The Strange Politics of TV's Alcatraz and Person of Interest

There is only one institution in America with any reach. Only one that really shapes culture. Only one that reflects, and changes it. No, its not churches. Hardly anyone goes to Church any more. Nor is it politics, unaffiliated people are growing and will soon outnumber Republicans. There is only one institution that matters. That is television. True, it does not have the reach it had with only three networks, and no cable tv. But there it is, 17 million people watched the Golden Globes. It is, outside sports and a few other live events, a mostly female-gay ghetto. But it still shapes the attitudes and cultural assumptions of most women. Which brings us to Fox's Alcatraz and CBS's Person of Interest. Both are shows with somewhat strange politics. Alcatraz wants to indict the White male America of the past, for well being White and Male. Not sufficiently multicultural. Meanwhile Person of Interest posits that icky White beta males are the main threat to personal security in NYC, and Black men and women NEVER EVER commit crimes. Why? Because their viewers are nearly all female, and that is what that audience wants.


First, Alcatraz. seen in the trailer below:



Basically, a young White girl with a pixie haircut, and no discernible man in her life, but "hot" (this IS San Francisco, after all), is recruited by a semi-evil cranky old White guy, to work with a "diverse" team of well, a fat Mexican comic book fan and "Professor" and some Indian chick to solve the mystery of why everyone disappeared from Alcatraz. Sub-plots include the wicked, bad White guy who killed her first, less fat Mexican cop partner, who is her ... grandfather! And also the Indian doctor being a time traveler or something, she shows up in a flashback in 1960 in Alcatraz.

The whole thing is laughable, with hard-case WWII vet and Alcatraz con meekly doing what "they" (a voice on a telephone) tells him to do, because well that's what bad, dangerous White guys do. Or guys from 1963 suddenly knowing that they are being watched by video surveillance cameras. Or that time-travelers would use that to ... hire hitmen. Of course!

It is naturally, chick crack. Women love this stuff, the good (puzzles, women love puzzles as any Agatha Christie fan knows), and the bad (basically the semi-lesbian, fat Mexican guy, and the cranky old guy have to chase down evil White male America from 1963 and imprison it). There's a metaphor there, and its very obvious. The shows creators feel the old, straight White male working man's San Francisco is an affront to reality, and want to bring it back to life just to imprison it. Again, chick crack: importance and unraveling the mystery without any responsibility or duty. To country, justice, family, or anything. Or sorting that out. Nope, just easy moral victories over cartoon bad guys. Because everyone knows, that in San Francisco, the most horrible crimes are committed by ... White guys.

Nope, the words of SFPD Captain Michael Biel on the causes of San Francisco's 11 murders in 2011 are:

But police Capt. Michael Biel told the board’s Public Safety Committee the killings are unrelated and do not represent a specific crime wave. Biel said only one of the 11 homicides committed so far this year has been gang-related. Most of the rest, he said, involved social acquaintances and ongoing disputes over money or drugs.

Now, what sort of person kills casual acquaintances in disputes over money and drugs? Oh I know, I know! White guys. Usually icky beta males or lower class blue collar guys. After all, we all know the crime waves WWII vets committed (one of the bad guys in Alcatraz is a WWII vet who stole to feed his family).

Person of Interest, after an interesting start, has followed the path of pandering to the female audience's prejudices. While the pilot played with expectations, the icky beta male White guy being the victim, the "hot" woman being the killer, the main plot, bad corrupt White cops framing innocent Black victims had a noticeable subtext. All the cops were fat, bad looking ethnic White guys, Italians, Irish, and not the handsome good guys.



The most recent episode was the most laughable, embodying Eric Cartman's South Park Dictum that Black people can do no wrong. The character, the person of interest, is a beautiful Dominican woman who is a struggling lawyer, trying to free innocent Black cons wrongfully sent back to prison by their corrupt (again fat and unattractive Italian) parole officer. So the person at Child Protective Services can get a kick-back on falsely claimed kids cared for by the foster parents. The conspirators? A middle aged White couple and ... yes! An Icky White Beta Male. The "twist" is we are supposed to suspect, briefly, a noble Black woman who runs the place. Not the icky White beta male who expresses a romantic interest in the beautiful Dominican woman.

Why that plot point? Because it confirms what most of the White female audience "knows" with religious certainty. ALL Black people are noble and good, and never ever EVER commit crimes, it is racist to think so. The REAL threat is icky White beta males who might even **GASP** ask them out. How awful. Of course they are murderers and corrupt.

How does this willful denial of reality exist? Because most White women have no real contact with actual real, Black male criminals in urban areas. Or noble Hispanics. Those who do, like Alexandra "Asians in the Library" Wallace are not real happy about being second class citizens at best, harassed and threatened at worst. Black ex-cons are not in reality, noble guys trying to "turn their life around" for their son. They are in fact, brutal and dysfunctional and totally without much hope for anything else but aging out of violence. Productive and trustworthy members of society they are not.

This makes the show far different from the 1980's "Equalizer" which was also set in NYC. There, brutal Chinese kidnap or Dominican drug gangs ruled places, or organized crime, or various drug rings. While there were plenty of evil White guys, the beta male White guy was often the one the Equalizer (the incomparable Edward Woodward, sorely missed) protected. Heck even glamor-show "Miami Vice" had no problem in depicting the reality of the drug trade then, mostly Columbian drug lords. But back then, more men watched television, and therefore pandering to female-led PC was not the main concern.



One of the subtexts is that the bad guys are really bad because they are ... racist. "Framing" Black guys for committing the crimes that evil Blue Collar White guys of Ethnic Origin or Beta Male White guys do. I've seen that particular plot point three times on the show this season. That's no accident, undoubtedly the audience responded and it got repeated.

If you don't like PC, you have to destroy TV. Period. Or remake it into a place where shows fear offending .... beta male White guys, and Blue Colar guys of Ethnic Origin.

Either destroy female-led consumerism (by promoting female thrift and value-buying) or start suing the hell out of these production companies and networks for defamation of class. Sue and sue and sue and sue. Sue till the cows come home. And then sue some more. Attrition warfare against an enemy with limited time and money. Force them to abandon the shaping of culture to feed the White female professional viewpoint at its worst not best.

Puzzle stuff? I'm with the female viewers on that one. Its fun! Why not? Character development (but not by icky sex or "shocking" turns to "evil" out of comic books and soap operas) are also a positive development due to women viewers. But lets have an end to the chasing down and imprisonment of the Straight White male past, and icky Beta Male or White Ethnic guy as villain wrongfully framing innocent Black ex-cons. I'd rather watch vampires, witches, and fantasy characters out of "Grimm." Its more believable.
...Read more

Newt Gingrich, Anti-Patriot, Scam Artist

A true patriot, puts his country's interest before his own. Will subordinate whatever fame, fortune, and applause he will get out of book tours, personal appearances, and fund-raising, in a certain doomed effort, for the good of the country. Newt Gingrich is not that man. Instead, he is a man who is already selling America short, dooming it to destruction to Obama, should he win the nomination. The facts are clear, Newt Gingrich cannot win a general election against Obama. For the good of the country he should withdraw, and endorse Romney. Who is no sure thing, but has the best chance of beating Obama.


Sure, I know the objections to Mitt Romney. He's a Mormon. He's rich. He's handsome. He's distant, and not engaging and dominating on TV. He's a RINO. And all that. Sure, point taken. But the very things that make Mitt Romney unpalatable to much of the South Carolina Evangelicals, and Conservatives, make him the only one running to stand a chance against Obama. Newt Gingrich hands Obama a near 50 state victory. One of so massive proportions that Nancy Pelosi returns as House Majority Leader, and Reid has only 40 at most Republicans to deal with. Perhaps less. Newt is total disaster for America, and hands Obama victory.

Because he's repulsive, in every way, to women. Period.

Rasmussen has Obama and Romney tied at 44% each while Obama leads Newt:

Today’s numbers show Obama and Romney tied at 44% each while the president leads Gingrich 47% to 40%. Romney leads the president by four among unaffiliated voters while Gingrich trails by seven. Romney also does a bit better among Republicans, picking up 79% of the GOP vote while Gingrich attracts 74%. This is consistent with results found throughout the campaign season that Tea Party activists are willing to support whoever wins the nomination while more Establishment oriented Republicans are less likely to make such a commitment.

Santorum, in a poll released today, by Rasmussen, trails Obama by ten points, 48-38.

Let us dispense with magical thinking, what Ann Coulter said was a trade of insults at Obama and the Media for Obama's re-election.

Obama has many strengths. The Media adores him, as Jesus 2.0 literally. So most low information voters, who don't care about politics, and make choices based on the media, which is most White Professional Women, are inclined to Obama anyway. Then again, he's Black. That's a built in advantage for him, again in getting White female votes. That demographic group feels "White male = boring" and fairly icky, while Black is viewed as dynamic, positive, masculine, and good. That is not fair, but that's life.

Obama has $1 billion to run negative ads, and will doubtless raise more through independent PACs run by unions and Hollywood. EVERY celebrity worthy of the name endorses him, and yes that again counts for a lot.

America is not a Center-Right nation. That ceased being true at the end of Reagan's second term. America is a place where Gays serve openly in the military, gay marriage is the law of the land in most places, Whites have no Civil Rights (according to the first Black Attorney General), Black Panthers can run voter intimidation campaigns with impunity, illegal aliens can vote in many places, and get preferential admission and tuition rates, along with college financial aid. That's not a Center-Right nation. That's not a Center nation. That's not even a Left Nation. That's a Hard Left Nation. And that's America. Today's America celebrates non-Whites, views White guys as inherently "racist" (unless they are a dominant, Alpha A-hole hottie) and engages in regular PC jihads.

