Butt Pirates, Butt Pats, A Killer Line

If you like very feminine women (and what man doesn’t?), you’ll want to date girls who have gay relatives:

Andrea Camperio Ciani and colleagues at the University of Padua, Italy, showed that the female relatives of homosexual men tend to have more children, suggesting that genes on the X chromosome are responsible.

“It helps to answer a perplexing question – how can there be ‘gay genes’ given that gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation?” says Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, who was not involved in the work. “The answer is remarkably simple: the same gene that causes men to like men also causes women to like men, and as a result to have more children.”

Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a “gay gene”, this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women. This would influence a woman’s attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children.

The girl’s attitude is key here. Femininity is not just curves, it’s temperament and personality. When I meet girls now I screen them for how many gay brothers and cousins they have:

“So this girl I used to date was telling me how great it is for her to have a gay brother, which is even better than a best gay boyfriend. Do you have any gay relatives?”

I believe screening for this in girls will mean a more romantic dating life, more affection from the girl, and fewer lawyers in my stable of regulars. In fact, I would bet any chick who is a lawyer has a lot of lesbian relatives.

*****

The downside of being President when people are watching: A girl offers you her ass and you have to politely decline:

Bush knuckled off a couple of lobs, but defending gold medalists Misty May-Treanor and Kerri Walsh gave the chief executive some pointers. Then after a good play, in the tradition of female volleyballers, May-Treanor turned, bent over slightly and offered her bikinied rear-end for the 43rd president to slap.

“Mr. President,” she said, “want to?”

[…]Bush wisely chose instead to brush his hand across the small of May-Treanor’s back.

I’d have slapped, spread, and dry humped her. Of course, as President I’d set up a rendevous later in a secure location where she’d really get my approval for her good play.

I read the comments on some of the news sites to this story. Unsurprisingly to me, most of the negative comments were from women, who used it as an opportunity to bash Bush’s “perviness” and religious leanings. It’s funny how Bush is so unpopular with women, especially young women and feminists, when he did the “right thing” in this situation, and when by all accounts he’s a moral exemplar of the faithful, loyal (beta) husband. And yet a guy like Bill Clinton, who in practice shit all over feminist principles by sexually harassing interns, fucking subordinates, cheating on his wife multiple times, getting blowjobs from women considerably younger than himself, and even coming dangerously close to actual rape, is beloved by women and especially by the very same feminists whose phoniness and moral relativism Clinton showcased for the world. Beautiful. I trust the lesson has not escaped my readers.

bush to ass.

bush to ass.

*****

Here is a great line you can tell a girl during the A2 (female to male interest) attraction phase to boost your value:

“I could introduce you to every guy in this room, but I can guarantee that none of them will be as interesting as me.”

Concepts hit: DHV, social status, push-pull. It’s been field tested and proven successful, so give it a try and let me know how it goes.





Comments


  1. on August 22, 2008 at 4:30 pm Usually Lurking

    In fact, I would bet any chick who is a lawyer has a lot of lesbian relatives.

    Yeah, I would love to know more about the converse. What are girls like that have Lesbian sisters?

    re: Clinton and Feminists
    When Gloria Steinem and others starting bending over backwards for Clinton, after the Paula Jones/Monica/etc stuff, I knew that Leftism/Feminism was beyond baloney.

    I know, I know, not ALL feminists defended him, but that is when it became blatantly obvious that they were not principled.

    Like


  2. It helps to answer a perplexing question – how can there be ‘gay genes’ given that gay sex doesn’t lead to procreation?” says Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, who was not involved in the work. “The answer is remarkably simple: the same gene that causes men to like men also causes women to like men, and as a result to have more children.

    Like


  3. on August 22, 2008 at 4:56 pm Turkeybaster115

    roissy, what is your opinion on the existence of “gay” genes? I am not sure if you believe the article or not either.

    Like


  4. There is no contradiction at all Roissy. Feminists HATE the nuclear family, their idea of heaven is probably that of many PUA. Women floating from hot, testosterone-heavy, Alpha male to Alpha male.

    Clinton, Spitzer, particularly Edwards (feminists love him), LA’s Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa (famous for screwing subordinates wives) and SF’s Mayor Gavin Newsome (also famous for screwing subordinates wives) are beloved of feminists FOR their behavior not in spite of it.

    Particularly Villraigos and Newsome, along with Edwards, form the dream of feminists. That some powerful guy will come along and have sex with them.

    Which after all is the whole point of feminism. Rielle Hunter, heroine of feminists, got her job (and payday) by sleeping with Edwards. The wives of the subordinates of Villaraigosa and Newsome were able to trade up.

    Which btw explains why feminists and beta males have directly opposite interests in the workplace. Feminists want to sleep with powerful men, which also advances their career: see Monica Lewinsky, Rielle Hunter, Mirthala Salinas (who advanced by sleeping with bosses, sources, pols, etc.), Katie Couric (same), Barbara Walters (same), Chandra Levy, and many more.

    However disdain for Bush is more a function of young women being slaves to fashion and fads. Far more so than men. You can see it in Hollywood, where men and women are equally slaves to fashion and fads, because careers depend not on talent and achievement, but social networks and having the “correct” politics and opinions. If all of a sudden Bush was declared “hot!” by taste-makers and opinion shapers, Hollywood (and young women who are fashion/fad whipped) would think he was the greatest thing ever.

    Like


  5. on August 22, 2008 at 5:06 pm Patrick Bateman

    I would have slapped the shit out of that girl’s ass. What the hell does Bush have to lose at this point?

    When I meet girls now I screen them for how many gay brothers and cousins they have.

    Good call for jizz buckets but not for girls that you would like to plant a seed in.

    Like


  6. their idea of heaven is probably that of many PUA

    I’d agree, but I always saw Feminism as a lesbian-driven movement. And I thught those gals hated both beta males and alphas, in different ways.

    Like


  7. on August 22, 2008 at 5:12 pm Usually Lurking

    That some powerful guy will come along and have sex with them.

    Whiskey, you were right on except that they are not looking for just any powerful guy to come along (they would hate Donald Trump, or GWB, or Larry Ellison, etc) but a guy who can properly posture and rise to power.

    They are sort of like groupies that way. Your average rock ‘n roll groupie won’t sleep with just any rocker, but the guys that know how to pull off a Jimi Hendrix or Axl Rose. That average groupie would likely never sleep with Paul Simon even though he was very talented.

    The reason why it becomes a PUA heaven is because PUAs understand the importance of image and posturing, and will adjust or accommodate for their (new) environment.

