29 January 2012

The Ring, by JackofClubs


Here's yet ANOTHER tale of horror from a young, Canadian bachelor.  Here's yet another lucky guy who dodged a bullet!  JackofClubs is a member of Happy Bachelors, and his story is must read material.  Read this story, 'The Ring', by JackofClubs, Fellas!  Read it and weep; or I should say read it and rejoice, because he dodged the bullet of marriage to a modern skank.  Without any further ado, here's 'The Ring', by JackofClubs...


Hey guys,

My name is Brian. I'm a 31 year old, self proclaimed jack-of-all-trades IT guy from Ontario, Canada.

I'm sure I mirror a good number of folks when I say the following: I once bought into the great lie that women could do no wrong, and that men should be made to perpetually made to suffer for anything possible, imagined or real. I opened my eyes when I started to notice a trend: The deceit, lack of accountability and decadence that the 'fairer' sex seems to thrive on at other peoples expense, and the agenda to allow it to continue.

The above really started to resonate with me during a downturn in a once happy relationship with my last girlfriend. The downturn consisting of the final three months where I would endure discussions about 'the ring'. I suppose named as such because 'fancy shackle for two months pay' wasn't as catchy sounding. Of course, at the time, I would have happily obliged that request, if it was allowed to be done on my terms (i.e. make it a surprise) rather than make it seem like it was out of servitude. That decision alone saved me from marriage; because she never gave me enough time to make it a surprise. 'The ring' discussion came up constantly, and I soon grew resentful that it wasn't the 'I want to spend the rest of my life with you' discussion or 'I am madly in love with you discussion'. Nope, just an endless loop of her talking about a golden loop. It wasn't long before my eyes flew open and I realized the painful truth: I had become a walking wallet.

Then my eyes opened up to some other painful realities: Divorce and how it can absolutely jeopardize the livelihood and good health of someone completely not at fault.

Needless to say I had enough. One messy breakup later and I still consider myself one lucky bachelor who dodged a bullet. It's been well over one year since then and I feel like i'm seeing the world through different eyes now. I've since sworn off investing anything of significance in the opposite sex. Not out of hatred, mind you, but out of necessity. Society has engineered a situation that propagates the ruination of any man who buys into 'ideal love' (ie marriage). With that knowledge, marriage has become nothing more than a divorce from logic... ...and so, that brings me here.

Hope you have room for one more.

- B


That was a good warning, Fellas.  Read it and heed it.  Until next time...


Even Nice Girls Are Sluts These Days


I forget who made this point at Mancoat, but it was an astute one nonetheless.  The poster in question posited that even nice girls are sluts.  Here's why...

First, let's take a look at your typical slut; this is your typical woman.  She becomes sexually active at 13-at the latest!  She has 4-6 short term relationships per year lasting 2-3 months each.  Between these relationships, she has a couple of one night stands worked in between.  By the time your typical woman is 25, she will have been sexually active for 12 years.  When we take her yearly partner count (4 relationships + 4 ONS per year)*12, we get 96 partners by the time she's 25; that's being conservative, because we only allowed for ONE ONS in between her short term relationships.  If we assume two ONS in between STRs, then we get (4 STRs + 8 ONS)*12=144; that's 144 dicks by the time she's reached 25!  That's slutting it up-er, being an empowered, liberated woman...

Now, let us look at what passes for a nice girl these days, shall we?  A nice girl doesn't lose her virginity until turning 16.  This nice girl has two boyfriends a year; she has two LTRs lasting about six months each per year.  Now, if we assume that said nice girl continues this pattern until 25, she'll have slept with 18 men by the time she reaches 25; by the time she's hit 25, our modern day nice girl will have had 18 penises in her birth canal.  Since 18<<96 or 144, that passes as a virtuous woman these days.

However, today's nice girl will have no doubt had a couple of one night stands along the way too; what, you think she didn't do the nasty with someone during her spring breaks?!  Come on!  At the very least, she will have had a couple of short term flings amongst her LTRs.  That brings the notch count of today's 'nice girl' (or what PASSES for a nice girl today, I should say) up to 20, minimum-all by the time she reaches 25.  BTW, the health text books of a generation ago said that any woman who'd had more than six or seven partners during her lifetime was promiscuous.  Therefore, even a 'nice girl' of today is a slut.  As Chris in Oregon would say, ICK!  Until next time...


Sexual Catastrophe


A couple of years ago, I read the great game debate over @ View from the Right. While doing so, I found an insightful post by Ian B., who renders his opinions & observations about what caused our dating wasteland, and what we can do about it. This is some of the best stuff I've read thus far...


Ian B. wrote:

I thought I'd throw my own two cents into the whole debate over Roissyism and the socio-sexual disaster, and offer my diagnosis of the problem and how to solve it.

The Roissyites, and Mark P. [see Mark's explication], do share one profound insight: the ones who are most proximately to blame for the social chaos are women, not men. While men do the wooing, it is women who make the choice to accept a relationship.

Typically, when a woman throws herself at some "alpha male" and gets burned, society places all the blame on the guy for being such a callous, uncaring cad as to sleep with a poor innocent woman and not commit to her. But who is he supposed to commit to? Her, or one of the several other idiot women throwing themselves into his path?

And consider this: For every stupid woman throwing herself at the same jerk that several other women are throwing themselves at, there's a guy who is probably responsible and quite willing commit, but who is being ignored by the tramp. So who is really being more callous, the "alpha male" being enabled by the women, or the vain, selfish women ignoring the decent guys? The problem here is not the existence of a few cads (a few cads, unfortunately, have always and will always be with us), but rather the behavior of women towards them.

So, I've just said who I think is at proximate moral fault for this mess (the women), but I haven't said what the root cause of it is. That is, what changed that allowed this mess to happen? These are two different things. For instance, imagine a town in which all the policemen pack up and leave one day. Subsequently, the town falls into a morass of violent crime. The ones to blame for the crimes are the criminals, but the root cause of the mess is the cops leaving. The solution is not to hope that the criminals will suddenly start behaving responsibly, but rather for the cops to come back.

With that distinction out of the way, let me say that the cause of the disaster is that the cops, by which I mean the majority of masculine men, have left town, and this was caused by the acceptance of feminism.

You may have noticed a common thread in these discussions. The term "alpha male" is used interchangeably to refer to both worthless, no-count cads, and to the men that women find most attractive. The term "beta male," on the other hand, is used interchangeably to refer to both the responsible men, the builders of society, and to the men that women find less attractive.

This might seem strange. There is no necessary logical link between these things. In fact, you might tend to assume that the responsible builders would be stronger, more authoritative, and hence more attractive in general. However, there is a contingent link between these two things within current society.

The problem is that because of feminism, men have been taught for decades that they ought to be sweet, sensitive doormats, attentive and deferential to women's needs, seeing women as goddesses on high pedestals. This message has been preached by the schools, in the media, and even by their families. Unfortunately, this is precisely what turns women off. Regardless of what they think or say they want, most women are actually attracted to (and happiest with) a strong, independent, assertive man who will dominate and lead them.

And since this is what is taught everywhere, only the sociopaths and renegades--that is to say, the unteachable cads who scorn the wisdom of everyone else--manage to avoid absorbing this lesson, and hence end up being the most attractive to women. The potentially responsible leader types are instead conditioned into being feminized squishes by the time they reach adulthood, and so end up being "beta males."

So, here's my two step solution:

1) First of all, men need to be taught to be strong and independent again, from an early age. They need to be taught that women are attracted to assertive, dominating guys rather than suckups. They also need to be taught to see women for what they are: fallen and flawed humans, possessing merits, but also emotional and emotionally manipulative, to be led, and not shining goddesses of wonder to be appeased. This would at least put these men on an even playing field with the cads and the Roissyites, in terms of attracting women, which is half the battle.

Of course, the idea that we should just start teaching men differently is easier said than done. There is one place where it is possible, however: Within the conservative Christian community. There is Biblical precedent for men as leaders, and the conservative Christian community has shown itself surprisingly capable of coming alive and quickly embracing a new movement when it is clear that Scripture is on the movement's side. Witness their rapid mobilization with slavery and abortion, for instance.

What about the secular "beta" males? Well, there's really no hope for them. But really, it's no big loss. There's really nobody more pathetic and shameful than a person who both rejects Christianity and gets immersed in and emasculated by feminist dogma. Like the contraceptive-using cads, Roissyites, and slutty women, they will die childless and alone, and be outbred by the Christians even more than they already are.

2) These newly-minted masculine men need to start engaging in shaming, to establish societal order again. Right now, when a woman gets burned going after a bad boy, most sweet, sensitive "beta" males sympathize with the poor besotted woman, and blame the heartless jerk who did it to her, hoping that they can get her affection with their sensitivity. It doesn't occur to them that while she was throwing herself after the jerk and being subsequently left high and dry by him, other men were being left high and dry by her.

A man who has been trained to see women for what they are will recognize and shame the primary guilty party: the woman. Rather that join her in her pity party, he will blame her.

Honestly, step (2) isn't really a separate step, and should come automatically with step (1). The shaming doesn't even have to be overt. It simply has to take the form of attractive men rejecting women for being sluts.

Women already insult each other all the time for being whores, but that doesn't really bother them. What really shames a woman, what really frightens her deeply enough to modify her behavior, is the prospect of being rejected and found unattractive by desirable men.

If women think that being slutty will make them generally less attractive to desirable men, they will be shamed into not being slutty. And if there are a good number of desirable men out there that happen to be Christians, this should start to take care of itself.


That's some of the best analysis as to what caused our dating & mating wasteland; not only that, Ian B. offers some suggestions too. Have a good night now...


28 January 2012

MTV's Jersey Shore as a Petri Dish of Relationships


As you know, I've been following MTV's Jersey Shore since it aired over two years ago. It's so gosh darn bad (in a train wreck sort of way) that I can't help but watch it! Over @ Ferdinand Bardamu's place, there was a post about MTV's hit show. In the comments, a chap by the name of Canon's Canon said that the show is a veritable petri dish for studying 'Game'. While he has a point, that's not the tack I wish to pursue.

Canon's Canon is right about one thing: MTV's Jersey Shore is a petri dish for studying relationships. To me though, it's a petri dish of what NOT to do for pursuit of a healthy relationship. In that show, one can see everything that one can do wrong to pursue a healthy relationship, i.e. one that is a blessing & enrichment to both parties involved.

How does MTV's Jersey Shore show us what NOT to do? Where do I start?! One, both men & women are pursuing relationships based on attraction only. Two, we don't see anyone really getting to KNOW one another-and I don't mean Biblically, either! Three, guys & gals bed down at the drop of a hat.

The first thing that jumped out at me when watching MTV's breakout show, Jersey Shore, is that both the guys & girls are chasing one another SOLELY based on attraction; it's the only litmus test being used by either sex these days! I've seen no attempt by either the men or the women (am I being too generous with those descriptors?) to REALLY get to know their partners on the inside. The only question they ask is this: is he/she hot? Does he/she get my hormones racing? WTF are you doing, people?!

