Leftist chick self-flagellates because she doesn’t find her dress-wearing boyfriend sexy

Female author at The Guardian: My boyfriend’s wedding dress unveiled my own shortcomings over masculinity.
(Via Ace: http://ace.mu.nu/archives/386163.php)

This is a hilarious work of Stalinist self-criticism. A chick whose brain is colonized by the leftist mind-virus gropes toward rediscovering what any sane, normal human being could have told her: A man in a dress is ridiculous. But she rejects the obvious truth and rebukes herself for being insufficiently woke. This is what leftism does to people’s minds.

I’ve excepted it here; comments in bold.


I’m quick to blame men for their toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

My gaze scanned the racks of clothing and stopped abruptly on something I’d never expected to see: my boyfriend was clutching a wedding dress – that he wanted to buy for himself.

“Emily!” he cried with victorious glee. “I’ve found the one!”

Ian thrust the white garment into the air like a trophy. Its lace sleeves sashayed from the tapered bodice and fluffy tulle grazed the tiles of the thrift store floor.

“Oh, wow,” I managed to spit out. LOL.

We were searching for dresses to wear during the annual Mother’s Day Climb up Mount St. Helens, a tradition in which everyone scaling the volcano sports flowing garments.

I knew Ian would be among the most outrageous on the mountain. My boyfriend is aggressively fun and a flair fanatic, Uh-oh which I find wildly attractive on most occasions. Stop lying.

But I found myself unexpectedly uneasy with his new fondness for feminine frocks – a reaction that challenged the progressive ideals I’d prided myself on for decades. Yes! Admit your guilt, fascist! I’d long thought I was contributing to a progressive shift in how we define masculinity, finally allowing men to be emotional and vulnerable, or to ask for help, or to hug their male friends … or to wear dresses.

Men are perfectly capable of asking for help. If I ever need to know how to field strip an AK-47, I’ll ask a guy friend. If I ever want to know about trendy hair styles, NO, that was to see if you’re paying attention! Like that scene in In and Out where Kevin Kline is tricked into saying “What a fabulous window treatment!”

As far as hugging male friends, you’re allowed to do that under certain circumstances – the most obvious one being that you’re on a professional sports team and you just won the playoffs. Then your team is expected to embrace each other, while popping champagne and dumping a barrel of Gatorade onto your coach. You can also do it in other circumstances if you do it right. If you don’t have an intuitive sense of where the line is, just err on the side of no hugs, duh.

While I’m on the subject, Dave Barry: “When is it okay to kiss another male? When he is your brother and you are Al Pacino and this is the only really sportsmanlike way to let him know that, for business reasons, you have to have him killed.” (The Kiss of Death.) And I’m kinda leery of that. Can’t you just have him canceled without going through the bourgeois formalities?

Ian giggled. “Isn’t it beautiful?” His chest hair battled the sheer neckline. God, this is gross. I imagined him skiing down Mount St Helens in it, the lengthy rag concealing his chiseled calves and hardened quadriceps, and strained to find it an appealing vision.

This was not the first time I’d found myself a little uncomfortable with the sight of Ian in women’s wear. I hate to repeat myself, but: LOL. It’s not an unusual sight to spot him sporting a skirt, dress, or sarong at a party, picnic, or trailhead. Acknowledge the obvious, honey. He uses his unconventional apparel as a display of his individuality and a reflection of his fondness for fun. What’s a three-letter synonym for “fun” or “festive”? Starts with “G”. I adore both of those qualities, but I was realizing I was less fond of seeing them exhibited through floral numbers or tight sequined garments or wedding dresses.

While it was attraction-at-first sight with Ian, his closet full of feminine gear TALK ABOUT BURYING THE LEDE! put a tiny dent in his desirability from the very beginning… there was a disconnect between what I thought I was OK with a man wearing, and what I actually found appealing on his body.

Honey, your vagina does not want a man in a dress. Your vagina is smarter than your brain. I don’t often say this to women, but: Go with your vagina.

