Category Archives: Heterosexuality

“Race and Psychopathic Personality,” by Richard Lynn

I am getting rather tired about having this argument about whether Blacks, or Black males in particular, are more antisocial than men of other races. People are pushing back against this in the comments section. This really ought to be the final word on the subject.

Original here.

For as long as official statistics have been kept, blacks in white societies have been overrepresented in all indices of social pathology: crime, illegitimacy, poverty, school failure, and long-term unemployment. The conventional liberal explanation for this is white “racism,” past and present, which has forced blacks into self-destructive choices.

More clear-headed observers, however, have sought a partial explanation in the low average IQ of blacks. Low IQ can lead to crime because less intelligent children do poorly at school and fail to learn the skills needed to get well-paid jobs or even any job. Unemployment is therefore two to three times higher among blacks than whites. People without jobs need money, have relatively little to lose by robbery or burglary, and may therefore commit property crimes. The association between low intelligence and crime holds for whites as well, among whom the average IQ of criminals is about 84.

Nevertheless, as Charles Murray and the late Richard Herrnstein showed in their book The Bell Curve, low IQ cannot entirely explain a black crime rate that is six-and-a-half times the white rate. When blacks and whites are matched for IQ, blacks still commit crimes at two-and-a-half times the white rate. This shows that blacks must have some other characteristic besides low intelligence that explains their high levels of criminality.

Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray found the same race and IQ relationship for social problems other than crime: unemployment, illegitimacy, poverty, and living on welfare. All of these are more frequent among blacks and are related to low IQ, and low IQ goes some way towards explaining them, but these social problems remain greater among blacks than among whites with the same IQ’s. Low intelligence is therefore not the whole explanation.

Prof. Herrnstein and Dr. Murray did not offer any suggestions as to what the additional factors responsible for the greater prevalence of these social problems among blacks might be. They concluded only that “some ethnic differences are not washed away by controlling for either intelligence or for any other variables that we examined. We leave those remaining differences unexplained and look forward to learning from our colleagues where the explanations lie” (p. 340).

Psychopathic Personality

I propose that the variable that explains these differences is that blacks are more psychopathic than whites. Just as racial groups differ in average IQ, they can also differ in average levels of other psychological traits, and racial differences in the tendency towards psychopathic personality would explain virtually all the differences in black and white behavior left unexplained by differences in IQ.

Psychopathic personality is a personality disorder of which the central feature is lack of a moral sense. The condition was first identified in the early Nineteenth Century by the British physician John Pritchard, who proposed the term “moral imbecility” for those deficient in moral sense but of normal intelligence.

The term psychopathic personality was first used in 1915 by the German psychiatrist Emile Kraepelin and has been employed as a diagnostic label throughout the Twentieth Century.

In 1941 the condition was described by Hervey Cleckley in what has become a classic book, The Mask of Sanity. He described the condition as general poverty of emotional feelings, lack of remorse or shame, superficial charm, pathological lying, egocentricity, a lack of insight, absence of nervousness, an inability to love, impulsive antisocial acts, failure to learn from experience, reckless behavior under the influence of alcohol, and a lack of long-term goals.

In 1984 the American Psychiatric Association dropped the term psychopathic personality and replaced it with Antisocial Personality Disorder. This is an expression of the increasing sentimentality of the second half of the twentieth century in which terms that had acquired negative associations were replaced by euphemisms.

There are other examples. Mentally retarded children are now called “slow learners” or even “exceptional children;” aggressive children now have “externalizing behaviors;” prostitutes are “sex workers;” tramps are now “the homeless,” as if their houses were destroyed by earthquake; and people on welfare are “clients” of social workers. However, the term psychopathic personality remains useful.

While psychopathic personality is a psychiatric disorder, it has long been regarded as the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population. In this respect it is like other psychiatric disorders. For instance, severe depression is a psychiatric disorder, but everyone feels depressed sometimes, and some normal people are depressed more often and more severely than others. It is the same with psychopathic personality. There are degrees of moral sense throughout the population, and psychopaths are the extreme group.

There is a difference between blacks and whites—analogous to the difference in intelligence—in psychopathic personality considered as a personality trait. Both psychopathic personality and intelligence are bell curves with different means and distributions among blacks and whites. For intelligence, the mean and distribution are both lower among blacks. For psychopathic personality, the mean and distribution are higher among blacks. The effect of this is that there are more black psychopaths and more psychopathic behavior among blacks.

In 1994 the American Psychiatric Association issued a revised Diagnostic Manual listing 11 features of Antisocial Personality Disorder:

(1) inability to sustain consistent work behavior;

(2) failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behavior [this is a euphemism for being a criminal];

(3) irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by frequent physical fights and assaults;

(4) repeated failure to honor financial obligations;

(5) failure to plan ahead or impulsivity;

(6) no regard for truth, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or “conning” others;

(7) recklessness regarding one’s own or others’ personal safety, as indicated by driving while intoxicated or recurrent speeding;

(8) inability to function as a responsible parent;

(9) failure to sustain a monogamous relationship for more than one year;

(10) lacking remorse;

(11) the presence of conduct disorder in childhood.

This is a useful list. Curiously, however, it fails to include the deficiency of moral sense that is the core of the condition, although this is implicit in virtually every feature of the disorder. All of these behaviors are more prevalent among blacks than among whites and suggest that blacks have a higher average tendency towards psychopathic personality.

Questionnaires can be used to measure psychopathic personality in normal populations. The first to be constructed was the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), which was devised in the 1930’s. This instrument consists of a series of scales for the measurement of a variety of psychiatric conditions regarded as continuously distributed in the population, such as hysteria, mania and depression, and includes the Psychopathic Deviate Scale for the measurement of psychopathic personality.

During the 65 or so years following its publication, the MMPI has been administered to a great many groups. Mean scores have been published by different investigators for a number of samples of blacks, whites, Asian-Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. All of these studies show a consistent pattern: Blacks and Indians have the highest psychopathic scores. Hispanics come next followed by whites. Ethnic Japanese and Chinese have the lowest scores. The same rank order of racial groups is found for all the expressions of psychopathic personality listed by the American Psychiatric Association, and these differences are found in both children and adults.

Conduct Disorder

The terms psychopathic personality and Anti-social Personality Disorder, however, are not used for children or young adolescents up to the age of 15 years. They are instead said to have conduct disorders. The principal criteria set out by the American Psychiatric Association (1994) for a diagnosis of Conduct Disorder are persistent stealing, lying, truancy, running away from home, fighting, arson, burglary, vandalism, sexual precocity, and cruelty. Childhood Conduct Disorder is therefore an analogue of psychopathic personality in older adolescents and adults. A number of studies have shown that Conduct Disorder in children is a frequent precursor of psychopathic behavior.

Studies have found that the prevalence of conduct disorders is about twice as high among blacks as among whites. This is the case not only in the United States but also in Britain and the Netherlands. Other racial groups also differ in the prevalence of conduct disorders among children. As with all the other expressions of psychopathic personality, conduct disorders are frequent among American Indians.

Children with conduct disorders are sometimes suspended or expelled from school because of constant misbehavior, particularly aggression. In both the United States and Britain, black children are disciplined in this way three or four times as frequently as white children, while East Asians have low discipline rates. In misbehavior in schools as in so much else, East Asians are the “model minority.” In the United States, Indians have a high discipline rate.

Lack of honesty is one of the core features of the psychopathic personality, and one measure of this characteristic is the default rates on student loans. About half of American college students take out loans, but not all graduates repay them. The 1987 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study consisting of 6,338 cases reports default rates as follows: whites—5 percent, Hispanics—20 percent, American Indians—45 percent, blacks—55 percent.

Bad credit ratings also reflect a failure to honor financial obligations. A report by Freddie Mac of 12,000 households in 1999 found the highest percentage of poor credit ratings was among blacks (48 percent). The next highest was among Hispanics (34 percent), while whites had the lowest at 27 percent.

Psychopathic personality is the extreme expression of a personality trait that is continuously distributed throughout the population.

A prominent feature of psychopathic personality is a high level of aggression, which is expressed in a number of ways including homicide, robbery, assault, and rape. All of these are crimes, so racial and ethnic differences appear in crime rates. High black crime rates have been documented by Jared Taylor and the late Glayde Whitney in The Color of Crime. For homicide, rates for black males are about six times the white rate, and for black females they are about four times higher. The homicide rate for East Asians is about half that of whites. The high homicide rate of blacks is also found in South Africa, and homicide is generally higher in black countries than in white and East Asian countries.