Newt Gingrich will at best wage a Banzai! Kamikaze attack and go out in a blaze of glory with what is left of the old America. For those wishing to follow the path of Bushido and Yukio Mishima, the gay Japanese Ultra Right Nationalist, well Newt is your guy! Go right ahead, recite a poem to the emperor, tie on that suicide bandanna around your head, and head for the nearest ship screaming "Banzai! Banzai!"

The rest of us have to live here.

Romney's poll numbers are no fluke. Poll after poll after poll shows him being the closest to Obama. Its not a sure thing, not with the media, the innate dislike of White guys and admiration of Black guys by White women professional voters, and the enormous amount of money and (voter fraud) that Obama promises to bring to the table.

No, Newt won't "destroy" Obama in a debate. Yes Newt is a Master Debater. He's also detested by most women. Obama will remind them of this, and Newt can't go after in person that "nice Black President" who will sit there and smile with his poop-eating-grin. Any "debate" will have Anderson Cooper or Juan Williams or Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson or Al Roker or Brian Williams jumping on any grenade that might threaten Jesus 2.0. This is reality.

In a debate, Newt will look fat and old, because he is fat and old. He will look White, because he is White. He will look ugly, because he is ugly. These things matter. Women voters make their choices on them. It is why JFK beat Nixon, why Scott Brown beat the Kennedy Machine, why Reagan beat Carter. Why Clinton beat Bush. Why Bush beat both robotic Al Gore, and weirdo John Kerry "Reporting for Duty. REEEEEEPORTING for DUUUUUTY!"

He will also look like a guy who being fat, old, ugly, and White, wanted an open marriage and cheated on two wives with mistresses. Yes that matters, if you are a Republican. A Democrat can do that, and get away with it, because the Media covers for them and pushes them as Alpha males. Newt will be portrayed as the ickies of icky beta White males.

No, Obama does not have it all his own way. Mitt Romney's argument is that being rich, he's got a stake in America. He's put his own money on the line, and is betting for America. Not selling it out in any of Obama's shady deals for cronies. Reminding voters he's rich plays to women.

Newsflash. Women LIKE rich guys. A lot. Even better when they are tall, handsome, married to the same woman for years, and are somewhat distant, stand-offish, and remote. That's Chick Crack 101. Straight out of Roissy's pickup advice.

What women do NOT like is "hot" guys who are angry, intense, and come off like this guy:



That's Newt Gingrich. "You Talking to Me?" Recall in the movie, Robert DeNiro did NOT get the girl. She found him repulsive. Don't be Robert DeNiro in Taxi Driver. That's another way of screaming "Banzai!" on a kamikaze attack. No matter how good it feels.

Steve Sailer has pointed out many times, Blacks vote Democratic, year after year, 98%. Latinos around 70%. White men, around 70% for Republicans. No surprise there, the Democrats are the anti-White guy party and Republicans by default, the White guy party. Blue collar White women, the so-called Waitress Moms, vote Republican about 70% of the time. They get little Affirmative Action, the welfare they do get is rubbed in their face by elite Whites and the Blacks/Hispanics they deal with at social services. Meanwhile they face daily harassment from non-Whites, for being White. [Pretty much most of the horrific anti-Black violence, North and South, and anti-Chinese violence in Old California, was motivated on the principle of horror deters attacks on White blue collar women. White upper class women having servants and armed men around them to deter such a thing. In other words, defense of the blue collar, White underclass family. No wonder the violence, in places like Detroit or New York City.]

Who is in play? Why White Professional Women. Who have a foot in either camp, and trade off votes based mostly on personal preferences for the candidates. That is why candidates matter, and party and ideas do not.

All politics is mostly spoils. Who and Whom? As Lenin remarked. Who gets the goodies and who gets the shaft. White Professional women get some stuff, but not a lot. They get some welfare, but that's not enough for long. It won't allow them to live the life they want and need, and mostly live. At best it is short term safety net. Nice but not a sinecure. Most of the goodies in government, the media, non-profits, and the like, including corporate America, get hoovered up by the elites. Next come Blacks and Hispanics. White Professional women are nominally part of the anti-White guy alliance, and they HATE HATE HATE Beta White males with a passion (not the least for insulting them by asking them out). But they are very junior members. Very low on the totem pole. They eat last.

Republicans don't offer much to them. [A strategic mistake, but one dictated by their ad-hoc alliance of mostly anti-Government-Elitism and defacto White Guy party.] There is no compelling reason for say, a woman who works in HR at H-P, or accounting at Apple Computer, or marketing for Nike, to vote Republican. There is no big reason against it, just not for it.

So it comes down to which candidate is the Alpha male. The way it always does. With women. Yes in 1940, before the dawn of TV, a desperate Party picked Churchill. He lost in the first major election after the War was won. Because, news flash, women don't like fat old White guys. When they had their say, they tossed him.

Unmarried women voted Obama over McCain, 70-29. Married women only 50 to 47 percent voted McCain. Yes ... HUNK MATTERS! That is how women vote! Women voted 56% to 43% for Obama in 2008, while Men voted 49 to 48% for Obama. That is the gender gap. If "Marriage is just for White people" then the overwhelming majority of married White women, voted McCain only by 3%!

Rule #1 for Republicans: No old guys, White guys only if Hunk, no weird or conservative women. Women don't like that. Any of it. See Sarah Palin's favorables (women detest her, even among just Republican women).

Newt Gingrich has already has his image cemented in the critical terrain of 2012. He's an icky fat old White guy who cheated on his wives, and then threw them out for younger models. He'd be lucky to carry 30% of the Married Women vote. This is reality.

Mitt Romney is the selfish bastard who fired people, and made lots of money, and is handsome, and somewhat cold. Good God! He's the older, silver fox version of every glittery gay vampire hero, "cold" anti-hero that women love to hate and have lots of icky sex with! He's chick magnet.

Women don't care about political passion. To them that's Travis Bickle territory. One step away from asking "You Talking to Me?" and a pyscho shoot-out. [That Bickle actually was the only one to care about a pre-teen prostitute and do something about it escapes them. Because its never about the action, it is about the being and being seen. A sad but hard truth of human nature regarding how women in aggregate act.]

Yes, for the statistically illiterate, there are women who like Newt. Who are unmarried. Some Black unmarried women doubtless love Newt Gingrich and will vote and campaign for him. So what? Obama will still carry the Black vote at 99% or so, and Black women at 99.999%

Republicans have a choice. Engage in a fruitless, pointless rebellion and pick the guy who sat next to Nancy Pelosi, endorsing global warming. The guy who made millions off Freddie and Fannie. The guy who was so inept that he lost control of his Speakership and got convicted on ethics charges [Those details WILL be released, because that's how Obama operates. Period.] A guy so bad at politics he could not even keep his own Party on his side. A guy arguably worse at being Speaker than ... Nancy Pelosi. Who is as corrupt, but better at keeping her folks in line to protect her. A guy who can't get on the ballot in Virginia. A guy who is detested by most women. A guy who is fat, White, and old, just like McCain. Plus ugly, like McCain. A guy who praises Al Sharpton, and has regular lunches and dinners with media figures. A guy with a wife who needs bribes to stay in the race, with spending $1 million at Tiffany's (his latest mistress/wife). Aguy who threw a temper tantrum because he was left off Air Force One and shut down the government in response. That guy. That's who Republicans want to go down screaming "Banzai! Banzai!" with ... Newt Gingrich.

Obama has a miserable record. Nothing to run on and terribly vulnerable to events, like war with Iran, another jihadi strike, more economic collapse, oil prices spiking, and so on.No good news for him is on the horizon. But he has a way of working, that ought to worry Republicans.

Obama has consistently won by "cheating." By rigging the contest so he faces no opposition, or Alan Keyes.

Newt Gingrich is Alan Keyes. Times ten. He knows in his heart he can't win, just like Paul. He's running to sell books, and bump up his personal appearance fees after an easy Obama victory. He sat on the couch before with Nancy Pelosi. He's doing it again. Alan Keyes. Romney is at least not Alan Keyes.
...Read more

Why Women Are Not At The Top (of Politics, Business, and Culture)

Women have more freedom, power, and control over their lives in the West than any group of women ever, before. Women today have more wealth, freedom, comfort, and stability than any other group of women before. And yet, still they rarely occupy the highest rungs of power, being absent from political leadership, commercial leadership, and cultural leadership. A Black man was elected President of the US before a woman. Why?

Because women won't sacrifice the … sexiness in men. And no sexy, dominant Alpha male will put up with a woman having a career and power greater than his. That's why they are Alpha males in the first place. For a woman to advance to the top, she has to be … Margaret Thatcher. Or Leslie Blodgett of Bare Escentuals. Or Carly Fiorina of H-P. Married to a "boring" beta male who is supportive and stays out of the spotlight.