On the first weekend we hooked up, I had to yank a green sparkly dress over his head to unclothe him.

You need to be much, much LESS open-minded.

“That was the first time I’ve undressed a man – from a dress!” I shrieked the next morning. “Oh girl, what an exciting milestone! Congratulations!” hollered Eli, an effervescent gay man who dons many dresses himself.

Intellectually, I enjoyed that Ian was rejecting gender norms and expectations. But physically, my desire didn’t match. Those feelings illuminated some unanticipated boundaries of where I define attractiveness in men and when I still crave traditional masculinity.

You might ask yourself why traditional masculinity is traditional.

My ex-boyfriend had the emotional depth of a paper airplane and couldn’t engage with the deep pain I was enduring – or any other emotion, period. Dweeby, and probably not true, but a typical chick statement, so we’ll make allowances. When I started hanging out with Ian and he immediately wanted to talk about feelings, it was a gulp of ice-cold lemonade on a 98-degree day. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. I’d been craving this vulnerability and openness from the men I dated. Dweeby but a typical chick statement. Conversations like that one drew me to him, as did his emotional openness, his fondness for communication, and his public displays of affection for close male friends. Dweeby but WAIT, FUCKING WHAT!? Unless your boyfriend is a mob boss who’s having rat-finks iced, this signals a problem.

My boyfriend’s wedding dress Honey, pause and reflect here: Your relationship involves sequences of words like “My boyfriend’s wedding dress.” pushed me to perform a scrupulous inventory of my deepest ideas about masculinity and helped me identify my shortfalls as a woman who wants to help rewrite gender norms. As I went through this exercise, I chatted with a handful of girlfriends about it, who could all identify their own small hang-ups with masculinity: their need for men who are bigger and taller than they are, or who are better than them at sports, or who don’t cry in front of them. LOL.

As we interrogated our feelings about masculinity, we recognized gaps between our ideals and reality. I’m quick to blame men for perpetuating toxic behavior, but in this case, I, the woman, was part of the problem.

Yeah, you’re an enabler.

Mother’s Day dawned sunny and crisp in the Washington Cascades. It was a beautiful day for a wedding dress. Depends who’s wearing it.

After we reached the summit, Ian plunged down the frozen slope, his long, white train flowing behind him, whipping from side-to-side like a lacy windsock.

“Do you find your boyfriend as attractive as I do?” whispered Eli, as we watched Ian in his flowing skirt, his laughing smile nearly detectable through the back of his floral sunhat. You can’t make this shit up.

My eyes chased my boyfriend down the mountain, my sensitive, silly, affectionate, emotional, vulnerable boyfriend – skiing in his wedding dress.

“I do,” I promised[, lying my ass off.]


Someone needs to tell this woman that the thing she suspects about her boyfriend is, in fact, true.

Bonus: Sidebar at the Guardian article: “Masculinity is a trap – which is why more men should wear skirts.” The haute reaches of the left really are just trolling their own followers now to see how much they can get away with before the followers are like, “Wait a minute.”

Why is fertility lower among high-status women?

Why is fertility lower among high-status women than low-status women? It’s not just a weird unfortunate coincidence. It’s because they’re high status. Female hypergamy means that the number of men a high-status woman regards as worthy of her are smaller. It’s a terrible thing for a woman to be high status. It hurts her reproductive success. And so it hurts the reproductive success of the population of which she’s a member.

Men and women are different in terms of everything, including the effect of their social status on their reproductive success.

Look at human history with Darwinian eyes. (If you’re an evolution denier, look with Chesterton’s Fence eyes.) As far as can be told from history, women are by default lower status than men in all societies that existed up to around 1900. Why? Not because those horrid men forced them all into low-status roles. All? Seriously, all? In every society in the history of the world? Please. Nothing is “all” in the world of social phenomena. No, indubitably there were some societies just like ours in which deluded social innovators allowed and encouraged women to have high social status. Those societies are gone now.

