Iron Rule In TV Commercials

From a commenter over at J. Derbyshire’s National Review column:

I too have noticed the “iron rule in TV commercials”, but have refrained from mentioning it to family & friends to avoid being labeled a kook or a crank. Expanding on the rule: If a commercial includes more than one person, there will be “diversity”. The man is always the dupe, hapless moron or jerk. More than one man – it’s the white guy. Only women – it’s the white woman. I challenge anyone to find an exception to this rule!

I accept this challenge, and have enlisted a battalion of Chateau acolytes to watch hundreds of hours of TV commercials in my stead for the elusive exception to the Iron Rule of Dopey White Men in Any Scenario and Dopey White Women in Female-Only Casts. When the elusive exception is found and tagged, there will be a party at John Stewart headquarters where champagne toasts will be hoisted to the continued predominance of self-congratulatory snark.

Read Full Post »

Austrian Politician Has Heavy Sack

There’s one word to describe the guy in this video — balls. Via Dennis Mangan, an Austrian MP unloads on the rank hypocrisy of the Turkish ambassador and the vile stupidity of the open borders one-worlder assimilationist suicide cult.

“Mr. Ambassador, enter the Orient Express and go back to Istanbul, your wonderland!”

If only we had a few men with big brass ones like him on this side of the Atlantic, instead of the smarmy, unctuous faygalas like Barney Frank, Lincoln Chafee and Harry Reid we seem to endlessly be stuck with.

Europe is waking up. Will America follow? Or is it already too late to make a difference? There’s hope and change in the wind, all right…

Read Full Post »

Want Fewer Sex Crimes? Legalize Victimless Sexual Outlets

A year ago, a study came out that provided evidence for my assertion that legalizing prostitution would reduce the incidence of rape. I wrote about that study here. Feminists were OUTRAGED, naturally, because feminists wrongly believe rape is about power, not sex.

Now, on a not-so-loosely related matter, we have similarly unsettling evidence — to both feminists and family values traditionalists — from another scientific study that legalizing child porn will help reduce the rate of real life child sex abuse.

Could making child pornography legal lead to lower rates of child sex abuse? It could well do, according to a new study by Milton Diamond, from the University of Hawaii, and colleagues.

Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.

The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

Diamond and team looked at what actually happened to sex-related crimes in the Czech Republic as it transitioned from having a strict ban on sexually explicit materials to a situation where the material was decriminalized. Pornography was strictly prohibited between 1948 and 1989. The ban was lifted with the country’s transition to democracy and, by 1990, the availability and ownership of sexually explicit materials rose dramatically. Even the possession of child pornography was not a criminal offense.

The researchers monitored the number of sex-related crimes from Ministry of Interior records – rape, attempted rape, sexual assault, and child sex abuse in particular – for 15 years during the ban and 18 years after it was lifted.

Most significantly, they found that the number of reported cases of child sex abuse dropped markedly immediately after the ban on sexually explicit materials was lifted in 1989. In both Denmark and Japan, the situation is similar: Child sex abuse was much lower than it was when availability of child pornography was restricted.

Yeah, correlation is not causation, but the correlation linking availability of child porn with an immediate decrease of reported child sex abuse is remarkably strong.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out why this is so, (or, conversely, it takes a feminist to NOT see the bleeding obvious): Loser men and pedophiles with few consensual or legal sexual outlets to drain their balls will be more incentivized to seek relief with real victims. But throw an endless stream of porn at them — distasteful child porn (using graphical representations of kids rather than real images) or regular adult porn — and the daily ball self-drainage serves as an excellent demotivational technique against engaging in criminal sexual abuse.

Feminists who blather on idiotically and without a shred of evidence that porn and “female objectification” increases male sexual violence are completely discredited by the results from these actual scientific studies. But feminists were never big on the truth, especially when the truth gets in the way of shifting more social and state power to women’s advantage, especially ugly women’s advantage.