The second thing I noticed is this: the men & women aren't getting to know one another. I haven't see ANY substantive discussions on current events. I've seen no substantive discussions about money & finances. I've seen no discussion or even mention about future goals. I haven't seen any discussions about ANYTHING of substance-nothing! These aforementioned issues are what I call 'make or break' issues; these are issues that can, and often do, sink relationships. Men & women are pursuing relationships with one another while having no idea of who the other is as a person-none!

The third thing I've noticed on Jersey Shore is that guys & gals hop into bed with one another almost instantly. What are you doing, folks?! Ronnie & Sammi, after only a few talks and one date hopped into bed with each other! I'm sorry, but that's way too soon to have sex with someone! Even if one doesn't believe in saving it for marriage, doing it right after meeting someone is too damn soon! If younger men (and especially younger women) are doing this, is it any wonder that STDs are so prevalent? Is it any wonder that there's so much angst about relationships?!

What ends up happening is this: relationships are based on little more than sex. In far too many modern relationships, the only glue holding them together is the physical. There is little or no mental connection made between the man and the woman. There is little or no emotional connection made. Finally, there is little or no spiritual connection made. In order for a relationship to last-REALLY LAST-it has to have all four elements present; there have to be mental, emotional, spiritual, and physical bindings holding it together. Only then will a relationship have what it takes to last. When there's only one binding (especially when it's the physical, as is usually the case in modern relationships) holding it together, the relationship simply doesn't have the strength to withstand any serious stress.

Men & women are pursuing one another based on attraction; granted, the attractants are different for men and women, but they're pursuing one another based on attraction nonetheless. Sorry, but attraction != love. It never has, and it never will. I'm not saying that your beloved should be repulsive, but attraction alone cannot and should not be the sole basis of a healthy relationship.

Here's what's happening. Man & woman get involved with each other solely based on their attraction for one another. They do not really get go KNOW one another. The relationship progresses to the point of marriage. The marriage inevitably has tough times, which stress the relationship. Only then do the husband and wife realize that they're complete strangers! Only then do they realize that they do not really, truly know one another. Only then do they realize that they're not at all in agreement on the 'make or break' issues. Is it any WONDER we have so many divorces?! Come to think of it, it's a wonder we have any marriages that survive at all, given the shaky foundation on which they're built.

In closing, MTV's hit show, Jersey Shore, shows us what's wrong with modern relationships, and the way that men & women approach them. Attraction is the only litmus test used to determine who's 'right' for them. It never occurs to men & women that there has to be SOMETHING else to get them through the next 30 years. Because modern relationships don't have that something else to survive long term, they end up being train wrecks, littering the human landscape with hurt, pain, anger, and goodness knows what else. In light of this, it's a wonder there aren't more divorces! Until next time...


24 January 2012

Franz Klammer's Gold Medal Run


This is something I posted years ago.  As I reconstruct the blog, there are certain things I want to have front & center; this is one of them.

This is the gold medal run Franz Klammer made in the 1976 Winter Olympics, the same year Dorothy Hamill won the gold in ladies figure skating.  I was 13 going on 14 when I saw this live, and it's something I never, ever forgot; it's one of my favorite memories.

What I liked and admired about Klammer's run is that he flat out WENT for it; he was going to win, or he was going to die trying!  All through the run, he's on the edge, the edge of disaster.  What's even more impressive is that he did this using the old, heavy wooden skis!  He didn't have the modern, composite wonders today's skiers have.  Imagine what Klammer could have done with modern skis and training techniques?

I hope you enjoyed that as much as I did. Whether it's the first time you saw this, or you're seeing it again, I hope you enjoyed it. Have a good day now...


22 January 2012

The Costa Concordia & Equality


Here are my thoughts on the Costa Concordia disaster.  One, I think it's GREAT that men are no longer deferring to women; why should women get first dibs on the lifeboats if we're equal now, hmmm?  Secondly, as the old, Arab proverb says, women want fried ice.  When reading the comments over at the Daily Mail article on the Costa Concordia, this is plainly evident; women want to have their cake and eat it at the same time.  Finally, women are no longer WORTHY of deference, because they have ceased to be ladies.  I shall quote comments from the Daily Mail article about the sinking.

I think that it's GREAT that men are no longer deferring to women in disasters.  Why?  One, women have, for decades, bleated that they can do anything a man can do, and that they can do it better-grrl power, baby!  Well, if you can do anything a man can do and do it better, then it stands to reason that you, as a woman, can die as well as I would have had to in the past.  Why should I sacrifice my life when you can sacrifice yours better?

I think it's great that men are no longer deferring to women, because it shows that men are WAKING UP.  They're waking up to the reality that we're 'equal' now.  They're waking up to the reality that they, as men, are second class citizens.  They're waking up to the reality that their lives are just as valuable as those of women.  They're waking up to the reality that, as human beings, men have just as much a right to life just as much as any woman does.

I think it's great that men are no longer deferring to women, because this will help bring about the end of feminism.  How so?  Ulysses S. Grant once said that the best way to repeal a bad law was to STRINGENTLY ENFORCE it.  The corollary here is that, by stringently enforcing feminism and the equality it promotes, is that we sooner bring about the end of feminism as we've known it.  If we want to put an end to this equality nonsense, then the best way to do that is STUFF it down women's throats till they choke!  What can be better than stringently enforcing equality when it comes to boarding the lifeboats?

My second observation from the Costa Concordia sinking is this: women do indeed want fried ice.  While that's an old, Arab proverb, it states a timeless truth.  When going through the Daily Mail article and its comments, the vast majority of women would, on the one hand, chastise men for being cowards for having the temerity for valuing their own lives and saving themselves; then, these same women would turn around and say that they were equal to men, that they had equal rights, etc.  Here's a quote that typifies the eternal solipsism of the female mind...

The feminists have been crying out for equality - you got it, so stop whining! ---------- Please, sir, do forgive me for wanting to enjoy the same rights as a man. How dare I, a mere woman, be so audacious as to dream of equality. And to all those saying "women want it both ways" - we quite clearly don't, as proved by the fact that not a single woman has commented saying women and children first is the way it should be. Yes, we want equality, and yes, we know what it means - and fyi, you don't have to be a woman or a man-hater to be a feminist. Look up its definition before spouting your ignorant opinions.
- Hellen, North East, 15/1/2012 9:59

When called out on their hypocrisy and inconsistency, these same women will deny saying that they want men to die first.  While they are TECHNICALLY correct (i.e. they didn't explicitly state this), they are not factually correct; they are not factually correct, because these same women are implicitly saying that we, as men, should die first.  Why else would they break out the shaming language?  Why else would they call men cowards for saving themselves?  Why else would these same women bemoan the lack of chivalry?  Is it not because they DO believe that they should get preference for seats on the lifeboats?  Here's a comment that exemplifies this train of thought.

Stronger, more able people, people who are more likely to survive adverse conditions should be the last to leave the boat. And seeing as able bodied men are nearly always stronger than able bodied women - then yep, its this group of men that should go last. It has nothing to do with 'equality' and everything to do with helping those people weaker than yourself. Its called bring a decent human being. Able bodied men that think otherwise are nothing but bitter cowards. Being a fairly small, but single woman, I'd help children and anyone that appeared frail or disabled before expecting to get on a lifeboat first. Thats only fair. But an able bodied man before me on the basis of 'equality'? Absolutely not!
- disgustedoflondon, london, 16/1/2012 7:48

Here's an even MORE blatant example of women wanting it both ways...

Women have already lost the respect and rights to be treated differently from men after claiming that they r equal to men.. In good moments, you want same rights but in bad moments you women become a lady.. Stop this hypocrisy ok ? Mark, Canada I'd like to think I'm a lady in both good and bad moments :) Equality means things like equal pay for equal work and not being prevented from gaining promotion because of one's gender ... no one (apart from you, perhaps!) seriously believes that women are physically the same, and that difference should be respected. If you're just going to shoulder the weaker members of society out of the way when it suits .. well, I can't really find the words. Thank goodness there are still gentlemen as well as ladies out there.
- caroline mayor, rennes, france, 16/1/2012 10:11

What Caroline is saying above is this: I want equality when it suits me, and I want chivalry when it does not. When the paychecks are handed out, I want equality; when the bills come due, I want chivalry. I want to have my cake and eat it-wah! BTW, there's nothing hypocritical and inconsistent about that-at least not in her mind or the minds of most women.  Can anyone deny that women want fried ice?  Can anyone deny the eternal solipsism of the female mind?

Now, I would like to share with you some quotes showing that men are waking up.  I would like to share some evidence that men are wising up to women and their bullshit.  Women wanted equality, so men are starting to give it to them, hehehe... :)

Referring to the headline - women now have equality. Live with it - you cannot cherry pick.
- Slippery Eel, Holt, Norfolk, 15/1/2012 9:05

Welcome to the world of equality.
- Gaz, n/e, 15/1/2012 9:10

Why should women go first? Women fought for equality, so now they should accept the consequences.
- Squire Trelawney, Land of no hope or glory, 15/1/2012 9:09

Sounds like the days of "women and children first" is long gone. - sd, uk, 15/1/2012 10:16 >>> Children - Yes Woman - No as they cry for equality so let them have it, they can't have it both ways.
- Gaz, n/e, 15/1/2012 9:13

The feminists have been crying out for equality - you got it, so stop whining!
- Triton, Berks, 15/1/2012 8:49

Notice how short, concise, and to the POINT these quotes are? Notice how, with one or two sentences, the men just lay out the obvious truth to women? Notice how women cannot understand these simple, obvious truths? Notice how women do not want to face the CONSEQUENCES of what they asked for-indeed, demanded?

Now, I have some longer, more eloquent quotes from men poking holes through women's bullshit...

Only Children and Elderly people should be given priority. Women don't deserve it as men and women are equal. Women are enjoying the same rights and opportunities as men. Women and Men are equally employed everywhere but when it comes to hard work, women most often refuse to do it and instead they ask their men colleagues to do hard jobs even though women get equal pay as men. Women are not physically weak. Women take part in extremely strenuous games like cycling, swimming, wrestling, tennis, racing etc... Everyone gets life only once. Why he should risk losing his life just for a woman ??? Do you women think men are that stupid ? Women talk about true gentlemen but what about true women ??? I have never seen any true woman in my whole life.. Is there any real woman out there? If No, so stop talking about true Gentleman.. OK..
- Mark, Canada, 16/1/2012 12:25

Pete in Sheffield - I agree partially. Children going first, yes. But women? After a century of complaints of male dominance and pleas for equal rights, women shouldn't be able to pick and choose when the feel they are vulnerable. In 2012 everyone should have got off that boat, but there is no reason at all why men should be held up for the sake of women. If we were to stick to ridiculous P.C rulings, there would be many more dead while officials ordered off passengers by vulnerability.....children first, then disabled, then anyone on medication, OAPs, women, ethnic minorities, then finally can the abled man...oh sorry too late.
- Bobby, Manchester uk, 15/1/2012 9:05

I'm not sure where to come down on this one, on a personal level i agree with the policy women and children first as that's just who i am, however, this is also an old policy, and while kids should still be first the women part is debatable as the time this view comes from is long gone. A large number of women tell us quite loudly that they no longer need protecting or looking out for or any kind of special treatment and that this is no longer chilvary but simply offensive to them, yet whenever there's a disaster etc they always moan about the brutishness of men, we just can't win against this ever growing number of warped minded women so perhaps they'd all like to get together and let us know just what they would prefer, would you still like a bit of chilvary or not? It is for men to decide when to apply it, not women, so want it or not is the only choice, likewise for equality, do you want the same jobs at the same pay, or the same pay but with concessions because you're a woman?
- Dave, Birmingham, 16/1/2012 9:08

