Tag Archives: sex

Women Find Sexist Men Sexier

In the very clever and very good “meta-sitcom” “Little Mosque on the Prairie” the White wife says it’s “exciting” that the imam is asking her husband for her daughter’s hand in marriage. Her friend asks, “but isn’t that sexist?” The wife replies, “well, yes it’s sexist. But it’s exciting too. Kind of like Mel Gibson, it’s exciting AND sexist!”

In my continuing series restating the obvious about women and men, here’s another obviously obvious point: women prefer sexist men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5908839/Women-hard-wired-meaning-sexist-men-attractive.html

Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say.

Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.

Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don’t give them special treatment.

Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides. …

And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers.

“A Vickstrom” on Hipster Racist

Don’t you see that he’s playing mind games with you? You are attempting to have a historical debate with a man who writes BDSM porn and publishes it on his blog. Men with Hipster’s kink have very unique, and easily recognizable, personalities. Men do not normally write / read about sex since we are visual creatures (a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say). His interest in that specific kink and his desire to write about it indicates an exceptional imagination combined with a high IQ and a high sex drive: aka he’s more aggressive than average and thinks in a different way than 95% of straight men.

Have you ever noticed that he uses a Jew (Don Adams of the series Get Smart) as his avatar? That in itself is quite a giveaway into how his mind works. HR is playing mind games on a level that most straight men don’t comprehend. That’s why he calls himself a ‘hipster racist’ – he is a race conscious liberal man and as such is using a different set of tactics.

It’s also likely that he has ties to – or intimate knowledge – of intelligence agencies. Men like him are drawn to those things like moths to a flame so at the very least he has studied counter intelligence & espionage tactics. His knowledge of neocon tactics also hints at this.

You are not going to get him to make concrete statements on historical subjects (or to even show interest in them). That’s not how people like him operate.

— “A Vickstrom” Holocausting the Holocaust the Andrew Joyce Way

“No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal” — P. J. O’Rourke

The difference between getting what you want, and what they want, is nuance,
So listen baby girl, put your boots on, here’s something to chew on …

KFlay, Doctor Don’t Know

Gender Critical

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.

https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical

More On Moore: The Evangelical Cult’s Denial Of Basic Human “Sin” Nature And Its Cost To White Culture

When the Washington Post article came out, I actually read it. Of the four women, three just said that Moore dated, or tried to date them, when they were 16-18. Frankly, I find the idea of a 30 year old man courting – for marriage – an 18 year old woman to be a big “meh.” It may not be something the culture should encourage, as it’s a pretty big age difference, but there’s nothing biologically strange about it and there are plenty of strong, healthy and fertile marriages that have such an age gap.

The only accusation that mattered was that of the 14 year old girl, and her story was somewhat corroborated by two other women, who said she told them at the time that she was “dating” Moore.

For the next 48 hours, Roy Moore issued a bunch of “non-denial denials” which frankly made him seem guilty. Hipster Racist isn’t a court of law, and I frankly could not care less about the Republican party or the Alabama elections, so I’m just calling it as I see it. The woman’s claims seemed quite credible to me, because I’ve had numerous women tell me stories of exactly such behavior on the part of men – yes, even men in socially conservative, Evangelical subcultures. In fact, that is exactly the sort of behavior I expect of men in that culture. No, of course, not all, nor even the majority or a large minority, of Evangelical men are rapists, or chase jailbait, but neither does Christianity or the Evangelical subculture change the nature of men. In fact, I thought that was an important part of Christianity – the idea that we are “born in sin” – and it’s particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist theology.

Eventually, on Sean Hannity’s show, Moore specifically and categorically denied the accusations of the woman, said he didn’t know her, and I figured that was that. I did expect – and warned – that there were likely to be other accusers, but 40 year old “he said, she said” accusations can’t really be judged.

I wasn’t particularly surprised to see fans of Moore denying everything and suggesting the women were lying, but I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction of many so-called “Christian” conservatives. At least now three times, on Twitter and this blog, so-called “conservative Christians” have suggested that anyone giving any credence to the accusations, or suggesting that Evangelical men aren’t always angels, either:

1. Hates Jesus

or

2. are sexual perverts and want sexual anarchy, promiscuity, and only believe these women because they don’t want a sexually conservative society.