As regards other crimes, the robbery rate for blacks is about twelve times the white rate, while the assault rate is about five times higher. The high black rates for these crimes are followed in descending order by Hispanics, American Indians, whites and East Asians. The rate for rape is about five-and-a-half times greater for blacks than whites, and two to three times greater among Hispanics and Indians as compared to whites, while East Asians commit rape at about half the white rate.

Domestic violence shows the same race differences. Severe violence by husbands against wives is about four times more common among blacks as whites. Black wives assault their husbands at about twice the white rate. American Indians assault their spouses even more often than blacks do. High crime rates among blacks have been found not only in the United States but also in Britain, France, Canada and Sweden.

A prominent feature of psychopathic personality is an inability to form stable long-term loving relationships. David Lykken, a leading expert on psychopathic personalities, writes of the psychopath’s “undeveloped ability to love or affiliate with others,” and Robert Hare, another leading expert, writes that “psychopaths view people as little more than objects to be used for their own gratification” and “equate love with sexual arousal.”

Marriage is the most explicit expression of long-term love, and a number of studies have shown that blacks attach less value to marriage than whites. Questionnaire surveys have found that blacks are less likely than whites to agree that “marriage is for life.” Two American sociologists, R. Staples and L. B. Johnson, write that “Blacks do not rank marriage as highly as whites” and that “Black Americans’ acceptance of this form of relationship is inconsistent with their African heritage.”

In a study of an American sample of 2,059 married people, C. L. Broman found that “blacks are significantly less likely to feel that their marriages are harmonious and are significantly less likely to be satisfied with their marriages.” Other studies of racial and ethnic differences in attitudes have found that whites think about marriage more often than blacks and have a stronger desire than blacks to find the right marriage partner. There are also racial differences in rates of cohabitation, which also reflects a commitment to a long-term relationship. A survey of 24-to 29-year-olds in Britain found that 68 percent of whites had cohabited but only 38 percent of blacks.

Blacks in the United States, Britain, France and the Caribbean are less likely than whites to marry or enter into stable relationships. In an American survey of 18-to 64-year-olds carried out from 1990 to 1996, 61 percent of whites were married but only 35 percent of blacks. The most likely to be married were East Asians (66 percent).

Fifty-five percent of Hispanics and 48 percent of American Indians were married. The same race differences are found in Britain. In a survey carried out in 1991, among 30-to 34-year-olds 68 percent of whites were married but only 34 percent of blacks. Studies of marriage rates for France in the 1990’s have also found that blacks are less likely to be married than whites. These differences are also found for cohabitation, with fewer blacks living in unmarried cohabitation relationships than whites.

Differences in marriage rates are reflected in differences in illegitimacy rates. In the United States, black illegitimacy rates are down slightly from their high in 1994, when 70.4 percent of black women who gave birth were unmarried. The 2000 figure of 68.7 is still the highest for any racial group and is followed by American Indians at 58.4 percent, Hispanics 42.7 percent, whites 22.1 percent, and Asians 14.8 percent. The Asian figure includes populations with greatly differing illegitimacy rates, with native Hawaiians for example at 50 percent, Japanese at 9.5 percent, and Chinese at 7.6 percent.

Low rates of stable relationships are found among blacks in the Caribbean islands. In a review of the literature the sociologists B. Ram and G. E. Ebanks write that “In the Caribbean in general . . . there is a substantial amount of movement from one sex partner to another and also a very high percentage of reproduction outside marriage.”

When they do marry, blacks are less tolerant than whites of monogamous constraints. An extreme form of intolerance is murder of one’s spouse. In Detroit in 1982-3, 63 percent of the population was black, but 90.5 percent of those who killed their spouses were black.

Less extreme forms of aversion to monogamy are adultery and divorce. The Kinsey data on college graduates collected in the 1940’s and 1950’s found that 51 percent of blacks were unfaithful to their spouses during the first two years of marriage compared with 23 percent of whites. Several other studies have confirmed that the incidence of marital infidelity is greater among blacks than among whites. Blacks cite infidelity more frequently than whites as a cause of divorce.

Blacks also have more sexual partners than whites. The Kinsey survey found that about twice as many black college graduates had had six or more partners before marriage than whites. Many later studies have confirmed this. A survey of 2,026 15-to-18-year-olds in Los Angeles in the mid-199’0s found that 38 percent of blacks had had five or more sexual partners, 26 percent of whites, 21 percent of Hispanics and eight percent of East Asians.

The same differences are found in Britain. In a study of a nationally representative sample of approximately 20,000 16-to 59-year-olds carried out in 1990, 36 percent of blacks had had two or more sexual partners during the previous five years, compared with 29 percent of whites and 18 percent of Asians.

Delay of Gratification

The impulsiveness component of psychopathic personality includes an inability or unwillingness to delay immediate gratification in the expectation of long-term advantage.

The first study to demonstrate differences between blacks and whites in the delay of gratification was carried out by W. Mischel in Trinidad in the late 1950’s. He offered black and white children the choice between a small candy bar now or a larger one in a week. He found black children were much more likely to ask for the small candy bar now, and this difference has been confirmed in three subsequent American studies.

This racial difference has been noted but given different names by different writers. In The Unheavenly City Revisited, Edward Banfield writes of the “extreme present-orientation” of blacks, and Michael Levin writes of “high time preference,” an economist’s term for preferring cash now rather than a greater sum in the future.

The APA Diagnostic Manual refers to the psychopathic personality’s “inability to sustain consistent work behavior,” and a number of studies have shown that blacks are less motivated to work than whites and Asians, while Hispanics are intermediate. For example, black students do fewer hours of homework than whites and Asians. Among college students with the same Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, blacks get poorer grades than whites, probably because they don’t work as hard.

This helps explain black unemployment. Several American ethnographic studies of inner city blacks have concluded that many are unwilling to work. Thus, E. Anderson writes that “there are many unemployed black youth who are unmotivated and uninterested in working for a living, particularly in the dead-end jobs they are likely to get.” The sociologist S. M. Petterson writes that “it is commonly contended that young black men experience more joblessness than their white counterparts because they are less willing to seek out low paying jobs.”

American Asians are the opposite of blacks in this respect. They have low rates of unemployment, and it has been shown by James Flynn that they achieve higher educational qualifications and earnings than would be predicted from their intelligence, suggesting they have strong work motivation.

In the United States, unemployment rates are highest among Indians followed in descending order by blacks, Hispanics, whites and ethnic Chinese and Japanese. These differences are frequently attributed to white racism, but it is difficult to reconcile this explanation with the lower rate of unemployment among East Asians as compared with whites and also with the higher rate of unemployment among Indians as compared to blacks.

Blacks in Britain, Canada, and France are frequently unemployed. In Britain, the 1991 census found that 26 percent of black men were unemployed compared with 11 percent of whites and ethnic Chinese. In Canada in 1991, 13 percent of black men were unemployed compared with seven percent of whites. In France in 1994, 11 percent of black men were unemployed compared with eight percent of whites.

Recklessness

Psychopaths appear to enjoy taking risks because it stimulates them, and there are several ways in which blacks show greater recklessness and risk taking than whites or Asians.

In the 1989-93 American Teenage Attitudes and Practices Survey, 9,135 youths aged 12 to 18 were asked to consider the question: “I get a kick out of doing things every now and then that are a little risky or dangerous.” Fifty-six point nine percent of blacks agreed, as compared with 38.6 percent of whites. Driving habits are an index of risk taking and recklessness. A number of studies have shown that blacks run red lights more often than whites and have more frequent accidents. Five studies have shown that blacks do not use seat belts as often as whites. Hispanics and Native Americans likewise have more accidents caused by recklessness and risk-taking than whites and East Asians.

Sexual behavior can be reckless. Among those who do not wish to have children, blacks are less likely to use contraception than whites, and this has been found in both the United States and Britain. One result is that black women have more unplanned babies than whites. In the United States in the 1990’s blacks had about twice the proportion of unplanned babies as whites and Asians. In Britain, a survey of teenage births carried out in 1994 found that these were three-and-a-half times more common among blacks than among whites and Asians.