Because those societies in which women had higher or even equal status by default were outbred. They’re not around any more. They didn’t even survive long enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record.


Let us pause to refute some feminist idiocy on this topic. God knows they make it easy.

The fuck-witted feminist account of all this is this: “In earlier eras, men were higher status than women because men— those brutes!— kept women down with overwhelming physical force. But now, in our modern society, this is not relevant any more.” Why not? Anyway, notice how stupid this is, if you just think about it instead of mindlessly repeating it: Men kept women down by physical force? Really? No they didn’t. What the hell? I love this notion that the average woman was thirsting to be a sailor on a whaling ship but the men used violence to prevent her from doing so. Or the average woman yearned to be a statistician in the actuarial department of an insurance company but those violent men beat her senseless until she stopped trying it. Fucking LOL. In fact, it is the opposite: In the modern world it takes a constant barrage of one-sided propaganda just to make some women think they want to do such things.

Also: Were the highest-status men in the last few millennia the ones who were biggest and toughest? Did you get to be Pope or Corporate CEO or College President by beating up other men? Or even credibly threatening to do so? Bitch, please.

Also notice that this whole moronic feminist argument contradicts the other, opposite feminist argument, that women should be in combat positions in the military because they’re just as good in a fight as a man. Well, which is it? Did men use their superiority in physical conflict to keep women down? Or are women just as good in a fight as men?

Feminists. Jesus. Stop trying to make arguments, sugar-tits. You’re just not very good at it. Now quit being such a skirt and get me a beer; I want something to drink while you’re blowing me.


So that “argument” makes no sense. No, the reason we see no historical societies in which women had higher or equal status compared to men, is that they didn’t breed enough to leave a noticeable presence in the historical record. And the reason for that, or a main reason for it, is that female hypergamy means that high female status is highly contra-reproduction. Lethally so.

The only antidote to the contra-natalist tendency of high female status, that has worked empirically, is a set of social conventions and traditions in which (1) husbands automatically have higher status than wives, and (2) fathers can marry off daughters even if the daughter thinks the prospective husband isn’t good enough for her. In that way the deadly poison of female hypergamy is rendered irrelevant. In a society with these two features, even a girl who is born a heir presumptive to the crowns of the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Ireland can be induced to squeeze out baby after baby, enough for seven of them to survive to adulthood.

Miscellany 14: ynallecsiM gnillevarT-emiT

(6) Where did the name of this blog come from, anyway?

I’m not really sure. Aside from just thinking it was a cool word, and a possible band name (when I was younger), it may have been partly inspired by Anders Sandberg’s comment on his website, on his favorite metal:

“Mercury. Reflective, heavy, quick moving, poisons your brain.”

(5)

Both parties lie and have always lied, but lie for different reasons. Since Democrats represent the left, and the left is the group of the incompetent and undeserving clawing their way to power over their natural betters, they lie pathologically and universally about the world itself in a nonstop attempt to invert or subvert the natural order that would normally place them at the bottom.

—A commenter at Vox Popoli.

(4) A piece of unintentional comedy in the comments trail at aramblingcollective, April 2019:

“We need more self-build collectives, with a government land-fund and a development agency like the old Housing Corporation – but better. That would also require design guidelines to promote aesthetic diversity

These people are absolutely beyond satire.

(3) Razorfist a.k.a. rageaholic, is hilarious.

Here he is on early 20th century pulp comic hero Solomon Kane:

(Video link hat tip to John C. Wright.)

Razorfist sums up Kane as a “buckle-shoed badass,” a “sunken-eyed pallid Puritan fanatic in a felt slouch hat and form-fitting black Quaker garb, expertly wielding a rapier, a dagger, and a pair of fuckin’ flintlock pistols.” Kane is a kind of “supernatural bounty hunter,” but at least as often he goes up against foes whose supernatural nature is coated in a veneer of pseudo-scientific bafflegab.

