Email from Jackie Coakley’s supposed rapist to the man who friendzoned her.
Ryan McDuffin friendzoned Jackie Coakley. She then invented a sockpuppet imaginary boyfriend, Haven Monahan. She talked to Ryan McDuffin about this boyfriend a lot, and sent numerous messages to Ryan from sockpuppet accounts, supposedly from her imaginary boyfriend. Sockpuppet boyfriend then supposedly rapes her with five other men when she went on a date with him. (This was the original version of the UVA frat boy rape) Five days after supposed rape, she supposedly sends an email to her supposed boyfriend begging Ryan McDuffin to become her boyfriend, which the imaginary rapist Haven Monahan supposedly forwards to Ryan McDuffin from what is supposedly his email account, but is in fact an account controlled by Jackie Coakley:
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Haven Monahan <haven.monahan@yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 8:33 PM
Subject: about u
To: “——@virginia.edu†<——@virginia.edu>you should read this. iv never read anything nicer in my life.
Well yeah…Ryan is fine. Ryan’s great, actually. I mean he’s smart. He’s attractive. He’s funny. He’s a scaredy cat. If you creep up behind him, he’ll jump right out of his skin. It’s pretty amusing. He’s honest. He always calls them just like he sees them. You can constantly count on getting the truth from Ryan, even if the truth hurts. He has the most incredible taste in music. He’s like this walking, talking music library. And he understands how truly important music is. He’s stubborn. He has this regimented way about him that can be so frustrating sometimes. And sometimes the things he says hurt. But he’s a really, really good friend. And loyal to a fault. He’s realistic about everything. And I’m a dreamer so I mean, it’s good to have somebody like that in my life. He’s one of my best friends here, you know? He’s more than that …he’s everything
So, then there’s Ryan. And Ryan…Ryan’s incredible. I didn’t fall for Ryan Duffin the first day I met him. Nor did I fall for him on the second day or the third day for that matter. But once I did fall for Ryan, you see, my world flipped upside down. Kathryn doesn’t understand what I see in Ryan. I guess I don’t understand what she doesn’t see in him. He’s gorgeous, but gorgeous is an understatement. More like you’re startled every time you see him because you notice something new in a Where’s Waldo sort of way. More like you can’t stop writing third grade run on sentences because you can’t even remotely begin to describe something, someone, so inherently amazing. More like you’re afraid that if you stare at him too long, you’ll prove your grandparents right that, yes, your face will get stuck that way…but you don’t mind. You, like everyone else, may think I’m exaggerating, but then again, you probably don’t know Ryan Duffin. Ryan has no idea what he does to me…he can make me feel more emotions in one second then I would normally feel in one year. He makes my head spin. And the truth is, I’m crazy about him. I mean, if I had the choice of hanging out with anyone in the entire world or just sitting in my dorm with him talking about music and watching a crappy TV show…I’d choose him everytime…without a single false step. I know he doesn’t like me. If someone really wanted you, they’d actually put some time and effort into trying to get your attention. Ryan doesn’t even like to be around me sometimes. And that really sucks. When you like someone more than he likes you, you’ll do anything to switch the scales. The thing is, you can’t. You want to tell him how you feel but you know it will end with “It’s just not going to work out.†How can I explain to him that I fell for him because of a million tiny things he never knew he was doing? I know I should just stop trying because he and I are never going to happen. He doesn’t like me, I’m not his type, I’m not the type of person he could ever be with so I should just get over it. The problem is I can’t shake these feelings I have for him, I try so damn hard, but they won’t go away. I can’t move on because the only thing I can find wrong with him, is that he can find so much wrong with me. [Redacted] said I shouldn’t give up. She said she read this quote once that said,†There’s nothing more beautiful than the way the ocean refuses to stop kissing the shoreline, no matter how many times it’s sent away.†She claimed that’s how Ryan and I are. I think she’s wrong. I think he was right from the get-go. He’ll never see me as anything more than some girl and it’ll never amount to anything. He told Alex I’m not his type and I’m a waste of his time. The things he says hurt more than you know but still…there’s something about him that makes me come back for more. All I know is, the girl who gets to be with Ryan Duffin is the luckiest girl in the world. And if she doesn’t know that, then she doesn’t deserve him.
According to a police officer, all rape accusations made by adults are false, in that he has never encountered a genuine accusation, and neither have any of the other police officers he has talked to about the matter.
My own experience would lead me to conclude that when he says “by adults” he is counting statutory rape as rape, though in my experience, it is girls who have developed hair on their pussies but not yet developed breasts who are the sexual aggressors.
If an underage girl is having sex, she is usually badly behaved in several other ways that also need and merit a beating.
Women, not men, are the uncontrollably lustful sex. For society to reproduce biologically and culturally, men have to impose monogamy on women, impose on women the rule that they can only sleep with one man, and stick with that man, and only sleep with a man willing to stick with her.
Sex between adult males and female children is primarily a problem of female bad behavior, one few remaining problems that one is allowed to acknowledge is a problem, though one is not allowed to blame the perpetrators.
Women are the sex whose dangerously volcanic and difficult to control sexual urges threaten civilization. For civilization to function, men have to control women’s sexual decisions. Women, if permitted, will reliably make bad sexual choices. Female sexuality is dangerous, and needs to placed under the control of fathers and husbands. Placing male sexuality under the control of women is the worst possible form of control. It results in the large majority of women fucking a small minority of men starting at a disturbingly early age and continuing until their eggs start to run out. Sex between adult males and little girls is seldom rape. It is girls behaving badly, and starting their bad behavior an an early age.
We should return to the system where state and society backed patriarchal authority and where sex with a virgin was a property crime against the father.
1. That whole e-mail. Good Lord.
2. >If an underage girl is having sex, she is usually badly behaved in several other ways that also need and merit a beating.
Seconded.
3. Female sexuality is not the only thing that has to be put under control by intelligent patriarchs if civilization is to continue. You can throw in the entire host of base human urges in there. In simple terms, this is because civilization itself is an advanced form of patriarchy centered around the restraint of base urges, of everyone.
Yes because nine-year-old girls hold down and rape resisting grown adult males as happens vice versa. But of course you’re a textbook example of people believing whatever they want to believe.
The typical offender is ten or eleven, usually eleven, not nine, and if she wants to get nailed, she will not find it very difficult. You need to apply coercion at the point where it is most likely to have effect.
Do you wish to establish and administer a Shari’ah court?
Sharia Law and modern English law permit sex slavery of White girls to non-White men. Traditional English law does not permit sex slavery.
I’d like a traditional English law court in a shire ruled by a hereditary sheriff. If that is currently inconceivable, I’d like this bitch burned down.
I have often argued that traditional sharia is a good system to govern relationships between Muslims. The problem is that it encourages predation on non Muslims by Muslims.
Clearly traditional Sharia is popular with women. The overwhelming majority of Christian converts to Islam are hot fertile age women converting to old fashioned Islam. The overwhelming majority of Muslim converts to Christianity are young men converting from modern progressive Islam.
Sharia law works for them, and is popular among women. Something like Sharia law would work for us.
