tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post6306460797775019021..comments2024-03-27T21:40:20.298+00:00Comments on Anglobitch: The INCEL Revolution: Norway, Riots and the Failing HegemonyRookh Kshatriyahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-4837053661711896442014-11-27T22:53:52.006+00:002014-11-27T22:53:52.006+00:00Or maybe you are just a male(?) feminist?
Fuck of...Or maybe you are just a male(?) feminist?<br /><br />Fuck off, bitchboy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-65038941135169572002014-11-27T22:49:33.579+00:002014-11-27T22:49:33.579+00:00Calling nature as "Mother" sounds pretty...Calling nature as "Mother" sounds pretty gynocentric, not to mention white knight-ish. Are you Futrelle or Fleming in disguise?<br /><br />Either way, fuck off mangina.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-80132872825755569602011-08-24T21:02:41.426+01:002011-08-24T21:02:41.426+01:00I'd like to comment on this post and thread wh...I'd like to comment on this post and thread when I have more time (great insights Ian) but for the moment I would like to post a link to our lovable old friend who's at it once again -and just can't stop making a donkey out of himself:<br /><br />http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/2011/08/22/jerks-cases-of-arrested-development/#comment-211144<br /><br />" Young men today are fond of blaming young women for the miseries of modern social life, but in my experience it is bad men who make bad women: feeble fathers, cheating boyfriends, effeminate ministers. It is up to men to take charge, and I am not suggesting even a hint of physical violence, just the quiet assertion of authority that we used to suppose came natural to men. Naturally, many if not most modern women will be put off, and they will fuss and fume and wave their arms and bob their heads, denouncing your male chauvinist behavior. Who cares? The minority who do respond are what you have to concentrate on."<br /><br />"What is the feminine equivalent of the Jerk? I think we all know the answer and it rhymes with witch. But while the Jerk is an otherwise normal male who has not grown up enough to acknowledge other people’s existence–at least not consistently–the b–ch is a terrible deformation of the female character. The act is part domineering mother but, and this is significant, partly an imitation of what women perceive to be male behavior. It is a common complaint in offices that when women do what men do routinely, they get known as b–ches. This is only partly true, because this sort of woman goes way over the top in her aggressive and exploitative behavior, but the element of truth doesn’t make them any more tolerable. The sassy, self-assertive, scheming female–Scarlet O’Horror as Jones calls his boss in A Confederacy of Dunces–does things a man would get punched out for. I don’t want to dwell on this, because it is too easy for men, who are responsible for the way the world is, to point the finger at their victims."<br /><br />Forgive me Rookh, I couldn't resist.Not Thomas Fleminghttp://www.menstribune.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-28165862662458410382011-08-22T17:42:30.162+01:002011-08-22T17:42:30.162+01:00When a woman doesn't want to, it is because yo...<i>When a woman doesn't want to, it is because you, as a man, have not conditioned her wisely.</i><br /><br />Oh, good grief. This just isn't much use, is it?Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-11011938205562203372011-08-22T17:29:12.742+01:002011-08-22T17:29:12.742+01:00@Ian B : When a woman doesn't want to, it is b...@Ian B : When a woman doesn't want to, it is because you, as a man, have not conditioned her wisely.<br /><br />"I dunno, maybe I'm a big girly wet blouse, but I think there's more to life than talking about football or monster trucks or whatever Us Guys talk about." You say self-deprecating phrases like this because you have been raised to perceive reality in that way. As a man, you have the power to lead, to raise to greatness in art and science, to spread positive vibes, to be in the present, to collaborate with others, to reciprocate good actions, to be kind and achieve perfection! Life as a man is great! Enjoy it however you want to!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-58227677121859349082011-08-22T16:35:45.329+01:002011-08-22T16:35:45.329+01:00Also-
You can even keep a woman by just having se...Also-<br /><br /><i>You can even keep a woman by just having sex with her, whenever you want to, without recurring to conversations, which instead you can have with your mates. </i><br /><br />I dunno, maybe I'm a big girly wet blouse, but I think there's more to life than talking about football or monster trucks or whatever Us Guys talk about.Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-68899784389503477192011-08-22T16:30:48.136+01:002011-08-22T16:30:48.136+01:00@Anonymous-