Purely natural villains also abound, e.g. when Kane happens across a girl who has been killed, and hunts down the “Franco-Belgian fuckbags” (LOL) who did it.

SolKane1

I’d never heard of Solomon Kane before watching this Razorfist vid, but watching it instantly made me want to strap on a brace of pistols and some sort of blade weapon and stride about the world in a wide-brimmed hat, dispensing justice at sword-point. If it doesn’t inspire the same reaction in you, then check your pulse, because I think you might be dead.

“A damn fine movie” is Razorfist’s assessment of the 2009 Solomon Kane flick. But he’s pissed that it wasn’t released in the US until 2012, and condemns farming out the distribution to “a beret-bedecked gaggle of Euro-trash art fags,” LOL. (No hate to my European readers, bitches.)

SolKane2
Just another day at the office.

You have to watch Razorfist to believe him. He’s wonderfully profane, with a swear-to-non-swear ratio of about 600, which spills out of him because he’s just so fucking enthused, motherfuckers (see, now I’m doing it) about the character, the stories, and the pulps in general.

(2) Red pill in reality: I recently read this 2014 piece on asshole Feinstein because it appeared on Anon Conserv circa September 16, 2018:

What’s of interest is the red pill item in the last paragraph:

A serial killer “whose swagger and looks once garnered courtroom groupies, including one misguided female juror who fell in love with Richard yet voted to convict him.”

Fell in love with a serial killer. Jesus! Well, at least she voted to convict.

(1) In NBC “think piece,” raging feminist loon says space exploration is colonialist rape, etc.

(Via this guy.)

Actual title: The patriarchal race to colonize Mars is just another example of male entitlement

Photo caption: Houston, we have a problem. And it’s the patriarchy.

You really can’t tell any more whether this sort of thing is sincere or just the media organization trying to drum up hits by being as idiotic as possible.

Other quotes:

The desire to colonize — to have unquestioned, unchallenged and automatic access to something, to any type of body, and to use it at will — is a patriarchal one.

And

It is the same instinctual and cultural force that teaches men that everything — and everyone — in their line of vision is theirs for the taking. You know, just like walking up to a woman and grabbing her by the pussy.

If this doesn’t seem to make sense, just take another bong hit. Repeat as needed.

I’m more of a Dale Gribble kind of guy: “Earth First! Make Mars our bitch!”

Bonus: The Author Bio informs us that “Marcie Bianco is a writer and the Editorial and Communications Manager of the Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford University.”

Of course she is.

Women Hate the Idea of Men Having Standards

Women hate the idea of men having attractiveness standards for women. They freak out at the very idea of men being attracted to some women and not attracted to others.

Many women even seem to think it’s evil, even though, aside from the general outrageousness of that opinion, it’s astonishingly hypocritical – women have pickier standards than men, for fuck’s sake. And it’s not as if one can help one’s attractions. “Attraction is not a choice,” as the dictum goes.

Indeed, this crazy opinion is mostly held by feminists, the vast majority of whom would tell you that we should respect gays’ sexual preference, since they can’t help it. I wonder why they think men can help being attracted to young, healthy women, instead of old or fat ones.

Whatever. I know, I know, it’s not as if feminists care whether feminism makes sense. I should stop being surprised by this sort of shiznit.

Funny how you never see beautiful girls flipping out about male standards, isn’t it?

Enter man-hating whackjob Amy Dickinson, a syndicated “advice columnist.” In March 2018 a female reader wrote to Dickinson that some male students in her MBA program were rumored to have created some sort of hot-or-not list of chicks in the program. The reader admitted that she hadn’t seen the alleged list.

Insane fuckwit Dickinson told the reader that this unseen and possibly non-existent list constituted “harassment,” a “toxic environment,” and “predatory behavior.”

Yes, per this hate-filled crackpot, you’re “harassed” by something that hasn’t happened to you, something that’s not in your environment creates a “toxic environment,” and not wanting to date you constitutes predation.

