Category Archives: Radical Feminists

Great Article on Game and the Modern Dating Scene

Here.

It covers all of the stuff we have been talking about on this blog for a long time now. It also uses phrases such as Alpha, Beta and Omega and suggests that those categories are indeed valid. In addition, it analyzes the Game and PUA culture, suggesting once again that these guys are onto something, and that the evidence suggests that Game can in fact work when properly applied. It’s not a joke. This stuff actually works. Reviews Roosh, Roissy, Lady Rayne and some others.

Lady Rayne in particular comes off terribly. If you go to her site, she’s an ultra-feminist, liberally quoting Valerie Solanas’ SCUM Manifesto (which she praises) and other works of ultra-radical feminism. She wants to make it illegal for men to come onto women in public. Instead, there will be certain public spaces set aside (meat markets if you will) where men and women can mingle that way if they wish to. All of this is to protect women from being bothered by horny men all day, which is, like, a crime almost worse than the Holocaust or something.

Her partner in crime is a super-feminist therapist from back East named Denise Romano who rants and rails on and on about men and rape, men and rape. It never ends. She has also accused me of being a rapist due to confessions I made on this blog. I’m actually not a rapist; what I discussed was seduction and not rape.

Fortunately, seduction is still legal; the psycho bitches haven’t made that illegal yet. But in the minds of the nuts like Lady Rayne and her therapist pal, seduction and rape, well, it’s all the same, see. Game is seduction and therefore rape. Screwing a woman who is high or drunk is rape because she can’t consent.

We men are raping women all the time, and women are constantly getting raped, yet no one has a clue that any of this is going on! We think we are just screwing, but really we are raping and getting raped. How stupid we are!

But it’s so much fun…

Anyway, Lady Rayne and her nut friend want to make Game illegal, because it involves men taking advantage of stupid women. The Hell with it. If we’re going to make Game illegal, then let’s make stupid women illegal too. One can’t exist without the other. Making stupid women illegal would be great for the economy. It would open up a lot of jobs for us breadwinner guys, while women could learn the lost ancient arts of cooking and cleaning and whatnot.

Paradoxically, when she’s not quoting Valerie Solanas, Lady Rayne says she hates women, and she spends most of her time around men. She loves men. Except she wants to make most of us illegal and her favorite book is one that lays out the Final Solution for men.

Meanwhile, Lady Rayne acts like a whore. That’s because she is a whore, or she used to be one anyway. Snicker. She used to be a “stripper.” Snicker again. She’s also covered with tatoos. Triple snicker.

Some feminist man-hater. She hates us so much she can’t stop stripping for us, fucking us and covering herself with tramp stamps.

Lady Rayne is also raising her 7 year old son alone, and she is quite proud of this. In fact, she wants to purposely raise him as a single Mom. What an idiot! God knows what anti-male crap Lady Rayne is pumping into that boy’s mind.

The kid’s father was a no-good alcoholic bad boy.

When she is not brainwashing her poor son, Lady Rayne dates an assortment of men, who are invariably bad boy types who screw up in life and screw her around this way and that, leaving her all upset, bitchy and even crazier than she usually is while waiting for the next bad boy to show up.

She wants to make Game illegal, but she only screws Alphas. Uh huh.

For the life of me, I can’t see why any man would date this bitch, except that she’s hot. I personally wouldn’t take her out without a leash, collar and muzzle, and I wouldn’t fuck her unless I could tie her to the bed first. Ah, forget it. She’s too much trouble. Instead of dating her, just get a restraining order.

Lady Rayne and Denise Romano both came to the blog a while back. Lady Rayne was throwing a temper tantrum, and Denise wouldn’t stop screaming about rape. Denise was screaming so loud, I thought maybe she  actually was getting raped. I was about ready to grab these bitches and jolt some sense into them, but they say to never shake a baby, so I decided not to. Instead I just banned the bitches and took a Tylenol.

Meandering around her blog a bit, you get the feeling that she is highly narcissistic.

As you can see above, she is also extremely self-contradictory, and her general philosophy paired with her lifestyle simply makes no sense at all.  Every now and then she ventures into politics, and her politics doesn’t make any sense either. It’s as incoherent and screechy as everything else about her. She’s the prototype for the insensible female.

Lady Rayne got so angry at Roissy that she outed him, along with photographs, as a 40 something guy who works in a cubicle at a government job somewhere in Washington DC. .

And so the Internet Game Scene has its share of drama.

Lady Rayne’s blog is here. Thankfully, it has not been updated since July, so the world can breath a short sigh of relief.

She links favorably to the unfortunate Black woman blogger Jamila Akhil and Chic Noir, who used to hang around her until I drove her off by not showering enough and stinking up the place. She also links to Red-Alerts, one of the worst bloggers on the Internet. He launched a campaign a while back saying I had been arrested for child molestation. He linked to a news article about some freak with my name. She links to In Mala Fide (which links here) and Roissy under “Sleaze, Sexism and Hate.”

The blog is basically endless drama, hysterics, histrionics, rants, drama queen bullshit, insipid gushing, off the cuff emoting, permanent violent mood swings, huge doses of narcissism, endless self-contradiction, stupid misspellings, incoherent punctuation, retarded syntax, first-class bitching and hate-filled  screeching at the “misogynists” in the Men’s Rights Movement and PUA scene.

Oh and did I mention narcissism?

It’s like some woman with permanent PMS. Maybe God got her periods mixed up; she’s on 28 days and off four.

And one more thing, did I point out that her site has a lot of narcissism?

4 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum

Western Women’s Culture of Meanness

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib says, possibly jokingly:

I’ll go along with feminism this far: it’s ok for women to bring in a wage, as long as they still rear the kids, clean the place, cook, sew, provide regular sex, are totally faithful unless it’s with another woman and we can watch/share, and don’t mind their men having a bit on the side. Fair’s fair! We owe them that much!

I don’t know if he’s joking or not, but I won’t even go that far. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion of LS’ post, and here is what he said:

Bob, first of all, thanks so much for inviting me over so I can write about this. My complaint, Bob, is that feminism has cultivated a culture of meanness, at least here in the US. I would say that American women have cultivated a culture of meanness, but I think they reason they have is feminism. Feminism makes women pissed off at us men. Period. Full stop.As a het guy who chooses to deal with women as more than platonic friends, I don’t dig being hated on. It sucks, and it feels deflating to my cock.

I’ve gotten to the point now where I can have sex even with a woman who completely hates me and is making that clear as we are engaging in the sex act, but it wasn’t always that way. Angry, bitchy, emasculating women make men impotent. Either physically, psychologically, or spiritually.

I figure even non-feminist women are bitchy enough sometimes. Add feminism into the stew and now they are way bitchier even than they are normally. Fuck that. I hate bitchy women. Nothing worse.

One thing that I have noticed is that a lot of wimpy, leftwing, pro-feminist men love bitchy women. They sit back and cheer them on.

And these bitchy feminists are attracted to wimpy pro-feminist guys, but the truth is that these guys’ wimpiness drives the feminists insane, because even though they are feminists who say they hate macho men and machismo, they are still women, and most women hate wimpy guys and long for a macho man to reduce them to meek, wimpering Southern belles.

That’s why feminism doesn’t work in practice.

It creates what we’ve got in Northern California. The stereotypical Northern California male: so wimpy and/or feminized that a lot of people will think the guy is gay. And it concurrently creates the Northern California female: so butch and/or masculinized that a lot of people will think she’s a dyke.

These two things attract each other. That’s why you will find a fair number of these wimpy-type guys messing around with guys, and you will find quite a few of these dykey women either messing with women or just going full gay either part of full-time.

Macho guys create feminine female counterparts and vice versa. Wimpy guys create bitches at best and vice versa and create macho dykey women at worst and vice versa. At both extremes, normally het people will start moving into homosexuality and bisexuality.

This is another thing I have against feminism: it’s full of lesbians. Now, I have nothing against lesbians and gay men being members of gay rights organizations. But why should feminism, objectively merely pro-women’s rights, be full of a dykes? Reason is that feminism creates lesbians, and for some weird reason, lesbians love feminism.

Have you ever noticed that the women who scream most about rape are lesbians, probably really butch, dykey, homely and living in some gay community, IOW, just about the least likely women to get raped!

The women most likely to get raped are het women, women who are fully involved with men and men’s lives, and who have men in their lives. Straight men, not gay men. Often they are raped by their boyfriends, husbands, dates or just guys they know.

I go to a feminist site and typically it’s swarming with lesbians. My first reaction is why? I went to a feminist site, not a gay rights site. Second reaction is turnoff. I’m here to see what straight women think, not lesbians.

Final thought is even more disturbing. A lot of radical feminists and feminist separatists openly hate men. They’re into misandry. Yep, the very women screaming most about misogyny are often misandrists themselves. It’s it’s bad for the goose, it’s bad for the gander.

As feminism has cultivated misandry (something many feminists now admit), it’s turned lots of feminists into a bunch of lesbians. A family friend was one of the founding members of NOW, and I was a member myself for years. She eventually quit going to the meetings because the feminist women wouldn’t stop hitting on her and propositioning her. Even back then, the movement was swarming with lesbians.

I’m perfectly willing to help raise the kids, clean the house and cook the food, but I am sorry that I cannot sew. I’d be glad to learn if it was easy. I’m not sure I even mind if women cheat. I never used to mind and often had open relationships.

I was raised in the androgynous 1970′s. In part I was never comfortable with the macho man thing, so I rejected it because it just wasn’t me, and though I was always into masculinity deep down inside, I was also influenced by feminism wanting to make us into “New Men” – sensitive, vulnerable, all that.

I turned into a straight Mick Jagger – Steve Tyler – New York Dolls androgynous surfer – rocker – punk rocker – doper – dope dealer – compulsive womanizer.

