Tag Archives: sexy sexism

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

The Truth About Pizzagate, Pedophiles, and Sex Cults

Clicking around I wound up on the ISGP again and read their breakdown/debunking of “Pizzagate:”

https://isgp-studies.com/pizzagate

While they debunk the particulars of “Pizzagate” and suggest it was a partisan psy-op against the Clinton campaign (very likely) they do not discount the notion of high level “sex cults” which may include pedophilia, torture, and perhaps even actual murder.

It seems quite likely that such “elite” cults do, in fact, exist. But the “conspiracy theories” of such cults are likely an example of regular people displacing their own demons, as it were, on the elites.

People are greedy; greed is one of the 7 deadly sins. Average normal people are greedy, but their greed is small, because their lives are small. Therefore it’s normal and understandable. The rich, the Wall Street elites, they are greedy too, but of course their greed is much larger in scope, much more flashy, much more ostentatious.

As no less than Adolph Hitler pointed out about Communist propaganda: people might be skeptical of a little lie, because in their lives they tell little lies all the time. But they wouldn’t imagine telling big lies – lies as big as the Communists told – because those aren’t the kind of little lies they tell in their own lives.

There’s an amusing song by country singer Hank Williams called “Naked Women and Beer.” Some of the lyrics:

Now we have got some strange laws
The most hypocritical thing around these days
Cause where I live in Tennessee
Why an auto parts calander
Hey thats pornography
But go right down the road, read what the sign says

Naked women and beer
We got it all in here
For your eyes and your ears
They show it all in the clear
Way up north and down south
Whoo, somebody shut my mouth

If you want to find a “cult” that engages in public sexual acts, where women’s youth is fetishized, women wearing schoolgirl outfits, something that may even include a little “kink” and a little S&M?

You don’t have to look to the wealthy elites in Manhattan and London. Just go to any suburb anywhere in America and go to your local, working and middle class strip club. It’s all there.

Exploitation of youth? Strippers are at the height of their demand the day after their 18th birthday – that’s a teenager. Child molestation? What kind of girls become strippers and porn stars anyway? The stereotype is that they were molested, likely by their father, step-father, or an uncle. Stereotypes exist for a reason.

Some women may claim to have been sexually absued by a powerful cult of politicians, “high society” men, and elites – but the more likely case is that it was men of their own class, their own social circles, and their own families.

But it’s comforting for people to project such things on far away “elites.” Their sex clubs are likely cleaner with better lighting, and the participants better dressed, not the run down strip club in a warehouse district on the wrong side of town.

But isn’t the substance the same?

The feminists in the 1960s and 1970s rebelled against beauty pageants, complaining that women were lined up “like cattle” their bodies judged on their “parts” like a side of beef. Weren’t they right? Isn’t that exactly how it operates? Feminists complain that men “objectify” women’s bodies – isn’t that true? The neurology shows that men’s brains light up in the same places when looking at women as they do when contemplating … power tools. They are literally thinking about them objectively and how they will “use” them, as tools, for a specific end.

Traditional societies have always understood this, and Western societies in particular have always understood this, which is why sex was deemed a private affair, why monogamy was encouraged, why boys and girls were raised separately, why segregation of the sexes was the rule, and pornography and sexual imagery was forbidden. Why women and girls were to dress modestly, so as not to tempt men and boys.

When I was young the murder of Jon Benet Ramsey, a little six year old girl, was the tabloid story of the year. What made the story so salacious is that her parents – an upper class family active in local GOP party politics – had entered her in “baby beauty pageants” which were considered by most to over-sexualize little girls. Yet the participants – the mothers, usually – seemed to be fine with this and encouraged and/or forced their daughters – children – to participate.

In 2017, the Current Year, more conservative leaning mothers are constantly complaining that they can’t even go to the mall and find modest apparel for the daughters, even daughters many years away from puberty. And anyone who has ever known a teenage girl going through puberty knows that you essentially have to FORCE them to wear modest attire, because they want nothing more than to show off their new bodies and get the attention of boys, and men. Men objectify, and women want to be objectified. It starts the summer boys start growing body hair and girls get their periods.

The sexual revolutionaries were completely correct that there was a “double face” regarding sex, that underneath the pleasant and modest public faces humans are a cauldron of sexuality. But there was no hypocrisy here, the public and private spheres were kept separate precisely because of the power of sex.

