Depressing Statistic

As Longtime Readers all know, I look on most “studies” nowadays with the utmost skepticism, being as they generally employ shoddy data collection techniques, poor sampling and / or stupid analytic conclusions.

All that said, I found this one, from this study, to be at least credible:

Most relationships start with terrible or awkward sex.

Well, duh. That’s true of pretty much most human interaction,because you’re on unfamiliar territory and you need to get things straightened out before you can make it work properly.

Within the report, however, was a factoid which I found downright depressing:

69% of Americans admit that they get feelings of excitement right before sex with a new partner.

Now the last time I had sex with a new partner was during the Clinton presidency, so my memory may be failing me. But FFS: what other feelings can one have before first-time sex, if not excitement? Dread? Nausea? Fear? Disgust? And to make it worse: if 69% of folks get excited before a first-time bonk, that means that 31% don’t get excited, which seems incredible. I can understand pre-bonk anxiety, of course — which over half of people admit to — but one can be anxious about something yet still be excited about it. But 31 percent?

As I suggested above, this may just be shitty data, in which case we can carry on with our lives. But if the data can be trusted, then we as a society are in deep shit when something so basic, so natural, and (speaking from memory again) so much fun is not exciting.

Sucker Bet

Anyone care to place a bet on how long this marriage will last, or how long it will take before Hubby has an affair?

…and I’ll also give 2-1 odds that the sex wasn’t that great, either.

Myself, I wouldn’t take any of those bets.

Of course, he might also be some pussified  beta man who was prepared to wait for three (!!!) years to get laid, and still thinks that she’s within her rights to deny him sex now that they’re married.

If I were to let my imagination run riot, I could see other possibilities:

  • she married Beta Boy because he’ll support her, but she doesn’t love him, OR
  • she’s already getting her sex from some Bad Boy and her husband doesn’t know, OR
  • she’s playing the long game, and is going to rape his bank account should he ask for a divorce after being denied sex once too often, OR
  • her long game is to file for a quickie divorce herself, then rape his bank account.

I’m also prepared to accept the power of “AND” in all the above scenarios, but I don’t think I’m too far off on any of them, though.

Fat Chance

So… now Millennial Grrrrls would rather date older men?

I’ve noticed a new strategy among my set of female friends—lovely, intelligent, independent women—to combat the grime of the online dating world: date up.
I don’t mean status, I mean age. More and more women I know are dating men twice, yes twice, their age.
There have never been more advantages to relationships with older men, precisely because Tinder and its ilk have made dating feel impossible to those of us who don’t want to participate in the battle of who-cares-less. Reach back two decades and you are more likely to find a man who can’t fathom swiping through a series of pictures to find a mate for the night.
Older men are attentive, they aren’t threatened by your career success, they didn’t grow up watching porn on their laptops, and they certainly don’t expect sex from you before you’ve even had a chance to meet. It’s not an “old-fashioned” dating scheme, it’s just a more humane one.

Hate to burst your bubble, sweetie, but for the (older) men of my generation, just the fact that you were ever on Tinder is an automatic disqualification. And that’s just the start. I wouldn’t claim to speak on behalf of my generation of men, but here’s what I see amongst today’s young women (I can’t bring myself to call you “ladies” because you are the most unladylike creatures imaginable).

Millennial women are hopelessly vapid, shallow and amoral creatures. They have no philosophy outside the most banal, bumper-sticker tropes, and they are enslaved to a trashy popular culture that men like myself find repellent and atrocious — think of Kardashian TV, Real Housewives Of [wherever], Jersey Shore, Britain’s TOWIE and so on. Millennial women are also enslaved to technology like Facebook, Twitter and the like, are chained to their vile “smart” phones and consequently have the attention span of gnats. Worse than that, Millennial women are sexually promiscuous, with all the ghastly, pox-laden potential consequences that such a lifestyle entails.

While all this may entice some older guys into what your Millennial male counterparts scornfully call a “pump & dump” relationship — i.e. a short-term, mostly physical encounter — it does not bode well for your prospects if you’re looking for more than that. Do you think that despite our supposed “ignorance” of modern technology, we’re unaware of situations like and their ilk? (FYI: we older men refer to this as “prostitution“, no matter what you were taught in your Fem Studies classes.) It’s an instructive lesson to hear how the men who sponsor these tarts characterize their charges: disposable, cheap and ultimately, repulsive. (Ever wonder why so few sugar babies end up marrying their sugar daddies? Check the stats, if you can even understand them.) When you start setting your cap at this demographic, this is what awaits you.