I think some are protesting too much. I also noted, here and on Twatter, that these reactions are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reactions of Jews and Scientologists. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Jews, the Jewish religion, Jewish power in America, or the Israel lobby, 100% of the time they are met with essentially the same accusation:

“You are just jealous of Jews because of your personal failures.”

Scientologists are trained to ALWAYS respond to any negative critique of Scientology with accusations that the critic is a “suppressive person” and Scientology has a “counter attack” strategy, laid out by L. Ron Hubbard himself, that is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

I was a little bit surprised to see otherwise normal seeming conservative Christians doing the same thing to me, for the “crime” of believing a bunch of Southern, conservative, Christian women that claimed Roy Moore, the GOP politician from Alabama, sexually assaulted them. All of a sudden it was ME on trial – even though it’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s a bunch of conservative, Christian, southern White women from Alabama – most of them, in fact, Republican Trump voters.

But it’s all so telling that his partisans, instead of dealing forthrightly with the accusations against Moore, or even having the decency to look at their own culture and accept maybe there is some dysfunction, to immediately start accusing others of having immoral motives or … “hating Jesus.”

It’s pathetic, it’s un-Christian, and it really says more about them than it does about the people they are attacking.

Well, what do you know, another woman has stepped forward and gave a detailed allegation of Roy Moore sexually assaulting her as a 15 year old girl. Unlike the 14 year old, Moore cannot claim he’s never met her, because he SIGNED HER HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK.

I find Beverly Young Nelson’s accusations to be VERY credible, because I have heard this story, from numerous women, for my entire life. Including and especially from women from the Christian and/or Evangelical subculture.

Not only have I heard stories, for my entire life, that match Nelson’s story, I practically witnessed it personally, myself, at a church meeting. Once, at a night time event, a young woman, about 16, came running into the church building, crying and hysterical, saying that she was attacked by one of the other church attendees, who was about 18. I knew both of them. The girl was an extremely beautiful and very sexy young woman – to be clear, I don’t believe she went out of her way to be “sexy” or “seductive” – she was just a beautiful and blossoming young woman and even I, at about the age of 12, was utterly mesmerized by her. She accused a young man, of 18, of offering her a ride to the church function, then he parked the car in a dark spot and assaulted her.

The boy was expelled from the church and the church school, although I don’t believe the incident was ever made into a legal case. I heard, through the grapevine, what happened, and it was virtually exactly the scenario that Nelson says happened to her. As far as I can tell, this is a very typical, very common, way that men sexually assault women. I knew the alleged attacker, and was in fact quite fond of him, even though he was much older than me. He was a “sincere Christian,” seemed somewhat like a “leader” to us younger boys, seemed quite serious about Christianity and the Bible, and it was shocking news to us.

But, now, as an older man with some experience under my belt, I think I can figure out what happened. He had a crush on this girl for a year, found her extremely sexy (as we all did) and one night he just “snapped” and made very aggressive sexual moves on her, and when she wouldn’t cooperate, became somewhat violent. His “Christianity” went out the window because his lizard brain – his testosterone, and his evolved biology, took over. Why? Because he was a human man with a strong, overpowering sexual drive and the naive culture he was a part of somehow thought that “Jesus” would prevent young horny teenagers from doing what comes naturally. I do also suspect that the Christian subculture simply had no way of dealing with the realities of sex, simply expecting that “faith in Jesus” would stop him from “lusting” after a highly lust-worthy young woman his age.

I also heard NUMEROUS TIMES of older men – adult men – doing very similar things to young teenage girls in that culture. Women and girls that I knew. They certainly had no reason to lie to me. I witnessed on NUMEROUS occasions very obvious strong sexual tension between adult men and teenage girls – the kind of sexual tension that you can cut with a knife. To my mind, the problem was that adult men simply shouldn’t be in positions of power over teenage girls. In fact, I think co-ed education itself is basically asking for trouble.