If that’s your only objection to Shari’ah, then don’t you convert to Islam and encourage others to do likewise?!?
Its a religion that destroys the civilizations it devours. Consider what happened to India.
Bullshit.
The non-Muslim parts of India are just as bad as the Muslim parts.
Before India was conquered by Muslims it contained superior white races that upheld a superior level of civilization.
Damascus steel was steel made from iron that had been heated hot enough to melt properly, thereby expelling all the slag. After Muslims conquered India, the Indian white races became less white, possibly as a result of their women being fucked by their Muslim conquerors, and the art of making good quality steel was lost for a millennium.
India is joining China in rapid industrialization; Pakistan is an uncivilized mess due in no small part to reverence for Shari’ah.
This account of the causes of the downfall of India is historically dubious.
Muslims didn’t manage to rape all the “whites” in India. Instead the “whites” mixed with “non-white” ancestral South Indians who are related to Aborigines, Negritos and other demi-humans. The results speak for themselves.
And India still isn’t significantly better than Pakistan, this is the country where 600 million practice open defecation. Muslims are at least a little cleaner, and this is reflected in the infant mortality stats.
Muslims only conquered the north of India/Pakistan. The south was where there were people to racemix with.
We know that Muslims are able to pollute and destroy a civilization by looking at Persia.
So Jim’s conjecture that Muslims polluted and destroyed India is indeed plausible.
Ancestral South India DNA is more prominent in the south of India, but only slightly. Northern India still has a lot.
I would argue on the contrary that the power-holders whoever they are must be even more disciplined than the powerless. That progressives argue with this concept is not the problem with progressivism; progressivism’s problem is how this concept is hypocritically applied. Among average Americans, the race card grants more power than white privilege but the progressives act as if the situation is the other way around in order to free political allies from accountability.
When I said “argue with this concept”, I meant to say “agree with this concept”.
While I agree with several of your posts, Jim, some of your points here seem a little harsh. Perhaps they apply to white people alone, but you are painting a far too angelic portrait of men in general.
I am from a country where false rape accusations are common, but actual violent rapes are also very common. I have dated a girl whose stepdad raped her sister and step-sister while they were children (ie he raped one stepdaughter, as well as his own daughter). Just a few weeks ago we had the whole Rotherham story – it wasnt those teenage british girls coming on to the Pakis, it was a systematic campaign by Paki men to bang underage white girls.
Steven Pinker said in The Blank Slate that no one should be surprised that men use violence to get sex. And I don’t think it is far fetched to imagine that some adult men would be attracted to post-pubescent girls, and would try to have sex with them. Can’t really place the blame squarely on the girls.
Yes, and no. The pakis groomed the girls, before they coerced them. Lots of consensual sex preceded the non consensual sex. Good girls from intact families did not get attacked. A typical scenerio is mum takes the kids from her husband, neglects them, they start hanging out with pakis, when they feel like stopping hanging out with pakis, then they get threatened, and in some cases, severely punished.
If their dad had severely punished them at an early stage in this process, would not have been a problem.
…Police went to a house outside which a father was demanding the release of his daughter, who was inside with a group of British Pakistani adults. Officers found the girl, 14, who had been drugged, under a bed. The father and his daughter were arrested for racial harassment and assault respectively…
…A 13-year-old girl was found at 3am with disrupted clothing in a house with a large group of Asian men who had fed her vodka. A neighbour reported the girl’s screams. Police arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly but did not question the men…
…one young white girl, known by social services to have been sexually abused by Asian men from the age of 12, was offered language lessons in Urdu and Punjabi by Rotherham council. The aim was ‘to engage’ her in education…
— stories from Eurabia
They were predating on girls who were already running wild. The correct solution is not to restrain paki coercion of white girls, but improve white coercion of white girls.
Indeed, it is.
>The correct solution is not to restrain paki coercion of white girls
Bullshit.
Just because there are very precise ways of behaving around animals that are mostly safe doesn’t mean the animal control officers shouldn’t be called in when an animal invades your house.
This is like those disgusting “White nationalists” who thought Jessica Chambers deserved to be tortured and burned alive by subhumans because she was dating one of them.
We won’t save the White race by smug victim blaming whenever one of our young women gets assaulted by scum.
In these cases of young White women getting burned by bad choices around scum, there are three different people who *all* need to be punished:
* White girl needs to be shamed for bad behavior.
* Father needs to be shamed or maybe fined for failing to control his daughter.
* The scum in question need to be hanged.
…and when (3) has a civil right to do whatever? Sure, segregation laws would work, but making sure that everyone knows what civil rights means instead of creating an exception in particular cases is the next best thing. The worst outcome would be for the monkeys that set her on fire to be ostentatiously punished as if what happened was an isolated happening.
Well yes but the Paks should die you understand.
A bad time to go soft is rape and predation.
I’m with Jim on this. It seems overly harsh but these girls are courting these cunts, its another manifestation of “rebelling against dad”.
In any case they’re not innocent little flowers being pulled from the their beds at night by monsters, they’re raised in feminist homes, free, nay encouraged, to explore their sexuality at an early age by their mothers, and then reap the consequences.
As per usual when it all goes to shit its the man’s fault (in this case the Paki’s). Nope, these girls are sluts and need patriarchal authority to control them.
Source? Good God.
Sexual violence against women is real. But often women have to go looking mighty hard to find some.
If women were under firmer control, sexual violence against women would be less ambiguous, more straightforwardly criminal.
This is probably the best formulation of the concept.
There’s a big difference between forcing oneself upon one’s slavegirl and one’s daughter. Traditional English society frowns on knocking up slavegirls, but we are barbarians.
Maybe Ann Dunham’s father should have inseminated her himself.
Good red-pilled article. I’m glad the Daily Caller runs exposure like this.
A.J.P.
It looks like some genetic selection in progress: women wired to go after Paki men et al send their genes into oblivion.
OTOH, Pakis are colonizing Britain, so their genes are winning that contest.
On the gripping hand, the modern age has given a small group of elites the ability to control most of the world. They and their traditionally behaved women are gathering the prizes.
Here’s a website that may interest you jim; you and the host are very similar in following a line of enquiry:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/
As an example, take a look at his entry on genocide:
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/violence.htm#Genocide
Very jim!
Thanks for the URL. Yes, he is very Jim like. I read on his site until he fell off the trail. He also reminded me of Rush Limbaugh in that he has a lot of smarts but lacks an education to back up the intellectual power.
Dan Kurt
First of all, Oh my God Jim! I mean, wow…just, wow! I mean, I can’t even, I just… wow, just wow!
Secondly, If female sexual decisions have always been constrained, then evolution can not have provided them with the disposition to make good sexual decisions when unconstrained.
Thirdly, modern female behaviour may be, in part, a response to the feeling of utter security and lack of want; their children aren’t likely to die because of their poor decisions.
Fourthly, you’re a bit late on this Haven Monahan business aren’t you?
It is my reaction to the leftists continuing to campaign that something horribly bad must have happened at UVA. My reaction to the Doonesbury cartoon, and to the reaction to the Doonesbury cartoon. As you know, Doonesbury published an “Oh the horror” cartoon on UVA a few days ago, and on reading the comments, I found the social justice warriors in full denial.