Lucy Kellaway at the Financial Times was the first to make this clear:

The biggest reason that alpha women don’t become CEOs is that they have made the common, yet fatal, error of marrying an alpha man.
My evidence for this is based on long observation of the women I know. Some of them did brilliantly for a bit, but then their careers stalled. The problem was not that they had had too many children (successful women seem to have lots of them) but that their alpha husbands insisted on putting their own careers first.
Until last week this was just a vague prejudice. But on Wednesday I sat down with the FT’s list of the 50 top business women and Googled each one, searching for information about their home lives. Annoyingly, some of them have succeeded in keeping their private lives private, but with the rest I found my theory spectacularly well borne out. Nearly all have children, but I could not find a single one with an alpha male husband.
The only whiff of an alpha mate came from the household of Andrea Jung, CEO of Avon, whose husband was the CEO of Bloomingdale’s. I use the past tense not because he lost the job, but because he lost his wife – the marriage didn’t last.
…

Indra Nooyi, CEO of Pepsi and the world’s most powerful businesswoman, is married to a man who quit his job and became a consultant to fit in with his wife and children. Ditto with Irene Rosenfeld at Kraft, whose husband decided to be self-employed 20 years ago to help her. Ditto with Ursula Burns at Xerox.
There are three pretty obvious reasons an alpha husband is a problem for the aspiring female CEO. First is logistics. If you want to be really successful you need to be mobile. You need to have a husband like Gregg Ahrendts, who wound up his construction business so Angela could move to London to be CEO of Burberry. You also need to have someone who is prepared to see the children occasionally. And above all you need a bit of encouragement. If you have spent all day competing with men at work, you don’t want to go on competing at home. You want someone like Lloyd Bean, Ursula Burns’s husband, who worked at Xerox long before she joined, but who claimed delight when his wife whizzed past him in the fast lane. Or like the husband of the Indian banking supremo Chanda Kochhar. She says he is “genuinely happy about my progress”.
The lesson for a future female corporate queen is to give more thought to her choice of spouse. She should go for someone who is mentally her match, but who is happy to play a supporting role. In other words, Mr Right should be a male Kate Middleton.
Alas, there is a problem here in both demand and supply. High-flying women are programmed to go for high-flying men. Most men aren’t attracted to women who are more successful than they are. And until those things change, there is not going to be more than the odd sprinkling of women emerging from the sticky yellow marzipan into the glorious royal icing on top.

As Business Week noted:

When Carly Fiorina became Hewlett-Packard’s (HPQ) first female chief executive officer, the existence of her househusband, Frank Fiorina, who had retired early from AT&T (T) to support her career, was a mini-sensation; now this arrangement isn’t at all unusual. Seven of the 18 women who are currently CEOs of Fortune 500 companies—including Xerox’s (XRX) Ursula Burns, PepsiCo’s (PEP) Indra Nooyi, and WellPoint’s (WLP) Angela Braly—have, or at some point have had, a stay-at-home husband. So do scores of female CEOs of smaller companies and women in other senior executive jobs. Others, like IBM’s (IBM) new CEO, Ginni Rometty, have spouses who dialed back their careers to become their powerful wives’ chief domestic officers.
This role reversal is occurring more and more as women edge past men at work. Women now fill a majority of jobs in the U.S., including 51.4 percent of managerial and professional positions, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Some 23 percent of wives now out-earn their husbands, according to a 2010 study by the Pew Research Center. And this earnings trend is more dramatic among younger people. Women 30 and under make more money, on average, than their male counterparts in all but three of the largest cities in the U.S.

However, for most women, that trade-off, a supportive house-husband screams "Kitchen Bitch" and thus, poison. Most women would rather their husbands be high-flyers, than themselves. Because their reflection of self-worth is based on their sexual marketplace value (sad but true for most women, sad because that is so transient like a flower), and their sexual marketplace value is based around how much of a dominant, sexy Alpha asshole they can land.

Women don't go further in politics because they are unwilling to marry Denis Thatcher. An amiable businessman who kept his mouth shut and loyally supported his wife. They have fantasies of being Hillary Clinton, who did not sacrifice the Alpha Asshole Male, and still got to be a Senator and Secretary of State. [This is why many women love Hillary -- she got the Alpha Asshole, and the power, at least in part.]

Men who rise, mostly do so by either blind luck and opportunity, plus "seize the day" aggression and vision (Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg), or grind-it-out steady rises like say, Howard Schultz generally require a supportive spouse. Business and politics are high-stress careers, and supportive advice and comfort are generally a requirement for those grinding it out, a decade at a time, to rise to the top. This is true for both men and women.

Men, more than women, tend to realize this and trade off on Alpha sexiness. This is particularly true when men are younger and less powerful, and thus less attractive to women, they will often settle and marry the best woman they can get. Sticking with her for the most part means no costly divorces, no emotional upheaval, and the perception of stability and sensibility, that boards of directors prefer. No one wants say, a Mark Hurd. A guy who is a walking lawsuit machine.

Women on the other hand, feel that settling is both a betrayal of their natures, and a slur on their very person. Saying basically that they are so ugly and unsexy that the best they can do is some "supportive" aka "kitchen bitch" beta male instead of the sexy bad boy Alpha asshole they crave.

Thus women are trading off opportunity for sex. This is entirely predictable, since eggs are expensive, and sperm cheap, women generally prefer less perceived risk and men more, comparatively speaking. Women will trade off the opportunity to become a top leader, for sexy times, most of the time.

It is the unwillingness to trade away those sexy times, in favor of beta male "kitchen bitch" supportiveness, that keeps women from occupying half or more of the CEO suites, upper reaches of political leadership, and the cultural power centers (such as directing, producing, and so on). Rising up that way requires generally guys women just can't stomach.

The goal of feminists is to have it all -- the sexy bad boys AND the power. Like most fantasies, too much of it tends to be destructive. Because real problems are never solved by ghost-dancing fantasies and fairy tales.
...Read more

Sexual Competition in Britain: A Case Study in Sadness

The Daily Mail has another story on scantily clad, drunk, and sad women in Britain. Courtesy of Roissy/Heartiste, the pictures and comments are revealing as to what they show unrestrained sexual competition among women for the few dominant A-holes they find attractive works out to in real life. Its not an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, the Vampire Diaries, Gossip Girl, or a showing of Twilight. None of that glamorized idealization of choices without limits (or crucially, guidance). Rather, complete and total sadness and desperation.



The story gives away the reason, though the writer Tanith Carney refuses to see it:

The standard uniform — micro-miniskirts, sky-high heels and low tops — was once worn only by prostitutes on dingy street corners. Now it’s a mainstream style adopted by almost every female clubber and party-goer under the age of 30.

Why do they cheapen themselves so — especially at a time when young women have never had a greater opportunity to reject crass sexual stereotypes of old.

After all, girls are outperforming boys at every stage of schooling. In the workplace, female employees are starting to out-earn their male counterparts.

Why is it, then, in an age of true equal opportunity that so many women are dressing in such a demeaning way?

Well, color this under the obvious. The women are competing for the few men they find attractive. Make most men their equal or worse in status, i.e. girls out-performing boys at every age of schooling, in the workplace, in social status, well they turn into sluts. Inevitably. Because being a slut is the price women have to pay to get attention and sex from the few dominant, Alpha assholes they find attractive.

Women, almost exclusively, will feel no sexual attraction whatsoever for guys who are their inferiors, socially, and not much more for those who are their equals. Equalization in status and earnings and everything else just serves to make nearly every guy sexually invisible and undesirable for most every woman. Save those on the very bottom of attractiveness. A socially egalitarian society alone, let alone the current one where women do better economically and socially than men, guarantees a society of sluts, a few Jersey Shore Alpha males (think the Situation), and most guys opting out for porn and X-boxes.

Why DO young women go out dressed like this? We meet nightclubbers in four major cities to find the surprising and unsettling answer to the question despairing mothers are asking
...
Tonight it’s Hannah Lawson’s 18th birthday and she’s out on the town with five of her college friends after spending three hours getting ready. Teamed with leopard-print ankle boots, her outfit lends a whole new meaning to the term ‘Little Black Dress’

As she and her identically dressed friends line up, hands on hips, only the mottled skin on their naked legs hints at the six-degree temperature. But Hannah proclaims it’s worth it to give them that all-important quality: ‘confidence’.

‘Male attention is good. Then you know you look good,’ she says.

‘Yeah, guys wink and make sly remarks,’ chips in her friend Eleanor, 17. They have only just hit the streets, but already they know that their skimpy outfits have made an impact — another group of girls has branded one of their number ‘a slag’.

‘They’re just jealous because we’re beautiful and look young!’ says their friend Ruby Crowther, 19.

"Slag" from another group of women? Spending three hours getting ready? Extremely revealing clothing on freezing nights? That's all competition for the male gaze, and of course the male gaze of the few men women find attractive. There are plenty of guys to go around, but they are either equal or slightly lesser in social stature, so the young girls, in the prime of their beauty, have to dress extremely revealing to gather the attention of the few dominant A-hole jerks they find attractive.

Joanne Avery, 23, is a clerical assistant from Chester-le-Street, Co. Durham, out clubbing in Newcastle. Her £45 Playboy skirt sits low enough to reveal a white thong, above it is tattooed her personal motto: ‘Couldn’t give a f***.’ It’s accessorised by another on her upper arm that reads: ‘Raw Sex.’

Joanne’s extensive wardrobe back at home — which includes 25 pairs of high heels — is made possible by the fact she still lives with her family. Indeed, it is her father who lends her money to help fund her £500 a month eBay shopping habit.
...

Joanne has no qualms about sharing the reasons why she is dressed so provocatively tonight. ‘I’m looking for a bit of totty. You have to dress in a certain way to get attention.
‘If you’ve got t**s, it helps. It does make me feel more confident. I’m a slut, but it’s OK to be a slut as long as you use protection, which most people don’t.’
For Joanne, it is simply not an option to dress more tastefully. ‘I’d never dress in jeans. I just wouldn’t like it. I always want to wear slutty clothes.’

