I think we need to ask ourselves the question why men love prostitution so much? The fact of the matter is despite the rhetoric of men on the right and men on the left, they love prostitution a lot. The global proportion of the trafficking of women indicates that men like to buy and sell women. And that there’s a special kick in sex when you can pay somebody and use money as a symbol of their servitude, not as an agent of their independence but a symbol of their servitude. 
I think that what we’re dealing with with prostitution in all of its forms is the most basic kind of power there is; it’s a core definition of power, and that is, “I want it, you do it. I want it now, you do it now. Bend over.”  And when someone has that kind of power, that’s the same kind of power that kings had in feudal societies. And now it’s the power of every man, over every woman, because of these systems of trafficking in women, that exist all over the world. There’s clearly a sexual pleasure in destroying human dignity.  There is a sexual pleasure in repeated personal invasions of a person’s body and you don’t know the name of the person and you don’t care. She’s there because she has to be. 
 Dworkin’s describing the thrill of market exchange and it’s the same thrill that a woman gets when she pays for the labor of a man to drive her, to fix her car, to massage her feet, or to build her a house.
 Dworkin, a lesbian, hated men’s sexuality, or more precisely, she hated heterosexuality – she, in fact, married a homosexual man and called him her “love” and her “life partner.” I don’t know about Dworkin specifically but it’s the stuff of common lesbian fantasy to “mentor” – i.e., seduce – a younger, less “powerful” woman. The notorious Vagina Monologues, in fact, had a woman thanking the adult lesbian who “seduced” her when she was 14. So, to lesbians, what they object to is the heterosexuality, not the power difference – in fact, power exchange is a key component of lesbian sexuality (as it is all women’s sexuality in general.) It’s one of the reason that “not the fun kind” of feminism never hit the mainstream, while the “fun kind of feminism” – “sex positive feminism” – *is* mainstream.
 Dworkin, and all radical feminists, are very similar to religious vegans and animal rights activists who decry the exploitation of animals by mankind. Humans eat animals, wear their skins, and they don’t even bother to name the animals.
What Dworkin’s feminism really is, is the same great emotional cry that all humans give when confronted with the reality that there is no “human dignity.” Humans are just animals, and the state of nature is the law of the jungle.
The irony is that there’s nothing in men’s pornography that is any worse than The Story of O – pornography for women, written by a woman. Dworkin would probably consider Ann Rice as a “handmaiden of patriarchy” but her Sleeping Beauty Chronicles was as humiliating for her male characters as it was for her female characters. It was a woman who wrote “Belinda” the touching story of a 16 year old girl in a “voluntary” relationship with an older, 30 something man. The book held no interest to men, it was written for women, from their perspective, to justify their own fantasies and sexual desires.
 Dworkin would almost certainly acknowledge that this applies to capitalism generally – and as a woman-centric feminist, she of course “centers” women as the central “good” in capitalism (not at all without good reason.)
Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.
The real irony is that Dworkin, the Jewess who said she would have been a Talmud scholar if they had let her, is literally longing for Christ. She bemoans the lack of “human dignity” and the lack of “brotherly love” (thus) that is idealized in Christianity. But the fact is, humans are incapable of “loving” each other, outside of close friends and family (and, especially, husbands and wives, which must have angered Dworkin, even though the only man she loved, she actually married, just presumably didn’t have sex with, because she was a lesbian.)
Humans, apes with bigger brains, only have 200 “empathy slots” for other human beings. You can empathize with, love, respect, and “dignify” – and remember the names of – just about 200 people. Evolutionarily, speaking, the number is a small village and extended clan (which makes perfect sense.)
There isn’t, and has never been, any inherent “dignity” for “humanity” as a whole – and Dworkin and the feminists are, of course, massive hypocrites, because women have never, throughout history, spent a single second agonizing over stepping over the bodies of “their own” dead men to find greener pastures, better food, and sexier men, on the other side of the river. Women have never afforded men any dignity, ever, but merely respected male power – and have evolved to be sexually aroused by male power. At the end of the day, what really disgusts women like Dworkin is the banality of male sexual desire. Like food, all it takes is a scent, a sight, and men start salivating. Women require a lot more indirection and need a lot more emotional play-acting, but that’s all it is – emotional play-acting. Women’s sexuality isn’t at all more “dignified” than men’s, and women are indifferent to male suffering – in fact, male suffering disgusts women.