The women first tradition is an archaic concept left over from a time when the population was small and infant mortality high. In a time when the rightful concept of women's equality has morphed into something resembling a gynocratic supremacist movement such customs appear less than necessary and the privilege of first place should be reserved for the old, disabled and children not healthy adults. I received my lifeboatmans certificate in 1971 from Gravesend sea school at the age of 14 and have done countless lifeboat drills sometimes in heavy seas, the whole thing appears to have been a complete shambles from start to finish on this particular vessel, considering land was only a few meters away there should have been no real need for anyone to even get their feet wet however on the news clips it appears the passengers had taken charge with a lot of shouting and screaming unsurprisingly most of the voices appear to be female.
- Leew, lancashire, 16/1/2012 3:06

I'm amazed in an era of supposed equality, women still have a sexist and arrogant assumption they should evacuate a sinking ship before men. Certainly children (with fathers & mothers), elderly, pregnant and disabled should get priority, but not the able-bodied generation of women who've been shrieking dementedly about equality for decades. No, you can stay behind with the men and demonstrate this much lauded concept of 'I can do anything a man can do'! You can thank feminism for that. If women are using children to get priority on the lifeboats, why should it be any different for fathers protecting their children? I noticed a number of female commenters attempting the tried and tested shame and guilt tactics, as they desperately seek to maintain the best of both worlds. Now that's shameful in itself! Women need to climb down from their self-exalted chauvinistic pedestals and start mingling with mortal men.
- Magnus Carta, The 6th EU Region, UK, 16/1/2012 9:06

"Women and children go first because they're physically weaker than men, its not sexist, just right. - Jam Sandwich, London UK">>>>>>> This isn't true in every case. I'm in my fifties but reasonably healthy/mobile, so I wouldn't expect a frail 70 y.o. man, for instance, to give up his place for me. Perhaps the priority should be "children and the old and/or infirm"? - Helen, Kent, 16/1/2012 12:11 ++++++++++++++++ Just Face it.. ok.. Women claim that men and women are equal.. Women are enjoying the same rights and opportunities as men so why women should be given priority over men ? It does not make any sense. It is totally sexist.. Women have already lost the respect and rights to be treated differently from men after claiming that they r equal to men.. In good moments, you want same rights but in bad moments you women become a lady.. Stop this hypocrisy ok ?
- Mark, Canada, 16/1/2012 8:40

Women can't say they want to be treated no differently than men and then turn around and say actually they would like to be treated like a "woman" on this occasion. The reality is there is no such thing as a "woman" any more. Women are the same as men, that is what our female teachers at school drum into boys heads all through their school years. Besides why can't women use their much fabled "Girl Power" to save themselves and their children?
- Slicer, The Devil's Manor, Hell, 16/1/2012 12:29

Equality means things like equal pay for equal work and not being prevented from gaining promotion because of one's gender ... no one seriously believes that women are physically the same, and that difference should be respected. - caroline mayor, rennes, france, 16/1/2012 15:11 ---- But that's just the problem Caroline, while in some jobs there is no difference in others there are, for example I worked for a contract cleaning company when i was younger that primarily operated in large event centres, a large part of this job was to clean the ceiling fans/duct work, all of the women refused to climb up the ladder and do it "as they were a woman" yet they all got equal pay and we all held the same job and for the life of me i can't see how a man falling 50ft is less likely to injure him than a woman falling 50ft While physical differences should be respected if they prevent someone from doing an aspect of a job they can't then demand the same pay under equality legislation
- Dave, Birmingham, 16/1/2012 10:51

Here's a good comment-from a WOMAN, no less!

Can't believe some women are moaning that men did not give priority to women. You wanted equality? Well here it is, good or bad. I'm a woman and I would not expect any man to put me first in such a situation. Why should he? If my brother or father had been on that ship and drowned, I certainly would not take comfort in knowing that he had sacrificed his life for a woman such as some of those on this board. I'd like to know how some of you have to come to hate men so much. Extremely odd, infact it is almost bordering on obsessive! Some men are very kind, you need to open your eyes. Nine times out of ten when I am crossing the road it is a man that lets me cross - many women would run you over!!
- Amy, London, 16/1/2012 8:17

Ladies, you all wanted OUT of the social contract, remember?  Remember how you said that doing your womanly duties was oppressive?  Remember how you said that you wanted to be LIBERATED from being accountable to men?  Remember how you wanted to be freed from your DUTIES to help and serve men?  Well, you got what you wanted.  However, when you opted out of your end of the social contract, you also released us men from OURS...

Now, here's a short quote that provides a segue into my final point...

Just goes to show men these days have no respect for women and children.
- Martine, London UK, 15/1/2012 12:44

Well, that begs an obvious question, Martine.  Why should men HAVE respect for women these days, hmmm?  Why would I respect someone living the "Sex and the City" lifestyle?  Why would I respect someone who engages in skanky, laddette behavior?  Why would I respect someone who's main aspiration in life is to be on Girls Gone Wild?  Why should I respect someone who's MURDERED their own baby?  Who the hell does that?!  Who, other than an evil woman (redundant?) would murder their own baby?  You know that there have been over forty MILLION abortions in America since Roe v. Wade, right?  Why should I respect a sex that doesn't even oppose this hideous practice?  Why should I respect women again?

In closing, I like what we've seen in the Costa Concordia sinking.  One, it shows that men are wising up and waking up; men are realizing that they too are humans, and therefore have just as much right to live as women do.  Two, it's more proof that women want fried ice, and that they're NOT fit to vote or hold positions of authority.  Finally, there's no good reason to respect women anymore-not when it was THEY who first violated the social compact that had existed between men and women for thousands of years.  Ladies, you want to be released from the 'oppressive' terms of your end of the social contract?  Fine, then we too can be released from our end of the social contract-which was really oppressive when you consider that we had to sacrifice our lives for your sorry asses!  Thankfully, we, as men, are no longer locked into OUR end of the social contract.  That is the REAL lesson of the Costa Concordia, and I think it's about damn time.  Thank you, and good day now...


Marriage Is Mediocrity


I was hangin' out @ Happy Bachelors, and I saw this posted. It's originally from the Don't Marry archives, and I thought that my boys would like to see it here...


Marriage is the cradle of mediocrity.

Why Marriage is Bad for Men
By Mac Mcmann

Did you ever see a truly happily married man under the age of say sixty? I mean a real man, one that could help you move a couch, or run a software company. A real man has direction in his life, goals, ambitions; a real man takes the life given to him, and creates something that is a reflection of him. He uses all his abilities everyday, every way he can think of, and when he is done with his current task he moves on to another one. These men are rarely married, and even rarer happily married, they are the snow leopard compared to the house cat. And the reason these men are not married, is because marriage is confining, defining, and boring.

The biggest enemy to a life fulfilled is routine and boredom, ala marriage. Marriage is a trap laid early by society, misery loves company. The miserable peddle this lifestyle. Women lay the trap with lots of sex, good food, a clean bathroom, all can be yours, if you just get married, never again will you go without the gifts a woman can bring. The life seeking man recognizes those traps ahead of time. They are not the lions at the bottom of the pit with the slab of meat dangling precariously over it. They see the trap of marriage ahead of time, the trap of being snared and held up for public viewing with four walls around you.

Married men are on display, a zoo animal that does what he is told, eats when told, works when told, hell they even copulate when they are told. They try to make their little display the best of anyone they know. Look at me in my suburbia American dream, look at my house, look at my boat, and look at how my kid can pitch. Aren’t I doing great? Aren’t I?

And then there are men who do what they want, when they want. These are the men usually loathed by the domesticated men, loathed by the society at large, most of whom dwell in their cages. And then these men are later featured on 60 Minutes for what they have become when they re-write the rules of their particular endeavor. And they did it all without being bored, without being told what to do, and without being married to a woman who thinks it is her job to tame the beast, and churn out a carbon copy of the man in the next cul-de-sac.

Man can survive all sorts of tragedies and set backs in their time on Earth. But accepting boredom is accepting death. It is not greed, violence, jealousy, desire or any other trait but boredom that is the ultimate downfall of man. An unwillingness to fight boredom with the ferocity of a mother bear is acceptance of a life not worth living.

Marriage is the cradle of mediocrity and is beaten into our heads as the thing to do all our childhood. Grow up, fall in love, get a job, and then have kids. In our society marriage is the stage for child rearing. Boys don’t have real men in their home as role models. That is why boys idolize celebrities. They are starving for role models of success, of individualism, of vision and achievement, not someone who spends all day playing yes man, and then can’t even remember the hot sauce at the take out.

Unfortunately for many men they recognize the trappings, after the life of domesticity has firmly gripped their soul. Breaking away is not easy, but it is done on a frequent basis. The saddest thing to see is these men given their freedom at a huge financial cost, and then what do they do with their freedom? They go right back into another zoo, another cage, thinking it will be better with a different zoo keeper. But entrapment is entrapment, no better the quality of the trap.

Then these twice fooled creatures are seen lying to the world and to themselves saying that they are happily married. Like a trained poodle they jump through all the hoops their wife and boss put before him, after completing each trick they pant their little tongue, wag their little tail, and await the kibble for their little reward. Good doggie, good doggie, you play your cards right for the next six days, you might get some Saturday night. Or kiss up for the next seven years and you just might be Junior Executive. And all the while he holds his wife up like a trophy, his quality of entrapment defines him, as he trades up for the biggest cage.

He plays life like it is a monopoly game, go around and around and avoid landing on anything painful. He seeks comfort, safety, and sameness. And you can see it in his eyes, the boredom of a meaningless game, playing by rules he didn’t invent.

The choice is each of ours, on the one hand you have certain boredom until death, and on the other you have the unknown. Not monopoly but a pirate’s adventure, things can go wrong, there can be pain, there can be real fear, but there will never be boredom.

Unfortunately most men choose the boredom without really knowing the alternative was so obvious. Does the snow leopard want the one sure meal at the cost of his freedom, or would he rather starve in a blizzard seeking the last rabbit in his territory. The choice is yours.


I thought that was good, so I stayed up a few minutes late to share it. Good night, and remember Fellas: stay single, happy, and free; the life you save may be your own! Until next time...


21 January 2012

A Defense of MGTOW Values, by Spock's Disciple


I was chillin' here reading Happy Bachelors before attending the motorcycle show later.  As I was reading, I found this gem by Spock's Disciple...


Some of these posts from "outsiders" are respectful and therefore merit a respectful response; many of them are typical trolls throwing shaming language around, and are therefore to be banned and ignored.

The only point I have to make about those saying that the men here need to "try harder" and to "get out in the real world"; they've seen the real world, they've been burned at the stake in the real world, sometimes more then once.  But these are also men who learn from their experiences, learn from their mistakes, and mistakes of others.

And these are men who've made the choice to live their lives for themselves and only themselves. They are not the property of society; they are not slaves; they are not indentured servants; they are absolutely not obligated to serve anyone, especially not today's modern "woman".