One reason for tattoos among young women is to advertise sexual availability (to the dominant Alpha A-hole they crave, of course, not to the "icky" Beta males who are their equal or below). Hyper-competition for the few desirable men creates basically, a buyers market (among the few A-hole jerks women crave). Thus women in societies where they have unlimited freedom and a higher social position than their male peers have to slut it up. Just to gain sexual access to the few men they find sexy. If nearly every male peer were sexy, you would not see the tattoos, the revealing clothing, and the drinking.

Naomi Maxfield, an 18-year-old musical theatre student from Chesterfield, was out on the town  in Newcastle.

‘I like getting male attention. If I didn’t, I would think: “What’s  wrong?” ’ she says. ‘It’s quite a nice feeling. It makes you more confident. Guys smile at you, wink, whistle, try to chat you up.’

Natasha Parish, 19, a hairdresser from Newcastle, has taken an hour and a half to apply her fake tan, lashes and make-up. Once again, she cites the need to feel confident for her choice of clothing. ‘I think dressing up is a part of being a modern woman. I’m OK with how I look.

‘It is nice to get a bit of male attention, not too much. It makes me more confident if I know that I’m looking attractive.’

Again, of course, the only male attention that counts is from jerks. A-holes. Bad boys. Alpha males. The girls can get plenty of attention from their male peers, and without dressing in hyper-revealing clothing. They just don't want it. Because they find beta males unsexy. Or, alternatively they HATE HATE HATE Beta Males.

Given the acres of limbs that are exposed, you might assume that these girls are proud of their bodies. Quite the opposite.

It emerges that in many cases their outfits — and the male leering it provokes — are often a way to bandage up their insecurities in a world where they can’t match up to the  oh-so-sexy, celebrity stereotypes  of womanhood.

It doesn’t always work out as they hoped, as Sian, an 18-year-old carer on a night out in Cardiff, admits. Her insecurities about showing off her figure in such revealing clothes are so profound that she admits to drinking spirits with her friend to work up the bravery to leave the house.

‘We looked in the mirror before we left the house and were so upset that we necked half a bottle of vodka each.’

Her friend Beth, a student, is wearing suspender-style tights, made popular by celebrities such as Rihanna. She says she didn’t buy them to look sexy or fashionable, but to cover up her legs, which she describes as ‘vile.’

‘There’s lots of pressure to look good. Boys always want that perfect person and other women all look amazing.’

Natasha Parish also ‘hates’ her legs — though you would never guess it from the scarlet and black micro-mini she is wearing in Newcastle city centre.

‘I wish girls wore a bigger variety of clothes going out,’ she says. ‘That’s why I wear dresses — everyone else does, so I would look stupid if I wore a longer skirt or trousers. I do wish it was easier and that I could go out in less revealing clothes.’

When Amber Davies, 21, a full–time mother from Bristol goes out in Cardiff, she wears her full armoury including a push-up bra and false eyelashes. But she has the self-knowledge to realise that ultimately it’s not a very convincing mask.

‘The only problem is that this isn’t what we really look like. In the morning, you’d be there without your hair extensions, make-up and false eyelashes, or your body-control pants — and you’d look completely different. Nobody knows what you really look like when you’re dressed up like this.’

It does not get more explicit than this (note the full time mother going out for random hook-ups and worrying about how she looks to her random partner in the morning). Women have to show the goods to get the sex from the few guys they find sexy. The cost of feminism, of female sexual liberation, is hyper-competition among women for that hot guy.

As Charlene David, 25, and Stacey Leonard, 27, stop to chat, two male bystanders come up behind them, put their hands around their waists and tell them they look beautiful.

Far from brushing them off, both girls said it illustrated the usual reaction they provoked from men — and asked for the compliments to  be recorded.

Other girls were also seen being touched and having their bottoms squeezed by men coming up behind them — or being forcefully coerced into bars. Because they were barely able to walk on their stilt-like shoes, many couldn’t stagger away, even if they wanted to.
It is Leanne McGinley, 25, a mother-of-two in a leopard-print dress, who sums up the contradiction. ‘I do find the male attention irritating. But it would feel a bit weird if there wasn’t any.’

Yes of course. Male attention from icky Beta Males? Irritating. From the dominant Alpha A-holes who coerce them into bars and grab their behinds? Desirable. No one is putting guns to their heads, they spend an awful amount of money, often subsidized by their parents, to gain attention from the Alpha male. Hyper-competitive environments produce such reactions.

It’s a contest that can spill into aggression and even violence. As the evening goes on, the alcohol flows and the pairings start to happen. Catfights break out, with competing tribes of girls shouting ‘slag!’ at each other from opposite sides of the street.
It comes as little surprise to discover that the more the women dress like strippers, the more men treat them that way. Among the men we spoke to, one described the women out on the town as ‘eye candy for free’ — and a chance to ‘window shop’.

Toby Harris, 29, a project manager from London, says he likes women dressing in barely-there clothes ‘because you get to think whether you want to sleep with them later’.

‘It’s a certain sort of women who dresses that way — easy chicks,’ he says. ‘They’re definitely not a long-term prospect because they are easy.’ In many cases, that sexist view may well be crass and unjustified. After all, shouldn’t women be free to dress as they please without being judged? But whatever their motivation for dressing as they do, there is no escaping how the micro-skirted mob are perceived by men.

Tom Jones, 23, a landscape gardener from Cardiff, says: ‘It’s good to give the game away and know what you’re getting. The less clothing the better.’

For Lewis Quinn, 23, an electrician from London: ‘Being around all these women is like being at a funfair with glaring lights in your face — but they’re not the sort I go for as it’s too revealing for me.’

Yes, of course average women can "win" by having sex with Alphas they would otherwise not have, in today's liberated, feminist, equalist society. But they don't get commitment from the Alpha males, even if they do get casual sex.

Some girls reported that their mothers checked their outfits before they went out and said they ‘looked nice’. Others said their mothers sometimes accompanied them out clubbing, envied their figures — and even borrowed their clothes.

Psychologist Dr Linda Papadopoulos, author of the Home Office Review on the Sexualisation of Girls, believes society has become so influenced by porn culture that no one knows where to draw the line any more.

‘We are inheriting more from the porn culture than we realise — everything from fake nails to fake tans. Porn has become mainstream.

‘The sad thing is that the confidence of these girls has become directly proportionate to how they look. It doesn’t come from what they have achieved or what skills they have learned. It comes from how much attention and looks they get from men.

‘Of course, there’s nothing new about wanting to be desired and complimented. But with these young women, it’s not just that they like compliments. They crave them.

‘The problem comes when your only desire is to be desired.’

The problem is not porn. There are plenty of men, in fact most of their male peers, that would have been happy with them. Girls age 17, 18, 19, at the peak of their beauty, can dress in a barrel and get male attention. If women were picking from the mass of their male peers, you would not see the hyper-competition for just a few guys, the ones they find sexy, occurring. Hence the drinking, to degrade themselves essentially in pursuing men they have no real chance of staying with, and can only get fleeting sexual encounters with. Including a number of "full-time mothers" in the story.

That is not a particularly happy set of circumstances.

What women need is ... information. Information about their realistic chances at landing an Alpha and keeping him. It is pretty easy for any woman who is reasonably fit, breathing, and under 45 to have sex with an Alpha. Alpha males are not particularly picky about who they have sex with. Look at Tiger Woods, Bill Clinton, Herman Cain, John Edwards, and so on. For an Alpha, life is a buffet with sex from McDonalds and Nobu in NYC, at any time. Almost any half-way attractive woman can have sex with an Alpha.

But she won't keep him. Did Tiger Woods marry Rachel Uchitel? Did Bill Clinton leave Hillary for Monica Lewinsky? Did Herman Cain leave his wife for Ginger White?

For most women, they have a choice. Career wise they need to have the power to earn money, and think about the future, including what they will do if say, tragically hip careers in fashion or marketing or PR go belly up. Romantically, women need to be told, over and over again, from an early age, that they are extremely unlikely to keep an Alpha male. Even if they do, that Alpha male will almost certainly cheat.

If they want faithfulness, companionship, and someone to stick around after their parents inevitably pass on, they have to compromise, and do so carefully. They cannot wait too long, all the men just the few rungs below the Alpha males will be taken, or have done whatever they could to convert themselves into Alpha A-hole jerks. A woman at age 35, who rode the carousel of many Alpha lovers, is no real prize and increasingly the men she can choose from at that age are X-boxen bound slackers who've opted out for porn and amusement, or greater Beta Males who found Game, PUA-driven study, and have turned themselves into Alpha jerks pursuing casual sex with significantly younger (and fewer partners) women who have the advantage of greater beauty associated with youth. Even the most beautiful 35 year old woman, after all, is no match for a fit and ordinary 22 year old woman.

This means society must be honest with women. Let them know, their beauty will fade, often quite rapidly. That the few men they find attractive will not stay with them. That if they wish a relationship, one that has the promise of lasting, they need to carefully, as in Jane Austen's day, consider a man's character, his friends, his family, his habits, everything that reveals him as either trustworthy or not. And further, to not reject out of hand those men that on the surface can seem cold, remote, shy, unsexy, and look carefully at somewhat older men who have achieved some measure of success, without becoming either bitter or players in reaction to female hypergamy unrestrained.

