Days of Broken Arrows provides a short history of Charles Manson, convicted murderer, cult leader, psychopath, and alpha male with a knack for harem building and marrying much younger women while in prison for life.
Son of a prostitute.
Spent most of his youth in detention centers.
When he was finally released as an adult, he begged to stay inside, worrying he could not handle life on the outside.
With a few years he had harems of women.
Orgies were so great that Beach Boy Dennis Wilson invited them to move in.
Dennis Wilson was a major Alpha Male rock star of the ’60s.
Manson then order his women to kill.
They were so devoted that they did.
His women were not ugly losers — some were former cheerleaders.
Say what you will about the guy, but he had an innate Alpha quality. Shame it was put to such bad use. Guys who whine they can’t get women should think about his life and how he managed to not only get women to sleep with him but basically make them servants to his will. He had some serious charisma.
I’m not surprised at the wife who is a fraction of his age. I’d be surprised if he didn’t have groupies.
He was even a talented songwriter. He placed a song on a Beach Boys album and penned this, which was later covered by Guns N’ Roses.
Yes, chicks dig jerks.
Some dig them a little
some dig them a lot.
Some chicks dig them
in the parking lot.
Some dig them white
some dig them black.
And some chicks even dig them
when they go on the attack.
Yes, chicks dig jerks
this much is true.
They dig jerks more
when they’re black and blue.
Chicks dig jerks
of all sizes and hues.
They dig charmers and badboys
and prisoners too!
Some chicks dig jerks
of the jerkiest sort.
They marry crazy killers
60 years older, and short.
Nice men and kind men
need not apply.
It’s dangerous folk
who catch a chick’s eye.
So when you see a puddle
and lay down your coat
just remember the chicks
backstage at death row.
Ol’ Charlie Manson
got himself married.
While you sit at home
and whack your tally.
On a related topic, F. Roger Devlin pondered the reason for the observable preference of women for jerks, in an article titled “The Question of Female Masochism“. A CH read of the week. The take-home punch:
I would suggest that female sadism might be expected to emerge in a society where men refuse to or are prevented from displaying dominance. A society-wide failure of men to take charge of women is likely to produce a great deal of conscious or unconscious sexual frustration in women which may express itself as sadism. […]
I do not know if frustrated masochistic instincts cause sadism in women—it is just my hunch. What I do feel confident in stating is that female masochism is a critically important subject which neither feminist denial nor the sanctimonious gallantry of Christian traditionalists should dissuade us from investigating.
You only had to listen… to yer loveable Heartiste.
There is no male equivalent to the female “five minutes of alpha” heart trap. Men simply don’t experience the same intense urge as women to constantly compare and contrast present lovers to past or potential future lovers. The hypergamous instinct, while technically a property of both sexes, is most pronounced in women. To reiterate why: Women have 400 viable eggs, men have billions of sperm.
However, wistful remembrance of old lovers, less an exercise in regret than in appreciation, does lay claim to frontier outposts of men’s hearts. The swell of erotic nostalgia will vary from man to man, and reach crest heights directly proportional to a man’s breadth of bedroom experience. The more women a man has lain and loved (and labored under), the greater his predilection to cynically scour his past for discarded perfection.
But it’s not the prettiest women in his past that such a man might fondly recall. Instead, it’s those “first movers” who move his memory. There is something lustfully osmotic about the late teenaged man’s brain that when permeated by the heartsmoke of that first or second lover seals the memory hard in neural carbonite. The ethereal aura surrounding one’s first love only vibrates stronger with passing years and passing lovers, until the enfeebling effect of old age finally defeats its crepuscular magnetism.
On that subject, reader Trainspotter eulogizes,
No matter how many girls you date/bang, when all is said and done, only a few will matter. Maybe only one. Everyone else is background noise. In time, you’ll literally forget almost all of them, as they are utterly irrelevant to anything you care about in life. But there will be a few Great Ones (yes, I’m stealing that from A Bronx Tale). You never forget them. Those are the ones you miss. Those are the ones that haunt!
