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.



  1. So we’re heading back to the ancient Greek definitions of sexuality? Where mutual frottaging was a thing for men, but penetration was not.

  2. The declining sperm count thing is not real. It is a statistical artifact of the method used and bad statistics and other studies have not seen a decline. Just one note on why although the reasons are varied, but they eliminated subjects who actually had demonstrated fertility (i.e. fathered children) – so if you eliminate fertile subjects, you see lower fertility – duh. Actual random studies have not seen a decline.

    However, “there is no problem” is not actually a good way to get headlines or more funding – so we keep hearing about it.

  3. I was in Home Depot this morning in my Hill Country Texas town, looking at all of the big trucks pulling in, delivering stuff and buying stuff and the men who drive them. Then I drove over to Bandera Texas to take my Brittany dumb assed dog to the vet, (she’s old, she’s sweet, and she is not gun-shy at all, wish I cold hunt with her more.) Anyway I was noticing all the men who drive trucks and thinking they probably didn’t vote for Hillary and they probably will vote for Trump, even if he is a bit of an asshole, because they are men who work, they work hard every day actually doing stuff. They are not philosophical until the work is done and they day, or shift, is over but they don’t want other people taking away their stuff.

    Some day someone will go where men are working and ask them what they think about all this stupid shit and they will be surprised at the well thought out answers of these menfolk. They are not stupid but they are on a mission, working and taking care of things. I call them men who drive trucks, Trump did not trick them into voting against Clinton because they are reasonably smart, some real smart, and they actually know how the world works.

    1. we are smart, smart enough to keep moving and be quiet so the elitist/feminized “leaders” have no idea how many, and where we are. It’s simple survival instinct in enemy territory. We show ourselves from time to time, like brigades of boats to rescue flood victims. But to needlessly fight philosophical battles on a daily basis would be foolish. I just keep my Dad-bod as a cover by the way, it’s a common operator disguise. Keep on keepin on

  4. It may well be environment factors or changes in diet.

    Look at pictures of “men” today and men from 50+ years ago and the changes seem rather drastic. The sad, wimpy, effininate looking things of many “men” today has nothing on the manliness of the men from the past.

    Is it the soy products in today’s food? (It’s an old Chinese belief that if a woman thinks her man is to randy, she should put more soy in his diet to calm him down). Lack of exercise? Increased fat? Lack of competitive challenges?

    There was an article recently about a group of male reporters who had their T levels checked. After looking at them, I was unsurprised to learn that their T levels were around the level, or just below the level of lactating mothers (I may be exaggerating those results slightly, but if so, not by much)

    Whatever it is, it’s good for neither our men or women.

  5. ” there are no such falling sperm counts being recorded in non-Western societies such as in Africa or South America…”

    What about Japan?

    Where, by many accounts, the pussification process has gone much farther than here or Europe. Vide Plight of the Grass-Eater (which was actually written in 2010).

Comments are closed.