Monthly Archives: June 2014

Robert Stark Interviews Dick Smothers, Jr.

Here.

Richard Smothers is actually a good friend of mine. A girlfriend and I had lunch and then dinner with him a while back when he stopped by my town. He is also a sometime commenter on this blog. He is also the son of Dick Smothers of the famous Smothers Brothers.

Here are the list of topics:

Robert Stark interviews former porn star Dick Smothers Jr.

Topics include:

  1. Growing up the son of Dick Smothers of the Smothers Brothers and how he had a fairly normal childhood.
  2. Why being a porn star was not his main dream growing up.
  3. His rock band Kamikaze and his 80′s tribute band.
  4. Why he likes to create what he performs.
  5. The corporate environment of the music franchise.
  6. Why there’s more independence in the porn Industry.
  7. Why the porn industry resembles the publication industry rather than the film industry.
  8. How his first porn debut was in a Showtime softcore series My First Time.
  9. The softcore genre.
  10. His preference for couples scene and the genres he refused to act in.
  11. Abusive and degrading genres of porn and how girls are often coerced into those films.
  12. How guys like Max Hardcore harm the industry.
  13. How the porn industry includes both kind and abusive individuals.
  14. His appearance on Howard Stern’s show.
  15. Luke Ford and his observations on individuals in the industry.
  16. People who are traumatized or have long term psychological problems from porn.
  17. Dating women in porn.
  18. A dominatrix film he refused to act in.
  19. Why he was considered straight-laced by the standards of the porn industry.
  20. Why he wanted to be a positive male representative of the industry.
  21. The interview with Reuters were he said he wanted to be the Orson Wells of porn.
  22. Why there needs to be more creativity in porn.
  23. How porn becoming more accessible has harmed the profits of the industry.
  24. Why there’s a mean streak in America and how that influences its porn.
  25. Why he left the industry.
  26. The AIDS Scare and how the industry is regulated for STD’s.
  27. The types of men who act in porn.
  28. The culture of narcissistic celebrity culture in America.
  29. His advice to someone looking to get into porn.

11 Comments

Filed under Celebrities, Cinema, Pornography, Sex

Are Loners Shy or Misanthropic?

Anon writes:

OH, a final thought: it’s the same way with friendship. A lot of people are loners because they feel like the world is full of terrible people as a result of their experiences, and they become generally misanthropic. But that doesn’t mean they don’t get lonely.

Female myths in bold below.

Extrovert myths in italic below.

I think a lot of loners are very nice people, often men, but they are just very shy. When they try to talk to people or make friends, people rejected them about a million times, so I figure a lot of them have just given up trying to talk to people or make friends. They think about going over to talk to that girl, remember what happened the last 4,000 times they tried that, figure she’s just going to reject him like all the others, so they just say forget it, “Why should I try if I know I am going to fail?” A lot of these people say they have tried everything they can think of, and they still just get shot down endlessly. I really don’t blame them for just giving up. I probably would too.

There are some misanthropic loners out there, but I haven’t met many of them. I can’t remember the last time I met a misanthropic loner. Most of the misanthropes I know are extroverts. A lot of loners are just people who really like to be alone. The other very large group is the super shy, nice guy type who has been rejected 1,000 too many times, and now he’s given up.

I think the loner = extrovert thing is largely a myth created by extroverts. That guy’s alone all the time – he obviously hates people!

And it’s also a myth created by women – shy, anxious, nerdy, loner, meek = serial killer!

It’s completely insane since almost all serial killers are wild extroverts like all psychopaths, but this is the insane way women actually think.

I think if people would just give a lot of these “loner” guys a chance, they might be surprised at how friendly, sociable, and even extroverted they can be. And a lot of them are probably pretty good at sex too. Problem is no one wants to take a chance on these guys.

If most or many times you go to talk to someone or approach a woman, there is a positive response, the person will continue to try to be friendly or approach women. He sees a woman, thinks about approaching her and figures, well, this often works out pretty well, so I think I will try here.

6 Comments

Filed under Personality, Psychology, Romantic Relationships

Yet Another Female Myth

Anon writes:

What you’re seeing here is a biased audience. Men who are able to get a woman are happy and don’t have any reason to go online communing with other men over how happy they are with women. It’s when a problem arises for someone that they feel the need to vent. These men complaining about women are the ones who strike out a lot and have been hurt as a result. Of course they still want a woman biologically, but they’ve been rejected so many times they can’t bring themselves to actually trust a woman.