Here are excerpts from the reader’s insane complaint and Dickinson’s insane response. (If you want to read this puddle of barf, connect the following two strings to re-create the URL:
http://amydickinson.com/post/172147310430/
mba-hot-list-calls-for-retaliation)

Dear Amy: I am part of an international MBA program… I just found out that [i.e., heard a rumor that] the men in the program have put together a list, ranking all the women in the program by their looks. I’m furious… that the men… have subjected the women in the program to this.

What do you mean, “subjected”? No woman has seen the list, or you would have mentioned it.

I have been told who [allegedly] started the list, and it has been talked about by a few people, but I haven’t seen this list.

[Emphasis added.]

Others have suggested asking for the expulsion of the men who have contributed to the list…

Jesus!

Dickinson responds:

You have every right to be angry.

What the fuck?

normalizing harassment…

It’s not harassment, shitbrain! The woman hasn’t experienced anything! Other than hearing a rumor that a list might exist somewhere!

creates toxic environments…

…defined as “things that aren’t part of your environment”…

and havens for predatory behavior (which this list absolutely is).

“Predatory behavior” is defined as a lack of any verifiable “behavior” at all. Dickinson wrote that with a straight face. Also, I like how she apparently thinks that a brazen piece of nonsense can be made to seem credible if you add the word “absolutely.” Good one, genius!

Amy Dickinson has not only thought thoughts which I find abhorrent (really, I find them abhorrent), she has written those thoughts down. Furthermore, there is no doubt that she has written them down, because she has deliberately disseminated them in public under her own name. Therefore, according to Dickinson herself, I now have the right to engage in “retaliation” against her. Seriously, the title of her piece is MBA “hot list” calls for retaliation.

The only way this could get any more extreme is if Dickinson said that alleged behavior in the Andromeda galaxy, that’s not even in your backward light-cone, “predates” upon you. (Yes, I know you don’t know what that means, Dickinson; look it up.)

This needs to stop.

WHAT needs to stop!? Someone, somewhere, having an opinion that the reader doesn’t like? WTF?

If you can obtain hard evidence that this list exists,

LOL, yeah, that would be a necessary step, wouldn’t it? Ideally, that step would come before the outrage.

If you aren’t able to receive hard proof of the list, make an appointment with a faculty member and the dean. Insist that they investigate your allegation.

Da fuck? If the university administrator has any balls, the conversation will go something like this:

Insane feminist lunatic: “I heard a rumor that some male students may not find all women equally attractive, and may have expressed opinions about it in a list. I want you to punish those men!”

Administrator: “Have you seen the list?”

Insane feminist lunatic: “Well, I mean, no, I haven’t technically, y’know seen it, but I’ve heard that such a thing exists.”

Administrator: “Get out of my office.”

Dickinson continues,
Don’t get discouraged… be fearless…

Not that there’s anything to be afraid of, but it’s too late for that advice. The chick is sent into paroxysms of hate, fear, and rage that some man, somewhere, may have opinions she doesn’t like. If you’re stressing out over someone thinking something, it’s far too late for “be fearless.”

“I am Woman; hear me roar! I mean, until I get wind of a rumor that someone might have written down an opinion about my attractiveness. Then I collapse into a neurotic mass of quivering nerves, and can’t muster the gumption to do anything but complain to authorities, and hope they solve the problem for me.
But other than that, I am a strong, confident, assertive person!”

When I was in school, at a picnic that had male and female students present, there was a pickup game of touch football among the male students. There was some discussion of the possibility of dividing the players into Shirts and Skins, which was ultimately abandoned. But later, one of the chicks who was there recalled that the female students off on the sideline had had a little chat about which dudes should be Skins and which should be Shirts. So I ran off to the Provost of the University and tried to have those female students expelled. Ha, no. Can you imagine a man doing that? That kind of petty freak-out psychotic blue-nosed totalitarianism is almost entirely a female thing.

As Heartiste has noted, a major purpose of feminism is to restrict male sexuality as much as possible while freeing female sexuality as much as possible. The exchange between Dickinson and her reader is a good illustration of the first half of that observation.