The behavior of reckless men also causes unplanned pregnancies. Surveys have asked adolescent males if they would feel “very pleased” or whether they would care if they were responsible for an unplanned pregnancy. Twice as many blacks as whites say they would be very pleased or that they would not care. To be very pleased or not care about saddling a teenage girl with an unplanned pregnancy expresses a great degree of reckless regard for the well-being of others. In the United States, the percentage of teenage blacks who have fathered an illegitimate child is approximately three times greater than that of whites, with Hispanics intermediate.

Another consequence of reckless avoidance of contraceptives is that blacks are more likely to get sexually transmitted diseases—including HIV and AIDS—all of which are more prevalent among blacks than among whites and Asians. At the present time, about 80 percent of the word’s HIV carriers are blacks in sub-Saharan Africa.

A common expression of Conduct Disorder in children and young adolescents is sexual precocity. Many studies have shown that blacks are more sexually precocious than whites and Asians. Surveys in the United States in the 1990’s have found that 33 percent of black 13-year-olds have had sexual intercourse compared with 14 percent of whites and Hispanics and four percent of East Asians. Similarly, a survey in Britain in 1990 found that by the age of 16, 18 percent of blacks had had intercourse compared with 13 percent of whites and five percent of Asians.

We consider finally the psychopathic characteristic described by the American Psychiatric Association as “inability to function as a responsible parent.” One of the most straightforward measures of this is abuse and neglect.

The American Association for Protecting Children has found that black children constitute approximately 15 percent of the child population and about 22 percent of cases of child abuse and neglect. The First (1975) and Second (1985) National Family Violence Surveys carried out in America examined the use of violence towards children, defined as hitting them with the fist or with some object, and kicking, biting, and beating them up. It does not include slapping or spanking. It found that 1.2 percent of white parents and 2.1 percent of blacks inflict this kind of severe violence on their children.

Data published by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for 1996 showed that maltreatment was about three times more common among blacks and about one-and-a-half times more common among Hispanics than among whites.

The most extreme expression of the inability to function as a responsible parent consists of killing a child. Racial differences in the homicide of infants in their first year of life were examined for approximately 35 million babies born in the United States between 1983-91. This study found that 2,776 of these had been murdered, the great majority by mothers or the mothers’ husbands or partners. The rate of infant homicides for blacks and Native Americans was 2 per 10,000, compared with 0.6 per 10,000 for whites and 0.4 per 10,000 for East Asians. In the early 1990’s the racial differences became even greater, with blacks having four-and-a-half times the infant homicide rate of whites and Hispanics.

Complete Consistency

There is almost complete consistency in the racial differences in outcomes that can be considered measures of psychopathic personality. In everything from child behavior to sexual precocity to adult crime rates, we find Asians at one extreme, blacks and American Indians at the other, and whites Hispanics in between. These differences are not only consistent through time but are found in countries such as France, Britain, Canada, and the United States, which have very different histories of what could be called “racism.” Indices of high psychopathic personality in blacks are likewise found in the virtually all-black societies of Africa and the Caribbean.

Racial differences in psychopathic behavior persist even when IQ is held constant, and the same racial differences are found in essentially every kind of measurable behavior that reflects psychopathic personality. The most plausible explanation for these differences is that just as there are racial differences in average IQ, there are racial differences in what could be called “average personality,” with blacks showing greater psychopathic tendencies. The argument that white “racism” is responsible for black social pathology is increasingly unconvincing.

3 Comments

Filed under Amerindians, Anti-Racism, Antisocial, Asians, Blacks, Britain, Canada, Caribbean, Civil Rights, Crime, Education, Europe, France, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Intelligence, Labor, Latin America, Mental Illness, Netherlands, North America, Personality Disorders, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sweden, USA, Whites

Alt Left: “Sleazy Gay Men Who Just Want Boys”

Great article from a gay man who has now gone religious and is opposed to homosexuality. The problem with these guys is that they say homosexuality is a sin against God according to Christians. Regardless of whether that is true or not, it’s not a scientific argument and most us, even Christians like me, are most interested in the science than the doctrine when it comes to that. Anyway, I don’t think homosexual behavior is sinful.

There are other problems with these guys.

They all adopt an anti-essentialist point of view on homosexuality. Of course, we on the Alt Left are essentialists or we are nothing. The best available evidence that is the homosexuals somehow get wired up that way by the time they hit puberty. The best theory is that homosexuality is a developmental disorder akin to left-handedness. These people seem to argue that gays choose to be that way, when that does not seem to be the truth.

They all argue that homosexuals can be cured, while there is no evidence that they can be.

They are also against gay marriage of course, which I support.

Other than that, a lot of these men offer an immaculate critique of modern gay culture that cannot be found anywhere else because PC/SJW Culture means that gay men are a protected class above all critique. Apparently it’s illegal to even look at them wrong. It’s long been known that homosexuals have high levels of mental pathology along with a long list of medical problems. The way homosexuals live shaves a full 20 years off their lifespans. A lot of gay men are are flaky and sleazy. Crime is high in the gay community as is a general debasement of morality and culture itself as everything of value is subsumed to the supreme value of sex above all else.

That gay male culture has very high rates of pederasty and that pederasty has been elevated as the ultimate gay male relationship above all others has been true since Antiquity. Older gay men have very high rates of sex with young teenage boys than older straight men do with young teenage girls. Yet no one says a word about this because gay male culture is silent on the older gay man – teenage boy question.

These relationships, many of them illegal, are ubiquitous across the gay community. They are regarded with an accepting or amnesic shrug, and these older men are almost never turned in. Gay organizations deal with these relationships constantly and they never turn the man in even one time. Yet we hear no end of screeching from the Puritan/feminists about how all of us straight men are pedophiles for turning our heads when a hot 17 year old girl walks by.

This article contains graphic true language of the sinfulness of homosexual sin.

I have to thank Michelangelo Signorile and other gay writers who have come forward in the Huffington Post and elsewhere in response to the discussion of Dustin Lance Black’s relationship with a nineteen-year-old boy. After decades of false pretenses, they have at last come clean with the American public and admitted that the gay movement cannot succeed unless taboos against man-boy sex are at last knocked down.

I had tiptoed around the issue until this week. I had been attacked as “anti-equality” and “anti-gay” for over a year, even without bringing up what I knew about the rampant pederasty (sex between men and teenagers, as opposed to pedophilia, which is sex between men and children.) Even as my defense of children’s rights made me vulnerable to charges of conspiring with evil homophobic rubes, I was holding back an even more difficult dimension of my opposition to same-sex parenting.

I had known that beneath the appeals to gay “normalcy,” there was an underbelly in the gay male world of men sleeping with boys.

I avoided mentioning this when I testified in St. Paul, Paris, and Brussels. Nonetheless I had engaged in the debate about same-sex parenting with the unspoken suspicion that many gay male couples, if given the chance to be foster parents or adoptive fathers, would end up having sex with boys in their care or exposing their charges (both boys and girls) to a gay male culture that trampled on the generally understood prohibition against old people sleeping with vulnerable young people.

The result, I feared, would mirror many of the negative impacts on gay boys that have occurred as a result of “It Gets Better,” the Gay-Straight Alliances in high schools, sexualized curriculum, online gay sites like Chatroulette and TrevorSpace (not to mention the creeps on Craigslist), and gay mentorship programs. These public policy projects have blossomed over the last twenty-five years in the United States with the best of intentions — to keep gay boys from killing themselves out of despair.

As it turns out, gay boys don’t usually kill themselves simply because people reject them for being gay. The vast majority of people really don’t care what anybody does in their private sex life, which is why Dayna Morales, the tragic lesbian waitress in New Jersey, had to fabricate the tale of homophobic patrons stiffing her on a tip.

Homophobia is far less powerful than the reigning callousness and indifference of society to what’s going on with other people, really. So gay boys are far more likely to kill themselves not because people care about their gayness and hate them for it, but rather because most people don’t care about their gayness at all other than horny gay men who are much older than they and fuck them up the ass when they aren’t ready to deal with the emotional minefield of homosexuality.

All these naive programs placed boys in contact with adult gay men based on the assumption that the gay adults wouldn’t end up using such arrangements to corner boys and sodomize them. That assumption was criminally negligent.

I speak crudely because, as the statistics from the Department of Justice and the Centers for Disease Control reveal, the end result of many such gay mentor programs has been many adults inserting their penises into boys’ anuses. Hence there has been a spike in the HIV infection rate of boys aged 13-19, of which 95% result from unprotected anal sex.