Something terrible must have happened to Jackie Coakley, they said, something so terrible that it screwed up her memory. Fraternities are still banned, because, you know, women never lie about being raped, thus even if every detail of her rape is a lie, she still must have been raped. We know that women always tell the truth because women always tell the truth. All the lessons about how bad men are and how we should always believe women still apply, even if the social justice warriors got a few teensy weensy details wrong.
Fraternities are still banned. Measures to suppress potentially embarrassing examination of rape claims are still being introduced and enforced.
When Fox News commentators are barred by the Civil Rights Law of 1964 from saying anything discriminatory, any mention of politically sensitive topics is good for the Left.
OTOH, no one trusts the news anymore.
If women were the more lustful sex, then lesbians would probably have lots of sexual partners, and gay men fewer. Instead we see the opposite.
I don’t doubt that progressives and their predecessors (Victorian-era morality, Puritans) denied that women can sin sexually.
Reminder that being against white English is being anti-white.
You’re a faggot.
Men are polygynous, women hypergamous.
Thus, absent the restraints of civilization, women will have sex with a minority of men, after the fashion of chimps. Lesbians form couples, while gays generally do not. However lesbian couples engage in infrequent sex with each other and massive infidelity, often, perhaps usually, with men, while gays do not have sex with women. Lesbian couples relate to each other as the beta male in polyamorous relationship relates to the female. They have almost sexless emotional relationships with each other, but sexual relationships with someone more charismatic, often somebody male.
In the ancestral environment, modern type male homosexuality would have been massively selected against, modern type lesbianism not so much. Modern type male homosexuality needs an explanation as to why natural selection could not eliminate it, modern type female homosexuality does not.
I am inclined to believe that modern type male homosexuality did not exist until modern times. Civil war had porn, but all their porn was heterosexual. Male prostitutes existed, but were something weird and unusual. The presumption was that if men fucked men, it was similar to them fucking donkeys; they did so because nothing better was available.
I would think it likely that modern type lesbianism has probably always existed, but usually among the retinue of women belonging to a high status male, hence no impediment to reproduction, and quite possibly an advantage, if he was inclined to threesomes.
> Modern type male homosexuality needs an explanation as to why natural selection could not eliminate it, modern type female homosexuality does not.
Homosexuality and pedophilia are probably biological systems to slow down or stop population growth in harsh environments. You can see evidence of this in New Guinea tribes(Little boys), Jails(Men), and Afghanistan(Men and little boys). It’s more than likely a deep mammalian trait common in always sexually on mammals.
As homosexuality only passes onto both of the identical twins 30% of the time that indicates that it’s switched on after conception and probably in utero. This means that always on homosexuality is more akin to a birth defeat or a disease which might not be strongly selected against. To reduce it people will have to be studied to determine what’s switching it on.
Numbers for that don’t even come close to working.
No genes that lead to zero reproduction but are good for distant relatives survive in humans.
This is the “gay uncle” theory on a society wide scale.
Applies to this part –
“Homosexuality and pedophilia are probably biological systems to slow down or stop population growth in harsh environments.”
>No genes that lead to zero reproduction but are good for distant relatives survive in humans.
It’s been studied repeatably that once hamsters hit the wall on space they stop having sex and producing more hamsters until a large part of the population dies off. Humans like other mammals have systems that only kick in when reproduction is actually harmful to the species survival. And like all biological systems they can be stuck on when it’s less than optimal for survival through system damage or defect.
There are men who were strictly homos and then had a family and kids later in life. Maynard Keynes jumps to the top of that list. There was a railroad worker who had a iron rod shot through his head that became a pedophile afterwards.
>This is the “gay uncle†theory on a society wide scale.
No it’s not.
“>This is the “gay uncle†theory on a society wide scale.
No it’s not.”
It exactly is.
There’s some gene out there that self destructs by reproductively castrating the man that it’s found in. How does this gene survive? It sure as hell isn’t transmitted to that man’s descendants – it’s got to have enough of a benefit for the people around that they are that much more likely to survive AND those people have to share that gene – otherwise that gene gets wiped out.
At least the gay uncle hypothesis posits a mechanism for how this could work – improved child care. The “(reproductive) suicide to reduce overcrowding” gene doesn’t even have that going for it.
Reproductive suicide in response to unnatural conditions that natural selection has never previously encountered is, however plausible.
According to Anonymous Conservative, the “gay uncle” theory has been disproven. He says that some people have a genetic desire for sexual novelty, and male homosexuality is an extreme expression of this:
http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/drd4-long-form-variant-7r-a-genetic-correlate-between-liberalism-and-homosexuality-the-extreme-r-hypothesis-of-homosexuality/
In “Philomena”, a true story, an innocent (ha!) Irish girl gets knocked up at a carnival and is forced to give the baby up for adoption. When she tracks down her son decades later, she finds out he was a gay man who died of AIDS.
>There’s some gene out there that self destructs by reproductively castrating the man that it’s found in. How does this gene survive? It sure as hell isn’t transmitted to that man’s descendants – it’s got to have enough of a benefit for the people around that they are that much more likely to survive AND those people have to share that gene – otherwise that gene gets wiped out.
Clearly I’m not explaining this in an understandable manner. First off natural selection doesn’t work at exclusively at the gene level. There are tons of attributes and behaviors that are carried along by the alleles for necessary functions. So a particular behavior or attribute doesn’t need to be used constantly and will be reproduced as long as it’s included in a function that does need to be used all the time. Read A Troublesome inheritance by Nick Wade for more info.
In the interior of New Guinea land is divided between waring tribes. Food is limited and leaving the tribe to find new land isn’t possible. Food gathered communally. A man having 10 children to everyone else has 3 would quickly destroy the tribe but more than likely he and his family would be killed before that happened. So a man who produces a lot of children isn’t favored. On the other hand deaths from warfare come in uneven intervals from which a tribe needs to recover quickly from if they expect to survive. So a man who produces a lot of children is favored from time to time. New Guinea tribes handle this problem by directing their sex drive towards young boys instead of women to keep the the population from becoming too large. Thus natural selection favors non reproductive sex for population control.
I doubt very much that humans developed this system. It’s far more likely it developed in our small mammalian ancestors and it’s alleles are tied into some other important function that almost always gets reproduced. Ever wonder why it’s hard to get Mammals to reproduce in a zoo? It’s a caged environment which triggers that don’t reproduce right now biological system.
Homosexuality isn’t purely genetic as demonstrated by twin studies. Thus due to it’s commonality it has to be part of a biological function that malfunctioning. I think it’s a “don’t reproduce under certain conditions” function that’s been damage so that it’s stuck on almost all the time.
>Reproductive suicide in response to unnatural conditions that natural selection has never previously encountered is, however plausible.
The very fact that people kill themselves and sometimes take their families with them is proof that we have inbuilt systems to snip our genetic code out of existence under certain circumstances.