    Like


  8. Don’t knock Newsome too hard. That guy is a serious player and gets his hands on some prime tail.

    Like


  9. on August 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm Dr. Grzlickson

    I’ll try that line on Mrs. Grzlickson tonight.

    Like


  10. “Don’t knock Newsome too hard. That guy is a serious player and gets his hands on some prime tail.”

    Gavin’s my drinking buddy ! Him and Grzlickson, MD.

    Like


  11. May-Treanor turned, bent over slightly and offered her bikinied rear-end for the 43rd president to slap

    She’s probably shaved :((((

    Like


  12. The one in the white bikini has a perfect ass.

    Like


  13. Figures. For feminists if he smacked her ass, he’s a sexist pig and a sleaze. If he doesn’t, he’s a religious prude. Feminism isn’t about anything except bitching as loud as possible.

    Like


  14. Feminism is a wing of the Democratic party.
    It’s a political party, not social movement.

    Like


  15. there was a point where the concept of feminism had real meaning; when women really were second class citizens.

    lately, it seems that the term is a catch-all for that vocal minority of woman who want to have their irrational and often contradictory opinions validated, while at the same time being able to dismiss anyone who disagrees as a misogynist and an ‘anti-feminist’.

    Like


  16. on August 22, 2008 at 6:35 pm Usually Lurking

    there was a point where the concept of feminism had real meaning; when women really were second class citizens.

    Yes, they were called Suffragettes. And, at least one prominent one, Susan B. Anthony, was very Pro-Life. A stance that would be shouted down by any supposed Feminist today.

    Like


  17. on August 22, 2008 at 7:03 pm Turkeybaster115

    The British empire prospered under female rule, so I don’t see why the modern american male is so bothered by the prospect of female leadership. Also Edwards, is by no means alpha in my opinon. He really looks like the kindda guy who has never even been in a fist fight.

    Like


  18. 3: Particularly Villraigos and Newsome, along with Edwards, form the dream of feminists. That some powerful guy will come along and have sex with them.

    Which after all is the whole point of feminism.

    It really, really isn’t. Seriously, are you on crack?

    Like


  19. “I could introduce you to every guy in this room, but I can guarantee that none of them will be as interesting as me.”

    Isn’t that one of Styles’ lines? Or did Mystery come up with it first?

    Like


  20. Isn’t that one of Styles’ lines?

    a friend told me this line. i don’t know where he got it from.

    Like


  21. on August 22, 2008 at 7:26 pm Patrick Bateman

    @Turkey

    One example of an empire prospering does not prove women make good leaders. It doesn’t even prove Elizabeth was responsible for England’s rise during that time.

    The average American male is not bothered by someone without a Y chromosome in power, but rather someone who acts like your typical XX. A woman who acts like a man and is ready to be treated like one is fine. A woman who chokes under pressure is what we’re worried about.

    Like


  22. on August 22, 2008 at 7:36 pm Usually Lurking

    Who has a problem with Female Leadership? Feminism is not the same as Female Leadership. Hell, most Feminists were none too happy with Margaret Thatcher.

    But all of the evil Captains of Industry loved her.

    Like


  23. Bush can’t keep his hands to himself. First Murkel now Misty May.

    Like


  24. on August 22, 2008 at 7:54 pm Turkeybaster115

    Looking at the anti-feminist backlash comming from the campaign trail this year, I’d say that the males are really bothered with the idea of female leadership. You can’t tell how she’d “act”, untill she actually has power. The country would have been lead by a female for the first time in history, you can’t tell me there is no fear of drunken female power taking over, lurking around somewhere..

    Like


  25. That seriously IS the point of feminism. You can read: Barbara Ehrenreich (Women should move from short-lived passionate affair to passionate affair, with “other people” raising children). Or perhaps Germaine Greer’s “Female Eunuch” extolling the virtues of “smashing monogamy” and having sex with the handsome, powerful man. Or feminists like Maureen Dowd, Susan Estrich etc. fantasizing about having sex with Clinton in print.

    Feminists in their writings (Betty Friedan, Susan Faludi) all want the destruction of the nuclear family in favor of women pursuing the “hot” guy. Which as pointed out by Lurking demands the “correct” social attitudes and standing. Hard-core liberalism because the glitterati back him. Women for the most part are easily swayed by fashionable opinion — which explains why gays exert so much influence in the fashion industry and why men mostly ignore fashion and trends.

    Men and women are neither “better” nor “worse” and men have believe me many, many faults and flaws. All that testosterone can cause amazingly horrific physical violence. But both sexes are quite different in their approaches. Most men are not Alpha and thus completely opposed to Feminism’s desire to destroy the nuclear family, since that destroys their ability to reproduce.

    Which taken to it’s conclusion, leads to zilch investment in the Sultan and his Harem, if not sullen opposition at best, or active opposition with “rebels in the bush” just waiting for their chance to slaughter the Alphas and take over. See: West Africa, the ME, many other places.

    Feminists for example have nothing negative to say, and much to praise, for Islam particularly in the West relating to polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced/arranged marriages. Because Islamists are their allies against the nuclear family and the beta male whom feminists despise.

    Newsome? He and Villaraigosa are going nowhere. The Glitterati like them both, but their personal conduct (screwing subordinates wives) makes them untrustworthy for nearly every man (except a gay one).

    Like


  26. “Looking at the anti-feminist backlash comming from the campaign trail this year, I’d say that the males are really bothered with the idea of female leadership.”

    Men didn’t reject female leadership this year. Crazed leftists rejected the chance for female leaderhip when they annointed their Obamessiah. Blue collar Democrat men voted for Clinton over Obama in droves.

    Like


  27. Queen Victoria was a symbolic rather than actual ruler, so it doesn’t matter that she was female. All the people in charge were men — how else could it have worked? Thatcher is the female ruler you’re looking for.

    Male gayness is not caused by genes, but that doesn’t matter for Roissy’s point here — whatever the reason, girly girls seem to have more gay male relatives.

    That dark volleyball chick is 31 — that’s how you age well if you’re not blessed by the fountain of youth. Work out, without going psycho. Look how eager she is. Her erection must’ve really drooped down when he didn’t give her the tough touch she wanted.

    Like


  28. John Derbyshire (when he was still an interesting writer) once speculated on the reasons behind male homosexuality. The one he found most compelling, and so do I, is the congenital but non-genetic explanation.