Only an idiot who puts their hand in the fire and gets burned, puts his hand in the fire again because the fools around him telling him he might not get burned twice.

MGTOWs are not losers, they're not winners, they're not players; they are men who have decided their lives are their first priority and nobody else's, especially not today's "empowered" women takes precedence over this; they are not sacrificial lambs to be used to appease a corrupt society's appetites.

Going our own way means the pathetic morals, values and ethics of this rotting society no longer apply to us.

We DO NOT choose to honor traditional roles.
We DO NOT choose to follow the script written by others for the benefit of themselves and not us.
We DO NOT choose to be victims or allow ourselves to be victimized any longer.
We are NOT bitter losers, uptight and frightened men or anything else.
We are men who have declared our independence from this illusion you call a society where our value is determined by others, we don't not allow our self image to be defined by others.

This is what is most frightening to the manginas and the white knights and the feminist trolls here is that some of the slaves have risen up, and decided they've had enough; they aren't going to play by someone else's rules any longer. We are men whose message must be discredited, suppressed and ignored; we are men who are intrinsically disruptive to their illusions of what a society should be, one where authority, whether secular or religious, must be obeyed.

This isn't about female game characters when you come down to it; it's about a man looking into his mirror in the morning after waking up and telling himself, "I am a human being; I value myself; I deserve to live with pride, and be treated with dignity." These men here have come to this realization, and they're not going back to the plantation to be good little slaves.

Self esteem, self respect, self determination...the cornerstones of Going Your Own Way.  The men here know this, and don't care what the heck others think and are not looking for their approval.


Hear, hear!  Preach it, Spock!  That was good stuff, stuff my readers need...


Genital Warts, by Christopher in Oregon


As promised, here's Christopher in Oregon's treatise on genital warts. I must warn you though: if you've just eaten, if you are squeamish, or if you're a woman, DO NOT READ THIS! What you're about to read is graphic, but it's necessary if we men are to control our sex drives; it's necessary if we're to reclaim our power as men. Once you take sex out of the equation, women have little or no power over you-remember that. Now, on with Christopher in Oregon's examination of genital warts...


Warning: Graphic conversation follows:

Ah, yes. The effects of an aging or weakened immune system can be profound when it comes to genital warts. They can mass in huge cauliflower like piles, and grow to gigantic proportions. Once the immune system is on the decline, all bets are off. From what I've heard and read, the smell from genital warts can be horrific. Poop and other filth gets trapped beneath the blossoming tops, and is impossible to clean.

Combine that with Herpes sores, and you've got yourself quite a mess. I can only imagine trying to treat the pain of Herpes sores that are located on massive genital warts, all the while my penis is oozing green puss.

Graphic? Disgusting?

You bet. We need more of that. Hollywood makes light of sex, and rarely mentions the downside- STDs. If they do, it's a vague reference to something that requires a shot of penicillin.

The days of penicillin are OVER, boys! The stuff that's out there is NOT cured by any medicine, and not prevented by condoms! Women today are FILTHY, as are, sadly, most men.

If you would be clean, if you would be healthy, if you would be wise, then renounce all sexuality! I admit I was deceived in recent years, and thought I could engage in the use of pornography.


ALL sex leads to physical decay. Do you really want to lie in bed some day as an old men with twenty pounds of quivering warts dangling from your groin like some beast from "The Blob"? Maybe it will grow eyes and stare back at you.....?

It isn't good enough to stay single. It isn't good enough to not date. If a man would be strong, if a man would be wise, he must clear his mind of lust. Stop viewing porn. Stop watching ANY modern films or television shows.

STOP LISTENING TO ANY MODERN MUSIC, which seeks to enslave you with filthy lyrics and that filthy "beat"!

I listen to four to eight hours of classical music a day, sometimes more. It purifies the mind and soul.

To be free from the evils of lust, to be free from God's judgment of STDs, you had better man up, and renounce sex in all of its forms.

There is no room for error these days! If you screw, you will GET screwed.

I remember the first time I heard about genital warts. I had gone to the Oregon State University Medical School bookstore, and bought some hideously expensive books on STDs. I was young. I was horny. But, I was still religious. I wanted to get laid. But, something was holding me back.

My parents warned me about women. They warned me about diseases, yet what did my parents know about HPV or Herpes? Nothing. Nor did I. I just knew that sex carried the risk of the STDs that were present back when my parents were young. Little did I suspect that the landscape had changed dramatically. New bugs abounded, like HIV, HPV, HSV and HCV.

So, I cracked open the books. I purchased more books. What was this new thing called Herpes? I mean I had HEARD of it, but it wasn't something that I really thought about.

Then I saw them.

Warts. Big, juicy, oozing warts.

Crap. I remember the first time I looked at a picture of a homosexual man whose crotch was covered by a mass -a literal MASS- of genital warts. It looked like a Broccoli patch. Flowering all over the place. I was both mesmerized and horrified. I'd never seen anything like it in my life. My eyes were frozen to the page. The warts were just everywhere!

Then I read. And read.

I came to one conclusion right away: I would never engage in sexual intercourse again as long as I lived. (I had only tried it once when I was 21 with a Mormon woman) Something in me triggered a defensive mechanism of sorts. (Sort of like what happens when you are out in the forest and you see 1200 pounds of angry grizzly bear barreling towards your sorry ass. You climb a tree and hope for the best)

I knew I didn't have all of the answers, but in spite of my lust and constant erections, I knew I didn't want THAT sort of thing obscuring the view I had of my tallywacker. I tend to be fairly pragmatic. I could see the downfall associated with trying to yank off bloody chunks of warts from my crotch. I mean, how else do you get rid of them? Ah, the silliness of youth.

Then, I started studying the various methods doctors use to get rid of genital warts.


If I was still in doubt about my celibacy, the treatments for genital warts convinced me. If you don't know, read about it. It's horrifyingly painful. Warts come back, then they come back again. And again. And again. And....you get the point.

There is something in me that is utterly revolted by any kind of wart. I don't shake hands with people. I keep my distance. But warts on my Willy? Whoda thunk it.


Did you know you can get cancer of the penis? Do you know what a PENECTOMY is?

Say it slow. P-E-N-E-C-T-O-M-Y.

What's THAT, you say? Well, the anesthesiologist knocks you out, and they slice off all or part of your penis.


Yep, penectomy. Keep that word in mind. You can get cancer of the penis from......women. Or, gay men if you prefer.

We've all heard of genital warts. Nasty, slimy, ugly things that march across the landscape of your privates like an invading army. But, the Human Papilloma Virus that causes Genital Warts has something even better in store for you.


Yes, cancer. Many, possibly most strains of HPV are linked with cancer. Cancer of the penis is almost always associated with sexually-transmitted HPV infection. Treatment is painful. Sometimes they get it early, and traditional methods will stop the progression. Sometimes they only have to cut out small pieces of your penis. Kinda looks like Swiss cheese afterwards, but what the heck, it's still there. Sort of.

But what if they don't get to it in time? Well, there's the rub. Well, actually there won't be any more rubbing. Sometimes they cut off an inch or two. Sometimes three or four. Sometimes more. Bet you're wishing you had a twelve inch penis about now....?

Sometimes you lose the whole thing, and you have to pee just like a woman. Sitting down. There's nothing left. You are no longer a real man. Your penis is gone. The stuff of nightmares. This is worse than losing your testicles. (You can lose THOSE, too.)

Say it again: Penectomy. Kind of rolls off the tongue.

Speaking of tongues, you might lose THAT, too. What? Oh, yes. Most cancers of the mouth and adjoining areas are now being linked to HPV. A small price to pay for pleasuring your girlfriend orally, right? I mean, who really needs a tongue? How about your throat? Now, that maybe a problem. Kind of like to swallow food. And breathe.

Now, I don't know about you, but I like my body. Granted, it's not as young as it once was. I can't get erections as easily as I used to, and sometimes not at all. But it's THERE. Dangling at half mast, but it's still MINE. All mine. It's not lying in a garbage can in the operating room waiting to be thrown out with the other medical waste.

So, think long and hard boys. Whether you are Christian, Jewish, Deist or whatever. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that there IS a God, and He does NOT wanting people perverting His system of procreation. I do believe He has a temper, as well as a slightly warped sense of humor.

The cost of sex is simply too high these days. Keep it in your pants.

Christopher in Oregon


I know that that was jolting stuff, but it's a good jolt. It's the kind of jolt that wakes you up; it's the kind of jolt to give you a reminder to not do ANYTHING stupid-like have sex with a modern, American skank, er woman. Thank you Christopher for your warning to us all. Until next time...


20 January 2012

Rob Fedders on Women


I was reading some comments to a Dr. Helen post, and there was this GEM of a comment by Rob Fedders. In it, he gives us the lowdown on male/female interactions and relationships. He takes the contents of entire books, and distills their essential message to a few paragraphs. Thank you, Mr. Fedders! This is good stuff...


Very few women are capable of empathizing with men. There are about as many women who have the ability to empathize with men as there are children capable of empathizing with adults.

This is what most men fail to grasp, and why they go round and round in circles trying to "explain things" to women.

Women just don't care. We are here for their purposes, not ours.

"Women have no sympathy... And my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving you any in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." -- Florence Nightingale

Esther Villar says about the same thing, over and over again, in her book "The Manipulated Man."

What men don't "get" is that we (men) are a "business" to women. The attention women can get from men is their survival tactic. It does not mesh with the male survival drive, which is "go get" or "go create." Sadly, we men have a hard time understanding that women rarely have the same desires as we do.

That is why women ALWAYS marry up-always! Since we're a 'business' for women, marrying down wouldn't make sense as an economic or business model.

Women are designed by nature to look "yummy" to us so that we will give of ourselves to women. This is nature. It is not nature for it to occur the other way around.

I remember Christopher from Oregon making the same point. He said that Nature would make women look beautiful, so that we'd breed with them; it's all about Nature getting us to breed-end of story. It's Nature's way of getting us to do something against our best interest-committing to a woman long term.

It works the same way as with women and children. Children will rarely care for the mother the way that the mother will care for the child. Children are not designed to empathize with mothers in the same way that mothers are designed to empathize with their children.

Women will never "care" about men in the same way that men "care" about the wellbeing of women.

We are both designed this way by nature. It has always been women who have walked out on men more than the other way around... it has always been women that have been more opposed to adultery laws than men... the 10% of children are the result of cuckolding is supposedly a fairly consistent stat over time/history/populations.

We are designed like this by nature, and men who are sitting around and waiting for women to smarten up and show men the proper amount of empathy/sympathy are being no more intelligent than a mother sitting down and crossing her arms until her children show a reciprocal amount of empathy for her... both will be sitting there for a looooong time.

You can even see how this works with the way that men and women buy family vehicles. The wife and kids are always put in the best vehicle/mini-van/SUV as possible to "protect them" etc. etc. while the husband drives the run-down piece of crap to work... when the time comes that the husband gets a second vehicle you can usually hear the wife chirping in, "We had to get Joe a new truck... because the last one wasn't safe and we don't know what we would do if something happened to him.

