Another evidence of delusive western women

I have been trying to recruit a regular whore through the internet by posting an ad  targeted at lower-middle class women such as hairdressers, students, cashiers, and so forth. Needless to say 100% of the women who have answered that add asked for money in exchange. This is what I expected, of course, but the plan was to get a lower price than with a professional prostitute in exchange for some regularity in the relationship. That would be a bit like being married or having a “lover”, but more honest.

So I recently got an anwer from a lady of unclear age, with the respectable weight of 80 kg for 1m64. Now I don’t object to fleshy women but given this height it sounds a bit too much. Yet this person is confident in asking for 150 Euros, and apparently unaware that for this price you can get a very good looking girl from Latin America, between 20 and 25, who, not being western, would, in addition to that, know how to fuck! I am currently seeing such a girl, for this price I fuck her twice and I get a massage in-between. I tried to negotiate the price down, no way; this person really believes that she deserves that much money and is unaware that there are products on the market who totally dominate what she offers.

Advertisements

The three curses of contemporary whoredom

Do women pay any attention to what men want, when dressing and doing their make up? Or do they blindly follow some stupid fashion? Or, finally, do they have a totally wrong view of men’s tastes?

Among whores, we regularly encounter the following turn-offs:

 

-Tatoos: this is morbid and makes the woman look like butchery meat

-Fake boobs: they rarely look human and therefore are a complete turn-off

-Shaved pussy: this makes the woman look like a child, a turn-off except for perverts

So why do so many prostitutes (and non-prostitutes) have these items?

 

The myth of penis size

One generally held idea is that you are better-off, as a man, the larger your penis. Of course you want it to be big enough. But in fact there are drawbacks to having a big cock…

There must be a reason why “average” people are average. The reason why an average penis is common is that it fits well in an average vagina. The two main characteristics of penis size are length and thickness. Length is totally useless. When (in some previous life) my wife condescended to have intercourse with me, she complained that my penis was bumping into the back of her vagina and that this hurt–and yet I am just average, perhaps slightly above average, in that dimension. Thus, the longer your penis, the more likely that you will not be able of fully fucking your partner. If you are into sodomy, the longer your penis, the more likely it will plow into dirty shit, or (if you are having homosexual intercourse) bump into the prostate.

Thickness is more valuable than length. But it should not be overrated. If the woman is young enough and has not had children, thickness may make it hurtful for you and her to introduce your penis into her vagina. If she is older/had children, the game is over: you will nevee have a thick enough cock. Similarly, in anal sex, a too thick cock may lead to bleeding, and create a disfunctional rectum.

Back from the sewer

A few weeks ago I was visiting a major European city and went to a “sex sauna”. While in principle open to everybody, the place was mostly homo. There were all sorts of guys there: the bottom of the gene pool (men who looked like orang-utangs), the usual losers of the sexual revolution, a number of attractive black guys (none of them was particularly well hung, despite the popular myth), and finally a strange animal dressed in poor taste lingerie and who looked like an aging fag desperately trying to become a woman. This pathetic person was even dancing (in the girliest possible way) to the beat of the crappy but tolerable music of this place. It’s impossible to beat human nature, there is no way for a man to become a woman, regardless of how many surgical operations you will undergo and how much hormones you will take. All you will achieve is becoming some monster.

At some point one of the black guys went with another black guy in one of the private booths and fucked him. It lasted at most 5 minutes.

So the whole place was rather depressing but this was OK with me because I had decided not to have sex. I was content with observing various specimen of sexual deviants of all kinds.

Then a female entered. She was one of the ugliest person I ever saw. She was around 50, weighed at least 120 kgs, and her face was plain ugly. This did not prevent this whale from laying on a bench, and in twenty seconds she had good-looking black guy licking her pussy, while another man, quite decent looking in his mid-forties, was grabbing her breast. She was not even paying attention, just watching a porno movie on a video screen where various women were introducing super-sized dildo into their vaginas.

At that point I was feeling rather depressed and decided to leave. Despite all my omegahood (or omegatude), I deserved better. If for some reason you contemplate priesthood and have some doubts about being able to keep your chastity vow, I can give you the adress of this place and I guarantee that it will kill any erection for a good three weeks, at least.

Nevertheless, my theory was confirmed: the most repugnant woman can walk in a sex club, she will find herself in a sex ratio of 30:1 and she is absolutely certain to have sex. Presumably the men who fuck those women think that it is not dignified to pay for sex. They could fuck a gorgeous girl for 200 euros or even less, but they prefer to keep their dignity and swim in a meat loaf instead.