"The limiting social factor is t...@Anonymous-<br /><br /><i>"The limiting social factor is the female ("not tonight, I have a headache")" This is not a limiting factor. If she behaves like that, then you stop giving her your attention, kick her out of your place, and look for another woman. In other words, you punish her for not giving you what you want.</i><br /><br />I was referring to physical capability, and thus the apparent paradox that the gender with the greater <i>physical</i> capacity limits the amount of sex which is actually had.<br /><br />Also, part of why I'm rambling here is that everyone seems to be seeing this as class warfare, men vs. women. In that sense, it's just copying the feminists and making the same mistakes.<br /><br />Sure, you can be awfully manly and kick every non-compliant female out on her ass (ignoring the question of whether you can get another one, who you then have to kick out, then another...) but it doesn't answer the far more interesting question of <i>why she doesn't want to</i>. And that's what I'm interested in.Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-57027675761388511942011-08-22T15:42:23.800+01:002011-08-22T15:42:23.800+01:00@Ian B : "The limiting social factor is the f...@Ian B : "The limiting social factor is the female ("not tonight, I have a headache")" This is not a limiting factor. If she behaves like that, then you stop giving her your attention, kick her out of your place, and look for another woman. In other words, you punish her for not giving you what you want. <br /><br />"if you want to keep a woman, she needs regular earth-shaking shagging" Although this phrase is gynocentric, I agree with its meaning, but you need to know how to do foreplay and arouse her, for a woman is like an iron, which needs time to heat up. You can even keep a woman by just having sex with her, whenever you want to, without recurring to conversations, which instead you can have with your mates. Having said that, make sure you reward her for being a good girl and having sex with you by either cuddling with her or sending her a friend request on facebook or inviting her to dinner, etc.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-50434631218242471842011-08-22T13:01:03.249+01:002011-08-22T13:01:03.249+01:00(continued)
Hence, most males ultimately or rapid...(continued)<br /><br />Hence, most males ultimately or rapidly get dumped, or the relationships become sexless. Females are not aware that what they are really searching for is a male who regularly provides vaginal orgasm, in our world of complex social interpretations of mating and relationships. But, in this hypothesis, that is what they are actually after.<br /><br />Of course, there has probably been much genetic drift thanks to centuries of organised social rituals such as marriage, with many women trapped into mating with inadequate males. That will also have led to a general reduction in the male capacity to satisfy females sexually. The number of sexual "alphas" dwindles, while the female test instrument itself, the vagina, may have also become less fit for purpose, with some orgasming easily and others not at all.<br /><br />Of course, this is not a heartening theory for us males. We don't like to think that size matters, and we like to blame women for being too demanding. We often feel that a woman in a relationship has a contractual duty to satisfy our sexual desires- but for the man, "even when it's bad, it's good", whereas for the woman, "when it's bad, it's fucking awful". Most men would go off sex if they hardly ever, or never, had an orgasm at the end of it, just a buildup to nothing.<br /><br />There is a bit of advice one sometimes sees on the net, or hears elsewhere, which is "if you want to keep a woman, she needs regular earth-shaking shagging". When we cut through all the theory and verbiage, that may be the most honest statement of all. But it may also be that Mother Nature- who when we look at the rest of nature, reveals herself to be a very cruel mother indeed- has doomed most of the male sex to be physically incapable of achieving that. Evolution is a game of winners and losers, and if you're a loser... well, it just sucks.<br /><br />So anyway, there's a hypothesis. File it with the other 10,000 :)Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-62849195206528644672011-08-22T12:59:44.217+01:002011-08-22T12:59:44.217+01:00Sorry to go on. Anyway, here's a hypothesis. I...Sorry to go on. Anyway, here's a hypothesis. It's also experimentally testable, if somebody wants to do the research :)<br /><br />Let's look at some facts as best we know them.<br /><br />Both the male and the female are capable of sexual arousal and ecstasy ("orgasm").<br /><br />The limiting physical factor on sexual quantity is the male (runs out of juice) not the female (can do it all day if she wants to) but<br /><br />The limiting social factor is the female ("not tonight, I have a headache")<br /><br />Most sexual relationships begin with frequent sex and end up as a sexual wasteland, though some lucky ones don't. This is common enough for men to routinely joke or complain about it.<br /><br />Orgasm is easy for men, and hard for women.<br /><br />Genetic data suggests that some half of men throughout history have left no descendents, but the overwhelming majority of females have.<br /><br />The human penis is unnaturally large for a primate, but the testes are not remarkably sized.