That's the way it has always been and the way it will likely always be. Men are a tool to women... a "business." And to successfully work that business, they must always appear in the needy/attention category. Babies who don't cry don't get milk... and women who don't get attention don't get taken care of by men. It is an innate feature of humans.

Women do control society's values and mores... they lead with what they think is fashionable, and men follow, because by nature we are designed to give women what they want.

Women "are" society. What women's wants are is what society's want's are. This is where women are lying when they talk about the dreaded "patriarchy." The patriarchy only existed because women explicitly approved of it, and endorsed it morally - causing the men to follow suit.

This is what is happening today too. Most of the anti-feminist battle is not going to be between men and women... it is going to be between women who want a "traditional man" and those who want a collective "government husband." In both cases, the women are advocating for men to take care of women - with little concern for the man's wants and needs - one wants a personal slave to serve her & her offspring, while the other wants a slave class to serve women and their offspring in general.

It's the way human beings are designed. Who cares whether women rule, or if they rule the rulers? The result is the same.

It's not going to change.

These are the types of factors that have to be taken into account every time someone starts advocating for "change" or even worse, "equality." (GAK!)


Good stuff, wouldn't you agree? If we wait for women to empathize with us Fellas, we'll be waiting a LONG, long time! Here's a better idea: GYOW, and live life the way YOU want to, not as some woman's tool. Have a good day now...


Genital Herpes, by Christopher in Oregon


When I got home from work today, I had a few comments awaiting me. One of them was this gem from Christopher in Oregon. It's about genital herpes, and I have to tell you, it's a motivator for staying celibate! Though I messed around some back in the day, it's been over two decades since I had sex. Luckily, STDs weren't as prevalent back then; I didn't catch anything, thank goodness. Having said that, it's only by the grace of God that I didn't knock someone up or catch something nasty. After reading something like this, I'm not sure I EVER want to have sex again! THIS is what you're risking if you have sex with an American woman...


A while back a male friend of mine, who has Genital Herpes, was quite open about his suffering with this nasty, nasty disease. He was having a particularly painful outbreak, and told me just what it was like.

His outbreaks are usually about every 60-90 days, and they are nightmarishly painful. In the summer time, they can come every couple of weeks- one after another. He said that for the first few days during an outbreak, it feels like acid is being poured on his genitals. He can't sleep for days when he has an outbreak, and showering becomes an exercise in terror. There is no relief. Searing pain 24/7.

He gets outbreaks that appear anywhere on his scrotum, as well as penis. Many times it has extended to his buttocks, and sitting becomes an impossibility. Things like going to the toilet become all but impossible. He used to get constipated because of his inability to sit on the toilet, until he figured out if he just stood above the toilet and practiced being a dive bomber, he could go. Initially, his aim was often not accurate....

Sometimes he has herpes sores up his urethra, and once even inside his rectum. Too much exposure to sunlight triggers the worst outbreaks, so he dreads summer.

He spends hundreds of dollars on Valtrex most months, and has spent a small fortune on alternative treatments, with negligible results.

Every single thing he does during an outbreak is impacted by Herpes. The pain is so overwhelming, that it affects his career. He has no romantic life, because he feels like a leper. He's been snubbed too many times when he's been honest, and he refuses to lie to someone in order to get laid.

All because he slept with a woman who knew about her infection, but lied to him.

MOST women will contract Genital Herpes at some point. They are more than TWICE as likely to have herpes as men. Is this what you REALLY want to do to yourself? Is sex REALLY worth it? Do you really want to have to look at your tallywacker while it looks like a piece of raw ground beef?


I think not.

Women aren't worth it. Pussy isn't worth it.

It's just a dirty, smelly, disease-riddled hole. That's it.

I thank God regularly for instilling in me a sense of morality that kept me from sleeping around and contracting such a disease.

I asked him one time if he had it to do all over again, would he remain celibate like I did? He said no. Unbelievable. In spite of what he's gone through, he still thinks it was worth it just to have sex. Unfuckingbelievable.

Keep it in mind.

Next week: Genital Warts

Christopher in Oregon


What I found INCREDIBLE was that the guy would still have sex after what happened to him! Why would a guy do something like that, especially after it caused him so much pain?! Why would he do that? Try as I might, I cannot wrap my arms around that one. Anyway, to my boys reading this, stay single, celibate, happy, and free! Many American women are carrying nasty diseases such as Herpes. Is getting your rocks of worth it, Fellas? Until next time...


Oops, That Was NO Accident


As I reconstruct the blog, there are certain posts that need to be front & center; there are certain posts that cannot wait to be reposted.  This is one of those posts.  This is MUST READ material for my boys!  You must know the evil and duplicity of which women are capable; you must know that they'll have no problems justifying their evil, either.

I don't hate women, nor do I think that all of them are evil. That said, I can't blame guys who think that-not when this sort of thing is commonplace. I can't blame guys for thinking the worst about women when women pull this sort of crap, then justify it nine ways to Sunday; these gals think that what they want is all that matters, and if it takes 'a little nudge', then so be it. As usual, I'll intersperse my commentary throughout the piece. As always, here's a link to the original piece.


You two were careful, but somehow she got pregnant. It happens. Or not... Getting tricked into fatherhood by a woman hell-bent on getting pregnant is much more common than you think.

Imagine for a moment this perfectly plausible scenario: You've had a steady girlfriend for a year or so and everything's going great. You still hold hands at the movies. Friends tell you you're good together. You're both around 30 years old and making plenty of money, maybe living together, but you're nowhere near considering fatherhood. And though you occasionally get the feeling that her biological clock is set far ahead of yours, she tells you she's "safe," so you don't worry. Why would you? It's not as if you'd just picked her up on Dollar Margarita Night at Señor Frog's. But one morning she tells you something has gone wrong. Unlikely as it sounds, she's pregnant-and she wants to keep it. What she doesn't tell you, though, is this: She wasn't being safe all along. She wanted to have that baby— and the way she saw it, this was the only way to make it happen.

Something HAS gone wrong-for you, pal! I hate to say it, but there is WISDOM in God's commandments against sex prior to marriage. Since men have no rights in these matters, the ONLY way to retain your autonomy is to KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS! The only 100% effective contraceptive is abstention-that's it! The only other 100% effective means of preventing pregnancy is to get snipped...

Here's how a scenario like that played out in real life. Jody (not her real name), a 32-year-old account manager for a major New York ad firm, decided to speed things along with her boyfriend two years ago by getting pregnant without telling him. "It's not about trapping the guy," Jody says. "That's kind of old-fashioned. Yeah, you want him to be into it, but there are other ways to get a guy to commit. If you're smart and in a good relationship, it's just about the fact that you want a kid." Even in her circle of young, urban, and gainfully employed friends, Jody says, this particular brand of subterfuge isn't exactly condemned the way one might expect. In fact, it's sort of, well, normal. "I see and hear people talk about it, and I understand. I get it," she says, "and I don't even think it's that manipulative. It's more like, 'Hey, the timing is right for me. I got pregnant—oops! Well, it's here, let's have it.' I think that's more the way it is now than it was back in the day when you had to marry someone before you got pregnant. Marriage doesn't matter now."

Jody, if it's not about trapping a guy, then what IS it about, hmmm? If having an intentional 'oopsie' doesn't qualify as trapping a guy, then it's one HELL of an imitation! The name of the concept eludes me, but there is a legal concept which states that calling something by a different name does NOT change what it is. That applies here. You can call it what you want, but I call it trapping a guy.

The same goes for manipulation. The word, 'manipulate', means to manage or influence, ESPECIALLY in an unfair manner. You can go to this page on Dictionary.com, and see for yourself. So Jody, you don't think that an 'oopsie' isn't manipulative, huh? Let me ask you a question: would your man, sans your deceptive, dastardly action, would marry you or stick around? You ARE influencing your man to do something that he otherwise wouldn't do; if he WOULD commit to you, if he would marry you, if he would be a daddy on his own, then let me ask you a question, Darlin': why, pray tell me, did you have to resort to trickery to accomplish this, hmmm? I know, and I rest my case! Just because you choose to call it something else does NOT change what it is.

What I find especially offensive is how she doesn't even BRING UP any mention of what he wants; it's as if what your man wants doesn't matter. Witness her wording. "Hey, the timing is right for ME (emphasis mine)". Or, let me quote this gem from earlier in the paragraph: "...it's just about the fact that you want a kid." YOU want a kid, not him! Who do you think you are dictating what someone else can do, hmmm?

Railroading a guy into parenthood isn't just some "baby daddy" soap-opera scenario. You'll never hear the ladies'-room chatter that leads people like Jody to feel justified, but to get some idea of it, consider this: A woman's fertility peaks when she's between the ages of 20 and 24, according to Mayo Clinic statistics. By the time she's 35 to 39, it's already wilted by 25 to 50 percent. And from there the options aren't always so attractive: The average cost of in vitro fertilization in the United States is $100,000 per baby—and insurance generally won't pay a cent. Combine that with the shifting social mores about single motherhood and having kids outside of marriage, and you've got a pretty good explanation for why some women, particularly ones in stable relationships, don't see this as trickery at all—it's more like a nudge.

An oopsie is one HELL of a nudge! More like walking the plank, if you ask me...

"A lot of us feel like it's not even really fair that men should get to vote, considering they could be 72 and, with a little Viagra, have another baby," says Vicki Iovine, author of The Girlfriends' Guide to Pregnancy. "For us women, it's really a limited window. We know that boys who grow up to become men don't necessarily want to be men. They like to be boys. And so women say, 'You know what? He's gonna just have to snap out of it—and my pregnancy will be the thing to do it.'" The end, says Iovine, sometimes justifies the means. "Any guy with a heart and soul, and preferably with a job, once he sees the baby on the sonogram or hears the heartbeat, will melt," she says.

Yeah, but we men get to PAY for any babies though, huh, Vicki? If we can't have a vote on what happens to the child, then we shouldn't have to pay for it, either. You cannot have rights without responsibilities, nor can you have responsibilities without rights. They're hand and glove; they're two sides of the same coin; you cannot have one without the other-end of story. BTW, you're a strong, independent, empowered woman; you don't NEED no stinkin' man, nor do you need his money-except when it's divorce time...

And who the HELL do you think you are, Vicki, passing judgment on whether we're 'grown up' enough for your tastes? How DARE you say that you'll just have to force us snap out of it-how dare you, you bitch! You can call it what you will, but that's imposing your will on someone else. Yeah, you read that right; you're IMPOSING YOUR WILL on someone else!

It doesn't matter what HE thinks; it doesn't matter what he wants; it doesn't matter what his wishes are in the matter. You want a child, so you're going to have one. You're going to do WHAT you want, WHEN you want, HOW you want, and the HELL with anyone else! You know what I call that? I call it immature; I call it selfish; I can call it many things, but 'grown up' is not one of them, Darlin'...

Oh, and one more thing: why don't you gals have babies WITHIN that limited window of yours, hmmm? Why do you go to school, pursue a career, and bang a boatload of bad boys until your 30s? Why do you wait until AFTER your window is closing fast before you decide to have a child, hmmm?