Further, society needs to hammer home the message to women that they cannot in fact have it all, since no one can. Choosing to pursue sex means that for most women, they will never have a husband. If they want marriage or its functional equivalent, they must abjure pursuing exciting sex in favor of careful courtship among those who are at least somewhat sexy (though not as sexy as the A-holes in the clubs and bars that demand hyper competition from hypergamous women) and have the makings of good life-long partners.

Every woman and girl ought to have the right to choose her own destiny. Should she wish to pursue the life of Samantha from "Sex and the City" that should be her choice. But it should be an INFORMED choice, one made freely in the knowledge that she will give up any realistic chance at a life-long mate and will likely have kids by herself, with all that implies (emotional and financial hardship as the Welfare State ends, under mass immigration and running out of money; and sons bound for prison, daughters for the stripper pole).

Most women don't like this compromise. They know they've been cheated, and their pursuits are somewhat fruitless, hence the drinking of bottles of vodka to screw up their courage. Nobody gets drunk for a night on the town ... before they go out, unless they dread the prospect. Men don't get drunk before sitting down to play Call of Duty. They enjoy it.

Women as much as non-Alpha men get cheated by the current system. Women get told a pack of lies, that sexual freedom does not require a knife-edge caution, that disaster romantically can occur at any moment, and that a lifetime of happiness is just one mis-step from slipping away un-noticed. No, today does not resemble Jane Austen's in the repression of women, limited opportunities, and such. But it does in that only a few men can make satisfactory husbands, and every woman is in competition with every other woman. Even worse, marriage does not end the competition. For Alpha males at least, who will continue to screw around no matter what. They're Alpha males, after all!

Total freedom requires hyper-vigilance, among women themselves, to get and retain a proper mate. There may be no "shame" as in Austen's day, but the stakes are just as high. Having a husband/mate to guide child-rearing and companionship, or none at all. Instead women are sold fairy tales of taming magical bad boy vampires, in either glittery gay (Twilight, Vampire Diaries) or brutalesque (Buffy, Tru Blood) versions, or other variations (Mad Men, Sex and the City, etc.) No wonder they're sad. They've been cheated.
...Read more

The Sadness, American and British Versions

For all of the Twilight movie frenzy, with Twilight Moms and tweens camped out, and "You Go Girl" positivism from Oprah, every White woman's Black Best Friend(tm), women in today's society are beset with sadness. For they have very little to be happy about. The Huffington Post has an article about women divorcing in their twenties. The Daily Mail has an article about women drinking themselves into oblivion. Both reflect a cruel irony.



In no place or time, have women had more choices, more wealth, more power, and more opportunities to be whatever they want to be. To decide for themselves what their lives will be. And in no time, place, or society have women been left to themselves entirely, without guidance, help, or advice on what real life boundaries will limit their choices. You might even argue that women have only one fleeting chance, often, at happiness, and can see it go by without even realizing it. This is why vampires are so popular, real life men disappoint them, and like the male geeks retreating into dreams of hot Vulcan or other Alien babes, women retreat into a fantasy of hunky dominant, violent guys fighting over them and for them. But the reality is sad. Above all else.

The Daily Mail piece has such things as:

Midnight on St Mary Street in Cardiff and everything is exactly as expected. Half a dozen young women slump in a gutter, men urinate outside a health-food shop and, as hordes stagger between nightclubs, someone lifts up a blow-up doll with a sex toy protruding out of it.

The street smells of urine and lager, police struggle  to break up a fight outside the Walkabout bar and a paramedic bundles a comatose girl on to a wheelchair. But it's a quiet night for 20-year-old Naomi Jenkins. She has 'only' drunk three shots of peach schnapps, cider and three shots of Jagermeister (during a drinking game called I Have Never) and still feels 'a bit sober'. Her friend Hannah Freeman, 19, was punched in a fight and stumbles about swearing and searching for a bathroom.

'We only do embarrassing things when we're really drunk,' Naomi says. 'I kiss random men in the street and Hannah has had sex behind a chicken coop.' She screams with laughter as Hannah lurches unsteadily in the stairwell of Charleston Bar and Grill on Caroline Street (known locally as Chip Alley) and unashamedly urinates in front of us. 

Amazingly, none of the 80-strong throng of passers-by seems to notice –or perhaps care. Hannah rearranges her minuscule dress, steps over her own urine, shouts 'f*** off' and the pair stumble back to Walkabout. It's only midnight, after all.

Obviously, kissing random men in the street, and having sex behind a chicken coop, are not the antics of happy women. Nor is the massive amounts of alcohol needed to lower inhibitions to engage in these acts in the first place. What's wrong, is that modern media gives women access to all sorts of hot, hunky, dominant Alpha men, and even an only middling attractive girl can often gain sex from an Alpha. But not commitment. [See Monica Lewinsky.] Even the most beautiful women cannot get faithfulness, see Elin Nordgren and Tiger Woods, or Elizabeth Hurley and Hugh Grant.


In days prior to the mass media attaining its critical mass (and just as crucially, its orientation almost exclusively to female consumers), women might occasionally brush past a hot, hunky Alpha male. But they would have little interaction with him. Now, particularly in female-dominated professions such as public relations, infotainment aka journalism, corporate finance, human resources, and such, women have much closer access to Alpha males. Think Monica Lewinsky again or the late Chandra Levy. Even more of course can see them every night on TV, or at the movies, or in the latest book. There's even a new category at Barnes and Noble (not making this up, nope) "Teen Paranormal Romance."


None of this of course makes women any happier. Indeed the fatness epidemic amongst British women is likely the substitution of food for love.

But as I found out on the streets of Cardiff after midnight, many of these women are –by day at least –well qualified pillars of the community. Among them I met teachers, nurses, occupational therapists, personnel professionals and full-time mothers, all determined to shake off responsibility and have fun in the only way they know how. By getting 'smashed'.

Every week, the ritual is the same: Groups of between four and six girls congregate to dress up and competitively drink bottles of cheap wine or sickly shots. Competition ramps up over who can wear the tiniest mini-dress, the highest heels or the reddest lipstick. Drinking carries on during the bus ride to Cardiff (many young women travel from the surrounding Valleys) and continues in bars between 9pm and 11pm, or until they feel bold enough to dance.

Condom in purse and telephone number for a pre-booked 3am taxi in handbag, they stagger between nightclubs. The ritual continues long into the morning when, dulled by hangovers, they congregate for McDonald's or fried breakfasts to giggle about the drunken 'fun'.
…
One rather more honest 18-year-old from Caerphilly admits that she decides what to wear depending on whether she is on the prowl for a partner. Tonight –in a transparent Primark blouse and black bra –she undoubtedly is. 'I wouldn't wear this if I had a boyfriend. He'd be like, “You ain't wearing that,” ' she says.

The desperate search for sex, with only the most guido-esque able to apply, is characteristic of a society that does not lay out, starkly and honestly, the choices and consequences for women, directly, starting in the teen years. Now for many, the way is clear: Snooki. Gym-Tan-Laundry, is the mantra, with the unspoken need to get out there, as drunk as possible, to have a hook-up and some sort of human connection. That is not happiness. Just look at the pictures.

Meanwhile, US women are not happy either.

A previous relationship left them heartbroken. They say you never really get over your first love. Tara, a 26 year-old freelance writer from North Carolina admitted during our interview, "I didn't think I would ever fall in love again so I figured it didn't matter who I married."

I can relate. Breaking up with my college boyfriend left me devastated. He wasn't just my first serious relationship; he produced the beats to my heart for years. I never thought anyone could ever make me feel that way again, so I settled for the memories and pledged my honor to someone with whom -- wait for it -- I was in a convenient relationship.

Madison also attributes a past heartbreak as a reason why she became Mrs. to Mr. Wrong. After being told over the phone by her first fiancé, "I have cancer and can never see you again," Madison had an understandably hard time trusting love. She married her ex-husband because "We were both financially stable and could have a good life. I loved him, but I'm not sure about actually being in love with him. I felt that I would never be hurt by him as long as I didn't give my whole heart."

"Celebrating" Divorce in your twenties is a coping mechanism. At best. Many simply never got over the hot, dominant Alpha male they could not keep.Because no one told them they were not hot enough, and young enough (compared to the guy) to keep him. That say, Annette Benning can keep her hot, dominant Alpha male because she's about thirty years younger than he is. That at best, even a beautiful woman the same age as a dominant, Alpha male producing the beats to her hearts, can only keep him for a moment.

Those unable to find a partner, tend to use food for love. Just look at any old picture of women in the 1940's or 1950's, particularly after wartime rationing ended. You won't see lots of fat girls or guys. Part of that is the "diversity tax" in which people retreat to the suburbs via private auto, or the internet, to avoid the inevitable crime that "diversity" brings. But a great deal of it relates to the atomization of society that does not any longer reliably match young men with young women. Everyone is on their own. With only the guidance of TV, movies, books, and popular celebrities to help advise on their love-lives. Which is to say, nothing at all helpful and positively harmful influences.

Most modern women in the US and the UK are profoundly unhappy. You don't see scenes like the above, or books "celebrating" what is a miserable failure — divorce in one's twenties, when it pretty much guarantees (for women) a much poorer position in the mating/marriage market.

I do not believe it is reasonable or even possible to restrict women's absolute and complete freedom to choose their life and their sex partners. Women however desperately need an honest, up-front, and direct guidance from other women (men will simply be ignored of course) about how choices early limit options later. Chase Alphas, and you'll be disappointed if you are not ready to be cheated upon. That is true for even the most beautiful of women, and the ordinary women won't even be more than a disposable object. In an endless choice, a menu of constant freedom, it becomes even more critical to select a guy for character and reliability, rather than pure sexiness. Choosing sexy guys carries with it, a fairly large cost for women. Cheating, unfaithfulness, risk of disease. But choosing a guy they have no feelings for sexually either is a one way trip to unhappy-ville, sneaking out to drink and hook-up with strangers in a desperate attempt to feel sexy in turn.