So to all those “lovely, intelligent, independent women” who appear to have finally grown up and realized that they’re not quite the catch they imagined they were: you fucked up.  Now you have to deal with the consequences of the choices made back when you were in your late teens and twenties. (And by the way: most of you aren’t lovely, intelligent and independent: you’re slovenly, overweight, dull and horribly dependent on, well, just about everybody from your parents to HR departments to government.)

The biggest mistake you Millennial Grrrls ever made? Believing the feminist bullshit that your mothers’ generation foisted on you as gospel. Guess what?  You can’t have it all.  Never could, and nor can anyone, ever. Life is a series of compromises; and you lot compromised your morals, your youth, your self-respect and your womanhood, all in pursuit of the unattainable.

I’d say I’m sorry for your plight; but considering the misery that the so-called third-generation feminism has inflicted and continues to inflict on both men and women in today’s wretched society, I can’t sympathize with you in the slightest. There’s a term in the patriarchy which describes your situation perfectly:  tough shit.

Good luck, grrrls.

And welcome to the Thunder Dome.

Teacup, Storm In (#1,768)

On Britishland TV (ITV?) last week there was a kerfuffle because one of the morning show presenters made a stupid observation about the little denim dress that the weather girl (their term, not mine) was wearing on the show — something about her needing to be careful wearing that dress in the rain (because, as any fule kno, denim can shrink when wet).

Needless to say, a veritable shitstorm ensued because sexism, male chauvinism / piggishness etc. etc. ad nauseam. I leave it to others to decide whether the comment was tasteless — I found it quite funny, myself — but there are a couple of comments to be made about this silliness.

First, as any fule kno (2), such discussions are futile wifout pitchurs. Here’s the  denim dress in question:

Once again, I leave it to others to decide whether that’s appropriate attire for national television (my opinion: not), but whatever, I think we can all agree that the elfin Lucy Verasamy is as cute as a button, and as such she should be used to men commenting about her appearance without getting too bent out of shape about it. (Also, she’s 37 years old[!] which makes me feel about 137.) To be fair, ’twas not she who got all upset — apparently, some viewers got a hair up their collective ass over the comment, showing a distinctly-modern lack of sense of humor when it comes to matters pertaining to the male-female thing. Idiots.

Anyway, the next day young Lucy appeared on the show wearing this outfit:

My first thought was: “Damn, she’s got lovely legs.” My second thought was: “Why is she wearing so demure an outfit? She should have worn an even sexier dress” (in other words, daring the fool to make another stupid comment). That would have been priceless.

I should point out that Miss Verasamy is usually not at all shy about showing off her body:

…especially when on one of her many vacations. Nobody seems to care about any of that, of course, because grrrl power or something. And she’s always at some gala event or other:


But woe betide any man who responds positively to her appearance: that, of course, is Beyond The Pale.

I think we all need to grow up. I’m not suggesting that women walk around in that Muslim bullshit — never in a million years — but I’m sorry, ladies: if the goods aren’t to be viewed, don’t put them in the front window; but more especially, don’t be surprised if men respond to the visual because we are men and that’s what we do, despite all efforts of womyns to change many thousands of years of genetically-acquired behavior.

And men: if you’re going to open your big yap, show a little couth — especially if you’re going to be televised to an audience of millions of viewers. (I don’t think Madeley’s comment was out of line — if anything, it was just a gentle tease. But apparently teasing is now rape, or something.)

Mind you: nowadays, just gently complimenting a woman on her appearance (which she probably devoted hours towards) can make you Literally Worse Than Hitler.

Here’s the thing: if I can see that a woman has put a lot of effort into her appearance, I always compliment her. I was taught that this was a gentlemanly thing to do. But hey, I’m just a 1911 man, trying to get by in a 2017 world… no doubt there’s a prison sentence in my future.

Don’t care. I’m not going to stop.

Connecting The Dots

“If I were a young man in today’s world I wouldn’t have the first clue what was required of me.”

This thought, from Sarah Vine at the Daily Mail, gave me food for thought, as did this article, via the same newspaper:

While most societies promote heterosexuality as the ‘norm’, a leading researcher at Cornell University has found most of us get aroused by both genders.
The paper brings into question strict definitions of sexuality, and posits that instead of categories we should see it as a spectrum.
Lead author Ritch C Savin-Williams, a psychologist specializing in gender studies, warns we still struggle with the concept of bisexuality – particularly when it comes to men.

Please read both articles before continuing, as it may make what I’m about to say more understandable. I’ll wait.

While I am justifiably suspicious of almost every study conducted by psychologists, this latter one has set off a warning bell in my brain — because I think he might have something there, just not in the way he’s thinking. Bear with me while I go through my hypothesis.