But Dworkin – and the “not fun kind of feminists” – are completely correct about sexual power and the commodification of women. What they are objecting to is civilization and capitalism, two things they have no interest in ever giving up.
If Dworkin and the “not fun” kind of feminists ever got their wish, and civilization and capitalism were destroyed, we’d all be living in small, 200 person primitive villages, with no running water, matriarchal clan structures, parasite load, rampant STDs, and constant tribal warfare with the villages next door.
And the FIRST man who came up with something better, the FIRST man who invented a new technology that gave him a significant power advantage over his rival men – he wouldn’t NEED to “buy” any women, the women would be stepping over each other – and their own children, in fact – to get to that man, the one with the most beautiful peacock feathers.
What Dworkin is most sad about is that Jesus doesn’t love her, because there is no Jesus, and human beings – including women – have no inherent dignity. It’s all just jungle.
A few months ago I saw some traffic coming to my blog and found it linked by an article titled “I Am A Jailbait” on a blog called “Triweekly Antifeminist” written by an author calling itself “Tom Grauer.” He promotes an idea he calls “Male Sexualism.”
I’m sure you can figure out the basic idea from this quote from his article:
it is perfectly natural, healthy, and normal for all men to sexually desire 15-year-olds. Once you admit to the truth, there is no going back away from the truth. You took the bait – and, the internet being what it is, you are busted forever. Score a victory for Male Sexualism. Every man who admits to it being natural to sexually desire teenagers is a victory for our side.
He then quotes a paragraph from my “Baltimore Stories,” a fictional series about a teenage boy living in Baltimore:
Now, Amanda had gone to high school with us. My first memory of Amanda is helping her break into her father’s house. Of course, her father was obviously rich as shit, judging by the house. I mean, I asked her what was up. She said she hated her father. I said why? She didn’t want to talk about it, and Amy – you know, the little Blondie slip of a thing I had been fucking since she was 15 – just gave me a look that basically said “don’t ask.” Amanda said, “the things he did to me, he owes me. I’d take every fucking cent he had just to get away from him.”
Apparently, this paragraph got Tom Grauer all excited and he decided that now I was a part of his “Male Sexualism” movement, whether I liked it or not. You can simply read the language hinting at some sort of threat:
Once you tell the truth, can’t deny it anymore. It is documented. It is archived for eternity, at least somewhere. No joke, everything ever written is documented. “Hipster Racist,” a blogger, once wrote the following on one of his blogs … What’s that, Hipster? Granted, his story may be fictional. Who knows. But, be it truthful or fanciful, it is revealing. You are one of us, Hipster. … Nor can you effectively shut yourself down. “Delete everything” is just not a viable option in this day and age. Once written, can’t be un-written.
But Tom Grauer deleted that blog and started a new one, called “Male Sexualism Blog: Exploring an Alternative to Modern Sex-Crime Legislation” at tomantifeminist.home.blog. He essentially rewrote his article “I Am A Jailbait” as ““Muh 16” May be The Puritan-Feminist Party Line, But The Party Itself is Losing Popularity” and, apparently to get my attention, posted this comment on my blog as “Surreal.”
Oy vey goyim, muh age of consent, support Palestine.
In the vernacular of the “Alt Right” – and especially the (((Hollywood Nazi))) faction, this sentence means, “Hey stupid goy, the JOOOOOZ you are so paranoid about want you to support an age of consent law and to support Palestine.
I found it funny – and revealing – that he just couldn’t help himself and freaked out because I sometimes write about the Palestinian cause and the apartheid regime of Jew bigotry in Zionist-occupied Palestine. This makes me a target of Zionist Jews because I support the human rights of Palestinian people. To a Zionist Jew, this is “anti-semitic” and so this Jew has decided to throw around back-handed threats to me, suggest I’m some sort of pervert that wants to lower the age of consent and have sex with 15 year old girls – and points out, on multiple occasions, that even if I were to delete this story, it wouldn’t matter because the internet is forever, etc.
Of course, I’m not the one deleting my blogs and posts – that’s him. Nor am I advocating lowering the age of consent nor creating an ideology called “Male Sexualism” all about normalizing adult men having sex with teenage girls. That would be him, Tom Grauer, who does those things and in fact cites Jewish rabbis to back him up in his four part series, “Obadiah Shoher’s Relevance to Male Sexualism.”
Interestingly, like most “neo-reactionary” followers of (((Curtin Yarvin’s))) “NRx” ideology, to Tom Grauer all problems are caused by … “Puritans” (i.e., White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) … and it is these “Puritans” and the modern “Feminist” partners that are oppressing men by making it illegal for men to have sex with girls under the age of sixteen, and, I suspect, to “consume” pornography featuring girls under the age of 18.