— Clearly I’m not explaining this in an understandable manner. First off natural selection doesn’t work at exclusively at the gene level. There are tons of attributes and behaviors that are carried along by the alleles for necessary functions. So a particular behavior or attribute doesn’t need to be used constantly and will be reproduced as long as it’s included in a function that does need to be used all the time.
Ͼ(°◡°)Ͽ
— Thus natural selection favors non reproductive sex for population control.
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞ ☜(ﾟヮﾟ☜)
I’m off to the bookstore to buy this book no one has heard of á••( á› )á•—
do you mind sending me an email? or leave your address at my blog.
It could be a gene that when on and in a female codes for higher fertility / sluttiness but when on and in a male codes for gayness.
“It could be a gene that when on and in a female codes for higher fertility / sluttiness”
Higher fertility and sluttiness aren’t nearly the same thing.
Sluttiness isn’t success for a woman.
maybe there’s a gene that codes for liking peppermint ice cream that is useful in an environment where chocolate ice cream is scarce. this gene could also cause tooth decay when it’s activated because it causes excessive candy cane eating.
That seems plausible.
So based on statistics, then by promiscuity from least to most
Straight people, Lesbians, Bisexual Women, Gay Men, Bisexual Men
Presumably the difference between Bisexuality and Homosexuality is simply whether a person is more restrained. More sexual partners means you’re more likely to try the other gender eventually.
So how do we examine data to determine whether women really are the more lustful sex? Obviously since women are hypergamous, and men polygamous, women are more likely to lie in a survey.
It’s certainly true that society is more concerned with restraining female sexuality than male sexuality, for obvious reasons. By “lustful” do you mean “more promiscuous” or “more likely to fight social norms”?
(clairification: “more promiscuous” should read “more likely to engage in a non-monogamous relationship”, which included both hypergamy and polygyny)
Women are more likely than men to do crazy self destructive stuff for sexual reasons.
And by the way, a partial explanation for gays is drugs. When on certain drugs, especially those popular in the gay community, sexual drive is increased, and sexual orientation is blurry. Absent the drugs, I would bet the gay community would be reduced.
Modern technology has permitted people to develop certain weird subcultures. Propaganda has also certainly increased the numbers of the gay community.
Sorry about jumping in here, but if modern type male homosexuality didn’t exist, what was it exactly that made Baron Von Steuben unemployable on the continent?
What is your source that Baron von Steuben was modern type gay? And how does your source know this?
If he was modern type gay, this behavior was so strange and little known that his fellow soldiers failed to recognize it.
What do you mean? Every biography of von Steuben mentions that he was brought up on charges in Karlsruhe for homosexuality shortly before bouncing to America. He remained a confirmed bachelor throughout the rest of his life and lived with his aides de camp, whom he left his estate to.
Von Steuben was not actually charged, nor actually convicted. He was rumored to be homosexual. An aides-de-camp is secretary or high ranking servant, and it was normal to live with one’s servants.
If homosexual, was not modern type homosexual. Probably had a sexual interest in under age children, but not in adult males.
Paul Lockhart (Smithsonian Books 2008) says on page 203-204 –
….
The rumor was that he buggered little boys, not that he buggered his aids de camp. That he buggered his aids de camp is a modern rumor.
The rumors were, I believe, that he was both a homosexual and a pedophile. When John Adams’ youngest son took up hanging around von Steuben, Adams had to threaten him with disinheritance to get him to come home and get married.
He cohabited with his aides de camp long after the war was over, And there was the no-pants party he threw for young officers, where they did flaming shots. I mean, what do you need, Jim, for him to have marched into battle festooned with a rainbow flag while his trumpeter played “Raining Men”?
These are rumors of rumors conjured long after the events by modern people – modern homosexuals.
None of them are directly traceable to gossips of his own time.
Sure. They just happened to pounce upon poor von Steuben. Where there’s smoke…
By the way, when John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, wrote in his dildo poem
“St Albans with Wrinkles and Smiles in his Face
Whose kindnesse to Strangers, becomes his high Place,
In his Coach and Six Horses is gone to Pergo,
To take the fresh Air with Signior Dildo”
what do you think he was implying about St. Albans?
This is twentieth century smoke, not eighteenth century smoke. Pretty much like your reading of Ruth. Modern type gays are so hard up to find modern type gays in the past that they make them up.
did those 21st century homos invent a time machine and go back to forge Rochester’s poems? St Albans sounds like a typical modern wealthy aged homosexual to me.
You sound gay.
Saint Albans, meaning the ruler of Saint Albans, has purchased a dildo to keep his elderly and ugly wife contented, while he “ranges” without her, while he is “kind to strangers” – that is to say, generous to whores.
If “kind to strangers”, does not need a dildo for his own personal use.
>You sound gay.
You sound like a pedophile (I’ve never been sexually propositioned by a prepubescent, and neither has anyone I’ve spoken to, and if your hallucinations were correct, STDs would be universal as well as teenage pregnancy) but we’ll continue this conversation.
>Saint Albans, meaning the ruler of Saint Albans, has purchased a dildo to keep his elderly and ugly wife contented, while he “ranges†without her, while he is “kind to strangers†– that is to say, generous to whores.
St. Albans, meaning, the Earl of St. Albans. That’s a fascinating theory. Unfortunately, St. Albans never married. And Rochester says he was very kind to strangers and vacationed with a dildo. What does 2+2 equal?
This caused me to look up the Earl of Saint Albans:
So, it would seem that according to the poem, those neglected ladies of the court were comforted first by the Earl, and then, when they got toothless and smelly, by the dildo.
according to rumor, the Earl of Saint Albans had bastards all over the place, among them upon her royal highness, the widow of Charles the First. Supposedly he was the natural father of Charles the second.
According to the poem, some of the ladies of the court were neglected. According to rumor, the earl of Saint Albans was industriously comforting them.
So, when the poem says
not Saint Albans’ wife that needs the dildo, but the widow of Charles the first.
Since the poem is ridiculing the ladies of the court and the royal widow, it is not likely to imply that Saint Albans was modern type gay.
Yeah, I read the wiki too. Likely story-he was such a vigorous heterosexual rake that he never got around to marrying. Just look at all his lady friends! He and the queen would go clothes shopping and stuff all the time-does that sound like he was gay to you?! I heard that two of the king’s six children were actually Albans’-does that sound gay?!!!
“Doll Howard” is not referencing the king’s widow, Henrietta Maria, but Dorothy Howard, who had nothing to do with the queen, the king or Albans. As usual, you are attempting to make things on the spot up and digging deeper.
The obvious meaning of the poem is that Saint Albans ceased to have sex with her majesty and others, and gave her a dildo, while wandering far away to have sex with prostitutes.
You are artificially forcing a meaning on the poem that just does not fit. Irrespective of whether he was a modern type gay, the poet obviously believes, or intends to imply, the rumors that he seduced the queen, and numerous other ladies of the court, that he was not a modern type gay.
Which is, of course, also the Jewish approach to the old testament.
The Queen is nowhere mentioned in the poem. Neither are whores mentioned in connection with St Albans. All we are told about this confirmed bachelor is that he is wrinkly, full of smiles, unusually kind to strangers and vacations in Italy with his dildo. QED.
