The Difficulty of Female to Male HIV Transmission in the US

Dan F. writes:

Hi Bob,

You wrote: “The men all got it from sharing needles or from getting ass fucked by a guy.”

And then when I mentioned Darren James, who was filmed having vaginal sex when infected, you agreed that your statement was incorrect:

“NO! Darren James is the only male porn star who got HIV from a woman. There has not yet been one, one, one, one, one other case yet”

At least, given your acknowledgement, you should change your statement from “all” to the “vast majority.” How can you be so certain that every single male porn star who got HIV didn’t get get it from vaginal sex? Except for the one guy whose moment of infection happens to be documented on video, you really believe no one else has ever been infected this way?

That this has only happened once in history, to Darren James of all people during the scene that is widely available? You are perpetuating a myth! Yes, it is much more likely that a man will give it to a women as you state, but vaginal fluids can enter the urethra. There are plenty of anonymous stories on Avert of men who claim to have been infected through vaginal sex.

Darren James got it from fucking a Brazilian porn star in the ass while down in Brazil. From insertive anal sex. His moment of infection is not a documented instance of vaginal sex on video. The apparently documented infection is a case of anal sex, not vaginal sex.

There have been only a few other HIV infections in the porn industry. John Holmes acquired HIV, but he was also a heavy drug user and he made some gay porn films at the end of his career. Another man got it, found out by a test and faked a test result to keep on working. Whereupon he infected at least one woman. Another man was recently found to be infected. He was a bit coy about how he might have gotten it, but inquiries to people who knew him said that in recent days he had been engaging in gay male prostitution on the side for extra money. So it appears that he acquired HIV homosexually.

29 American women have acquired HIV in the porn industry. Many of them kept on working for a while while they were infected because they did not know they were infected. They had quite a bit of sex with quite a few porn stars. Not one of these males ever got HIV from a woman in the porn industry. My understanding is that not one of these HIV infected female porn stars has given the disease to any of their male partners after they left the industry.

I had an HIV infected Black woman come on here and say that the disease only goes male to female. She has been having sex with her husband for several years after infection, and he is not yet infected. In addition, she said that none of the females she knows who are infected with HIV have ever given it to their husbands or boyfriends.

Insertive heterosexual anal sex is quite a bit more risky than insertive vaginal sex. In a study done in the 1980′s with discordant couples over a 4-5 year period, only 20% of the males had acquired HIV from their wives. After 4-500 instances of vaginal sex, only 20% of the men were infected. So if you have sex with an HIV positive woman 500 times, you have an 80% chance of not getting infected! Those are pretty long odds.

Around 1990, we heard stories out of New York Public Health investigators about how hard it was for this disease to go woman to man. They had had quite a few guys who claimed that they got it from a woman, but the more the investigators questioned them and the people who knew them, almost 100% of these guys eventually broke down and admitted that they got it through other means, either needles or typically through gay sex.

It has been shown that there are high levels of HIV in Black women. The men who gave it to them often insist that they got it from a woman. However, upon investigation, a large number of these male cases were actually acquired by gay sex on the down low. It has now been proven that the vast majority of Black women being infected in the US are getting it from Black men on the down low.

You are much more likely to get it from a woman if you are not circumcised. Uncircumcised men are much more at risk.

The type of HIV found in the US is very hard to transmit woman to man. That is because it mutated into a strictly blood-borne virus for some reason, possibly due to ease of transmission through needles and the high amount of homosexual sex we have in the West. In other parts of the world, the virus is not only blood borne -titers are also high in other fluids.

However, the subtype in the US has very low titers in vaginal fluids. They are so low that one wonders if they can even transmit infection – that is how low they are. And if by chance you do get infected vaginally by a woman, your dose is so low that you often only get a “mild” case of HIV, if such a thing is possible. For instance, Magic Johnson got HIV from a woman 23 years ago, and his symptoms have been so mild that he has not yet even started HIV drugs yet.

One can definitely get HIV from a woman in the US via heterosexual sex. Cases have obviously been documented. However, history shows that it is quite hard for a male to get the disease this way. But via my loose, intuitive and Gestalt approach to the data, it does seem that females are transmitting HIV a bit easier to males these days in the US than they did 20-30 years ago. I have no idea why heterosexual sex is a bit more risky for males in the US than it used to be, but I can tell you that the risk is quite low, and with a condom it is effectively zero.

Oriana Small Reading “Choked Out”

Here.

