Unfair

LOL I see that Monopoly is getting in on the War Between The Sexes:

Hasbro has introduced the first Monopoly that celebrates women trailblazers
Aimed at players 8 years old and up, properties are replaced by groundbreaking inventions and innovations made possible by women throughout history
Players are told ‘Collect 240 salary as you pass GO, if you’re a man collect 200’
Women also get a $1,900 at the start, compared to $1,500 for male players
Tokens include a pen, jet, glass, a watch, a barbell, or Ms. Monopoly’s white hat
Ms. Monopoly celebrates everything from scientific advancements to everyday accessories – including WiFi, chocolate chip cookies, and solar heating
Players of any gender can build business headquarters around the board to collect more money from others
In hope of inspiring others, it spotlights women who challenged the status quo

To make the thing even more true to life, CHANCE cards should include ones like:

  • “Congratulations on your divorce!  Collect your free house on Boardwalk*” or
  • “Congrats on your new baby!  As you aren’t sure of its paternity, collect $500 from each male player every time you pass GO” or
  • “You accuse someone of sexual harassment at your job.  Collect $50,000** from the bank” or
  • “You were caught shagging one of your students, a fifteen-year-old boy.  Go straight to jail.  (Just kidding;  get three extra rolls of the dice)”

The funniest part of all of this is that the more Ms. Monopoly is tilted in Teh Grrrls’ favor, the fewer men will want to play this poxy game — which will no doubt cause women to write weepymoany articles in Salon or HuffPo about how men are shunning them.


*Mayfair, in the Brit version

**I know $50,000 would bankrupt the Monopoly bank and end the game.  So?

#MeToo? #FuckYou

A recent report (no link, it’s the poxy Guardian) outlines how businessmen are invoking the Pence Rule and are either freezing out women (no un-chaperoned meetings), not hiring women if the job involves close contact (e.g. business travel) or not hiring attractive women (because they cause more trouble than they’re worth).

Of course, the Grauniad  claims that men are now “afraid” of women — when of course what’s being revealed here is that men have become cautious of what women could do to them thanks to the (male and female) feministicals in HR and the pro-feminist corporate policies (#BelieveAllWomen) they create.

Which begs the question:  what did they think was going to happen?

Did these stupid people think that in the face of unremitting and unbridled hostility towards men, that we were just going to sit and take all the bullshit they were throwing at us without some kind of response?

Did they think we were all college professors, liberal arts students or girlyman journalists?

Here’s one article on the topic which should evoke howls of laughter.  Headed “College Students Need To End The Pence Rule Now”, the author makes nonsensical statements like:

The notion that avoiding one-on-one interactions between opposite sexes is the key to fixing sexual violence is absurd. The underlying suggestion is that if a male is never alone with a member of the opposite sex, they never have the opportunity to indulge in such activities. By presenting an image of men being uncontrollable, lustful and power hungry, and women as temptresses, the Pence rule only perpetuates gender roles which help lead to sexual violence in the first place.

What utter bullshit.  The Pence Rule actually has very little (if anything) to do with “sexual violence”:  it is a precautionary measure that provides equal protection for both men and women in intimate situations, where the man can be prevented from flirting (or more) with the woman, AND where a woman can’t unjustly accuse a man of harassment after the fact.  It’s a social prophylactic, in other words, but just like a condom, which makes sex less pleasurable but prevents disease, the Pence Rule guards against the other “diseases” of sexual aggression and unjustified accusation.

If I were a young man attending college right now, I’d break my own rule and have the Pence Rule tattooed on my arm, just to remind me.  (And, by the way, I would make a video recording of each and every sexual encounter I engaged in — not for dissemination, but as a defense against post-facto  harassment from the woman.)

And by the way, college students can’t end the Pence Rule:  only male  college students can do that, and they’d be idiots if they did.  The fact that the writer of the article is a woman simply invites the male response:  “I guess I missed the memo that gives you the right to tell me how to live my life.”