What did I get for this? Guys tried to beat me up for “being a fag”. I even got beat over the fucking head with a baseball bat once. Nicer people were continuously suggesting that I was gay or bi, much to my consternation. Usually it was guys saying I was gay. Females, being more intelligent, usually thought I was bi, because gay men have no interest in women.

I was attacked by my very own girlfriends, heads full of feminism, for being gay, bi, wimpy or just not much a man. Screw this. What did I get out of going along with this feminist “New Man” shit? Not a damn thing. Hell with it. I’m gonna be a macho pig, and the feminists can fuck off if they don’t like it.

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women

Do We Live In a Patriarchy?

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, two of my favorite bloggers, k&y of to the ambient void suggest that we live in a patriarchy today. I think that these two guys are both gay, but that’s fine with me, in fact, I think it’s great! I decided to call Sexmaniacman over to ask him what he thought of the notion that we live in a patriarchy today. Here’s what he wrote:

It’s easy for gay men to side with women in the War Between the Sexes because they’re not trying to fuck women, so they don’t have to put up with women’s bullshit that is inevitable in those of us who do.They’re trying to fuck guys in a gay culture that seems a Hell of a lot more sex-friendly and sex-positive than this chilly het culture with these censorious female and mostly feminist Comstocks wanting to beat us with rods every time we get a hardon.

Like to look at porn? You’re a woman-hater. Can’t get laid, poor guy? Haha, say the feminists, you loser. Now, me, a masculinist, I side with the guy. The guy’s not getting laid because of women. Women don’t put out that much, and they’re collectively refusing to fuck this guy, and then ridiculing him for it.

Like to girl-watch? You’re a woman-hater. Like to look a pictures of pretty girls in magazines or on TV or like to watch beauty pageants or have girlie pictures on your walls? You hate women. Excuse me, feminist ladies, but that is one chilly anti-sexual turd you’re laying on our sex parade. This society of yours, where 90% of the time guys get hardons, it’s due to “sexual objectification of women”, sucks.

I don’t know if we have a patriarchy or not. I go to the feminist sites and read about really horrible, obnoxious, and, yes, misogynistic behavior, and I feel tremendous empathy for these feminists in their frustration, depression and rage. Really I do. Now, these feminists probably hate me for being a dog, but I want to tell them that I feel your pain, ladies.

Thing is, if we have a patriarchy, I, being a male, am supposed to be on top and winning the race. Instead I feel like I’m getting fucked, and have been getting fucked for much of my life.

I don’t feel like I’m winning, or like I’m a member of some male ruling class, or anything like that. A lot of my non-rich male friends feel that way. They feel like an oppressed class, not some member of some ruling class called a patriarchy. I can’t think of one benefit I ever got in my whole damned life due to having a dick.

So a lot of us are pissed at feminists. Feminists are sitting on the sidelines, screaming that we’re a ruling class that’s oppressing them, and we don’t feel like we’re oppressing anyone. As for being a ruling class, a lot of us can hardly pay the rent, much less take out one of these expensive things called females.

In the same way a lot of White guys are mad at White Privilege Theory and the notion that we live in a White Supremacist society. What did I ever get from being White. How was I ever privileged in life? I can barely even pay my rent and bills. I’m privileged how now? I’m oppressing who now? It’s the same thing – they say we are in a White ruling class but a lot of us feel like an oppressed underclass.

It also kind of pisses off us het guys that so many women are still gold-diggers, I mean whores, I mean, well, what do I mean? They want money, our money. Much of it, most of it, all of it, whatever. They go for the guy with the most money. If we don’t have lots of money, we don’t get laid. Worse, we are not even men.

The number of women who have abandoned this collective gendered money-grubbing thievery of us men is small, although some middle-aged women start to leave it behind, because they lose their looks and are not much wanted anymore, so they can’t sell their fucking pussies anymore. If you’re a woman going for the rich guys, you’re a whore. You’re selling your pussy for money, real simple. If you’re not a whore, what are you?

What does feminism say about this ubiquitous behavior? Nothing, nothing, nothing. The silence is deafening. You see the charts about how women make less money than we do. Are they including the zillions of dollars women steal from men by selling their pussies to us?

Nowadays a lot of women make as much money as we do, or more. My girlfriends always seemed to make more money than I do, and that, by the way, pretty much ruins any het relationship nowadays. Even though these bitches made more money than I did, I still had to pay for every single fucking thing when we went out anywhere.

All her money’s for her, and all my money’s for her. Nice arrangement. Nice rip-off arrangement. Rip-off of me that is.

What does feminism say about this grasping whoredom? Nothing at all! Well, I’m a guy and it pisses me off. My friends and I regularly refer to women as “whores”, because from our vantage, that’s what they are.

We’ve discussed this with some women. Those who responded civilly suggested that when you get married, the woman’s not whoring anymore, but then the conniving bitch gets 1/2 my money for the rest of my life.

Does this sound like patriarchy to you? Sounds like women on top and us lowly males as some kind of Underclass.

I’m tired of a lot of feminists, though I do support a lot of, or most of, their goals.

What I’m tired of is this anti-sex shit. They seem like they don’t want me to get laid. And they don’t want my friends to get laid. They don’t even want me or my friends to look at women in public. God forbid we look at pornography. I’m not allowed to look at any sexual depictions of women whatsoever. That’s reducing women to sex objects.

Well, fuck.

If I’m horny, women are sex objects to me. Sorry.

I’m not gay. I’m interested in fucking women. Have been my whole life.

My surfer friends on the beach used to fuck everything female that moved. They’d rent a house on the beach, have permanent kegs of beer, sell dope, and screw 100 women a summer, three a day. These guys were my idols, but I could never quite do it like they did, no matter how hard I tried. It seemed like they were trying to set new world records. I understand that feminists hate this behavior and regard it as misogyny.

Well fuck me.

I guess I’m a boys will be boys, girls will be girls type. I notice 3rd world women take the attitude that all men are dogs and nothing can be done about this, so don’t worry about it. That seems a lot more helpful.

I’m basically a dog anyway when it comes to women. I’ve always been one. I may not even be capable of monogamy. At various times in my life, I’ve been a compulsive womanizer. I understand feminists hate compulsive womanizers and say we’re misogynist.

Well, fuck you, feminists.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Europeans, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Man World, Masculinism, Not Robert Lindsay, Pornography, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Whites

Sexmaniacman is a Rapist

Repost from the old site.

I thought this definition of a the crime of sexual violence was interesting:

Regarding the “incapable of giving consent” hypothetical you posited, my response is, violence and/or a crime occurs when anyone’s body is touched beyond incidental contact or for more than a brief instant unless the person being touched affirmatively gives permission for such contact.It is not the “responsibility” of the person being touched to give permission. It is the responsibility of the person doing the touching to ensure that the other person has voluntarily given permission. If the other person is “incapable” of giving permission, for whatever reason, that means no permission has been given, and a crime has been committed.

Along the same lines, the feminazis says every time you have sex with a drunk woman, you are raping her. I decided to ask Sexmaniacman his opinion on this definition of rape.

Sexmaniacman:

According to that definition, I’ve been raping women and girls all my life! I’ve always touched women, I’ve reached around and jumped them and started kissing them, I’ve grabbed them, thrown them up against walls in public and kissed them, I’ve done all these things. I always grabbed women or touched them, and I never asked permission first.In general, most of the time, permission was granted, though sometimes, when I tried to go beyond kissing, she stopped me.

I picked up a hot 20 yr old woman at a Hollywood nightclub, the Anticlub, two minutes after walking in the door, then had sex with her in my car while driving around Hollywood at 1 AM (to the extent you can have sex with someone while driving a vehicle) then after the show, she tried to weasel out of coming home with me.

I pointed to her, pointed to the car, and said, “You are going home with me. Now get in the car.” It was an order, but she was free to refuse, and I was laughing. I sneered at her like Johnny Rotten. She smiled, sneered back, and said, “Says who?” I said, “Says me.” Women love guys who give them orders and they love to follow orders. So she got in the car. Quite willingly.

I drove her home and we had sex on the 5 Freeway in Downtown LA at 3 AM while going 55 miles an hour, to the extent one can do such a thing. Good thing I didn’t crash the car. I deny that this was either kidnapping or rape, but it was pretty fun.

Another time I had sex with a drunk 14 yr old (I was 16) on the rooftop of an apartment building at 2 AM, and later she went around telling everyone I raped her. I didn’t rape her; she was drunk. I deny that this was rape.

Another time I went to a punk rock show with this beautiful 20 year old named Linda and we both came back, drunk, to my house. I got her on my couch, pulled up her top and started feeling her breasts. “Pleease let me go home,” she whined unconvincingly in her best little girl voice.

“No!” I said. “You’re staying right here!” I was pissed that I went to all this damn trouble and she was trying to weasel out of the dicking, like they always do.

Plus, earlier in the evening, both of us drunk, she had put me in a shopping cart and raced me up and down some 2 AM streets. She kept “dropping her lighter” on my groin in the cart, and then “having to fish around to find it”. Now she was trying to get out of the boning. Well fuck that. The Hell you are, woman.

She was free to leave at any time, as the cops say. “Now get over on that bed right now!” I said, half-smiling and not really threatening. I’m not sure what happened later. Finally I just said, “Fine, you don’t want to have sex, I’ll just sleep on the couch. You take the bed. See you in the morning.”

Then I lay back on the couch and closed my eyes. Next thing I remember, she was saying, “Come on over to the bed.” And so it went. I deny that this was false imprisonment or rape, but it was pretty fun, except when she started to puke in bed while we were having sex, grabbed her mouth, and ran to the bathroom and puked for a while.