I attended an upper-middle-class Christian high school based around a very mainstream, but very conservative, Protestant church. I remember at 15, sitting next to 15 year old girls, in those little school girl outfits, absolutely unable to concentrate on my school work because the slightest flash of leg, the slightest scent of “girl,” the tiniest hint of curves, flooded me with testosterone. It was often PURE TORTURE and it somewhat amazes me that these Christians, supposedly well aware of “sin nature” and lust, nevertheless, forced young horny teenagers together and then expected us to NOT “lust” after each other.

I don’t think at all that Christians are “worse” than the secular world, and I don’t think that the “answer” is “sexual liberation” or the promotion of promiscuity or “safe sex” for teenagers. I think, in fact, what old fashioned and traditional (even Christian) culture did is best for everyone – sexual segregation, a frank understanding of human nature and sexuality, and a restoration of old fashioned courting and young marriage – and by young marriage, I mean that 16-20 year old girls should be married off to 20-24 year old boys. That sort of marriage worked quite well for a thousand years and it can work again.

To accuse me of wanting “sexual license” because I have zero respect for some grand-standing GOP political hack like Roy Moore – and I find the stories of White, conservative, Southern, Christian women to be credible because it’s a completely observed pattern of behavior on the part of men – just shows how morally bankrupt the GOP, as well as the Evangelical subculture, really is.

It’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore. It’s not the Washington Post, the liberal media, or the Democrats accusing Moore – it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore.

It’s just that the Evangelical subculture can’t deal with biological reality because they have their heads in the clouds, expecting “Jesus” to fix everyone’s problems and keep everyone “free of lust.”

Which is, of course, highly ironic because Jesus Christ himself, in the Bible, said the exact opposite of that. The Evangelical cult, and “conservative” American culture, lost the culture war, and lost their culture to the sexual revolution, precisely because they didn’t even read their own Bible.

Why The Accusations Against Roy Moore Are Probably True

Of course they are politically timed, and of course his political enemies are the ones promoting the story, but that doesn’t change the fact they are almost certainly true.

According to the story, at around 30 years of age Roy Moore courted a number of young women from 16-18. He eventually married a woman 12 years his junior. This is normal male behavior and it’s clearly a pattern for him.

One of the women, 16, wanted to date him but her mother forbade it because he was too old for her. Another of the women, 17, did date him, described him as “romantic” and her mother said she was “lucky” to have his interest. Moore was an up and coming politician, a home town boy made good, and was described as handsome. There’s another incident of him chatting up a girl at 14 then asking her out later at 16.

The real scandal is the 14 year old girl at the center of the scandal. He meets her when her mother is waiting for a child custody hearing at the courthouse: in other words, the alleged 14 year old victim came from a broken home. Exactly the sort of girl that would be a target for predation.

She claims he picked her up “around the corner” from her parent’s house. Unlike the girls he was actually courting and considering for marriage, he allegedly drives the 14 year old girl straight to his house, gives her alcohol, strips her down to her bra and panties, feels her up and tries to get her to feel him up. He does not rape her, he doesn’t go “below her underwear” and drives her home when she asks.

This makes the story much more believable because “heavy petting” would be exactly the “line” that someone in that culture wouldn’t necessarily cross. Two other women, friends of the alleged victim, went on the record saying that she told them she was “seeing” an “older man” and at least one said she named him: Roy Moore.

We have no problem believing all the stories about the Hollywood moguls like Weinstein, the “male feminists” and their bizarre and passive aggressive behavior towards women, and no one is at all surprised that Kevin Spacey likes “chicken” and is aggressive and engages in assault – and years ago an internet commenter on reddit claims to have witnessed him engaging in sexual behavior with very young “pubescent” boys in Thailand. Spacey was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” plane.

Few have expressed doubt that Bill Clinton may have been having sex with Epstein’s teenage prostitutes/”sex slaves” – we’ve seen the picture of Prince Edwards with the then 16 year old Virginia at the center of the Epstein case. Few expressed doubts about this because it fits exactly the profile of these people. This is exactly how we expect “male feminists” to behave and it’s how we expect wealthy sociopaths like Bill Clinton to behave.

Well, this behavior fits the Christian conservative subculture that Moore is a part of. The choice of targets, the fact that it didn’t escalate beyond “heavy petting.” The fact is that Moore’s entire political shtick has been using a particular version of “Christian” sexual “repression” – that is virtually a mirror image of the “male feminists” the “Jewish moguls” and the “liberal’s” version of “sexual liberation.