“Liberals” love to complain that American TV shows a lot of violence but won’t allow a woman’s bare breast on TV. But those differing standards for sex and violence exist for a reason. Little boys will start play fighting as toddlers – and that play fighting can turn to real fighting at the drop of a hat. Boys are taught to control their violent urges from childhood on – we use sports as a way for boys to channel their violent and competitive urges in a safe and socially constructive way.

We put our daughters in ballet, gymnastics, and dance classes to channel their own sexual – and competitive – urges in a safe and socially constructive way. We try to postpone sexual maturity for our children as long as possible so their brains have a chance to catch up to their bodies. There is nothing hypocritical about this – it’s the basis of civilization. It’s what makes us different than animals. The evolutionary reason that human babies are helpless at birth is so mothers can pass a child through their birth canals while the baby’s head is still small – child bearing is painful enough as it is. This allows humans to develop bigger skulls that house bigger brains.

Of course “the elites” engage in “Eyes Wide Shut” style sexual parties. Of course the elites recruit young girls – very young girls, teenage girls – as sexual objects and sexual playthings. It’s not because they are elites – it’s because they are humans. Average regular middle and working class men do the same thing when they have a chance – and average, regular middle and working class women fantasize about being those sexual objects and sexual playthings.

And of course, quite often, these normal sexual dynamics are sometimes perverted into the fetishization of youth and the sexualization of violence. In BDSM it is called “power exchange” because – just like electrical current – the potential difference is what makes the electricity flow, the potential difference is what causes electrical current – just like the power difference between men and women is that spark and the charge of sexuality. The fact that a man is so much stronger than a woman is what women find sexually appealing in men. The fact that a woman is so much more vulnerable – and delicate – than a man is what men find sexually appealing in a woman. S&M is just that dynamic with the addition of costumes and props.

But when one class is much higher on the power scale than another class, the inevitable happens – instead of companionate marriage, the powerful men use the women of the oppressed class as concubines. The moronic “right wingers” who are constantly opposing “egalitarianism” will simply or ignore or excuse this. When a King of England did NOT have mistresses, his subjects assumed he was a sodomite. Where does socially conservative monogamy go when the elite class uses the women of the lower classes as, essentially, sex slaves? That is how you get a degenerate elite. That is how you get – in 2002 Italy, in fact, when Burlesconi was President – poor men pimping their underage daughters off to lecherous old wealthy men. That is how a girl’s youth becomes a product to sell, a way to feed the family.

Is that was the “anti-egalitarians” want? Which NRx “neo-reactionary” “social conservative” father is the first to auction his teenage daughter’s virginity off to the “God Emperor King” because “monarchy is better than democracy?” Which “conservative right wing” man is going to hold his shoes while walking around the castle as the King gets first night privileges with his new bride?

All of a sudden “all men are created equal” has something to recommend it, yes? All of a sudden the idea that the law binds both the rich and the poor, the powerful and the powerless, has a certain logic behind it, does it not? If that is not what right wing religious people mean by “objective morality” than what good are they? If the gods are not just, why worship them?

The origin of sex cults, pedophilia, prostitution, sexual exploitation, and the fetishization of youth is when there is TOO MUCH INEQUALITY. When societies are divided among the powerful and the powerless. In fact, one of the reason we need to have mono-racial societies – even mono-ethnic societies – is precisely because races, ethnicities, and individuals are NOT, by nature, equal. So separating these unequal humans into their own tribes where there is some semblance of a rough equality is the only way to protect your daughters from sex cults, pedophiles, and pimps.

Equality is what makes your daughter a wife, not a whore. Racially homogeneous – and roughly egalitarian – societies are what gives your daughter the chance at being a respected mother as opposed to a disposable concubine. It’s what allows your son to have an exclusive wife and not another man’s sloppy seconds.

And it’s what allows your grandchildren to be citizens, not slaves; heirs, not bastards, patriarchs, not cannon fodder.

Why I White Knight on Twitter

When I started this blog, the manosphere anti-feminist stuff was just starting out and there was a rather large faction of the White Nationalist movement that were “white knights” and loud mouthy feminists who just happened to not like blacks and browns. 50 Shades of Grey had become a phenomenon, and manosphere writers like Heartiste were pushing pro-white ideas among young white men.

I didn’t start off as a manosphere writer but my first few article on the topic received huge hits from reddit subs like /r/TheRedPill and they even featured me on the “male feminist” site Manboobz.com. Plus I attracted a small but loyal following of bitchy women that loved arguing with me and reading my spanking stories.