Basically, with women, you have to read their minds. At some point, via telepathy, you figure you can make your move. At that point you just grab her and start kissing her. You can do it really aggressively or you can do it real soft and nice. Most of the time, it goes just fine. Having to ask permission for everything you do sexually is insane. If we had to do that, no one would ever get laid.

I’ve been having sex with drunken women most of my life, and I hope to continue doing so. A lot of women are way less inhibited when they’re drunk.

I’m embarrassed to admit that there have been quite a few times when I grabbed at women and they did not want to do go along, so they pushed me off or said no in some way or another, along the lines of, “Hey! Knock it off, asshole! Get your hands off me!” Most of the time, I did just knock it off right then, though sometimes I kept trying my luck, and she kept knocking my hands away, raising her voice.

I deny that this is rape or attempted rape or any crime at all. It’s actually something called “dating”, and I never got any sex any of those times anyway. Once they brush you off once, you might as well give up, because you aren’t getting any.

I don’t believe I’ve ever raped a woman according to the legal definition of the word. If she’s not interested, no problem. She has ownership of her body and the right to decide not to do this or that with me. As far as the feminist version of rape law above, well, they can just fuck off.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women

Sexmaniacman Is A Creep

Repost from the old site.

It’s official. Sexmaniacman is a creep. And a pervert. And he’s proud.

Sexmaniacman just learned the definition right here. First of all, “creep” is a woman word, and no real male would commonly use such a word as a noun or a verb. Sexmaniacman just doesn’t use it in general, because he’s a real man, not a pussified ally of the females, but every now and then, it’s appropriate.

For instance, Sexman’s Mom works at a college. There was a male student there for a while, socially inept, who used to hide under and behind cars out in the parking lot and jump out at the college girls. I guess he thought it was funny or something.

The girls were not amused and they kept complaining to the administration. With some regret, Sexmaniacman will admit that this guy’s behavior is creepy. But really, it’s only creepy in that they don’t find him attractive.

If Leonardo DiCaprio was hiding behind cars and jumping out at them, about 50% of these fine upright examples of innocent American feminine goodness, purity and light would have fucked him already (Not that they’re sluts or anything like that!), and most of their “sweet and innocent” friends would be waiting in line.

So it’s not necessarily the behavior that these silly little woman-children don’t like, it’s the fact that the guy is unattractive, unwanted and unappealing, and then he’s trying his luck with them.

He realizes this was frightening to the girls, but Sexmaniacman happened to know the idiot who was doing this, and it’s just his opinion that the guy’s completely harmless, though obviously a social retard.

These strong, modern, rough, tough, feminist puffed-up ladies should have just told him to fuck off a few times, and probably it would have all stopped. But apparently they kept running away like the little girls they really are deep down inside, so the behavior continued for too long.

So, yeah, Sexmaniacman is obviously a fucking creep according to the definition above. Plus he’s a pervert. He never was one, but then he hit 47 or so, and now he can’t look at young women anymore in case he gives them a heart attack or induces post-traumatic stress disorder or molests them with his eyeballs requiring years of weepy and bank-breaking therapy sessions to untwist their poor fragile psyches.

Sexguy is perfectly aware that the vast majority of young women don’t find guys his age attractive anymore. That’s very painful for him to realize. He looks at younger women, and he doesn’t think, “Wow, I have a chance with her.” Instead, she often reminds him of so and so who he dated or slept with back in 1978. So he’s looking at them and reminiscing, wistful memories of days gone by. And if that pisses you little bitches off, well he says too fucking bad.

They looked great then, and they look great now.

Beauty contestants focus on females aged around 18-20. Other than the fact that they probably can’t use minors, the reason they do this is because at this age, females of all races, in all cultures, and at all times, are at the peak of their physical beauty.

It’s a common myth that a guy hits 45 and 50 and can’t get an erection anymore. Actually, many of us guys still can and do, believe it or not, Sexmaniacman noted. We may be old, but we’re not dead. You can’t touch a 16-17 year old girl with a 10-foot pole and an 11-foot extension, but they sure are nice to look at. If acknowledging this makes Sexdude a pervert and a fucking creep, then he will wear that badge proudly.

Sexmaniacman probably wouldn’t want to sleep with them even if it were legal, because it’s impossible to have an intelligent conversation with these silly girly things. Not that older women are much better!

Good.

From the site:

I think I’ve generally come to the conclusion that a lot of women’s definition of a “creepy guy”/pervert is: 

A guy they find unattractive, who checks them out.

Most straight women, of course, liked to be noticed by guys they find attractive, and a lot of women will dress to attract men they fancy. The problem a lot of women seem to have is, is that there’s an unwanted side effect. If they dress sexy, they not only get looked at by the sexy guys, they also get looked at by the guys they don’t fancy.

Well, yeah, duh. If you don’t want us to look at your fucking tits, Sexmaniacman suggested, then don’t walk around with your boobs hanging out. If you’re showing cleavage, or God forbid have your tits halfway hanging out, Sexbro is going to look right at them, Goddamn it, and fuck you if you don’t like it. If it pisses you off so much, dress like a lady for Chrissake.

It’s like during the 1980′s when all political correctness issues came to the fore with a vengeance. In a work setting, a bloke could chat a woman up. If she fancied him, it was fine and dandy. If she didn’t, it was called sexual harassment. 

Yeah.

Sexcat figure that’s probably what’s going on in a lot of this sexual harassment bullshit. He remembers he worked at a place once where the whole office freaked out because some poor schmuck asked a woman out. To look at the guy, Sexman figured he probably hadn’t been laid by a non-professional in at least months, so he had a God-given right to ask, and Sexguy felt deep sympathy for his sex-deprived brother.

She was being nice to him and talking him, and all the silly bitch had to do was say no and that was that. The guy was civilized, he would have just taken it like a man. But oh no, Ms. Silly made it into a capital fucking offense, and it was the talk of the whole office for a while.

Being a real guy, not a wuss, of course Sexbuddy took the guy’s side in this skirmish of the War Between Men and Women, but most of the “men” in the office sided with Ms. Silly, like knights running to save her honor.

Afterward the poor guy told Sexpal that management told him that sexual harassment guidelines said that employees should not be dating. Great. Here it is, in the modern US, where so many of us are working long hours, and we can’t date at work. Great. So how are we supposed to get laid?

Sexmaniacman finally had to adopt some new rules to deal with this bullshit, but he realized he was not the only one. He read a sociology paper about guys who moved down to Costa Rica. One guy said when he was 50, an uppity 17 year old girl spit at him for looking at her. I guess that was the last straw, and he high-tailed for the sexually relaxed tropics.

His 43 year old sick, perverted, creepy brother had some advice: “Sexguy! Look. Invest in some sunglasses! I look at them all the time. That’s one of the great things about being in junior college – I’m surrounded by 18-20 yr old hotties!”

Sexdude’s new rules were to avoid looking at obviously underage girls or sometimes even those around 18-20, but it was so hard to tell ages. He’d look at em a bit, see if they looked back, and if they didn’t, he’d try not to look at them too much. Kind of hard to do when they are young and beautiful!

Sexmaniacman also noticed something disturbing about this bullshit. As much as these silly little twats claimed they hated it, he could not help but notice that a certain number of them (Definitely not all but for sure some!), often the better looking and older ones (18-23 or so), relished the attention they got from him.

They deliberately strutted, tipped, weaved, swayed and sashayed, flirted and winked, stole glances and battled lashes. At the stores, they shoved the others out of the way so they could ring up Sexman and reap the harvest of his loving eyeballs. They smiled at him coquettishly and made bullshit excuses to get up and strut in front of him, to nowhere and to do nothing, and then traipse back, basking in the warm, delicious rays of his sick, pervy, aging gaze.

They looked at him out of the corner of their eyes and winked. When he wasn’t looking, they moved way too close and pretended to look at store things they weren’t interested in. Sexmaniacman would look down, notice a 16 year old just about brushing her tits up against him, and pretend nothing was happening.

It sure was an idiotic little girl game these female things were playing, but females often don’t make much sense to Sexguy. Some were jockeying for the eyeballs and others were bitching about illegal looking. Were some of them one and the same? Who knows?

Sexmaniacman thinks we can look at them all we want, that’s his position. If they don’t like it, they can call the cops, or take pictures of us with their bitchy cellphones and post them on their screechy blogs, or sit around and carp to their girlfriends about us.

There’s also a right and wrong way to look, Sexman thought. You look a little bit, you look away, a while later, you look again. Staring is pretty uncool.

Sexmaniacman can’t remember the last time he catcalled a woman. That’s rude, and he’s not rude.

Sexmaniacman doesn’t rub up against women, but when he was a lot younger, especially at bars and rock concerts, women were always rubbing up against him and touching him, because he was drop dead gorgeous guy, especially when he wore a beat-up 1950′s James Dean leather jacket.

Touching and groping is rude, and he’s not rude.

Jerking off in public is illegal, and guys who do that deserve cuffs.

However, he objects to the whole Feminazi mindset behind this bullshit movement, mostly because they haven’t specified where harassment begins and where it ends. Supposedly the females get to make up the rules here, on an individual, case by case basis! Great!

Webpage here, and most of these guys portrayed here are idiots, Sexguy agrees, but he’s still worried that there are no boundaries here. Sexman is particularly disturbed by the modern notion that he can no longer talk to teenage girls or young women in any way or at any time or about anything, since they automatically assume he’s trying to pick up on them, when usually he’s just trying to make some innocent conversation.

Also, the silly feminist bitch idea is that all women hate being looked at. Bullshit.

Sexman’s beautiful aunt was in the Castro District of San Fransisco eating at a cafe with Sexman’s Mom. His aunt is a silly woman, like most women are at least sometimes.

She’s getting all upset. “None of these men are looking at me,” she pouted huffily. She’s beautiful, and male looks are like vitamins for her soul.

Duh. They’re all gay.