Watch this famous video of an Evangelical preacher in Alabama named Paul Washer. Notice that sexual shaming used against teenagers just on the cusp on adolescence when they are first starting to develop a serious sex drive.

There is no healthy sexuality here. There is no promotion of marriage. There is no acknowledgement of the sex drive as “God’s plan for marriage.” Instead, it’s literally making horny teenagers feel bad for being horny teenagers. In fact, after watching a number of Paul Washer videos, my impression is that he is a typical sociopath, a high functioning emotional “abuser” (for lack of a better word.) He’s highly emotive but in way that seems clearly feigned – and highly practiced. Remember, sociopaths are often far more charismatic – and far more “sexy” – than emotionally normal people. They do not have normal emotions and no empathy for others, but highly functioning sociopaths are often quite good at feigning normal emotions.

Roy Moore’s pattern of behavior – and the behavior he is being accused of – matches PRECISELY with the negative sexual patterns of conservative Christian subcultures. It is not the same as the negative sexual patterns of feminists, homosexuals, the “sexual liberated” nor Jews with hostility to “shiksas.” No, this is the negative sexual patterns that are common to conservative subcultures.

Growing up, I have not only witnessed this exact same pattern of behavior of conservative religious men towards teenage girls, I’ve heard numerous stories from teenage girls and older women from that subculture describing this pattern of behavior from older conservative Christian men.

If she had claimed he took it out and jerked off into a potted plant – that would totally be unbelievable. If she said he held her down and raped her, that wouldn’t have been believable. If she was, say, a black prostitute that claimed Moore had paid her to pee on him, that would sound like a political hit.

But an up and coming powerful man with a pattern of courting teenage girls and women, who engages in “heavy petting” with a particularly vulnerable girl – but doesn’t actually rape her and won’t even take it to the level of sex (only “above the underwear”) – that fits the pattern.

Monogamy was always a balance of the sexual and reproductive interests of men and women. Young marriage is a good and healthy social practice – and a man like Moore marrying a woman a decade younger than him is not particularly scandalous to my mind.

But the problem with Christians (and considering the previous post, I’ll include Mormons here) is that they often can only rely on shame to repress young sexuality. They have no way of discussing sexuality and thus revert to a very simplistic mechanisms to keep teenagers from doing what comes naturally. It typically worked – when you have segregation of the sexes and young, companionate marriages.

But add in a power imbalance and an inability to deal forthrightly with biological reality, and you have just the situations that Moore is accused of engaging in. It’s understandable too that Moore is being attacked by the people most opposed to his conservative sexual morals, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he is being accused of is precisely the type of behavior one would expect of just such a man.

Catholic priests were able to get away with buggering the altar boys for close to ONE THOUSAND YEARS, and despite dozens of reformers, dissidents, and actually chaste Catholics complaining about it, it was only AFTER the “gay liberation movement” forced the uncomfortable issue into the public discussion that the victims could, in fact, complain about it, be heard, and believed.

Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. Of COURSE plenty of Southern plantation masters had sex with the prettiest of their black slaves. The power imbalance makes the sex ULTRA-HOT.

Of course Weinstein liked to humiliate “shiksas” that needed him to help their careers. Of COURSE some goofball like Louis CK likes to jerk off in front of women. Of COURSE “male feminists” are some of the biggest creeps – and rapiest rapers – of all.

And of course powerful men in sexually closed religious subcultures are going to be attracted like moths to a flame to vulnerable young girls – the power difference makes it all so ultra-hot.

The solution is NOT “sexual liberation” nor is it “sexual repression.” The solution is a frank recognition of biological reality, and a civil society that recognizes that biological reality, and can steer these natural biological forces into socially productive – and biologically reproductive – ways.

If the Christian sexual repression was a workable system, it wouldn’t have been overturned so easily by the sexual revolutionaries and the pornographers. And if sexual liberation was a workable system, we wouldn’t see the barely 50 years old sexual liberation movement collapsing on itself over and over again.

Vice Media Attacks Mormons – While Masturbating to Pornography Featuring Mormons

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.

2. Patriarchy.

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.