Many women get like this about men, too, when they’ve been rejected a lot or had a lot of relationships that ended poorly. My mother was like that, she ascribed to the “men are pigs who needs them” doctrine but as soon as a dashing cowboy started courting her she was all over him, it was gross. XP

So no, I don’t think loving and hating women go hand in hand. I think that rejection is hard for people to deal with and leads to hatred, but regardless your biology doesn’t change.

Female myths are in bold. This is the typical female response.

Any man complaining about women obviously isn’t getting laid or can’t get laid.

But that is so untrue! Because many of the biggest players of all are the worst misogynists you ever met! Have you noticed how misogynistic so many pornographers are? Those guys get more pussy than your average army battalion and they’re misogynist as Hell. Go to the PUA sites like Roissy and Roosh. Those guys are drowning in pussy and so are a lot of their commenters and the misogyny is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

And I happen to have a girlfriend right now, and until recently, I actually had 2 girlfriends. Which is not unusual. In my life, I have dated maybe 200 women and girls. So as you can see, I can’t get laid! And not only that, but it’s a lifelong condition!

I understand females very well and have had a universe of great experiences with them.

All  men have problems with women, all of them. It’s universal. All  married men complain about women, whether they are getting tons of sex or whether they haven’t had sex with their wives in 20 years. It’s universal male behavior.

As far as loving women and hating them, I do not see a lot of that. But you can certainly love the positive half of the female essence for all it’s worth while disdaining the negative half on some level or better yet, accepting it for what it is and that it is not changeable and then ignoring it.

Loving women and hating women both require a lot of energy.

If you have decided that you want to love them (focus on the positive side) then you won’t have much energy left over to hate them.

And having been around a lot of misogynists, I do not think they love women very much, sorry. Hating women takes a lot of energy. You probably wouldn’t have enough left over to invest in truly loving them, which is expensive energy-wise.

2 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Women

Do Desire for Women and Hatred for Them Go Together?

Steve wrote:

…not that desire of women and hatred of them usually go together.

You know, I went to that PUAhate site that was famous due to the Eliot Rodger case. There were all these incel guys screaming and yelling and complaining about women. They had a right to complain as women were treating these guys pretty horribly. They would go and get a new job, buy new clothes, buy a new car, go to the gym, do all the crap you are supposed to do to get a woman, and it was all to no avail. No woman would even look at them. There was the usual, “They only like assholes, they don’t like nice guys.”

Then they would post pictures of these porn stars and beautiful models, and they would be drooling all over them like wow I sure would like to fuck that! I was thinking, “Wait, I thought these guys hated women?”

I told a friend of mine about that and he said, “Well, that’s just normal. All guys are like that.”

“Like what?”

“Well all normal guys pretty much hate women because of how they act, but then on the other hand, if they are heterosexual, they are also horny as Hell and they want to fuck them really bad.”

So there is that desire for women going together with hatred for them thing.

Personally, I would prefer to get outside the misogyny thing as I think it goes nowhere and is not productive, adaptive or helpful and it’s a lot more fun to love them than to hate them. But I get where misogynists are coming from. Misogyny is not mysterious, unfortunately.

25 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Little or None, Man World, Psychology, Romantic Relationships, Sex

Robert Burns, “Tam O Shanter”

This poem was written in and is being read in a language called Scots, which is not a dialect of English as many people think. Scots split off from English in ~1500, or 500 years ago. This is approximately what two languages sound like when they have been split apart for 500 years. I listened to this, although I can make out some words and even phrases here and there, honestly, I do not have the faintest idea what he is talking about, and I am missing most of this language. I can hear ~25% of it, if that.  However, a good friend of mine from England listened to it and she said she could make out ~70%. So there you go. See if you can make heads or tails of this stuff.

7 Comments

Filed under Balto-Slavic-Germanic, English language, Germanic, Indo-European, Language Families, Linguistics, Literature, Poetry, Scots

The Money Shot

Not Robert Stark asked:

Why do some pornos depict men ejaculating onto women’s faces? Do you consider that violence?

I do not know. Personally I think it all about degradation and humiliation of the woman. It could also be a way of “marking the man’s territory”. He is marking her as his. Some people interpret it as an intense act of love. It doesn’t seem that way to me, but if you want to view it like that, be my guest. Personally, I think it is totally disgusting and gross, but on the other hand, it really turns me on at the same time.

Quite a few women really hate a guy cumming on their face, and they will get very mad if you do that to them. They will get so mad, you would think they are going to beat you up. I mean hopping furious.

That said, there are quite a few women who like that sort of thing. There are also a lot of women who like to be dominated, debased, degraded, humiliated and treated like complete whores and sluts.