Sexmaniacman also knows some older women who love to be or would love to be looked at. One, 50 years old, mournfully told him that she wishes men or even boys would look at her. One delighted in telling him how young men and even boys continued to check her out, and how she loved every second of it, being 50 years old.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Law, Man World, Not Robert Lindsay, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Sexmaniacman, Women

What Is the Radical Feminist Line on Womanizers?

On the Are Most Womanizers Gay or Bisexual post, BAG perceptively poses a couple of questions:

Are most womanizers gay or bisexual?

Short Answer: Hell No!

Slightly Longer Answer: This is simply more radical feminist BS.

Really? Is that the radfem line? Is this how the Fempire Strikes Back?

A pox on those shrews, dykes, bitches, misandrists, hags, maids and witches. I hate them so much. They’ve taken the feminine principle and ran nuts with it. They’re long past the goal line, so far away we can’t even see them anymore. They are truly producers of nothing, following Weininger.

Au contraire, this theory is just wrong. Many or most true womanizers are actually philogynists (which is what I am). There! I made up a new word. Someone give me a MacArthur Genius Grant, will ya? Or is gynophile better?

4 Comments

Filed under Radical Feminists, Scum

Transcript of My Latest Interview on Voice of Reason Radio

This runs pretty long – it runs to 48 pages on the Net – so be forewarned. In case you didn’t listen to it, here it is. The audio is here, with some comments, mostly silly as usual.

Robert Stark: We’re going to be discussing something a little bit different. The topic tonight is The War on Men. Robert, I’ve just got to say that you’ve gotten a lot of slack for some of your views on this show.

Robert Lindsay: That’s true. I’m going a little easy on the Jews I guess.

Robert Stark: Kevin MacDonald uses the term, “a hostile elite” to refer to the elite, and he’s talking about the Jews, but you could say that the whole elite in general is dangerous when it has no loyalty to the nation-state whatsoever.

Robert Lindsay: The multinational corporations – and these White people in America, they love these corporations so much – they are a hostile elite. The elite is not just the Jews in America, it’s these hundreds of millions of very wealthy people – of rich people – all over the world. They are hostile not just to Americans but they’re hostile to their own people. They’re only out for themselves, and they’re sending the whole world down the tubes really.

You see, every one of them will sell out their own country. The elite of India will sell out India. The elite of Pakistan will sell out Pakistan. They will all sell their own countries down the tubes.

Robert Stark: I don’t think the elite in Israel has really sold out their country. That would be the one exception.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they are patriotic in a sense I suppose. But what these elites will do is they will ruin their countries’ economies in the name of getting richer. They don’t care about their own country’s economy.

Robert Stark: The people who call themselves patriots, they often defend these sorts of people.

Robert Lindsay: The patriots, you mean the Tea Party types?

Robert Stark: Yes.

Robert Lindsay: The Tea Parties are simply an arm of the corporations. The Tea Partiers really are rootless cosmopolitans. They’re effectively all “Jews” if you want to put it that way. They’re a Judaized people; they’re infected with the Jewish spirit.

Robert Stark: Yes, Sarah Palin, she made some comments that she considered herself to be a Jew, and she has an Israeli flag in her office, and she’s the leader of the Tea Party movement.

Robert Lindsay: Sarah Palin is a Jew! All the Tea Partiers are Jews! And they’re also shilling for the multinational corporations too, so if you think about it, the Tea Parties are just the forward movement of these multinationals. They’re like the army of the multinationals, and they’re also shilling for the elite. They’re like this Brownshirt White army for the richest people in America, and I just fail to see how that’s a progressive working class movement in any way, shape or form, forget it.

Robert Stark: Yes, it’s definitely been co-opted. But let’s move on to our issue for tonight, the War on Men. So can you introduce us to our topic and talk about how feminism has really changed our society? You support equity feminism, but you are critical of the movement in a lot of other ways. You are saying that it has really destroyed marriage.

Robert Lindsay: It has in a way because we used to have mandatory marriage in America, and in most societies have mandatory marriage or especially mandatory early marriage. And what happens with mandatory early marriage is that just about everyone gets married in their early 20’s or so, and that takes care of the sexual problem. Here in the US, everyone got married, everyone. And then, in marriage, apparently, there was sex, I guess, or there was or there wasn’t – many women didn’t like it that much, but back then, I think they just put up with it.

And back then, most men got plenty of sex in marriage, or at any rate, there wasn’t a big issue about guys being sexually frustrated. You’ve got the Alphas, that’s like 15% of the guys, those are the guys who get all the women, and even they all got married. You’ve got the Betas, that’s like 70% of the guys, they all got married too.

Robert Stark: Yes, it was sort of like sexual socialism. You can talk about wealth, but when it comes to the mating market, it’s a zero-sum game, because there is one person of the opposite sex for every person of the other sex, and with marriage, you can distribute that evenly.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly. It is sexual socialism. There’s also a group called the Omegas. There are the Betas, who are like 70%, and they are just the ordinary guys, and then there are the Omegas, who are like 15%, and they are essentially getting no women at all. In the old days, even these Omegas would find a woman, maybe who was not all that attractive. These guys who nowadays are total losers with women, back then, they all got married!

Robert Stark: So they would marry a woman in their own league.

Robert Lindsay: Right.

Robert Stark: What’s happening now is that with the destruction of marriage, we are reverting back to caveman times when we had more of a polygamous society. The idea is that women are hypergamous, and they go for men who are above their status. Whereas biologically, women can only have a limited number of children, men can impregnate large numbers of women, so men want to impregnate as many women as possible.

I think in the past before feminism, women were not allowed to work. Women do have an advantage over men in the mating market. So in a society where men controlled the wealth, that sort of evened things out because women were dependent on men for money. Now, middle and upper class women have good jobs, and lower class women are taken care of by the welfare state, so they don’t really need men anymore. So we are reverting back to this really primitive system.

Robert Lindsay: If you study primitive agricultural societies in Africa and New Guinea, what you find is polygamous societies. You find the head man thing. African Blacks evolved in this polygamous society. There’s a Head Man and maybe his buddies – they get all the women. And then, a whole lot of the rest of the guys, apparently, they don’t get any. So with the African Blacks, they’ve evolved for 9,000 years with these Head Man type guys impregnating all the women, and so Blacks have gotten bigger and stronger, with high testosterone, etc.

Robert Stark: That’s probably a factor in why there is so much crime and violence in their societies because if they can’t have a woman and reproduce, they have no incentive to contribute anything to society, so they all just become criminals, and that’s probably why there is such a high rate of sex crime in Africa.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m not sure if the setup is like that anymore, with the Head Man thing, but the thing is they’ve evolved this big huge super-athletic bodies over time because it’s only been the most macho, masculine, roughest, toughest and most high testosterone man has been impregnating most of the women for like 9,000 years and so what we’ve ended up with is that Blacks have high testosterone, they’re really big, strong and aggressive because they’re all descended for 9,000 years from the biggest, baddest, roughest, toughest guy around.

Robert Stark: One of the main problems in the Black community, what happened was, in the past, even though they were poor, there was some level of decency because there was an incentive for Black men to go out and get a job in order to get a woman, recently what happened was the Great Society came in with the welfare state, and Black women were dependent on the government, so there was no incentive for the men to be decent.

And then their culture glorifies being a thug and a criminal. It’s seen a lot with rap culture, but it goes back a lot further than that. Well, the women favor the men who are criminals. So the whole system is subsidizing criminal behavior, and there’s no incentive to be decent anymore if you want to get a mate.

Robert Lindsay: Well, I’m a liberal, so I don’t agree with that analysis of the Great Society. I think the Great Society was a great thing. Furthermore, welfare was put in by FDR in the mid-30’s – AFDC. So we had welfare all through the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s and early 1960’s, and hardly anyone was on it because everybody had a job.

But it looks like what happened was the jobs all took off in the industrial areas of the North. All those Blacks had moved up to there to those cities, and then the factories started shutting down, and then the Blacks were out of work, and apparently the women started going on welfare. Welfare has always been there.

Robert Stark: You’re right that the best manufacturing jobs have all gone overseas. Then you have the sexual revolution, and men were lied to, like Playboy Magazine sold that idea to men that the sexual revolution would benefit them, but that turned out to be a total lie. You were at your prime during that era back in the 1970’s. Can you go over some of the trends that you saw and what it was like back then?

Robert Lindsay: Back then, that was the sexual revolution that we were growing up with, and there weren’t many sexual diseases. I think Herpes wasn’t really around that much. The worst STD seemed to be crabs. I never knew anyone who was catching anything other than that one. A lot of people were having a lot of sex. I went to a White high school, and all the girls were on the pill, every single one of them. Not one White girl at my school had a baby.

There were pregnancies – one of my girlfriends got pregnant, but it wasn’t me. It was some other guy. They would automatically have an abortion. Back then there was not much controversy about abortion, and the anti-abortion people were not around so much like they are now. If girls were pregnant, they automatically got an abortion, no ifs ands or buts about it.

We had a White society there and a White point of view, and where I was growing up, for a White high school girl to have a kid out of wedlock, that was like the lowest, worst, most disgusting thing you could possibly do. You were thought to be acting like a Black or a Mexican, and you just weren’t supposed to do that. So we had no girls with babies at my high school. There was a lot of screwing around back then, it’s true. This was the hippie era, and it was free love. I suppose there were guys that didn’t have a lot of fun, but I did.

Robert Stark: But you see the destruction of marriage as a negative trend?

Robert Lindsay: It has been, because that whole hippie free love thing seems to have gone out, and now, it’s been replaced by a sort of a consumerist sexual culture, and women have reverted back to Cavewoman tendencies. Now that we’ve gotten rid of marriage, and women can survive on their own, women don’t need men anymore. See, back in the old days, women needed men to survive.