Patriarchy, Promiscuity, and Capitalism

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.”

Spot The Class Markers

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.

Bang Gang: The Second Sexual Revolution: No Coloreds, No Fags, No Rape, No Jealousy

Revolution Next

By the 1990s, the AIDS scare was over and everyone realized that the plague was confined to male homosexuals, needle drugs, and Africans. The sexual chill of the 1980s was over: the popular culture of film and music had continued to get more and more explicit – some would say “degenerate” – even while people’s actual behavior had become puritanical. The social shift was centered around the mainstreaming of condoms. The official story was that teenagers were going to have sex anyway so they should use condoms to avoid AIDS and pregnancy.

While the first sexual revolution of the 1960s still had double standards and jealousy, the second sexual revolution had shifted. If everyone was promiscuous, then no one was a “slut.” Since no one was getting married or having children any time soon, teenage relationships were by nature temporary and among peers partners were swapped: Jane dated Billy for a while, then Jane hooked up with Billy’s friend Mike while Jane’s friend Sally started dating Billy. The timeline simply got shorter and the number of partners increased.

So it was only a matter of time until the timeline of the relationships got shorter and the partner swapping more immediate. High school parties where couples would disappear into a bedroom simply evolved into high school parties where more than one couple would be in the bedroom, or on the same bed. Or where there weren’t couples as much as groups.

The Rules

Still, there were some lines that were simply not crossed, at least in the 1990s middle to upper middle class Washington DC suburbs of the 1990s. The rules were essentially non-negotiable:

1. No coloreds. Maybe a half Korean girl would be in the mix occasionally, but like an Abercrombie and Fitch catalog, this was a very White affair. Washington DC, even in the 1990s, was most certainly a racially diverse area, but integrated schools had not led to integrated social circles, and rarely intimacy. All throughout the 1980s Black and White couples were lauded by the media (OJ & Nicole) and the United Colors of Bennetton had spent a decade trying to push a slightly less sexual version of the Abercrombie and Fitch orgy aesthetic, but to no avail.

2. No fags. Male homosexuality was simply not tolerated. This was an era when gays were “coming out of the closet” and TV shows like Friends made it clear that “homophobia” was uncool. Nevertheless, teenage boys, even if they talked the talk, were simply not going to walk the walk. They may not have been going around queer bashing but neither were they going to invited suspected gays, much less out gays, to their parties. And the occasional friend, suspected or known to be gay, that was invited to a social party were simply never invited to the after parties.

Of course “bi-curious” girls were not even considered “lesbian,” merely a form of exhibitionist foreplay.

3. No rape. This was the era of third wave feminism. It was not cool to do something to a girl who was passed out – that passed out girl was your friend. It simply was not considered manly and a rough form of “consent” was expected. Of course “peer pressure” wasn’t considered “coercion” and it would be another decade before concepts like “rape culture” would be popularized – quite possibly precisely because a decade or so of these attitudes created a backlash, and the teenage girls who organized these parties had to regain some plausible deniability.

4. No jealousy. Of course people did get jealous, but no one owned anyone and when people did pair off and form serious couples, they simply didn’t go to the parties anymore. This was in a sense, “sexual utopia in power” and F. Roger Devlin might say. Women – really, girls – were the organizers here. They decided which boys to invite and it was their consent that powered the whole culture.

The Style

The style was rave, baby doll dresses and neo-bohemian. The soundtrack was electronic dance music and alternative rock. The drugs were alcohol, marijuana, and MDMA. (LSD and mushrooms were quite often the initiation into the scene, but those aren’t party drugs.)

No one knew anything about “BDSM” or even what it meant, the blindfolds and bondage were simply party favors, a natural development. There was always a certain “switch” dynamic – both boys and girls could be the one being blindfolded and “worked,” but the few times when an actual male submissive would want some sort of humiliation play, it would skeeve the girls out; he would be labeled a “creep” and no longer invited to the parties.

The age to play? 16.