More extremely disturbing stuff about Khan Tusion, the abusive and ultra-misogynistic real estate developer/porn director from LA. In this video, Oriana Small (aka known as her porn stage name of Ashley Blue) reads from a chapter called Choked Out in her extremely disturbing book Girlvert. The reading took place at a bookstore in San Francisco. In the background, a video of the porno scene described in the chapter plays.

Choked Out describes how Khan Tusion told her he loved to choke women out in his videos and asks her to let him do it. Her then-boyfriend also gets in on the choking out action. At one point, she looks up in his eyes and sees sheer hatred a desire by Khan to stomp her into the pavement forever and ever. This man’s hatred for women is simply visceral. We watch the video as her face gets red and then purple. Finally, she passes out. Small claims she almost died on the set that day.

So really Khan almost murders her, which is something that he obviously fantasizes about doing.

Not that that is outrageously abnormal. I am certain that millions of American males like to fantasize about torturing, raping and even murdering females. My contention has always been that for every one maniac running around killing chicks, there’s 100 or so who only dream of it. They simply have enough controls for a variety of reasons to keep from acting out their fantasies. Reasons for controlling themselves range from wanting to stay out of prison to a feeling that while it’s ok to fantasize about doing such things, it is immoral to actually do them.

In fact, I know some men who told me that they like to fantasize about killing women. One is a horror movie fan. He especially likes movies where beautiful women are murdered because he is a misogynist. He is also a very nice guy and he is also a confirmed pacifist. The movies serve as a pro-social outlet for his antisocial misogynistic feelings.

While antisocial fantasies about hurting and killing women are common, I do not feel that they are optimal. As one who loves women, I must object to this type of thinking. If you love or like women, you don’t fantasize about torturing, raping and murdering them. Sorry. It just doesn’t work that way. If you like to think about these things, you have some serious misogyny going on. There’s no two ways about it.

Choking out women has now become common fare in porn movies, and I would love to see the courts outlaw this bullshit as obscenity even though I am a civil libertarian and a libertine. One actor in particular likes to choke out women. A critic of this behavior, Mike South, has pointed out that this actor formally served in California state prisons. South also notes that the latest thinking is that choking women out during sex may need to TIA’s (Transient Ischemic Attacks). These are mini-stroke or tiny strokes, and it is very bad to have them. It remains to be seen what will happen to these actresses as they move into middle and old age. Will they be at increased risk of strokes. Will there be side effects from these TIA’s.

Choking out women is also highly promoted on PUA blogs. Roosh loves to do this to the women he screws. Many of his fans and other PUA fans have taken up this nonsense. I just can’t see it, sorry. If I choked out a woman, I would feel like a serial killer. But I guess that’s the general idea. In choking out a woman, you get to fantasize for just one moment that you are a murdering rapist. You too can be Ted Bundy! You get to vicariously murder women and you won’t even go to prison! Step right up and get in on the latest depraved thrill!

On other sites, Small recounts her first visit with Khan. She went to his studio and was met by an Asian man in his late 20′s in the parking lot. He seemed so nice and harmless that Small said, “I didn’t even think he had a penis.” Later she found out that this guy had previously been arrested for pistol whipping his girlfriend. After the shoot, the guy’s girlfriend was murdered and the rumor around Porn Valley was that he was the one who did it. Looks deceive!

She went to the shoot with her boyfriend and met Khan for the first time. She described him as a complete slimeball, a man who disgusted her at first sight. Later in the shoot, Khan convinces her to let him piss in her mouth. Her boyfriend gleefully joins in the action. Small seems to be willing to tolerate just about any abuse that men in porn want to dish out in her direction. I don’t know why she tolerates being abused like this. Is she a masochist?

Elsewhere in Girlvert, she describes how she went from shoot to shoot in the porno world and encountered director after director who tried to “break” her. That is, they would try to push her to her limits to the point where she freaked out or broke down crying. She defiantly tolerated all of this abuse and resolved to never let any of it break her. But in the choke-out scene above, she was indeed reduced to a pile of blubbering tears.

I hate to break it to you guys, but these directors who try to so hard to abuse actresses to the point where the break down or burst into tears are a bunch of misogynists. It’s not cool or hip or cutting edge or edgy or avant garde or any of that. It’s just misogyny, as old as the human race.

Although moronic feminists accuse me of misogyny all the time, I plead innocent. I have my own definition of the word. I see what I call misogyny all over the PUA/Manosphere/MRA sites, and I don’t like a bit of it. And I am repulsed by the misogyny described above. But then the feminist definition of the word was always insane and all encompassing, so expansive that it covers vast areas of thought and behavior that no sane person would consider to be misogynistic.