You see references to homosexuality in the most indirect of words, and yet cannot see references to heterosexual prostitution.
The neglected women of the court that the poet suggests were employing the dildo, were also rumored to be employing the Earl of Albans in a similar capacity. This is not a poem about the seventeenth century use of the dildo. It is an attack on character of the ladies of court.
If the implication was that the Earl of Albans is going to anally dildo himself, that would be irrelevant to the entire rest of the poem, which is about the ladies of the court, and he does not need to visit distant places to do it, whereas he does need to visit distant places in order to neglect the ladies of the court.
I don’t get you. You assert that homosexuals were a thing unknown until the 20th century. I brought up von Steuben and St Albans, whom you don’t like as examples.What about Molly Houses like Mother Clap’s? I mean, you made a statement that was ridiculous, that is easily falsifiable, like saying Australia didn’t exist until the 19th century and all accounts to the contrary are later falsifications.
Molly houses, equivalent of San Francisco bathhouses, appear in early eighteenth century England so modern type homosexuality existed then, but we don’t see their equivalent in nineteenth century America, nor in seventeenth century England.
Modern type homosexuals did not exist. Obviously sodomy of males by males existed, was alarmingly frequent, and arrests for it were common. So was pedophilic interest in small boys. But adult males who failed to engage in sex with women because of a sexual preference for other adult males did not exist in sufficient numbers for there to be a word for them, or for people to be aware of their existence.
When we look at civil war porn, we don’t see homosexual porn. If males existed that preferred adult males to women, they were so rare that there was no word for them, and no indication that anyone thought about them, and no one produced material accommodating their preferences.
Gays have gone digging through the civil war period to look for modern type homosexuals, have come up with mighty slim pickings. If they existed, they were so rare that their contemporaries remained unaware of their existence.
Obviously male on male sodomy always existed, for it has always been condemned, and there have always been arrests for it. But we seem to have gone through long periods of history in many cultures and societies without an identifiable category of males who failed to reproduce due to sexual preference for other adult males, without a word for such people, without such people being noticeable.
The molly houses (equivalent of bath houses) are the first appearance of modern type homosexuals in England, and we do not see the like in civil war America. Thus, for example, civil war America produced plenty of porn, no homosexual porn, plenty of brothels, no equivalent of molly houses. The New Testament references what sounds like modern homosexuals, but has to repurpose a new word to refer to them, not having any good existing word. They then disappear from European history a thousand years. A few centuries after new testament times, once again no word for them.
Chaucer’s summoner is a pedophile who is implied to have a preference for boys, but despite having one of every category systematically represented, no male in Chaucer shows a sexual preference for other adult males.
it would be difficult to create Australia in the 19th century, but in this century, transgenders have been created.
There have been men who pretended they were women for a very long time, and some of them even went to the extent of mutilating themselves.
Here, you know what, I’ll just let Sir Richard Burton take it away. Thank you guys for making me slog through his report, which is basically the longest gay joke ever, I wish the same on you:
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/RB-ESSAY.HTM
(I’ll excerpt the parts not dealing with boys and eunuchs):
http://paganpressbooks.com/jpl/RB-ESSAY.HTM
…a private soldier, C. Plotius, killed his military Tribune, Q. Luscius, for unchaste proposals…
…The great Cæsar, the Cinædus calvus of Catullus, was the husband of all the wives and the wife of all the husbands in Rome (Suetonius, cap. lii.); and his soldiers sang in his praise “Gallias Cæsar subegit, Nicomedes Cæsarem†(Suet. cies. xlix.); whence his sobriquet “Fornix Bithynicusâ€. Of Augustus the people chanted
Videsne ut Cinædus orbem digito temperet?…
…Ausonius recounts of Caligula he so lost patience that he forcibly entered the priest M. Lepidus, before the sacrifice was completed…
…he beautiful Nero was formally married to Pythagoras (or Doryphoros) and afterwards took to wife Sporus who was first subjected to castration of a peculiar fashion; he was then named Sabina after the deceased spouse and claimed queenly honours…
[there’s your trannies, nothing new under the sun]
…That marvellous Satyricon which unites the wit of Molière* with the debaucheries of Piron, whilst the writer has been described, like Rabelais, as purissimus in impuritate, is a kind of Triumph of Pederasty. Geiton the hero, a handsome curly-pated hobbledehoy of seventeen, with his câlinerie and wheedling tongue, is courted like one of the sequor sexus: his lovers are inordinately jealous of him and his desertion leaves deep scars upon the heart. But no dialogue between man and wife in extremis could be more pathetic than that in the scene where shipwreck is imminent. Elsewhere everyone seems to attempt his neighbour: a man alte succinctus assails Ascyltos; Lycus, the Tarentine skipper, would force Encolpius and so forth: yet we have the neat and finished touch (cap. vii.):—— “The lamentation was very fine (the dying man having manumitted his slaves) albeit his wife wept not as though she loved him. How were it had he not behaved to her so well? 
…Julius Firmicus relates that “The Assyrians and part of the Africans†(along the Mediterranean seaboard?) “hold Air to be the chief element and adore its fanciful figure (imaginata figura), consecrated under the name of Juno or the Virgin Venus. * * * Their companies of priests cannot duly serve her unless they effeminate their faces, smooth their skins and disgrace their masculine sex by feminine ornaments. You may see men in their very temples amid general groans enduring miserable dalliance and becoming passives like women (viros muliebria pati) and they expose, with boasting and ostentation, the pollution of the impure and immodest body. 
…An illustration of the penchant is told at Shiraz concerning a certain Mujtahid, the head of the Shi’ah creed, corresponding with a prince-archbishop in Europe. A friend once said to him, “There is a question I would fain address to your Eminence but I lack the daring to do so.†“Ask and fear not,†replied the Divine. “It is this, O Mujtahid! Figure thee in a garden of roses and hyacinths with the evening breeze waving the cypress-heads, a fair youth of twenty sitting by thy side and the assurance of perfect privacy. What, prithee, would be the result?†The holy man bowed the chin of doubt upon the collar of meditation; and, too honest to lie presently whispered, “Allah defend me from such temptation of Satan! 
…Skaykh Nasr, Governor of Bushire, a man famed for facetious blackguardism, used to invite European youngsters serving in the Bombay Marine and ply them with liquor till they were insensible. Next morning the middies mostly complained that the champagne had caused a curious irritation and soreness in la parte-poste…
…Till late years pederasty in the Brazil was looked upon as a peccadillo; the European immigrants following the practice of the wild men who were naked but not, as Columbus said, “clothed in innocenceâ€. One of Her Majesty’s Consuls used to tell a tale of the hilarity provoked in a “fashionable†assembly by the open declaration of a young gentleman that his mulatto-“patient†had suddenly turned upon him, insisting upon becoming agent…
…The negro race is mostly untainted by sodomy and tribadism. Yet Joan dos Sanctos* found in Cacongo of West Africa certain “Chibudi, which are men attyred like women and behaue themselves womanly, ashamed to be called men; are also married to men, and esteem that vnnaturale damnation an honor…
etc. etc. etc.