    I don’t recall the details but it has to do with a boy’s hormonal development in utero. Something about how he gets a surge of estrogen from his mother.

    Derbyshire further noted that there is a pattern of gay men having older brothers, which suggests that the mother’s organism may be “fighting” a male embryo, trying to “turn it into” get a girl instead, after having produced enough sons.

    Like


  29. on August 22, 2008 at 8:41 pm Turkeybaster115

    How about all the noise comming from the McCain camp, calling her a “b.itch”? The right called her a b.itch so many times, they did a b.itch montage on TV.

    Like


  30. on August 22, 2008 at 9:10 pm Turkeybaster115

    PA, I’ll stick with psychologists on explanation of all human sexual behaviors. I’m sorry to break it to you, but I think that John Derbyshire, was either closeted, or straight-gay.

    Like


  31. on August 22, 2008 at 9:13 pm Patrick Bateman

    @Turkey

    I’m not sure you can say that was because American men were afraid of a female leader. I do concede that women have a harder time when it comes to things like this. A strong female leader is often called a bitch, probably more so than her male peer is called an asshole.

    Like


  32. on August 22, 2008 at 9:24 pm Turkeybaster115

    I think that they are afraid, in a primal, and psychological sense. They are also scared that the rest of the world would view their country as soft.

    Like


  33. Camperio Ciani emphasises that, rather than being a “gay gene”, this unidentified genetic factor is likely to promote sexual attraction to men in both men and women. This would influence a woman’s attitude rather than actually increasing her fertility, making her likely to have more children.

    I don’t think it has much to do with attraction, but nice try on Camperio Ciani’s part. Too bad she’s using feminine logic here (read: wishful thinking).

    I think plural pregnancy’s the name of the game:

    Chimera Hypothesis

    Like


  34. Re: “gay gene”

    Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins states: “We admit that we are like apes, but we seldom realise that we are apes. Our common ancestor with the chimpanzees and gorillas is much more recent than their common ancestor with the Asian apes–the gibbons and orangutans. There is no natural category that includes chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans but excludes humans.”

    In this same line is the bonobo, an ape that has lots of recreational sex. Look it up. In terms of frequency of sexual occurrence, the most common is female-female, then male-female, then male-male. And this involves all of them, not just some. It would appear that the gay tendency goes back at least to the time of our common ancestor with bonobos eons ago.

    Like


  35. New Guidelines Would Give F.B.I. Broader Powers title of NYT article.

    Like


  36. It is odd how they try to find some justification for gay behavior in biology.

    Why not try to justify diabetes, immune deficiency, aspermia, suicidal tendencies, Altzheimer’s, breast cancer, prostatitis, short stature, flat feet, etc. Baldness as a reproductive advantage?

    It’s just a disease, is all. A malfunction of the organism’s biology that negates their reproduction.

    It is ridiculous to think that women need an attitude boost to reproduce. It is only in modern times where the woman’s mood matters in the reproductive field. Talk about projecting your own values onto other cultures.

    And what the heck good is a gay male in a group of primitive hunters and gatherers? Maybe, in theory, he might promote his sister’s reproductive success, but, that is doubtful. Female reproductive success is mainly based on surviving multiple childbirth experiences. Getting impregnanted is not a social problem for a female.

    And, yes, the adoration of “feminists” for Bill Clinton tells you all you need (or want) to know about feminists.

    Truly, a sad state of affairs when gays and women run a country. But, when you consider our HIV policies and reproduction laws, it is obvious who has the power.

    Not the beta straights. The alpha males routinely betray the betas to the gays and females.

    Like


  37. on August 22, 2008 at 9:55 pm Turkeybaster115

    joel is homophobic

    Like


  38. Joel, a totally natural and non harmful means of bonding needs no justification.

    Arguing against homosexuality is like arguing against Tuesday. You don’t have to enjoy it. You just have to stay out of its way or else bad things will happen.

    Like


  39. 37 joel: And what the heck good is a gay male in a group of primitive hunters and gatherers?

    He’s back at the cave doing that fabulous cave art that doesn’t just look amazing (in the right light, of course), but is magically effective in helping the boring jock cave guys “bring home the mammoth bacon”.

    Plus, the jocks can go out and do their team sport male-bonding hunting and fighting stuff while not having to worry that Sammy the Sham man, with his furs and ochre makeup, his bracelets and anklets and amber jewelry and beautifully rhythmic moves to the hottest tribal drum dances, is going to be putting any moves on Mrs. Ugh, or even Miss Ugh. He’s just going to be having trouble talk and gossiping and telling the absolutely funniest cavejokes–ribsplitters! ribsplitters!–and maybe even sharing a few little shamanic “love spells” to get those hot, sweaty hunky heroes, back home from the hunt, into the mood for some way way way BC spelunking parties with the sex-starved cavewives, so to speak.

    Now me, I would have pretended to be a “sham man”, and had myself a majorly wicked beta time with the cavewives while their cavehubbies were out putting their hairy lives on the line.

    Which explains why guys like me are around today too, now that I think of it.

    Like


  40. 25: You’re taking the squawkings of people like Maureen Dowd, who is the spokesperson for exactly nobody?! If you really believe that genuine feminism — not the extremism that’s spouted for the sake of getting book deals — is about destruction of family and the desire to share any man amongst a bunch of women, then you need to interact with actual women a little more. Not a selective sampling of club-goers, nor a few outdated authors.

    Like


  41. Katie Couric

    Whiskey I don’t believe you or I don’t want to believe you.

    Men and women are neither “better” nor “worse” and men have believe me many, many faults and flaws

    All that testosterone can cause amazingly horrific physical violence
    One of the major reasons I like smaller men.

    and for admitting this you deserve a coocie coupon. It’s the truth in a nutshell. I would add that women have many issues too. One of the biggest problems some women have is hearing what they want to hear, not what he actually said, when a man speaks.

    fashion is to women what sports is to men.

    Feminists for example have nothing negative to say, and much to praise, for Islam particularly in the West relating to polygamy, female genital mutilation, honor killings, forced/arranged marriages

    I diagree. Many feminists groups are working hard to stop female genital mutilation, forced/arranged marriages, and honor killings.

    Like


  42. It would appear that the gay tendency goes back at least to the time of our common ancestor with bonobos eons ago.

    Sorry, but no. There is a huge difference in what you are describing. Bonobos have social bonding sex with everyone, including mother-son pairings, which are also common. This does not describe or resemble human sexuality at all.