Talk to a guy who’s banged two hundred girls, and ask him which ones were really important to him. He’ll probably give three names. Maybe a couple more, maybe a couple less. I could give five names that matter to me, but two stand out the most. Everything else is mere clutter. What the hell was her name? Who cares!
And here’s the bad news: chronologically, his top names will probably be mostly concentrated in the first ten percent, maybe twenty percent, of those conquests.
Something to think about. We often make the most intense connections when we are too immature to appreciate them, and most cavalier at throwing them aside. There is a paradox in there, somewhere, and also, I think, a lesson.
The searing chemical reaction of first loves requires two reagents: The unformed mind, and youth. Familiarity with the opposite sex may breed facility with them, but it also breeds ennui if one is not careful to exercise refinement of taste with the accumulating lessons. From the teens to mid 20s, men’s minds are ripe for imprinting, and the imprinting will be especially powerful in men with little prior romantic experience.
The other reagent, and the one Trainspotter hinted at, is sheer feminine youth. As teenagers, we men don’t appreciate the unearthly beauty of our female cohorts. Truly, a woman will never be as breathtakingly captivating as she is between the ages of 15 and 25 (and this range is skewed toward the younger age). A woman can still be beautiful well into her 30s, but as exquisitely beautiful as she was at 17? No. (The only exception to this rule with any practical significance is the obese teenage woman who loses the weight and transforms into the slender 28 year old yoga queen.)
The male appreciation for precious female youth doesn’t pick up steam until later in life, when younger women become more distant and older women more his dating partner norm. We as a species are cursed to value the good things in life with the clearest mind only in hindsight and when bedeviled by the less good things.
Imprinting + female youth = transcendent memories of first loves.
But there are other women who stir men’s longings, and who could properly rate alongside that first love. These are the women a man has just left behind, the nearest ghostly competitors to the woman he is now dating. Recent conquests linger in men’s thoughts because of their freshness, and if they were (at times) true loves, there will invariably follow flashes of padded regard. Men must wrestle with divinely received compulsions for sexual variety, and given that acquiring new variety is harder than tumescing on the laurels of past variety, men tend to accommodate their compulsion with the easy insertion of nearly corporeal memories.
The first ten percent, and the final ten percent. And somewhere between those two may hover aloft an outstanding lover or two who, through fateful circumstance, diverged from your shared path. Every other woman is, at best, recalled to dendritic apparition with strenuous mental exertion and, at worst, utterly forgotten. And as the years pile higher, the forgotten loves grow in number, though you’ll know this only in the abstract. Pain yourself to hold onto your anthology of women — and they will always be your women so long as you once took them completely — against the rust of time.
I call these once and present lovers the ephemeral few. With you when you want them, gone when you don’t, never existing when you have left them for good.
Charles Manson, perhaps the most infamous convicted killer of all time, is 79 years old and still locked up in California’s Corcoran State Prison, where he walks with a cane and sports chipped prison dentures. Star is a 25-year-old brunette who’s been loyally visiting Manson in jail since she was 19 years old and maintains several websites devoted to defending Manson and his pro-Earth environmental causes.
For those two of you who don’t know, Manson is one of America’s most infamous killers and cult leaders. When you combine fame with that sexy psycho vibe, pussy juice erupts all over the fruited plains.
And Star [ed: girls with one name are same night lay guarantees] says she can prove Manson is more devoted to her than any other girl: “I’ll tell you straight up, Charlie and I are going to get married,” she tells us. “When that will be, we don’t know. But I take it very seriously. Charlie is my husband. Charlie told me to tell you this. We haven’t told anybody about that.”
Star says there won’t be any conjugal visits because “California lifers no longer get them.” If they were an option, “we’d be married by now.”
Manson, however, seems less convinced the impending nuptials are a reality, “Oh that,” he says. “That’s a bunch of garbage. You know that, man. That’s trash. We’re just playing that for public consumption.”
