Category Archives: Ridiculousness

by | October 14, 2017 · 11:45 PM

“Child Porn” (Whatever the Hell That Means), Teen Sexting and Pic/Video Trading and Other Moral Panics, Mass Hysterias, Emotional Derangements and General Idiocies

Contrary to what my enemies say about me, I will take a pretty hard line below. The real deal (adults and kids 12-below child porn) needs to be kept the Hell off the Net. People making that crap, putting it up on the Net, or collecting it on their drives can go down hard for all I care. Throw the book at ’em. On the other hand, the issue is somewhat more nuanced than that, and it brings up some extremely difficult questions in legal theory and moral philosophy and general common sense.

The laws against child pornography are correct in that it ought to be illegal put that stuff up on the Net.

I have a hard time seeing how it is illegal to look at the stuff. I mean, you are cruising around the Net and BAM there’s some child porn on your screen. Or you are pic trading porn in a chatroom, and all of a sudden the guy you are trading with sends you child porn BAM! Even if you had no idea the guy was going to send you that crap, and you deleted it within seconds of it hitting your screen, you still committed a felony. Isn’t that crap?

Suppose you are cruising along the Chans and BAM there’s some child porn up on the Chan. OK what exactly are you supposed to do? Leave the page? Stay on the page? It doesn’t matter! Because BAM as soon as that crap hit your screen, you committed a felony! Any way to go back and uncommit the felony? Nope! You’re going down forever more unless you can clean your drive real well. See what crap that is?

I also have a problem with eyeball crimes. This is the only crime on Earth where you can to go prison for many years for “illegal looking.” What do you mean illegal looking? What the Hell kind of crime is that? You can look at anything else on Earth, videos of men being slowly tortured to death by serial killers, Islamists sawing people’s heads off and torturing them to death in every way imaginable, the worst crime scenes  imaginable… everything on God’s Green Earth is legal for your eyeballs.

Except for this CP crap. The argument goes that this kid was injured or harmed in the making of that porn. Indeed that’s probably the case. But then the argument goes that by the fact that your eyeballs grazed that photo of that kid being harmed, you horribly harmed that poor child again by looking at them with your eyeballs! Really?! Your eyes hurt that kid? Every time someone looks at that pic, that kid gets horribly injured? How? Where’s the injury? Is it invisible? Can we measure it?

For this to be true, you would have to prove that that kid was aware every time someone looked at the CP photo of them. So if the photo gets looked at 100 times that day, somehow through some psychic process that kid gets a devastatingly injurious brain zap every time? The whole argument behind this theory is sheer idiocy, and it defies all logic and sense. It’s not a rational argument in any possible universe.

You see where they say Mr. X was arrested for “downloading” child porn. For a long time, I thought these guys deserved it. I mean “downloading” means saving it to your drive in a folder, right? Once you do that, you’re possessing it, right? I have no problem with the possession of CP being illegal. You shouldn’t be collecting that crap on your drive. And yes, all you perverts collecting that crap is of course what drives the market for it in the first place. It’s illegal to possess all sorts of things. There are many such laws saying we may not possess this or that. That’s grounded in sanity, logic and legal precedent.

But recently I realized that downloading CP doesn’t mean downloading at all necessarily. It’s often a reference to the horrific crime of “illegal looking with illegal eyeballs.” I guess your eyeballs have to go to prison for the illegal looking charges? Just by the fact that you happened upon that child porn, perhaps out of complete ignorance and innocence, you are guilty of “downloading child porn.” Isn’t that stupid? It’s “downloading” because your browser downloads a copy of everything you see on the Net to the browser cache. Now I suppose if you clean your drive thoroughly, you can get rid of everything in your browser cache, but still, what the Hell kind of retarded crime is that? Illegal looking? WTF!

Child pornography is photos and videos of adults having sex with children age 12-under. I don’t think pornographic photos and videos of teenagers having sex with anyone is child porn. It’s just not. I don’t know what the Hell it is, but it sure as Hell ain’t “kiddie porn.”

Teenagers of both sexes, boys and girls, are constantly taking nudes and pornographic photos and maybe even videos of themselves and trading them around with other teens. I can tell you for certain that there is a vast amount of this going on, at least on Twitter. How do I know? Because I know about this stuff. They form private pic and video trading groups, (usually all underage teenage girls mostly 15-17) and they trade pics of each other, sext each other, etc.

