does a liberated woman get off making the guy pay for everything? Screw that. I don't think women are even oppressed anymore in the US. Most of my male friends think men are way more oppressed in the US now than women are.
I'd like to make a Commie point here: Capitalism turns women into a bunch of whores. Wonderful! Great system!
There are some pretty cool links on there. Websites, blogs and articles: Don't Marry, Dump Your Wife Now, No Marriage, Uzem and Luzem, American Women Suck and Confession of a Feminazi.
Confession of a Feminazi was particularly chilling.
I'm going to reserve judgment on this stuff for now and give you a chance to look it over and make up your own mind.
One complaint: I sure wish this guy would learn how to spell or write a proper grammatical sentence. It really bothers me when American native-English speakers can't even seem to do that.
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.
I never had anything against married men, but I always resisted marriage. After age 40, I was turning down one woman after another, as they kept frenetically trying to marry me.
Since 2005, I have decided I would like to get married, but I really don't give a damn if I ever do or not. I feel the same way about kids. This is actually a major breakthrough. At age 47, I broke down and not only admitted to horrible and dreaded possibility of marriage, but welcomed it with open arms and cheers of joy!
This article, Fuckers and Suckers, is pretty good. It's written from the POV of a sucker. I guess I must have been a fucker as a young man. Maybe that's why all those women and girls resented me so much. Even my Mom implied I was being a bastard! Horrors!
Or maybe I was a sucker? I remember this one woman, Denice, age 18, who I used to date. She openly said that I was boring, right to my face. Thanks bitch. Hell with her; she never totally put out anyway - it was all halfway stuff.
I don't know what I am now. By age 50, the fuckers/suckers thing has sort of faded away. Both parties are married with kids, the women are all going for the money, and most of them can't use their looks (sex) to buy the rich guys anymore, so the game is sort of up.
I'm not saying that all women use sex, their looks and their bodies to get money from men, but it's pretty common under capitalism. I'm not blaming women. If women paid us guys good money to screw em, we'd probably hold out too (or would we)?
I've heard all the lame female defenses for why "non-prostitutes" should charge money for sex.
1. Men have a much stronger sex drive.
Response: So therefore you have to be a whore?
2. "Non-whores" selling their bodies for top dollar are different from actual, real whores because real whores screw all kinds of guys, and the "non-whores" just screw (and screw over) one guy.
Response: Forget it. Your pussy, your beauty and your body is either for sale to the highest bidder or it's not. If it isn't, pat yourself on the back. If it is, you're a whore. Maybe you're a lot less skanky that the crackhead on the street over there, but hey, there are all kinds of whores in this world.
Maybe this shit made sense when women depended on a man's income to raise their children - then it has evolutionary value to grab a high-value guy who can provide you with sustenance. At this point, they pretty much make just as much money as we do when they aren't taking time off to have kids, so that argument goes out the window.
I've had girlfriends who made more money than I did, but I still had to pay for everything. I dated this one Black woman who was the greediest bitch I've ever met. She more or less charged for visits. In general, I was not even allowed to come over and visit unless I was going to part with some cash.
If I wanted to visit in the morning, I was buying brunch. Afternoon visit, I'm buying lunch. Night visit, I'm buying dinner. After a while I was tempted to just say, forget the food, here's $20, let's fuck. That's not all that much different from buying a hooker, although in this case, I probably would have been better off at the massage parlor or at the call girl's fancy apartment in Hollywood.
This woman was cynical. I got the impression that she hated men and she got this from her Black mother and her Black female relatives. The attitude was that all men are no-good dogs, so just use your pussy and your looks to milk them for every dime you can get out of them.
She loved to hear stories about call girls, and her eyes lit up when she heard how much money they made. So, not only was she a "non-whore" whore, she secretly wanted to be a real-whore whore to boot and double her luck, I guess.
This bitch wouldn't even pay the tip at the fancy restaurant. The way I saw it was all her money was for her and all my money was for her. This is progressive and egalitarian and feminist equal rights and all in exactly what way now? How about, it's none of the above? It's just a way for women to rip off men, and I'm calling 'em on it.
At this point, I'm pretty much resigned to it, and I figure women cost money, especially the really good-looking ones. Especially if they don't have much money themselves, I don't feel bad about throwing money in her direction. I do resent spending money on a woman who has plenty herself though. Screw that.