Studies into HIV infection rates among black gay men reveal that blacks are infected with HIV at an exorbitant rate because they of all the races are most likely to be engaged in relationships with males much older or much younger than they are. Black gays do not engage in higher rates of unprotected sex, nor do they have unusually high or risky numbers of sex partners. Rather, their Achilles’ heel is their greater penchant for what Mr. Signorile lovingly calls “intergenerational” sex.

One of the top indicators of HIV infection risk is a tendency to date much older or much younger than oneself, and this makes sense for a basic reason: the kind of men who disregard the taboo against men fucking boys will usually also disregard other ethical limitations to their gratification, seeing limits as unfair or prejudiced. Condoms disappear somewhere in the confusion — and no, making people feel less guilty about doing something doesn’t make what they do safer, as the recent statistics shockingly tell us.

Let’s forget HIV for an instant however and the overall issues of sexually transmitted diseases. What if there were no STD’s at all to be spread from older men to boys through anal and oral sex?

There is still tremendous emotional vulnerability in a boy who is considering gay sex which isn’t there with girls or boys who are 100% straight.

A boy who starts getting fucked by men finds his whole future rewritten — it is not only an event dealing with one particular partner, but rather a foundational shift in his imagined future.

He will be in the gay community, living by its rules. Once an old man’s penis finds its way into the boy’s anus, the boy has to redefine his life goals, envision a future without women, without children, without access to the cultural mainstays enjoyed by the 99% of the world that isn’t gay and male. He must picture spending his time in the constricted, tiny circle of gay bars, gay associations, and gay cliques, looking for love in a tiny, somewhat incestuous pool of familiar local characters; gay men who will flit in and out of his life, vanishing without a morning call-back after a year and then popping up two years later on the arm of his best friend.

There is also the sheer physical change that happens when you are a boy and you first start letting men fuck you. It’s painful. You are being taught how to mix pain and pleasure, which increases the likelihood that you’re going to develop masochistic behaviors. You feel like a different person. As someone who got fucked by a lot of men in their forties and fifties when I was a teenage boy, I speak from real, extensive experience.

So when you as a grown man fuck a boy, you are inflicting a host of potential anxieties on him. You are throwing his masculinity and sexual identity in doubt. You are forcing him to picture himself growing old and dying without having a wife and children, without giving his parents a daughter-in-law and grandchildren — being stuck in a claustrophobic world full of flaky and sleazy men.

The recent statistics from many sources all seem to confirm that man-boy sex is a rampant problem in the gay community, and it’s destroying people’s lives.

The Department of Justice found that gay teens are much more likely to be in physically abusive relationships not to mention emotionally abusive relationships, with one of the key factors the fact that they are involved so often in unstable sexual liaisons with men much older than they are. While the report included a statement about the lack of “role models” for gay teens, we must extrapolate a deeper problem that straight researchers might not be able to piece together. Gay teens have role models, but the role models are fucking them. That messes up their heads.

Many of the recent cases involving gay foster dads or gay mentors who sexually abused boys do not reflect a sinister, evil psychology in the adult gay male, but rather a frighteningly innocent belief on the part of the adult that the youth wanted to get fucked and somehow fucking him was part of helping him.

Walter L. Williams, the founder of USC’s Gay and Lesbian Archives, got caught in sex traffic with underage boys in the Philippines and elsewhere, after decades of writing in favor of more open attitudes toward sexuality. He most likely thought that he was doing something benevolent by fucking boys. He had been after all a veritable father figure to gay college students for years.

Mark Newton, who manufactured a baby with an illegal Russian surrogate and then used the child he bought as an international sex slave, said it was an “honor” to have been a gay father as he was sentenced and sent off to prison. He was profiled by Australia’s ABC in 2010 as the idyllic example of same-sex parenting, beneath a headline, Two Dads Are Better than One. He and his husband, Peter Truong, probably felt that the toddler was experiencing pleasure with penises in his mouth, since the experience was pleasant for the adult getting a blow job.

There is a failure of ego differentiation in many of these cases (of which these are only a sliver.) The gay male adult, fed a steady diet of LGBT narratives about people being born gay and deserving sexual gratification as a civil right, cannot comprehend that what they believe and feel isn’t exactly the same as what the child is believing and feeling.

Since so much argumentation about gay parenting has hinged on the notion of “gay couples providing a loving home,” many gay adults charged with youths get lost in the nebulous meaning of “loving.” They have been prompted to believe that if what they do to young people comes from affectionate motives, it’s good. Which is a very convenient way to talk oneself into fucking a boy, unfortunately.

I am sure that Dan Savage felt that he was helping young boys with “It Gets Better,” though it seems that the tens of thousands of testimonials from adult gays merely encouraged boys to go out and get fucked up the ass by older men, with the result that now a lot of them are going to die from AIDS.

And then think of Caleb Laieski, the teen activist honored by President Obama, who helped a fortysomething gay policeman score with a fourteen-year-old boy who was questioning his sexuality. As Caleb and his adult conspirator prepare to go off to prison as well, I cannot say that they were ill intended. He and the gay policemen were leaders in the gay community and thought they were helping the fourteen-year-old by breaking him in. Unfortunately for them, the boy got suicidal and exposed the entire activist game as a terrible exploitative ruse.

While neither Michael Jackson nor Jerry Sandusky identified as gay, it is worth noting that they both also viewed their suspicious congress with boys as part of nurturing and affection.

These abhorrent data result from the gay movement’s uncritical celebration of the penis and its supposed liberating power. Your penis is not an instrument of charity, gentlemen. Your penis is a loaded weapon. You must understand that.

Mr. Signorile speaks of intergenerational sex as “nurturing” and educational. His views on this reveal that the modern gay male has little to no concept of nurturing and educational relationships except when such connections involve inserting their penises into people and ejaculating into them.

It’s bad enough that relationships between gay male adults have to be hypersexualized. When your beginning mindset is, “I can help and coddle this young boy, and fuck him too,” and you see nothing wrong with this, in fact believing that any resistance to it is based on homophobia (as Mr. Signorile has written in stark terms), you may be qualified to lead the gay community in developing its imagination, its fantasies, and its sense of self-actualization.

But you should not have custody of children, teenagers, or young adults. You should not be asking the American people to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and then place millions of future 18-year-olds in basic combat training under gay NCO’s who think this way. You should not be asking the American people to allow gay leaders in the Boy Scouts. You definitely should not be listed as a potential foster care home, let alone candidates for adoption.

The response from Mr. Signorile that the 19-year-old in the Dustin Lance Black case was a “consenting adult” makes it all the more urgent that the American people reject the ligbitist push to change laws about adoption, employment non-discrimination, and the like. Mr. Signorile, like most in the movement, believes that anything legal is okay. It shouldn’t be surprising that they are therefore so interested in changing laws to make more of the sleazy things they do legal.

I didn’t arrive at these harsh declarations because I hated gay people or because I am part of the gay community and have a deep abiding love for my gay brothers; I got here because I love young people and understand that it’s better that gay men don’t try to fuck them, which they will, if given the chance. That scares me.

As a professor, I live and operate with the understanding that people in a seasoned, mature, mentor-like role must express love toward those who are in the learning, young, and undeveloped role, without unzipping our pants and getting our penises involved.

As a father, I live and operate with the understanding that my daughter should go forth in the world and be mentored by adults who can differentiate between teaching her about professional life, etc., and involving her in the fraught act of sexual intercourse.

As a veteran of the US Army Reserves (as undistinguished as my service admittedly was), I live and operate with the understanding that training and discipline do not mix well with orgasms and erections and ejaculation.

These are all understandings — norms, if you will — that an adult entrusted with children has to walk around with. It has to be second nature. It must be something beyond question, beyond editorial review, beyond negotiation. While women face this issue, it is even more acutely an issue for men, who have a long history and perhaps biological predisposition, to inject their penis into situations and confuse their own quest for pleasure with their obligation to teach, mentor, and guide young people.

Heterosexual men who defy these rules with girls are subject to swift recrimination, even if they get away with it because it’s supposedly “legal.”

Colleagues of mine who have violated the sacred sexual barrier between teacher and student and made love to their pupils have lost tremendous respect from me and especially from females in the profession.

Non-commissioned officers or officers who sleep with female subordinates are subject to severe penalties in the military.

Think of what happened to Bill Clinton and David Petraeus as a result of their inability to manage their penises properly in the presence of younger forbidden fruit.