    Lots of animals participate in gay and sexually diverse behavior. Everyone has met a dog that humps your leg, the couch, other male dogs, the cat….. but that is not puzzling. What is puzzling and different about human homosexuality is that it is an orientation, or exclusive same-sex attraction. Homosexual behavior is not evolutionarily problematic, homosexual orientation is.

    There is a huge difference.

    Chimpanzees are polyandrous, and humans are not

    Like


  43. Oops, sorry. That last line about polyandry, though true, wasn’t supposed to be included in the post. It’s an orphan I forgot to delete. ‘There is a huge difference’ was intended to end the post.

    Like


  44. @ 43 Rain And: What is puzzling and different about human homosexuality is that it is an orientation, or exclusive same-sex attraction.

    Normally, I don’t get involved in blog discussions with anonymous writers, but your comment is so far from true that I had to respond. Your comment is, in a strange way, homophobic, in that it suggests that there is a particular genre of homosexuality. I suggest you read Boys in the Band, by Mart Crowley, a 2-act play that has made the author millions describing exactly your inaccurate presumptions. The characters, nine of them, are all male, and they range from Wall Street 3-piece suiters with wife and 2 children, to flaming “Village People” characters with no woman in sight, and everything between. The surprise revelation, of course, is that they are all gay, and as the audience leaves, they recognize that their minds are victims of stereotyping. As a career practitioner in sexual medicine, I can assure you that the 10% estimation of male homosexuality is acurate or low, and many have wives and children. The minority are “out”. The minority are strictly “homo”. For women, your point about sex and bonding may well be true, as bonobos use female-female sex to bond and actually attack the obstreperous males. Yet they have sex with them to gain status and cooperation. Lesbians do the same, in many instances. Actually, contrary to your observation, from a sexual standpoint, we are so much like the chimps and bonobos that it is scary.

    Like


  45. As a career practitioner in sexual medicine, I can assure you that the 10% estimation of male homosexuality is acurate or low, and many have wives and children. The minority are “out”. The minority are strictly “homo”.

    Although there is plenty of auto/homo/inanimato-eroticism (heh, I like that last one) out there in the animal world, exclusive homosexuality is quite rare — at least at the rate displayed by humans. Sheep appear to have a similar tendency to have a relatively high proportion of exclusively homosexual males, but I don’t know of any other animals that share this trait.

    Like


  46. on August 23, 2008 at 12:12 am Days of Broken Arrows

    There’s also the rock music edition of this feminist phoniness.

    Remember Kathleen Hanna? She was the “feminist” zine editor and founder of riot grrrl act Bikini Kill.

    She ended up marrying Beastie Boy Ad-Rock, who sung about raping women with wiffle ball bats (among other things) and had a huge inflatible penis on stage.

    Like


  47. For a glimpse of how a primitive tribe might handle a gay member, this might be helpful:

    http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/baltimore_county/bal-md.co.gang19aug19,0,6897709.story

    I consider our urban ghetto gangs to be based on primitive male instincts.

    They seemed to have killed him because his presence brought the gang into ridicule, a very dangerous situation.

    Our society certainly has had a very strong anti-gay bias. For example, during WW II and the Vietnam war, young gay men choose to be drafted and sent off and killed in combat than admit they were gay during their draft physical exam. Things have changed. If they tried to draft college age boys today, they would all go down to the draft board and give each other blow jobs in front of the officials there to be deferred from the draft. I guess that’s progress.

    I really think there must be data somewhere on the status of gay men and women in primitive tribes, say in the Amazon.

    Does anybody know if anthropologist have studied this situation in an objective manner?

    Like


  48. If anyone wants to know what, in all likelihood, really causes preferential male homosexuality, google “cochran gay germ.” It’s probably due to a microbe that hits early in development.

    BTW, I can easily skip over comments by Dizzy, Sara, and company because they’re long. Turkeybaster’s are short, though, forcing me to read their retarded college sophomore view of the world. Let’s ban.

    Like


  49. Many feminists groups are working hard to stop female genital mutilation, forced/arranged marriages, and honor killings.

    “Many” is still a tiny minority. I don’t know about America, but here the progressive left’s latest fad is working to legalize genital cutting and they seem to be succeeding in at least legalizing infant circumcision of males. To them that’s a victory over racism and of course the other victory over racism doesn’t seem that implausible now. Finland might well become the first Western country to explicitly legalize FGM on children.

    It’s a strange world now. If you’re European and you happen to like gay rights, secularism and not oppressing women, your least bad choice is voting for the people who secretly admire Hitler. It’s that bad.

    Like


  50. — jaakkeli

    If you’re European and you happen to like gay rights, secularism and not oppressing women, your least bad choice is voting for the people who secretly admire Hitler. It’s that bad.

    Although I understand that and empathize, I’ve got to say that I’m really sorry about it. That Islam is the alternative is pretty sad, isn’t it?

    — joel

    I really think there must be data somewhere on the status of gay men and women in primitive tribes, say in the Amazon.

    Does anybody know if anthropologist have studied this situation in an objective manner?

    Why don’t you start with Sir Richard Francis Burton’s treatise on the Sotadic Zone?

    He isn’t an anthropologist per se, but rather an early sort of ethnologist/linguist. Fascinating stuff if you have an inquisitive turn of mind.

    Like


  51. gay rights, secularism and not oppressing women

    Those were never the end. They were the means, the siege equipent, which the Left was using in destroying Western civilization. When no longer needed, they are discarded.

    Like


  52. Turkeybaster115 gets it wrong twice:

    “Looking at the anti-feminist backlash comming from the campaign trail this year, I’d say that the males are really bothered with the idea of female leadership.”

    Obama won in two kinds of states:

    1) States with such large concentrations of blacks that the black vote won it for him. The black vote was so overwhelmingly for Obama that it swamped the white female vote.

    2) States that have very few blacks.

    Why did he lose in states that had enough blacks for whites to have daily experiences with blacks?

    This was about race. Feminism took a back seat to race and you are calling this an anti-feminist backlash? Get over yourself. The blacks do not care. Black women put genes over sex.

    As for Derbyshire supposedly being gay: No way. He’s a very straight guy. He just says things you do not like. It is a pretty cheap and stupid thing to accuse someone of gayness as a half-assed explanation for why they disagree with you.

    Roissy,

    I asked the smartest genetics researcher I know (and I know some that are geniuses) and he said the Padua work was junk. The big problem with it this proposed mechanism is that one would expect that an allele that conferred greater fertility on women while reducing fertility in males would get further mutated to deliver the benefit without the cost. This explanation therefore falls down both on the theoretical level and also for reasons of methodology (which the researcher doesn’t want me to pass along until he publishes in response).