1. New Testament reports what appear to be modern type homosexuals, males who prefer adult males, but needs a new word for them, which word subsequently falls out of use.
2. If Julius Caesar is your example of a modern type homosexual – one who commits reproductive suicide by preference for adult males, you are hard up for examples.
Granted modern type homosexuals did exist in Rome, though Caesar very famously was not one of them. But throughout most of history they did not exist, in that people lacked a word for them, there were no equivalent of bathhouses, no jokes nor insults about them.
Which confirms that many cultures and societies have extremely low levels of modern type homosexuality – that there is something in the environment which varies from one culture to another that is causing it, and which probably did not exist in the ancestral environment.
so basically, because Nero and Elagabalus, transsexuality (is it women born in male bodies, or the sovereign choice of a free human to follow his own heart?) is totally a recorded historical phenomenon, that six year olds have always dabbled in, and teenagers have always killed themselves over.
>Granted modern type homosexuals did exist in Rome, though Caesar very famously was not one of them.
Caesar had three children. Anyone of his stature who desires and is fertile can do better. Obviously, Caesar had a healthy sex drive, so he must have valued other things about sex more than reproduction.
>But throughout most of history they did not exist, in that people lacked a word for them, there were no equivalent of bathhouses, no jokes nor insults about them.
I suspect that they existed and were not discussed openly. “The love that dares not speak its name.” So, for instance, we see Rochester’s extensive and very graphic poem, yet he refers to old fruit St. Albans so obliquely that you have to read closely to understand what he’s talking about. And I suspect that if I dig deeper, I will find rampant underground homosexuality during the Civil War. Please don’t force me to dig deeper.
Generally, my impression is that homosexuality is like any other vice. Predisposition to it is distributed on a bell curve between individuals within a society and between societies. At some points, a society becomes decadent and certain vices predominate and are even held up as virtues-for instance, you see a massive gluttony epidemic in the US. Or, let’s take another illuminative example: William Burroughs. Burroughs, a livelong, incorrigible junkie, homosexual and pedophile, fathered a child and held down jobs, despite his apparent innate preference for sodomy and unemployment. He himself said that homosexual inclinations were distributed on a bell curve throughout the population, and whether individuals make the choice to act on them is determined by upbringing, circumstances, etc.
To take another example, most societies in history didn’t have a large population of unemployed substance abusers. This gentleman, for example, would be inconceivable in most places and times-they would have killed him off right away: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/eyeball-man-sentenced-for-shooting-officer/ar-BBhuzO7
Obviously, people have different propensities for enjoying opiates and becoming addicted to them, and obviously, people in medieval England or wherever drank heavily, and some of them to the point of self-destruction. But it was not considered a fundamental part of their identity-“my name is John and I’m an alcoholic!” Ditto homosexuality-in most societies, it was a vice that some were partial to, but it wasn’t, typically, their main defining attribute, many lived normal lives despite occasional indulgence (as they do in the Arab world and Burton’s “Sotadic Zone” today,) etc. This idea of a human as a life support system for a set of genitalia, the innate preferences of which drive all actions, is very modern. Which speaks to the topic of this post, by the way.
Caesar had three identifiable children. He also screwed everyone else’s wife and everyone else’s slave girls, so chances are he had very large numbers of deniable children.
There has never been a prohibition against ridiculing unusual sexual behavior. If practitioners dared not speak, it would have been because other people were far too likely to speak. One of the Athenian dictators was run out of town for sodomizing his wife.
It is perfectly clear that he is not depicting Saint Albans as an old fruit, and is most likely referring to the rumors that Saint Albans had sex with the neglected ladies of the court and fathered their children.
The rumor was was that Saint Albans was a rake, not that he was gay.
Saint Albans got ahead by spying, by trading in information, and by the neglected wives of powerful men applying influence in his favor. But here is the interesting thing. It always seems to be fertile age women, good looking chicks, the neglected but still quite hot, the aging but still quite pre menopausal, wives of powerful men that pull strings in his favor. Saint Albans did have effeminate characteristics, but he clearly preferred the company of attractive women, lots of attractive women. The reference to “generous to strangers”, is a reference to the rumors that in his old age, when he was no longer so curiously popular with other men’s neglected, but still hot, wives, he hired numerous ladies of questionable morals.
By the way, it is exactly this that makes the PUA movement so gay. Just as a modern homosexual is insufferable because of his self-identification by the act and his reduction of everything around himself to homosexuality, so the modern PUA. With similar effects on reproductive success, by the way.
Ryan McDuffin.
Ryan Duffin.
Haven Monahan.
Haven.
We have to add VA I guess to the Great Mongol Purge headed for DC and the Beltway. As well as MD west of Frederick.
I believe in burning the schools to the ground. All of them.
So I’m consistent – so important – in my Hobgoblinism.
Fuck the kitchen. Here’s a shovel. Now dig your own grave.
While forcible rape by total strangers is indeed very rare, you are going to have to make a better argument to prove that 11 year old girls seducing men over their better judgement is a common occurrence.
There’s plenty of sluts out there, and some active from their teens; but it isn’t that common. Sluttiness is normally distributed, and the average isn’t that high.
The average girl does not get married till thirty or so, because when she is hot, she fucks around. I call that average mighty high, and claim it typically sets in at an early age.
Sex drive is at maximum about midway through puberty, and declines steadily thereafter. If girl not slutty, would marry the guy she fell in love with during puberty or shortly thereafter. Very few girls do this. They like fucking around.
I’ll need a citation on the sex drive thing.
And most women aren’t fucking around. First, most women aren’t hot. And there just arent that many alphas around to arouse them, and even if there were, most won’t touch them.
I know plenty of 30 year old virgins in Asia, and in Europe most women arent fucking that much. Women dont marry soon because they expect greater alphas, but they generally dont come.
Very few enjoy the process of fucking around browsing for alphas, and most women despise them, for a reason.
How do you know they are virgins? A girl only needs sixty seconds with an alpha every couple of months to rack up a pretty high number.
The way I know the CIA didn’t blow the twin towers up.
And other ways I shouldn’t talk about in public.
It takes more than sixty seconds with an alpha to have sex. And past experience with alphas is a life changing experience. Hell I can tell a slut a mile away, I can’t believe you can’t. If sluttiness isn’t normally distributed, why not? And if obvious sluts aren’t the right tail of the distribution, who is?
You are making an extraordinary argument with very weak evidence. You should know better than using your intellectual authority to influence a bunch of clueless fans.
You are telling me that you have evidence that cannot be told that there are very large numbers of thirty year old female virgins.
I don’t believe you.
I am telling you I have evidence that cannot be told that there are very large numbers of sexually aggressive pre teen girls.
You don’t believe me.
But I don’t see how you can have evidence that a thirty year old woman is a virgin unless you were monitoring her every minute of every day, or unless you were the one that popped her. Popped many thirty year old virgins? Any blood?
You say it takes longer than a minute? Ok, every hour of every day.
A chaste woman is not a woman who does not have sex. Such are very rare.