He’s not the only NRx blogger who talks about “ten year old girls” being sexually interested in adult men either – so does “Jim” of Blog.Jim.com – another (((Curtin Yarvin))) NRx fan who is also a Zionist and hates “anti-seeeeemites” and Palestinians who also blames “Puritans” for all the problems of the world.
(Full disclosure: I am the decendant of Puritans.)
I would have of course ignored Tom Grauer, in fact never even had heard of him, if he didn’t try to rope me into his bizarre “ideology” by purposefully trying to defame me by mischaracterizing a paragraph from a fictional story.
But when you mention the human rights of Palestinians, it’s really only a matter of time until a Zionist Jew like Tom Grauer comes after you, trying to defame your character, paint you as an “extremist” and an “anti-seeeeeeeemite” and even go so far as to start an ostensibly pro-pedophilia blog to try to defame people by association – or in this case, non-association.
A quick glance at his blog made me think at first he is simply a pornsick man desperately trying to justify his “legal teen porn” addiction – and that may be a part of it.
But when you have a Zionist Jew like Tom Grauer attacking Palestinians and those who support their human rights by trying to defame them as pedophiles, it’s pretty obviously one of those “Canary Mission” employees – professional Zionist hasbara engaged in a smear campaign against anyone noticing Zionist Jew genocide against Palestinians – and “Puritans” – “Puritan” being a code word for “WASP” and, more generally, “White American.”
Anyone familiar with my blogging career knows that I’ve never advocated for the lowering of the age of consent (as far as I can remember I’ve never even written about the age of consent) nor have I ever suggested that men were oppressed by “AOC laws” nor that it’s acceptable for adult men to have sex with 15 or 16 year old girls. Nor have I ever done what NRx Jim and Tom Grauer do and claim that ten year old girls want to have sex with adult men.
That sounds like a pedophile projecting, does it not?
Best advice: stay away from these NRx freaks, advocates for pedophilia, and Jews who are into “neo-reaction.”
I have a morbid fascination with the Gender Critical reddit forum. It’s a “radical feminist” forum, and many on reddit consider it a “hate sub.”
It really is just the female version of the “Red Pill” or the “Men’s Rights Activists” or even the “Incels.” They pretty openly hate men, and admit it in a way that the “misogynist” subs would never admit they hate women.
Many on reddit do label Gender Critical a “hate” sub, but not because they hate men – because they don’t consider “transgendered” men women. They refuse to accept the propaganda phrase “Trans women are women.”
Of course, it’s obvious that “trans women are women” is false. If it were true it wouldn’t need the “thought terminating cliche.” “Trans women” are just men wearing dresses. Those that undergo “sex reassignment surgery” are still men, just mutilated men, men with enhanced circumcision that have been poisoned with artificial estrogen – just like Alex Jones’ Gay Frogs, in fact. (OMG – ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT!)
I just can’t help but feel some sympathy for these women. They are right about “transgendered.” They are right about men’s “objectification” of women. AFAIK, homosexual men “objectify” men. It’s just testosterone.
So these women hating men for male biology really are the equivalent of men hating women for female biology.
The Gender Critics are also mostly correct about “gender” too. “Sex” is a biological reality, “gender” is a social construct. There is nothing “natural” about women wearing skirts – see Scottish kilts. There is nothing “natural” about women shaving their armpits or men having short hair. As someone once posted here, sex roles are not entirely socially “constructed” – instead they are socially reinforced.
Only women can nurse babies, so child care is basically a woman’s job – due to biology. Of course, men can take care of children – historically, men took charge or raising boys at about the age of 7. But child care is a woman’s job precisely because of the biology involved – and only ideological fanatics would object to that.
Ironically, it’s precisely at this point that the Gender Critical Feminists become the biology-deniers they rightly criticize the “transgenders” for.
What draws these women to radical feminism? Some perfectly legitimate objections to prostitution/pornography. But also some illegitimate reasons – such as their shallow hatred of men and their obvious agenda to recruit straight women to lesbianism. Lots of them utterly whine about being “invisible” to men as they age – apparently, they DEMAND male sexual attention, until they get it, then they complain about “objectification” – then when they don’t get it anymore, they complain about “invisibility.”
As they say, women want “fried ice.”