So a woman would hook up with a guy, and the guy would support her, and she’d have kids by the guy. The truth is, she stuck around with him for the support. And in return for the support, she gave him sex. It was a trade-off. The guy was satisfied. He was getting the sex, love and companionship of marriage, and the woman was also satisfied, she was getting support and then the love and companionship of marriage.

And now, women can have sex, have babies and raise children. That’s what the single Mom’s are all about. They don’t need men to support them anymore, so they’re simply not marrying.

And so what you have is we are reverting back to Cavewoman times. In Cavewoman times, the Alphas get all the women. It was Head Man times, just like in Africa and New Guinea. The Alphas are 15% of all guys, and all the women want them.

He’s The Man With the Golden Sperm. He’s the guy with the best genes. See, women think biologically. At a very subconscious level, they all want the guy who has the best genes. They all want to have his baby, to have his kid and pass on his superior genes. Even if they are on the birth control pill, and they are not going to be having any babies, they are still thinking that way.

I mean, I knew guys in junior college…my idol in junior college, he would have say 3 or 4 dates in a day. He would have a morning date, then an afternoon date, then an evening date, then at midnight, he would climb into some girl’s window at her parent’s house. And he would have sex with all of them. And this was how he lived. And every girl and woman wanted this guy. They were basically lining up outside of his door, and it was like take a number. They would have sex with him, and they would walk out of the door with a big smile on their face, and they were quite satisfied.

He used to live on the beach in the summer, and those guys would go through like 3 different girls or women every single day. They would have a keg of beer, an ounce of Thai weed, and they would surf all day. That’s the environment that I grew up in on the beach in Southern California with a bunch of hippie stoner surfers.

Robert Stark: What effect do you see this having on society if as you say, a large portion of men are being kept out of the mating market? Society could collapse. For instance, that guy Sodini, I think he had psychological problems, but his situation is symbolic of this phenomenon. If you look at what’s happening in China, how there is this huge shortage of women in China, and you see rising crime there and other problems that this is leading to, due to the shortage of women. This could be problematic in the future if this trend continues.

Robert Lindsay: They are having a lot of Sodini-type mass killings over there too. A lot of these guys apparently are not married and not getting any women, and they’re going crazy with bulldozers, tractors, guns and knives and whatnot and mass murdering people. Just like Sodini. Probably because they aren’t getting any. Back in my parents’ generation, Sodini would have gotten married. There were no Sodinis, not really anyway.

So what’s going on nowadays is that these 15% of the Alphas, they are monopolizing all of the best women. And every woman now wants an Alpha. You see, when you get rid of marriage, then you take the brakes off. When you have institutionalized marriage, women still want an Alpha, but they realize that they can’t get one, and they all have to get married anyway. So they settle for a Beta or an Omega when they are 23 years old, and that’s the way it goes. But now that there’s no marriage, women are free to become Cavewomen. And they all want the Alphas.

Robert Stark: Some of them will settle for a regular guy when they are past their prime. In a sense, who wants someone else’s leftovers?

Robert Lindsay: So now they all want Alphas. At least the White women that I see around here, they are all looking for the Alphas. And the Alphas, they are all pretty much taken. And by age 30 or so, the Alphas are all just gone. And these women, they don’t want Betas. So you have all of the best women going for say 15% of the guys. And the Betas, they’re not really getting all that much. And the Omegas, these guys are just getting zero. The Omegas are the guys who are just not attractive to women at all. These are the Sodinis. So you have 15% of guys, the Omegas, who are getting absolutely zero.

Robert Stark: What’s ironic about this is that the feminists got rid of sexual socialism, and in other ways, the feminists aligned themselves with socialism economically, but at the same time, they don’t want the real free market to work in terms of sex. I know a lot of people have moral issues with prostitution, I can understand that. I’ve had concerns too, but with the current situation, I think it would be the fair thing to legalize prostitution but only based on the current situation.

Another thing, the feminist Senator from Washington, Maria Cantwell, she co-introduced this bill with this neocon Senator Sam Brownback which would make it difficult for men to find wives from overseas. So they use socialism and get rid of the free market in certain cases where it suits their agenda. So you don’t have a problem with feminism if it’s about gender equity. But they use the government to rig the system when it suits their own interests.

Robert Lindsay: Well, the problem is that radical feminism has become Female Rule. You can probably never have true equality in a society sexually. It’s probably the case that you either have Male Rule or you have Female Rule. And there are a lot of problems with Male Rule, which is Patriarchy, but at least it seems to work. It’s not very fair to women in a lot of ways. But it’s a zero-sum game.

Robert Stark: It’s the same with race relations. I think that very rarely will you ever have true racial equality. One group will always end up dominating the other. That’s just human nature.

Robert Lindsay: It seems that way. If the men don’t rule, then the women are going to rule. And that’s the way it is in relationships. I’ve concluded that in relationships, the man has to dominate the woman. I came out of the 1970’s, and we were into this hazy gender role thing, and we were all supposed to be androgynous, and we were the New Men and the Feminist Men. And we were into not being macho and all that.

Thing is, that stuff doesn’t really work, because women do seem to want a macho guy who takes charge and who frankly dominates them. Women get off on being dominated. They enjoy it. That’s an essential part of their sexual nature. The man must be the dominant partner, and the woman must be the submissive partner in marriage or in any kind of a sexual relationship or love relationship.

If you don’t wear the pants in the relationship, she’s going to take those pants right off of you and put them on herself. Either the man dominates the woman, or the woman dominates the man. And if you look around at marriages and relationships, you notice that that’s how it works. If the guy doesn’t dominate the woman – if he’s a really wimpy guy – have you ever noticed that the woman ends up playing the male role and dominating him. Then you have these situations where the woman is playing the role of the man and being really nasty to the guy and lording it over him and the guy being all cringing and wimpy.

Robert Stark: The social conservatives haven’t really tackled any of these issues. The problem with them is that they the two issues that they are obsessed with are abortion and gay marriage. Gay marriage is purely a symbolic issue – it doesn’t have any really strong negative effect on society. As far as abortion goes, I know that you are pro-choice…

Robert Lindsay: Definitely!

Robert Stark: The thing is that women no longer have responsibility, and they can be promiscuous and not depend on a man. Social conservatives focus on these two issues, but they are not really offering any alternatives. Then we have the conservative feminists. For instance, I believe that Sarah Palin calls herself a conservative feminist. They want the men to go back to being chivalrous and be the traditional men, but then the women will enjoy the perks that liberal feminism has brought them.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, they want it both ways, don’t they? Equity feminism is a good thing. I want equality for women in all of the important ways. I’m on the mailing list for many of the big feminist organizations in the US. I used to be a member of NOW.

The only thing that I don’t like about these organizations is that they’ve been taken over by radical feminists. And a lot of them are lesbians; a lot of them hate men. And there’s a real animus in this movement against male sexuality, towards what it means to be male. What they prefer is female sexuality. There are two types of sexuality. There’s female sexuality, and there’s male sexuality. I don’t really have to define them. Every guy around knows what male sexuality is.

Robert Stark: You’ve defined the War on Men as a War on Male Sexuality.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly, because females want female sexuality to be the dominant paradigm in society. Female society is ruled by female sexuality. That’s what females want; that’s what their lives are ruled by. Male society is ruled by male sexuality.

And typically, male sexuality has been privileged at least somewhat in society as far as our rules go. And most societies tend to be more or less dominated by male sexuality. On the other hand, most societies tend to temper male sexuality by instituting early marriage because if you totally allowed male sexuality to take over, most guys probably wouldn’t even get married.

But the feminist movement attempts to make female sexuality the dominant paradigm for all of society, for all of public space. So all males must live under the rules of female sexuality.

That’s why they hate what they call the exploitation of women in porn, in advertising. Any advertisement that shows a sexy girl in any way whatsoever is evil according to them because that represents male sexuality. To them, male sexuality is all about the objectification and the use and abuse of women. For instance, porn is all about the objectification of women and the use and abuse of women, and to guys, it’s just sex, that’s all it is. Porn is all about getting off.

Female sexuality hates pornography, they hate erotica, they hate any sexuality at all being displayed in the media, in advertising, or in movies or TV. They want a completely desexualized public space. They want to desexualize the media, advertisements, consumer culture, movies and TV. Female sexuality is basically puritanical!

Robert Stark: That’s true, but if you look at our popular culture, it has gotten a lot more sexualized over the years, so we have these contradictory factors in our society. But one thing that you have been talking about is this mass hysteria where all men are being viewed as potential sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, that’s right. The radical feminists – that’s their thing. Male sexuality is all about rape! And males are all about rape, and we are all rapists. And they can’t stop talking about rape. You talk to these radical feminists, and they’re just rape rape rape rape rape rape rape rape. And these are White women! And their claim is that the men who are the rapists are White guys like you and me. Well, if you know much about rape in this country, White guys like you and me, we don’t run around raping women.

Robert Stark: I don’t know what the statistics are, but Blacks are about 13% of the population, and they commit almost ½ of the rapes in the country.

Robert Lindsay: All I know is that they commit rape at about 6 times the White rate.

Robert Stark: So you are trying to say that a lot of the propaganda that they put out is to try to show White men as being sexual predators.

Robert Lindsay: The feminist movement never talks about the fact that Blacks and Latinos are six times more likely to rape a woman than a White man is. Their whole thing is that White men like you and me are these evil sexual predator rapists. And their definition of rape keeps on expanding and expanding. Now, if you have sex with a woman who is intoxicated in any way whatsoever, I suppose if she even has one glass of wine, if she’s high, if she smoked a joint, if she did a line of coke or speed or if she’s on acid, then that’s rape.

Well, then there must be hundreds of millions of instances of rape occurring every week in this country. Because lots of women are having sex when they are intoxicated. And I simply do not believe that that’s rape.

