Tag Archives: sexy sexism

Hipster Racist Music: Mates Of State

Not only do Mates of State sing uber-white “indie” rock/pop, they – a White woman and a White man – got married, had sex at least twice, and made two little tow-headed White girls.

Now they bring their little Aryan children on tour with them. The momma even breast feeds on the road – how White is that?

Conservatives Are Losing The “Transgender War” Because They Are Sexually Obsessed, Stupid And Easily Fooled

When the “transgender” thing started a few years ago, presumably with the Bruce Jenner “transition” it caused a huge dust-up among the “right wing” from “Conservative Inc.” to the “Alt Right.” Everyone jumped right on it and many said it would be a winning issue for the “right” because who wants bearded men in dresses stalking little girls in the ladies’ restroom?

I demurred. I didn’t really know much about the issue and I figured that the right was being suckered, as it always is. Conservatives tend to be stupid and have a near-perfect record of LOSING, especially on sexual issues.

I blame religion, in a sense. The thing is, Christian (i.e., classical Stoic) sexuality morality is great, and is pretty much obviously the most healthy sexual lifestyle. Monogamy, fertility, family. If women and men married as virgins, and didn’t cheat, there would be no STDs. If motherhood was promoted in our culture, we’d have lots of White babies, fulfilled mothers, and responsible fathers.

Pornography, masturbation, female – and male – genital mutilation (“circumcision”) promiscuity, homosexuality – all these are vices that have traditionally been proscribed to one degree or another.

But religion can’t explain WHY this kind of sexual morality is healthy, because Western religion/Christianity doesn’t believe in biology or nature. So they have to come up with “spiritual” reasons which are false and mostly imaginary.

Even worse, Western religion – Christianity – can’t accept vice as vice – vice has to be “sin.” So instead of a socially effective form of “vice control” – suppressing vice, punishing vice when it harms society, Christianity has to eradicate it, which doesn’t work. You always have the return of the suppressed.

For the religious, there has to be a “zero tolerance” approach to vice, because vice is a “sin” meriting eternal punishment in hell. Instead of the natural truth – vice is bodily unhealthy, religion has to make it a “sin” that is deadly to the soul.

And of course those people who want to “fight sin” can find “sin” anywhere. Since Christiainty always follows the culture, NEVER leads it, all it can do is rear guard actions. So that means right wing religious types want to “eradicate homosexuality” while left wing religious types want to corral homosexuality into “gay marriage.”

Neither really works.

In any case, when it came to the “transgender” thing, of course the religious people went straight to the “won’t somebody thing of the CHILDREN!” angle and assumed that the “transgender” thing was about sexual perverts perving on little girls in the restroom.

But of course it wasn’t about that at all. What is the “trans” movement – a VERY well funded movement, promoted by the richest and most powerful corporations in the world – what is “trans” really about?

It’s not about SEX at all – it’s about DRUGS. “Trans” is, essentially, a drug cartel.

View story at Medium.com

Religious people jumped on the sex angle, and made themselves look like the sexually obsessed church ladies they are. And the “trans” movement loved every minute of it, because they know that religious people ALWAYS LOSE on sexual issues – they can’t even keep themselves sexually normal, they can’t even stop divorce and remarriage (or the Catholic equivalent) in their own churches.

So by baiting the religious conservatives into obsessing over SEX – the trans movement has successfully slipped their actual agenda – DRUGS – right under the radar.

CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS LOSE. Don’t be a conservative – it’s unhealthy.

Loose Lucy

“Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe”

The Atlantic was once a respectable White Anglo-Saxon Protestant magazine for the New England liberal elites.

Since it was bought by the Jew Jeffrey Goldberg it has devolved into a laughable tabloid trying to sell hardcore Zionist Jew apartheid and Palestinian genocide – and White Genocide – to the remnants of the White upper middle classes. Goldberg actually hired George W. Bush’s old speechwriter David Frum, who coined the term “Axis of Evil” to get Americans to destroy Israel’s enemies, Iraq and Iran. Why? Because Judaism is a racist hate cult that wants to murder Arabs particularly and Muslims in general.

Taking advice from a racist hate cult that wants your people genocided is generally a bad idea.

So of course now The Atlantic is no longer a magazine for intellectual White liberals, but is reduced to Salon.com style Social Justice Warriorism. A recent article asks: Why Don’t More Men Take Their Wives’ Last Names?

You can read it if you want, here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/07/why-dont-more-men-take-their-wives-last-names/565898/

But of course the answer is simple. Patriarchy is the bedrock of civilization, and the way you connect fathers to sons – and thereby get men to invest in children and grandchildren – is by offering them immortality through a family name. A legacy.

As my former co-blogger Cly once pointed out, it used to be common for the American (and I suppose European) middle classes to name their small family businesses “Smith and Sons.”

Why this emphasis on the male lineage? Because everyone already knows the matriarchal lineage. “Mother’s Baby, Daddy’s Maybe.” You have to convince the father the children are actually his and women have created an entire culture around doing just that.