<br /><br />Most divorces and relationship breakups are initated by women, for reasons of general disgruntlement.<br /><br />Googling around, about 30% of women claim to have vaginal orgasm.<br /><br /><br />What can w guess from these facts? Well, let's think about theories. There have been two hegemonic sexual theories in modern times. The first was Freud's. He said that clitoral orgasm is a juvenile response, and all women should have therapy to achieve vaginal orgasm. This was replaced post-1970 by the feminist clitoricentric theory, which declared that the vagina is a largely senseless organ with no sexual use to the woman, and that the clitoris is all that matters. The clitoris is far away from the vagina; in line with feminist dogma, this reduces vaginal intercourse by the male to a selfish act which women must merely suffer. The political purpose of such a theory is obvious.<br /><br />Let us hypothesise instead that, in pre-civilised humanity, female sexual responses evolved to stringently <i>test</i> the male sexually. The vagina evolved as a "test instrument". It tests the girth and length of the penis. It measures the stroke length. Its reduced sensitivity measures the "staying power" of the male. The flaccid vagina is only around 4" long (this statistic is often misleadingly used to claim that size doesn't matter) but when a larger penis enters it, it expands to accomodate; nerves measure this.<br /><br />Why would the female evolve this way? It's reasonable to conclude that the size of the penis and general virility of the male; his staying power, his general strength; are good measures of genetic and general health. And when a male passes the, er, "pussy test", the female is rewarded with an orgasm, and is thus motivated to repeat the experience with that male. If he fails it, she feels dissatisfied and disgruntled and loses interest. Thus, successful males will more often mate with the female and give her more children. (The low conception rate of females may have evolved to let them try out numerous males at low risk of fertilisation from each encounter). continued-->Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-45165481033605319262011-08-22T12:29:40.557+01:002011-08-22T12:29:40.557+01:00@Anonymous
It is worth bearing in mind that the e...@Anonymous<br /><br />It is worth bearing in mind that the error of beleiving we will be forever young is a general error of our, um, post-1960s consensus. What we've abandoned is the idea of life as a series of stages, such as marriage, childbearing and rearing, middle age, old age, etc. So I don't know if this is really a "woman thing".<br /><br />It is tempting to develop one Theory Of Everything and try to explain all human life through it. Feminism tries to do that; and so, it seems, do the various flavours of masculism.<br /><br />For instance, I like Rookh's essays a lot, which is why I visit this site of course. But his assertion that women do not have a developed sexuality seems to me to be lacking any evidence. Everyone has a theory of How Women Ought To Behave, and when they don't, go looking for the errors in the women instead of the errors in the theory.<br /><br />For instance, looking at Genghis Khan as a model, is looking at a relatively short period of history- the Age Of Imperialism. Human sexuality evolved before that, and may have gone through many different social models, with remnants of each phase clinging on. There were no great imperial wars in the longest age of mankind, the age of the hunter/gatherer band. It may well be that sexual coercion and restricted female mate choice only arose a few thousand years ago as we began moving beyond that stage, while female sexual "drives" would predate all that by tens or hundreds of thousands of years.<br /><br />We really do need to be very cautious before making grand statements of certainty about such a contentious and confounding subject.Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-33048747465965169702011-08-22T10:44:42.651+01:002011-08-22T10:44:42.651+01:00I detect a certain squeamishness at 12.39: 'I ...I detect a certain squeamishness at 12.39: 'I am not trying to justify coercion' says Rookh. Feminists in their Reductio ad absurdum see all sexual intercourse as Rape. Does this perhaps have something to do with the heightened male sexual desire, and a certain female indifference. In short, a man, has to 'try it on', and I would say that the biggest mistake I made in my younger days was to take women's protestations of innocence at face value. Women's main, indeed only sexual fantasy seems to be Rape, and women like to be held down, - especially in play-acting - by a man.<br /><br />I take the perhaps controversial view that Rape is a crime against a man (father, husband) and not against a woman. If you are someone's woman you will want to have sex, whether you are a groupie or one of Tamburlaine's harem, asyou will wish to continue to receive their attention and protection. I also take the view (a view which until the last few years that no-one disagreed with) that it is not possible to Rape your wife. It is as incoherent as that one should be a married bachelor. Assault is a different matter.Opusnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-67456708880506747932011-08-22T07:06:27.505+01:002011-08-22T07:06:27.505+01:00@Ian B : The problem is that, once a woman reaches...