Society today is fundamentally dishonest with women, and cheats them out of a honest choice. It lies and says that freedom comes with no strings (it does). Society does not tell women that nearly unlimited freedom also means a very thin tightrope to find romantic happiness. That all that sexual liberation is a two edged sword, to be worthy of a guy they find attractive, they'll have to be significantly younger, with relatively few partners, be pretty, fit, thin, and with a pleasing personality. All things they cannot do much about except on the margins (eat healthy, exercise, refrain from casual hook-ups).

Society also lies in that very few women are aware of the risks of falling deeply for an Alpha — few other guys will compare. This is particularly true for the first guy, who remains perhaps the only guy in her heart. Not fun if he's with someone else.

It is not that women are choosing badly, though mostly they are. Rather, it is that women are being lied to, by a media-infotainment complex that feeds the worst delusions instead of the noblest instincts of women. Imagine a world where every guy watches endless Star Trek episodes featuring hot Borg Babes and Vulcan women fighting over some useless geek. That flipped on the gender, is the toxic environment women have to endure, and fight against every day, intellectually and emotionally.

The inevitable disappointment that most women endure, leads to over-eating to find love in food, partly, or binge drinking and useless hook-ups. Is Snooki happy? I think not. Nor do the women in the photos look happy. The road to happiness (and incidentally, women feeling positive not negative towards the West, and its civilization,and its people) requires honesty. About what a world of near total sexual and individual freedom requires. Which in turn is nothing less than constant vigilance and care, lest a woman's one chance at happiness slip away, without her even knowing it.

For the flip-side is, few men desired at all by any attractive women at all, needs to compromise. For many, a life of casual sex, and slacking will do just fine.

...Read more

Gays Vs. Jews: The Brett Ratner Defenestration

The firing of Brett Ratner by the Academy Awards from the job as producer of the Oscar Telecast, and the fawning apology extracted from him by GLAAD (Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Discrimination) and other Gay groups, shows who really runs Hollywood. The female audience!


Ratner, the director of the upcoming Eddie Murphy/Ben Stiller action-comedy "Tower Heist," along with the "Rush Hour" series (starring Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker) and the final modern-day X men movie (X-Men: The Last Stand) was fired from the show after saying in an interview that "rehearsals are for fags." He then was forced to issue several groveling apologies. You can't get much more Jewish than Ratner, who spent High School according to Wikipedia in Israel. But Jews do not run Hollywood, rather it is gays, or rather the female audience that likes gays very much.


The CW actress (from the revival of "90210") Jessica Lowndes has released a song where she wishes she was gay. That's her to the right and above btw. Lady Gaga got her start, and rakes in tons of money, by appealing to gays. Katy Perry released "I Kissed a Girl," and Simone Battle released a song and video entitled "He Likes Boys" about an unrequited crush on a gay man. You could argue that nearly all Broadway shows, the X-Factor, American Idol, the Sing-off, the Voice, and all the other musical competition reality shows are big gay wonderfests aimed directly at women.

Even Tony Kushner is more gay than Jew. Kushner is very anti-Zionist, has advocated a single state in place of Israel and the Palestinians, and Zionists sought unsuccessfully to prevent him from being honored with a honorary doctorate at Brandeis University and there was an abortive attempt by City University of New York to revoke his honorary degree over anti-Israel statements. Barbara Ehrenreich among others rose to his defense. Kushner married Mark Harris, an editor at Entertainment Weekly, in Provincetown NY in 2008. Kushner's work in in the screenplay for Steven Spielberg's "Munich" is pretty much in accord with Queers for Palestine. Most gays are fairly anti-Israel and also anti-Jewish.

A goodly portion of the "alternative right" is mired in conspiracy theories, the main one being that the West fell into disrepair and despair, filled with PC nonsense, low fertility, mass non-White immigration, multiculturalism, and disgust at the culture and history and heritage of Western Civilization ... because of those "devious Jews!" In their view, those devious mind control rays just took over the poor helpless and defenseless West. Others hold that Gramscian Long Marches (the original was a desperate, fighting retreat not advance) through institutions allowed "mind control" by corruption.

I hold that either explanation, either "those devious Jews" or devious Frankfurt School intellectuals (Andrew Breitbart's view expressed on the Adam Carolla Show) are at fault, nor is some combination the reason for the West's decay.

Rather, it is broad social forces, moved by technological changes that impact marriage, family, spending, wealth, and other factors that has led to this state of affairs. In other words, history as it has always been -- broad forces affected in the exact wave by individual valor and cowardice, often in surprising ways. Individuals can and do make differences, both for good or bad, but cannot fundamentally change the tides. The way people marry, have kids, create wealth,consume wealth, make war, peace, and trade has the most effect on society. Not ideas that the vast majority including elites have only the most fuzzy grasp upon. If you went back in time and queried Castillian Grandees of the fifteenth century, on the Holy Trinity, only a few would have been able to understand it and explain it to you, and probably none what the Albigensian Heresy of a few hundred years prior had been. That's the elite.

Let us look at Jews in America today. Clearly, they do not run Hollywood, otherwise the concerns of Jews (assimilation versus losing one's identity and Jewish heritage) would be paramount in movies and TV. Every second movie would be Exodus and Steven Spielberg would have made "Munich" in the style of Sylvester Stallone's Nighthawks. Ratner would have won, not lost, the contest of strength against the gays. TV and movies would be filled with positive Jewish characters and positive portrayals of Israel and America. Movies like Yankee Doodle Dandy, produced by Jack Warner would predominate.

That moment has clearly passed, with gays now being the "new Jews." Most Jews today hold mildly anti-Israel, anti-Zionist sentiments (as evinced from the results of the efforts to punish Kushner) at best, awash as they are in the Yuppie mold of modern liberalism. The casual anti-semitism of modern liberalism as epitomized by Occupy Wall Street shows up in most Jews wishing that Israel would simply go away. Being as it is an embarrassing, working-class reminder of ethnic and unfashionable identity that is as "un-cool" as the battered easy chair of Frasier Crane's father on "Frasier."

Now, "Glee" features overt teen gay sex, and gay-themed characters and plotlines are everywhere. The GLAAD report on 2011 TV shows:

"While the number of LGBT characters is down, some of the most popular shows with critics and viewers such as 'Glee,' 'True Blood' and 'The Good Wife' weave storylines about gay and lesbian characters into the fabric of the show," says GLAAD's acting president, Mike Thompson. "... Americans expect to see the diversity of our country represented in their favorite programs and that includes gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people."

FOX is the most inclusive network, according to the GLAAD study, with LGBT characters representing about 7 percent of the population on its scripted series. "Glee" has several prominent gay roles, and "Bones" and several of the network's animated comedies feature LGBT characters as well.

GLAAD counted 19 gay characters among the 647 series regulars on broadcast series set to air in 2011-12 (although that number could change a little as details about characters are revealed), along with an additional 14 recurring LGBT characters.

On "mainstream" cable networks (not including channels like Logo whose focus is already on the LGBT community), GLAAD found 28 regular LGBT characters, down from 35 in last year's study. The number of recurring characters rose, however, so the total of 54 is in line with 53 last year.

Why is this? Why are gays so popular? Why is GLAAD more powerful than Brett Ratner (who has a successful career and has given Eddie Murphy a job, a favor Murphy returned by resigning as host of the Oscars)? Its because of the domination of TV and movies by the female audience. Which is very friendly to gays.

Women find gay men interesting (and author "slash fiction" whereby straight characters like Captain Kirk and Spock have gay sex). And also, fabulous. Not being interested in them sexually they are men whom they can deal with on a non-stressful basis. The result of a vastly extended mate market, with women "on the market" and "available" for years and years, leads to fatigue with constant approaches by men they find sexually invisible. Gay men offer a relief from that, the niche filled by brothers and fathers when the nuclear family existed.

Gay men's appeal to women is at least in part driven by the failure of the nuclear family, and declining birth rates, leaving many women single children bereft of male relatives. Gay men offer the next best substitute.

Gay men further only have cultural power in the way that Jews during the Golden Age of Hollywood had cultural power -- by offering stories and themes and creations that appealed to enough of a mass audience. It is true that Lady Gaga made a fortune appealing mostly to gay men and women. And that Tyler Perry made the most money last year of anyone in Hollywood. But few White people go to see Tyler Perry's movies, and his formula for success is to make cheap movies that only Black people are interested in seeing. He's the only one out there competing for that audience, so he gets pretty much most of it no matter how poorly executed his films are. Lady Gaga in twenty years will be as forgotten as Debbie Gibson is today. The same for Justin Bieber.

Meanwhile Jews like Siegel and Schuster exerted immense cultural influence (even if they mostly got cheated for creating Superman). The same with Jack Kirby, or Stan Lee, and the other nearly all Jewish writer/artist creators of comic book characters. By offering tales of nerdy guys who never got the girl transformed into heroes, they found a fairly wide group of guys (nerdy White guys who never got the girl) who lived vicariously through these (often faintly ridiculous) characters. The current flipside is the Twilight phenomena, where girls and their Moms lust after sparkly semi-gay pouty vampires. Following an ordinary girl who gets the hunkiest man alive (and has the second-hunkiest fighting the hunkiest for her favors). Even his vampire babies! This from another "niche culture" (Mormon Housewife) author. Just as Louis Armstrong taught a lot of White kids to swing, because he provided dance music, in the Depression, as did say Duke Ellington, Jews and Mormon housewives when offering stuff that a substantial portion of the population loves, can transform the culture.