Professional vs. Occasional

Some whores are “occasional”. This means regular women who prostitute themselves on the side. I used to fuck one regularly, the main reason being that she could be contacted by e-mail instead of  the bloody cell phone. She was quite fat but this does not turn me off as long as the fat is in the right place and it is not pathological.  After a while, I decided to stop seeing her, for reasons that I believe are closely linked to her occasional status. This was a lower middle class woman with a couple of useless degrees, who was struggling between precarious jobs to make ends meet. The reason why she was struggling was that she had a daughter. So she was a single mother looking to improve her lot. Over time she was increasingly talkative, bothering me with her personal life and her ridiculous problems, just like a regular woman. Not only I do not pay a girl to listen to her stupid talk, but in addition to that I was starting to sense  danger. She was increasingly behaving as a “girlfriend”, and I was fearing that I might eventually fall victim to some setup, i.e. she could fall pregnant and blackmail me for money.  The other issue is that she was on the expensive side, given her fatness. Occasionals seem to think they are somewhat special. I presume they have fewer clients than professionals, and there is a charge for that. This may be justified, and is a pro, but at the end of the day I believe real professionals are safer.

This one was quite good at sex, horny, naughty, and vicious, it looked like she enjoyed it a lot; however I think that was an exception, I would tend to believe that most occasionals are reluctant and as a result the sex is bad. If you really enjoy doing something, you make it your career.

The Gay Myth

The idea that there are people who are homosexual, in the sense that engaging in those practices makes them different in a fundamental way, is relatively new. It emerged with the rise of psychiatry in the 19th century, which deemed homosexuality a mental disease. The “Gay” movement is thriving on this idea because it fits its political agenda. Even though this movement appears to promote homosexuality, it is in fact promoting a negative view of it by insisting that homosexuals are somewhat different, and yet that there is nothing abnormal with homosexuality. Compound that with the exhibitionism of the so-called “Gay Pride”, the extreme promiscuity and the attack on marriage ( a thinly veiled predatory offensive on the children of heterosexual couples, whom gay couples would need should they engage in “parenting”) and it is obvious that in contemporary society the Gay movement appears as both deviant and hostile, despite everybody’s silence about it.

Yet prior to the nineteenth century homosexuality was not a defining characteristic of the individual. It was treated like a vice, or a sin. This was something bad (in the sense that it could be bad for you, perhaps because it could become addictive, or had adverse health consequences), or wrong (i.e. in contradiction with a religion which was presumably designed to enhance the collective survival of the tribe, and thus insisted on reproductive sex), but anybody could in principle do it. It was similar to other sins such as adultery or masturbation. Nobody would characterize an individual as being an adulterous or a masturbator, so why are some people characterized as a homosexual? Of course a vice can be taken to excesses and develop into a disorder, as maybe in the case of Edward II of England. But similarly Charles V the Roman Germanic emperor developed an eating disorder.

The vast majority of the other men with whom I have had sex are either married with children or had a heterosexual relationship going on. In the majority of “men seeking men” sex personals, people either self-identify as heterosexual or claim to be looking for a heterosexual.

This fact is conveniently ignored in the contemporary politicized discourse about homosexuality. Such people are routinely classified as homosexuals or, more honestly, as bisexuals, but then by some magic the bisexuals are aggregated into the “community” (not that anybody asked them) which then becomes LGBT or whatever. The reality is that there is nothing common between a “B” who is somebody who has trouble getting as much heterosexual intercourse as he would need and a “G” who is either a deviant (i.e. compulsively promiscuous) or making a political statement.

As sex becomes essentially recreational it is not clear why one should draw a frontier between homosexual and heterosexual intercourse rather than a frontier between, say, frequent vs. infrequent sex, or, for that matter, natural vs. unnatural sex. There is no significant difference between many contemporary homosexual and heterosexual practices.

For example much is made of  oral sex. If you don’t have it, you are somehow a loser. Now technically heterosexual fellation is not more “natural” than homosexual fellation. The penis was not conceived by nature to enter a mouth. And there is no big difference between a male mouth and a female mouth. I can assure you that being sucked by a woman feels exactly the same as being sucked by a man. So instead of boasting about a blowjob you got from some chick after jumping through hoops and wasting some money, you could go to any homo fuckodrome and get ten of them. And if you do not like the sight of it you may just close your eyes. Furthermore, cunnilingus is a practice of licking a clitoris which, as I have already pointed out, is a very small penis. So of you enjoy this what makes you think you might not enjoying sucking a larger version of it?