Usually the groups are girls under 18 only, no boys allowed. Often bisexual girls are especially encouraged to join. So underage teenage girls are taking a vast amount of pornographic photos and maybe videos of themselves and maybe others and trading them all around to fellow underage teens. It’s literally an epidemic. And according to the law, it’s all child porn. Every one of those girls taking those photos and videos is “producing/manufacturing child pornography.” If she trades the stuff with her girlfriend? Now she’s “distributing child pornography.” Huge numbers of teenagers of both sexes are being arrested for manufacture, distribution and possession of child pornography. This insanity is absolutely outrageous. It shows just how insane the Pig State really is. It’s not even a Police State – it’s actually a Pig State.

So what is to be done? I have no idea. We should leave these kids alone with their pics, though. If they put them up on the Net, that’s not OK, but from what I can tell, girls are hardly putting any porn pics of themselves up on the Net. It’s all going back and forth with messaging and emails. Almost nothing is going up on any webpage. I think we should make it illegal for these teenagers to put this teen porn up on the Net. We have to ban that. And we need to keep the under 18 for porn law in. You know why?

This is why:

Now suppose we said that in Kentucky the age of consent is 16, so you can have sex with any legal person you want to at that age, 13-93? There are laws like this all over the land. It’s perfectly legal for any adult man to have sex with a 16 year old girl in half the states in the US, which is fine. But if it’s legal for her to have sex, why isn’t it legal for her to take a nude pic of herself? So now you have a tidal wave of cases of the Pig State allowing a 20 year old and a 16 year old to have sex with each other, but as soon as one takes a nude of themselves or the other and gives it to the other one, they’ve manufactured and distributed child porn, and they have to go to prison for 10 years! Idiocy!

So this 20 year old man can have sex with this 16 year old girl 10 times a day for years if he wants to, but as soon as these star crossed lovers who are screwing each other’s brains out every day take a nude of one or the other, they’re child pornographers and they are going to prison for 10 years! What kind of stupid crap is that!?

I do not know what to do about this. I suppose if they are over the age of consent, they can take pics of each other all they want and pass them around at least to one another in privacy and to other minors. I’m leery about this stuff being passed around willy nilly to adults though. They can’t put them up on the Net because it’s illegal material, and we don’t want that junk on the Net.

But why not? Indeed, let us look at a fascinating argument:

A very good argument is that if a girl can consent to sex at 16, why can’t she consent to taking porn photos and videos of herself and put them up on the Web? Or allow other people to film her? Actually it sounds logical. If you’re old enough to screw, of course you’re old enough to do porn. At the very least, you ought to be able to take pictures of your own self and put them up on the Net. I have no problem with this in theory.

But here is the problem. Pornographers are some of the most low down, sleaziest, slimiest men (and almost all are men) on the planet. They’re just about criminals, except what they are doing is legal. Most are what I would call legal criminals. The rates of Axis 2 Cluster B disorders is very high among pornographers. Narcissistic Personality Disorder and especially sociopathy and psychopathy are everywhere in that industry. It’s Ground Zero for male controlled psychopaths. Most pornographers are simply awful people.

Now here’s the problem. Say in these states where the AOC is 16 or 17, we allow girls that age to consent to doing porn. I agree it’s rational and reasonable. But here’s what is going to happen. Very soon after you legalize legally sexually mature girls age 16 and 17 to do porn, the porn studios are going to be flooded with teenage girls wanting to do porn. It’s just going to happen. I assure you it will. If they can’t find them here in the US, they will readily find them in Russia, Romania, Ukraine, Bulgaria, and places like that.

Because the porn industry is constantly pushing the envelope and promoting weirder, kinkier and sicker stuff in a race to the bottom, the 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn will soon be flooded all across the net. There’s already a massive market for the “Barely 18” market, in which 18-20 year old girls do porn for the “young girls” market. You can call men who would look at those 16 and 17 year old girls doing porn sick fucks all you want, but I assure you that in the US alone, you will have millions of men looking at that 16 and 17 year old girl porn.

Do we want this? No, we do not want this! We cannot allow girls under 18 to make porn because of the scenario above. I don’t want to open up my browser and see 10 ads for 16  year old girls doing hardcore porn. Just forget it.