The Hangover

Of course, as always, standards began to slip after the first generation. LGBT became more militant. Consent became blurry. Jealousy, always present, became more pronounced as “experimentation” morphed into “lifestyle” and the window of opportunity to leave it all behind got smaller. It you’re in the scene from 16-26, you’ve had a decade of experience at temporary “relationships” and zero experience with keeping anything permanent. The color line started to blur, which ruined the entire concept of consent, as consent is a cultural norm, shared among those with the same race and culture. Little sisters were not rebelling against the sexual chill of the 1980s as their older sisters had done, thus had a “starting point” that was much further along than their older siblings.

The impact of internet pornography started to be felt. Before, the parties, the social scene, WAS the initiation – it WAS the porn. Once hard core internet pornography went mainstream, boys – and girls – already had expectations, and the expectations were no longer set by peers in their own social circles, but by professional pornographers and pimps from Los Angeles, always eager to “segment” a market in order to micro-market to fetishes with pin point accuracy.

There’s all the difference in the world between BEING the product, and watching a product being advertised.

The End

What finally killed it off was camera phones and social media. Rumors can be denied, video evidence broadcast instantly to thousands could not.

Toronto Film Review: ‘Bang Gang (A Modern Love Story)’

The Future

As the Unabomber Ted Kazinsky might say, technology affects everything and society gets further and further away from the natural order. Only an industrial society would postpone marriage and family formation long past a biologically appropriate age in order to spend the youth’s most productive years learning to run the machines and push the paperwork. Feeding the machine becomes more important that reproducing the race; the machines become more important than the biology. So society will go back and forth between repression and degeneracy as long as it suppresses biology.

The Onion: Teen Wastes Prime Childbearing Years Going To High School

http://www.theonion.com/article/teen-wastes-prime-childbearing-years-going-to-high-33891

Another Reason To Hate the (((Daily Stormer))) and the Clown Brigade: Misogyny

I think the Church and the family is the place to teach sexual morality.

I also think that various socially conservative blogs like SocialMatter.net do a good job of explaining the importance of sexual morality without necessarily resorting to religion.

I keep on being told that sites like the (((Daily Stormer))) are bringing in the “young people.” Which a quick perusal seems true, because they certain read like immature young boys.

And if you’re honest, you may remember that younger men tend to have some issues with being prematurely judgemental; being judgemental about things that they don’t really understand. It’s that old saying, when you were 16 you knew way more than you Dad, but once you hit 30 you realize that your Dad may have actually known a bit more than you ever gave him credit for.

do-you-still-beat-your-wife

So here’s a funny post. The set-up is some Jewess dating a “Christian” boy is having some domination and humiliation fantasies. It doesn’t read particularly authentic, phrases such as “I’m a dirty girl who needs your Christian dick in my Jewish pussy” seems a bit off, frankly. Oh, no doubt, there are Jewesses that really do get on off a forbidden goy boy toy. And domination and humiliation fantasies are not at all uncommon. Just recall in 50 Shades when Christian tells Anastasia, “I could expect high ideals, or I could debase you completely.”

Anastasia says, “well, I’ll take debasement.”

http://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/jewish-girl-has-sexual-holocaust-fantasy/46948

Boys don’t understand it because they don’t understand girls. Most men don’t understand it either because most men don’t understand women. Most women don’t understand it either because women don’t understand their own sexuality.

The only actually decent manosphere writer, Rollo Thomassi of Rational Male, explains two dynamics:

First, the war brides dynamic. Women have been the prizes in war for so long it’s impacted their evolutionary psychology. They expect the men to fight each other and whichever man wins gets them as the prize. It’s a powerful fantasy for them. A friend explained one of her earliest and most powerful sexual fantasies: two men were haggling over her. She was being auctioned off – a sex slave, a prostitute, kidnapping, whatever. Each man is upping the price, and when one finally says, “ten thousand dollars” – that’s when she comes. (A lot of money for a gal from her class background.)

Second, men are romantics pretending to be cynical realists.

Women are cynical realists pretending to be romantics.

Want to kill a romance with a woman? Buy her flowers.

Want to get a woman in the mood? Spank her.

spanking

The reason women freak the hell out about the concept of “game” and instead tell men to “just be yourself” is simply because they want to game men. They want men to “be themselves” so they can figure out the true alphas from the disgusting betas. If men learn to “game” women, it reverses the sexual roles and that is the least sexy thing ever.