Dustin Lance Black is thirty-nine years old and almost the same age as his boyfriend’s father when the latter passed away recently. Judging from what the boy said in the video and what others have reported as information gleaned from people close to him, he looked up to Dustin Lance Black and wanted to learn from him, be mentored, be held and fathered by him.

It’s entirely possible that the boy broached the topic of sex and wanted the older man to teach him about homosexual intercourse–as a professor, trust me, I am familiar with how 19-year-olds can be sexually aggressive, even demanding that a relationship that should be based on mentorship turn into sex.

When I say that our penises are loaded weapons, I do not mean to say that the “victims” of gay penises aren’t sometimes eager to have access to them. But the adult in the room has to be able to say “no,” tell the college freshman to calm down, and keep his zipper up and his penis under lock and key. That’s part of being a grown-up. If you can’t say “no” to a young person who wants to take a look at your penis, you have no business trying to pass the Every Child Deserves a Family Act.
Related articles

Why I Cannot Blame Russia and India for Taking on the Gays (americanthinker.com)

Michelangelo Signorile: Tom Daley Is 20 Years Younger than Dustin Lance Black… So What? (huffingtonpost.com)

Michelangelo Signorile: No, Pope Francis Is Not the LGBT Person of the Year (huffingtonpost.com)

Poor Black and Hispanic Men Are the Face of H.I.V. (thelib2013.wordpress.com)

Man-Boy Sex and Its Long Tradition among Gay Men (robertlindsay.wordpress.com)

Michelangelo Signorile at Odds With HRC over Positive ‘Duck Dynasty’ Message (towleroad.com)

Gay Teens Are At Higher Risk for HPV, Study Shows (thegayclassifieds.wordpress.com)

Study Finds HPV Common in Young Sexually Active Gay Men (counselheal.com)

Leave a comment

Filed under Blacks, Crime, Culture, Death, Ephebephilia, Ethics, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Left, Man World, Mental Illness, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Race/Ethnicity, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: What Feminists Get Wrong about #Metoo (Besides Just about Everything)

It is taken as axiomatic that the high rates of sexual harassment, sexual assault, grey rape and straight up legal rape that men commit against women as exemplified by the recent #metoo campaign and characterized wholly and completely by misogyny or men’s perennial, profound and deep hatred for women. While I am sure it’s true that men who do this sort of thing as a matter of habit don’t have the highest opinion of women, that’s not what is driving the behavior.

The feminist line becomes even more insane when they say that the entire spectrum of behavior – sexual harassment, sexual assault, grey rape, and legal rape – is a spectrum of violence and implicitly rape. Let’s take this apart.

Sexual harassment is nothing more than flirtation except it is unwanted on the other end. Feminists have made clear that even asking for a woman’s number or asking her on a date can be seen as sexual harassment. Sexual assault can be seen as nothing more than dating as all dating is based on sexual assault.

Technically, every time you touch another person without receiving explicit consent beforehand, you commit sexual assault. The nature of dating is that one party, generally the man, starts touching the woman with parts of his body, usually his hand but also other parts such as feet or lips. This is almost always done without receiving consent beforehand. He simply does it and sees how she reacts. Why does he do it? He’s trying to get laid.

So according to feminists, when a man asks a woman for her number or asks her out on a date when she does not want him to, this is somehow violence! How is it violence? The guy’s trying to get a date. How is that violence? Feminists are off their heads. And when you are out on a date and you clasp the woman’s hand in yours, put your arm around hers, or lean in for the kiss without getting permission beforehand, this is violence! How is that violence? He’s trying to get some physical intimacy going.

Trying to argue a woman into bed, even by debate style? Violence!

None of that crap is violence but feminists are paranoid lunatics who see misogyny and violence lurking behind every corner.

How about the argument, axiomatic among feminist retards, that men’s sexual misbehavior is motivated by misogyny and is not motivated by sex at all.

The feminists started a theory a while back that “rape is about violence and power, not sex.” This theory, which like all feminist theory has never even been tested, has been adopted as an unexamined truth by an entire society. I believed it myself for many years as a result of being indoctrinated into this view by a feminist mother. However, in recent years, I have come to question this line.

I would argue that even rape is often motivated by sex. The evidence for that is quite clear. When rates of pornography use go up, rape and molestation rates go down. So men watch porn instead of raping and molesting. This implies that rape and child molestation and driven in part by sexual desire.

Gay men engage in sexual harassment, sexual assault, grey rape, drug rape and actual rape of each other and straight men at far higher rates than straight men due to women. Gay porn has long been based on violence, humiliation, and degradation. Only recently has this filtered over to straight porn. BD/SM is huge in gay culture and rates of sexual sadism are far higher in gay men than in straight men (37% of gay men versus 5% of straight men). Only recently has it become popular among straights.

This shows that straight men’s sexual misbehavior towards women is not due to misogyny as all feminist retards believe. Instead it is simply the normal way that males go about acquiring sexual partners.

Males have very high levels of aggression and violence combined with a very high sex drive that demands to be engaged. These things combine to create a perfect storm of sexual violence that is not directed at one gender anymore than the other.

In other words in addition to being essentially natural born killers if not homicidal maniacs, men in general tend to be natural born rapists. We harass, assault, grey, and out and out rape our sexual partners regardless of gender simply because this is what we are men do. We men are simply rapey as all get out.

Leave a comment

Filed under Crime, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Pornography, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Sex

Alt Left: Resolved: All Feminists Are Toxic

I just posted this question to Reddit r/feminists. I swear to God I tried to be as pro-feminist as possible. I went out of my way to try not to say anything antifeminist, though I nevertheless had to be honest. Every single thing I wrote in my comment is 100% fact. I got two comments, and I was immediately banned. I was shocked as I was not expecting that. I am still trying to figure out why they banned me. Was it because I mentioned that man-hatred was still a problem among feminists?

The percentages of feminists who are 2nd and 3rd Wavers is a good question, but feminists have no use for facts, science, truth or data like all Identity Politics scum, so it’s not surprising I did not get any answers. Actually you will probably never get any answers because feminists don’t like to argue hard factual questions about much of anything.

I don’t imagine there’s a feminist anywhere on Earth who would try to answer what the % of 2nd Wavers to 3rd Wavers are, although it’s an empirical question. Actually if you try to ask it now, you will get more handwaves saying there’s no such as 3rd Wave because we are now in the 4th Wave of this idiotic bullshit. Never mind that the 4th Wave differs in no important ways from the 3rd wave and that most feminists nowadays objectively appear to be 3rd Wavers.

Here’s the question:

My question is which group of feminists is stronger now, 2nd or 3rd Wave? And what percentages of feminism are divided into 2nd and 3rd wavers? I believe that the 3rd wave is more numerous now, but I am really interested in what % of feminists are 2nd wave radical feminists.

Definitions below:

2nd Wave feminists to be mostly radical feminists at the moment, if we define Second Wave as TERF and TESW’s opposed to among other things:

  • Legalization or decrim of sex work
  • All sex work (strippers, cam models, porn stars)
  • Sex dolls
  • Pornography
  • PIV sex
  • Anal sex
  • Fellatio (sometimes)
  • Romance (sending flowers, etc.)
  • Artificial birth control (too dangerous for women)
  • Beauty industry (to the point of deliberately advocating that woman make themselves appear ugly to oppose it)
  • Femininity (to the point of promoting women to act and dress like men)

And an extreme hostility towards men in general exemplified by:

  • A theory that eliminates the class struggle of proletarian workers versus ruling class capitalist owners and replacing it with a gender struggle with men as a ruling oppressor class and women as an oppressed “proletarian class.”
  • Extreme emphasis on Patriarchy and Rape Culture theory.
  • Extreme celebration of lesbianism and hostility to heterosexuality in general for women. General sex-negative and near-puritanical mindset.
  • Support for lesbian and female separatism.
  • Support for curfews for men, putting men in internment camps, reducing the male population to 10%, etc.

All of these view are extremely common among radical feminism. There are few who do not go along with all or nearly all of these positions.

So that’s 2nd Wave.

Everything else is now 3rd Wave. Even Socialist and Marxist feminism, formerly 2nd wavers, are now 3rd Wavers. Most other strains are also 3rd Wavers with the exception of New Feminism (unclassifiable?) and some strains of Liberal Feminism like Equity Feminism, which are best described as 1st wavers, the descendants of the suffragettes.