Young hottie falls deeply in love with imprisoned killer 54 years her senior (and looking kind of badass for a geezer if you ask me). Young hottie wants to marry her old killer. Killer brushes aside her nuptial dreams as a PR ploy.
Reader Hair Slicked Back With Swag So Fresh (great handle) wrote to ask if CH could revive the posts that asked readers to rank female beauty in photos. The goal in those posts — achievement realized — was to demonstrate how men pretty much share the same taste in women.
You may think it obvious that men share the same gut reaction of what constitutes female beauty and female ugliness, and therefore not a subject worth bludgeoning to death, but the world is full of — and filling up more by the day with — defectives, misfits and losers who tirelessly propagandize pretty lies like “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” and “there’s a good man for every woman” and “sexual attraction is a matter of personal taste” and “grow old along with me the best is yet to be” and “BBWs have no trouble attracting men”. A few soul-shivving CH posts puncturing the bubble of platitudes that ensconces the degenerate freak mafia is but a ripple in the tidal wave of RAWMUSCLEDELUSION that is the hallmark of current Western intellectual discourse.
Hello CH, I’d like to commission a blog entry regarding these photos [ed: see pics below].
First of all, what do you see in these pictures?
Next, which of the two is hotter?
Finally, why did you pick one over the other?
Swag is getting at an interesting point about female beauty and men’s universal sexual preferences in his choice of these two particular women as ranking subjects. Although the rankings of homely women (4s and lower) and very attractive women (8s and higher) are largely agreed upon by the vast fantastic majority of men from all cultural and racial backgrounds, this near universal shared clear male preference gets more muddied in the fat part of the female beauty bell curve. Right there in the populous (YOUNG, SLENDER*) middle — where female 5s, 6s and 7s dominate the sea of snatch — the marginal differences in objective physical beauty that distinguish one girl from another in such a large population tend to exaggerate underlying idiosyncratic male tastes.
While general universal female attractiveness rules still mean that a randomly chosen typical 6 will not have as many, or as high quality, sexual marketplace options as a randomly chosen typical 7, there can be individual exceptions to this rule resulting from men’s particular preferences along minor, mostly cosmetic, beauty metrics. For example, a blonde 6 might get a man that both she and a brunette 7 want, simply because the man has a particularly strong preference for blondes. But that blonde 6 will likely lose out to a brunette 8 because the difference in facial beauty and how that appeals to universal primal male desire is great enough to overcome the individual man’s relatively weaker idiosyncratic preference for blondes.
*A few important points need to be made here.
First, obesity is skewing the female sexual market. Most American women are now chubby or worse. So the middle part of the female beauty curve in 2013 is now shifted to the left of where that same curve would have been in, say, 1960. The fat (heh) part of the female beauty curve is now shifted to where the dregs of womanhood — the 1s, 2s and 3s — Jabbanate. It’s no longer a bell curve but a pear curve. The 4s, 5s, 6s and 7s are still representative of the average of female beauty, but their total share in the female population has been sadly, tragically, whittled down to endangered species status.
Second, whenever we talk of female beauty rankings we are implicitly talking about women under the age of 30. Yeah, yeah there are some attractive 40-year-olds out there… for their age. Save it. Those attractive 40-year-olds were even hotter when they were 20-years-old. The wall spares no one, not even Monica Belucci. At best, the wall only hits some women harder and earlier than other women. This is a universal law about as predictable and unavoidable as the law of gravity. Sure, there are a few rare exceptions of women who miraculously got better looking into their late 20s or early 30s, but these biological rarities only serve to throw into stark relief the dictatorial governance of the primary SMP rule.**
**Many of these female late-bloomer exceptions are of former fatties who lost a ton of weight. A slender 35-year-old will be better looking to most men than a fatty 20-year-old version of herself.
Finally, we must note that there is one other group of rarified women whose ethereal beauty provokes a “narcissism of small differences” reaction in men: the hard 10s. 5s, 6s and 7s may cause some minor disagreement among men by dint of their numerical advantage in the female population, but hard 10s provoke the most heated disagreement. One man’s 10 is another man’s 9.5, and GODDAMNIT he is going to let you know that 0.5 points makes all the difference in the world. Male personal whim tends to get exaggerated to outsized importance when contemplating the beauty of truly exquisite creatures.