As far as CP – the real deal – adults and kids 12 and under – goes:

  • Of course it needs to be illegal to put that crap up on the Net.
  • It has to be illegal to make it.
  • It has to be illegal to trade it back and forth by messaging or emails.
  • People who collect that crap in folders on their drives can go down hard for all I care.

But illegal looking? Illegal eyeballs? That’s just weird. How do you justify putting some poor schmuck in prison for 10 years because of some image that he innocently stumbled on and flashed before his eyes? The whole idea of “illegal looking” at anything on Earth being a crime, much less a serious felony, sounds completely bizarre. Like I said, name one other thing on God’s Green Earth that it is illegal to look at?

Let the teenagers take their porn pics and whatnot of themselves and each other and trade them around in strict private out of the view of everyone else. If it’s perfectly legal for two humans to engage in any sex act they wish with each other, for God’s sake, of course they can take photos of each other doing it or just posing with nothing on. But I don’t want to see that crap being passed all around town. If you are a grown adult, you should not be looking at nudes and porns of underage girls. The exception would be if you are in a legal sexual relationship with her. But passing them all around town? We need to discourage that somehow.

There is zero sense, logic, sanity or rational thinking operating on any argument about this stuff. 100% of the people talking about this stuff are emotionally deranged. They are trying to think about this, but they are emotionally crazed so they can’t think about it logically. If you are in an emotionally deranged state of mind, you can’t make any rational decision about anything. Reasonable thinking only occurs when people calm down and stop thinking emotionally.

Emotional thinking never does any good. All it ever does is give you the wrong answer.

7 Comments

Filed under Child Porn, Computers, Crime, Girls, Government, Jailbait, Law, Losers, Mass Hysterias, Moralfags, Narcissistic, Personality Disorders, Pornography, Psychology, Psychopathology, Ridiculousness, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Sociopathy

by | August 29, 2017 · 7:02 PM

Is It Okay for Me to Want to Have a Gay Best Friend but Not Like Lesbians?

Answered on Quora.

Watch this answer get downvoted to Hell. I have answered quite a few questions regarding homosexuality, and while I was very careful not to come across anti-gay in my answers, I pretty much just told it like it is about gay men because I know them very well having lived and worked around them for years. Almost every single question I answered on gay men got downvoted to Hell by fags. And fags apparently mass reported me to Quora for “homophobia.” The site warned me after each post that if I persisted in my evil homophobia they were going to ban me. That site is so PC, SJW and Cultural Left that I am thinking maybe they should just call it Queera and get it over with. I mean why all the pretense?

This is getting ridiculous. Gay men are getting as bad as Blacks and Jews. Everything’s homophobia I guess. They see insults everywhere, and you can’t say anything about them unless you are praising them to the skies. I guess it makes sense though because gay men are perfect, right? They are immaculate angels that all us guys need to imitate because of their ultimate perfection and excellence. There’s nothing bad about them. Even their shit doesn’t even smell.

It’s already like this with the exalted Jews, who are of course the most perfect humans on Earth and have never done anything bad in 2,000 years. If you say one bad thing about them, the Jews will hound you to Hell and back for the rest of your life. And well they should, for how dare you imply there is anything wrong with God’s most perfect people!

And then there’s Muslims. There is no group of people as perfect and special and amazing as Muslims. I mean, these humans are so amazing that they can everything but fly! Hell, maybe they can fly. You never know what those amazingly great Muslims have up their sleeves in terms of hidden talents. I mean we can bash Christianity and Christians to Hell and back because it’s mostly White people practicing that religion. Anything mostly White is obviously evil.

But Islam is practiced mostly by those tan and browner people. Everyone knows that the browner the person, the more perfect and special they are. All us lowly Whites should try to be as perfect as those most excellent brown people! I honestly believe that brown people never do anything wrong, and of course there is nothing to criticize about them. Anyway if you do, it’s Islamophobia, and that means you are pure evil, worse than Hitler.

Of course! In fact, this describes almost all straight women. Most straight women are not real keen on lesbians or lesbianism, and most prefer to avoid lesbians if they can help it. I have never met one straight women with a “lesbian friend.”

Furthermore, lesbians don’t seem to want to hang out with straight women. Lesbians and straight women don’t hang out together. Lesbians hang out with other lesbians and gay men. That’s all they wish to be around.

Straight women hang around other straight women, heterosexual men (for sex and romance), and gay men (for nonsexual male friendship).