3rd Wave differs from 2nd Wave in the following ways:

  • Sex positive.
  • Pro-porn, pro-BD/SM, pro-prostitution, and other sex work
  • Reduced celebration of lesbianism
  • Support for heterosexuality for women
  • Pro-PIV sex, fellatio, anal sex, etc.
  • educed emphasis on rape culture, patriarchy, etc.
  • Reduced hatred for men, although it is definitely still there
  • Much more open to dating, relationships, and marriage with men
  • No support for separatism
  • Support for sex dolls
  • Opposition to male curfews and internment camps, reduction of male population, etc.
  • Pro-romance
  • Pro-artificial birth control
  • For socialist and Marxist feminists, rejection of radfem replacement of class struggle with gender struggle and replacement or owners and workers with men and women as oppressor and oppressed groups. Extreme emphasis on class roots of women’s oppression in capitalism and a recognition that male workers are also oppressed under capitalism.
  • Pro-transgender
  • Pro-femininity
  • Pro-beauty industry (makeup, tight clothes, heels, spandex, etc.)

First answer: Hard to answer something when the question seems way off. Where are you getting these definitions from?

Me: The definition of radical feminist beliefs comes from me being on their websites and studying them for long periods of time. Although I am open to any rational people who want to tell me where I am wrong about them. My definition of 3rd wavers should not be controversial, or it is, I want to know why.

Male curfews and internment camps…? Who have you been reading?

Me: Major radical feminist thinkers have advocated curfews for men in articles. Although the articles was later said to be satire, it did not seem so at first and they always say that everything inflammatory they write is satire. All of the comments that followed for months after those articles were published treated the articles as if they were serious. Commenters even offered their own serious takes on the subject, with one man suggesting that cities be divided into male halves and female halves with mingling allowed during the daylight hours but after dark, each sex would have to retire to its own section of town.

Numerous radical feminists have suggested that men and sometimes even boys be placed into internment camps and be kept there “until they can learn to behave themselves in a civilized fashion.” Radical feminist Julie Bindel recently wrote an article in the Guardian suggesting this in all seriousness. The article promoted a scandal, but she is still on the staff.

Leave a comment

Filed under Capitalism, Culture, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Inanimate Objects, Labor, Left, Liberalism, Marxism, Political Science, Politics, Pornography, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex, Socialism

Alt Left: US Low Class Ghetto Black Women Are a Race of Whores

Rahul: First of all, who was that 106 IQ commenter? You said was, where is he now, and why did he leave?

Second of all, have you ever met someone from 80-85 who was on your level?

I think his name was Scott. A bit of a White nationalist, young guy. His verbal is probably quite high.

When people have IQ’s as low as 80-85, you never learn their IQ scores unless you are them or their parents or you are the clinician administering the test. Probably the best person to ask would be a clinician who administers these tests. He probably knows these people well.

Blacks in the US are ~86 IQ. In the ghetto, it is probably lower. So if you go into a Black ghetto, walk around and look at those people, and that is what people with 80-85 IQ’s are like. I have met many more or less ghetto type Blacks in my life, and I still meet them all the time on dating sites. Right off the bat I will tell you that 80-85 IQ Black women are not that smart. They often can’t even spell properly, which is a huge turnoff in the age of spellcheckers.

They can have excellent common sense but they tend to have quite low morals, are very materialistic, very much out for money over anything else to the point of being grossly greedy, and almost all Black women of that IQ level more or less trade sex for money in one way or another. These are most profoundly mercenary women on the planet.

Black men from this culture are not whores, but they are profoundly mercenary and materialistic too. All of their profiles have dollar bills all over them, and they list their interests as money, money, money, money, and money. This all comes out of garbage rap culture that promotes extreme accumulation of money as the ultimate goal in life.

Sure there are Whites, Asians, Jews, etc. who are very into money, but they don’t  put dollar bills all over their websites and list their interests as money, money, money, money, and money. The strange thing is that these Asians and Whites will make much more money in life than these mercenary, grotesque Blacks.

In White and Asian culture, it is considered gross and low class to be as openly mercenary as that. In a word, it is disgusting. If you are White or Asian, and you act that way, you will not get a good job, or you will be fired from any good job you get very quickly. Of course these people are greedy, but you are supposed to keep your greed respectable and on the down low.

In particular, any White, Asian, or Hispanic woman who puts dollar bills all over her website and says she wants money, money, and money is often attractive and is very quickly marked as some sort of a whore, which is exactly what she is. Any woman like that is looking to be a sugar baby, a stripper, an out and out call girl, a cam model, a seller of pics or movies or herself, or moving all the way up to porn star. Most White and Asian men have low regard for any woman like that, and we regard them as nothing more than common whores, which is exactly what they are.

In White, Asian, and Hispanic cultures, even among young women, it is still very disreputable and dishonorable to come across like a complete whore whose ass is directly for sale for money. Most young women of those races do not come across that way. I have met a number of young women recently who wanted me to be their sugar daddy, but they were very discreet about it and did not look or act like whores. I would like to add that a very large percentage of those potential sugar babies were Black women, far more than their 7% population in California. And these were not even ghetto Black women. Several were university students. Yet even they were far more likely to whore themselves out as sugar babies than other races of women.

I have met a lot of attractive young Black women on dating sites recently. A very large number of them were simply out and out prostitutes in one way or another. They all wanted to either sell me sex or wanted me to buy them fancy things. In return they would send me dirty pictures.

Why are Black women the most whored out race of women on Earth? I have been around many, many women of all races in dating and chatting up situations, and no race of women whores themselves out as easily and with as little guilt as Black women. In my town, for instance, Blacks are 4% of the population. Nevertheless, they are quite ghetto. We do have some women who sell their asses on the street here. We also have a few call girls.

I met my upstairs Black neighbor and her friend. Both were pretty ghetto and had quite low morals. The neighbor had an arrest record for prostitution in Orange County where she worked as a call girl. Her former boyfriend was a pimp. Later I saw her friend dressed up like a prostitute with another Black women in front of the local store on a Saturday night. People told me she was “ho-ing” and acted like that was completely normal.

I recently saw a woman walking down the street, and she kept looking back and me. That means streetwalker. I was stunned because I thought she was an Hispanic woman, and I’ve never seen an Hispanic walking the streets here, though they are 69% of the population. I kept looking at her and after a bit, I figured out she was a Black woman, and I thought, “Well, of course.”

There was one fat White woman crack addict who used to walk the streets here. However, her very sleazy pimp was a Black man. He was one of the oiliest human beings I have ever met. Before that, I had met another Black pimp in my complex. He was an awful, disgusting person, right out of the movies.

So in my city of 69% Hispanics, 27% Whites, and 4% Blacks.

100% of the pimps are Black.

75% of the open and obvious prostitutes are Black.

There are Hispanic women around here who prostitute themselves, but they tend to blur the line between prostitution and non prostitution and dating and non dating. Bottom line is they engage in a lot of mercenary and transactional dating. I met one outside the bank one afternoon, and she was extremely friendly. I thought, “My lucky day, pickup,” because that’s what it seemed like. I got her in my car, and we drove around a bit. She was straight out open that she simply wanted to fuck. I was counting my lucky stars, and got her over to my place. Everything was ready to rock and roll towards the bedroom when she put her palm out. This wasn’t going to be a freebie. I threw her out. I’m not really into buying sex, though I have done so several times in my life.

So that’s how the Hispanic “prostitutes” act around here. Some also work out of the bars, and I don’t understand exactly how they do whatever they do. I hire illegal aliens as maids. As a rule, I generally try to seduce them because I am a disgusting pig when it comes to sex, and I have no morals in that area. If they shut me down I knock it off. I usually don’t get far with them.

One of my illegal alien maids told me that she used to whore herself out of bars sometimes. She wasn’t clear exactly how the bar whoring worked exactly. She was also homeless and a meth addict. I got her out of her clothes somehow, and she spent two hours strolling around my apartment naked, but she wouldn’t do much. I finally caught her naked ass smoking meth in my kitchen, so I threw her out.

Almost all low class Black women act like there is a price tag on their pussy, and they don’t like to give sex away for free. I would go so far as to say that low class ghetto Black women are a race of whores. I’m not sure if they are just like this in the US.

I have met some Jamaican and Dominican Republican women on the Net on dating sites, and they are completely different. Especially Black Dominican women are extremely nice and feminine, and they are not whores at all. They are too feminine for that. Jamaican women can be pretty slutty, but none have hit me up for money yet. I met a young 18 year old Jamaican woman on the Net once, and she was extremely feminine. I was shocked.