    Like


  53. Black women put genes over sex.

    It’s like Marcia Clark assuring the press that the female jurors (who happened to be nearly all black; the white one was married to a black guy) in OJ Simpson’s trial will feel solidarity with the slain Nicole Simpson and convict the “abusive husband.”

    Hogwash. The DA’s office knew that an acquittal was the only acceptable outcome. The Rodney King riots were just two years earlier. Which is why they allowed a nearly all-black-female jury.

    Like


  54. As for Derbyshire supposedly being gay: No way. He’s a very straight guy. He just says things you do not like.

    He wrote an interesting piece in which he claimed that much of the revulsion felt toward male homosexuality is really a disgust toward what he called buggery. I really don’t think that anyone who secretly enjoyed taking it in the twins, as it were, would have written something like that.

    Like


  55. Yawn. Gay people are cool, feminism is great for men like me, and race realists are racists who use science to hate black people. And don’t forget, women only like sex with alphas.

    Like


  56. Chic — Feminists in Europe derided genitally mutilated Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was also apostate from Islam and fled a forced marriage. More to the point, Feminists in the UK, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Norway, and Sweden have acted to block laws criminalizing:

    1. Female Genital Mutilation
    2. Polygamy — feminists approve of this institution and share the desire to “smash monogamy.”
    3. Honor Killings — feminist excuse it with “it’s their culture.”
    4. Killings of Apostates in Europe. A common occurence.
    5. Wearing the Burqua, a symbol of sexist oppression.

    From this I conclude that Feminists share the same basic goals of Muslims. They just believe that their PC intimidation will work on Muslim men to allow them to flit from man to man like Rielle Hunter, which when boiled down to the essentials is the goal of every feminist. Feminists are also, profoundly stupid and have no idea whatsoever of what men, unrestrained by other men, are capable of doing.

    Katie Couric:

    http://www.nationalledger.com/cgi-bin/artman/exec/view.cgi?archive=16&num=15743
    http://www.theinsider.com/news/340173_Katie_Couric_Boosted_Her_Career_With_Affairs

    So too, Barbara Walters, which she admitted in her biography just out. I won’t say all women sleep their way to the top. But enough do for this to be a major issue to men, and for unattractive or unwilling women. A woman like Couric or Mirthala Salinas who sleeps her way to the top has an unfair advantage (and that is just what feminists want btw). Of course in a “hard” polygamous society no woman works outside the home because women become property. Something Feminists have a hard time understanding.

    Gay men? Not a threat to paternity for Alpha dominated “hard” polygamist societies, which is why they are tolerate/encouraged in places like, well Afghanistan. Where a lot of the Taliban dressed very effiminately. Though they would not consider themselves gay and did indeed execute gays who were open, while having sex with young boys. Classic.

    A lot of straight men consider gay men a very bad influence on women. I do not know if this is true or not, but that seems present in a lot of attitudes towards gay men, who would on the face of it be encouraged to lessen competition for women in Western society. Perhaps gay men encourage pursuit of Alphas (which would explain beta disdain for them). Or perhaps not.

    Like


  57. Normally, I don’t get involved in blog discussions with anonymous writers, but your comment is so far from true that I had to respond. Your comment is, in a strange way, homophobic, in that it suggests that there is a particular genre of homosexuality ….. As a career practitioner in sexual medicine, I can assure you that the 10% estimation of male homosexuality is acurate or low

    First of all, don’t wave that “homophobia” shit-stick at me. In no logical way is it “homophobic” to suggest a taxonomy for homosexuality based on behavior and etiology. Your credentials in “sexual medicine” don’t compensate for your bullshit or ignorance about the research. You’d get more respect from me by using journal citations instead of assertions by attempted authority (or at least by using a spell checker!).

    What you call “homophobic” is actually the current majority consensus of researchers who publish in sexuality journals, which you should know if you’re going to claim any sort of expertise.

    The basis for the taxonomy is the “J Curve”: there is no normal bell curve of male sexuality. The number of men with exclusive homosexual preference is higher than the number of men with both male and female preferences, and both are an order of a magnitude lower than the number with exclusive female preference. This is true for stated preference and measured arousal (though there is a significant number of men, perhaps more than 10% as you say, who have had a past homosexual experience of some sort).

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00140-X

    Men with exclusive homosexual preference also differ in a number of ways that indicate a unique biological etiology. For instance they have more biological older brothers, even when adopted. Homosexual orientation can also be predicted from childhood gender nonconformity. So there certainly is a “unique genre” of homosexual behavior.

    Other types of men will engage in homosexual behavior when there is a complete scarcity of females (sailors, prison inmates). Even here they have heterosexual preferences indicating desire for a substitute woman. They immediately switch back to females as soon as this is an option. This is another, very different, “genre” of homosexual behavior.

    … Actually, contrary to your observation, from a sexual standpoint, we are so much like the chimps and bonobos that it is scary.

    I’m not sure why this would be “scary”, even if it were true, but not even chimps and bonobos are that similar (ex. bonobos have no consortships and alpha male mate-guarding, while both are common in chimps). Humans and chimps differ massively in levels of paternal care (none in chimps), in courtship and female choice, in polyandry, in multi-male copulation (“gang bangs” common in chimps), in pair-bonding, in rape behavior (none in chimps), in ovulation concealment, in incest avoidance, in sexual dimorphism, in sperm competition (off the charts in chimps), in attraction (older females more attractive to chimps), in paternity confusion, in casualness and privacy of sex. And the list goes on and on. We are scarcely more similar to gorillas, who also differ in a number of ways.

    Like


  58. And yet a guy like Bill Clinton, who in practice shit all over feminist principles by sexually harassing interns, fucking subordinates, cheating on his wife multiple times, getting blowjobs from women considerably younger than himself, and even coming dangerously close to actual rape, is beloved by women and especially by the very same feminists whose phoniness and moral relativism Clinton showcased for the world. Beautiful. I trust the lesson has not escaped my readers.

    -Roissy

    A note from the article concerning Juanita “Broaddrick.”

    “In 1978, 35-year-old Juanita Hickey worked as a registered nurse. She was married to her first husband, Gary Hickey, but having an affair with her future second husband, David Broaddrick. She had started her own nursing home in Van Buren, Arkansas, a successful endeavor that eventually grew into two residential facilities – one for the elderly and one for severely handicapped children. The young, charismatic Clinton was in the midst of his gubernatorial race and had made a campaign stop at her nursing home that spring.