Anyway, onto the beauty ranking. Two girls are featured, in two different photos. They represent the slightly right-of-middle part of the female beauty curve. The objective here is not an absolute ranking of the two girls, but a relative one.
You, the readers, will decide which of these two girls, both of whom are fairly close together in looks and both of whom are representative of the majority of young, thin women, is the better looking of the two. Will the voting show significant disagreement? Or are men better at distinguishing, say, 6s from 7s than we give them credit for?
Here’s a close-up shot:
After you have voted in the above poll, write in the comments what distinguishing features of either girl swayed your judgment. What details about these two girls pushed you to vote one or the other as more attractive? Be as specific as possible. (Note to women voters: “specific” does not mean “she has a sexy chi”.)
Give that some thought, and then vote in this poll:
Results and analysis will be posted later.
Early return poll results are in and the winner, by an overwhelming margin of victory, is…
The girl on the left! And that’s a good thing for a lot of you guys because the girl on the right…
IS A MAN, BABY!
Reader Swag follows up:
Not everything is what it seems. You’ve been duped! The pictures do not contain two women, but rather, a man and a woman! The woman is the one in the white top and the man is the one in the black top. The man underwent hormone replacement therapy to turn into a tranny, and has been living as a woman for the past 8 months. The tranny’s actually wearing a wig until his real hair grows out long enough to look like a woman’s hair. They’re siblings, and the black top brother is only a few years older than the white top sister. Nice contrast, I know.
Let’s see what some readers had to say.
“the one on the right’s eyes seem to show an IOI but the one on the left is more deadpan.”
“And rightie is a 6 based on having a tight body in a world where 98 out of 100 women are fat or obese.”
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: Tranny hotter than fat chicks. What more needs to be said about fat chick prospects?
“People saying the one on the right is a 5? Really? Nobody’s standards are that delusionally high. 99% of the dudes here would gladly fuck either of them and be thankful for it.”
I don’t know that feel, bro.
“Girl in the white top is a quick fuck I’d maybe LTR the girl in black but cheat on her a lot.”
…wait a sec…. ok…
“The one on the right’s nose and general facial structure makes me think she’s a former man, to be honest. At first she looks quite good but if you look for a few seconds it just doesn’t feel quite right.”
Commenter Loc wins the thread and spares his masculine essence horrible indignity.
This being CH, an April Fool’s joke is not just a joke. There’s an underlying message. And that message is this:
Universal male attraction standards are vindicated again.
You may wonder how this is so, considering that men were arguing over the “beauty” of a tranny, and a few benighted souls even voted in favor of the tranny. Well, note how overwhelming is the victory for the real girl. Then notice how many men in the comments said that “something just wasn’t right” about the girl on the right. This person is probably the best looking, or rather the most realistic looking, tranny you will ever see, and STILL he couldn’t quite pull it off. Most men can pick up on the subtlest facial cues that differentiate plain from pretty women and, yes, uncannily fake women from real women.
Look, too, at the poll results for the features that readers said most informed their ranking judgments. Body, jawline, chin, eyes and noses were the big (heh) overriding facial characteristics that pinged men’s (and women’s) mate (or competitor) attractiveness triggers. As Swag writes,
What you should have noticed about the girl wearing the gray/white top:
– All-natural 32Ds (Titty-fuck, anyone? :P)
– Smaller facial features (softer jawline, pointed chin, modest cheekbones, etc.)
– Large and warm eyes that sparkle in the light
– Fuller and wetter bottom lip
– Congruent hairline parted close to the middle
– Tasteful fake nails on long, slender female fingers
– Sexy, hourglass figure within the ideal BMI range
– Feminine display of ownership by cradling the waist of the girl in the black top
What you should have noticed from girl wearing the black top:
– Flat, pancake tits undeserving of a cup size mention
– Wider, more angular facial features (manjaw, uppercut-ready chin, prominent cheekbones, etc.)