Similarly, heterosexual sodomy is presented in a positive light in the porn industry and in men’s as well a women’s magazine. Yet again there is nothing natural about it and the differences with homosexual sodomy are minute.

So why do not we observe more homosexuality? I suspect many men are not so much attracted by the physical aspects of sex as by its competitive side. That is, they want to “score”. Since homosexuality is so easy to get, it does not give you any “point”. This is exactly the same, incidentally, for prostitution. And this is exactly the same reason why a woman does not “score” by having sex with a man. Instead, she scores by marrying a rich guy.

Only vaginal intercourse, the one that leads to the conception of children, is natural. There is no reason why homosexuality should not be lumped with the other sexual practices in a big new whole of recreational sex. Indeed, that is what is happening. In the European country where I live, where religious considerations are largely irrelevant and sex is significantly less politicized than in the US, people in the younger generations do not make much of a difference between homosexuality and heterosexuality; “Gay” people lament about this and complain about a lack of “sexual identity” in these new generations, because this means it is harder for them to recruit people into their lifestyle and political movement. Yet these new generations are just  perfectly logical in light of the purely recreational aspect of contemporary sex.

Another crappy feminist article about pornography

A recent article by Mrs. Naomi Wolf (A feminist) suggests that pornography is responsible for young men letting down young women because their performance do not measure up to those of the female pornstars.

Another example of the contrary of reality which is typically conveyed by the main stream media. Mrs. Wolf has obviously watched very little porn and talked very little to the guys who consume pornography.

Pornography is a consequence — and symptom — of sexual deprivation. It is a masturbation enhancer than does not come even close to the real thing. If more young men are using porn, it is a sign that more of them cannot get sex from real women. This is easily explained by the fact that with the sexual revolution women can select the 10 or 20 % of men that they find attractive (and these are the same men for all women) and let the remaining 80 % of betas rot in hell. Yet this obvious phenomenon is not remotely mentioned in the article. The article is wrong on so many accounts that it would take a very long time to debunk it.

At a benefit the other night, I saw Andrea Dworkin, the anti-porn activist most famous in the eighties for her conviction that opening the floodgates of pornography would lead men to see real women in sexually debased ways. If we did not limit pornography, she argued—before Internet technology made that prospect a technical impossibility—most men would come to objectify women as they objectified porn stars, and treat them accordingly. In a kind of domino theory, she predicted, rape and other kinds of sexual mayhem would surely follow.

 

Here it is important to remember that feminists do not care the least for evidence and will make any claim that fits their agenda. As a release from sexual deprivation, porn reduces the incidence of rape. But de-penalized and safe prostitution would have a much stronger effect. However the feminists could not care less about the sexual needs of men, or indeed any of their needs. Furthermore the more rapes are being committed, the more their sick theories are validated and the more their agenda makes progress. The feminists want more rape so that they can send more men to jail and (soon) forced labor camps. This is why they constantly redefine rape and at the same time want a crackdown on pornograohy and prostitution.

 Young men and women are indeed being taught what sex is, how it looks, what its etiquette and expectations are, by pornographic training—and this is having a huge effect on how they interact.

 The author is not providing any evidence on that. People did not wait for internet porn to have some idea of how coitus, or even fellatio, work. Porn already existed 2,000 years ago.

The onslaught of porn is responsible for deadening male libido in relation to real women, and leading men to see fewer and fewer women as “porn-worthy.” Far from having to fend off porn-crazed young men, young women are worrying that as mere flesh and blood, they can scarcely get, let alone hold, their attention.

 If Mrs. Wolf had watched actual porn instead of talking about it, she would have noticed that the vast majority of female porn stars are plain janes. Their looks are average, they often have tatoos which make them look like meat, or fake breasts which is a turn-off for me, and I believe so for many men. Furthermore, they do not act that much in bed, certainly not more than my wife or than the couple of girls I banged before my marriage (now I live in Europe…). They are not immobile sacks and they do pretend to love the sex, but such a performance is certainly not unreachable. On the other hand, most of the male actiors have oversized penises and apparently last very long (which is not difficult to get in a movie). So if anything, it is men, not women, who should feel substandard after watching porn. But we cannot expect a feminist to deviate from the party line, right? Besides, men are not people so who cares about their feelings?