17 Comments

Filed under Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Pornography, Sex

HIV

Everybody knows that pestilences have a way of recurring in the world; yet somehow we find it hard to believe in ones that crash down on our heads from a blue sky. There have been as many plagues as wars in history; yet always plagues and wars take people equally by surprise.

― Albert Camus, The Plague

1 Comment

Filed under Health, Illness, Philosophy

Most Important Public Health Measure of the Last 200 Years

On a radio show, a public health professional was asked what was the most significant public health measure taken in the past couple of centuries. He barely hesitated when he said, “Getting the shit out of the water.”

Cholera, typhoid, dysentery, hepatitis…

You got it.

17 Comments

Filed under Health, Public Health

Feminism Is Fighting a War Against Reality

From the ridiculous, idiotic PC-Left site FSTDT. In this case, the feminist branch of the PC nutcases jumps in.

They posted this comment from Dalrock’s site below. Dalrock is a fundamentalist Protestant Christian Manosphere site. I really do not mind it so much, and it isn’t particularly misogynistic as far as Manosphere sites go.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.

Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.) Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.

Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Once you see them realistically for what they are, with their own pros and cons, you can A) decide with open eyes whether you want to risk shackling yourself to one, and B) enjoy their company more in general. I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

The FSTDT feminist lunatics then pile all over this poor guy with the usual feminist bullshit. First of all, they call him a misogynist. While there are some comments in this post that I would not agree with, I do not feel that this post is particularly misogynistic, particularly in terms of the Manosphere. In fact, I think for the Manosphere, this is a pretty pro-woman post. Let’s go over it.

The problem with seeing women as “badly broken” is that it leads logically into, “But they can’t all be broken. So I just need to keep looking until I find a Nice Girl, and she’ll like me for being clean and kind.” Or a guy thinks if he can just get his crush to listen to reason or get some therapy or something, she can be “fixed” and lose that attraction to bad boys.

Women aren’t broken, they’re just women. (Or to put it another way, they’re broken by Original Sin, and have been since Eve, so it applies to every single one of them until the Second Coming, so accept it as their nature and deal with it.)

The FSTDT folks are ripping him to shreds for this one, and he sort of deserves it. They are saying that this shows how religious men hate women, but his views are not limited to fundamentalist Christianity. The view he is espousing here is typical of the Manosphere and unfortunately, it is typical of men in general. How do I know this? I have been talking to men my whole life.

It’s wrong to say that women are broken, or, if they are, that they can be fixed. They aren’t really broken, and yet they also can’t be fixed. They are what they are. From male eyes, women do seem crazy. If you want to call it broken, go ahead, but I would not use those terms. This is simply how they are. They are born this way. This “crazy” behavior is due to their genes, hormones and probably culture too. There is nothing to be done with it, so you have to accept the fact that this is just the way they are, and they cannot change. That’s called acceptance.

Your great-grandmother didn’t reject the thugs and layabouts and settle down with that nice farm boy because she had no desire for bad boys, adventure, or independence. She did it because her desires were restrained, by laws, conventions, upbringing, religion, and economic realities. Those restraints are now gone, so we’re seeing them in the wild, as it were.

This is a major complaint of the Manosphere, that females are attracted to bad boys. Well, of course they are. Have they always been? Probably. Attraction to bad boys is probably in their inborn nature. They have evolved this way for some reason.

And in the past, women were forced away from their bad boy preferences by society, religion, economics, law, convention, and family. All correct. Therefore, a lot of non-bad boy men could easily marry. Now all of the constraints against women going for bad boys are gone, so the Manosphere says we are seeing women going for bad boys in droves (unchecked hypergamy). I assume they are probably correct in this analysis though it’s hard for me to tell on the ground due to my age.

Females have been going for and preferring bad boys my whole life. I am very familiar with this behavior. However, since I got a somewhat bad boy image myself early in life, this ended up being a good thing for me. But it’s not a lie. And at my age, mid-50’s, women are continuing to chase bad boys and give nice guys the bird. Some things never change.

The FSTDT morons, like all feminist fools, say that the “bad boy” thing is a great big myth. Probably if you ask most women, they will insist that that it is a myth. Many of these women will probably be bad boy chasers themselves or will be currently involved with a bad boy.

This is because women have no self-awareness. They don’t even understand themselves, they don’t understand men, and they don’t understand other women. This is because they live in fantasyland and refuse to accept reality. They have also gotten the Denial defense down to a fine art.

Yes, women like bad boys. Solution: become a bad boy! That’s what I have done.