    “Having an affair with her future second husband?” ‘Nuff said.

    Just goes to show that even hyper-“alphas” like Clinton get the same treatment the rest of us are subjected to when a woman’s “feelings” get offended.

    Roissy, you’re a good young man. I’ve seen friends like you go down — hard. Better you lose that romantic streak before it gets you hurt. Be like Genghis, not Romeo.

    Like


  59. — Gay people are cool,

    Sailer once wrote: “Straight men often find lesbians erotic in fantasy, but tiresome in reality. They find gays repugnant in concept but often likable in person.”

    — feminism is great for men like me,

    Good for you!

    — and race realists are racists who use science to hate black people.

    Or, they don’t like to be lied to by the PC regime, whatever their real-life attitudes to real-life people are. Free speech is good.

    And don’t tell me that black people don’t bitch about whites, whatever their individual attitudes toward their real-life white acquaintances may be in person.

    — And don’t forget, women only like sex with alphas

    Good point and very true. Which is why guys need to act like they got a pair — which is what being an alpha means — whether they are a CEO or a dishwasher. No woman likes to have sex with a wimp.

    Like


  60. Joel, Whiskey, Rain And….. a breath of fresh air.

    Like


  61. 38 Turkeybaster115, 45 retired urologist

    It’s clear that you two are suffering from a severe case of homophilia. RU, you should know this as a doctor.

    Like


  62. @58 rain and:

    My original comment (#34) was concerning the aspect of the “gay gene” mentioned in Roissy’s original post. Your dismissive discussion of my comment had to do with psychology and social behavior, not genetics. Your reference link (which doesn’t work) is to a psychology study. The point you apparently missed, in your rush to your vulgar ad hominem attack on me, was that the genomes of humans and chimps/bonobos share 95% similar DNA. Since the human genome has 3 billion base pairs, this implies that at most twelve million bytes of extra “software” transforms chimps into humans. Chimps and bonobos display rampant homosexual and bisexual behavior. All three species share a common genetic ancestor. My point: if there is a “gay gene”, it is statistically more likely (by a great deal) to be a part of the DNA we share with these other apes than to be a recent Homo sapiens mutation.

    My use of the word “homophobic” was not meant to construe some less-than-worthy aspect of your social adaptation. It was meant to point out that one must not reject the human genetic connection to the programming we *all* share with apes who display homosexual conduct.

    BTW, I don’t think “Roissy in DC” is a blog intended for loads of scientific reference links. The information exists; interested readers can google it.

    Like


  63. Straight men often find lesbians erotic in fantasy, but tiresome in reality.

    As I like to say, men like the concept of two hot women fucking him. In contrast, two tomboyish females are not the ideal for the average male. Besides, only the alpha males have the strength for two women at the same time.

    Besides, even the two girls + one guy porn isn’t very good regardless of the directors.

    Or, they don’t like to be lied to by the PC regime, whatever their real-life attitudes to real-life people are. Free speech is good.

    Well, that’s the problem with free speech in this case. Should a group of people be allowed to say things that imply a certain degree of inferiority on a group of our citizenry?

    Maybe it’s, me, but I just don’t see how one can befriend minority groups, yet believe in race realism since one’s biases will form stereotypes about people that we meet. In turn, it’s hard to have white friends or visit “white spaces”, when you fear that all whites are racists who will kill at the first sight of a black man.

    And don’t tell me that black people don’t bitch about whites, whatever their individual attitudes toward their real-life white acquaintances may be in person.

    I’ve seen that phenomenon first hand, but I’ve never understood it. If you really don’t like people of group X or Y, why would you really associate with any of their members? Wouldn’t you fear that the person harbours suppressed feelings against you that may come out with anger? I just can’t see how one can say “blacks have low IQ”, but then go hang out with your best friend who happens to be black or some other minority. As far as I’m concerned, it’s cognitive dissonance, and I could never be friends with somebody who believes in race realism for fears that one day, I could be his next target.

    Of course, like a good person, I spend my days trying to teach my nephew than anti-Semitism is wrong and my niece that anti-Latino and anti-white racism is wrong too. I may never have kids, but the last thing I want is the cycle of hate repeated from *my* side of the divide.

    Like


  64. Good point and very true. Which is why guys need to act like they got a pair — which is what being an alpha means — whether they are a CEO or a dishwasher.

    Well, what constitutes an alpha male? Is it simple confidence, or as Roissy would say, is it the ability to attract a huge number of women without much effort?

    The other evening, an old friend and I discussed his ability to mate with a good number of quality women of his age group. He contends that simple confidence and charisma allow him to attract these women, I contend that much of his confidence is backed primarily by his real estate portfolio, inheritance, Jewish ancestry moderate paying job, and science degree. In contrast, since I lack these things, I have no reason to be as confident and thus as successful with women. Plus, as he’s noted, our tastes in women are different, and my tastes are much narrower than his.

    Interestingly, whiskey may have a point, as he claimed that the women understood that he was dating multiple women at the same time, and it wasn’t a problem for him. In contrast, I’d feel guilty about flirting with another woman while noting that I have a date set up in the future.

    Like


  65. — when you fear that all whites are racists who will kill at the first sight of a black man.

    The next move in improving American racial relations lies with the black people. When some black guys in Knoxville kidnap, rape, mutilite, and murder a white 20 y.o. couple, let me hear black folks from all walks of life denounce the crime. What happened in this case, is a large number of ordinary black people got together for a candle light vigil… for the perps.

    I respect your desire for harmonious relations between black people and white people. And I share it. But for it to be possible, a major mentality-change must occur on the part of the larger African-American society.

    Anyway, I stay away from IQ points because it’s mostly nerds that yap on about IQs.

    — Well, what constitutes an alpha male? Is it simple confidence, or as Roissy would say, is it the ability to attract a huge number of women without much effort?

    I think for our purposes, having confidence is 90% of being Alpha. Some guys are natural leaders or have natural charm. Other guys, develop these skills. Others, without the right guidance and practice, don’t.

    Like


  66. on August 23, 2008 at 8:36 pm somebody from half sigma's blog

    DA:
    Well, that’s the problem with free speech in this case. Should a group of people be allowed to say things that imply a certain degree of inferiority on a group of our citizenry?

    if it’s backed by actual science, then it should be allowed in any debate. anyone who doesn’t believe in this level of free speech is likely someone who’ll get avoided. the statements that are not politically correct will simply be said in the company of people who aren’t as politically correct as you anyway. there is really no point to using ad hominems to try to stop freedom of speech. all it does is prove to everyone not to try to engage in discussion with you and freedom of speech persists regardless.