A chaste woman is not a woman who does not have sex until late. Such are very rare.
A chaste woman is a woman who has sex with a guy who is plausibly willing to stick around, and thereafter sticks with him through thick and thin.
And plainly, chaste women are also rare. If she gets married at thirty or so, she has been riding the cock carousel, and the only question is at what age she started riding the cock carousel. Well, chances are she started at the age that girls start feeling frisky, and they start feeling frisky pre teen, at about the time they get fur on their pussies.
after all, women looking for and going back to guys that don’t respect them is a trope you hear about in the media, and the media is run by the Cathedral, so it’s just a lie. If only I was as smart as Spandrell, I could figure out why the Cathedral wants us to believe it.
— most women aren’t fucking around
so where exactly do you live?
— Very few enjoy the process of fucking around browsing for alphas, and most women despise them, for a reason.
I despise Chipotle, their food is overpriced and isn’t even that good.
Jim confuses preteen girls who like teenage boys such as Justin Beiber at the beginning of his career with seducresses of adult men. Like Shi’ah Muslims, he believes that Aisha exploited Muhammad rather than the other way around. But then Khomeini did say it was OK to have sex with a baby so…
Justin Beiber is what the Cathedral promotes to preteen girls, for fear of what preteen girls are apt to follow if left to their own devices.
In the eighties, “Magnum PI”, whose lead character was handsome, manly, violent, forty year old, single with numerous hot adult female friends (different hot guest starlet every week) but no current romantic attachments, private investigator, was a gigantic hit with pre-teen girls.
The plan was that they would have an action hero whose action pulled in male audience, but was a hearthrob with no attachments who would pull in a female audience.
They were so horrified by the huge success of this plan that they have not done a similar character on broadcast prime time television ever since.
Does a loose alliance of movements and networks like this Cathedral of yours have enough coherency to coherently plan for minor and disputed/dubious details like the wild lusts of preteen girls?
Not coherently.
But when the wild lusts of preteen girls manifest in some embarrassing fashion, they will change the conversation, kind of like they are attempting to do with the UVA false accusation scandal.
I take it HA has never been lusted after by a preteen, or talked to high school girls about them fucking the married men they had jobs from. So with no personal anecdotes, he beleibes the only thing he has ever heard about what women like.
Women do what they are told. When they are told to be attracted to faggy and nerdy guys, and those faggy guys are given the ability to make other guys fear being accused of bad thoughts, and those nerdy guys are given the ability lord their knowledge over others and provide homework help, they really really try to like them.
And yet…
A lot of this is due to nature and genetics, but I wonder how much of women’s profligate behavior is due to social engineering/conditioning. From the time she is born, a girl is bombarded with equalitarian “yo go GRRLism”. She’s told by her teachers that she can be the President and that running a household is akin to having slavery forced upon her.
Often, her father is either absent or severely pussy-whipped. She gets no guidance from him (and indeed, her journey to the Sexual Wonderland that is the modern college campus may be entirely funded by him.) Many fathers discourage their daughters from marrying early, because THEY’VE been told that it’s mean and unfair to deprive a woman of her happy fun-time rutting years (which the father remembers as the best years of HIS life…)
Sex is used to sell everything, from shampoo to dentures. Advertising spends billions of dollars per year learning how to manipulate dick and vagina tingles so companies can better move products. Disney movies tell little girls to “Be themselves. You’re perfect just the way you are. You’re a wonderful little snowflake.” Social media opens a portal onto waves of thirsty men, ready to validate a girl’s every decision and praise her every flaw as perfection.
You complain that girls and women stink. They do because they’ve been dipped in sewage, but you seem to ascribe a lot of blame for this to the girls themselves. It’s true that if this were the 1950’s, a girl who chose to “sit in parked cars with boys” WOULD be an example of a stiff-necked slattern. This is because back then, she would have been bombarded with media messages, educational films and advice from friends and family that would have encouraged her to delay sex until marriage. The only girls who would have ignored that advice were girls who craved attention and/or girls who’d had chaotic home lives that messed them up sexually.
I’m not prepared to condemn a 12 year old for her sexual choices, because 12 year olds haven’t got the agency to use their sexual organs properly. Throughout most of human history, girls didn’t get their periods until much later in their lives, when they (and their society) were better able to handle sexuality. Some evil force is at work in our society now, and it wants to turn our population into a bunch of lizard-brained consumer idiots. THEY are the ones I focus my wrath upon….
TrooperA, I think Jim is correct. You appear to be young and inexperienced or somehow under the sway of the Medieval Troubadour belief in women. Check out the Bible and see how Eve gave Adam the Apple: founding myths of Western Civilization and those of Mesopotamia before Moses ascribe women with causing the fall and original sin. Being Hypergamous is only one of women’s faults. Another is their propensity for Hysterical thinking. Successful societies control their women and rarely put them in charge for good reason.
Dan Kurt
>I’m not prepared to condemn a 12 year old for her sexual choices, because 12 year olds haven’t got the agency to use their sexual organs properly.
Bingo. Therefore they must be put under the authority of someone who does have that agency and responsibility. Now, when do they gain that agency? 15? 20? 25? Some of them, sure, but I’ve known plenty of women who lack it at age 30, and plenty of men, too.
What is to be done with them? Obviously they should be put under the authority of some responsible party… Some kind of patron-client relationship… The current system is a disaster because the patron, in the form of our wise and loving Uncle Sam, is a monstrous soulless bureaucracy whose incentives are a convoluted mess, that if anything, lead him to make the problem worse. No, we need something more personal, something that gives the client a material interest in arranging an orderly, productive existence for his charges. Jim has made a suggestion or two as I recall.
I’ll spare you the details. And note that I mentioned Asia. People here have lower sex drivers, are under very tight surveillance not to pump and dump; and there’s just very, very few alphas willing to go around fucking substandard women. So these women remain chaste, mostly unwilling, but that’s how it is.
I know in Western countries more people manage to get laid, there’s less surveillance and more alphas around. But not that many.
Willingness to fuck an alpha doesn’t make a slut; going out of one’s way to get nailed makes a slut. And those are few. Yes more than the Victorians think, but not that many.
I’ve known my share of aggressive pre-teen girls, and yes I’m ready to believe there are more than it’s usually acknowledged, but not that there are large numbers of pre-teen girls actually capable of getting laid with an alpha. There’s just not that many alphas around Jim.
The cock carrousel can mean 2 guys a month, or it can mean 2 guys a decade. There is a normal distribution, and a Pareto distribution. You seem to say that it’s not 20% of men fucking 80% of the women, but 1% of men fucking 99% of the women. Well that’s a lot of fucking, even for sociopathic alphas. I don’t buy it. It’s most likely 20% fucking 80%, which means 20% don’t get fucked at all, and of the 80% a majority gets fucked very very seldom.
And 99.9% of pre-teen girls don’t get fucked at all, unless Justin Bieber is around and willing.