Occasionally, they will step right to the edge of racial reality – they hate men of color too – but they quickly correct themselves.
If I was creating a religion from scratch, it would probably look a lot like Mormonism. They get all the key features right:
1. Early marriage of young couples.
3. Just-this-side of explicitly White.
4. The right amoung of mystery and ritual and a hierarchy that is kind of secret.
Interesting line, the interviewee suggests that religion makes people slutty, and the interviewer agrees and says “it worked for me.” This is a post-hoc rationalization of what actually happens – what actually happens if the early sex drive is not steered into marriage, it will go crazy.
Since anecdotes are evidence to these people, my own. One girlfriend and I actually staged a “wedding” after we had been together for a year. It was very paganish. She had her bridesmaids and I had my grooms, it was in an amazing part of nature. It was utterly sweet and extremely erotic.
Neither of us had the experience of the traditional build up to a young marriage – we were both sluts at that point and were living together and decided to do it on the spur of the moment. Our sex life was uber-fantastic but both of us – apparently – were yearning for something a bit more. Some ritual, some commitment, some “magic” in the antropological sense.
Like a bunch of pagans, we immediately retired to a tent and consummated the marriage with just the slightest hint of privacy.
She wasn’t religious at all, and I had abandoned religion years before. It wasn’t religion that made us slutty, it was in fact the lack of it.
I find it interesting how HATED the Mormons are by the secular culture. The Vice interviewer even mocks a Mormon anti-porn conference as “a thousand white people who claim to not masturbate.” (NOTE how the attacks on Whites are paired with the anti-sex attitudes of replacing sex with masturbation.) Just watch how hostile Vice is to the Mormons while in another video they absolutely fawn over the Sascha Gray porn star.
Vice lies and conflates “anti-porn” with “anti-sex” which obviously just isn’t true. Porn does not equal sex. In fact, as porn has become mainstream – teenagers are having LESS sex than ever.
(Also note the appeals to authority, “the psychiatric community finds no harm in porn” – which is not true. Scientific studies have shown that porn IS addictive by the same mechanisms that various other drugs and vices are addictive. It just shows how fragile the anti-sex, anti-monogamy left’s consensus really is.)
Interestingly too that the pornographer they interview:
1) Literally finds the Mormon marriage rituals to be highly erotic. There goes the idea that they are “anti-sex!” Do leftists even TRY to make sense?
2) The pornographer is a dyke, and I’d bet is extremely masculine looking/presenting. So it’s pretty obvious that all those pretty blonde girls in white dresses she is filming is just her making up for all those pretty blonde – and straight – Mormon girls that wouldn’t dyke out with her in high school. Porn is her way of getting back at all the normal people. Pure resentment. If she was a man, the rad feminists would call what she is doing “misogyny.” She’s the lesbian version of the Asian manosphere “Supreme Gentleman” that murdered all those people in California.
3) She tries to imply something sinister about Mormon male authority figures – OF COURSE.
I think it’s pretty obvious who has a healthy sexuality and who does not. Mormons marry young, are extremely PRO-SEX, and have big families.
Vice Media employees watch porn, masturbate, have OBVIOUS hang ups about sex, and have a TINY fertility rate. They probably have more abortions than live children.
Mormons are Pro-Sex, while Vice Media – and the anti-white left – are ANTI-SEX. They are like something out of 1984’s Junior Anti-Sex League.
This is an aspect of the culture war that the pro-whites and “the right” (whatever that means) could WIN. But they don’t have a rhetoric about sex in the modern era. Partially, because before the sexual revolution, they didn’t need one. The sexual revolution hit and they just did what conservatives do, tried to ignore it, then made some concession, then ran and hid.
That’s why you need Hipster Racist, who knows how to take on the anti-sex forces of the sexual revolution. The pro-white “right” needs to explain how utterly PRO-SEX we are, and how the entire purpose of the Politically Correct, anti-White left is to spoil healthy fun sex for everyone.
In high school my first “long term” (i.e., almost a year) relationship, my first “girlfriend” was a pretty, but rather plain, girl my age. Our romantic matching was quite simple, a quite simple exchange. I gave her romantic attention and was her “arm candy” increasing her social status among other girls, and in return I got to have sex with her all the time. Both of us were mostly happy with the arrangement. I broke up with her because I found out that she had had sex with another guy when we were “on a break.” Apparently, all her girlfriends knew it but I didn’t. I had been “cucked” essentially.