– Smaller, darker eyes devoid of that bright spark
– Flat and chapped bottom lip
– Incongruent hairline which doesn’t sit right
– Unpolished nails on short, stubby man hands
– Straight, column-like hips with the sex appeal of a balance beam
– Masculine display of ownership by draping the arm around the shoulders of girl in gray/white top
Female beauty is not subjective, except in the metaphysical sense that an individual’s neurons have to operate to perceive the beauty. A transsexual can only be perceived as womanly if he alters his body and face to such a radical degree that he begins to conform with innate biologically grounded standards already in place in the brains of men. The very fact that transsexual men have to conceal or otherwise surgically reconstruct their male features to more resemble female features in order to “pass” with straight men is hard real world evidence that female beauty is objective and male sexual attraction preferences are universal. And even then… the ruse is exceedingly difficult to pull off.
Maxim #101: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.
The importance of the above maxim can’t be overstated. The way to a woman’s heart is through her id.
There’s a male analogue as well.
Maxim #102: For most men, five minutes of a younger, hotter woman beats five years of older, uglier women.
Younger women are, barring a few conspicuous exceptions, better looking, better smelling and better feeling than older women. Career goals not achieved to the contrary notwithstanding, younger women are alpha females. The man who has tasted the succulent flesh of an 18 year old cutie will never again look at, or feel toward, older women with the same excitement, urgency or romanticism. He has been corrupted. His memories, lucid, almost palpable, of intimacies with younger women, will dominate. Five minutes in bed with a young babe will linger longer in his cortical penis extension than five years with an assortment of older women.
James Hooker has doomed himself. But it’s a doom that most men would welcome with open arms, if they could. His relationship — loving, tender, sexual — with an 18 year old babe means, should he find himself single again, that few women his age will satisfy him the way his current younger lover does. An older woman Hooker’s age who wants to extract commitment from him, or even a simulacra of lovingkindness, is going to have her work cut out for her. A man’s memory of an 18-year-old is a more powerful competitor to her than the attentions of real live women her own age.
Men like Hooker, men who have experience bedding younger women, and whose libidos are rocket fueled by powerful memories of young woman love, if they are single, go blankly into that dating field of cougars and cynical spinsters, depressed over the substandard offerings, forever seeking to recapture the intensely pleasurable magic of their time with their lithe lolitas. Their sheer disgust at the socially approved alternatives, and their unbreakable confidence at having inspired the love of much younger women, will help propel them back into the arms of charming coeds. They are men on a mission, and they won’t be stopped, not even by marriage.
Men like this live by one rule: if the cunnilingus feels like a chore, she’s too old.
As a one night stand with an alpha male can skew a woman’s expectations for life, so can a fling with an 18-year-old hottie skew a man’s expectations for life. But there is a critical difference in the sexes regarding expectation levels. It requires little effort for an average-looking woman to spread her legs and permit an alpha male to dump a fuck in her; for men are, on the whole, the less discriminating sex, and will rarely pass up easy lays with normal-sized women when they are offered. A woman’s ego, inflated from birth, will mistakenly regard the alpha’s fly-by-night attentions as validation of her relationship worthiness to men of his caliber. She will, in time, learn a bitter lesson.
In contrast, it requires yeoman effort, whether through the accumulation of wealth and status or through charm and dominance, for an average-looking older man to persuade an 18-year-old babe to relinquish her sex to him. This effort and resulting success is evidence that he has what it takes to consistently attract younger women and have relationships with them. When in the company of younger women, his mate value is self-evident. Thus, such a man’s expectations are more in line with reality than are the slutty woman’s expectations whose value is rightly measured not by how much cock she can hoover, but by how many high value men she can convince to stick around and fall in love with her.
Nevertheless, a continent full of average-looking, non-obese women riding the alpha cock carousel for stretches of their lives, and older men openly ignoring women their age to pursue their desire for the company of younger women, means an end to mutually nourishing beta male-slender female relationships and societally stabler older male-older female pairings. This is probably not going to turn out well for a monogamy-based modern civilization like ours, but it seems the rule that civilizations in the final spasms of decay revert to more primal norms of self-actualizing sexual and romantic fulfillment.