If shrieking femcunts knew the first thing about the workings of the male sex drive, they would know that men getting regular ball drainage with willing sexual partners are the kind of confident, no-sweat chaps they can’t help but love. It’s the involuntarily celibate omegas and psychologically skewed pedos and rapists with all their pent-up ball juice who cause trouble. Give them a legal sexual outlet with whores and porn and suddenly they’re not tottering on the precipice of intent to commit sexual abuse.

Other results showed that, overall, there was no increase in reported sex-related crimes generally since the legalization of pornography. Interestingly, whereas the number of sex-related crimes fell significantly after 1989, the number of other societal crimes – murder, assault, and robbery – rose significantly.

This is interesting. I was under the impression that all violent crime was down across the board since the early 90s, and that this trend was evident in a broad selection of countries. If true, this would add even more weight to the findings linking lower reported sex crimes with increased availability of virtual sexual outlets. I suppose men who are inclined to murder could blow off their psychotic steam playing Call of Duty. On the other hand, violent first person shooters may operate differently on male dopamine receptors than does porn; there is evidence that, as opposed to the pressure-valve releasing effect of porn, violent video games torque a man’s testosterone and make him more aggressive.

Read Full Post »

Belittle League

Submitted for your disapproval…

The phone rang. It was Zeets the Throwback Barbarian, Disdainer of Text, Facebook and Email.

“Went to watch a Little League game my woman’s nephew was playing in. Really disturbing.”

“How so?”

“Well, the game was in a hoity-toity neighborhood. Lots of yuppies live there. Mercedes and BMWs parked everywhere. One of the fathers was a lawyer… except not the assertive type. White and pasty, with a general softness.”

“A herb.”

“Yes, Baron Pighausen! Anyhow, I’m watching this game, and something’s off about the whole thing. The field and the dugouts were chaos. Kids running around, no order, no managing. There are a bunch of players in the on-deck circle swinging their bats at the same time, which is against baseball rules. You’d think the manager or the fathers would know that, but they were just letting the kids do whatever they wanted. One of the bats almost hit another kid.”

“Sounds like a Romper Room.”

“It gets worse. The runner on first base got hit by a batted ball and no one called him out. Baseball rules are that runners interfering with fair balls are out. None of the fathers knew that or didn’t care. One of the kids was screaming at the top of his lungs that the runner was out. Screaming! ‘He was out!! He was out!!’”

“What a sorry spectacle.”

“But that’s not all. Here’s the best part. They weren’t keeping score! No scoring allowed.”

“This was a rule? No scorekeeping? Holy crap, it’s like something out of a feminist wet dream.”

“Yep! A no-scoring game would have been laughed right off the field when I played Little League. And fathers back then knew the goddamned rules of the game. They wouldn’t have tolerated a chaotic playground like this.”

“Wow, they’re removing any competitiveness from the game. It’s like they don’t want boys to be boys. What kind of parents are these?”

“Well, there were a couple of unaccompanied mothers there, and some fathers, too. A few fathers showed up later in the game. Oh, and a lesbian couple. Well, that last one’s easy to explain.”

“No doubt. But the rest have no excuse. What kind of Little League is this?”

“I don’t know, but it’s nothing like the Little League I remember. There is some good news, though. A faint glimmer of hope. The kid screaming that the runner was out rattled all the parents. He was completely frustrated that the parents or umps were not following the rules. Other kids started joining in the mayhem. The boys understood something was wrong, and they were acting out.”

“What a glimpse into a degenerate culture. These Swipple adults are trying to shove emasculation down the throats of our nation’s boys, and the boys aren’t having any of it. They’re fighting back, without really understanding why, against crap that feels wrong to them.”

“The boys were out of control with rage and frustration, totally disobedient, doing whatever they felt like doing. Maybe that’s a good thing. I left feeling a little more positive for this country’s future.”

***

Yes. It might be our only chance for salvation. Our country is being assaulted by a new elite of SWPLs who disrespect, even loathe, American tradition and historical precedence, and deny differences between boys and girls. If they are to be defeated, (and total crushing defeat is the only answer), then taking up bats and swinging them with abandon might be the only avenue good people have left to victory.