Not only do grandmothers assure their sons in law that “your baby has your eyes” – they now even claim that the sonograms look “just like” the supposed father!

He looks just like you! A spitting image of daddy. He even has your eyes! Trust me!

As soon as patriarchy – including young women being married as virgins – went out of style – so did marriage. Otherwise, what is the point? Of all the problems caused by the destruction of traditional marriage, for me the most annoying are all the articles in blogs by post-wall women complaining “where have all the good men gone?” “How come after spending my 20s engaging in promiscuity that would make a Parisian whore blush I can’t find a wealthy, handsome man to pretend I’m a nervous 17 year old virgin bride and pledge the rest of his life to me in return for a single child that is probably his?”

If I were a petty man, I’d guffaw at all the middle aged single women I’ve seen go ballistic when a successful 30 year old man ignores all the single over-credentialed 30 year old women to take up with young, fertile 20-somethinig baristas. Hell, I know of this because I’ve done it myself – and seen the reaction.

But the costs to my people and my society is just too damn high – below replacement fertility, bitter spinsters and “single” mothers, and an epidemic of divorce.

If any older White women actually cared about our people, they would be the FIRST telling those young, fertile, attractive women – “he’s a good catch – marry him now and start making babies! You’ll be happier in the long term.”

Listening to some nutty feminist being published by a bunch of racist, White-and-Palestinian-genociding Zionist Jews telling us that instead men should take their wive’s name in some sort of bizarre cross-dressing fetish that appeals to no one is pretty much the worst thing that anyone could do.

What next? Gender-bending for kids?

You want to take MY last name? What are you gay?

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.

Women’s Most Common Sexual Fantasies: Group Sex & BDSM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/new-research-delves-into-sexual-fantasies-1529936957?mod=trending_now_3

Note that BDSM is in the top three most common sexual fantasies:

Dr. Lehmiller identified seven major themes of sexual fantasies. Almost all participants said they fantasize about the three most-common ones at one time or another: multi-partner sex (including threesomes and group sex); power, control or rough sex (this includes bondage and runs the gamut from being tied up to full-on sadomasochism); and novelty, adventure and variety (encompassing new activities and new settings).

especially for women:

Men and women reported fantasizing about different things, although there was more overlap than you might expect, and some surprises. Most of the men said their fantasies included an emotional element—they imagined themselves feeling desired, sexually competent and irresistible. (Women did this, too.) And women were more adventurous than Dr. Lehmiller expected they’d be: They [women] fantasized more about bondage and sadomasochism than men did (in both the submissive and the dominant roles), and they fantasized a lot about group sex (although not as much as men) and new activities.

These findings are not in the least bit surprising to a) women, b) women’s romance authors, writers, filmmakers, and pornographers, and c) men who are “successful with women.”

These findings ARE, however, very disconcerting to a) “traditional conservatives” b) “nice guys” c) “feminist men” – in other words, men who are typically not “successful with women.”

One suspects if one were to drill down, the “group sex” fantasies of women tend to involve things like “gang rape” – more grist for the “war brides” trope – and that women’s fantasies about taking on “the dominant role” is likely the exact opposite of what “politically correct feminists” would hope for – i.e., it’s not Dominatrixes dominating youthful pool boys, but what I’ve described “the switch” – really, a “reversal” that is just a slight variation on the basic “woman submitting to a powerful man” theme.

The typical scenario would be, “you’ve been dominating me all weekend, now let me get on top and show you what I can do while you lay back and relax.”

Let’s see. Sexist BDSM spanking manosphere authors, 1. Feminists and traditional social conservatives, 0.

Postscript:

A high IQ mentally ill feminist in the autism “community” in San Francisco committed suicide and in her note explained how desperate she was for a man to “protect” her from all the other men. She even wondered if it was legal for her to “trade sex for protection” while she longed for a man to take possession of her …

I hope the power dynamics of her fantasies are obvious. There are no feminists in the bedroom.

https://blog.jim.com/culture/kathy-forths-suicide/

Psychology Today: “Gender [Sex] Stereotypes Are Mostly Accurate””

Shocker.

Dr. Jussim pleads with his fellow psychologists to stop lying in pursuit of ideological goals:

it threatens the scientific credibility of social psychology at least as much as do unreplicable findings, faulty statistics, and suboptimal research methods. It also risks undermining public support for the social sciences more broadly. Why should the public continue to support funding social sciences, if it cannot be reasonably assured that scientists’ conclusions will be responsive to their own data?

There is an alternative. Social psychology could live up to its scientific ideals. Conclusions that enter the field’s canon cannot be based on cherry-picked evidence to support a narrative. ARP’s stated goals of presenting nuanced perspectives, pros and cons, and evaluating the weight of the evidence are exactly right. That is exactly how science should be conducted.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201806/gender-stereotypes-are-mostly-accurate

“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