Although I wasn’t “technically” a virgin when we got together, she was “technically” a virgin and that tiny imbalance in sexual experience suited both of us just fine. In fact, perhaps my first “red pill” when it came to dealing with girls was when I “admitted” to her that although I wasn’t “technically” a virgin in the sense of penis-in-vagina intercourse, and I had a lot of experience with a number of other girls that “counted” (because I ejaculated in/on them in various places) I had really only “done it” – officially – penis in vagina – with one other girl and only a handful of times.
When she realized that I was not, in fact, the 16 year old serial womanizer she thought I was, it totally broke her fantasy. Not long thereafter, we “had a break” in which the first thing she did was hop into bed with a new boy at her school. Apparently, this was not as thrilling for her as she thought it would be, and she also apparently realized that she could not, in fact, replace me with a higher status male and that her teenage pussy was not the ticket to Alpha Fucks that she thought it was. If her girlfriends were to be believed, he also didn’t have the sexual intensity that I had, being mostly of the “in and out for a few minutes” school.
So she engaged in a conspiracy with her girlfriends to lie about this dalliance and got me back for a few months, until I was told of the “affair” by one of her girlfriends, who happened to want me for herself. Once I found out, I was humiliated, and immediately the magic went out of our relationship. I was only barely aware of it at the time, but a huge, huge factor in my attraction for her was the fact that I was the one that popped her cherry. I found not only honor bound, in a sense, to invest in our relationship, but the fact I was her only boy made me feel like I possessed her – and she possessed me – on deep level. It was more than just sex, it was essentially a kind of marriage.
When her very typical female promiscuity disabused me of my patriarchal sexism and hymen fetishism, interestingly enough I did not, in fact, become a Male Feminist Ally. Quite the opposite in fact. Once word was out that Hipster and Virgin were no longer a couple, my dance card filled up QUICKLY. I found out that having a reputation for being a “nice guy” – one who was loyal, in fact, with an instinct for monogamy – had not only preceded me but she had talked up my sexual prowess to all her girlfriends. Whether she “meant it” or was merely bragging to her friends hardly mattered.
So within a month I did, in fact, become the serial womanizer that she had been disappointed to find out that I was not. All of a sudden a half dozen 16 year old girls with ripe bodies and long pretty hair were calling me on my parent’s phone, offering to drive over to my house, pick me up, take me to their houses when their parents weren’t home, and “let me” do whatever I wanted. So I enthusiastically took all of them up on their offers. The next few years was spent engaging in essentially booty calls for dozens of high school girls who had admired me from afar waiting for the Virgin to get her claws off of me.
In manosphere terms I had been pre-selected, with just enough “alpha” traits combined with just enough “beta” traits, to be in high demand. I had long hair, a brooding manner, with just enough “bad boy with a heart of gold” allure that these girls were always on their toes to treat me well and fuck me well.
I started to notice patterns of my own behavior in the “types” of girls and how I felt about them that – as any good feminist will tell you – was surprisingly class based. I considered my background to be “middle middle class.” There were obvious class markers that showed me which families were higher class, and which families were lower class – than us. Obvious markers were the size of their parent’s house and the cars they were bought by their fathers. Other more subtle class markers were education, raw IQ, and aspects of socialization.
I remember a handful of girls that were clearly one – sometimes two – steps above me in the capitalist class hierarchy. I found that these girls were absolutely mercenary with me. They were sexually aggressive, somewhat intimidating in a social sense, demanding of me in social settings, and I had to be on my best behavior to avoid subtle behaviors that marked me as lower class. These subtle behaviors were almost always related to “sub-political” issues. All of the rich girls were “liberal,” sexually liberated, “feminist” in a certain you-go-girl type way, and universally (with one exception, the rich Christian girls) hostile to my religious background. Some of them – not all, but more than other groups – simply had a more “alpha” personality than me. They were highly social, good at social situations, highly verbal, and even more “intellectual” than me – although this “intellectualism” simply meant knowing which social attitudes to have, which movies and bands were cool (Jane’s Addiction = high status, Tom Petty = low status) – this sort of “intellectualism” had nothing to do with scores on the trig tests or even logical and grammatical consistency. It was class in the sense of Jane Austen.
I got all sorts of sex out of these girls but I never connected with them emotionally. I’m assuming it was simply that I was willing to “put in the work” and keep it going until they were satisfied. Hey, at 16-19, if it didn’t last long enough, just wait 10 minutes and go again until it does. After five or six girls, you pretty much figure it out, where everything is, and the girls in touch with their own bodies just needed you to stay hard while they rode you and pressed their clit against your pelvic bone.