Read Full Post »

The Forager/Farmer Thesis Is Wrong

Robin Hanson has been beating the drum on his liberaltarian wet dream known as the forager/farmer thesis in a series of posts. Basically, “liberal” values and lifestyle are a reflection of humanity’s ancient forager (hunter-gatherer) ways, while “conservative”, or traditional, values and lifestyle are emergent properties of our relatively more recent 10,000 year old farmer (agricultural) heritage. Modern foragers in the form of cafe-loitering SWPLs sipping dragonwell tea and reading Dan Savage columns are essentially freeriding on the industrial and moral substrates that were created by rules-following and hierarchical farmer ancestors. Thanks to their comfy livings and safe environments, elite cosmopolitan liberals in Western societies are returning to the values and lifestyles of their distant forager forebears, while modern traditionalists hew to more rigid codes of conduct and warn them (in so many words) that all foraging and no farming makes Jack a weak boy. (You can see where this is heading.)

If you buy Hanson’s thesis, this neatly explains blue state vs red state, Obama vs Bush, open borders nuts vs immigration realists, and Apple vs Windows.

Hanson relies for much of his speculative evidence on the Sex At Dawn book, which I promiscuously manhandled here. But there’s too much wrong with the claims made by that book to sufficiently lend support to the Forager vs Farmer (i.e., liberal vs conservative) thesis of clashing values and lifestyles.

For instance, Hanson and Ryan elide the force of jealousy in shaping human sexual dynamics. If we were built for polyamory as Ryan claims, or free love promiscuity as Hanson says, then jealousy would not have evolved to the extent it did (among Euro-descended people at least) to become a powerfully ingrained emotional hindbrain response to infidelity or suspicions of cheating. Both men and women experience jealousy, though men seem to react more violently when in its throes, (as would be predicted by a “farmer” reading of sociosexuality, since men stand more to lose by a cheating lover).

In addition, just about every polyamorous, free love utopia/forager commune that has been tried in historical record has utterly failed, some of them spectacularly. (It’s no coincidence that most dedicated polyamorists are androgynous, middle-aged frumps.)

Hanson and Ryan claim foragers are/were nonviolent compared to farmers. But from everything I’ve read on the matter, that is wrong as well: modern hunter-gatherers have impressive levels of tribal violence, mostly of the raiding and randomly savage variety. Farmers are also capable of violence, but when they do it the violence is coordinated and planned; the random individual violence that typifies forager society isn’t a steady state feature of farmer existence. I’m not going to dig around for relevant links, so I’ll throw it open to the commenters to do the dirty work.

Finally, a big point of Hanson’s repackaged thesis is that “rich and safe” modern foragers — implicitly the intellectual and social liberal elites of Western society — pursue and advocate a promiscuous lifestyle. Except the data show that isn’t necessarily true. Higher IQ men place greater value on monogamy and sexual exclusivity and are less likely to cheat than lower IQ men.

There are too many holes in this tidy farmer/forager outlook to take it as anything more than United States of Canada porn for self-satisfied cosmopolitan lefties to jack their head hamsters off to. And I say this as someone who lives to the fullest the modern, promiscuous forager lifestyle. I know its personal appeal, and its immolating potential for the wider society.

Read Full Post »

The SWPL Network

I saw The Social Network aka The Asperger’s Wing and thought it was a superficially entertaining dialogorrhea fest that’s supposed to make credentialed class yuppies and SWPLs inwardly gloat that their brains are quick enough to follow the zipadeedooda banter. The theeeeatre was a packed house; looking around, the crowd reminded me of the people who went to go see Jodie Foster’s IQ mash note Little Man Tate. Same faces, same age bracket, same preternatural glow of self-satisfied superiority.

Which got me thinking… why did this thin psychological slice of Zuckerberg’s inner sanctum (Hey! A hot chick’s rejection spurs him to achieve great things!) generate such buzz among the suckup credentialati? (Judging by Zuckernerd’s bland Asian girlfriend, he doesn’t seem like a larger-than-life figure upon whom to base an entire plotline.)