Guys need to get past being angry at women for not being men with breasts, or thinking they can be fixed. Think of them as flighty little birds, pretty to look at and pleasant to have around. Their song can be enchanting, but it wears on you after a while. They can be fierce in defense of their nest, but otherwise are easily frightened and swayed by emotion. They’re soft and warm and cuddly, and great to have around for some things, but terrible at others. They need constant care and guidance, and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Right. Women are not men. Despite what feminist idiots say, women are incredibly different from men. Sometimes I think we are like people from two different planets. But once you accept that or learn to love that, you can get along with them pretty well. Women can be immensely flighty, moody and emotionally all over the place. All of this behavior is magnified immensely when a women is in love or in a sexual relationship. Sex and love magnify women’s nuttiness to a profound degree.

If you understand this, then it won’t freak you out when the women you are screwing or who is in love with you is acting crazy. She’s acting nuts because she loves you, silly! It also true that women vary in their flightiness and emotionality.

Women are nice to look at and they can be fun to have around when they are being pleasant. Their song can be enchanting indeed. Does it wear on you? Not on me, but what wears on me is the regular if not continuous drama and chaos that ensues during a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman. Daily emotional crises can be pretty hard to deal with for a man who prides himself on emotional control. Yes, women will defend their children nearly to death. Women are indeed easily frightened and of course they are wildly swayed by emotion. This intense emotionality, an essential feature of the female, is alien to most males and is the main reason men call women “crazy.”

They can be very soft, warm and cuddly, correct. They are very useful for certain things and nothing but a huge hindrance when it comes to others, especially when their emo storms are trashing whatever project you are trying to accomplish.

A woman in love absolutely needs constant care and guidance, in particular care. Men ignore this at their own risk. A lot of men simply do not want to give women the proper care and nurturance that they require. If she’s not getting it from you, she might just try to get it elsewhere. It is not in men’s nature to care for or nurture females all the time. Nevertheless, you need to learn how to do this or at least fake it very well. If you don’t, your relationships with women will always have problems.

and should rarely be required to make a decision more taxing than what to cook for lunch.

Wow, that’s a nasty one, but I see why he says it. I think women can make excellent decisions. In my family, during crises or difficult times that required serious decision-making, my mother was often much better than my father. This is because in any crisis, my father simply panicked, flipped out, started screaming and yelling at everyone and always chose “We will do absolutely nothing” as the correct decision for the difficult situation. In other words, he chose stasis or inertia. That was almost always a terrible decision, and some form of action was usually required. So he would get overruled by my mother

There is another problem here that the lunatic feminist idiots will never admit to. When you have a romantic/sexual relationship with a woman, you might be tempted to let her make a lot of decisions. That might be a terrible idea. If she wants to make decisions, let her go ahead. But if she seems to hesitate or looks lost, go ahead and make the decision yourself. Careful studies have shown that relationships where men make most of the decisions are much more stable than relationships where women make most of the decisions.

Why is this? Women say they want decision-making power, but as usual, they are lying to themselves. They really don’t. They want a strong, powerful man to make up their minds for them. And if the man seems weak and unable to make up her mind for her, she will be forced to make decisions for herself, which she resents. She will see him as too weak to make decisions for the both of him, and his weakness will anger her and cause problems in the relationship. PC idiots will never admit things like this, but it is actually true and you ignore this truth at your own risk.

I find women much more enjoyable, even delightful sometimes, now that I’m not always mystified by what they do or wishing they’d stop being weird and act “normal.”

Exactly. You see, he has come to accept women for what they are. They no longer surprise him or freak him out. He no longer expects them to act like guys with tits. He is no longer baffled or puzzled by what seems to be crazy behavior. He understands women and accepts them for what they are and knows they cannot be changed. And in acceptance lies peace of mind.

It is unfortunate that he describes women’s behavior as weird and not normal, but that is exactly the way any reasonable man sees women’s behavior – it’s nuts. Does that mean women are weird or abnormal? I do not think so, and women’s behavior is very normal for a woman – it is exactly the way we expect a female to act. Are women weird? Well, they seem weird to men, let’s put it that way.

36 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Feminism, Gender Studies, Left, Man World, Psychology, Religion, Romantic Relationships, Sane Pro-Woman, Women

Obama Decides to Double Down on the Crazy

From the Cuba List, my comments follow:

Deranged Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Carl Levin (D-MI) have already jumped to support this. Rubio: “This is long overdue and the US must lead…and take the fight directly to Bashar al-Assad.” Levin: “In light of recent events in Iraq and Syria, this is appropriate spending,” Where does your Rep stand on this vote? Ask them! Obama seeks 500M dollars to train, equip Syrian rebels Agence France-Presse, June 27, 2014

WASHINGTON – The White House asked lawmakers Thursday for $500 million to train and equip vetted Syrian rebels, in what would be a significant escalation of US involvement in a conflict that has spilled into Iraq.