As Jews see anti-Semites under every bed, so the feminist sees a woman-hater in every closet. Both Jews and feminists are insane in these regards and indeed they are mirrors of each other, as Identity Politics and ultranationalism are mirrors of the same narcissistic and paranoid mindset, part of which could be called a Paranoid-Masochistic character. This character is simply the result of extreme egotism.

Paranoia is the other side of the narcissistic mirror. If he’s as great as the egomaniac says he is, obviously the world is full of various enemies out to get you. It’s lonely at the top and all that. In the same way, nationalistic nations fill the minds of their citizens with enemies real and imagined. A great nation needs enemies, after all. Why are we great? Because they envy us so. Why are we failing? Because they done us wrong, the bastards. You see this narcissism in all Identity Politics and all nationalism. If the Left opposes nationalism due to the psychopathology inherent in such a mindset, any sane Left must opposes narcissistic Identity Politics and victimology for the same reason.

What Are the Chans?

Rachelle writes:

Robert, baby, what is 4chan? Is it some creepy pedophile thing?

Possibly 4chan and definitely some of the other chans are known to sometimes have legal jailbait posts and even illegal child porn posts some of the time.

A friend of mine linked me to one of the particularly notorious chans once, and there were a bunch of pics of girls all the way to Lolitas to teenagers there. A lot of the girls are in very suggestive poses like with their legs spread very wide; however, they always had just enough clothing on. I mean a 10-12 year old girl wearing short shorts and doing a total split with her legs spread wide. There’s no actual nudity, but it’s very suggestive. I guess this sort of thing is legal, but it was definitely straddling the line. It was more weird, strange and funky than erotic. I was mostly thinking, “This is a bunch of bull!” and “Why would anyone want to look at that?”

The posts were split between channers who were posting this silliness and others who were opposed to it and were disturbed by the pics. Some of those disturbed by it were attacking the guys posting the stuff, calling them creepers, pedos and Chesters. A lot of the guys posting the stuff admitted that they had some sort of pedophilic or Lolita interest. Some of the girls were older and that looked ok, but a lot of them were Lolitas or even a bit younger and that was just freaky and disturbing. I read a few pages of it, and then I said screw this and left.

Supposedly people post real child porn on the chans sometimes. Some of my friends are big chan readers, and they say now and then someone posts illegal stuff. They usually get reported right away, and the stuff tends to get removed. Thing is, if you hang out on the chans, you are probably going to see some disturbing legal quasi-pedo stuff all the way to real illegal child porn. That’s a good reason to stay away from some of the more notorious chans right there. Who wants to see that stuff?

There are other chans that as far as I can tell never post anything like that. I get linked there sometimes, so I go to the sites. Even these chans are wild, wide open places full of all kinds of mostly young male and crazy posters. The whole idea is to post totally provocative things to rouse people up. A lot of it is very funny, but some is just disturbing.

For instance, you will be reading along and all of a sudden there is gay hardcore pornography of some guy sucking off another guy. Who wants to see that? Did I ask to see that? Or there might be some gore pic of something really horrible like someone getting his head blown off. And often racist posts, especially against Black people, will spring up out of nowhere. This results in a whole bunch of other really ugly anti-Black posts and some people jumping in to defend the Blacks. Some of the anti-Black stuff is funny, but most of it is just crude, rude and vicious. It’s not uncommon to see nasty anti-Semitism either.

On the more legit chans, you will never see any quasi-legal quasi-pedo stuff and of course there will not be any illegal child porn. Instead there will be quite a few pics of hot young chicks and some legal straight pornography. Even that is a bit weird as you will be reading along, and all of a sudden you get hit by hardcore porn out of nowhere.

Personally, I find the whole chan experience even on the legit chans to be quite disturbing. A lot of the posters are very mean and cruel to each other, and it’s a pretty adolescent atmosphere to say the least.

The whole idea of the chans is “anything goes.”

When a Man Wants a Woman, Not a Girl

Hussyfan writes:

Many men desire to boff a Lolita and would do a murder to bed one (litterally). There is a lot of demand for this, and some offer to accommodate that demand (child prostitution).

What he means is teenage girl prostitution, not the actual prostitution of girls 12-under. I agree that the two things are completely different.

I had sex with so many teenage girls between when I was aged 16-21 that I really don’t have any need to do sort of thing anymore, and it’s illegal anyway. It’s a been there, done that kinda thing.