Straight men hang out with other straight men and straight or bi women. I have never met a straight man with a lesbian friend, and most straight men my age do not have gay friends. I find the idea of straight men having gay friends to be bizarre.

Most straight women of a certain age have or have had a gay friend or more than one gay friend. Gay men and straight women often get along extremely well.

On the other hand, straight women are usually wildly homophobic about the men that they date, and they do not wish them to be even .0000001% gay. I have a couple of completely straight male friends who told me they had sex with men a time or two on an experimental basis (this is actually very common). They made the mistake of telling their girlfriends that they had done this, and the women went through the roof, screaming every gay slur you could possibly think of. “Faggot! Queer! Fag!” It went on and on. They were like Mike Pence on steroids. One guy told me that for a year or two after they broke up, she kept sending him texts and leaving him phone messages like, “You faggot! You fucking queer! You fag! You’re such a queer!”

And these women were very supportive of gay rights and had gay friends. In fact, my friends told me that they had to be OK with gay men to even date these women, as these women were the “I don’t date homophobes” type. Both friends were homophobic towards gay men, but they had to tone it down if they wanted to get any sex.

It is almost boringly pedestrian and normal for straight women to like to have gay friends but to be very dubious and distant when it comes to lesbians. I’m not sure if they dislike lesbians so much as they really don’t want much to do with them.

4 Comments

Filed under Christianity, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Islam, Jews, Race/Ethnicity, Religion, Ridiculousness, Sex, Whites, Women

by | March 9, 2017 · 11:57 PM

Repost: Historical Linguistics Mired in Stick in the Mud Conservatism

I have some folks in the field of Linguistics who are apparently my out and out enemies. Why they want to play like this is not known. I don’t want to fight with them. I’m not sure I want to be friends with them either since they are such total pricks and anonymous cowards, but jerks are better than enemies. They started it.

Here they profess to take this paper apart, but they do no such thing which is as usual for these pitiful jokers. Even the title is false. I’m not a STEMLord you boneheads. I’m  terrible at physical sciences. I got my degree in the same hokey social science that they did.

I am simply a social sciences dissident like Steven Pinker. Many of our fields are mired in all sorts of unproven or out and out false politically correct nonsense which passes as dogma simply because it is a political proper belief. This is because they believe what they want to believe. On the other hand, they get social science nihilistic on other things and insist that this or that is not proven, endlessly moving goalposts so it can never be proven. Or they state that many things are unprovable and unmeasurable. I can’t even begin to list the number of things in this field that are apparently unmeasurable. It’s hard to imagine that there is any question in science that is unprovable or unmeasurable. It just sounds like more goalposts-moving.

Historical Linguistics is one of the more brutal subfields in Linguistics, probably because you can hardly prove much of anything.

It involves looking at languages and arranging them into families and then arranging them in the families in a proper fashion. So an essential aspect of Historical Linguistics is the discovery of new language families and the elaboration of existing ones. The former is pretty much over in this field because this silly discipline has decided that there will be no more large or old language families discovered. Nonsensically, this has resulted in an utterly idiotic proliferation of insipid “isolates” which are languages that cannot be proven to be related to others. But actually, long-rangers have already stacked most all of the world’s languages into decent families and in their view there are no isolates left.

In addition, there are all sorts of idiotic small families with a couple to separate members, and said family is not related to anything else. I guess nothing’s related to anything then! The bizarre fact is that this preposterous fake science takes great pride in this silly nihilism. Obviously every language is related to every other language ultimately because surely language arose only once in mankind’s history.

Nevertheless, Linguistics insists that this obvious fact is not proven, so I guess it’s not even a fact. Instead the dead solid truth is that somehow there scores of isolates and silly small language families that have no relations. Surely that is a false conclusion. The only way it could be true is if language arose scores of times all the way down to a few thousand years ago.

There were scores of bands of humans who had no language whatsoever except grunts and sign language, and they all independently developed language scores of times in the last ~50,000 years. It was an incredible case of parallel development, the most amazing the world has ever seen. Because this is the only  way that Linguistics’ crazy conclusion could be true. So Linguistics is now stating essentially is that this is what happened – language being independently developed all over the world down to the last several thousand years. Dumb, huh?