Robert Stark: So you think that they are promoting a lot of these false accusations.

Robert Lindsay: Yes, and to them, any kind of coercion that leads to sex, especially verbal coercion, really, seduction itself…The feminists are now claiming that seduction itself is rape because the seducers are supposedly brainwashing women and tricking and fooling them into bed. Well, that’s what seduction is all about. Seduction is all about brainwashing women and tricking and fooling women, casting a spell on them, and more or less lying to them, in order to get them into bed. And men have been doing this for 100’s, or probably 1000’s of years.

And the whole idea of being a woman…mothers and fathers are supposed to raise their daughters with the idea that guys are just dogs, they’re no good. Guys will say and do anything to get you into bed. And an aware and savvy woman knows that guys are like this, she’s aware of it, and she’s got all of her defenses up to keep this guy from putting one over on her and seducing her and getting her into bed when she doesn’t want to.

So, seduction is not rape. Seduction is just the normal human way of going about sex, and it’s normal male sexuality to seduce women. So when they say seduction is rape, they’re saying that all us guys are rapists. And most radical feminists theorists, not just Andrea Dworkin or Katharine McKinney, but really all of them, they all say that we live under a system of patriarchy, and under patriarchy, all male-female sex is rape.

Robert Stark: Another thing is that they vilify large age ranges in relationships such as an older man dating a younger woman. One thing that I noticed is that Alphas can get good-looking younger women early on, but other men who are not Alphas can build up their wealth and get them later on. Historically, women would often marry a much older man because they were dependent on them economically.

Robert Lindsay: Another thing about female sexuality is that women age quicker than men. They live longer than we do. I don’t know why it is, but if you have a woman and a man, and they’re both married, and they’re both around 50-60 or so, the woman is going to look 10-15 years older than the man.

Robert Stark: Women have a huge advantage in their 20’s, but once they get past 30, men have the advantage. That’s why the feminists are trying to pathologize men who are dating women who are much younger than they are.

Robert Lindsay: This has been going on forever and ever and ever. If you read literature all down through the centuries or even millennia, the theme over and over is that a man, as he’s aging, continues to want younger women. And an older woman has a hard time keeping her husband around because as she starts getting into her 40’s and 50’s, he starts wanting to chase younger women.

So one of the prime aspects of female sexuality is this hatred for this aspect of male sexuality in that aging males want to chase young women. And it’s hard for an older woman to keep her man around. How do you keep him around? And in many cases, middle-aged men leave their older wives and go for young women. And women hate that; female sexuality hates that, so feminism hates that. And that’s the reason for this law that Maria Cantwell and Brownback passed…is it Brownback?

Robert Stark: Sam Brownback is this social conservative…

Robert Lindsay: Right, so what’s going on is that American guys who’ve just had it up to here with nasty Western women are heading off to the 3rd World, and they are picking up younger 3rd World women, and they are marrying them.

Robert Stark: What’s really strange about this is that Cantwell and Brownback and both very much pro-immigration Open Borders types.

Robert Lindsay: Cantwell represents female sexuality, she represents feminism, actually radical feminism and the rage of feminists and aging women over the fact that a lot of White guys are shining on these nasty feminist witches here in America, and they’re going to get women overseas. And also middle aged guys are blowing off their older White spouses and going to get some young hottie overseas. This is all just about – “cut off the competition.”

And it’s the institutionalization of female sexuality in law. This is one of the things that the feminists are tying to do – they are trying to make law and the legal code that we all live under in our public space to be an institutionalization of female sexuality.

Robert Stark: Yet at the same time, they got rid of marriage, which was a fair form of socialism. I’ve analyzed these various movements, not just the feminist movement but also various economic movements, and it’s way too complex to say that this person is a capitalist and this person is a socialist if people pick and choose either free markets or government intervention when it suits their own interests. That’s why I object to these people who break everyone up into, “You’re either for free markets or you’re not.”

Robert Lindsay: And the sexual harassment thing, this is another one. The feminist movement, as I noted, wants to remove all sexuality from the pubic space because female sexuality hates sexual expression in the public space. If you’re a good-looking woman, apparently as soon as you walk outside the door, you have guys after you all day long. And women don’t like this. Female sexuality doesn’t like this hyper-aggressive nature of male sexuality in which we are always raping them with our eyes and chasing after them and all.

What they would really like, in their female sexual utopia, is to ban us from looking at them, they would like to have us arrested and sent to jail for “illegal looking.”

Robert Stark: This was targeted against pedophiles, but there was a law in Maine making it a felony for adults to stare at minors in public. I think what the radical feminists – I think the woman who introduced that law was a radical feminist – what they would like is to make it a crime to men to stare at adult women in public as well. So this looks like a slippery slope.

Robert Lindsay: This is one of the aspects of sexual harassment. Now, if you’re in a workplace, or even outside of a workplace, you can be accused of sexual harassment just for looking at women. A friend of mine, he’s an older guy, and he was in a coffee shop, and the young women didn’t like the fact that he was an older guy and he was looking at them so they complained, and the management told him to quit looking at the girls or they were going to throw him out.

So it’s not just happening in the workplace, although in the workplace, if you look at the women too much, if you check out the women, they call that sexual harassment and a “sexually hostile workplace.” I think they also want to remove all sexual commentary, sexual banter, sexual wording and flirtation from the public space.

But after all, people have a very strong sex drive, at least males, and the entirety of public space is where we spend most of our time. We go out in public all the time doing this or that, and the workplace is a large part our lives now, a lot of us are spending almost all of our time at work. And female sexuality and radical feminism wants to completely remove all sexual expression from the public space, where we are spending so much of our time.

I don’t think they even want us talking to women, honestly. They certainly don’t want us talking to them about anything sexual in any way whatsoever. For women, to remove all sexuality from the pubic space makes that a friendly space.

But I came out of 1970’s, remember, I came out of the hippie movement, I’m a liberal, I came out of the New Left, I’m a sexual revolutionary and a libertine. And I don’t believe in any kind of Puritanism at all. My attitude is, “Do it in the streets.” Not literally of course, but I’m very pro-sex. And it really bothers me how anti-sex the feminists are. And that they are trying to reproduce their view of female sexuality, which is very anti-sex, it’s very puritanical, onto the whole of society.

Robert Stark: What is strange is that if you look at some aspects of our society, they have become much more sexualized. If you look at commercials…I really don’t know what to make of the whole thing.

Robert Lindsay: This is strange, the extreme sexualization of our society – although the feminists would love to get rid of all that too, but they haven’t been able to yet…on the one hand, we have this hypersexualized society…

Robert Stark: One thing I’ve also noticed if that teen sexuality has been really glorified, like teenage girls, one the one hand, they are encouraged to act slutty, but on the other hand, if a man so much as looks at a teenage girl nowadays, they are being called pedos. So what do you think of these two polar extremes?

Robert Lindsay: Well, on the one hand, you have this hypersexualized media space in terms of advertising and consumer culture and the corporations and then in our popular entertainment…

Robert Stark: Yes, because sex sells, they want to make money.

Robert Lindsay: Music, TV, movies and all that, the sexual mores have been loosened down. So if you’re a person who is immersed in our consumer and entertainment culture, you are being bombarded with sexual messages all day long. And after a while, it’s probably going to make you pretty horny. If you’re a young man, you’re probably pretty horny as it is, but all this media sex stuff really gets you thinking about sex all the time.

And then as soon as you step out your front door and go out into the public space, now you’re out in this feminist world where the feminists are trying to put their Female Rule (matriarchy) over everything, and you can’t look at women, you can’t talk to women, you can’t say anything sexual, you can’t do anything sexual…

Robert Stark: What are some of your thoughts on the racial component of the dating market?

Robert Lindsay: Well, like I said, the White women, they all want an Alpha guy. And then by the time they’re 30, almost all of them, they didn’t get him, and so they’re angry. And then they either hook up with a Beta, and they’re not really all that happy about it, and they try to dominate him, and they’re aggressive and mean towards him. Or they get married, and then they get divorced at some point.

For instance, I have a Yahoo group for people who are fighting the Internet love scammers. The group is about ½ women. Most of the women are middle aged White women, and a very large % of these women are involved with Black men. What I did not understand for a long was that these women are filled with rage and hatred towards White men.

We’re macho pigs, we’re jerks…and they are filled with hatred towards male sexuality. We don’t treat them right, we’re mean, macho jerks. And all of them are radical feminists. And then at the same time…they’re all going for Black guys! And I didn’t understand that at all!

Robert Stark: The Black men would probably treat them a lot worse than a White man would.

Robert Lindsay: They will treat them a lot worse! But I finally figured it out, and I finally understand it. These White women who are going for Black guys, it’s a way of giving the finger to the White man. It’s a way of saying “F- you” to the White man, screw you to the White man. That’s the ultimate way of insulting a White man. Saying, “The heck with you, White men, here I am, I’m going to go for a Black guy!” And I think that Black males and White females share a common enemy. Remember that guy in Connecticut who shot up the beer factory when they accused him of stealing beer? And he said he “shot the racists?”

Robert Stark: I think you told me about it…

Robert Lindsay: He said he shot the racists, and he killed like 7 White people. He hated White people. We see over and over these Black guys who hate White people, and they’re attacking Whites, but then over and over, you see that this same guy has a White girlfriend!

Robert Stark: Yes! You’re familiar with the Knoxville Murders? They raped, tortured and killed two Whites, and their defense attorney tried to say that this guy’s not a racist because he had a White girlfriend.

Robert Lindsay: Right! Exactly! What’s going on there…I finally figured it out, is that the Black male and the White female share a common enemy. Their common enemy is the White man. So that’s how a Black man can hook up with a White woman and be happy, and they can have a common enemy, the White man, and how a Black man can have a White girlfriend and then go and shoot up 15 White guys at a beer distributing plant because they share a common enemy. These Black guys – they don’t hate White women. They hate White men.