Watch a Taylor Swift video some time. The hunky men in her videos never smile. They have dour, sometimes mean looks on their faces – when they aren’t arrogantly smirking.

Women aren’t men.

So it’s amusing to see Stormerfags – likely virgins – explaining why these sorts of BDSM fantasies that women tend to have are either some sort of Jew degeneracy, or the product of bad fathering.

Now read the idiot “Leon29” – not coincidentally, he’s using Crusader imagery and his tagline is “Kebab Removalist.”

This kind of spiritual sickness is what happens when your father doesn’t care one bit about you as a child.

This can also affect boys, and turn them into sub fags.

Remember this all of you who would be fathers.

And let’s make sure that 100 years form now sick white girls aren’t having European Caliphate fantasies.

Um – bad news, son. They already are.

He recognizes the pattern but can’t help but pathologize it:

A few days ago someone linked a post on an imageboard on /pol/ where black girls were fantasizing about being colonized by white men and having to offer themselves to save their tribe.

I’m dead serious.

At this point I’m not surprised. Woman are starved for true strength. Strong cultures naturally impose themselves. Cruelty doesn’t have to come into it (although it often does).

However, some good news. Some of the youngsters seem to get it:

Doctor_Mayhem:

For more fun and hilarity, find a pic of an attractive White guy on Google. Needs to be obscure, though. Just in case the slut is smart enough to run a Google image search. After that, you make a dating profile that makes it clear that you’re kind of a racist who only wants White women for 14/88 purposes. However, don’t be overtly 14/88, be very subtle.

Then marvel at the amount of nonwhite women who hit on you. Nothing women, especially jewish women, love more than that forbidden fruit.

BloodOvThor:

If only she was a none-joo pure white, the things me and her would accomplish in the bedroom…….so creative some would call it art lol

The ones that are giggling over the idea of humiliating the Jewess are the ones in the most danger, of course. They don’t get it. You cannot humiliate a woman sexually There is no “gross” or “humiliating” act that you can do that will break her – it’s you that will be broken. Her submitting to you sexually is her way of catching you.
spanking2

YOU are the romantic that will have feelings – maybe guilty ones, maybe not so guilty ones – about what you are doing to her. For her? It’s just a hot fantasy come to life.

You are the romantic, she’s the realist.

No – even the girls with the most loving fathers still have rape fantasies, humiliation fantasies, fantasies of being kidnapped and held down.

It is true, however, that the feminist types that are the most against “rape culture” and the like also “just happen” to be the most hardcore into it. Just like the men that see gayness everywhere are the ones that, well, see gayness everywhere (for obvious reasons.)

The woman who can’t stop talking about “rape culture” and how “humiliating” and “objectifying” culture is to women is the analogue of the men that are hyper-sensitive to anything that might be “gay.”

I was 17 the first time my girlfriend asked me to read her favorite erotica story. It was pretty basic “tied up and ravished” types fantasy. That was no big deal, I could see it.

But the girl that asked me to hold her neck so she couldn’t breathe – yeah, that was a bit disconcerting.

A little bit of spanking? Oh come up, that’s as funny as it is sexy. Although it’s crazy how turned on some women are by it.

It’s the ones that like to look at their bruises in the mirror, those are the crazy ones. Proceed with caution.

And never underestimate how vicious and manipulative a sub can be. Just because a woman is sexually submissive does NOT mean she’s a good person. Just because she wants to be held down and raped doesn’t mean she loves you. Never forget how conflicted a woman – especially, a feminist – can be about their own “politically incorrect” sexuality. That’s why the BDSM “scene” has all those complicated rules and why its so politically correct.

Really, telling young men lies about women’s nature is what really causes misogyny – the real kind. Actual hatred of women, not benevolent sexism or objectifying women’s bodies. When you are told all your life that girls are “sugar and spice and everything nice” – then realize women can actually be vindictive, jealous, petty, and quite often rather ditzy – it doesn’t lead to a healthy attitude towards women.

After all, a cynic is just a disappointed idealist.

In any case, I’ve always been consistent about this. The best way to keep a healthy relationship going is regular maintenance spankings. That’s the only way they know you truly love them – when you are willing to spank them even if they haven’t done anything specifically to deserve it.

It shows them that you care, no matter what.

20_analyst2