This movie says a lot more about the audience demo giving it accolades than it does about a handful of socially retarded code monkeys who hit it big in the internet glory days. The fact is, SWPLs are enamored of genetic genius and creativity… not ambition, not fortitude, not conscientiousness or discipline… IQ and CQ. The whole lot of them has Harvard envy, and they watch dramatized movies about their IQ superiors with equal parts schadenfreude and admiration. They’ve got a hard-on for good breeding, even if they’d never admit it.

Jesse Eisenberg is not a good actor. The guy who played the Winklevii was good. I was hoping the movie… excuse me, film… would take a wild twist where the Winklevii tag teamed Zuckerberg in a back alley. Rashida Jones is eminently bangable. Justin Timberlake has an annoying face.

Read Full Post »

Anal Sex The New Technicality

(This post is dedicated to Geert Wilders in his fight against the forces of powerful leftist intellectuals intent on punishing him for the sin of speaking his mind on a subject that gives the leftie witch hunters the hives — namely, the capitulation of Europe to Islam. May he be victorious in his battle against these traitors not only to the West, but to their own classical liberal principles.)

Anal sex among women is up, way up. And not just anal sex; oral intimacy is up too.

Here’s the big story. In 1992, 16 percent of women aged 18-24 said they’d tried anal sex. Now 20 percent of women aged 18-19 say they’ve done it, and by ages 20-24, the number is 40 percent. In 1992, the highest percentage of women in any age group who admitted to anal sex was 33. In 2002, it was 35. Now it’s 46.

According to various bloggers around the web who routinely cite data from the General Social Survey (GSS) purporting to show that women are actually getting less slutty since the 1980s, this new data throws a monkey wrench into those prematurely ejaculated conclusions. If women are getting less slutty, how is it anal and oral sex are increasing among all age groups?

Well, it depends on how you define “slut”. I have previously contended that the GSS sex data cannot be fully trusted because 1) women (and to a lesser extent, men) have a deeply ingrained inclination to lie about matters concerning the most ego-wrapped delicate questions of sexual practice, and 2) women in particular are prone to dismissing acts of anal, oral and hand sex as instances of actual “sex”. Try to put yourself in the fuck-me pumps of a 22 year old virgin who is answering anonymous survey questions about her sex life.

How many men have you had sex with in the past five years?

GIRL: [thinking to herself] Well, there was Tommy, but he only did me in the ass, so that doesn’t count. Then there was Trent, but I only gave him blowjobs. I told him that I wanted to save myself for marriage. Then the asshole left me! And there was Brian, but except for a few BJs and a tug job behind the 7-11, I never gave it up to him. And…. let’s see, who else… oh yeah, Joe, Chris, some guy who called himself the Dude, Adam, Hoight, Anfernee… mostly anal, some mouth love. But I didn’t give my virginity to any of them. Yay me! So… I didn’t have sex with any men.

You can see where this is going.

In other words, the female rationalization hamster is shitting bite-sized pellets all over the GSS results. And now we have data publicized in the Journal of Sexual Medicine providing evidence for my “Hamster Skewed Sociosexuality Discrepancy” theory, in the form of rising anal and oral sex rates among previously reported less sexually-active women. Something’s not adding up among the numbers, and that something is women’s inability to correctly diagnose their own levels of sluttiness. Anal sex is the new technicality that lets women avoid the slut label while allowing them to experience the exquisite proxy pleasure of procreative sex.

To wit, as a man, are you going to give a “get out of the whorehouse free” card to a woman who is a vaginal virgin but has had a platoon of peckers up her bunghole? No, of course not.

Not only are more chicks trying anal sex, but the data show that more of them are sticking with the taboo pleasure.

The last time I looked at the anal sex data, I figured that most women who reported having done it meant they’d tried it just once. I was wrong. If you push these women beyond the “have you ever” question, the numbers stay surprisingly high, and they’re getting higher. In 1992, the percentage of women in their 20s and 30s who said they’d had anal sex in the past year was around 10 percent. Now that number has doubled to more than 20 percent, and one-third of these women say they’ve done it in the last month. Among all women surveyed, the number who reported anal sex in their most recent sexual encounter was 3 percent to 4 percent.