10 Comments

Filed under Asians, Blacks, California, Culture, Dominicans, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Hispanics, Intelligence, Jamaicans, Psychology, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Romantic Relationships, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, West, Whites, Women

Alt Left: Comparative Man-Hatred among 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminists

Actually I have been on 2nd wave feminist boards, and a lot of them are fairly attractive or ordinary looking women. You would think they could easily get a man. But most of them hate men so much that they either deliberately turned into lesbians, or they gave up on men and became cat ladies. A number of them say if there were any good man around they would date them, but they dated for years and they think “good man” is an oxymoron.

Many feminists who happen to be lesbians are lesbian feminists or “political lesbians.” They’re not even real lesbians of the biological type like we are used to. Instead they are just straight women who hate men so much that they turn into lesbians to give us the finger. I have heard that most political lesbians don’t even have sex though, which makes sense if they are really just straight women who are manhating retards instead of real lesbians.

If you go on Jezebel there are a lot of younger women who are 3rd wavers, who are more sensible than 2nd wavers. A lot of them are goodlooking, as goodlooking as any women out there or maybe even better looking. A lot of the younger feminists are hot for some reason. A lot like dressing sexy, wearing makeup and being feminine.

The 3rd wavers like men far more than 2nd wavers. 3rd wavers are pretty much straight women and most of them really like men. Even the manhaters like men. A lot. Which is part of the problem because some of them are manhaters but they also love men and the manhating drives the men away. They want the attention of men even when they complain about it. A lot of them love sex too and seem to be quite horny. Instead of hating men they seem to be saying that they hate a certain type of men, but they are less cynical than 2nd wavers as 3rd wavers think there are lots of good men out there, but maybe they are a bit hard to find.

A lot of them are single and they seem like they are hard-up for some reason. If you go on Jezebel and act like a normal man, about 5-10 of those 3rd wavers will jump on you and almost rape you in the comments thread.

3rd Wavers are manhaters too, but mostly they just have mixed feelings about men not too dissimilar from the feelings that nearly all straight women have towards us disgusting pigs, especially as they get older, and the man-hatred is toned down a lot from 2nd Wavers. 3rd Wavers are pro-porn and pro-prostitution, while 2nd Wavers, as Sex-Negative feminists, are anti-porn, anti-prostitution, anti-all sex worker, and lately even anti-sex doll.

These wailing hyenas don’t seem to understand that a lot of us men will get tired of having sex with our hand after a while. 2nd wavers are extreme Utopians. They wish to usher in some new feminist utopia in which gender, masculinity and femininity are abolished and molestation of girls and domestic violence, rape and murder of women by men has vanished off the face of the Earth. If there’s one case of this on Earth in a year, 2nd wavers will just up and down and yell for the next month. They literally will never be happy until the violence/abuse rate against women is down to zero, which of course is never going to happen. So 2nd wavers are pining for and insisting upon a world that not only will never exist but can never exist.

3rd wavers are also known to be sex-positive, while 2nd wavers are sex-negative feminists. 3rd wavers still scream misogyny a lot, but not nearly as much as 2nd wavers. They also don’t talk about patriarchy and rape culture as much as 2nd wavers, although they do discuss these things, one of which, rape culture, probably doesn’t even exist in the US.

However, they are all SJW’s on steroids. In fact, they are much worse SJW’s than 2nd wavers, who mostly confine their SJWism to screaming “Misogyny!” 500 times a day.

Leave a comment

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Politics, Pornography, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Sex, Women

Alt Left: It’s a Lie That Feminists Turned Feminist Because They Are Fat and Ugly and Couldn’t Get a Man

Jason Y: Feminists are always saying that – but also it’s true that alt-right types are saying the same!

They’re saying feminists are fat, tomboys etc. who cannot get men and who are bitter about it !!

That’s not really true. A lot of feminists nowadays are goodlooking young women. Most of the feminists I have known were attractive women or at least not fuglies.

It is true that a lot of feminists are manhaters and feminist sentiment and identification in general are heavily correlated with anger, resentment towards and contempt for men, jealousy and a desire for paybacks. It is also correlated with a resentful chauvinist attitude that females are superior and we men are literally inferior. Many feminists are female chauvinist pigs.

On the other hand the worst manhaters, for the record, have seemed to have gone through a lot of bad experiences with we men which drove them to this sorry state. But I know many wildly heterosexual women who adore men who have been through many  terrible experiences with men also. But it’s quite clear that bad experiences with men have driven a lot of feminists to man hatred. I doubt if there are any serious manhating feminists who have had relatively little bad experience with men.

I doubt if fat, ugly women really turn feminist, but they might.

I’ve seen a continent full of fat, ugly women in my life, and I never noticed any tendency to be a feminist. In fact, most of them were not feminists. Fat and or homely women are usually working class women, and women like that could care less about feminism and the rest of the SJW retardation.

A lot of feminists have deliberately made themselves ugly, though. They often make themselves fat, cut off all their hair, start wearing boys or men’s clothes, and start acting tough, hard and masculine, all in a deliberate effort to be as ugly as possible, which they succeed at quite well because many of the worst manhating feminists are quite hideous, possibly of their own doing. Feminists hate makeup, dressing up, heels, dresses, and any feminine clothing. Many refuse to wear pink. I’ve seen a lot of feminists cheering when women shave their heads bald. Quite a few were tomboys when they were girls.

Feminist retards say “beauty is oppression,” so these silly women respond to that by trying to look as ugly as possible. That’s really stupid.

5 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Political Science, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Scum, Sex, Women

Alt Left: The Huge Blurred Line Between Female Prostitutes and Female “Non-Prostitutes”

Everyone thinks there is this huge black and white difference. You see, there are two types of women:

Prostitutes: They charge men money to have sex with them.

Non-prostitutes: They do not charge men money to have sex with them.

Tell you what. I had a date last weekend. She was pretty sleazy but she was hot and down, so I said ok. I went over there and the sex was going to be transactional. We could have a date all evening no problem, but if there would be any sex later on, I had to buy her something. I agreed on dinner and a bottle of whiskey. If I had not bought her that, she wanted cash! So she’s a prostitute or what?!

Do you have any idea how much “dating” is like this? You have any idea how many women pretty much demand some monetary exchange (buy me dinner, buy me this, etc.) in exchange for sex?

Feminists want to pass anti-john laws to fight prostitution. With these viciously anti-male hate laws, only the male buyer of sex (the john) is arrested, while the cause of the whole problem, the whore who is selling her ass on the street shamelessly, is allowed to walk free. These anti-male hate laws are called the Nordic Model. Radical feminists and other viciously misandric women and their girly male feminist enablers are behind these hate law. Now I have a question. About these anti-john laws. Are you going to put men in jail for buying women a bottle and dinner for sex as I did? What if I  didn’t buy her those things and instead forked over some cash to her in her apartment? I’m going to jail?

Feminists say that prostitutes are exploited. A female friend of mine worked as a cam model. She’s a stripper – she strips on cam. She made $230/hour. She told me that 1/2 of the cam models worked as call girls on the side. She told me that they made very good money as call girls. She also knew women who had gotten into sugar daddy – sugar baby arrangements with wealthy older men. This is sort of a form of prostitution – in fact, feminists say it is straight up prostitution. One of her friends who did this in New York City was given a $35,000 handbag by her rich sugar daddy.

The feminist line is that all prostitutes of all types, apparently including other sex workers like strippers, get into it as survival because they are poor and desperate. It’s either whore themselves out to men or die of starvation on the streets I suppose. The truth is that many street prostitutes are just drug addicts and most call girls, sugar babies, and strippers make extremely good money. It is perfectly possible to make $100,000/yr as a high priced call girl in an expensive big city. My friend had a perfectly reasonable income and just did the camming on the side as a way to make extra money to take overseas vacations and whatnot.

Now this woman that I dated the other night. Feminists say this woman was viciously exploited. Except she didn’t sound very exploited to me. Just another greedy woman with a price tag on her vagina, like ~50% of the women out there. In fact, that evening she even pointed to her vagina and referred to it as a money-making organ.

Feminists also despise the idea of men taking women out on dates and spending money on them.  According to feminists, men invented these rules, to waste huge sums of money throwing  it down the drain to women to buy sex from the via dating, in order to keep the evil process of purchasing women’s bodies going because apparently we get something out of given women all our money so we can get laid. All I have to say is that if it was a man who thought up that idea, he was the dumbest man who ever lived.