As with all research, what’s important is to have a benchmark and sadly, this particular study wasn’t conducted, say, fifty years ago — because I am convinced that what we’re seeing now, with all this “gender confusion” stuff is the result of decades’ worth of the feminizing of men (which I refer to as “pussification”) by women.

To put it bluntly, I don’t think that most men operated on a sexuality “spectrum” fifty years ago. Yes, I acknowledge that homo- and bisexuality among men is hardly new — hell, those aberrations have probably been around since we formed as humans — but I suspect that the incidences of same (and the blurring of the sexuality differences) have increased in recent years as women have, with great success, attempted to turn men into something more like women.

And we know about this because there have been many instances of brush-back against this activity — Real Men Don’t Eat Quiche (a humorous take) and The Pussification Of The Western Male (somewhat less humorous) being the first ones that spring to my my mind —  but works like that are a symptom of a deeper malaise.

It’s an incontrovertible fact that men today are a lot different species, for example, from when the boys of Easy Company were battling Nazis.

So let’s get back to Sarah Vine’s thought, and her article.

76 per cent of all suicides in the UK are male.
Fewer boys than girls now make it to university, and the gap is widening.
The overwhelming majority of people sleeping on our streets (88 per cent) are male.
95 per cent of our prison population is male.

The percentages are statistically no different in the United States. But with the possible exception of the university statistic (in the U.K., women were once barred from attending university at all), the most telling fact of modern Western society is this one:

Sperm counts in men from America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand have dropped by more than 50 percent in less than 40 years… and the rate of decline is not slowing.

People have been looking to science for answers, but I don’t think that’s where the answer lies. I think the answer is in our male psyche; when boys and young men are being told, ceaselessly, that their basic nature and instincts are wrong (“toxic masculinity”) and that they should behave more like girls, I think their physiology is responding by making them so.

If you think I’m wrong on this, allow me to point out that there are no such falling sperm counts being recorded in non-Western societies such as in Africa or South America, where men are not being feminized.

I know, I know: correlation and causation are not the same thing. But amidst all the naysaying that may spring from my hypothesis, let me quote Sarah Vine one more time:

If equality for women can be achieved only at the cost of damaged men, it’s not worth having.

If only today’s radical feminists thought the same way — but they’re too busy obsessing about “patriarchal micro-aggressions” or similar crap.

Here’s another straw in the wind: ever wonder why more and more Scandinavian women are taking up with male “refugees” instead of their gentler, nicer Danish / Swedish / Norwegian men? I think it’s because deep in the reptilian segment of their brains, the primal female instinct is telling them that they have a better change of getting pregnant with “manly” men than with their pussified cohorts.

As I said earlier, this is just my hypothesis: this situation is simply a series of random dots floating out there in our modern Western society, but I think they are connected. Feel free to debate the point with me in Comments.


Weekend News Roundup

…wherein I comment on various snippets of what passes for “news” these days, and which happened to catch my eye en passant:

1.) Ireland threatens to poach U.S. business from the U.K., post-Brexit.
— It’s called the “free market”, and nobody should care about this other than the ignorant. Remember that you’ll be negotiating with the United States and against Great Britain, boyos. Good luck with that. And just hope that your masters in Brussels don’t punish you for straying outside the fold.

2.) Women achieve orgasm more often when having sex with other women than they do with men.
— Don’t care. Next:

3.) Prince Harry won’t sign pre-nuptial contract with divorced Hollywood starlet.
— Yeah, this is going to end well, considering there’s about $40 million involved. Dreamy royal ingenue vs. Hollywood lawyers… nope, not gonna take that bet. And the pussification of Harry continues apace…

4.) Saintly charity Oxfam involved with sex orgies and sexual harassment in Haiti.
— Considering that Haiti is one of the pox capitals of Shitholia, could this be conclusive proof of liberal idiocy, or is it just the Darwinian process? I report, you decide.

5.) Disloyal and dishonest asshole fired from the FBI before he can retire with multimillion-dollar pension.
— My only question: what took them so long? Should have been done over a year ago.

6.) Has-been CalGov Arnold Schwarzenwhatsit said some stupid shit in Austin, TX.
— Dude should have stuck to bonking hideous Hispanic housemaids. Of course, in Moscow-On-Colorado he’s going to get serious cheers for saying that “oil companies are killing people by abetting the burning of fossil fuels, and that all products using fossil fuels should be marked as associated with hazards like tobacco.” Yet another has-been liberal Republican who needs to just STFU.

And finally:

7.) SecState Tillerson was on the toilet when told he was fired.
— And we needed to know this… why? Somewhere out there, someone’s former journalism professor is reaching for the razor blades. (Not that this would be a Bad Thing, mind you.)