But it got kind of boring: manosphere ideas and the “red pill” about women are enlightening when you first understand them, but women are not “broken” and need to be fixed. Evolution made women what they are for good reasons, it’s up to men to understand and adapt, if they want a woman. But too many young men in the manosphere think that they are supposed to “fix” women and the spend all thenir time just whining that women are into the “wrong kind of men.”

Women are so shallow they are into guys who are handsome, have big muscles, and are manly. Unlike men of course, who aren’t so shallow and totally don’t care about looks and bodies, right? Come on.

But now over the last few years, since I’ve started this blog, there are thousands of new white women on the blogs and twitter pushing pro-white memes and “tradwife” type stuff. These are not boys posting “White Women in Wheat Fields” these are women posting pictures of their “1950s Household” style fantasies complete with a traditional “head of household” husband and cute white babies. I’ve discussed the “1950s household” “fetish” before – it’s HUGE in the “BDSM community” – but at the end of the day it isn’t a “fetish” at all, it’s simply what most White women prefer but can’t get.

The White “tradwife” types of course, are still women, so they love social media, posting memes and pictures, and love catfights with anti-white women.

So why bother with the manosphere type stuff anymore? We basically already won. I’m never going to be as good as Heartiste at that sort of thing, and frankly I don’t really want an audience of young incels with a chip on their shoulders because they can’t get a girlfriend.

So now, on Twitter, I made sure to re-tweet all the White Tradwife types posting their segregation 1950s household fantasies and cute white baby pictures. Back during the Hipster Intelligence Agency experiment, my (white) BDSM authoress proved that women are very drawn to this sort of thing, and so women that are openly pro-white should be supported.

“White sharia” is for losers and Jewish trolls like (((Weev))) – we already have our traditional way of dealing with women, and women love it.

@Colin Liddell & the Elephant’s Trunk: No Woman Wants to be a “Generic Mother”

The fact that the “Alt Right” doesn’t get about women and fertility: they believe it is natural for women to “want to have babies” and think that feminism is convincing women to not have babies.

https://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-elephants-trunk-feminist-parable.html

But women do not get pregnant by immaculate conception, and they don’t have a “generic” baby when they reach puberty. Women have the baby of a specific man, and especially when they have a boy, they think of the boy as a small version of the father.

The Alt Right should stop thinking of women and natalism in the abstract and start thinking of it in the specific. All the beta boys who complain about women “in the movement” who are making videos instead of staying at home raising a family are just the flip side of the “nice guy” betas, just instead of being “nice” and a “white knight” they are engaging in “aggressive verbal topping” – instead of saying, “M’Lady” and kissing their hand, they are saying, “get your ass in my kitchen” and slapping their butt. But it comes from the same place (and is often more effective.)

As anyone in the manosphere knows – and as anyone who grew up in an intact family or even had an older brother who dated real women knows – holding women to a high standard is far more effective than holding them to a low standard.

So the next time one of the beta boys sees a fertile women not having children, the question shouldn’t be “why aren’t you having babies” – the question should be, “which White man’s babies are you going to be having and when?

If they don’t know the answer, ask the men which one wants her.

No woman wants to be a “generic” mother to a “generic” kid barefoot and pregnant by some “generic” man in a “generic” kitchen. But add in specifics and she’ll generally be fine with it.

When feminists or just normal women complain that they don’t want to be “just” barefoot and pregnant, they are reacting to the idea that they are a generic, undifferentiated baby factory. Women think in narratives, and you can’t have a romance without a leading man. So stop focusing on putting women “in their place” and instead focus on find a man with a place for them.

It seems like years since you held the baby
While I wrecked the bedroom
You said it was dangerous after Sunday
And I knew you loved me
He thinks I just became famous
And that’s what messed me up
But he’s wrong
How could I possibly know what I want
When I was only twenty-one?
And there’s millions of people
To offer advice and say how I should be
But they’re twisted and they will never be
Any influence on me
But you will always be
You will always be
If I treated you mean
I really didn’t mean to
But you know how it is
And how a pregnancy can change you
I see plenty of clothes that I like
But I won’t go anywhere nice for a while
All I want to do is just sit here
And write it all down and rest for a while
I can’t bear to be in another city
One where you are not

My Latest Stalker: “Ripster Hacist”

Some chick has a “dox” on me online that is full of inaccuracies and apparently bullshit she pulled out of a phone book. Now someone is using that to spoof me on Disqus:

https://disqus.com/by/ripsterhacist/

No, I did not attend Exeter – are you freaking kidding me? No, I do not live in Alexandria Virginia (get it, it’s basically CIA headquarters.) No, I have never worked for the CIA, nor the NSA, nor have I ever sold cocaine to rich women in NYC (well, at least, not as a full time business or anything.)