How Did God’s Gift to Man Ever Get So Silly?

What was odd was that at the time I thought teenage girls were God’s gift to mankind (they did not seem the slightest bit immature to me in general), but as I get older and older, they seem more and more ridiculous, immature and utterly idiotic to me, and it’s an extreme turnoff. I am not sure I would do a 14-17 year old girl even if it was legal!

Even when I look at them, which I admit that I do, I am often thinking about the teenage girls I knew back in the day who were my friends and girlfriends. So even though it looks like I am checking them out, I am actually reminiscing about the old days rather than having lurid fantasies about some 2013 hottie. Sometimes the girl I am looking at even reminds me of a particular girl. My memories are wonderful, but I don’t wish to relive them.

Memories of Underdevelopment

13 year old’s really do look like little girls – especially those baby faces – and that’s an extreme turnoff. 14 year old girls are very interesting creatures, and they are starting to get a woman’s body, so any man wants to look at them more.

But in recent years, I have started to dislike underdeveloped teenage girls. A 14 year old girl’s body doesn’t look that great because it is not well developed yet. Their bodies still look sort of like sticks, and they are just not fully developed. Even a 15 year old girl does not yet have the full hourglass woman figure that a man loves, so even they sort of turn me off lately as underdeveloped. I like a girl best when she is fully developed with a full woman’s body, which appears probably around age 16 or so. 16-17 year old girls look as great as any grown woman.

Don’t Call Us Kids

I always hated calling teenagers “kids,” because it seemed to be such an insult to someone who is honestly neither a kid nor an adult. I hated it when I was a teenager and people called me a kid. I yelled at them, “I am not a child!” “Young man” and “young woman” seems so much more respectful. But every year as I get older, teenagers of both sexes seem more and like the “kids” that everyone calls them. It disturbs me to think of them this way because it seems insulting, but that’s how they seem as I grow older.

College Girls Really Are Girls

In the last five years or so, I have even increasingly found young women aged say 18-23 to be increasingly insipid, ridiculous, empty headed, immature, and idiotic. They literally seem like they have nothing in the brains, and their emotions seem vapid and poorly attuned. Although they are beautiful of course, and I love to look at them, almost all of them want nothing to do with me, and I am quite aware of that. I would not object to sex with one, but it’s not something that I honestly even care about at my age.

It’s gotten so bad that I even find some women in their late 20′s to be ridiculous, overemotional, immature and empty headed. I was involved with a 27 year old at one point in recent years (she was even talking about marrying me), and I started thinking she was a silly young woman. I liked her a lot, so it pained me to think of her that way, but that’s how it went. It’s amazing that women continue to mature emotionally even past the late 20′s!

Respect for the Older Woman

So yeah, I have a new respect for older women. Women age a lot worse than men physically. God is obviously a sexist male pig as far as most women are concerned, and he’s probably a misogynist too. A lot of women my age don’t look that great anymore, but some still do. Nevertheless, one has to be realistic. I do judge women on looks, but fair is fair. I judge a 45 year old woman based on 1-10 for other 45 year old women. You judge a 55 year old woman 1-10 compared to other 55 year olds.

I know a woman in her 60′s. I have known her well from age 62-66. From 62-65, she looked knock out, drop dead gorgeous. And I told her this on a regular basis. She always corrected me by saying, “But Bob, you’re crazy! I’m an old lady!” Yeah, a hot old lady! Recently she has been battling a very serious illness, and sadly she is at last starting to look her age. I would say for a 65-66 year old though, she looks damn good.

If you have a brain at all, you want someone you can talk to. You can’t have sex all day anyway, and at my age, a lot of people aren’t even doing it anymore. I have a very high IQ, and I like intelligent conversation. Teenage girls are disaster zones as far as that goes, and young women are not much better. I have befriended some college girls in recent years (platonic friendships), and I even found the extremely bright ones to be vapid, ridiculous, child-like and preposterous. Extreme turnoff. You’re much more likely to have an intelligent conversation with a woman late 20′s-up.

A Porn Revelation

The other day I was downloading porn. Yeah I still do that. I had a ton of movies on my drive over a few hours. I was literally going nuts, out of control, addicted. Then I sat back and realized what the Hell I had been doing. Most of the movies involved older women aged 40-60. True they were with younger partners (that’s all you need to know), but they were older for sure. And the older they were, the more I was into the movie! The ones where there were late 40′s into 50′s were hottest of all.