As always, I’ll be poolside.
Corollary to Maxim #102: A beautiful, slender older woman will be a better lay than a plain, fatter younger woman.
This corollary has more relevance today than it would have in the past, because enormous numbers of what would normally be very fuckable young babes have put themselves out of contention by getting fat and gross. Thanks to the Western obesity epidemic, there is a glimmer of hope for the yoga-toned 35-year-old who retains the feminine charms of her younger self. Chin up, ladies, and keep praying that your younger rivals gorge themselves on artisanal cupcakes and 150gram sugar-infused coffee drinks!
Before you read this post, I want you to remember something written here many times. The alpha male is not necessarily the admirable man. The alpha male is the guy who does really well with young, hot (read: high quality) women, because women love everything about him. You may not like the character of such men, but a lot of women sure do. So redirect your blame where it rightfully belongs, if blame you must.
That said, and without further ado, behold the winner of the Alpha Male of the Month award.
For the lovelorn nerds in the audience, that’s what adoration looks like. And, for that matter, that’s what cocky confidence looks like. The two tend to go hand in hand in matters of the smitten heart.
Last year, Jordan Powers was just another student from Mr. Hooker’s class. Now she’s his live-in girlfriend.
James Hooker — the 41-year-old married father who left his wife and kids for his 18-year-old-student — might be the worst teacher ever. Last week, he resigned from his job at Enochs High School in Modesto, California over the scandal that’s shaken up a community and pit one mom on a crusade to save her daughter from a man she calls a “master manipulator.”
Jordan met her teacher as a freshman, but both maintain nothing physical happened until she turned 18 this past September. Hooker claims he saw Powers as “just a student” and had no romantic feelings toward her at first, but when her most recent birthday came around, things changed.
They changed so much, in fact, that Hooker, left his wife and three kids (one of them a 17-year-old Enochs high school student as well) so that he could move in with Jordan.
It doesn’t get much more ALPHA than winning the utter devotion of a hot babe half your age. For those wondering, I consider leaving your loyal wife and kids to live with a younger, hotter woman to be legitimate grounds for the wife to initiate divorce proceedings and extract some type of payment for damage inflicted. Shocking that you hear a man like me say this? Well, what this guy did was break a deal. Broken deals usually come with consequences. This is why I counsel men to avoid modern marriage altogether: it’s a RAW FUCKING DEAL for men because it requires most of the sacrifice to come from the man’s end of the bargain. A man has to turn his back on much more of his natural sexual predilection in the decision to commit to marriage than does a woman. Why do you think women are so eager to rush into the nuptial shackles bond?
The more interesting angle to this story is how it operates at the level of what I call a reverse Rorschach test. Given an unmistakable picture of an in-shape, confident man with a much younger, sexually developed woman obviously in love with him, we get to examine in technicolor glory the psyches of people, particularly older women, whose instinct is to recoil at the sight. We get to see, essentially, an enraged, fearful mind create an inky blotch out of a clear picture.
Lets follow the cunty brick road down the article author’s mindmap for an illuminating glimpse at her terrorized id thrashing violently against the bars of its cage. Note: Author is an older woman. As are the other women, besides Jordan, quoted in the article.
If this all sounds suspicious to you…
Jordan, a quiet, fragile-seeming young woman, who looks closer to 15 than 18 years in age…
gazed up at her former teacher, a man that looks every bit his 41 years…
Desperate for her child, Tammie has turned her own Facebook page into a “most wanted” profile for Hooker…
Since the story has been picked up by national press, she’s been flooded with messages of support from strangers….
“Nancy’s always been a victims advocate and fights for justice,” Tammie wrote on Facebook. “That’s the goal here, justice.”
Sounds suspicious, older man must be up to no good, possibly firing mind rays into girl? Check.