It is also highly unlikely that porn reduces libido. It does make you less horny for a while, but on the other hand you are feeding your brain with sexual images and will have a higher libido on average. If you want to reduce your libido be celibate and do a lot of sports (jogging is excellent to kill your sex drive).

Here is what young women tell me on college campuses when the subject comes up: They can’t compete, and they know it. For how can a real woman—with pores and her own breasts and even sexual needs of her own (let alone with speech that goes beyond “More, more, you big stud!”)—possibly compete with a cybervision of perfection, downloadable and extinguishable at will, who comes, so to speak, utterly submissive and tailored to the consumer’s least specification?

 What a whole load of bullshit. As pointed out elsewhere on this blog, a woman who wants to be fucked can find a man willing to fuck her in the following 5 minutes. Furthermore, most porn girls are far from perfect. None of them looks like Marylin Monroe, Lauren Bacall or Ava Gardner. Which is no accident since the big turn on is to see regular girls getting fucked and enjoying it. All these poor flesh-and-blood girls are asked to is to be willing to have sex and enjoy it. Apparently this is too much to ask and this is why the guys are left with porn.

For most of human history, erotic images have been reflections of, or celebrations of, or substitutes for, real naked women. For the first time in human history, the images’ power and allure have supplanted that of real naked women.Today, real naked women are just bad porn.

 Another total lie. In the past, women depicted in erotic pictures were clearly in the top league in terms of looks. Now millions of women play in pornographic movies. An entire category of porn depicts some bachelorette parties were regular girls get fucked by male strippers (I do not know whether this is staged or not). Another category is “amateur” and shows average housewifes behaving like whores. The web site youporn.com alone will give you perhaps 20,000 porn videos that are all free and they all involve different women. The whole spectrum of age, attractiveness, and butt size is covered.

 

Well, I am 40, and mine is the last female generation to experience that sense of sexual confidence and security in what we had to offer. Our younger sisters had to compete with video porn in the eighties and nineties, when intercourse was not hot enough. Now you have to offer—or flirtatiously suggest—the lesbian scene, the ejaculate-in-the-face scene. Being naked is not enough; you have to be buff, be tan with no tan lines, have the surgically hoisted breasts and the Brazilian bikini wax—just like porn stars. (In my gym, the 40-year-old women have adult pubic hair; the twentysomethings have all been trimmed and styled.) Pornography is addictive; the baseline gets ratcheted up. By the new millennium, a vagina—which, by the way, used to have a pretty high “exchange value,” as Marxist economists would say—wasn’t enough; it barely registered on the thrill scale. All mainstream porn—and certainly the Internet—made routine use of all available female orifices.

 

What Mrs. Wolf fails to understand is that these girls become whorish not to please the betas who watch porn, but to hook the alphas for whom there is fierce competition. Not clear, though, that even an alpha might be keen on fake breasts or facial ejaculation, or piercings in the vaginal labia. Since men are never interviewed in the female press, women do not have a clue about what men want. Do they really believe men prefer a tattooed and pierced slut with fake breasts over Claudia Cardinale? Women just coordinate in looking and acting like whores, regardless of what men really want. If they had a clue they would be whores in bed, and only in bed, and act and look like a lady the rest of the time.

The young women who talk to me on campuses about the effect of pornography on their intimate lives speak of feeling that they can never measure up, that they can never ask for what they want; and that if they do not offer what porn offers, they cannot expect to hold a guy. The young men talk about what it is like to grow up learning about sex from porn, and how it is not helpful to them in trying to figure out how to be with a real woman. Mostly, when I ask about loneliness, a deep, sad silence descends on audiences of young men and young women alike. They know they are lonely together, even when conjoined, and that this imagery is a big part of that loneliness. What they don’t know is how to get out, how to find each other again erotically, face-to-face.

Here I can only cut and paste what a poster wrote on the “Nice guy” Forum: “This is the most ridiculous shit I’ve ever heard in my life. Women know nothing of loneliness. Their idea of loneliness is so is vastly different to the true loneliness experienced by countless males across the US. I’ve heard numerous women say they were lonely only to see them being unable to go a single week without male attention. I’ve seen women have boyfriends and say they were “lonely”. Some men go YEARS without female attention. Many men have NEVER had a girlfriend and they would kill for a female that wanted to be with them. Women bounce around from man to man and are so busy complaining they don’t realize how lucky they are to be so sought after by the opposite sex. Their idea of loneliness is a flat out JOKE. If they experienced the same kind of true loneliness that men felt, I’m convinced many would kill themselves.”