Yes, you gals have a limited window; it's nice to see you admit the obvious, and acknowledge reality. It's about damn time! But, I have to ask you a few questions now. One, who compelled you to wait till AFTER your fertility peaked? Why didn't you go about finding and marrying a man who wanted children while you were in your 20s? Why did you wait till 30 or later before you realized that you wanted a child, hmmm? Whose fault is it that YOU waited till 30 or beyond to have children, Vicki? Finally, what gives you the right to FORCE someone to be a father? What gives YOU the right to do this, when it was YOUR FAULT for waiting too long in the first place?! Sheesh, you're freakin' unbelievable...

Just how many women act on that presumption is hard to say. According to FDA figures, one in a thousand of them should get pregnant over the course of a year if they're using the Pill exactly as prescribed. But it is estimated that in reality 50 times that many get pregnant. There's no way of knowing how much of that disparity can be explained away by "intentional" oversight, but that's a big gap to chalk up to carelessness. And though there was a time when flushing the Pill down the toilet was fodder for Jerry Springer, the rules have changed. "I've been hearing a lot about this lately, and it's coming into the educated and wealthy classes, too," says Pepper Schwartz, a relationships expert for Perfectmatch.com and professor of sociology at the University of Washington in Seattle (she does not support the practice). "These women can afford to take care of the child."

Yes, fifty times MORE women getting pregnant while on the Pill would seem to qualify as premeditated, willful, DELIBERATE deception on the part of the women in question.

Oh, and just because a selfish career bitch can AFFORD to take care of a child doesn't mean that she should. Children of single mothers comprise an OVERWHELMING majority of criminals and prisoners. That's real nice-condemning your child to a life of penal servitude all because YOU wanted to have a kid. It's ALL about you, isn't it Sweet Pee?

Many of them will probably have to. We don't hear about the cases in which a guy suspects he's been duped into fatherhood- but ultimately turns to mush in the soft glow of the sonogram monitor. But as cavalier as certain women are about the "nudge," not all men react so favorably when the "good news" is delivered—especially if they find out they've been snowed. Jody's boyfriend more or less freaked out. She terminated the pregnancy, then their relationship slowly dissolved. "It felt a little like the fun was taken out of everything," she says. "He was shocked and scared."

Man, I don't even know WHAT to say in response to this clueless drivel. Your man was shocked & scared, huh? And your relationship slowly dissolved, huh? What a surprise! I'd be pissed too if I were lied to. I don't care what the lie is about; if I've been lied to, I am upset-especially if it cost me dearly.

Last year, Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Saginaw, Michigan, says he had the same reaction when his girlfriend, Lauren Wells, allegedly pulled something similar. Dubay claims she told him she was infertile and was using a contraceptive "as an extra layer of assurance and protection." But when she got pregnant anyway and told Dubay she was keeping the baby, he said he wanted no part of it. Earlier this year, he argued in court that her alleged deception should exempt him from having to pay child support. His lawyer, Jeffrey Cojocar, reasoned that Michigan's paternity law violated the Constitution's equal-protection clause: If the situation were reversed and Dubay had gotten Wells pregnant after claiming he was sterile, he'd have no way of forcing her either to keep or to abort the child. The judge didn't buy his argument, but it's helped open a broadening national dialogue: Where do you draw the line between deadbeat dad and victim of deceit?

The judge didn't buy his argument because he is PART of the Gynocracy. Men don't have rights, and that judge was seeing to it that this despicable practice continued.

Where do I draw the line between deadbeat dad and deceit? Let's look at what Dictionary.com has for a definition for the word, deceit: the act or practice of deceiving; concealment or distortion of the truth for the purpose of misleading; duplicity; fraud; cheating: Once she exposed their deceit, no one ever trusted them again. What did his then girlfriend, Lauren Wells do? She told him that: 1) she was infertile; and 2) was using a contraceptive as an extra layer of protection. If that were true, then HOW did she end up pregnant? She ended up pregnant because she WAS fertile, and she was NOT using protection-totally opposite of what she said. I'd say that Mr. Dubay's situation qualified as deceit, wouldn't you? Her actions seem to conform to the definition of the word...

"This case has actually been more of a movement," Cojocar says. "I probably got four or five hundred e-mails—many of them from females." The women Cojocar says he was hearing from were angry because their significant others were supporting exes who they suspected had pulled a sneak pregnancy. Cojocar is appealing the case to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. In the meantime, Dubay is paying $500 a month in child support.

The case has become a cause célèbre for the National Center for Men (NCM), a men's-rights advocacy group that counsels people like Dubay through its website, www.nationalcenterformen.org—so much so that the organization's picking up the tab for his court costs. It's even trademarked the case: "Roe vs. Wade . . . for Men."

"Matt is asking for the reproductive choice he would have had if he were 'Mattilda,'" the website says. The NCM doesn't have much contact with men who acquiesce to their role as new fathers. The guys who come to the organization see their situations as deception in its purest form.

"A lot of these men feel like they have no control," says Mel Feit, the NCM's executive director. "The courts are ruthless in enforcing getting money and not asking questions. Judges aren't allowing the fraud argument, either."

Mel, a lot of those men feel like they have no control because they truly do NOT have any control or rights when it comes to paternity fraud.

As for the courts, they are about anything and everything BUT justice! They don't care if they go after the wrong man for child support; they don't care if a man is innocent. All they care about is recovering money for the state's welfare program-that's it! Thanks to the welfare reform act that the Republicans passed back in the 1990s, a woman HAS to name the father of her child in order to collect welfare benefits. The state, with its ravenous appetite for money, will go after a man for the money. Sometimes, they get the right man; sometimes they don't. In either case, they don't care; all they care about is getting more money in their coffers...

The NCM actually offers the "Reproductive Rights Affidavit" (think of it as the sexual equivalent of a living will), which challenges "any court order that seeks to impose a parental obligation upon me against my will." Unfortunately for Jeremy, a 35-year-old technical consultant and musician in New York, the affidavit doesn't provide a legal cover for now. He thought he'd found himself a nice girl. He had just split with his longtime fiancée but explains that this new woman was saying all the right things—even when it came to practical matters. She was on the Pill. She was pro-choice. So she and Jeremy (who's using a fake name) enjoyed a couple of months of unprotected intimacy.

Ah, you let your guard down-bad move, my friend! Especially when it comes to women. Furthermore, you're a DUMB ASS for having sex with a woman in her 30s-a real dumb ass! Women in their 30s often have a serious case of 'baby rabies'; they realize that their window of fertility is closing fast, and they want to have a kid before it closes. You're especially dumb for having UNPROTECTED SEX with this woman-dumb ass X2.

Then things got weird. She mysteriously quit drinking. She disappeared for days at a time. She told him she was considering going off birth control, though she assured him she hadn't yet. By July, Jeremy had had enough and broke things off. Then in August, he says, she told him she was pregnant and was keeping it. "She was pregnant all of May, all of June, and all of July," Jeremy says. "I said, 'Why didn't you tell me about this sooner?' She's like, 'I didn't want you to influence my decision.' Something that has potential impact on me for the rest of my life, she doesn't want me influencing her decision!?"

Dude, it was ALL ABOUT HER-all about her! It was all about what SHE wanted. It was all about HER desires. She didn't want you reminding her that her actions impacted another human being; she wanted what she wanted, and that was that. The fact that this would impact you for the rest of her life didn't matter to her.

More than a year and $6,500 in legal fees later, Jeremy has a 7-month-old boy he's never met, a child-support case pending, and a judge who's less than sympathetic toward his allegations of contraceptive deceit. Even his own attorney told him he'd better ditch that dream of becoming a full-time musician and focus on the computer gig that he'd hoped would only supplement his income: "She was like, 'You know what? You gotta be a man. You're gonna have to have a job 40 hours a week, and you need to support this child—this is your responsibility and your obligation.' And I'm thinking to myself, like, 'How is all of this my responsibility and my obligation when none of this was my choice?'"

It's your responsibility because The Gynocracy has SAID it's your responsibility, pal! Oh, and burn this into your mind: you have NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER when it comes to marriage, divorce, or paternity issues-none!

And what about this woman growing up and being a WOMAN, hmmm? What about being honest with your man? What about talking to him about your desire to have a child? Why weren't you HONEST about your contraceptive use? What about growing up, finding a WILLING man, marrying him, and giving that child TWO PARENTS, huh? Yeah, what you did was REAL grown up-not! Because you wanted a child come hell or high water, you're willing to CONDEMN that child to underclass status just to satisfy YOUR desires; you want a child, so you're going to HAVE one, Bless God! The fact that you're condemning the poor kid to underclass status doesn't matter to you; all that matters is that you got your kid. That's real grown up if you ask me. That's REALLY mature-not...

The ONLY way for a man to protect himself is to REFRAIN FROM HAVING SEX WITH A WOMAN. If she does say that you got her pregnant, insist on a DNA test! Please, please, please insist on a DNA test before you sign ANY paternity papers! Why? Because, depending on whose numbers you believe, between 10% and 30% of putative fathers are not the BIOLOGICAL father of the child in question! IOW, if a woman points the finger and says that YOU knocked her up, there's a 10%-30% chance that someone ELSE is the father. Once you sign those papers, you're screwed; it doesn't matter if you get a DNA test after the fact, either. Once you sign the papers saying that you're the daddy, then you're on the hook for the next 20 years; the courts WILL force you to pay for that child, even though it's not yours.

In closing, do not have premarital sex. Not only is abstention the only 100% effective contraceptive; abstention will keep you from catching diseases, and there's a very good chance your beloved is carrying one or more STDs-just something to think about. If you insist on having sex, ALWAYS USE PROTECTION; once you're done with it, YOU make sure you dispose of it somewhere where your beloved can't get to it; otherwise, she could get your used condom, and use your genetic materials to IMPREGNATE HERSELF! Don't laugh; it's happened, and that poor SOB was on the hook for it. If you don't like using protection, then get a vasectomy; get snipped, so you cannot leave your genetic materials in someone. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Since most American women are dishonest about contraceptive use, and since most American women are diseased whores carrying host of STDs, I think abstaining from sex is your only hope of staying single and free. Thank you, and good night...


It's 'Different' When a Woman Does It!


Here's yet another double standard women practice; here's yet another example of female hypocrisy: female sex tourism.  Female sex tourism shows other things about women too, things I'll discuss in this article.


Women who travel for sex: Sun, sea and gigolos

The men are young, gorgeous and up for it. No wonder Western women see a Third World holiday as the gateway to casual sex - sometimes in exchange for cash. But as a new film highlights female sex tourism, Liz Hoggard asks who really pays the price

Sunday, 9 July 2006

An attractive woman sips a cocktail under a bamboo shade. The sand is dazzlingly white, the sea aquamarine. A handsome young man approaches her and showers her with compliments: she is the most beautiful woman he has ever seen, he says. For the first time in years, she truly believes she is desirable.

But this holiday romance is not all it seems. The woman is white, in her late 50s; the man, black, 18 - and paid for his attentions. The scene - from the controversial new French film, Heading South, which opened this weekend, starring Charlotte Rampling, makes us confront uncomfortable truths about sexuality in a globalised world, and the legacy of colonialism.

If this whore is in her late 50s, then she's WELL past her expiration date!  Sorry, but any woman in her late 50s is NOT attractive-not in the conventional sense anyway.  She may look good for her age, but she's not going to give me or any other straight guy an instant erection.  That's the test of a woman's attractiveness: does she give a guy an immediate, primal boner?  If not, then she's NOT attractive-end of story.