I lay back in my chair and blinked my eyes hard. My God, I had been searching older women porn for hours! What in the Hell had come over me? My jaw dropped. I was officially an old man now.

A Man Wants a Woman, Not a Girl

I am a dirty old man, and of course I have a taste for young women. But there comes a time in his life when a man wants a woman, not a girl. Grown women act way too much like empty-headed, idiotic, overemotional, immature teenage girls as it is. Why on Earth would you want the real thing, which is obviously orders of magnitude worse?

Restitution Sought for Child Porn Victims

Here.

Very interesting article about girls who were used to make child porn suing the men who downloaded the movies about them. They are collecting a lot of money in at least two cases. They especially like to go after child porn collectors who have a lot of money under the deep pockets theory of litigation.

The article discusses a lot of the legal controversies this is stirring up. There are legal thinkers on both sides of the fence arguing either that the child porn downloaders did no harm to the girls and hence owe nothing or that they did in fact harm them and hence can be sued.

One interesting argument said that if say 1,000 men were guilty of downloading a girl’s porn movie and the damages were $1 million, each man could only be sued for 1/1,000 the damages, or $10,000. This goes directly against deep pockets theory.

Both girls were abused by relatives, one by her father and another by her uncle. One of the girls’ movies has become legendary in child porn circles for the girl’s performance.

Persons collecting child pornography are doing heavy time these days. They are getting sentences of 5-25 years in prison, long terms that are in themselves controversial and which some view as excessive.

Feminism is Mental Illness: Are You a Rape Supporter?

From an insane feminist blog called Eve Bit First, we have a list to determine whether or not you are a rape supporter. If you check even one of these, you’re a rape supporter. If you check lots and lots of them, like I just did, well, you’re practically the reincarnated ghost of Ted Bundy.

All of this is standard radical feminism or gender feminism. Radical and gender feminism came with the Second Wave. Since then, there have been Third and Fourth Waves of feminist bullshit. Supposedly the 3rd and 4th waves differ somewhat from the lunatic 2nd wavers. Whether they would differ with any of the below is not known, but the author of this post, a femcunt psychobitch named Eve’s Daughter, is an explicit 3rd Waver, so I guess we can write off the 3rd Wave, boys! Also, it’s 3rd Waver nuts who invented the idiotic notion of “rape culture” to describe of all things, US culture.

Gender or radical feminism is deeply invested in hostility, rage, anger, etc. towards men. Many to most females who get involved in this stuff have varying degrees of man-hatred. Within the ranks of this group, you will find many women who are extreme man-haters.

The branch of feminism called lesbian feminism is particularly poisonous. That there are women who are lesbians simply because it is their nature is ok. However, many lesbians are lesbians by choice – political lesbians. A political lesbian is a woman who has become a lesbian because she hates men. In other words, she’s a Nazi. She’s a feminazi, a lesbonazi. If you hate men so much that you turned into a lesbian, then you’re a Nazi, plain and simple.

The Left has fallen head over heels in love with these diabolical man-hating Nazi psychos. Lesbonazis and feminazis are not acceptable anywhere. They are just as bad as misogynists, religious bigots, jingoist nationalists or racists. These are all varying types of Nazis. They hate people based on their gender, their religion, their nation of origin or their race.

Feminazism is wrong! Lesbonazism is wrong!

Bottom line is that modern feminism is poison. It’s a form of evil centering around hatred of men. It’s also a form of mental illness. Its arguments don’t even make sense.

One wonders what type of man would actually go along with this insanity. No real man could possibly agree with the insanity that is modern feminism. Only pussies and fags would ever go along with general feminism, and if you study the movement long enough, you realize that that is exactly what a lot of male gender feminists are!