Discourse About Discourse and “No Means No”

Deconstruction (although past its sell-by date these days) in its most radical version asserts that any speaking or writing can mean anything, and all interpretations are equally valid. All communication is self-undercutting. Feminists— a group which has significant overlap with deconstructionists— also maintain that “No” Means “No.”

Which is it?

Rapists should love deconstruction. “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as sarcasm, which is just as good as the interpretation that she meant it literally.” Or, “Sure, her lips were saying ‘No,’ but that tight, short little skirt was saying ‘Yes’.” Or, “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as ‘Bend me over and slam me hard, stud!’” Or, for a serious deconstructionist: “Sure, she said ‘No,’ but I interpreted that as critical commentary on Isaac Newton’s Principia Mathematica.

Deconstruction and No Means No are mutually exclusive.

There’s something else funny about the whole “No Means No” thing: If a man were not inclined to accept No as meaning No, why would he accept the statement “No Means No” as meaning “No Means No”? Doesn’t that statement itself also require a meta-statement to reveal its meaning? Maybe feminists should put up posters saying

“No Means No” means “No Means No.”

Hmm, just to be safe, better do posters saying,

No Means No means No Means No

means

No Means No means No Means No

Actually, that’s probably not clear enough. What is actually needed, just to be sure the point is getting across, is… (etc.)

False Rape Accusation Culture

UPDATE: Welcome Jim readers! I had to notice when my “daily views” graph was forced to re-scale its vertical axis.


Recently a Less Wronger/ Slate Star Codex/ Bay Area “rationalist” killed herself.

(Via Jim’s Blog.)

This woman was a horribly evil and insane person who made frequent – apparently almost incessant – false accusations of rape and sexual assault and whatnot about every man who was in the same time zone as her. If you follow the links, you’ll see that several men stopped attending “rationalist” meet-ups in her area on the mere possibility that she’d be there.

Actually that “rationalist” community had been, as per standard SJW practice, taken over by SJWs, who killed it and wore its skin as a skinsuit.

Due to this, the community had no way to deal with this person who was a steaming cauldron of pure poison. Indeed, they couldn’t even call her what she was or address the problem, since the SJW position is that there is not, and never can be, any such thing as a false accusation of sexual assault. Oh, officially that’s not the position, but really, of course, it is.

Thus there was no way to deal with the problem, especially for the men, except by leaving the community.

It’s especially hilarious that the community that literally invented the phrase “evaporative cooling” as it applies to social situations couldn’t see, or name, what was going on there. So much for the “rationalist” toolkit.

At the second link above, the blogger notes that, by her own admission in her suicide note, as well as from other facts about the situation, it is obvious that part of the problem was this nearing-40 woman’s inability to attract the kind of man she wanted. That is, hard alpha.

This affords me an opportunity to climb up on my soapbox on this topic:

So many modern women are so completely insane because the biological hardware in their heads, and their socially-installed software, are telling them exact opposite things. Obviously this is guaranteed to make them miserable.

Female neural hardware, which is many millions of years old, is basically telling them, “Find a strong male who appears physically and emotionally capable of ravaging you, and is tough enough and/or socially dominant enough to get away with it.” If this is an exaggeration, it’s not much of one. Modern SJW/feminist software, which is insane, is telling them the exact opposite of this, that they want a deferential nice guy who will buy them a Maserati before presuming to ask them out on a date, and will, before every sexual move, politely ask, e.g., “May I now kiss your lips? May I now kiss your neck? By the way, girls rule! May I now fondle your left buttock?” Etc. All this is consciously designed by feminists to kill any speck of arousal in anyone.

If the man is aggressive, the feminist software screams “He’s oppressing you!” If he’s a nice guy, the biological hardware screams, “This is a weak male! Avoid mating with him at all costs!”