For Jews in Golden Age Hollywood or Comic Books, it was a Yankee Doodle Dandy story of assimilation and simultaneous embrace of immigrant roots. Superman WAS American to the core, because he was (basically a variant of Moses delivered as a baby to the Promised Land -- America!) For Stephanie Meyer it was the longing of everygirl to get that one guy every girl dreamed of. For White teens in the Depression, it was dance, dance, dance. When the need was met, the culture was transformed into the specific shape of the individual artist. Respect for a master musician who made you dance, and was Black. Embrace of America and the Flag, with a living super-Flag. Getting that hunky guy by being special and magic (OK maybe the last is not so healthy). The need when filled changed things. But the need had to exist.

Tyler Perry is not going to change the culture. Neither is Lady Gaga. Katy Perry might, because millions of girls like her and want to be her (not the least of which is Mr. Katy Perry, Russell Brand). Gays are changing the culture because they are filling the need of millions of women. Who want tales of effortless sex with hunky guys and fabulous fashion, a life of eternal singlehood and choice (Sex and the City, originally written by Gay men for a Gay cast). Or stories of vampires, rich kids, and other hunks to drool over. Or fabulous singing and dancing where your native talent overcomes plain looks to land that hunky guy (Glee). Egged on by a fabulous best gay friend.

Gays writing and creating just for Gays, on their own, would be like Siegel and Schuster creating "Gefilte Fish Man" who has the magic power to eat as much Gefilte Fish as possible. Of no interest to pretty much anyone outside of the creator's group. Gays exist as a power group, more powerful than Jews (see Ratner, Brett, and the defenestration of) in naked power struggles because they deliver more of the desired audience: women. Who very much like their gays, thank you very much, which way is the next showing of "Wicked?"

And all of this is really just a reflection of social reality. Nerdy guys made Superman a hit from the first issue, along with many other comic book characters, because he filled that need. As did Twilight. Gays only exercise more power than successful producers (who are also Jewish as it gets) because they are beloved of, and deliver to advertisers and producers, the female audience. Who cast in very long lasting singleton choice-hell, demand tales of hunks and guys who will never hit on them, but offer sound advice on how to nail that Alpha.

The solution then, given that gays tilt wildly left (and demand a general libertine undermining of society that is in direct conflict with not only straight White guys but social health for everyone) is to change the conditions that give them power. Gays are not powerful because of their numbers or innate fabulousness. They are powerful because the specific condition of millions of single or late married women make them so.

Women generally happy with their husbands don't care much about gays. Even if only children, they inherit in-laws, helpers with child-care, and a husband they care about and can confide in. They don't need fabulous consumption and fashion and girlfriends and endless courtship to get the emptiness inside filled up, family and husbands do that already.

The solution is thus blindingly obvious and tremendously difficult. The restoration of the nuclear family. Nearly all the ills of modern society, the decline of the West, would be arrested if not reversed by the restoration of the nuclear family. This means generally, women marrying at an age (around 19-25) when they can get the best man available. And staying married, for the most part. This is extremely hard, because modern society has enormous incentives for women to stay single as long as possible chasing Alphas. To the detriment (maybe) of the women involved and of society as a whole unquestionably.

Women giving this enormous power to gays is neither normal nor healthy. At no time in the past has this ever happened in the West. It bodes ill for the stability and wealth generation of the West.
...Read more

Reconsidering Sexual Repression

Science Fiction Author and Blogger Eric S. Raymond has a post up on Reconsidering Sexual Repression. Basically his point is that we will likely have to give up two of the following three things: family formation, sexual equality (women equal to men in all legal and social and cultural forms), and sexual liberty (no restrictions legal or social in any way of women's sexual activity). Raymond believes that giving up family formation is out of the question, so that the other two must go, by giving up sexual equality, in the form of "submissiveness" to men. Raymond of course is quite wrong (and considers the question only from the viewpoint, and a skewed, "White Knight" perspective at that, of women). But still it is quite interesting to see an older man struggle with the obvious, that the sexual order of the day is simply unsustainable.


Now, Raymond is wrong because women have already given up family formation. Women, of all races, and classes, are bailing on the nuclear family and having single motherhood instead. Women are doing this by choice, deliberate choice, because women have pretty much complete control over their own fertility. If they don't want to get pregnant, condoms, the pill, the morning after pill (a girl of maybe, 15 was there with her mother getting it at my local pharmacy about a year ago, proud and giggling, Mexican of course), various patches (heavily advertised on TV), and more. Plus of course abortions. If women did want to have kids, there are plenty of guys out there who are husband material. They just are not as sexy as the bad boys.

No, women are choosing, in various amounts among different races and classes, but still broadly choosing single motherhood with bad boys over marriage with some boring Beta Male who does nothing but provide and lacks that sexy domination women crave.

Black women moved from 24% illegitimacy in the 1960's, to over 70% nationally today, and over 90% in the urban core. Hispanic women moved from 17% illegitimacy in 1980 to over 50% today. Charles Murray's talk at the AEI on the State of White America had the following highlights:

Women in the upper 20% of income still got married and had kids, illegitimacy was only 4-5% for this group.
Women in the middle 40% of income had a 20% illegitimacy rate.
Women in the lower 20% of income had a 40% illegitimacy rate.

Clearly, there are a bunch of things going on. If you have a lot of money, being Beta is not an impediment to marriage. You can still be "Alpha" and have all those unsexy qualities women loathe: idealizing or pedalizing your mate, telling her constantly you love her, never checking out other women, never instilling uncertainty about the relationship, never being that guy other women want to have ... all that and more can be done and a marriage maintained if you are in the upper 20% of income. Being even a mini-master of the Universe makes a man by definition, sexy to women. Even his wife! So she won't divorce him, and will marry him in the first place. Since other men defer to him, due to his wealth and power, he's sexy! Thus worth having.

And of course, being married to him means a summer cottage in the Hamptons, heck summer as a verb not a season.

For women in the middle class, that increasingly is not in the cards. Raymond is correct, women find men who are their equal ... unsexy. No woman, anywhere, wanted a man who was her equal. That's a ticket to palookaville. Or single motherhood. If women in the Upper Classes have their pick of the mini-masters of the Universe, middle class women have Joe from Accounting. And no one wants Joe. He does not intimidate anyone, he does not boss any one around, no one fears him, he's not made of money, and thus power. Nothing. Why bother?

Shame, social inertia, a desire for security, those things still have limited White Middle class women to "only" 20% illegitimacy. But the tide cannot be held back forever.

Consider lower class White women. The ones most in need of a husband, to add another income to the table, to provide help in child rearing, to provide an extra security level. These women have reached near Hispanic/Mexican levels of illegitimacy. Why?

One reason is, that the men around them are not equal ... they're inferior! And no one wants inferior men. The only men they find even remotely sexy are those men ... other men are afraid of, and for good reason. The thugs. The bad boys. The crazy ones. These seem to be the only guys White Working Class women find suitable for impregnating them.

And lets review, shall we? Condoms. The Pill. The Patch. The Morning After Pill. Abortion. No woman gets pregnant by a guy she does not want to be pregnant by, in a sustained and deliberate choice. The same is true for Black women, who actively choose the thuggiest of thugs, because that is the only kind of man they find sexy -- one that other men fear. Mexican women are the same, consistently choosing for fathers, not the decent and hardworking men around them, which yes there are many still who would make them excellent husbands and fathers, but the dangerous gang-bangers and thugs.

As Roissy points out, Anders Brevik, who killed over 70 people, most of them defenseless teens, is getting mountains of love letters. If Chicks Dig Jerks, and they do, they dig even more thugs, bad boys, and violent men. As Roissy put it:

As everyday observation to those with the eyes to see demonstrates, the primary motivation is women’s love for unrepentant, rule-breaking assholes. That is the elemental, core female hindbrain algorithm that governs all other lustful dispositions and is the catalyst for her mate choice decisions.

Women love assholes because they are assholes. Because it inspires in women those emotions that most delight their pleasure centers. And that, based on the reaction it engenders from civilized men and women alike, is the truth too scary to contemplate.

Women love assholes. Any perusal of Twilight, or the other vampire chick-lit, will tell you that. As will any Rom-Com. This is just hard-wired. But it is not what you think. Because women did not always have the urge for assholes.

When women had significant social inequality, but mostly full legal equality, most women did not swoon for jerks. Assholes and thugs did not make women aroused. The comment by "Bounder" on Roissy's post Chicks Dig Jerks: Prison Edition would have been from Planet Bizarro fifty years ago:

I’m an attorney (fuck you too) and this impulse is even more pronounced among the alpha lawyer women. Frequently female attorneys are caught sexing their scumbag clients.

It starts early. HRC [Human Rights Coalition -- ed] has inmate letter writing campaigns and tons of female law students attend spending their 130+ IQs writing to 75 IQ scumbags. It is beyond fucking hilarious.

The female passion for thugs is one unknown, mostly, to men and women of about fifty years ago or more. It is entirely due to women being fully socially and culturally as well as legally equal to men. If not, in fact, superior.