It’s sad that we have to protect ourselves with all these rules, but hey:  that’s the world we live in —  well, that other  people live in;  I have no desire to inhabit such a world, ever.

But the minute that #MeToo evolved into #BelieveAllWomen — and the Kavanaugh hearings showed us all exactly what that  entails — women lost all moral high ground, and became simply antagonists and adversaries.  And if there’s one thing that men are genetically programmed to deal with, it’s an adversary.

Deal with it, ladies.  And scolding won’t work, anymore.

Going Out In Style

What more can be said about a bunch of Ole Pharts not only having sex in public, but a guy letting his 85-year-old wife pull the train?  (I’m guessing about the last part, but it wouldn’t surprise me, nowadays.)

And who knew that dogging had come to Connecticut (state motto:  “Like Massachusetts, only with less class and charm”)?

Goddamn Baby Boomers… couldn’t they just have had an orgy at Happy Hours Retirement Village, like all the others do?

Public Morals

South Korea has banned the importation of sex dolls.  From the article:

While sex dolls are not illegal in South Korea, government customs agencies had blocked their import under a law that restricts materials that “corrupt public morals.”

And:

However, the Seoul High Court said in January that sex dolls were for personal use and should be treated differently than pornography, which is heavily restricted under South Korean law. That decision was upheld by the supreme court in June.
The ruling has sparked a backlash, with one petition filed with the presidential Blue House gathering more than 237,000 signatures. The unidentified author of the petition argued that an influx of imported sex dolls could lead to an increase in sex crimes.

I’d love to see the supporting statistics for that last statement.  Except, of course, there aren’t any.  Someone just had a hunch.

What really surprises me is that pornography is “heavily restricted” in Korea.  That doesn’t seem to jibe with conversations I’ve had with people who’ve been there.

Cheater’s Penalty

I read this report with sadness:

A man has sued his unfaithful estranged wife after discovering that he is not the father of her eight-year-old son.
The man wants the woman to return ‘every penny’ he spent on the child he thought was his but was actually fathered by someone she had an affair with.
He also wants damages to compensate for distress and wants her to reveal the name of the other man.

My sadness is because of the effect all this will have on the child.  For the cheating ex-wife?  Not a smidgen of pity.

In the old days, a child born within the marriage was assumed both legally and morally to be the child of the husband — and it made a great deal of sense.  Nowadays, with morality in tatters but with scientific tools such as DNA testing, that old standard is unnecessary.

In fact, I believe that all babies should get DNA-tested at birth.  If the baby is born to a married couple and the husband is found to be not the father, then the actual father should be identified and forced to pay child support.  If the woman is unmarried, of course, then the same should apply.  (If she doesn’t know who the father is, then everything that follows is her own fault.)

Adultery that results in pregnancy should carry a penalty of some sort.  The husband should not be penalized for his wife’s infidelity and carelessness.  Good grief:  if sperm donors  are being forced to pay child support (as is beginning to happen in Europe — pure foolishness), then Roger The Lodger should have to face the same consequence.

Less Is More

The best-selling author Alistair MacLean was once asked why none of his novels contained any sex scenes, and I remember his answer as though I read it yesterday:

“It slows down the story.”

He added:  “”I like girls, I just don’t write them well. Everyone knows that men and women make love, laddie – there is no need to show it.”

I’ve never forgotten that maxim, although I haven’t always followed it in my own writing.  Basically, I believe that reading a book can  allow for a little slowdown in the story — unless it’s a breakneck-paced thriller (like those of MacLean).

Movies, however, are a different matter altogether.  Even in love stories, I’ve found the sex scenes to be a pace-killer, and unlike books, where you can take as long as you like to get through them, a movie has to be consumed pretty much in one go.  And unless the movie is all about sex (straight porn or an art movie like Gaspar Noé’s Love  or the depressing 9 Songs ), sex scenes are pretty much unnecessary.  You want the actors to have sex?  Show them together in a bedroom, or near one, have one start to undress the other, and then cut to the morning, showing them still together.  They had sex, we get the point, thirty seconds, tops (Cary Grant and Eve-Marie Saint on the train, in Hitchcock’s North By Northwest ).  Now get on with the story.  Others, of course, may disagree with me — like SFGate.