Given all this, it is no surprise that so many of our women are insane. It is a testament to the power of biology that, in this cultural environment, most of them are still sane. Of course, that’s to be expected; most women see through the ridiculous feminist bullshit, thank God, because it’s so flagrantly idiotic.

Real progress will have been made, and women and men will be much happier, when we’ve changed the social software so that it affirms and complements the hardware, instead of fighting it every moment at every step.

Netflix Five-Second Rule

Netflix Bans Employees from Looking at Each Other for More Than Five Seconds

May favorite aspect of this: How is anyone going to enforce it?

Ashley: Bob was looking at me for six seconds!

Boss: How do you know?

Ashley: Because I was looking right at him the whole ti- uh, never mind.

Another Netflix rule: “Don’t flirt.” Ah, leftism. Smell the sanity!

I think this is one of the reasons that every society in the history of the world, before western society starting several decades ago, had segregated sexes in everyday life. The problem with men and women in close association in everyday settings is that women are so eager to gain access to alpha males, and so determined to prevent any and all contact with beta males, that they destroy the functioning of the organization with insane rules designed to accomplish those things.

Think about how bad it has gotten in only half a century – this stuff didn’t even start until feminism got traction in the late 1960s – and extrapolate into the future. If this sort of dysfunctionality were allowed to progress unhindered, it would destroy the ability of groups of people to get things done.

Notice that we do see mingling of the two sexes in all societies in situations in which nothing has to get done. E.g., you take an Anthropology class, you see a video of everyone – boys, girls, women, men – sitting around a fire singing folk songs or whatever. But that’s because there is no particular task which must be accomplished. As soon as shit gets real, e.g. food acquisition – hunting meat or gathering plants – boom, sex division pops up.

Thus, I suspect gender mixing has been tried in many times and places in the past, and either been squelched with a return to sex-segregation, or caused the destruction of societies that didn’t squelch it. That’s why we don’t see mixed-sex groups in general, in veritably all societies in human history.

Murderer Cruz Gets Tons of Love Letters

Sorry, red pill deniers. If you refuse the Red Pill, you have to get it in enema form.

Excerpts from the article:

Mass murderer Nikolas Cruz is getting stacks of fan mail and love letters sent to the Broward County jail, along with hundreds of dollars in contributions to his commissary account.

The attraction of women echoes the fascination with killers like notorious cult leader Charles Manson. Lyle and Erik Menendez, the Beverly Hills brothers convicted in 1994 of murdering their parents, attracted a pair of brides while spending life in prison. So-called “Bundyphiles” sent bags of mail to Ted Bundy, the serial rapist-murderer.

“I reserve the right to care about you, Nikolas!” writes a Texas woman. The letter was mailed six days after Cruz murdered 17 students and staff and injured 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14.

The reverent note takes up all available space on the front and back of a greeting card showing a furry bunny holding binoculars looking out at the ocean. The inside of the card says, “Out of sight, but never out of mind.”

A teenager wrote on March 15: “I’m 18-years-old. I’m a senior in high school. When I saw your picture on the television, something attracted me to you.”

The letter was mailed from Texas and tucked inside an envelope covered with hand-drawn hearts and happy faces. “Your eyes are beautiful and the freckles on your face make you so handsome.” She goes on to describe herself as white with big, brown eyes. “I’m really skinny and have 34C sized breasts.”

A woman from Chicago enclosed nine suggestive photos, including a shot of cleavage, another in a skimpy bikini eating a Popsicle and a tight shot of her backside as she bent over.

Now, deniers, how many nice guys get this kind of attention from women? Take your time.

“There’s piles of letters,” said Broward County Public Defender Howard Finkelstein. “In my 40 years as public defender, I’ve never seen this many letters to a defendant.”

“The letters shake me up because they are written by regular, everyday teenage girls from across the nation,” he said. “That scares me. It’s perverted.”

Via Anonymous Conservative:
https://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/news-briefs-3312018/

Sexual Harassment: The Left’s Three Bad Options

November 2017: The proliferating sexual harassment scandals that started with Harvey Weinstein are now proliferating too rapidly for one to keep track. And they are disproportionately affecting leftist men. Enhancing the deliciousness is the fact that the left itself started this crap, back in the 1990s.