Here is a quote from an insane feminist opposed to the idea of men taking women out, spending money on them, etc. Apparently this is just glorified prostitution, which is what we men have been saying forever now.

It normalizes the idea that women are bought and paid for … by taking them out to dinner, buying them flowers, being nice to them.

– Some ridiculous feminist

You know who thought up those rules? Women. You think we men would think up stupid rules like that? Hell, we want free sex. We don’t want to pay a nickel for it. It was and is women who decided to put a price tag on their vaginas and charge men to rent them out for a period of time.

Why did women do this? Simple. Because they are greedy. They also think their vaginas are worth money, and it’s cheap and stupid to give them away for free.

“If my vagina is worth money, why give it away for free? Why not charge for it?”

This is the mindset of tens of millions of American women, and they like it just fine that way. Why? Because they want the moneyyyyyyy.

Women are so noble.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Labor, Law, Man World, Psychology, Radical Feminists, Romantic Relationships, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Women

Alt Left: The Real Reasons for Many Murders of Transwomen and Gay Bashings of Gay Men

Much has been written about how many transwomen are murdered. Many transwomen are indeed murdered. Whether these are the true transsexuals (homosexuals) or the transtrenders (transvestites, crossdressers, and autogynephiles) is not known. Many transwomen (men who think they are women) work as prostitutes. Many are not able to work in ordinary jobs, they often have very poor mental health that prevents them from working at regular jobs.

Transwomen have the highest rates of mental disorder of any group seen clinically. 90% of transwomen are significantly mentally ill, and they have everything under the book, from mood disorders such as depression and bipolar disorder to anxiety disorders of different kinds to personality disorders. They also have very high rates of paraphilias and sexual disorders and have rates of being convicted for sex crimes (these are the transtrenders). The transwomen working on the street are often homeless and many have drug and alcohol problems. Very high HIV rates have been found for transwomen prostitutes – up to 42%.

Although the murders of transwomen are tragic, it is helpful to note the circumstances under which these are occurring.

A lot of these murders occur when they are prostituting themselves, and their label doesn’t always say what’s in the bottle. In other words, they are out on the streets advertising themselves as female prostitutes. They get picked up by male clients thinking they are picking up a woman.

At some point, they are shocked to find that it is actually a man as many transwomen are pre-ops, that is, they take the hormones but they have not taken the surgery, so they look like women, have women’s breasts, and yet they still have penises. When the client finds out that this is a “woman with a penis” sometimes they fly into a rage and kill the transwoman in a blind rage murder of the type that men are susceptible.

A friend of mine picked up a “woman” in a cab and went home with “her” only find out halfway through the blowjob that it wasn’t a woman at all. He didn’t get violent but he was pretty freaked out and upset.

It’s pretty abusive for TIM’s to tell us other men that they are women, and we men get into dating/sexual stuff with them and suddenly find out they’re a guy. They’re men pretending to be women and worse they are not even telling everyone!

No one wants to hear this, but a lot of gay bashing is actually done to gay men who are openly propositioning straight men (like, say, grabbing their cocks?). I am not supporting bashing of course, and I have been gay-bashed three times myself, once with a baseball bat! So I’m not wild about gay men, but homophobes are 100X worse. Also, how come no one talks about straight men getting gay-bashed? It’s epidemic.

But it is actually true. Many gay bashings occur not just when gay men hit on straight men, which they do constantly, but when they won’t take no for an answer, which is all the time. You women think straight men are bad about not taking no for answer, well, gay men are 50X worse.

And no one talks about this either, but gay men are far worse than straight men as sexual harassers, in fact they wrote the book on sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is the unspoken norm in gay male society.

I do dislike gay men but I support them politically and even work on their campaigns. I dislike them because they have been hitting on me for decades, and they won’t take no for an answer. My reaction is similar to that of women mad at men over sexual harassment.

Yes, gay men sexually harass straight men. You cannot talk about this either because it is “homophobic.” When I lived in LA, I lived in a gay community for a while. Supposedly I was good-looking back and then had some male modeling offers. I had a couple of friends who were straight models who started out pro-gay but became almost violently homophobic over time due to constant harassment by gay men. Male models are not all gay. Actually 2/3 are straight.

Anyway, the place was swarming with gay men, and I would walk down the street, and all of them would be rubbernecking me in their cars driving by. I had one who waited outside my workplace every night right before work. I would go to the window and look out, and there he would be, staring right up at my window. I almost had a panic attack every time. And he would watch me like a hawk as I walked to my car.

When I would go to parties, etc. they would creepily stare at me for long periods of time.

I related this on my site and got called homophobe of course, but some of my female readers commented and said, “Ok, now you know what it feels like to be a woman!” And she was right. I didn’t like those gay men treating me like a piece of meat. Now if women want to, ok, maybe.

The generally feeling would best be described as unnerving, which may be how women feel with constant male sexual attention?

I also disagree that sexual harassment is driven by misogyny. As you can see, men harass other gay men worse than they harass women and gay men harass straight men like crazy.

Men sexually harass women because they are men, and that is what men, do – they sexually harass other humans?

It’s a more science-based theory.

3 Comments

Filed under Anxiety Disorders, Crime, Depression, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Illness, Labor, Man World, Mental Illness, Mood Disorders, Personality Disorders, Politics, Psychology, Psychopathology, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology

Alt Left: Feminist Idiot Just Came to My Site

She was commenting on this piece: Why Are Feminists Always Attacking Their Male Enemies by Saying They Can’t Get Women?

Guess what this feminist retard said?

Two guesses.

Bingo!

On an article about why feminist idiots always attack all the men who are against them by saying they are virgins who can’t get laid, guess what this dumb feminist broad did? She said…drum roll…that I couldn’t get laid! How original.

First of all, her response made no sense, but then she’s a woman so hey. On top of that excuse, she’s also a feminist, and feminists are far more insensible than your average woman because their whole ideology is irrational.

Initially she said that obviously no feminist had ever said I couldn’t get laid, while in fact, they all do that. Even worse, I wonder if feminist here is just a stand-in for women in general because I have legions of female enemies all over the Internet who may or may not be feminists. Guess what they all say about me? Obviously I can’t get laid! So maybe this childish retort is just something that women in general use as a retarded ad hominem.

I mean really. Feminists are supposed to be promoting some sort of a political theory. Sure there are many people lined up against them. In debating their enemies, these dumb feminists can’t come up with anything better than accusing all of their enemies of being unable to get laid? That’s so petty and childish of them. You would think that as political activists, they would more professional than that, but professional feminist is an oxymoron..

Then she said that since no feminist ever said this to me (How did she know?), obviously I was hallucinating all these women saying this about me. Then she went on to say I am hallucinating them because…ta da…I can’t get laid! And I am projecting this fact onto all of these feminists as a hallucination.

Then she went on for several paragraphs going on an on about…guess what? Why I can’t get laid! This is too funny.

Next she shifted gears and said I must be a very angry, bitter, miserable person. On the contrary, instead I am just an asshole. I’m not miserably angry most of the time, but sometimes certain people really set me off.

At the end, she accused me of incitement and I guess inciting violence against…apparently feminists. She brought up a future where some mass murderer hypothetically slaughtered a group of….apparently women…after he was incited to commit this act by my post. Well I wouldn’t want to see any women per se killed by anyone as a result of this post.

I would also like to point out that not only do feminists do this to me, but they do it to all of their critics. It is an article of faith among feminists that all Manosphere types simply can’t get laid.

Well, incels can’t, sure.

MGTOW’s can, and many have, often many times, but they are getting a divorce from women and aren’t even trying to have sex.

MRA’s and redpillers don’t seem to have any obvious problems getting sex. Redpillers often get more sex than the rest of us. I have never heard that incel was a characteristic of MRA’s. In fact, many are ex-married men, now divorced.

Of course PUA’s can get laid. But feminists insist that all PUA’s can’t get laid, and they claim that all PUA’s who say they do are lying incels.

So it’s not just me. It’s anyone who takes them on.

A look around the world shows that many men who are hostile to feminism can absolutely get laid, and many feminist-hostile men are drowning in sex and women. Just another Feminist Theory Fail, an everyday occurrence.

2 Comments

Filed under Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Idiots, Little or None, Man World, Politics, Sex