Robert Stark: If you look through history at basic human tribalism, one tribe would try to steal the females from another tribe and yet be protective of their own women. And that’s why, to this day, a lot of men have double standards. They’ll date women of other groups, but they will get very defensive if someone tries to date their own women.

Robert Lindsay: Exactly! And in White society, the worst thing that a White woman can do is go out with Black guys. I know really liberal White guys, and they told me that if any White woman they know, if they find out that she dates Blacks, she’s through. She’s gone. They won’t even consider her. And a lot of White guys think this way. She’s history. She is basically evicted from the White race.

So this is a way that White males have of controlling and policing our women. This is how, just as you were saying, how we protect our women. We essentially banish them from the tribe, from the White tribe, for messing around with Black guys. Just like in the old days when tribal groups would evict you from the tribe for a transgression.

And at the same time, males of any race will have sex with females of the opposite race. Because then they are basically stealing the other tribe’s women, and if you impregnate them, you are forcing their women to bear your children. At the same time, you protect your own women, because your own women are your seed stock, and they are the continuity of your tribe. And you can’t allow them to be contaminated by the genes of these competing tribes because then your women are going to be raising the children of the competing tribes. And I still think that these ancient tribal ways are still ongoing in modern society.

Robert Stark: This is basic human instinct, but it’s not politically correct due to this Cultural Marxism has made these notions into something pathological to even discuss, but it’s still an essential human instinct nevertheless. So you see all of this as a part of the War on Men.

Robert Lindsay: It is, it is. It’s mostly a war on male sexuality. Even this sex offender thing and the pedophile thing, the Pedophile Mass Hysteria…have you noticed something? The pedophiles? They’re all men! And the victims are all women and girls.

Robert Stark: And the media portrays pedophiles as mostly White, which is also a myth. You were comparing it to Salem Witch Trials. There are dangerous people out there who we have to keep an eye on, but this whole pedophile hysteria, it’s gone way too far, and a lot of innocent people are being caught up in this and having their lives ruined. All men are being suspected that they are up to something no good sexually. This has just gone insane…

6 Comments

Filed under Africa, American, Asia, Blacks, China, Conservatism, Crime, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Europeans, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Homosexuality, Law, Liberalism, Man World, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Pedophilia, Political Science, Pop Culture, Pornography, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Feminists, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Sex, Whites

Racial Holy Wars, Real and Phantom

Repost from the old site. This is another famous old post, widely reposted all over.

Due to the recent abuse of the comments section, mostly by rightwingers (and a few Zionist) commenters, I have had to formulate a Rules Policy on commenting. I never really had any problems with comments until I wrote what was pretty much a harmless, factual article dealing with a group of humans called “Jews”.

This group of humans is apparently so special, so great, so awesome, so incredible, so protected and possibly so powerful that a strange situation has arisen in the Western World.

We non-Jewish humans can write about most any other group of humans, but we cannot write about this group called “Jews” without a creating a firestorm. There are exceptions. We can write about “Jews” if we adopt a slavish, worshipful tone that emphasizes how wonderful, special, perfect and totally awesome this group is.

I suppose this quite insane reaction has something to do with recent history, notably the Holocaust. At any rate, the policy of “non-Jews must not say or write the word Jew” due to Holocaust guilt or whatever is just not going to work and is likely to backfire.

Western crusaders against racism, sexism and anti-Semitism need to focus on real racism, sexism and anti-Semitism and not get lost in PC-insanity of focusing on the fake racism, sexism and anti-Semitism of silly little words, phrases, sentences and jokes.

For instance, we just had a government under Bush that practiced some of the most blatant anti-Black electoral racism since Jim Crow in a recent US Presidential election.

This was done by deliberately denying many US Blacks the right to vote in a variety of very clever ways, too widespread to be coincidental. The Bush Administration also gutted civil rights enforcement and appointed a number of blatantly racist white judges.

At the same time, it indulged in an attack on the welfare state that had definite white racist overtones. Yet not one word of any of that from the useless, whored, corrupt, depraved US media or either of the two worthless major political parties here. Not even one peep either, usually, from the many House Negroes and silly Toms populating our TV screens.

Instead our society focuses (through the insidious US media) on whether some prominent American used some “anti-Black” or “anti-Jewish” word, phrase, sentence or joke on some occasion when they opened their mouth.

Once the horrible word-crime is reported by the media with bated breath, a wild goose chase called “racist hunt” ensues while Americans, glued to the TV, watch mesmerized as The PC Cops chase these heinous “racist” words, phrases, sentences or jokes across our TV screens.

90% of the time, it’s an innocuous or even factual utterance, yet the PC Word Police are right there on the job, chasing bad words, diabolical phrases, evil sentences and vile jokes across our land, 90 miles an hour, sirens blaring.

Meanwhile, holding down “Fort Sexism,” the completely useless US feminist movement obsesses over “anti-woman” and “sexist” words, phrases, sentences and jokes, while much of female humanity outside of the US cringes under the terror boot of a vicious patriarchal dictatorship.

Some idiot spray-paints a US synagogue with nasty words, evil little symbols or malevolent sentences and the US media pants hyperactively for weeks about some “anti-Semitism wave sweeping the globe.” While at the same time, the US military wages a blatantly racist war against the “inferior” Iraqi people to either media silence or outright cheerleading.

This is a racist war that has already killed 1,100,000 dark-skinned Arab “untermenschen” at the altar of American Supremacy. Not far away in Palestine, grinning Israeli stormtroopers, smiling with sadistic glee, practice their own Racial Holy War, lording it over the “lowly, inferior”, dark-skinned Palestinians in a Levantine Kristallnact re-run that seems to never end.

Let’s shoot back to the year 1990 for a moment. In the alternate universe called the US media, media hypesters are going insane because President George H. Bush said a horrific phrase, “Jewish power,” before a fundraising speech to a Jewish group.

Never mind that Jewish power, monetary, media and political, was a fact of American life in 1990, and is even more of a fact today. But some facts may not be stated, so say the solemn Word Police.

Why? Because truth is irrelevant in Alice in Wonderland Zionized America. All that matters is that a foul crime has been committed, a crime called “anti-Semitism.” A bestial crime with no legal definition, a repulsive felony with no legal code number, a horrifying violation with no penalties legally proscribed, but a horrendous crime nonetheless.

For this particular “anti-Semitic” crime, the President of the United States himself was forced to get on his knees and abjectly kiss the shoes of the offended group as they towered arrogantly above his debased figure. Ironically, with this act, the naked lie that this group had no power was revealed as the howler that it was. This group had no power, yet they forced the President of the US to kiss their toes! Ha!

A year later, International Zionism and its US imperialist partner hatched a racist genocidal plot to draw Saddam Hussein’s military into Kuwait, trap them there and forbid them from leaving, purely in order to destroy his military and slaughter 265,000 of Iraq’s “racially inferior” soldiers and civilians, mainly because they were considered to be racial enemies of the Jewish state.

Later the same year, after the initial slaughter of 265,000 “sand niggers,” the killers were not yet sated. They lusted for more blood – Arab blood. And so another diabolical, genocidal, racist plot was hatched, this time by America and Britain – a plot to murder 1 million Iraqi baby racial enemies of the Anglo people over the next decade.

This conspiracy was called the Iraqi Sanctions Pogrom. Yet, for the next 12 years, Americans heard not one peep about the slaughter of these “lowly, inferior” dark-skinned Arabs by their “racially superior” Anglo mass murderers.

As the bodies stacked up like cordwood, both the Jewish state and its multitude of US agents, along with the paid hacks for Anglo imperialism, cheered from the sidelines.

They demanded that the mass murder go on, threatening anyone who tried to stop it or slow it down, all the while either denying that there was any mass murder occurring, or acknowledging the slaughter, but blaming the Iraqis – the victims – for killing themselves.

Through the 90′s, while the Iraqi Sanctions Charnel House burned, the devious US media was busy distracting the shallow American people. The media browbeat and deluged gullible Americans with reports about a phantom threat coming from White people in the US, people called “White racists,” “skinheads,” “Nazis” and “White Power fascists”.

This “White threat” was said to be running amok across our land, swarming our streets, arming themselves for war. The nation was portrayed as being on the verge of a White fascist takeover.

Over the whole decade of the 90′s, these “horrible US White Supremacist Nazis” killed a mere handful of Americans in their Racial Holy War, while the Anglo-Israeli Racial Holy War, described above, continued in reeling Iraq and Palestine, killing 230 Arabs a day, day in, day out, no end.

From 1991 to 2010, Anglo and Anglo-Zionist racist pogroms, combined, killed 2.46 million “racially inferior” dark-skinned Iraqi Arabs, yet not one peep of outrage was heard from the media. The only sounds heard from the US media were outbreaks of cheering the slaughter of our racial enemies, the Arabs, during the hot wars.

During this period, the media’s splenetic outrage was instead reserved for the rare White skinhead murder of one Black man, or maybe the murders or three or four Black men. Surely the deaths of this handful of US Blacks were terrible crimes, but look once more at the figures above. You do the math. Where’s the real racism anyway? Where’s the real menace? To paraphrase O.J. Simpson, who are the real killers?

America’s discourse about racism, sexism and anti-Semitism has become seriously disturbed. We obsess and wax hysterically over silly little “racist” words, phrases, sentences and jokes, while at the same time, our nation and its racial allies commit racist massacres of millions of our racial enemies – the Arabs – to either silence or open cheering.

1 Comment

Filed under Anti-Racism, Anti-Semitism, Arabs, Britain, Civil Rights, Cultural Marxists, Europe, Europeans, Imperialism, Iraq, Iraq War, Israel, Jews, Middle East, Palestine, Palestinians, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Radical Feminists, Regional, Reposts From The Old Site, Republicans, Scum, US Politics, War, White Racism, Zionism

Feminists Want a White Man, and Everyone Wants a Non-Feminist Woman

tulio made an excellent comment just now on feminism.