    PA:
    I respect your desire for harmonious relations between black people and white people. And I share it. But for it to be possible, a major mentality-change must occur on the part of the larger African-American society.

    i totally agree with this statement.

    DA:
    As far as I’m concerned, it’s cognitive dissonance, and I could never be friends with somebody who believes in race realism for fears that one day, I could be his next target.

    i agree that being friends with someone you have cognitive dissonance with is hard- maybe impossible.

    like i said, if you try to use ad hominems on a race realist, he/she will just go underground and simply avoid you. seriously, i think people could do worse than avoid other people/groups that they might have cognitive dissonance with. roissy said proximity + diversity = war and the only potential exceptions to this are if the different groups have similar IQ’s

    Of course, like a good person, I spend my days trying to teach my nephew than anti-Semitism is wrong and my niece that anti-Latino and anti-white racism is wrong too. I may never have kids, but the last thing I want is the cycle of hate repeated from *my* side of the divide.

    you ARE a good person. i totally agree with this statement.

    Like


  67. David, if you’re convinced that everyone you meet is against you, everyone you meet *will* turn against you. It’s a really bad attitude. Nobody likes to be suspected without reason.

    Regarding race realists who are heavily into IQ, remember that most race realists who are heavily into IQ are nerds who dislike non-nerds. They don’t have issues with nerdy black people, they have an issue with the lack of nerdy black people. That’s why they don’t have an attack of cognitive dissonance with you.

    Like


  68. The next move in improving American racial relations lies with the black people.

    Seriously, could you explain your viewpoint a bit further? Also, explain the “mentality-change” portion of your comment as well. Even I, as a descendant of prole Caribbean immigrants sits on the outside of the spectrum.

    What happened in this case, is a large number of ordinary black people got together for a candle light vigil… for the perps.

    It’s hard to comment on this situation since we have no real background to what happened, IMHO. It is conceivable that a portion of the community just didn’t believe that the suspects were guilty, and that the crime was done by other suspects. I suspect it’s similar to how must whites believed OJ was guilty, and most blacks presumed he was innocent, and both sides ignored whatever evidence would have dismissed their viewpoints.

    if it’s backed by actual science, then it should be allowed in any debate

    The problem is that the science in question backs the views of some people who feel that this makes certain classes of people in the world inferior to other people, and there is the potential that this may encourage other people to believe that other groups are “inferior” too. It *could* encourage violence against such groups as well.

    Then of course, there’s my personal concern that the higher IQ types in the group will be brushed off as low IQ and ignored.

    roissy said proximity + diversity = war and the only potential exceptions to this are if the different groups have similar IQ’s

    Whites and Asians can live in the same neighbourhood and nobody complains. I live in a mostly white neighbourhood, and we’re not committing acts of crime against our neighbours. In contrast, the working class black neighbourhood near me has to deal with acts of crime by other black people…

    you ARE a good person. i totally agree with this statement.

    I was being sarcastic. I’m really not a good person…

    Like


  69. on August 23, 2008 at 9:45 pm somebody from half sigma's blog

    The problem is that the science in question backs the views of some people who feel that this makes certain classes of people in the world inferior to other people, and there is the potential that this may encourage other people to believe that other groups are “inferior” too. It *could* encourage violence against such groups as well… Then of course, there’s my personal concern that the higher IQ types in the group will be brushed off as low IQ and ignored.

    science is not necessarily politically correct. if u want to study only politically correct science then say so, but don’t assume it’s the truth you are going after.

    Whites and Asians can live in the same neighbourhood and nobody complains. I live in a mostly white neighbourhood, and we’re not committing acts of crime against our neighbours. In contrast, the working class black neighbourhood near me has to deal with acts of crime by other black people…

    we are talking about broad statistical trends. there are individuals of any race/group who are above average and/or exceptional. no real race realist would dispute this or say that persons like you can’t exist.

    I was being sarcastic. I’m really not a good person…

    you like to argue don’t you?

    Like


  70. The problem is that the science in question backs the views of some people who feel that this makes certain classes of people in the world inferior to other people, and there is the potential that this may encourage other people to believe that other groups are “inferior” too. It *could* encourage violence against such groups as well.

    On the other hand, not recognizing superior intelligence leads to conspiracy theories which frequently lead to pogroms. There’s no reason to assume that recognizing lower IQ would lead to hate and violence against the group by the higher IQ groups, but there’s plenty of evidence that hiding the real reason of a group’s success leads to hate and violence by the low IQ group against the higher IQ groups.

    Hell, even the most notorious genocide in world history is all about a lower IQ group resenting the incomprehensible success of a higher IQ group. It’s also worth pointing out that in that case the lower IQ group was white.

    Like


  71. Hell, even the most notorious genocide in world history is all about a lower IQ group resenting the incomprehensible success of a higher IQ group. It’s also worth pointing out that in that case the lower IQ group was white.

    Not all of the Jewish victims of the Holocaust were affluent urban merchants and financiers and intellectuals. Many of them were struggling rural and small-town peasants and craftsmen.

    Like


  72. Not to mention the fact that the Nazis also took great pleasure in killing millions of Slavs, Roma, the mentally retarded of any nationality, etc etc etc.

    It’s not about IQ. It’s about having a functionally disturbed culture. I think that’s something a lot of people miss.

    Like


  73. I have taken to saying that everyone else in the room is more interesting than me. It gets a much better reaction.

    I tried a variant on that ‘i’m more interesting than them” line a number of times, but each time, even with cocky-funny smirk, it came off as arrogant, and each time I quickly followed with “nah, I’m just joking, I’m really boring, everyone here is more interesting than me”, and they just lit up after that.

    Check out Self Derpreciation the key to the art of seduction.

    Like


  74. Not that it really matters, since I just enjoy reading Roissy’s posts, but the topic was: “If you like very feminine women (and what man doesn’t?), you’ll want to date girls who have gay relatives,” and the genetic implications. There was no mention of racial relations or IQ. It’s a version of Godwin’s Law: “As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.”

    Like


  75. Roissy –

    How do you call George W. Bush an “alpha male” outside of his current status of “U.S. President.” Surely holding this position calls for Alpha status in the human hierarchy. But if we look at this guy’s total life – we see a lot of “shirking” to use another Alpha Male President’s phrase – Teddy Roosevelt.