@Ian B : The problem is that, once a woman reaches 30, she expects traditional "socialism", but, by then, her "free market" value has dropped significantly since she now has very low marginal utility. <br /><br />In other words, after wasting her youth whoring around, by 30, she expects to be married, but for a man to offer her protection under a marriage agreement, it is a prerequisite that she be young and virgin. It is not wise for a man to offer civilized protection and comfort to a woman who has been behaving like a feral beast. Of course, her one night stands' men will neither offer nor provide her with protection. <br /><br />If a woman has chosen feral behaviour, then she deserves feral treatment: fuck and chuck. For if she hasn't given me her best ten years, then I'm not going to be with her in her worst thirty years.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-44040518752843420292011-08-21T22:21:15.569+01:002011-08-21T22:21:15.569+01:00Rookh/Santiago:
Right after the US media's ...Rookh/Santiago:<br /><br /> Right after the US media's fawning over the 51 year-old Madonna as a 'sex symbol' I saw photos of 45 year-old Whitney Houston posing in a bikini splashed all over the tabloids. <br /><br /> This is the same media culture that shames American men for pursuing young, intellegent, attractive foreign women. They offer these slags as the alternative.<br /><br /> I think Rookh is right: Freud could have predicted this kind of cultural insanity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-43241170318557025222011-08-21T18:28:33.042+01:002011-08-21T18:28:33.042+01:00*Susanne's bizarre mission began after she cou...*Susanne's bizarre mission began after she couldn't stop gaining weight naturally. <br /><br />'Two years ago I hit 35 stone because I was losing my battle against weight gain,’ she said. 'I noticed I actually started attracting more men, and it made me feel good.’* <br /><br />What men were these? The criminally insane? As everyone can see, this woman is utterly self-deluded. In fact, the whole article taps into the Anglo-American, gynocentric fantasy that women and not men define female beauty...Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-76941744771486021882011-08-21T17:47:16.909+01:002011-08-21T17:47:16.909+01:00There you have it: A Bristish newspaper cheering u...There you have it: A Bristish newspaper cheering up the beauty of Anglo American 'women'.<br />http://goo.gl/IG6XH<br />Go on, go on, I don't want to hinder your way to the bathroom I know you feel like puking right now.Santiagonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-7900216741472350902011-08-21T17:14:09.436+01:002011-08-21T17:14:09.436+01:00*But it does beg the question - why on earth would...*But it does beg the question - why on earth would a woman, who can easily choose a successful alpha if she wanted, finish up with an idiot? Because women do not understand men. They make dumb assumptions based on superficial criteria (e.g., social proof), they rationalize their proximity and their situation. This is why properly executed Game can be effective - it manipulates the manipulators.*<br /><br />Perhaps women's dysfunctional choices relate to the strong historical possibility that women's mate choices have never counted for much at an evolutionary level, that process being taken care of by intra-male competition in warfare and other arenas. True alphas never had to 'seduce' women - men like Tamerlane or Ghengis Khan won their wars and took the women of the conquered as concubines. What women thought of them mattered little. <br /><br />Consequently, women never had much chance to 'evolve' functional sexual responses. Males, by contrast, evolved very functional desires for large breasts, bright eyes, glossy hair, high cheekbones, long legs, symmetrical features and other markers of reproductive fitness. Female preferences do not seem especially functional (as so many have pointed out) while pornography in every culture focuses on these core, functional factors. Obviously, I am not trying to justify sexual coercion, merely trying to offer a rational explanation for dysfunctional female mate-preference. <br /><br />Indeed, the very fact that the male has to be attracted to a woman to mate with her tells a story in itself. Without a certain degree of 'functional' lust on the male's part, sexual congress is impossible. However, pregnancy can occur whether the female finds the male attractive or not. In sum, male sexuality is far more important in reproduction - if it were not 'functional' as such, reproduction could not occur. The same cannot be said of female sexuality. There is simply less need for a strong, functional, sexual response among females.<br /><br />I personally think the great psychoanalytical thinkers like Freud and Jung still have a great deal to offer concerning these issues. While evolutionary psychology is fine for examining male sexuality, the obvious fact that female sexuality is less 'evolved' weakens its overall validity as a conceptual tool. I also think that Freud's 'death instinct' remains a valid concept. 