Following several signals in recent weeks by President Barack Obama’s administration — and months of pressure from lawmakers like Senator John McCain — the White House said it intends to “ramp up US support to the moderate Syrian opposition.”

The request is part of a $1.5 billion Regional Stabilization Initiative to bolster stability in Syrian neighbors Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and to support communities hosting refugees.

The proposed funding would serve “vetted elements of the Syrian armed opposition to help defend the Syrian people, stabilize areas under opposition control, facilitate the provision of essential services, counter terrorist threats and promote conditions for a negotiated settlement,” the White House said in a statement.

The proposal was part of the $65.8 billion overseas contingency operations request to Congress for fiscal year 2015, which begins October 1.

While US officials normally publicly refuse to comment on details of training for opposition groups, Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice acknowledged early this month that the Pentagon was providing “lethal and non-lethal support” to Syrian rebels.

About $287 million in mainly non-lethal support has been cleared for the rebels since March 2011, and the CIA has participated in a secret military training program in neighboring Jordan for the moderate opposition.

The Syria initiative received tepid support from at least one Republican lawmaker, Senator Marco Rubio, who has been a fierce critic of what the Obama administration&# 39;s “rudderless foreign policy.”

“This is long overdue and the US must lead, with European and regional partners, in helping to develop a cadre of fighters who will alienate ISIL and Al-Nusra Islamic extremists, and take the fight directly to Bashar al-Assad,” Rubio said.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, a Democrat, said a similar funding request in the defense authorization bill received broad bipartisan support in his committee.

“In light of recent events in Iraq and Syria, this is appropriate spending,” Levin said

This shows the sheer insanity of US foreign policy. If something doesn’t work, double down on it!

Since ISIS rampaged through Northern Iraq in the past few weeks, there has been a lot of talk about exactly how this happened. The US has been accused of aiding and training ISIS. Actually, this is sort of a false accusation.

The truth is that the US probably did little in the way of training and aiding ISIS. However, US allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been shoveling money at them and Turkey has been giving them a home base inside Turkey. When ISIS attacked an Armenian town in northwest Turkey, Turkish artillery helped cover their assault on the town.

US and NATO advisors are present all over this part of Turkey where those shells come from, where ISIS is aided and trained and where their rearguard bases are. So while Washington is not directly aiding ISIS (except for a small group of them in Jordan) it is more correct to say that the US has been holding our nose and looking the other way while our allies have been aiding and training ISIS, Al-Nusra and the rest of the Islamists.

The US brainwash media Lie Machine is making it look like Obama is just now asking Congress to aid the Syrian rebels, whereas before we gave them nothing but nonlethal aid. It is indeed correct that officially the US has been giving the Syrian rebels nothing but nonlethal aid. However, all this time the CIA has been running a Black Budget campaign designed to arm and train the Syrian rebels. A lot of the training is taking place in Jordan.

It was often said that the CIA money was mostly going to the moderate Free Syrian Army rebels. This is probably true, but the FSA is now much diminished. 2/3 of the rebels are Islamists, and the FSA only makes up 1/3 of the armed opposition.

Many Left writers say that the FSA does not even exist anymore, but that does not seem to be the case. A lot of the arms given to the FSA somehow seem to have gotten into the hands of the Islamists, however. And the general mass aid flow to the Syrian rebels, either to the FSA or the Islamists, seems to have somehow in some way or other empowered the Islamists. So in some roundabout way all that aid pouring in to the Syrian rebels is in large part responsible for the growth of ISIS, Al-Nusra and the Islamic Front.

What is really happening here is Obama is taking the arming of the Syrian rebels out of the hands of the CIA and giving it to the State Department. It is going from an off-budget Black Budget secret CIA program to an official US government above board project.

But it won’t work any better this time than it did last time. Last time all it did was create and empower ISIS and the other radical Islamists, and this time it will do exactly the same thing.

So US foreign policy is truly insane.

  1. Syria: In effect, support ISIS and other Islamists to attack and destroy Syria and hopefully oust Assad. If Assad cannot be ousted, the destruction of Syria (an enemy state) will suffice.
  2. Iraq: Attack and destroy the very same ISIS and Islamists that are being created in Syria when they logically overrun much of Iraq.
  3. Support for ISIS in Syria will strengthen ISIS in Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, where they will do nothing but cause problems for these countries.

4 Comments

Filed under Democrats, Europe, Government, Iraq, Islam, Jordan, Middle East, Military Doctrine, Obama, Politics, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Republicans, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, US Politics, USA, War