But emotionally? Pfft, I’d never share anything even remotely intimate with these girls, never show a weakness, never say what I really felt, maintained a stoic attitude because it seemed like any slip was a one way ticket out of their social class. Didn’t want any provocative opinions, nothing proprietary, nothing sexist or racist (all of us were uber-white, of course.)
But the girls down one step in the class hierarchy? The ones whose fathers (if they even knew their fathers) that didn’t have a college education, were mechanics and workmen? To them I was alpha and they were – something. This is where my true Patriarchal Class Predator came out. I’ll never forget the one, literally hours on the right side of legal when we first “hung out” – it was as if I was a porn star. I always left her with a broad smile on her face. With these girls, at parties, I would literally hunt them. The predator/prey dynamic was intense and the power imbalance make the sex absolutely fucking explosive – for both of us.
And apparently I had a finely honed predatory sense for just these girls. My entire body language changed around them. I was never the “rapey” type – that is far too simplistic to describe the dynamic. With the rich girls I just waited until they made an unambiguous move and if they teased too much – well, big deal there were unlimited fish in the sea. Virginia suburbs in the 1990s – tens of thousands of young White girls, 16-25, with an hour’s drive in my car. But with the working class girls, I was the alpha, and the top. I had just enough class markers to show that my eventual class status would be higher than their fathers – but none of this was conscious to either one of us. They would have just thought “he’s so smart and funny.” But I was still close enough to their class that they weren’t just disposable playthings and my masculinity was just a bit softer – thus less intimidating – then their rougher fathers and brothers. I was in fact, a Supreme Gentleman, someone who really “got girls.” But my confidence was enough to signal to them that I could get sex anywhere, thus their had to be something more than just pussy to get and keep my interests.
These were the girls that after sex I fell in love with even if I still aspired to get one of those rich girls. The power dynamic just worked. There is no such thing as “equality” and face it, girls get off on a power imbalance. It’s the core of their sex drive. It’s only exploitative when men leverage it.
Feminists are wrong when they say rape is about power not sex – no. Paglia is correct. Rape is about sex. But sex is about power. Oscar Wilde said “everything is about sex, except for sex; sex is about power.”
The social conditions at the time were a major cultural war between an emerging bureaucratic managerial class, highly educated, socially liberal, secular, completely dominant in academia and other institutions. The conservatives, especially the Christians, were concentrated lower on the class hierarchy
Black people had their own communities, of course, and were simply corralled by the Rich White Liberals to vote for the Democrats via Section 8 and make-work jobs in lower-end government bureaucracies. The daughters of the Rich White Liberals wouldn’t be caught dead “mudsharking” – but would of course pretend it was awesome if their lower class counterparts did it – less competition for White men!
But the conservative partiarchs and Christians did have their own institution that provided them with a major amount of power – the military and the Defense contractors. The military and the Defense companies were staffed with socially conservative, conventionally masculine, and very high IQ and very educated White partiarchal men, and their wives staffed the school boards that held the line against the worst class predation of the liberal bureaucrat class and racial integration.
As usual, it was the working class White Christians that lost out because the “anti-communist” movement of the John Birch style – as well as the Christian movement since FDR – was always invested heavily in capitalism and “communist” was just a slur that meant social democracy, business regulations, and union busting. Here, E. Michael Jones gets it right – you get a form of early neo-conservative that will keep the Fag Pride Parades out of your neighborhood, keep you separated from the high crime Blacks, and give a sort of lip service respect to your cultural values, and in return you get low wages, capital flight, and job outsourcing. (You can’t offshore military jobs and secret clearance jobs, remember.)
Or you get liberalism, which means you’ll get a dollar an hour above minimum wage, integration with blacks in your school (if your daughter is raped by one, she’ll have easy access to an abortion, if you son is beaten by a gang of blacks, well he was probably a racist and deserved it) but your culture and your values will be demonized.
Eventually, both sides, the Conservatives and the Liberals, decided that the White Working class – even the White middle class – was just too problematic, and Blacks were never going to get their act together, so the only solution was to replace Americans – White Americans – with “immigrants.”