The subject of comparative masculinity between the races and feminism is subject that often arises here. One thing I observe is that white males are the choice mates of feminists of all colors. I recently had a heart to heart conversation with a Latina that is left wing and definitely on the feminist/independent woman tip. She says she prefers white men.

She feels that black and Latino men are either too machismo, too controlling, believe too much in gender roles or are likely to cheat. She doesn’t view Asian men as an option under any circumstance. So she prefers white men. And this is a girl who you guys would definitely consider anti-white in politics. Like she believes white people have no culture, that many of them are racist and she’s definitely seems to be in favor of little or no immigration controls.

She feels that white men are going to be more tolerant of women with her sense of independence(or basically all her feminist traits), and she’s not into all the roles of women thing like having dinner ready and being submissive in any way. She thinks white males are the best option for women like her.

When I think about it, almost all the feminist I know or have known ended up with white guys. Usually they were the feminized SWPL sort of whites guys. The kind you see waiting outside the store with the baby strapped to his chest in a harness while the wife wants to do her thing inside. I’ve met some of these guys. They come off as wimpy, easy to control and get dominated by their feminist wives who run the show.

These guys have usually been shamed into thinking any overt sense of masculinity is taboo. They tend to be very much beta males and wouldn’t think of doing anything that would offend his wife’s feminist sensibilities like suggesting she cook or clean.

They also tend to be afraid to do anything that would suggest they see her as a sexual object. That’s the one common complaint amongst feminists, “Women are not sexual objects!” Of course women are sexual objects. So are men. That’s not all we are, but that’s part of what we are. If you go around with cleavage showing, don’t be offended if a man leers at your breasts. He’s just being a man. What the fuck is wrong with that?

One of these guys looked at me like “WTF” when I said I’m not a feminist, as if they was like someone saying they are against civil rights. So there you go, non-macho non-cavemen white males certainly have their market. It’s feminist females of any color.

I’m starting to have more and more a dislike for feminism and how it has fucked with the natural order of things. You have a lot of these bitter, domineering Hillary Clinton type women who think they have to compete and fight with men and have a chip on their shoulder. Many of them don’t date or date rarely.

I then hear people I know that have wives or girlfriends from S. America, or SE Asia or E. Europe and they say once you hunker down with one of these women who embrace their femininity and believe in putting family first over career, you’ll never want a Western woman again. They say feminism has fucked up Western, and particularly American so bad that they’ve written them off. My uncle only dates Asian women and said he’s done with American women for good. I’ve met other guys that have said similar.

Thing is, I am a feminist in the strict sense in that I’m all for women’s rights, I’m pro choice, I believe women should have equal opportunity, there should be no glass ceilings for women and I think women make perfectly fine heads of state.

What I don’t like is the complete feminist assault on femininity and their belief that women will be made strong by making them less like women and more like men. They look down on “girly, feminine women” like a black nationalist would a Uncle Tom.

I’m not down with that crap. While both my parents worked, I always grew up in a household where my dad brought home most the bread, my mom worked too, but she always saw it as her duty to cook and clean and shop for the kids. My dad wore the pants, he made the rules. He was never abusive or anything, but it was obvious who was running the show. My mom simply saw it as her duty to take care of the house make sure she made dinner. That’s what her mom did, and that’s what her grandmother did.

He discusses how feminists all want White men. Well, of course they do. What’s bizarre about this is that if you read modern feminist discourse, such as feminist websites, there is not one word about Latino or Black men. Men from other nations are rarely discussed. The rage is all directed against White men, but paradoxically, that’s who they all want to hook up with!

I wrote a while back about how Mexicans have ruined California, but strangely enough, my complaint is not against the illegals. The illegals and non-assimilated or poorly assimilated Mexicans generally act very, very good. They have traditional Old World, Old Mexico peasant and working class values. Sure, there are traditional role models there, but strangely enough, the women seem to love it! The women are very, very happy, and of course, so are the men. I have no idea if the women are oppressed or not. Perhaps they are. But they seem to enjoy their ultra-feminine role.

The strange thing is that the more women move out of traditional roles, it seems like the more miserable they get! Modern women claim they don’t want to be shackled with the old ways, but the more they give it up in favor of feminism, the more unhappy and angry they get. I suspect it’s because they are messing with Mother Nature. Nature wants women to be feminine and to play a traditional role. When they don’t, they’re fucking with the system. Nature doesn’t like things that don’t play by the rules: she attacks them. So she attacks modern women by making them angry and miserable.

Tulio’s position is the same as mine. Equity feminism is good; radical feminism is bad. Modern feminism is radical feminism.

The paradox, as I mentioned, is that if feminists all want White men, why do they rail against us as evil rapists and oppressors of women? White men don’t do a lot of raping, and they don’t oppress women too much. Black and Latino men are way worse on both counts. Yet there is nothing but silence about this subject from feminists.

A couple of things are going on here. Radical feminism is PC. PC people never like to say anything bad about their glorious POC’s. So there’s an inhibition there. I don’t blame them, because the minute they say one bad word about POC men, they’re going to get hit by a broken dam flood of “RACIST!” screams.

Radical feminism seems to resemble Critical Race Theory in some ways. As CRT is mostly a way for bourgeois self-hating Whites and POC’s to rail against bourgeois Whites for not divvying up the bourgeois loot fairly enough, I suspect the same thing is going on with radical feminism. If you go their sites, these women are all smart, White, and either in college or college grads. A surprising number of them are going to top name schools like Yale and Harvard. The talk on the blogs is how they are going to move into big bucks corporate world after graduation. It’s obvious why these women don’t want to discuss the C word – class, too much.

Their lament, I think, is similar to the CRT folks. These bourgeois White women are furious at bourgeois White men for not divvying up the bourgeois loot fairly enough. No fair! This is where the rage is coming from.

And as these women are mostly only dating White men and not dealing with POC men at all, that’s why they never discuss the transgressions of POC men – they simply don’t deal with them! Nevertheless, the downtrodden White man is the one they deal with on a regular basis. Their minds are filled with all this feminist fury, hate and Victim Drug, and all that energy needs somewhere to go. So it gets directed at the very males that are most meaningful to their personal lives.

The funny thing is that these guys, as tulio points out, are about as feminist as you can get. But their feminist women are yet not satisfied. The feminists don’t want to be happy like Jews don’t want anti-Semitism to go away. They need patriarchy and female oppression like Dracula needs blood.

I don’t think the solution is to be a pig. Traditional women like guys who assume masculine role models. I suspect that deep down inside, feminists do too. You can cook and clean the house without her thinking you’re a pussy. Hell, I cook and clean myself.

50 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, Cultural Marxists, Europeans, Feminism, Gender Studies, Hispanics, Mexicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Whites

The PC Crowd’s War on Male Sexuality

Repost from the old site.

In the comments section, Lafayette Sennacherib opines that the PC Crowd just doesn’t seem to want men to have sex at all. I really think that the PC crowd is all about replacing male sexuality with female sexuality. Female sexuality is to be normalized and even enforced via laws and regulations.

A man is trying to pick up a woman. Obviously, he’s sexually harassing her. At the very least, he’s treating her like a sex object.

A man is looking at a beautiful woman. He is objectifying her and reducing her to a sex object.

A man is looking at a beauty pageant. He is objectifying females and disrespecting them.

A man is trying to get laid. He is evil because he is out to use and abuse women.

A man is having sex with a drunk woman (About the only way a lot of them will do it!). He is raping her.

A man is interested in group sex. He is a sick, evil pervert typical of males.

An older man looks at teenage girls, some of whom are 16-17. HE IS A PEDOPHILE! Huh?

A man is looking at porn and jerking off. First, he is first a loser for jerking off, and second, he is a sexist dog for looking at evil pornography which is hate propaganda against women.

A man buys a prostitute. He is assisting in the subjugation of women, little more than a pimp.

I do not think that society should favor male or female sexuality by law or regulation. Males and females want different things, so there is a War of the Sexes. As the French say, Vive le differance! This War is eternal and present in all normal human societies. Sexual equality is probably not possible, and some leading feminists are now admitting to this.

I enjoy Hispanic culture in the US as far as sex goes. The women seem to think that all men are just dogs when it comes to sex, so they don’t worry about it. Men look at women, and women look at men. It’s all normal. Women like men, and men like women, in spite of it all. Hispanic women have not yet been feminist-wrecked.

In other parts of the world, such as Latin America, the Arab World, Iran, and SE Asia, one finds much the same thing.

I was in an auto parts store a while back. A teenage Hispanic girl was in there with her Mom, Dad and siblings. I figure she was 15. I was 50. Well, she started looking at me. She was looking at me the whole time, giving me the eye. At first I was afraid to look back at her because her parents were there, but they made it clear that they did not give a damn, so I started looking back at her just for fun.

I can’t touch a 15-yr old, of course, but at this age, it feels great to know I can still attract such a young girl.

The weird thing was the attitude of the parents. They were like, “Hey, she’s 15, she’s a woman now, of course she’s looking at men.”

Now I’m not saying that middle aged men should go running around with underage girls. It’s against the law here, and the law may be reasonable, even if the sentences are not. But this is probably what goes on in normal societies. Young girls come of age and find all sorts of males interesting, from boys to distinguished, confident older men. It’s part of the embroidery of human existence for most of our time on Earth.

This may be backwards, sexist or reactionary, but I find it much preferable to this suffocating feminist-wrecked world of White Western culture.

7 Comments

Filed under American, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Europeans, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Race/Ethnicity, Radical Feminists, Reposts From The Old Site, Scum, Sex, Whites