In the film, an intelligent, provocative take on sex tourism in the late-1970s, Rampling plays Ellen, an American professor, who spends every summer at a private resort in Haiti, where beautiful, muscled black boys are available to the female clientele, mostly affluent single women in their forties, who despair of finding mates through more conventional means. "More than sex, they are seeking a tenderness that the world is refusing them," the film's director, Laurence Cantet, explains.

Why is the world refusing these damsels' tenderness, hmmm?  What do we know about these damsels?  One, we know that they're toxic, feminist, man hating career bitches from the West.  Two, we know that they're in their 40s and 50s.  Three, we know that either these women rode the cock carousel when they were younger; or they were married to decent men and got bored during their marriage.  Why would any decent, thinking man want to be with toxic women such as these?  Can anyone answer that?

Fast-forward 30 years, and the reality of sex tourism is anything but tender. Today beach resorts in developing countries such as Kuta in Bali, Negril in Jamaica and Boca Chica and Sosua in the Dominican Republic have become Third World pick-up spots for women tourists. Tour companies even market package deals as sex holidays for single and unaccompanied women. Forget Shirley Valentine, these women - who range from grandmothers to teens - don't want a long-term relationship. And there's plenty of live flesh on sale.

This is revealing.  If men engage in sex tourism, then it's disgusting, perverted, sick, creepy, etc.  Ever see what women say about men who vacation in Thailand?  Ah, but when women do it, it's all right.  Not only that, it's empowering and uplifiting for the women who do it.  The above paragraph says that tour companies even MARKET sex tours to women!  Could you imagine the outcry if there were tour companies marketing sex tours to men?

Take Jamaica, where 17 per cent of the population lives below the poverty line. Hustling on the beach is the only way that some young men can feed themselves and their families. No wonder they choose older women who pay better than younger ones. In Negril, the men can earn $100 (£60) for sex with a female tourist, £90 for oral sex, which Jamaican men usually regard as taboo. Many others are hired as a guide to the island and throw in sexual services, often just for as meal or a place to sleep.

And Jamaica is a TOTAL matriarchy-total matriarchy!  Women have their precious autonomy; they don't need men; they are indeed superior to them, but at what cost?  They cannot go out at night at all, because it's too dangerous.  For example, if women want to see a movie or play, then they have to: 1) do so during the day and return home before dark; 2) go with a group of their fellow sisters.  Patriarchy=prosperity and civilization, whereas matriarchy=misery, poverty, and anarchy.  It's always been that way, and it always will be that way.

The definition of a sex tourist is an adult who travels in order to have legal consensual sexual relations with another adult, often for the exchange of money or presents. We still assume that a sex tourist will be male - indeed many regard the relationship between beach boy and female tourist as harmless fun. The woman gets guilt-free sex while keeping a firm hold on the purse strings. Where's the harm?

Here's proof positive of what I was talking about above.  With women, sex tourism is 'harmless fun'.  With men, it's sick, perverted, creepy, and disgusting.  Note how the article subtly promotes this double standard.  They say, "We still assume that a sex tourist will be male..."

Jane, 67, a divorcee, has spent the past 10 years holidaying in West Africa. She loves the climate and the people - and she especially loves the men. "They are so wonderfully flattering. They make you feel like a real woman. I don't mind paying for their drinks and meals if they stay the night." Divorced, with two grown-up sons, she explains, "White men my own age are so set in their ways; they just want another wife."

Uh, Jane, the African men make you feel good for one reason, and one reason only: money and gifts.  That's it!  If you weren't willing to offer those things to them, you can bet your bippy that they wouldn't stick around.  I'm 49, and even I don't find 67 y/o women attractive-ick!   You're just a shriveled up, old crone with the skin of a prune-if you look THAT good...

As for white men your age wanting wives, oh please.  Can anyone say wishful thinking?!

Are men your own age set in their ways?  Yes, they are.  They're set in their ways for wanting kind women who can be decent, faithful, COMMITTED companions-duh!  They want everything that you're not, everything your divorce shows us.

For others, this is exploitation pure and simple. Even where no money is exchanged, this sort of behaviour destabilises local communities and families. Ignorance and lack of concern about the abject poverty and lack of choice that characterises the men's lives leads the women to romanticise their actions. It is true that women sex tourists are still outnumbered by the legions of men who travel to Thailand and the Philippines for sex with prostitutes. Charities such as Amnesty and Unicef have no official policy on female sex tourism, preferring to focus on protecting trafficked women and children. Chris Beddoe, director of Ecpat UK, the children's rights organisation that campaigns against child sex tourism, believes: "If both adult partners are open and honest about what they're getting out of it, that's one thing. But it's another thing to continue the fantasy when there's a denial of the power that money brings to that relationship that creates a culture of dependency and exploitation.'

Ah, but don't tell our wonderful Western women that!  Don't tell them that they're doing wrong.  Don't you know that our wonderful, divine 'goddesses' can do no wrong?  Okay, sarcasm is off.

Nirpal Dhaliwal, author of the recent novel, Tourism (which satirises older white women turned on by young brown flesh), takes a tougher view. "Women enjoy casual sex and prostitution, too, but with far more hypocrisy. They help themselves to men in the developing world, kidding themselves that it's a 'holiday romance' that has nothing to do with the money they spend. Go to any Jamaican beach and you'll find handsome 'rent-a-dreads', who get by servicing Western women - lots from Britain. I've seen similar things in Goa."

That's not a tougher view; it's a fairer, more unbiased view.

Next month a new play, Sugar Mummies, about the pleasures and perils of sex tourism opens at London's Royal Court Theatre. Set in the Jamaican beach resort of Negril, it centres on a group of British and American women, seeking sun sea, sand ... and uninhibited sex with a handsome stranger. Sexually frank and often very funny, the play doesn't pull its punches. The playwright, Tanika Gupta, travelled to Jamaica to research the subject first-hand, and says she was shocked to find how female tourists objectify the black male body. "A lot of women talk about how 'big' black men are and how they can go all night. It becomes such a myth that even the men now use it. There is this terrible mutual delusion going on. And you do find yourself thinking, 'We're not a million miles from slavery.'" The older female tourists even confided to Gupta that although Jamaica was lovely and laid-back, the Dominican Republic and Cuba were "dirt cheap". "You can go as young as you want in Cuba," one woman boasted.

You know what I think?  I think that Miss Gupta, no doubt a Westernized (read feminist) woman of Indian descent, was shocked that her fellow 'goddesses' could be so perverted and so debauched.  Waaaaahhhh-only MEN are that way!  Women are pure, sweet, divine, angelic goddesses who wouldn't do that-waaaaaaahhhhh!

You know what else the above paragraph shows?  It shows a couple of things, actually.  One, it shows that women can be just as primal as men are on their sex tourist vacations.  Two, it also shows the double standard WRT male and female sex tourists.  Can you imagine the OUTCRY that would result if men were to talk about another, cheaper locale that would allow them to 'go as young as they want'?  Why, it'd be a travesty!  Yeah, but when a woman does it, it's okay; that's 'different', you know...

For all the talk of romance, the language of sex tourism is pretty basic. In Jamaica the men are called "beach boys" or "Rastatutes". The women are called milk bottles by the men - partly because of their ultra-white skin, partly because they are seen as vessels waiting to be filled.

You know why I think the local boys call the women milk bottles?  Because they can't wait to milk 'em of their money, gifts, and so on.  They're not vessels waiting to be filled; the women are easy marks waiting to be fleeced, or milked.

Another myth the play explodes is that sex tourism is only perpetrated by white women. In Jamaica, Gupta met many black American women hiring beach boys. "They might be going back to their roots, or feeling more powerful because they had money, but they were still buying the same services."

Eeeehhh, wrong!  The reason why American black women are resorting to sex tourism is because no one here WANTS them!  Talk about toxic; American black women make our white women look kind, virtuous, and feminine!  Seriously, black women in America give new meaning to the phrase, 'toxic women'.  Hell, they're so bad that the brothers here don't even want them!

Think about it, people.  Women have it easy in the sexual market place; if they want to get laid, all they have to do is spread their legs.  Ah, but black, American women are SO BAD that they can't even give it away to American men of any color-including their fellow black brothers!  They have to resort to sex tourism to get laid.  Doesn't that tell you anything?

In Bali, South-east Asia, Beddoes encountered wealthy Japanese women paying local boys for sex. The boys themselves claimed they found it less degrading because they saw the Japanese women as smaller and more childlike.

Japanese women are more feminine; they're nicer to look at; and, as a rule, Asian women age a lot better than their Western female counterparts.

Having said that though, what does it say about Japan and Japanese women when THEY have to resort to sex tourism to get sex?  That's quite chilling when you think about it; it's quite chilling for a lot of reasons.

Gupta was inspired to write Sugar Mummies after reading the research by UK sociologists, Jacqueline Sanchez Taylor and Julia O'Connell into female sex tourism in the Caribbean. They decided to carry out their own research when they found that the usual analysis of sex tourism does not consider women as buyers of sexual services, because prostitute-users is seen as, by definition, male.

Ah, Jacqueline Sanchez Taylor-now THAT is a feminist if I ever saw one!  Having said that, she and Miss O'Connell are at least HONEST sociologists, even if they're of a liberal (read socialist), politically correct persuasion.  At least they realized that sex tourism wasn't just the province of men.  I guess that that's a start to doing away with the double standard that's often applied to sex tourism.

They interviewed 240 women holidaying in Negril, and two similar resorts in the Dominican Republic. Almost a third said they had engaged in sexual relationships with local men. Though 60 per cent admitted to certain "economic elements" to their liaisons, they did not perceive their sexual encounters as a prostitute-client transaction. Instead they insisted they were helping the men, and the local economy, by giving them money and gifts. When asked to describe "boyfriends", most emphasised how for them black Jamaican men possessed bodies of great sexual value. One 42 year-old English woman who travelled at least three times a year to Boca Chica in the Dominican Republic said: "I'm not naïve. I've been around the block. I come for sex - of course the sun, but mostly the sex. I'm not coming to live and set up house with a guy. I just want some fun and good sex."

Well, Darlin', that begs the question: why can't you get good sex at home?  Is it perhaps because local men do not WANT you?  As a woman, you don't have to go across the ocean to have sex.  All you have to do is signal to a man that you're willing, and spread your legs.  That's it!  So, why can't you find a willing man at home, hmmm?

"Female sex tourism is much more informal," says Sanchez Taylor, a lecturer in sociology at Leeds University. "It takes place in bars. There's no way for women to go into a brothel and say, 'I want a blow job.'

Oh stop it!  Just stop it!  Female sex tourism isn't less formal, Mrs. Taylor; it's just more subtle and indirect, like everything women say and do.  When a guy goes to Thailand for vacation, he'll get a bar girl, pay her fee, and she'll stay with him for the agreed upon amount of time.  During that time, she will 'service' the man and satisfy his needs-much better than women back home ever would, BTW.  With men, it's like everything men do: simple, direct, and to the point.  If a man goes to Thailand and hits Pattaya Beach, he's going there for ONE reason-sex.