Helpless, fragile 18-year-old woman who could be mistaken, if you stare hard enough through a gauzy filter, for a prepubescent girl with no boobs, hips or ass? Check.
Man therefore a creepy pedophile? Check.
41-year-old man looks his age so why isn’t he dating women like me? Check.
Mother desperate for her legally adult “child”? Check.
Insinuation that man should be on a Most Wanted List? Check.
Armies of women circling the wagons around mother, shaming man into ostracizing himself? Check.
Older man in a loving relationship (and, yes, you bet it’s loving) with younger woman now a matter of “justice” and “victims”? Check.
Oh, my sides! These are the pretty lies older women tell themselves to calm the fear and terror inspired by their sexual obsolescence. It’s so obvious to anyone with the eyes to see: the craving for a world that is aligned with older women’s fragile, helpless egos, a craving so powerful that rivers of deceit, distortion and defamation spill from their lips and pens in an effort to obscure the dread, dark reality. And that reality is this–
Every older husband — every fucking one of them — is turned on by the sight of hot women half his wife’s age. He imagines scenarios… transactions… with these younger babes, thrillingly vivid and the stuff of older wives’ nightmares, and no amount of religious upbringing, tortured self-abnegation, hypocrisy or womanly shaming will cleanse his mind of these delicious thoughts.
Most men don’t act on these thoughts, because most men don’t have the option to act on them. But some do. If they are smart, they mouth feminist platitudes to distract the loser brigade while nailing the ass of some fine buxom coed. Just ask Hugo Schwyzer.
I find it funny that the mother of the young woman is attempting to smear the guy by pointing to texts he sent her just before she turned 18. That kind of charade puts the lie to the intentions behind age of consent laws. It’s ridiculous to insinuate, as this mom is doing, that her little girl was a radically different woman incapable of making decisions for herself just a few months before she turned 18. The mother is appealing to a legalistic, arbitrary age demarcation — in this case communication that occurred only a few months on the “wrong” side of the law — as proof that Hooker is a pedophile in all but the clinical definition. I understand the mother’s fury, but her actions do nothing but discredit the real impetus behind AOC laws: to protect sexually undeveloped children from the predations of real pedophiles.
Relatedly, almost every scientific study I’ve seen has concluded that girls mature earlier than boys on a whole host of emotional and physical metrics. An 18 year old woman is more capable of choosing to be the lover of a 41 year old man than an 18 year old man is capable of choosing to go to war.
Apparently, the mother is a single mom. The girl grew up with no father. Well… wadaya expect? The odds that the daughters and sons of single moms grow up to be sluts and delinquents respectively are higher than they would be had they grown up in two-parent homes. The usual caveats about causality implied, I think most everyone, including the experts, agree that a mom+dad is better for kids than a mom alone. In that spirit, a vigorous public shaming of single moms is good for the children. So…
you suck, single moms! Way to be bad mothers! :lol:
Our favorite false flag limpwrist, Hugo Schwyzer, is licking the hairy taint of feminists once more in a vomitous piece about the popularity among men of “barely legal” porn. He really tries hard to put a feminist-friendly (read: anti-male) spin on the uncomfortable reality that men naturally prefer the stimulating sight of lithe, supple, fully ripe young women.
Across the web, videos and images featuring 18- and 19-year-olds — or actresses in their twenties trying to look younger — are by every measure the most in demand. “Teen porn” is the most common genre-specific term used in Google searches, and teen-themed videos dominate the top 25 most-viewed videos on YouPorn. (Link is absolutely NSFW.) […]
Beyond Derbyshire, the most common explanation given for adult men’s particularly intense attraction to teen girls is reproduction. But on closer scrutiny that theory falls apart. Women’s fertility peaks between 22 and 26, well after their “salad days” have come to a close.
The argument that men in their 30s, 40s, and beyond are evolutionarily hardwired to lust after girls just above or below the adulthood threshold has less merit than we think.