I know it’s a San Francisco media outlet, but really?

Sex is disappearing from the big screen, and it’s making movies less pleasurable

Ummmm… no.  Oh sure, when you’ve been watching some tired plot rerun from every movie made since 1920, why not have (say) Katherine Heigl bonk Keanu Reeves for five minutes or so?  (Because a. they all use body doubles for the close-ups and b. see above for why a movie shouldn’t need a brake pedal.)  SFGate continues:

Today, whether it’s in “Long Shot” or “Rocketman,” the sex scene has been reduced to a shorthand, an instantly recognizable grammar that begins with some jokey or flirtatious foreplay, cuts to some flesh (tasteful enough to honor the actors’ no-nudity clauses), then discreetly cuts away when things get real. You know what happens next, the camera seems to tell us. Do you really want me to spell it out for you?

Well, yes.

Well, no. But let them continue:

When you deprive audiences of a really good sex scene, you’re depriving us of what was once one of the greatest enjoyments of going to the movies, a part of classic cinematic grammar that, when choreographed with sensuality and sensitivity, can be memorable as genuine entertainment – maybe even great art – and not just a lascivious clip on Pornhub.
What’s more, you’re pretending to build a world grounded in realism that is completely devoid of one of the core elements – and joys – of the human experience. It’s as if Hollywood – fixated on families, teenagers and global markets – has given up on American adults as anything more than arrested adolescents interested only in revisiting the distractions of their youth.

Frankly, I can count maybe a dozen really fine sex scenes I’ve seen in movies, but scores more that have actually made me laugh out loud or exclaim in disgust.  Those  scenes — and let me be very clear about this — have occurred in movies that are aimed at “families, teenagers and global markets” —  in other words, where sex scenes are not part of the plot, and therefore completely gratuitous.

And here’s the basic problem.  When the word “adult” became a synonym for “pornographic”, we lost a perfect description for a movie type, aimed at adults per se, that could  contain a decent sex scene — e.g. The English Patient  or A Good Year — and said movies have, over the years, almost disappeared from the studios’ offerings.

What’s also disappeared is the directors and writers who could create a decent sex scene.  Instead, we’ve ended up with cretins like Michael Bay and Jud Apatow, who taken together couldn’t do something that could coax a semi(-woody) from a randy twenty-year-old, let alone from an actual adult viewer (like, say, me).  Considering that I have only watched one Marvel movie (the first Iron Man, and that only because of Robert Downey Jr.), none of the Transformers and ditto the Guardians of the Galaxy, you may consider me well outside the mainstream — and not for the first time, either.

What I want is to watch true  adult movies — as I said, aimed at adults, not porn — with grownup stories, mature actors, (not necessarily “old” — another piece of modern terminology which gets up my nose) and realistic conclusions.  And if a sex scene is an integral part of the story, fine — but it doesn’t have to be graphic.  A good example is the sex- and nude scenes between Alex Baldwin and Meryl Streep in It’s Complicated — a howlingly funny and accurate depiction of sexuality in an otherwise silly movie which was integral to the plot but which, thank goodness, involved grownups and took less than a minute of film time.  (And thankfully, you don’t get to see Meryl’s nude body, but — and this cannot be left unsaid — you do  get to see Baldwin’s horrible hairy ass.  It is very definitely part of the plot, however, and it’s hysterical.)

As with so many things, they used to do it better in the old days — think of any sex scenes in the black-and-white era involving, say, Gary Cooper or Robert Mitchum and their various female co-stars, and you’ll see what I mean.

What we did not need to see was a scene of thrusting buttocks involving James Stewart and Donna Reed in It’s A Wonderful Life  — and thankfully, we never did.  It was all left to our imaginations… even though the two above were, in the terms of today, totally hot.

Much better in our imaginations, I think.