    Bush is a guy who was an alcoholic until age 40. In other words, an addict who needed a crutch to get through life on a daily basis. This doesnt sound like a tough, courageous character to me.

    In comparison with his father, who was a dutiful achiever in so many realms (independent millionaire, CIA, VP, then Pres), Bush the Younger was a Playboy for much of his life who really accomplished most things through his family connections. Laura Bush – lovely lady she seems to be — was not exactly Super Alpha model material when he got hitched.

    Currently, the talk about W’s “courage” is centered around his “stay the course” stubborness with Iraq. But even here there is widespread speculation that W. is actually a pawn of much wiser and more manipulative “neocons” such as Cheney, Rumsfeld for many years, Abe Shulsky (Office of Special Plans) which cooked up the whole Middle East scenario.

    My main point: I see a dearth of “Alpha” factors for W. when we look at the total guy.

    Like


  76. @retired urologist

    My use of the word “homophobic” was not meant to construe some less-than-worthy aspect of your social adaptation. It was meant to point out that one must not reject the human genetic connection to the programming we *all* share with apes who display homosexual conduct.

    Bullshit. Homophobic has a very specific connotation of implying ignorance and bigotry. You know this. Don’t pull that “that’s not what I meant”-ignorance kiddie crap.

    And secondly, you completely ignored his point: that homosexual behavior amongst humans and amongst chimps are different.

    And the gene similarity thing? Really? It’s obvious at this point to many scientists that a huge factor is not simply the genes present, but rather that the timing of their activation/inactivation plays a huge role in development and behavior. The ’12 million bytes’ of information is a poor analogy; with procedural programming techniques 12 million bytes can make a pretty intense divergence.

    Like


  77. 1. “The ‘12 million bytes’ of information is a poor analogy; with procedural programming techniques 12 million bytes can make a pretty intense divergence.”

    It’s not my observation, since I have no expertise in computer science, nor in brain development nor artificial intelligence. It comes from Eliezer Yudkowsky, http://www.singinst.org/overview/whatisthesingularity. I don’t give a fuck who you are, hiding behind your anonymous screen name, when it comes to intellect, computer knowledge, and workings of the brain, you couldn’t wash his jock (although I get the impression you might want to).

    2. I did not ignore his point. I simply pointed out why he was wrong, needle-dick.

    3. “It’s obvious at this point to many scientists that …” The classic beginning for a statement based on no specific knowledge or evidence, other than the moronic concept of anecdotes, dick-for-brains.

    Hey, these vulgar, ad hominem attacks are really fun! I can see why internet blogs are full of them!

    Like


  78. So are you saying that it is incorrect that there is an understanding about the complexity of gene expression, or are you just trying to be cute?

    Like


  79. I don’t really like talking about race all of the time because it gets old for me real quick but I understand that some people are not able to reach out to blk people in the real world.

    BTW, DA your exotic blk label works for you here, the same way my black Ameican label worked well for me in Europe.

    PA said:The next move in improving American racial relations lies with the black people. When some black guys in Knoxville kidnap, rape, mutilite, and murder a white 20 y.o. couple, let me hear black folks from all walks of life denounce the crime. What happened in this case, is a large number of ordinary black people got together for a candle light vigil… for the perps

    PA, please don’t for a second think that blk people as a group, agree with what happened with those two. Both of them were raped for Godsake. Why would any group of mentally healthy people think that rapping, torturing, and murdering a young couple is okay.

    Most of the crimes that blk people commit really don’t effect you or the rest of white America. Overwhelmingly, blks kill other blks. When something happens to an attractive young white female or in this case couple, that’s when we see the issue take center stage. How often do you see blk Lacey Peterson’s on the news. Even Asian women for all of their assimilation do not feature on the news as missing persons. There are millions of Asian women in this country and 10 have never disappeared on strange circumstances?

    When you say that blk from “all walks of life” should denounce crime, what do you want us to do? Should all 38 million of us walk up to random white people on the street and apologize for the crimes of a small number of blks. I know I would feel weird and uncomfortable if random white people started to come up to me and apologize for Jim Crowe and Slavery.

    Anyway, I stay away from IQ points because it’s mostly nerds that yap on about IQs

    I’ve agree. From my observation, they have a need to feel superior just like the goodlooking cool people who reject them.

    But for it to be possible, a major mentality-change must occur on the part of the larger African-American society

    Please explain in detail.

    Like


  80. Spike, they also killed gays and the hand full of blks who lived in Europe during that time. Gays in the Netherlands had to wear pink ribbons. It shows you what can happen when people follow their leaders blindly. The days after 9/11 looked eerily like the being of a Holocaust for Muslims. How many different stories did we read about in the paper of Muslims and people who looked like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad being attacked in the streets.

    I don’t know about any of you, but seeing pictures of people hanging from trees after being lynched, living in Concentration camps and bodies stacked on the roadside in Rwanda makes me really look at how hatred can get out of control, and how easy it is for your next door neighbor to kill you.
    .

    Like


  81. Chic:

    Yes, and the trade unionists, and the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Communists, and the Anti-Nazi Clergy, etc etc etc

    Hence the “etc etc etc”. If there was a list of people who the Nazis wanted to gather up and kill, it would go on for ages.

    But that’s the thing. We just don’t get it anymore. We’re so “Holy Shit, where’s my favorite victim, they suffered too!” that we forget the social pathologies and darkness that leads humanity down such paths. We look at suffering and play it like it’s a team sport, with points and winners. We don’t look at the abyss within all that much. I mean the true one, not the sort of excuse for depravity that Roissy enjoys talking about.

    Like


  82. We’re so “Holy Shit, where’s my favorite victim, they suffered too!”
    I call this the victim Olympics. I hate it people try to compete to see who has suffered more. I felt like that’s what some Hillary Clinton supporters did when talked about how Hillary was treated during her run.

    We don’t look at the abyss within all that much. I mean the true one, not the sort of excuse for depravity that Roissy enjoys talking about.

    Please give more details..

    Like


  83. […] strikes terror into my heart Shit: The girl’s attitude is key here. Femininity is not just curves, it’s temperament and […]

    Like


  84. […] – bookmarked by 6 members originally found by rafitzg on 2008-10-14 Butt Pirates, Butt Pats, A Killer Line http://roissy.wordpress.com/2008/08/22/butt-pirates-butt-pats-a-killer-line/ – bookmarked by 3 […]

    Like