The pictures supposedly of me in that fake “dox” are not me – I’m not that handsome – the name is wrong, the people she claims are my parents she pulled out of a phone book apparently – plus how could I have gone to Exeter if I grew up in Alexandria?

Never stick your dick in crazy. It’s been nearly a decade and she’s still obsessed with me. Now the hasbaras think they “found me” and are using this literally crazy women’s elaborate fantasies about me to spoof me on line.

Accept no substitutes.

Women don’t want their grievances fixed, you silly boys. They want them heard.

Women don’t want their grievances fixed, you silly boys. They want them heard.

http://takimag.com/article/thanks_for_nothing_bitches_kathy_shaidle/

I swear I’m not making this up.

My girlfriend at the time, a Hillary loving, NPR listening, hardcore “outside of the bedroom” feminist, stereotypical liberal – no, not one of those idealistic Bernie Sanders people, but a practical minded type that went with the mainstream of the Democratic party – she actually explained to me, way, way back in 2007, that tampons should be “free” – meaning, paid for collectively by the taxpayer, not individual women.

The logic apparently went something like this: women have periods but men don’t, and that’s not fair, so the government should pay for tampons.

I thought this was crazy, and like the clueless man that I am, I mansplained about how taxes work which just made her angrier that I didn’t get it.

She voted for Hillary in 2008 and hated the fact Obama won so much she actually did vote Green, but only because in New York it didn’t matter anyway.

Frankly I think she was kind of racist. She didn’t have any black friends and her great-grandfather was an actual SS officer back in the day.

As with many things, she was far ahead of her time. She was into the IRL “50 Shades of Gray” thing long before the book or the movie came out. And it wasn’t until recently that single payer period care became a serious political issue.

“Free [sic] Tampons Should Be a Human Right”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/free-tampons-human-right_us_56deffbce4b03a40567a1e33

tender-submissives
One thing I’ll give her though: as a bona fide fashionista, always dressed to kill in dominatrix boots and crypto-fetish gear (the kind that you have to be “in the know” to get the subtle references – she could attend a Democratic party fundraiser in a little black dress and still find a way to accessorize with something faintly bondagey) …

… she wouldn’t be caught dead wearing a “pussy hat.” Like, ever.

tampons-and-razors

Owning, Spanking, and Tickling Women

Jim at http://blog.jim.com recently wrote an ignorant, deceitful, and completely bullshit article about 9/11. The commenters suggested that someone put him up to it. It’s likely a fair assumption he’s lying because he has to – he’s clearly not stupid enough to believe any of it.

But Jim has some things very right, especially on women. He writes constantly about spanking women, even beating women, and the nature of women and “Pauline marriage” – i.e., the Christian ideal of marriage that was commonplace until maybe 75 years ago.

I can’t help but be partial to a man who understands wife spanking as well as he does – and nothing is funnier to me than reading the comments of men shocked – SHOCKED I tell you – that a man would ever spank his wife, or otherwise dominate her in any way.

Cutting?

Cutting

We brand cattle and otherwise mark our property, and if you won’t brand your woman, say, tattoo your name on her ass, she’s like to do something awful like cutting herself. Don’t people realize that regular maintenance spankings take care of this? If they don’t get it in real life, they will read 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight and fantasize about it, or make up pornographic Fraternity Rape fantasies like that woman that Rolling Stone wrote about.

I remember the first time a girl told me she was going to kill herself because I never fucked her. We made out a lot, but never went all the way, for various reasons. So after I stopped paying much attention to her, she called me up one night and told me she had swallowed a bunch of pills because she couldn’t live anymore. I had to call her mom, who of course rushed her to the hospital. Trust me – it was a downer.

Then there was the virgin who after a few months of rogering in the back of her daddy’s SUV, told me what she really wanted was for me to tie her up, blindfolded, and rape her. Look folks – she came from a loving family with a doting step-dad (hmm… well she had never met her biological father. Um, never mind.) She was well-adjusted. My parents loved her and wanted us to get married. She was 16 – and at 16 she was already fantasizing about handcuffs and blindfolds. Sure, I did it, but my heart wasn’t in it – I just didn’t get it.