A man is a rape-supporter if…

• He has ever sexually engaged with any woman while she was underage, drunk, high, physically restrained, unconscious, or subjected to psychological, physical, economic, or emotional coercion. Underage? Yes. Drunk? Certainly. High? Of course. The rest, no, but I had to think about the coercion thing long and hard.
• He defends the current legal definition of rape and/or opposes making consent a defense. Yes, I defend the current legal definition of rape.
• He has accused a rape victim of having “buyer’s remorse” or wanting to get money from the man. No.
• He has blamed a woman for “putting herself in a situation” where she “could be” attacked. I hate to say so, but yes.
• He has procured a prostitute. Yes, several times.
• He characterizes prostitution as a “legitimate” “job” “choice” or defends men who purchase prostitutes. Of course.
• He has ever revealed he conceives of sex as fundamentally transactional. Surely sex is transactional. Women from Old World cultures understand this truism of human nature very well.
• He has gone to a strip club. Sure.
• He is anti-abortion. No way.
• He is pro-”choice” because he believes abortion access will make women more sexually available. Of course that is why I support abortion silly!
• He frames discussions of pornography in terms of “freedom of speech.” Sure it is.
• He watches pornography in which women are depicted. No homo. If there ain’t no women in it, homeboy ain’t watchin’ it!
• He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present. Hmmm, Had to think about this one long and hard, but yes, I have watched porn like that before. Some of it bothers me a lot though. Some of the rest of it, sure it turns me on even though I have to admit it’s awful. But a lot of women like awful, that’s the thing, see?
• He characterizes the self-sexualizing behavior of some women, such as wearing make-up or high heels, as evidence of women’s desire to “get” a man. Of course that is why women wear stuff like that.
• He tells or laughs at jokes involving women being attacked, sexually “hoodwinked,” or sexually harassed. Not really. I don’t like such depictions.
• He expresses enjoyment of movies/musicals/TV shows/plays in which women are sexually demeaned or presented as sexual objects. Presented as sexual objects? Of course!
• He mocks women who complain about sexual attacks, sexual harassment, street cat-calls, media depictions of women, or other forms of sexual objectification. Not really, but a lot of “sexual harassment” is simply nonsense. All it means is “this beta/omega/zeta guy is acting sexual towards me.” So what! Men have a right to flirt with, try to pick up on and act sexual with whoever they want to!
• He supports sexual “liberation” and claims women would have more sex with (more) men if society did not “inhibit” them. Obviously this is true, but it’s more true in other countries. I believe it is definitely true in places like the Philippines. Those women are clearly inhibited by their society. And of course I support Sexual Liberation, and it’s capitalized, and there’s no quotes, bitch!
• He states or implies that women who do not want to have sex with men are “inhibited,” “prudes,” “stuck-up,” “man-haters,” or psychologically ill. Well, many lesbians are simply lesbians by choice. They have chosen to be lesbians due to their extreme, near-Nazi-like hatred of men. Many lesbians hate men the way Nazis hated Jews. This is not acceptable, and it is sick and wrong that society, and especially the Left, has demanded that we respect and give rights to feminazis and lesbonazis. If I want to refuse to hire a lesbonazi due to her insane hatred of men, that’s my choice. As far as the rest of it goes, I am not so sure. But prudishness and inhibition are going to be correlated with lower rates of heterosexual behavior in the female.
• He argues that certain male behaviors towards women are “cultural” and therefore not legitimate subjects of feminist attention. Male behaviors towards women are indeed cultural, and feminists can work themselves into a tizzy about anything they wish to.
• He ever subordinates the interests of women in a given population to the interests of the men in that population, or proceeds in discussions as if the interests of the women are the same as the interests of the men. No, women and men have different interests.
• He promotes religious or philosophical views in which a woman’s physical/psychological/emotional/sexual well-being is subordinated to a man’s. No.
• He describes female anatomy in terms of penetration, or uses terms referencing the supposed “emptiness” of female anatomy when describing women. Yes, but not the latter clause. I have never heard of anyone referring to women as being empty. A female is anything but empty kiddo.
• He defends the physical abuse of women on the grounds of “consent.” No, but it’s an odd argument. Who consents to be beaten? Weird.
• He defends the sexualization or sexual abuse of minor females on the grounds of “consent” or “willingness.” Yes, teenage girls have a right to have sex with teenage boys. I would extend that right all the way up to men aged 18-21 or so, but that’s just me. As far as the rest of it goes, the law is the law and sex with little girls is always wrong.
• He promotes the idea that women as a class are happier or more fulfilled if they have children, or that they “should” have children. Not sure about this one, but a lot of women want to have kids, bottom line, and they will just about kill to get one if they don’t have one. So obviously there is some biological imperative going on here.
• He argues that people (or just “men”) have sexual “needs.” We do, in fact. Believe it or not, women do too. Trust me on that one!
• He discusses the “types” of women he finds sexually appealing and/or attempts to demean women by telling them he does not find them sexually appealing. There are indeed types that I am attracted to. Unfortunately, there have been cases when there were women after me sexually. I had to tell them that I was not attracted to them. Sorry about that! Not really into demeaning people though.
• He sexually objectifies lesbians or lesbian sexual activity. Of course I do!
• He defends these actions by saying that some women also engage in them. Yes.

Porn Star Assaulted on Set

Here.

