All women must report immediately to the nearest brothel to be fitted for your new Handmaiden outfits and, in our generosity, we’re going to allow you to pick out your own paddle for your maintenance spankings.
I was sexually assaulted when I was about eleven years old by my best friend at the time. We were roughhousing, engaging in horseplay as we always did, and he pinned me on the ground and then, out of the blue, kissed me on my lips.
I didn’t know what to do or what that meant, so I did the first thing that seemed logical – I punched him in the face as hard as I could.
He got off me and said “ow!” and I got up. I don’t remember what happened afterward but by the end of the day we were friends again. It never came up, except for once, years later, when he mentioned it. I didn’t really want to talk about it as I found the whole episode rather embarassing.
Another time I was non-sexually assaulted; I went to an outside “kegger” with a friend, and as soon as I got out of the car, some guy who I had never met or seen threw a beer bottle right in my face and started screaming at me, daring me to fight him. He had a couple of his boys with him, and at two to four, so I slunk away, embarassed and ashamed. I brooded about it all night, sometimes making up heroic scenarios were I beat down the bully, but mostly I just felt weak.
If Ford’s testimony is 100% accurate – it’s no big deal. For her to nurse these childhood wounds is a symptom of narcissism, a classic tell tale sign. For most adults, the incident is a “life lesson.” The lessons she could have picked up from this is that sometimes people are violent, men can be sexually aggressive, and it’s not a good idea to get drunk around strange males.
Pound Me Too #MeToo is going to some strange places. Sexual misbehavior among teenagers needs to be dealt with by parents and community institutions like the church, when it becomes a political matter it becomes a criminal matter and that is a dangerous road to go down.
Hence, PoundMeToo isn’t going the legal route. Instead, they are settling for sub-legal punishments, typically involving getting people fired from their jobs, or never hired.
Jezebel.com lays out the plan, in their article The Next Step for #MeToo Is Into the Gray Areas
Jack Smith is a professional progressive that was just fired from the Social Justice Warrior company MIC.com after a couple of his ex-girlfriends/hookups got together and decided that he was “abusive” “coercive” and “withholding.”
They are explicit that they are not accusing him of doing anything illegal but instead “abusive” – not physically abusive, but emotionally abusive.
One women who claims she was in an active sexual relationship with him said, “he was sometimes emotionally detached, sometimes involved, and I got tired of the fact that he was obviously withholding things from me.”
Here’s a revealing statement from another of Smith’s lovers:
“I think that he has a pattern with women where he is able to figure out the thing that they are most sensitive and vulnerable about,” she says. “For me, that is that not only have I never been in a serious relationship, but just that I’ve never had like consistent trustworthy affection that I don’t know whether it’s gonna turn on and off at any moment. I think that he gave that to me for a month on purpose, and then only gave it back intermittently, like it was a game… After he groomed this part of me that is the most sensitive, the most scared, it felt like he then spent the next six months poking it, to fuck with me for fun.”
Playing head games is what women do in relationships, but it’s now quasi-illegal when men do it. If a woman breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s kosher, if a man breaks off a sexual relationship, it’s abusive, manipulative. You can get fired if your ex-girlfriend’s get together in their “whisper network” and give you bad grades. Bad in bed? Emotionally withholding? Too needy and clingy?
This is what making the personal political means.
How seriously should we take #MeToo and feminism in general? Consider, that none of these sexual issues are new, they are as old as humankind. Human cultures developed – quite haphazardly – institutions and norms to prevent these sorts of issues.
One is a legal drinking age of 21. Another is the segregation of the sexes, both Kavanaugh and Ford went to single-sex schools. Ford herself points out that she didn’t tell her parents what happened because she didn’t want her mother to know that she had been drinking with boys.
But none of the #MeToo feminists are interested in, say, bringing back monogamy, an end to underage sex, and aren’t particularly interested in prosecuting teenager girls who drink illegally or sneak into parties with boys.
Imagine how comical everyone would find it if men started accusing women of being “withholding” and “emotionally abusive” because of a few weeks long fling that ended badly?
When Jessica pulled me into a closet in tenth grade and turned the lights out, wrapped her arms around me without asking and stuck her tongue in my mouth, I didn’t feel entirely comfortable with it. I wasn’t really that into her. Did I now owe her something? Can she, 30 years later, accuse me of being “withholding?” Can I get her fired from her job for showing no interest in me afterward?
People will rightly say, it’s different for boys and girls because boys are stronger and more violent.
Indeed, that is the truth. Boys are stronger and more violent than girls.
Hence, we have those rules – no underage drinking and no going to parties with boys.
If the feminists have any suggestions, they are free to make them. Typically it’s “teaching boys to not rape.” Our entire culture and society does, in fact, teach boys to not rape. So now they are expanding the definition of “rape” to mean not calling the next day, coming too soon, being “emotionally withholding” or making a woman “feel pressured.”
They aren’t going to be happy until all men are exactly the way they want them to be, from puberty to old age. Any breach of the protocol – which changes on a woman’s whim, over time even – is, if not a crime, nevertheless worthy of punishment by public shaming or getting fired from your job.
This is how American women, especially Democrats and the progressives, are choosing to exercise power – emotional public presentations, sexual vulnerability, and a “mean girls” sub-political network. This might be a good tactic if they could keep it focused on conservatives and Republicans, but by nature these women having to strike near, not far. So it’s blowing up the left itself more than anyone, even if Kavanaugh loses.
There’s no “solution” to this “problem.” Eventually people will get tired of listening to women bitch about their relationships – especially, women who are promiscuous and have left a string of sexual and emotional chaos behind them. Don’t be misled that the idea behind this is to “protect women” or even to punish bad men. No feminist will encourage, say, a return of monogamy.
They don’t want to “solve the problem” – they just want you to listen – and if you don’t listen sympathetically, you’re abusive, emotionally controlling and probably bad in bed too.
Who’s laughing now? Remind me to never run for Supreme Court.
As soon as I got to the party, I saw her. Chrissie. Blonde hair, blue eyes, a tiny little frame. She was almost 16, a sophomore, and I was 17, a junior. All day I’d seen her swimming in the pool and I just couldn’t get her out of my mind for some reason.
“Like, ” she was saying to her friend, as she flipped her hair and rolled her eyes. She looked just so delicious, it made me want to bite her ear lobe or even just sniff her hair. I had to think of a plan to get her alone, I thought, as I took another sip of this terrible tasting beer. Why do adults drink this crap anyway? …
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?
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.
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.
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:
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.