When women engage in sex tourism, it's not quite as obvious, not quite as direct.  They don't go to the men, pay X dollars (or pounds, as the case may be), and take him with them for X number of hours or days.  No, they give them money; they buy them drinks; buy them clothes and other things; and provide a roof over their heads, all in exchange for sex.  Now, pardon me, but if you're exchanging money and gifts for sex, doesn't that qualify for prostitution?  If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, isn't it fair to say that we're looking at a duck here?

"Women who feel rejected by men in the West for being fatter and older -you know, 35, but they look 40 - find that in Jamaica all this is reversed," says Sanchez Taylor.

Thank you!  Finally, we get the truth!  These female sex tourists are so repulsive (and not just physically, either) that men back home don't want them.  They can't GIVE sex away back home, and they can't give it away for a couple of good reasons: 1) they're fat, old, and ugly; 2) they're even UGLIER on the inside.

"There's a poetic lyricism to the gigolo's chat-up lines," agrees Gupta. "You very quickly understand why the women are buying this. On the first day, this baby aged 18 came to chat me up. At first I thought, this will be good for my play. But then he got a bit fast, so I suggested he move on to some younger women, And he said, 'Me no want the kitten, me want the cat.'"

And these repulsive, love starved Western women buy IN to the bullshit!  Again, here's more evidence of why women weren't given power or rights; they can't HANDLE them.  The fact that they fall for such BS is proof positive that they're incapable of handling power, responsibility or anything else.  Women are only a step above children, and the fact that they fall for such BS lines proves it...

The problem comes, she says, when the women start believing the men they have hooked up with are in love with them. "They confuse what is actually a financial transaction with real love. If you have low self-esteem, if you've not had much luck, if you're older ... you are likely to be more susceptible," says Gupta.

Oh, please.  Women fall for the BS because they want to.   They fall for it because they're more gullible than men.  As I've stated in other posts, there's a reason why the serpent targeted Eve in the Garden first, and that we'd do well to REMEMBER that...

If an older woman's self esteem is part of the equation, it's for this reason: they're past their expiration date; they're no longer young, hot, and desirable as they were in their 20s; they're no longer having droves of guys hit on them now that they're older, fatter, and uglier.  These women are no longer the "cat's meow", and they can't HANDLE it-end of discussion.

Some women even marry their boyfriends and take them home to the UK, although few relationships survive the cultural difference. Jamica's most famous holiday romance has recently come crashing down. Female tourism boomed after Terry McMillan's hit novel, How Stella Got Her Groove Back was made into a Hollywood film. The novel, in which Stella, a divorced black woman in her forties, takes a holiday to Jamaica, where she meets and falls in love with Winston, a local man half her age - was a fictionalised account of McMillan's own marriage to Jeremy Plummer, 23 years her junior. This year, McMillan, 53, filed for divorce, claiming that the marriage was based on a "fraud'' because Plummer lied about his sexual orientation and married her only to gain US citizenship. He denies it.

Uh, the cultural difference has little or nothing to do with the demise of these 'romances'.  No, the reason these relationships end is for one, simple reason: the guys got what they wanted: money, UK or USA citizenship, and a better life; they got everything from their girlfriend/wife that they set out to get, so they bailed.

It is a nasty twist that the countries where this sort of tourism is most rife are ex-slave colonies. Many are still dealing with the fallout of colonialism. All the hotels, restaurants, cars and glass-bottomed boats in Negril are owned by Americans. The urban economy doesn't even belong to the local people.

What goes unsaid is that this is because the local economy, at least in Jamaica, is matriarchal.  Matriarchies NEVER bring prosperity-never!  Ah, but we can't say that now, can we?  If the feminists writing this article were to discuss that elephant in the room, They'd have to admit a truth that would KILL them: that patriarchy is superior to their beloved matriarchy.  We can't point out that, if Jamaica were patriarchal, then it'd be more prosperous; it would be owned and operated by the local people, not outsiders.  If you want to know what a matriarchy looks and feels like, then either go to nearest, inner city ghetto; or go to a place like Jamaica.  You'll see matriarchy in all its unbridled 'glory'...

Yet the women who sleep with the beach boys insist they are helping race relations. They flatter themselves they have gone native. "In my play there's a scene where a white woman is taking about how she loves R&B and reggae and what she calls hip and hop," says Gupta.

Oh, stop it!  Just stop it!  This is just an example of the rationalization hamster going full speed.  Western women and their hamsters know no bounds...

It is the female tourist who books the flights and determines the length of time she will spend with their boyfriend, as well as making day-to-day decisions when they are together, such as when and where they eat. One 21-year-old migrant from Haiti, who had been working in Sosua, told Sanchez Taylor that he even had to "snog" his tourist client despite a bad toothache and a swollen face. If he did not, he would not be able to afford the antibiotics to cure it.

So, let me get this straight: this chap had to do oral sex to his 'client' even though he had a bad toothache and a swollen face?!  There's more of that female empathy in action-ha!  What would happen if a man did something like that, hmm?  Sorry, I can't help but ask a question begging to be asked...

You know, if it were man buying sex, he'd be called a "John"; he'd be mocked and reviled for doing something like this.  How dare he!  That begs another question: what do they call female buyers of sex?  What name would we give them?  After all, they're just like their male counterparts we call "Johns", right?

Oh, and why is it okay when a woman makes her gigolo do something he doesn't want to do (or, in this case, is painful to do, for obvious reasons)?  Why is it wrong when a man does it?  Why is it 'different' when a woman does it?  I see hamster wheels a spinnin'...

In Sugar Mummies, Gupta deliberately allows herself one relationship that might just work. "I'm not saying anything about mixed race relationships, I'm talking about these specific kinds of sex-tourist relationships where women go out there specifically to have sex. It will probably backfire and a whole load more women will go off to Jamaica."

'Sugar Mummies' opens at the Royal Court, London SW1 on 5 August (020-7565 5000)

No strings: 'I wanted to do sex like a man'

Lucy, a 23-year-old events organiser from London, visited St Lucia this year with a friend

You wanted to do sex like a man?  Oh, stop it!  If you want to have debauched, promiscuous sex; if you want to nurture your inner slut; then you can do so at home quite easily-especially if you're 23!

The words "sex tourism" make me think of City boys who go to Thailand with their mates for seedy conquests to boast about. It's different for women. When they go abroad for sex, it's about wanting to feel special and escaping the boundaries at home.

Translation: at home, I can't act like a slut and preserve my reputation as a 'good girl' back home-gag a maggot!  Theres' nothing good about you, Darlin', at least not as a wife candidate.

As for sex tourism being different for a woman, there's the rationalization hamster in action again.  I can't define the phrase, 'rationalization hamster', but I know it when I see it-like in this instance.  That hamster is running for all it's worth, isn't it?

You know something else, Darlin'?  When guys go on vacations to Thailand, it's not to brag about seedy conquests-no, not at all.  You know what guys who've vacationed there talk about?  Meeting nice, FEMININE women who-gasp-treat them with a modicum of respect!  They talk about a woman caring about his needs and meeting them; even if this were done for a price, it's the best experience he's ever had with a woman.  Your typical, Anglosphere man never experienced that with the likes of you, Bitch!  You and your Anglosphere sisters would rather DIE than even THINK about doing something nice for your man back home!  You're the same chicks who, in 10-15 years time (the same time you're past your expiration date), will be bitching and moaning about the lack of good men-incredible...

Oh, and let me point out something else here: EVERY interaction a man has with a woman, especially if it involves sex, will cost him; one way or another, the man WILL pay to have access to her stink box.  The only difference is that a whore lets the man know what the cost will be up front.

My friend and I decided to treat ourselves to a stay in a luxury hotel in St Lucia for 10 days of pure pampering - and ideally a sexual encounter. This was the first time I'd gone on holiday explicitly with this intention. I was keen to find a St Lucian man as I'd heard they were very well endowed. I had my eye on Sandi from my first day. He was a local working in the cocktail bar, in his early thirties, and was very handsome, muscular and toned with the perfect six-pack. We spent several evenings drinking, chatting and flirting in the bar.

There are very strict rules at the hotel about staff and guests so I knew I had to make the first move. I told him I was going for a walk on the beach - and we spent our first night together. It was very romantic.

Oh, please, spare me!  You got played, Honey.  This guy should stop by the seduction fora out there; sounds like this old boy could teach us a thing or two about bedding our hometown sluts...

This was totally different from how I'd behave at home. In London, taking a man home with you, there's always the fear that friends might see you, not to mention potential dangers or the hassle of waking up in your flat with a stranger. But on holiday the boundaries shift and you can behave totally differently. You have a tan, you feel gorgeous, you're treated like royalty - and everything is available and easy.

If you were at all gorgeous (especially on the inside, i.e. you had a decent personality); if you were even an average looking 23 year old woman; then you would have NO PROBLEM WHATSOEVER finding a decent man back home-none!  Whether you want a LTR or a primal, one night stand, finding a man back home should be no problem; for a woman in her early 20s, all men are, as you put it, 'available and easy'.  The fact that you can't find a man back home is rather telling, isn't it?

What's also telling is her comment about how 'the boundaries shift' while on holiday.  What she really means is that, on holiday, she can nurture her inner slut; she can act like the slattern she is and face no shame for doing so.

Sandi and I had a great time. On his day off, he took us to a local street party. I paid for taxis, drinks and food. We needed his protection because St Lucian men had certain misconceptions about white women - although I probably wasn't helping.

St. Lucian men view Anglosphere women as they truly are: unbridled, debauched, amoral sluts.   And no, my dear,  you AREN'T helping to combat that perception...

You know what else just occurred to me?  When women have a guy pay for things for them, they say he has no right to 'expect anything' (i.e. sex) in return.  Ah, but when the women engage in similar behavior, they're doing it because they 'expect something in return'-duh!  How did I miss that?!

When it came to leaving, I surprised myself by feeling quite gutted. I'd wanted to do sex without feelings, just like the men, but there was a definite trembling of the lips - for both of us. But as we flew home, my friend and I were very pleased with everything that had happened. I'm in a relationship at the moment but if I was single again I'd definitely go on that kind of holiday. Why not?

Why  not nurture your inner slut at home and save yourself the money, Honey?

Ah, no matter how hard you try, you CAN'T 'have sex like a man', can you?  You, as a woman, can't separate sex from love; for you, the two go together like hand in glove.

Around one in five British holidaymakers under the age of 25 is failing to practise safe sex while abroad, according to a study published this month by Trojan Condoms 


This article was RIFE with examples of women's rationalization hamster in action, wasn't it?  As I stated above, I can't give you anything close to a dictionary definition of the phrase; for me, it's like defining obscenity.  Like obscenity, I know the rationalization hamster when I see it.

Women are indeed hypocrites.  For example, they'll chastise a man for engaging in sex tourism, yet for women, it's different.  Don't you just LOVE how they say that when you catch them in their inconsistencies?  Don't you just love how they excuse their own hypocrisies?  But I'm a woman; it's 'different'-yeah, sure.

That wraps up my commentary and analysis of this piece. The more I see of women, the less highly I think of them; the more I think about them and their natures, the less I think of them.  A famous man once said that no man who has spent any time really THINKING about women has a high opinion of them.  Until next time...