This is from 2004. The actress is Regan Starr, and the film is part of a series called Rough Sex put out by Anabolic Films. Anabolic Films makes gonzo porn movies that often push the envelope of what is acceptable.

The Rough Sex series was directed by a man named Khan Tusion who many feel is one of the worst men in porn. A lot of people, including me, think he ought to be in jail, at least for what he did during this scene with Starr. In addition, I also think the sleazebag Chris Alexander, head of Anabolic Films, should have been prosecuted for this case.

Khan Tusion is an LA real estate developer in addition to being a porn director. He is very rich and connected, and he has bought a lot of influential people in LA, so apparently he’s more or less untouchable.

In this scene, she was choked, pinched, slapped, punched repeatedly with fists, thrown over a man’s shoulder, in addition to being continuously insulted and verbally abused. It got so bad that she was in tears, hysterical and begging them to stop shooting.

They would not stop shooting. They kept shooting the scene all through her pleas to stop. At one point, they finally stopped shooting and paid her a $300 kill fee to shut up and not prosecute them. After she publicized the incident, she was boycotted by the porn industry.

The whole gruesome episode was not only caught on film but was actually left in for the movie which went on sale. At one point text rolls across the scene saying that the actress demanded the filming stop at this point.

Regan’s piece is followed by many interesting comments either defending or attacking either the actress or Khan. One post that I really enjoyed was one by a male who said that the guys defending Regan and urging prosecution of the sleazeballs were “feminists.” If so, then this is the sort of feminist I am. I’m on board with that feminism, whatever it’s called!

An outtake from the shooting is available (adults only please) on the extremely sleazy and offensive site Efukt. I have watched a few videos on there, but the site mostly just makes me sick.

This stuff is just sick, sick, sick, sick. Many porn actresses say that their work with Khan Tusion was the worst of their porn career. In an industry full of sleazeballs, he’s one of the worst. He’s clearly a sexual sadist.

I have seen some of his porn on the Net on a site I will not disclose, and it didn’t really bother me.

But he has another site up called Meatholes in which the women are badly abused similarly to what Regan went through. I haven’t watched any videos on that site, but people who have say that they can’t believe the material on that site is not illegal.

I feel that the porn industry is really pushing its luck with a lot of this nasty material.

This comment about sums up where I think the industry is headed if they don’t knock it off and cool this stuff down:

I was surfing the Internet researching this new explosion in “rough sex.” I find this explosion fascinating. Naturally, anyone of sound mental health would agree that the material being manifested by such exploiters as Khan Tusion repugnant. At the same time, there exists a considerable amount of men in this country who are viewing this material because of the ludicrous fantasy experience it purports.

Moreover, men with a proclivity for stimulus-seeking behavior might find this material unavoidable; they naturally will seek the most intense portrayal of pornography they can find. What is extremely disturbing is the widespread accessibility of this material to minors. What we as Americans might be seeing is a generation that is socialized to this violent material, creating a mass pornographic addiction.

This situation is analogous to George Jung’s attempts to flood the United States with cocaine in the 80′s. Surprisingly, for several years the market for coke survived relatively unscathed by the government. This new explosion may have a demand, but because of the blatantly pernicious psychological effects of its use, as the demand grows, the government will become privy to its existence.

As of today, no attempt to investigate the problem of obscenity on the Internet has been launched because of the instability of the current political climate. As journalists continue to publicize the traumatic stories of women being abused and manipulated by producers and directors of pornographic film, the public awareness of these issues will become more ubiquitous.

Once the government is aware of the materials’ widespread availability, it will be subject to legal action. What Americans have yet to see and will be happening in the future is the legal equivalent of an atomic bomb on Internet pornography. Currently, obscenity is not a priority for public policy. But, as the demand for this material grows, so will the public’s awareness of existence.

Naturally, this material will survive and thrive for a brief period. But, once recognized by Congress as a significant social problem, is will subject to a political blitzkrieg. In the meantime, websites such as Tusion Khan’s Meatholes will be brought into the public consciousness and be subject to wanton criticism.

Once in effect, people will spark a moral war against Internet pornographers, only to gather more supporters making it necessary for government action. As a result, the government will take the side of the moral right regardless of 1st Amendment contingencies because the material meets the criteria for legal obscenity.

Once this happens, the wheels will already be in motion, and it will be just a matter of time before the Government’s bureaucratic procedures launch a full-scale onslaught against people like Tusion Khan.