Historical Linguistics also involves the reconstruction of dead languages or earlier aspects of existing languages. The dead languages have left no record and are often 7-10,000 years old. The earlier phases of existing tongues also have often left no record.

So it is unprovable guesswork guessing at what ancient languages looked like, with no real way to prove if anyone is right or wrong because the languages no longer exist.

On top of that, the field has become mired in stick in the mud conservatism such that I doubt if any new ancient language families are going to proven in my lifetime. The conservatives keep moving the goalposts, and no evidence is ever good enough. Linguistics is ecstatic about this because endlessly moving the goalposts so you can never prove anything anymore means that Linguistics is now really groovy and scientific and this cures their physics envy.

Really it’s just another fake science in the social sciences, although a lot of the more basic work is indeed factually and empirically based. So the field encompasses a lot of excellent empirical based work. In addition, there are a number of preposterous leftwing shibboleths that everyone in the field has agreed are settled truth. Linguistics has adopted these silly ideas because they are leftwing and PC, and the field is at the heart of SJW Central Command. Mixed in with these silly politically based agreed upon facts (for which there is typically no evidence whatsoever) there is this prideful stubbornness and ultra-conservative attitude in Historical Linguistics because the way to be all sciency is to deny forever more any new language families. Because that cures our physics envy and makes us feel all sciency.

Actually many of the long-rangers have gathered excellent evidence for their work, all of which is rejected. For instance, Altaic now has a 1,000 page etymological dictionary of all things and there are many reconstructed forms and a great deal of commonality in basic morphology, core vocabulary, pronouns and language structure. We also have quite a few actual paradigms which are impossible to derive in unrelated languages. The long-rangers churn out many papers and here is where the real science is. They are doing dramatic work and proving  a lot of new things.

On the other hand, the fake science folks on the other end chant over and over in Gregorian fashion, “You didn’t prove it. You didn’t prove it. You didn’t prove it.” No matter what evidence is assembled and presented, the response is always this autistic nihilism of “You didn’t prove it.” The arguments of many of the deniers have been destroyed already. The deniers now take the preposterous position that there has been mass borrowing of personal pronouns in Asia and the Americas in particular. Such mass borrowing of personal pronouns would have had to have taken place on a scale almost never seen on Earth. In fact, personal pronouns are borrowed only very rarely. In Altaic we have pronoun paradigms cascading down through person and number, all lined up like the Marines in perfect formation.

This is waved away with “You didn’t prove it.” In fact, the standard line in Linguistics as voiced with complete seriousness by one of the top linguists in the field is that the stunning pronoun paradigms in Altaic were all borrowings. That statement is insipid on its face. It doesn’t even qualify as theory because it’s not even possible. They might as well say, “Bats flew out my butt” as there  was mass borrowing of entire pronoun paradigms.

In addition, Altaic has a huge amount of core vocabulary in common including forms that match in say Turkish and say Evenki. Apparently the Evenki and the Ottomans borrowed from each other. How? Bats flew out my butt.

Typically and for many decades now, all of these cognates in core vocabulary are said to be borrowings. There are specialists who spent most of their careers ferreting out these “borrowings” most of which are actual cognates. These men frittered away a lot of their careers on a theory that is obviously false. For the only way Altaic could not be true is if this vast amount of borrowing actually took place. The level of borrowing of core vocabulary postulated for Altaic is on a scale that is far beyond the language borrowing we have seen anywhere else on Earth. In other words, it didn’t happen. Bats flew out my butt. Once again it fails even the hypothesis stage because hypotheses are supposed to be plausible and anti-Altaic fails that those grounds alone.

Being a Historical Linguistics conservative is the hip and cool thing to be in Linguistics, and the peer pressure in the field is worse than an eighth grade playground. If you take a liberal position that says that some ancient language family like Altaic exists, the peer pressure on you as a fraud, idiot, kook, crank and loser is unbelievable. I am amazed that there are any liberals left promoting daring new ideas on ancient language families.

Leave a comment

Filed under Altaic, Cultural Marxists, Isolates, Language Families, Left, Linguistics, Politics, Ridiculousness, Scholarship, Science

by | March 3, 2017 · 12:59 AM

Female Rule Is Feminism In Power and Nothing More or Less

TJF: To Rob:

The West is under female rule..? Not sure if I understand, what are you labeling as female rule aside from some rules passed on college campuses regarding consent…?