Another girlfriend – who was literally a sex machine that wanted to do it multiple times a day – she would push and push and push until I grabbed her and held her down and raped her – which usually ended with her smiling and humming to herself as she made us dinner afterwards. I may have had all sorts of second-thoughts and complicated emotional reactions about how I treated her, but she sure as hell didn’t. That relationship ended when I stopped – I just didn’t have the energy into dominating her all the time, and so she basicall wandered off. I was pissed, but instead of dragging her by the hair back to my place, I just sort of started ignoring her and we just sort of drifted apart. The after-break-up sex lasted a few more months but the spell had been broken.

Then there was the waitress who matter of factly told me to put my hands around her throat and stop her from breathing when I was fucking her. Not a lot, just a little. She didn’t want me to kill her or anything. She just needed to be immobilized to the point where she couldn’t even breathe, and that was enough to make her orgasm.

And spanking? Good lord. That even barely counts as kinky. That’s just run of the mill routine. Hair pulling? Holding her wrists down? They show stuff like that on prime-time television, it’s so commonplace.

I – of course – was writing about this stuff since before this blog, and it was a regular feature on this blog since the beginning, and I used to get hassled by the “BDSM community” for pointing out how politically incorrect – not to mention anti-feminist – this stuff really is. It points to an impulse, one that comes from millions of years of evolution, that both hard core feminists – and fake “Christian” Male Church Ladies want to pretend doesn’t exist.

50 Shades, of course, but back ten years ago it was “Secretary” – oh, man, you should have seen the ink spilled about that movie. It was hugely popular among the Fashionable Liberal Women set who watches indie films, but it was just so “problematic” they had to write about it over, and over, and over again.

Go back even more and it’s the Story of O. The literary types were adamant it was written by a man, but of course it was written by a woman – ONLY a woman could have written the story of O.

Hitting your woman with a stick

Jim may sometimes exaggerate to make a point, but the point remains. Women aren’t men. They don’t think like men, they don’t fuck like men, they don’t react the way men do. And most men don’t understand them.

The only time I ever lost a woman was because I *didn’t* rough her up, I *didn’t* take ownership, I *didn’t* claim her as my property. Women don’t want a boyfriend or a fuck buddy, they want an owner. Sure – lots of women would rather be owned by her boss rather than her husband, but Boss and Secretary is basically their second most common sexual fantasy, just after “kidnapped by a rival gang/warrior, and enslaved in the harem of a slightly but not too exotic foreign chief, where she fucks/births her way to the top of the harem.

Jim’s also right about race, which makes his cucking over 9/11 so much more disappointing, but I guess you can’t win them all.

its-funny-how-things-change-with-time-i-used-to-hate-taking-naps-and-getting-spanked-af8f9

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

Don’t #Kink Shame (Choking Edition)

Just because a gal likes a bit of choking a bit doesn’t mean you can rape and murder her.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/lizzi-marriott-rape-shield-laws_us_57bb591de4b03d51368a0905

In the 2014 case, Mazzaglia, 32, was convicted of strangling Marriott with a rope in his apartment, raping her lifeless body, and disposing of it in a river. His attorneys claimed that Marriott died accidentally during a consensual sex act involving constraints. But Mazzaglia’s then-girlfriend, who witnessed the murder, testified that Mazzaglia had become angry and strangled Marriott to death because she refused his sexual advances. The defense tried to use details of Marriott’s sexual history as evidence that she may have voluntarily participated in a dangerous sex act, but a judge deemed those records inadmissible, sealed them, and sentenced Mazzaglia to life in prison without parole.

HR’s advice on breath play: don’t do it.

But if she really begs for it, do it safely.

Mark Yuray: Doing Social Conservatism Right #nRX #SocialMatter

http://www.socialmatter.net/author/markyuray/

The problem with social conservatism is that is generally devolves into psuedo-Christian fundamentalism and/or some sort of “white knighting” ideal that men just aren’t being selfless enough. Social conservatism has typically been better at pointing to degeneracy and shrieking, “gross evil” (outrage porn) and much worse at actually setting a good example.

Yuray has done a great job explaining the importance of sexual morality, a great job of explaining the “Mannerbund” concept (I refer readers to my article three or so years ago that discussed many of the same concepts – even getting me coverage as an “Evil Misogynist” by the once-popular “male feminist” Manboobz.com.)

SocialMatter.net is the only “NRx” blog I’ve found that isn’t cringingly philo-semitic nor terrified of being more than implicitly pro-white. And Yuray is by far the best at SocialMatter.net.

Usually, when I hear someone discussing “culture” – I reach for my revolver. But I’ll make an exception for Yuray at SocialMatter.net.