One Maniac, One Icepick

I am sorry I did not get to this story earlier. I started on a draft of it 3 weeks ago, but the story was so upsetting that I could not bring myself to write about it. Every time I would think about writing about it, I would get very nervous and would not be able to follow through on it. Finally, 3 weeks later, here is the story. There really is more to the story, but this short piece should be enough for now.

You may have already read about the Luka Magnotta case. Magnotta was the male model/porno star who murdered his gay male lover, chopped him into pieces, had sex with his body parts and his dead body, and ate his dead body, recording all of it on video. He uploaded the video and titled it One Maniac, One Icepick. Then he cut up his gay lover’s body and started mailing parts of the body to Canada’s political parties and to the Prime Minister.

An APB was put out for him after the body parts were found in a trash bag near his abandoned apartment in Montreal, Canada. He took off for Europe, stayed in Paris for a few days, part of the time with a gay man, then took off for Germany where he was caught in an Internet cafe reading stories about himself.

Magnotta had previously made a video in which he killed a kitten. Animal rights activists were trying to get him for that one. He was reportedly linked to psycho Karla Homolka, girlfriend of a Canadian serial killer who served 12 years in prison. However, these reports were in error, and it appears that he tried to link himself to Homolka as an act of sick publicity.

He claimed to be mostly straight in his private life and only “gay for pay” but that does not appear to be the case. Instead, he seems to have been mostly gay, hanging around in many gay bars and clubs, having a gay boyfriend who he killed in addition to staying with other gay men. He traveled all around the Northern Hemisphere and spent time in Europe.

In his male model photos, his eyes always look very cold and mean. He never looks nice or friendly. He’s apparently a sociopath, but he also has extreme narcissistic traits which are apparent during an interview with him for a Canadian newspaper. The interview was done before the killings. He set up number of very narcissistic webpages all about himself. On one of them named after his moniker, there is a great deal of psychologically aberrant material detailing resembling paranoia.

He’s definitely one sick cookie.

The movie is probably hard to find, and it’s one of the sickest movies ever made. Watch it if you dare. I haven’t the faintest idea where to find it, but you might look here, who knows?

Baby Porn – The Real Deal

Here.

An Ohio couple, Felicia and Cody Beemer of Trumbull County, Ohio, is charged with molesting 2 of their four babies and filming the rapes and then keeping videos and photos on their cellphones. Whoa! Baby porn! Not fake stuff like this, but the real thing. It’s hard to believe that people are this evil. I don’t get it. What’s wrong with these people anyway?

The woman is 21 years old, and she’s already had 4 kids! Each kid was immediately taken away from her right after it was born (but why?) but then she was allowed visits with the kids. One of the kids that was taken away from her in the past was given to a foster mother, Bonnie Pattison, who then murdered the kid! WTH? Why? Why did the foster mother murder the kid?

The couple also had over 500 photos of the babies watching videos of bestiality. The photos also showed the babies somehow involved in bestiality anyway. One of the kids is a boy and the other is a girl. One is 1 1/2 years old  and the other is 1 year old.

One wonders why the father was even allowed visits to the kids at all since he had  was convicted as a teenager of raping a 3 year old child! WTH? Good God, it doesn’t get any worse than this.

The father, 23, will probably spend the rest of his life behind bars.

How does one even go about raping a baby girl anyway. Penetrate her vagina with your fingers or with objects? Anything else. How the Hell do you rape a baby boy? I’m not even sure I want to know.

One more thing for folks interested in the racial angle. Both of them are White people!

Man Reports Child Porn on Net to Police, Gets Busted

It appears that no good deed goes unpunished.

A man was trying to download music from a website, probably a torrent or megaupload site. After he downloaded the “music,” he found that it wasn’t music at all, instead it was child porn. He reported it to the police, and he was subsequently banned from being alone with his daughter (the man is married)!

Reminiscent of this insane case:

A former soldier who handed a discarded shotgun in to police faces at least five years imprisonment for “doing his duty”.

Paul Clarke, 27, was found guilty of possessing a firearm at Guildford Crown Court on Tuesday – after finding the gun and handing it personally to police officers on March 20 this year.

The jury took 20 minutes to make its conviction, and Mr Clarke now faces a minimum of five year’s imprisonment for handing in the weapon.

You wonder why people even help the police at all anymore. I called police to report possibly child abuse in my apartment complex in the form of a 10-12 year old girl possibly being prostituted out by her gang member mother and boyfriend. The cops made me out to be a criminal, and it seemed like they also suspected me of being a child molester myself! They also acted like they didn’t even want to investigate the case.