Look! Female Rule is feminism! Female Rule occurs when feminists gain so much power that they can start imposing their rules and laws on society. Female Rule is Feminism in Power, period.

Female Rule is imposing rules and laws on society that are based on the rules and mores of women and against those of men. We have generally had Male Rule because male rules and mores at best are at least sensible, but they don’t lead to this World of Justice that women want and demand because life is messy, unfair and often cruel with no legal or societal repercussions for this nastiness.

The crazy Consent Rules came about because women are determined to stop date rape on campus. Thing is you cannot stop it. Date rape will go on. And it is almost impossible to prosecute. This is a horribly unfair thing. But men will just shrug and say life is imperfect and unfair. Yet women will try to create a Just World when there is no such thing and there probably cannot ever be such a thing.

First women tried “No means no!.” That’s not even true for starters, but to women it made a lot of sense, and they took it up as a Female Rule mantra. Well, “no is no” did not stop date rape because women were too stupid to make the rule work. Turns out that women are so dumb that a lot of times when they didn’t want to have sex, they were too frightened or frozen or whatever to say no. So they said nothing and the sex went forward. However it was rape because the man could not read her mind to determine that she was not willing even though she never said no. This led to the lunatic “silence is not consent” bullshit that has taken campuses by storm. Men are now expected to be mindreaders.

Because “no is no” was such a miserable failure, women upped the ante to “Affirmative Consent” which has got to be the most insane sexual rule ever imposed by humanity in its history. That’s not working well either as a lot of men are just bailing out of sex altogether rather than negotiate that minefield and women are complaining that men won’t ask them out.

This is the way women try to solve problems. Men just shrug their shoulders and say, “What are you going to do? Life’s not fair. We can’t solve every problem. Some problems cannot be solved. Some problems are best dealt with outside the structures of administrative law and the judicial system.

In the UK and in parts of the US, there are now major moves to make it illegal to have sex with a woman who is intoxicated. I have asked some women about this and they get those hard faces and say that if she’s drunk or loaded, you can’t have sex with her. Well that ends 50% of the sex in the US, as that’s how much is done under the influence. Once more, it’s women trying to solve an unsolvable problem, that of women getting so wasted that they are blacked out and then they have sex against their will. This is an unsolvable problem. It can be solved by women refusing to get blackout drunk,  but women won’t do that, so the problem goes on.

Indeed. But those campus rules are very important. They are spreading across to many other states now. And you are guilty until proven innocent. This is another aspect of Female Rule because women don’t believe in fairness or fair fighting.

The lunatic Pedophile Mass Hysteria that has conflated statutory rape with pedophilia and child molesting was caused by Female Rule. The new Creeper Mass Hysteria in which all men who women are not attracted to are labeled creeps and society agrees was also a creation of Female Rule. Female Rule has also created a situation whereby men are being charged with child molesting for having sex with underage girls who lied about their age. Incidentally, this is a mitigating factor in federal law but not in states’ laws.

Female Rule created the craziness that says that if a US man goes overseas, if he has sex with one under 18 year old girl one time, he has broken US child molestation law, even if he comes from a state where the age of consent is 15.

Female Rule created the sheer idiocy of domestic abuse law where a woman was able to hit me or try to hit me 35-400 times in one night, and I hit her back once and according to Female Rule, I would have had to go to jail. I just barely avoided going to jail that night. Female Rule says any time a man hits a woman, even in self-defense, he’s going to jail. Under Female Rule, you can’t even fight back if a woman hits you, and they hit us all the time now as Female Rule has emboldened them and encouraged them to bring out the innate but suppressed basic insanity and indulge it as much as possible.

Female Rule created idiotic child support laws that throw men in jail for nonpayment even if they are unemployed or disabled. Many homeless men have gone to jail for nonpayment of child support. You can’t make payments if you’re broke!

Female Rule created the lunacy of sexual harassment law which has now spread across the land according to which apparently if I ask any woman at work for her phone number, or ask her out, or make funny comments, or God forbid even look at her too much, I can be fired for sexual harassment. Sexual harassment law, creep-shaming and Feminism’s general hatred for men expressing sexual interest in females at all in any way has led to a lot of men becoming very shy around women for fear of being called a “creep.” There are university campuses where women are openly complaining that men won’t ask them out anymore. It’s because of Female Rule which has made them afraid to even flirt with women.