Most women love anal sex once they’ve tried it. I’m convinced there is a physiological connection between the anus/rectum area and the orgasmic zones of the pussy that accounts for the thrills women receive from ass love. There is also the dominance aspect of anal sex that is undoubtedly highly arousing to women; after all, what position is more degrading than bent over taking it up the poop chute? Degrading = tingles? No. Degrading = seismic snatch waves.

One of my fondest foreplay moments was when a (married) Russian chick (from Vladivostok, if that means anything to you Russophiles) stripped naked, turned around, and looking inquisitively over her shoulder, asked in the most pleasingly feminine voice, slightly accented: “Would you like to do me in the ass?” Naturally, I obliged. She squealed like a piglet that found a fresh mudhole… for me to plug up.

That’s a lot of butt sex. And remember, this is what women are reporting. If anything, they’re probably understating the truth.

You don’t say? Trying to get a straight answer from women about their sexual history is like getting cultured yuppies to admit the real reason why they moved to the suburbs once their kids were ready for public schooling.

So what’s with all the buggery? Is it brutality? Coercion? A porn-inspired male fantasy at women’s expense?

It’s none of those things and all of those things. Chicks dig the submissive posture. The pleasure of submitting, exemplified most conspicuously by presenting for rough anal intrusion, induces orgasms in women.

Apparently not. Check out the orgasm data. Among women who had vaginal sex in their last encounter, the percentage who said they reached orgasm was 65. Among those who received oral sex, it was 81. But among those who had anal sex, it was 94. Anal sex outscored cunnilingus. […]

What could explain this? Taboo thrill? Clitoral migration? Some new kind of vegetable oil?

Here’s my guess. Look carefully at Table 4, Pages 355-6. Only 6 percent of women who had anal sex in their last encounter did so in isolation. Eighty-six percent also had vaginal sex. Seventy-two percent also received oral sex. Thirty-one percent also had partnered masturbation. And the more sex acts a woman engaged in during the encounter, the more likely she was to report orgasm. These other activities are what gave the women their orgasms. The anal sex just came along for the ride.

So why did the inclusion of anal sex bump the orgasm figure up to 94 percent? It didn’t. The causality runs the other way. Women who were getting what they wanted were more likely to indulge their partners’ wishes. It wasn’t the anal sex that caused the orgasms. It was the orgasms that caused the anal sex.

I’m not sure about Saletan’s reading of the orgasm data. What percent of women had vaginal, oral or hand sex in isolation in their last encounter? Those numbers might be equally low. If it was true that a variety and increasing number of sex acts contributed to women’s reaching orgasm, then we would see women’s claims of reaching orgasm more evenly dispersed between the various sex acts. A woman who had anal, oral, hand and vaginal sex in one session would be just as likely to reach orgasm during any one of those acts. Instead, anal sex comes out on top, brown and stinky. The answer to why women reach orgasm with anal sex more often than other sexual practices is simpler than the reason given by Saletan — most chicks, and men too, don’t like the idea of sticking shit-covered cocks anywhere else than the butt. A2M porn fantasies to the contrary notwithstanding, the female ass is generally the last place men and women like to go after a long lovemaking session violating her less toxic orifices. Given that, it’s no surprise that later-to-orgasm chicks climax more often during the last sexual act than during the earlier acts. Furthermore, anal sex is in and of itself very pleasurable for women. It could also be that women simply have an easier time cumming with a dick shoved up their butt.

If anal sex is a trailing indicator of women’s sexual satisfaction, then by all means, let’s toast the new findings. Here’s to you, ladies. Bottoms up.

I remember reading an astounding sex survey figure in a book about human sexuality. I can’t recall the name of the book; I think it was something like “What Men Want, What Women Want”. It was published in the mid 90s. The author had data showing that the college football team quarterback at the University of Oklahoma had had 2,000 sexual partners over his four year college career.

I don’t know what made me think of that.

Read Full Post »