How come we never hear feminists talking about this? Where does a liberated woman get off making the guy pay for everything? Screw that. I don't think women are even oppressed anymore in the US. Most of my male friends think men are way more oppressed in the US now than women are.
I'd like to make a Commie point here: Capitalism turns women into a bunch of whores. Wonderful! Great system!
There are some pretty cool links on there. Websites, blogs and articles: Don't Marry, Dump Your Wife Now, No Marriage, Uzem and Luzem, American Women Suck and Confession of a Feminazi.
Confession of a Feminazi was particularly chilling.
I'm going to reserve judgment on this stuff for now and give you a chance to look it over and make up your own mind.
One complaint: I sure wish this guy would learn how to spell or write a proper grammatical sentence. It really bothers me when American native-English speakers can't even seem to do that.
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.
Friday, May 23, 2008
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.
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.
How Andrea Dworkin Was Right
Obviously, I didn't like Andrea Dworkin one bit (she just died a year or so ago) and I don’t support rape at all, of course.
But Dworkin did say one thing that is correct: all heterosexual intercourse (penis-vagina intercourse) is rape (at least in a slight sense). One is doing the fucking and one is getting fucked. There are no two ways about it. Although I should point out that Dworkin herself said that this was a misreading of her own highly complex writing.
It looks like she was saying that in what she sees as male supremacist society (You must be kidding if you think that the US is one!) intercourse is de facto rape because this is how patriarchy and especially us male pigs want to see it. I'm not going to go into this complex argument, but I will just direct you to a very interesting website called Rad Geek People's Daily that explains it all pretty well (the comments are especially good).
Dworkin does make some good points, even in her rebuttal. She says that women are basically allowed to be raped in marriage. Look, man, if you need to rape the wife, for Chrissake! Just get a divorce. I've been single my whole life, and I never had to rape a soul. It's kind of lonely, but it's not the end of the world.
If your wife won't have sex with you, then be mean to her. Then threaten to have an affair. Then actually have an affair - after all, she's not screwing you, so you have every right to an affair. If that doesn't work, just leave her.
An earlier post of mine linked to a gay website called Heroic Homo Sex (Warning: plenty of gay erotica and some gay porn on that site!) that seemed to have hit on some amazing insights. I'm not gay or bisexual, by the way; I'm hopelessly straight and could not be gay if I wanted to.
HHS' notion was that the whole era of promiscuity, AIDS, “gay men as sex pigs”, effeminacy, degradation, etc, that characterizes gay life today came about through the mass promotion of anal sex. By the very act of getting penetrated anally, gay men were turned submissive.
Why? Because getting penetrated and penetrating resembles rape. Fucking makes the fucker dominant (and a sort of a rapist) and getting fucked makes one submissive (and a sort of a rape victim).
HHS argues that the only way that the gay men can reverse this trend is through something called frottage (they also like other non-anal sex acts) which basically boils down to 2 guys rubbing their dicks against each other in a sort of martial combat. By having sex in this way, neither man is fucked and thereby made submissive.
Also promiscuity is reduced - HHS feels that by getting anally fucked, gay men are degraded and turned into “sex sluts” or “sex pigs”. The corollary to this is that anal sex is also degrading to women who engage in it, but it doesn't seem to turn them into promiscuous "sex pigs". Only in porn it does. So why does anal sex turn gay men but not women into "sex pigs"?
Also, effeminacy will be reduced in gay men by eliminating anal sex, since getting fucked anally in and of itself causes gay men to act effeminate.
I would also argue that the act of getting fucked in and of itself turns a woman feminine, and most men with sexual experience have seen this with their very eyes. The most evil bitch turns into a preening, coquettish Southern belle at least for a while merely by getting fucked. Probably, even pretty wimpy guys are turned a lot more masculine merely by fucking a woman (I can't speak to this one, so I'm guessing).
I have read pro-sex feminists say that getting fucked is an act of violence and and of itself (although they love it) and yes, it does resemble rape in a sense. As I’ve never been fucked, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t agree when Dworkin conflates all heterosexual fucking with rape. Clearly rape is rape, and consensual sex is consensual sex.