'Suicidal' events like the First World War are very hard to explain using evolutionary psychology alone. Other factors are at work - psychoanalytical ones among them. In fact, I would venture that the success of Game relates to those factors rather more than evolutionary ones.<br /><br />Whatever else may be said of Game, it is infinitely superior to the legacy media's naive, sugar-coated depiction of Anglo-American relationships - 'the One', Marriage, 2.4 children and Happy Ever After... you know the drill.Rookh Kshatriyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05970184074924214959noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-18355558086509243722011-08-20T21:39:24.567+01:002011-08-20T21:39:24.567+01:00I've also observed that far from choosing &quo...I've also observed that far from choosing "dominant alphas", women's choices seem to be more proximity-dependent. The reality is that there is a significant degree of arbitrariness in women's choices. It's not so much that women choose a particular kind of man than they choose the kind of man that they happen to encounter. Pure, dumb luck is their modus operandi. If you can establish proximity (e.g., a secretary among sales reps or a model among photographers), the rest is easy, and dumb luck takes its inevitable course.<br /><br />For men, as providers, it's different. Engineers working in mines or software programers working among nerds have less opportunity with proximity. Eg., George Sodini.<br /><br />More astute women with a specific agenda, however, manipulate their proximity. They often pursue law and business degrees for the purpose of establishing proximity. An ex of mine used to mockingly refer to arts degrees as Marriage 1 and law degrees as Marriage 2.<br /><br />Having said that, there is also the inclination of many women to finish up with degenerates. Why is this? Proximity plays an important part, but another important factor is that the degenerate disarms a woman's programmed agenda. She switches out of agenda mode, relaxes, and allows the social lubricant of dumb dialogue combined with proximity to wield their disarming effect. She cannot possibly imagine herself involved with an idiot, lowers her guard, and voila, she has an idiot in her life and gives birth to his spawn. <br /><br />But it does beg the question - why on earth would a woman, who can easily choose a successful alpha if she wanted, finish up with an idiot? Because women do not understand men. They make dumb assumptions based on superficial criteria (e.g., social proof), they rationalize their proximity and their situation. This is why properly executed Game can be effective - it manipulates the manipulators.chuckewnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-61141723227542571072011-08-20T18:01:02.310+01:002011-08-20T18:01:02.310+01:00General comment on Incels (I'm taking it this ...General comment on Incels (I'm taking it this is "involuntarily celibate", yes? My own guess is that the article is correct that they have always existed, but there are probably more now with the general move from a hegemonic marriage system to a hegemonic free market; for the reason that marriage is kind of like socialism. It causes a general levelling down, but levels *up* the poorest. When women were under intense pressure to marry, guys who in the "free market" have no chance were more likely to get a wife, especially with parents organising couples together, and so on.<br /><br />It's probably the case that all cultures have some form of marriage because it is better for the society at large to reduce free competition for mates, otherwise you get the levels of gross inequality that everyone is currently complaining about. It's worth remembering taht for most of history in most cultures, marriage was nothing to do with "finding a soulmate" or sexual bliss, but just an expected stage of life everyone was expected to go through, for practical reasons.<br /><br />It may well be that we have evolved such that sexual bliss normally is not experienced by most males and most females. We are just unusual as a culture in that we expect things to be otherwise. The goal of life was to have a spouse and some kids that make it to adulthood, not a great "sex life".Ian Bhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15436369802742523036noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-30772226277105737302011-08-17T20:55:45.725+01:002011-08-17T20:55:45.725+01:00Scarecrow:
As far as pursuing 'Alpha' ma...Scarecrow:<br /> As far as pursuing 'Alpha' males go; has anyone bothered to look through a few womens' magazines lately? Just how many guys in there look like Alphas? Most of them look like they could be busboys in a gay nightclub! A reasonably healthy senior-citizen could probably thrash most of them in a fight.<br /><br /> As for being sexual and virile, they look like they'd need to take energy drinks just to keep from passing out during sex. <br /><br /> And that's the 'ideal' for a typical Anglobitch. Usually she settles instead for some half-witted street thug who couldn't survive without her help.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-49864741887215016272011-08-17T18:09:28.875+01:002011-08-17T18:09:28.875+01:00I would like to point out that I wouldn't have...I would like to point out that I wouldn't have known what to look for on the internet if a friend of mine didn't introduce me to the subject first. I think is difficult for some men to find this community when they aren't aware of its concrete ideas and vocabulary, specially after their perception has been heavily influenced by mainstream media.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-62070620378455413802011-08-16T19:27:10.627+01:002011-08-16T19:27:10.627+01:00Scarecrow:
That's another problem I have wit...Scarecrow:<br /> That's another problem I have with Game. when cornered with the fact that Anglobitches show a clear preference for males who don't even closely approximate the 'Alpha' archetype; they try and palm it off that 'negativity' has some 'Alpha' quality about it. They don't even realize that one definition necessarily cancels out the the other.<br /><br /> The Game guys seem to believe that women are driven by biological instincts without any regard to social factors. One of the reasons that Anglobitches are drawn to degenerate loser-males is because these males often have the same social programming as feminized women: an entitlement mentality; constantly seeing themselves as victims, &c. In spite of all the swagger and bluster from these thugs, they are utterly and helplessly dependent on women. See how the feminized Anglobitch and the thugs really relate? It has nothing to do with archetypes, after all.<br /><br /> I've written elsewhere that I think this Alpha archetype is nothing but a rationalization for sex. If any decent man realized what a typical Anglobitch really thinks of men, he'd soon lose any sexual desire for them. But if a man can convince himself that she really wants him because he's such an alpha stud, he can do it. It won't change the fact that she still hates him, however; which is why PUA/game is dangerous for men. Sooner or later, these guys wind up on the receiving end of an STD, a false accusation, or a fake paternity suit, or something else bad.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-5978587423114213602011-08-16T18:06:31.289+01:002011-08-16T18:06:31.289+01:00Sorry for the double post - I did some searching:
...Sorry for the double post - I did some searching:<br /><br />http://www.law.upenn.edu/cf/faculty/phrobins/csc/documents/statutes/CSCExcerptedStatuesSection4.pdf<br /><br />to quote the PDF file above:<br /><br />"Garnett is average height (5' 8")<br />and weight, but is legally mentally retarded, with an I.Q. of 52."<br /><br />Clearly, his physical attributes are nowhere near a "muscle man".<br /><br />He is a physically average man, with an IQ of 52.<br /><br />He does not have to chase tail - it comes to him.<br /><br />Now, who is going to tell me that women "pursue" alpha males???<br /><br />Anyone?Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06935418620317902441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-21548768234484414092011-08-16T17:56:43.190+01:002011-08-16T17:56:43.190+01:00A few comments above have me concerned. I think i...A few comments above have me concerned. I think it was barbarossaaaa on YouTube that recently made a video documenting a 16 year old girl talking a mentally handicapped man (IQ=52) into having sex with her. Of course he was punished, even though LAW clearly states he is too mentally incompetent to give consent (double standard).<br /><br />However - notice that this mentally handicapped man did not have to "chase" tail - the tail came to him - and actually talked him into sex.<br /><br />Is a mentally handicapped man with an IQ of 52 really an "alpha" as the gamers would put it?<br /><br />If getting tail means I have to sit, look stupid and drool without wiping it off of my mouth - I'll pass...<br /><br />I wonder what that man's physical attributes were - how tall, how muscular etc...<br /><br />It would not surprise me if he was short and physically weak as well.<br /><br />Oh, and as far as turning down pussy.<br />I have always had enough self-respect to turn down an offer of pussy from a woman who was a total man-hating bitch - or a woman who thought of me as a foot-stool.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06935418620317902441noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7803646793315574963.post-42047404903158698202011-08-16T16:39:37.861+01:002011-08-16T16:39:37.861+01:00@Anonymous
Excellent Point. If her lover is not m...@Anonymous<br /><br />Excellent Point. If her lover is not merely milking her for money (as I would expect) then one must assume he is a man who was not succeeding with women. I know of a man in his late twenties who is the paramour of a fifty year old woman; and a more pathetic specimen one could hardly get. Have we reached the stage where chastity in a man has become a sign of strength? - and taste? given that what is available is often of such very poor quality.Opusnoreply@blogger.com