Raymond is right, women find men their equal to be ... unsexy. Hence the "sexy" TV shows set in the 1960's, Mad Men and Pan Am and Playboy Bunny Club. Where the big shots are sexy master of the universe, and women compete to be his number one squeeze. Today Mr. Big would find a sexual harassment lawsuit, a workplace hostile to women finding, and all the men would be sexually invisible because they would not be the sexy guys higher up in the totem pole but men at the same position if not in fact, significantly lower down.

Almost no woman (with any options at all, any!) will find a man her equal even remotely sexy. None will find a man inferior to him sexy.

And as we've seen, no woman will have kids with a man she finds unsexy. But certainly will have kids on her own with men she finds sexy but knows won't stick around.

Raymond looks at it from the wrong angle: how can society get women a good husband? Given that women have now gotten the best of all possible worlds: maximum access to sexy men, and single motherhood with said sexy men. This is exactly what women wanted, because they in fact created it. They chose, actively, the men they slept with. And they chose to have kids with them, knowing them unlikely in the extreme to stick around and marry them and raise kids. Women, collectively, of their own free will, chose to trade sexy now and kids with sexy now over some guy sticking around. Figuring that they will be happier with kids by an Alpha, even dirt poor, than married and middle class with some icky Beta Male. Who lacks even the most tiny bit of sexiness.

Women don't want husbands ... of men who are equal. Nor are men bailing out of marriage. Women choose, and choose increasingly except for Upper Class White women (a tiny demo by the way) ... bad boys and single motherhood. Women are only interested in buying marriage if the man is sexy. Submission? They already have to offer that ... to the bad boys. Thats part of just admission into his bedroom.

Raymond's problem is his mental model. He assumes women want the things they wanted, in 1950, when significant but not unbridgeable social inequalities made most men fairly sexy to most women, and thus helped maintain the nuclear family and marriage. The men they would marry, were all relatively sexy, because they themselves while not subservient chattel, had significant social inequalities.

Now, women will NOT COMPROMISE ON THE SEXY. Not a bit. Men must be sexy to be considered for sex, and then marriage. All the re-jiggering of gender equality (and thus sexual freedom for women) won't address that, and is unlikely anyway. Women are no more going to demand, that they be now made socially unequal in any way, to their male peers. Why would they? What's in it for them? Having had a taste of the most Alpha of Alphas, be it the hipster jerk of Williamsburg for Middle Class White women, or the true thug for Working Class women of all colors, why would they go back? How can they go back? How can society re-make itself, depending on female consumer spending, so that most ordinary men are sexy enough for women to consider sleeping with and then marrying?

Please.

So family formation in the nuclear way is over. Family means, for Black women, a single mother and two children or more, each with different fathers (Black women lead the nation at more than 50% of all births of a second or later child to a different father than the previous). Of course, that makes for an interesting sibling dynamic, one fraught with rivalry more than love. But its damn sexy, dammit, for the women involved.

Family, for Mexican women, means basically the same thing, just not as much as quickly. For Working Class White women, it is closing in on the Black family model, and it is even for the Middle Class White women.

Which means just as in the Black demographic, you will see, rapidly growing, a lot of men who never married, and remain outside of both sex and reproduction. These are life's losers, and their way to "win" is to thug it up, as much as possible, because if other men fear them, women will love them. Yes, that is the equation.

Children, meanwhile, will live in a chaotic, threatening, and violent situation. One in which power is defined by the ability and willingness to deploy as much violence as possible as unexpectedly as possible. They will be poor, and their prospects very poor. The way in which people reproduce is the man becomes a sexy killer, and the most brutal of them gets the most beautiful girl. Men who are insufficiently violent, brutal, and ruthless get weeded out one or another from reproduction, only the most violent reproduce, and none take an interest or care in their children. This is the way in which most of humanity has lived, for most of its existence, and is a poverty-factory though one that produces for women some very sexy men. Men reliably more powerful and with higher status than themselves.

This is the ugly truth of it. Western Civilization is built upon repression. NOT as feminists say, half-truthfully, on female repression. But upon repression of women's ability to get the sexiest men. Western Civilization requires soaking up all those men who create violence and poverty into marriage. Into making them stakeholders directly into society, by giving them a small family, all their own, which they will mostly (not always but mostly) work themselves to death to keep and improve. Just as Napoleon ended the French Revolution and made peasants into ultra conservative Frenchmen by giving them small plots of land, so too did the nuclear family make most men into conservative, society improvers. Not ugly conquer-or-die gamblers.

Western Civilization means the end of sexy. The end of sexy men, anyway, as the supply of those truly sexy, the Alphas, who dominate other men and make them afraid, are limited in the extreme. And their ability to create massive harems is also limited. Thus, yes, Western Civilization does depend on sexual repression, but of unlimited choice by women of ultra sexy men. The supply of ultra-sexy men is limited, as are the options for Alphas, and women in Western Civilization have had the restriction on creating a vast pool of thugs, bad boys, and the like to choose from.

Moreover, if they had kids by these men, they'd pay the consequences (other men would not help them or help raise their kids). Lacking a husband, they'd starve, to put it bluntly. Critically, other women would not care, either.

Women were mostly free, to choose from any number of men, even though they could not create a vast pool of sexy men (rogues, outlaws, bad boys, thugs). They had far greater rights than that of other women, in other cultures, races, and places. Their rights increased, not decreased, over time, unlike that of say Muslim women. Women just had to choose wisely, for risk elimination as well as sexiness. Women had to trade-off on the qualities that made them aroused (violent domination of other men, or simply domination and increased status relative to them) versus those that would keep them clothed and fed: faithfulness, agreeableness, income, and ability.

What women could not do is create underwriters for the risk of bad boys, as the modern welfare state does today. Yes, in that sense women were suppressed, as people of Ancient Athens were suppressed by lacking Ipads and free Wi-Fi and streaming video. If a woman chose a bad boy, she chose all the risk. Women taking on the risk are quite capable of making informed judgments on that matter.

So what is likely to happen? More of the same. Birthrates will continue to fall, because women will chase sexy men, of whom there are either just a few, their bosses, the local thugs, Alphas who play in a rock band and have a drug habit, the handsome player. They'll choose single motherhood with the last Alpha guy they can have, fairly late, over marriage and family with a Beta Male fairly young. Thus guaranteeing small family sizes (another component by the way of single motherhood). Welfare is likely to collapse as Whites as well as Blacks and Hispanics demand it, under economic recession that becomes permanent. Creating a sudden drop-off of reproduction for all, as Welfare simply ceases to exist like the Roman Empire in the West around 400 AD. You can't have kids with bad boys, if there is on one to pick up the tab.

Life will get a lot more violent. For everyone. And there will be a race to the bottom for sexy, as delineated by violence. Since in an economic recession, the only way to make other men your inferior is to make them fear you. Men won't stop wanting sex, and the idea that women will return to social inequality no matter how small or marginal is quaint. And as dead as the England where Vicars get around on bicycles (instead of Mosques proclaiming Allah).

What will be interesting (in a Dark Ages sort of way) is the changes brought upon by birthrate collapse, all across the board. Now, the Welfare state subsidizes kids by Mexicans, and to a lesser extent Blacks. A birthrate akin to Whites (generally outside of Welfare for racial, cultural, and legal reasons) means social collapse. A Detroit writ large, ever more portions of cities abandoned to wilderness, smaller and smaller cities, less and less technology, and flight to security where ever "lords" may rule by utter violence. Just like the last Dark Ages.

Is this "all women's fault?"

No. It is no one's fault. It was not the Roman Emperors, nor the people, nor the gladiators, nor those who crucified saints, nor those who bribed Goths, or Vandals, or Huns, for the collapse of the Roman Empire. It just happened, because Romans stopped having kids, and many more died of the plague, of bad harvests and starvation, and so they could not hold onto anything. Bad Emperors came and went, and so did good ones. There just weren't enough Romans, as Roman women had fewer and fewer children, and the Empire became more and more slave and less and less free.

Women did not sit down and take a vote, to destroy Western Civilization. Women did not ask for the pill, the condom, the patch, and more to be invented. They did not ask for social anonymity, high mobility, and the destruction of social repression and cohesion (the two go together). Women did not ask for the modern consumer and media culture. Women did not ask for men to be brought DOWN to their equal or lower.

Yes women in the main agree with most or all of these things, but that is beside the point. Women just want what they want: men who are sexy, which means men who are higher than they are socially. That's hard-wired, it cannot be changed, it is part of women's innate biology. Women ARE flexible in how they pursue sexiness in men, just as men are flexible in how they pursue sexiness in women, for that matter.

The ugly truth is, no one man or woman is willing to admit, that wealth, power, and Western Civilization is built upon sexual repression. Not a total repression of women, but of Alpha men, women's ability to create vast pools of sexy Alpha men (in practice this means thugs) and the ability to get others to underwrite the risk of sexy men.

Western Civilization means NO SEXY MEN. Or damned few, at any rate. No wonder most women HATE HATE HATE Western Civilization. Who finds guys like Norman Borlaug, Jonas Salk, or Philo T. Farnsworth sexy? As opposed to say, Pele, Khadaffi, Carlos the Jackal, or Vladimir Putin? Western Civilization is the long slow grind, the constant search for new advantages, requiring massive amounts of nerdy, focused men who search for advantage because they like it, and are good at it, and need to ... feed their families. Thus nerdy obsessions turn to the Green Revolution, not World of Warcraft. Polio Vaccines not Angry Birds. The invention of Television not Magic the Gathering. Real technology to accomplish something of value, creating Western Advantage, not trivial past-times for men outside the mate market.


...Read more