The left now has three bad options for dealing with the current sexual harassment conflagration:

1) Keep going with it, ruthlessly assailing the leftist men and ending their careers. In this scenario, Democrats like Al Franken and John Conyers are forced out of Congress. And many a leftist media personality is gone, gone, gone. The left doesn’t want this, obviously.

2) Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes. That means that a fullthroated affirmation of the presumption of innocence replaces the “Always believe a female accuser” thing that the left has embraced now. It also means a return to sanity about what constitutes “sexual harassment” and so forth. E.g., grabbing someone’s boobs is sexual harassment; saying something that some woman claims made her “feel uncomfortable” isn’t. This requires a return to sanity by the left and is therefore almost certainly off the table as an option.

The other problem with this option is that feminism is now such a huge part of the modern left. For the non-feminist left to try to excise the feminist branch would not be like excising a tumor; it would be like the tumor trying to excise the rest of the body.

Furthermore, the culture and incentives of “victimhood” are too deeply embedded in leftist constituencies for this to be stopped now. Victimhood claims now ARE the left; that’s what modern leftism IS. To admit, even as a theoretical possibility, that a claim of victimhood could ever be wrong would be to undercut the very foundations of modern leftism itself. They will never do this.

3) Explicitly say “It’s okay if leftist men do it, but not okay if non-leftist men do it.” They actually do go that far, some of them, but it’s not a convincing argument for sane people, naturally.

The problem for the left here, obviously, is that “Anyone who agrees with my politics should be allowed to get away with sexual molestation” is not going to be a winning argument with most people.

In the event, what they are actually going to do is try to have their cake and eat it too, as the left has always tried to do. That is, they will try to make a big deal out of it when men of the right commit some leftist sin, or are accused of doing so, but to totally ignore it, or do the minimum amount of media coverage and commentary possible, when men of the left do it or are accused of doing it. This is a bad choice for the left, especially now that we have the Net to provide information, but they may think that it’s their best of a set of bad options.

Memo to leftists: The actual best option is (2), Admit that it has gone too far and try to step on the brakes.

The left won’t want to do this, though, because it would constitute an admission that it is possible for a leftist witch hunt to go too far. For the left, even admitting that such a thing is possible in theory is unacceptable. So, while that would actually be best for everyone, it won’t happen.

This is one of the reasons, of many, that I hate sharing a planet with leftists. Out of spite and blind stubbornness, they will do everything in their power to AVOID win-win situations, if that requires admitting that non-leftists are correct about something.

ADDENDUM: Mike Pence’s rule about being alone with women who aren’t his wife doesn’t look so dumb now, does it, left-wing morons?

Game Will Kill the Left

In the comments here, Peppermint articulates a thought (lightly edited) that a lot of men on the red pill right have had over the last five or ten years:

In order to have sex or get to the point of having sex or even get the attention of a woman with options you need to not behave in the ways that every leftist says you should.

Women seek domination. They don’t want you to convince them that everything they were told in school by teachers who wanted them to sleep with low quality men is false using facts and logic. They want you to simply believe in yourself and believe in the things you believe so that they can believe in you…

The #1 reason the left is dead is young intelligent men have to behave in non-leftist ways to hook up with the women they want.

I don’t know if it’s the #1 reason, but it’s certainly a reason. And this is excellent.

And aside from the advantage it gives us fighting the civil war in this particular society in this particular time and place, it also is a beneficial fact for the human species in general: It implies that there is always a biologically instantiated negative feedback mechanism to prevent any set of ideas from becoming too metastasized: Young women want rebels. Therefore, to get sex, young men have to be against the prevailing norms. Therefore there are very strong incentives for young men to set themselves against whatever is the prevailing orthodoxy. This is true of all men in general, who are a significant demographic group, obviously, and especially young men: The fighters.