If a fertile age woman is only getting nailed twice a decade, that is going to hurt unbearably, as painful for her as it is for a man. She will take action to swiftly relieve the pain – and that action does not need to take much time at all. It is hard for a woman to get into a relationship, and typically impossible for her to get into a relationship with the kind of man she would like to nail her. It is really easy for her to get nailed by the kind of man she would like to nail her, and as the lonely nights roll by month after month, she is eventually going to skip the relationship stuff. If a woman marries late, that means she has chosen to skip the relationship stuff pretty regularly, and likes it that way.
How can it be so easy? I know hordes of women who can’t get laid by the sort of men they want. Mostly because they have stupidly high standards.
Either the women where you live have incredibly low standards of alpha, or the alphas where you live have 3 dicks each.
And I don’t see how women feel pain for not getting laid.That’s patently false. As long as their hamster can find a suitable excuse for their lack of sex, and they are suitably supplied with romance novels and friends with the same predicament, they are pretty content.
There are also tens of millions of male incels around who are pretty content masturbating to japanese cartoons, and would rather continue doing so than actually take the trouble to court and fuck a women of their league.
Now this might be a regional issue; the US being full of thugs of any color, and all sorts of women, no matter how ugly, fat or annoying, being capable of getting a black thug to fuck them once in a while. But out of that bubble, in less diverse societies, an equilibrium of really little sex does exist. 30% of Japanese men AND women are virgins; and in my part of Europe, where there are few blacks or thugs of any color, women can go on for years without sex, happily feeding out of their hamsters while awaiting their prince on horseback to come court them.
Some do of course go on Tinder to try to get 5 minutes of alpha, but there’s no way enough alphas to satisfy them all, and white alphas won’t touch a 6 or less woman with a ten foot pole.
One male can do a hundred women. And, given the opportunity, will. There is no inherent shortage of alpha cock.
There is an inherent short of alpha relationships, but if women found that too troubling, would get married younger.
Yet two hundred years ago, was considered patently obvious.
Arnold Schwarzenegger fucked his maid. If he fucked her, fucks any women who bends over in front of him and spreads her cheeks.
If a man puts off getting laid for a decade, and another decade, by then he’s a bit older than when Plato would suggest getting married. If a woman puts off getting laid for a decade, and then another decade, it’s over, she’s an old maid.
As long as their hamster can find a suitable excuse for their lack of [marriage], and they are suitably supplied with romance novels and friends with the same predicament, they are pretty content.
When I was in high school, and my high school sweetheart told a joke about all girls college and meeting a yeti, I replied by piously denying that women have any interest in sex.
It’s nice to know that other parts of the world haven’t absorbed the degeneracy of the US and Western Europe yet.
How do you know this? All you actually know is they cannot have a relationship with the sort of men they want.
I know the women, and trust my judgment of whether they lie or not, and I know the local alphas and I know what they fuck. And they’re picky.
Schwarzenegger is the old fallacy of the salient exception that confirms the rule. The maid was a fairly resourceful women; most spinsters aren’t like that.
Women are mysterious, even to themselves, perhaps especially to themselves. Men, however, are entirely transparent. If a fresh woman bends over and spreads her cheeks, the local alpha will fuck her. Men are not picky about sex. They are picky about relationships. Sex is like pizza. There is good pizza and better pizza, but there is no such thing as bad pizza.
That you know that thirty year old women are virgins is improbable. That you know that the local alphas are picky is highly improbable.
Fertile age women never have to go without sex for any great length of time. So they don’t.
Do they have contraceptives or abortions or out-of-wedlock childbirths?
OT, but Jim, you should see this:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395627/whos-running-country-jonah-goldberg#comment-1770845750
Apparently, noting that “No Labels” is nothing more than AstroTurf created by the Cathedral/Establishment is now considered “controversial”. The responses to the poster were reminiscent of typical responses by SJW’s.
Did Gawker take over National Review or something?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395627/whos-running-country-jonah-goldberg
Oops! Wrong thread.
This is the one:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395650/what-problem-solving-progressives-dont-get-andrew-c-mccarthy
When a neoreactionary points out the glaringly obvious, the “conservatives” act like a fox has gotten in the henhouse.
It’s like… They’re the controlled opposition or something.
How very strange.
that comment… I really wish people had stuck to the ‘Polygon’ name instead of ‘Cathedral’
Polygon does sound a bit better. But then, the ruling structure does act like a church. And Jim’s right that the West is ruled effectively by “priests”.
“Did Gawker take over National Review or something?”
Take over?
NR was started by WF Buckley – Yale / CIA. It’s consciously been the controlled fake opposition since day 1.
I think they’re getting sloppy.
The opposite of a lie is rarely the truth. Any one who cannot resist being seduced by a 13 year old girl is a degenerate who should be locked up or euthanised.
What do you propose should be done to the thirteen year old girl?
By the way, thirteen is fertile age. Juliet was thirteen, and Romeo was around eighteen (because he had a boy beard, and could fight adults as an equal). There is nothing perverse about having sex with a fertile age woman. I believe that most girls, lacking the self control to remain virgins, should be married off at a very young age, to young men who are old enough that they are getting started in their careers.
What is perverse is sex with ten year olds and eleven year olds.
When they are not overfed and lazy girls do not become fertile until about 16. Pregnancies at the younger age of 13 stunt growth and make giving birth more dangerous. Girls as young as 8 have gotten pregnant that does not mean you should sleep with them. If they are not genuinely raped (and that does happen certain men mostly blacks are animals with uncontrollable lusts) Fornicators should be sterilized they are not good breeding material. And all fornication and rape babies should be aborted.
Evidence for stunted growth only shows when girls get pregnant or eight or nine. I am unaware of evidence for reduced fertility, or adverse affects of pregnancy, at age thirteen. Indeed, it looks to me that the optimal age to give birth is around fourteen, and i+*-t is all downhill from there, that from the health point of view, the best age to get started on a family is thirteen or not long thereafter, that married at thirteen, pregnant soon thereafter, and giving birth at fourteen, is what nature intended, is what was typical in the ancestral environment.
What evidence do you have that getting pregnant at age thirteen and giving birth at age fourteen has adverse health effects? Primary sources please.
Official truth is that pregnancy is safest between twenty and thirty five. I am familiar with official truth. But the data it is based on seems to say fourteen to twenty five, not twenty to thirty five.
If you survey risk of bad pregnancy outcome by age of woman, you will always get higher risk for the younger women, because first pregnancies are risky. The correct measure is risk of bad first pregnancy outcome by age of woman, risk of bad outcomes in nulliparous women, by which measure, older women, around 23, do do slightly better, but the difference is pretty small for ages within the normal range.
Now it might be that for ages outside the normal range, the difference is not small, but I feel that if that was the case, we would have the data.
I dunno, I hear German women are supposed to get married at around 20-25, which is in the range Plato sets.
— all fornication and rape babies should be aborted
…except if the people get married immediately
What I thought you meant by rape accusation turns out to be quite a bit different than what you actually mean.
I saw it as a charges filed kind of thing. And even then my quibble was with Vast.
-on phone
[…] of The Trichotomy, which spawned a particularly entertaining set of comments (even for Jim). Also Sockpuppet Rapist which is a deeper look into the a female psyche than most are prepared to […]