Common sense patriarchal values – you don’t let your daughter “sample” every nice looking bad boy for a decade before marriage – and also you don’t want your son being manipulated emotionally and socially by “those kind of” manipulative teenage girls very aware of their own sexual power who probably wouldn’t make good wives and mothers – were replaced with the a kind of third wave feminism that is just Puritanism in reverse. Now your sons a rapist if he doesn’t give his hook up an orgasm or he breaks up with her before she breaks up with him. Your daughter is taught to be both sexually aggressive and promiscuous – and to claim victimhood at the same time. Dad’s earning power is destroyed by both the conservative business class AND the neo-liberals that have financialized and offshored everything. But hey – they will let mom work too, and provide the kids with day care! You know, pay working class women to take care of other working class women’s children so they can work to make up for the lost income of Dad.
That way the teenagers have no supervision thus can engage in all the suburban promiscuity they can handle. It’s liberation, don’t you know.
All because we can’t acknolwedge obvious facts about human nature – one, SEX IS ABOUT POWER and the more of a power difference, the HOTTER the sex. We can’t acknowledge that women are not just men with boobs, but biologically evolved to create and nurture life. Because we have lost community social capital to financialization AND racial integration. Racial integration = racial conflict, and in the anti-white zeitgeist, whites are automatically to blame.
And in our present context, it’s because working class White solidarity was destroyed by religious hucksters who said “labor union = atheist communism” and that “greed is good” (in the new version of the New Testament, apparently) and working class White family formation was destroyed by birth control, condoms, sexual liberation – and the fact that teenagers had no supervision so do what comes naturally.
And nothing comes more naturally to teenagers than fucking.
1. “Blacks on blondes” porn is bought by white men. It’s a form of cuckold fetish, which has its root in sperm competition; it’s also why the “money shot” is found in porn. I hate to say it, but the cuckold fetish seems awfully strong with quite a few racist anti-black whites. Make of that what you will, the long screeds about how white women just love them some big black cock. Oh really?
2. The idea that porn inevitably leads to BDSM – that BDSM is the “final perversion” – is so silly as to be laughable. You’re scared to spank your wife, we get it, but trust me many of us aren’t. It’s the same people that see a picture of a fully clothed woman in handcuffs and think it’s “porn” – scared of their own reaction, one suspects. “Damsel in Distress” is universal human trope, and reached its height in Western art and literature.
3. All this bloviating about sex but they didn’t mention that main, number one, actual physical driver of our new Sexual Age – reliable, scientific birth control. The alt-right cannot mention this because it’s interferes with the White Knighting. Since sex no longer leads to pregnancy, you have to come up with more and more creative (and perverted) ways to “leave an impact” on a woman (and women need to feel more of an “impact” from their man, since they aren’t actually having his child anymore.) This is what leads to “perversion.”
4. You morons – white guys are not skipping going out and getting laid with real women to watch porn because porn is better – they are watching porn because women are gang-banging the same 20% of guys. When I started telling all my sex stories, I was shocked to find out that most guys say they couldn’t even get 10% of the number of women I’ve had – without even trying that hard. That means I’m in the 20%. No, not that you as a “real man” would put me in the top 20% of “real men” but as a teenager and in my 20s, the gals lined up. I thought they did that for most men. Apparently not. So again, your problem isn’t men, and it isn’t porn, it’s women. But you all are just too scared to drag those gals of the pedestals you put them on.
Trust me, women are horny little things, you would be surprised at the stuff they are into.
5. It’s all true about Jews, Jews run porn, they invented the modern porn industry. But it is not particularly different than Hollywood itself; Jews run the movie business and their attack on WASP public morality uses both porn and non-porn.
6. Yourbrainonporn.com – that’s reality. Porn is a vice, like drinking, or smoking pot. It can be addictive. Internet porn, the constant variety, is very addictive and very damaging. But that is a quantitative, not qualitative, problem.
7. By all accounts, the most popular form of porn is exactly what you would expect – YOUNG – as in teens and 20s – sexually mature, fertile white women enthusiastically having sex. This is a surprise to no one.
8. Why is it that the supposed “traditionalists” – even the Christians – never breathe a word to young women about marrying young and having children? Even the most “conservative” supposed “family values” types go out of their way to discourage women from starting a family young, at a biologically appropriate age. Now why is that? I have a few suspicions why that is, but I have not figured it out yet.
9. What is the line between Facebook selfies in revealing outfits and cam girls? It really bothers you to realize that women LOVE being sexually objectified and being a porn star is a very common fantasy – along with being a prostitute doesn’t it?
10. Jews were able to undermine Catholic morality because of the hypocrisy baked into Catholic morality. Um, I hate to break this to you Catholics, but your “celibate priests?” Um, yeah, they’re gay. That’s why they don’t get married. And you made them your spiritual leaders, and now you wonder why a) they rape the altar boys and b) you all have a real hang up about gayness.