54 Comments

Filed under Britain, Crime, Europe, Feminism, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Higher Education, Law, Law enforcement, Mass Hysterias, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Radical Feminists, Regional, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, USA, Women

by | February 26, 2017 · 9:09 PM

Please Look at My Facebook Profile

Hi readers. I am under attack by a swarm of retards. Female retards. Conservative married women with a couple of kids retards. Retards from the most retarded flyover red state I’ve ever seen in my life. It numbs the mind how retarded the people in this state are. They are literally the most retarded Americans I have ever met. No wonder they love Mike Pence.

Anyway, these insane conservatard women are all up in arms about my Facebook profile. They say it is disgusting and creepy. They have been mass reporting me to Facebook authorities trying to get my profile shut down. And they keep saying I need to be reported to the authorities due to the content on my profile. They claim there is “pedophilia” on my profile, “pictures of young girls,” and “pictures of little girls.”

I have been on Facebook for years now and I have never had one single slight complaint about my profile. Not even the tiniest peep. Now all of a sudden there’s an uproar about it. Color me baffled.

And no one has ever told me that my profile is sick, creepy and disgusting because of its “pedophilic” content. They claim I went around to various websites “stealing pictures of little girls” to put on my “pedophile site.”

I saw that Facebook was investigating my page today, but it seems like they left me up.

They are apparently referring to my Photos section, which I never look at anyway. It’s just photos posted over from the website.

I have just gone over my Photos with a fine tooth comb, and for the life of me I cannot see any pedophilic content. Please go to my Facebook page and point out the “pedophilic”, disgusting, creepy pedophilic photos. Don’t worry, there’s no real CP up there. I have nothing to do with that stuff. I don’t even look at it, much less collect it. All the content up there is 100% legal. It’s not even gray area. It’s not even porn. It’s not even anything.

Anyway, for the life of me I cannot understand what these screeching retarded baboons are going on about. Come to think of it, the whole state seems to be populated by baboons. Trash has an incredible amount of hatred for these people and I am finally starting to get it. Red staters are horrific. I think we need a divorce from these autistic subhumans. This marriage ain’t going to work.

Once again, I have never seen so many out and out retards as in this one state. Are there any states in the US with as many retards as this state? What about your state, Jewson? What about yours, Juan? What about that retarded state you grew up in, Trash?

Goddamn these people are stupid! Did this whole state get hit by a Retard Virus?

Please go to my page and try to see why these monkeys are reporting me to the police. I don’t get it. Can you figure out what the Hell these orangutans are talking about? I mean, I know they’re retarded, but still. What’s making these apes so upset?

Here’s the profile itself? See anything creepy?

Here’s the photos that have got them screeching and banging their cages. See anything creepy, objectionable or “pedophilic?” See anything that should be reported to the authorities? Eeek eeek! Oook oook!

212 Comments

Filed under Idiots, Losers, Lunatics, Mass Hysterias, Midwest, Moralfags, Pedophile Mass Hysteria, Regional, Ridiculousness, USA, Vanity

by | January 7, 2017 · 10:15 PM

Can Gay Men Still Be Attracted to Women in Some Sort of Way?

I smash one more insane Cultural Left lie below.

The Cultural Left regularly states as one of its theorems that most if not all gay men get turned on by females on a regular basis. Why the Cultural Left wants to insist on this nonsense, I have no idea.

In general, the Cultural Left hates “generalizations.” They don’t want any laws or rules about anything. Or corollaries or theorems. Or well-supported conclusions. It’s scientific nihilism all the way.

We cannot “generalize” (which means form a conclusion by testing a hypothesis against the collected data) about anything on Earth. Nothing means anything. Or everything means nothing. Or nothing means everything. Or everything means everything. Or everything means anything. Or something. Or something. Or whatever. Or mumbo jumbo. Or bullshit.

Oh, and no labels! The Cultural Left hates labels because labels imply definitions and in the wild and woolly bonkers world of the insipid Cultural Left, definitions are generalizations, and generalized conclusions are bigotry. All generalizations are racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, looksist, speciesist or just some generalized form of oppression by the dominant paradigm of whatever the beaten down subaltern of the day is.