One alternative answer has much more to do with adult men’s anxiety than with their reproductive longings. In the fantasy world of “barely legal” pornography, the teen girl is an ingénue longing for sexual initiation at the hands and body of an experienced older man. For an older man (the average male porn user is over 30) perhaps intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of his own female peers, the imagined naïveté of a much-younger woman is a source of comfort. The less experience she has, the less likely she’ll mock his clumsiness and the more likely she’ll appreciate whatever savoir-faire he does possess.
[ed: alert! feminist feelgood twaddle incoming] The reality is that only those who are wise and confident enough to challenge us can help us grow. Age isn’t just a number; that confidence and wisdom takes time to emerge. So when men eroticize the young, the tentative, and the innocent — for whatever reason — they’re possibly just eroticizing their own reluctance to accept adulthood and responsibility. In that scenario, everybody loses.
This guy can really fling the bullshit. Only someone with intimate knowledge of the subject of barely legal teens can so effortlessly BS his way into nonsensical alternate explanations for male sexual behavior that are otherwise easily explained by a naturally evolved male preference for peak fertility women with little baggage. After all, he’s gotta cover his ass for past, uh… indiscretions. As Bill Clinton understood, nothing distracts feminist attention from one’s own very unfeminist lifestyle like mouthing the platitudes feminists want to hear.
I was once a broken, bad man taking advantage of young women, but now I have seen the light! Praise the bog! Men suck! Men have issues! Men are intimidated by older women! Speaking of which, let’s you and I go for a drink after class today and discuss our mutual loathing of rape culture. I’ll pay just the tip. Heh heh heh.
First, Schwyster is wrong about women’s peak fertility. He pulled his number from Wikipedia which should be a clue to take it with a grain of salt. The age range varies in the studies I’ve seen, but basically most peg female peak fertility in the 18-24 year range. Since barely legal porn filmmakers, by law, can’t hire girls under 18, the most important premise of Schwyster’s argument falls apart before he’s even out of the gate. Instead of confirming Schwyster’s fevered pathologizing of normal male sexuality, the evidence that men prefer watching porn featuring 18-21 year old girls, who are within the peak fertility range, simply affirms the evolutionary theory that gives hives to feminists and feminist suck-ups like Schwyster.
Second, men lust for younger women because those women are less likely to be saddled with other men’s children, or to be pregnant by other men. A young woman’s implied virginity means that fucking her results in a greater chance that any kids she pops out will be that man’s kids. This is important to men, as evolutionary theory would conclude, because men, unlike women’s perfect knowledge of maternity, do not have guarantees of paternity. So men must rely on other signals, such as the youth, fidelity and relative inexperience of their lovers.
Anxiety, or that catch-all feminist trope “intimidation”, has got nothing to do with men’s preference for younger women. It’s all about the sexy biology. By way of analogy, if older men are intimidated by the “erotic and emotional demands” of their female peers, then using Schwyster’s reasoning we may assert that women, who exhibit preferences for higher status men and older men, are intimidated by the erotic and emotional demands of younger men and lower status men. Of course, no one ever makes that claim. Because it’s stupid on its face. Much like Schwyster’s claim that men are intimidated by older, less fertile, less attractive women is stupid on its face. Women aren’t attracted to lower status men, just as men aren’t attracted to older women.
Schwyster knows all this, too, which makes him a phonyfuck of the highest caliber. The guy spent his early years as a professor cashing in his higher status for the pleasure of fucking his 18-21 year old students. Maybe he is wracked with guilt, and his current ultrafeminist stance is his form of atonement. Or maybe (and more likely, in my view) his hypocritical feminist sycophancy is a ruse to get in the panties of the deluded naifs who take his classes.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that. The difference between me and a lickspittle errand boy like Schwyster is that I don’t go around claiming there’s something psychologically wrong with men for desiring the hot bods and feminine charms of young women. I don’t blame a guy like Schwyster for wanting to stick his dick in his peak fertility students, nor do I stroke feminist egos to earn PC brownie points and page views.
PS Hugo, word of advice. You can get a lot further with better looking, mentally stable women by not sucking up to them so badly. Chicks dig unapologetic men.