The Feminist Sex Wars, also known as the Lesbian Sex Wars, or simply the Sex Wars or Porn Wars, were acrimonious debates amongst feminists regarding a number of issues broadly relating to sex. The debates, which Lisa Duggan said felt like war, polarised into two sides during the late 1970s and early 1980s and the aftermath of this polarisation of feminist views during the sex wars continues to this day. The sides were characterized by anti-porn feminist and sex-positive feminist groups with disagreements regarding sexuality, pornography and other forms of sexual representation, prostitution, the role of trans women in the lesbian community, lesbian sexual practices, sadomasochism and other sexual issues. The feminist movement was deeply divided as a result of these debates. The Feminist Sex Wars are sometimes viewed as part of the division that led to the end of the second-wave feminist era.
In New York in 1976 Andrea Dworkin was active in organising demonstrations against the film Snuff. However, attempts made to also start an organisation to continue anti-pornography campaigning by feminists in the city failed. In LA organising was more successful and the group Women Against Violence Against Women was founded in 1976 in response to the film and then also proceeded to campaign against the advertising for the Rolling Stones’ album Black and Blue. The anti-pornography movement in the USA gained ground with the creation of Women Against Violence in Pornography and Media in 1977, in San Francisco, following a 1976 conference on violence against women held by local women’s centers. Early members included Susan Griffin, Kathleen Barry and Laura Lederer. WAVPM organised the first national conference on pornography in San Francisco in 1978 which included the first Take Back the Night march. The conference led to anti-pornography feminists organizing in New York in 1979 under the banner of Women Against Pornography, and to similarly-orientated organisations and efforts being created across the United States. In 1983 Page Mellish, a one-time member of WAVPM and of WAP, founded Feminists Fighting Pornography to focus on political activism seeking legal changes to limit the porn industry. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon wanted civil laws restricting pornography and to this end drafted the Antipornography Civil Rights Ordinance. They viewed male sexual dominance as the root of all female oppression, and thus condemned pornography, prostitution, and other manifestations of male sexual power.
From 1979 feminist journalist Ellen Willis was one of the early voices criticising anti-pornography feminists for what she saw as sexual puritanism, moral authoritarianism and a threat to free speech. Her 1981 essay, Lust Horizons: Is the Women’s Movement Pro-Sex? is the origin of the term, “pro-sex feminism”. The response to the anti-pornography strand of feminism by the sex-positive feminists was one that promoted sex as an avenue of pleasure for women, seeing anti-pornography positions as aligned to the political right-wing’s war on recreational sex and pornography. Early sex positive groups included Samois, founded in San Francisco in 1978, whose early members included Gayle Rubin and Pat Califia and the Lesbian Sex Mafia, founded by Dorothy Allison and others in New York in 1981. The Feminists Anti-Censorship Taskforce (FACT) was set up in 1984 by Ellen Willis in response to the Dworkin-MacKinnon Ordinance, in 1989 Feminists Against Censorship, formed in the UK, its members including Avedon Carol and Feminists for Free Expression formed in the USA in 1992 with founding members including Veronica Vera and Candida Royalle.
In October 1980 the National Organisation for Women identified what became known as the “Big Four” through declaring that “Pederasty, pornography, sadomasochism and public sex” were about “exploitation, violence or invasion of privacy” and not “sexual preference or orientation”. One of the more memorable clashes between the pro-sex and anti-porn feminists occurred at the 1982 Barnard Conference on Sexuality. Anti-pornography feminists were excluded from the events’ planning committee, so they staged rallies outside the conference to show their disdain.
Feminist Views on BDSM vary widely from rejection to acceptance and all points in between. As an example, the two polarizing frameworks are being compared here. Some feminists, such as Andrea Dworkin and Susan Griffin, regard BDSM as a form of woman-hating violence, while other feminists, such as Gayle Rubin and Patrick Califia, see BDSM as a valid form of expression of female sexuality. Some lesbian feminists practice BDSM and regard it as part of their sexual identity.
The history between feminists and BDSM practitioners has been controversial. The two most extreme positions are those who believe that feminism and BDSM are mutually exclusive beliefs, and those who believe that BDSM practices are an expression of sexual freedom. A lot of the controversy is left over from the feminist sex wars and the battle between the anti-pornography feminists and the pro-pornography feminists.