Of course I don’t support rape, but I’ve talked more than a few women into bed before. As in giving them orders, which they were free to refuse, like, “Get over on that bed right now!” Believe it or not, an very large percentage of females actually want to be bossed around and ordered around by a dominant male.
So, I don’t support rape, but I think Dworkin did hit something on the head there.
As far as the rest of her philosophy, I virulently disagree.
Chip Smith, the great writer who runs the highly disturbing blog The Hoover Hog, had an excellent piece on Dworkin, whom he called a tortured soul but a brilliant writer, a while back called Writing About Prostitutes.
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.
But Dworkin did say one thing that is correct: all heterosexual intercourse (penis-vagina intercourse) is rape (at least in a slight sense). One is doing the fucking and one is getting fucked. There are no two ways about it. Although I should point out that Dworkin herself said that this was a misreading of her own highly complex writing.
It looks like she was saying that in what she sees as male supremacist society (You must be kidding if you think that the US is one!) intercourse is de facto rape because this is how patriarchy and especially us male pigs want to see it. I'm not going to go into this complex argument, but I will just direct you to a very interesting website called Rad Geek People's Daily that explains it all pretty well (the comments are especially good).
Dworkin does make some good points, even in her rebuttal. She says that women are basically allowed to be raped in marriage. Look, man, if you need to rape the wife, for Chrissake! Just get a divorce. I've been single my whole life, and I never had to rape a soul. It's kind of lonely, but it's not the end of the world.
If your wife won't have sex with you, then be mean to her. Then threaten to have an affair. Then actually have an affair - after all, she's not screwing you, so you have every right to an affair. If that doesn't work, just leave her.
An earlier post of mine linked to a gay website called Heroic Homo Sex (Warning: plenty of gay erotica and some gay porn on that site!) that seemed to have hit on some amazing insights. I'm not gay or bisexual, by the way; I'm hopelessly straight and could not be gay if I wanted to.
HHS' notion was that the whole era of promiscuity, AIDS, “gay men as sex pigs”, effeminacy, degradation, etc, that characterizes gay life today came about through the mass promotion of anal sex. By the very act of getting penetrated anally, gay men were turned submissive.
Why? Because getting penetrated and penetrating resembles rape. Fucking makes the fucker dominant (and a sort of a rapist) and getting fucked makes one submissive (and a sort of a rape victim).
HHS argues that the only way that the gay men can reverse this trend is through something called frottage (they also like other non-anal sex acts) which basically boils down to 2 guys rubbing their dicks against each other in a sort of martial combat. By having sex in this way, neither man is fucked and thereby made submissive.
Also promiscuity is reduced - HHS feels that by getting anally fucked, gay men are degraded and turned into “sex sluts” or “sex pigs”. The corollary to this is that anal sex is also degrading to women who engage in it, but it doesn't seem to turn them into promiscuous "sex pigs". Only in porn it does. So why does anal sex turn gay men but not women into "sex pigs"?
Also, effeminacy will be reduced in gay men by eliminating anal sex, since getting fucked anally in and of itself causes gay men to act effeminate.
I would also argue that the act of getting fucked in and of itself turns a woman feminine, and most men with sexual experience have seen this with their very eyes. The most evil bitch turns into a preening, coquettish Southern belle at least for a while merely by getting fucked. Probably, even pretty wimpy guys are turned a lot more masculine merely by fucking a woman (I can't speak to this one, so I'm guessing).
I have read pro-sex feminists say that getting fucked is an act of violence and and of itself (although they love it) and yes, it does resemble rape in a sense. As I’ve never been fucked, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt.
I don’t agree when Dworkin conflates all heterosexual fucking with rape. Clearly rape is rape, and consensual sex is consensual sex.
Of course I don’t support rape, but I’ve talked more than a few women into bed before. As in giving them orders, which they were free to refuse, like, “Get over on that bed right now!” Believe it or not, an very large percentage of females actually want to be bossed around and ordered around by a dominant male.
So, I don’t support rape, but I think Dworkin did hit something on the head there.
As far as the rest of her philosophy, I virulently disagree.
Chip Smith, the great writer who runs the highly disturbing blog The Hoover Hog, had an excellent piece on Dworkin, whom he called a tortured soul but a brilliant writer, a while back called Writing About Prostitutes.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