If you notice, the asinine scientific nihilism of the Cultural Left is straight out of the social sciences, where notoriously nothing can ever be proven except whatever silly PC theory the social scientist wants to prove, typically with no evidence, while the obvious common sense wisdom of ages is all “scientifically disproven” by a bunch of fake social science studies and is at any rate waved away as racism, sexism, fat-shaming, slut-shaming, homophobia, transphobia or whatever whatever bla bla. Oppression Olympics.

My answer to this question on Quora:

Newsflash: Gay men don’t get turned on by women! Isn’t that shocking?
Most of the gay men posting below are simply lying. Endless studies in the lab have shown that the typical gay men reacts in the following way:

maximal attraction to males

minimal attraction to females

In fact, this is one of the most robust findings in social science! They’ve tested it so many times that no one wants to test it anymore because everyone knows how it comes out.

To put it another way, how many straight men are turned on by men? Most of them are not, and even those that are have quite low levels of attraction to men.
Hard bisexual men are not common. Most men lean hard one way or the other. Most bisexual men lean straight and usually hard straight. A much smaller percentage of bisexual men lean gay ,and many of those lean hard gay. Fully 87% of men with a bisexual orientation in the lab lean straight. The other 13% lean gay and those vary 2/3 leaning hard gay and 1/3 being significantly bisexual.

I have not the faintest idea why all these gay men below are falling all over themselves to lie that they get hard for women on any regular basis.

Is there some sort of shame in not being turned on by women? So you’re not turned on by women? So what? Or as I would say, lucky you, now you don’t have to be driven insane by them like we are!

If you asked a group of straight men on here if we ever get turned on by men, would they be falling all over each other to deliriously confess how they regularly get hard for Brad Pitt? These gay men trying to desperately to prove that they get hard for women strike me as self-haters. The implication being that a man who cannot get turned on by women is defective somehow. Sad.

I work as a psychological counselor. In the course of my counseling, I have many people who come in with problems that involve sexuality in some way. In these cases, I do a sexual orientation assessment of my male clients. Contrary to the nonsense you are reading below about “don’t believe in labels,” the truth is that labels are completely appropriate for men when it comes to sexual orientation.

That is because by no later than age 15, it has been proven in the lab that male sexual orientation is completely fixed. Not only can gay men not be turned straight (as proven endlessly in the lab), but, even more pessimistically than that, gay men cannot even be moved anywhere towards straight on the orientation scale. A 0-100 gay man cannot even become 10-90. A 20-80 gay man cannot become even a 30-70.

There is no data on whether straight men can turn gay, but if it works one way, it must work the other. In fact, there is one intriguing case in the literature of a miserable and hopelessly heterosexual male college student who hated women and desperately wanted to be gay. He spent most of his time hanging around gay men trying to turn gay. He told the clinician that he had tried everything he could think of to turn gay, and nothing had worked.

We men are simply up the creek as far as our orientation goes. We are whatever we got wired up to be, and that’s that.

The sexual orientation assessment simply assesses what the man was turned on by as a child and then up until age 15, as I don’t care what happened after that, as nothing could have happened anyway. All gay men told me that they were strongly attracted to males from puberty on, and some told me that they were into males even as early as childhood. Most of them reported no attraction to females during childhood, puberty and adolescence.

So far, all of my gay male clients have told me that in general:

  • They rarely look at women and check them out sexually, in most cases never do so. They’re checking out the guys, all guys, all the time.
  • Even more importantly, they never fantasize about sex with women. Like never, ever. All men, all the time.
  • Perhaps most importantly of all, they never think about women when they masturbate. Not even once, ever. It’s all men, all the time.

I have not yet had one gay man in my practice who had any significant attraction to women. Now that’s anecdotal, not scientific, but it ought to tell you something.

Some of the men above who showed no significant reaction to women had identified as 25-75 bisexuals to me on my scale, which is reasonably bisexual. A 25-75 man is maximally attracted to males and attracted to females at only half that rate. However, my 25-75’s practically speaking had no real attraction to women at all. So you see gay men often identify themselves as much more bisexual than they are.

Furthermore, in interviews with women married to closeted gay men, the wives say that their husbands displayed no interest at all in their bodies, even when they were naked. The husbands were often fascinated with male bodies, some claiming to be sports fans and collecting bodybuilder or other magazines that showcase jacked handsome men. They report that their husbands showed a particular aversion to cunnilingus.

The husbands often preferred sex from the rear position, and some liked anal sex a bit too much, if you catch my drift. Others reported that the husband showed little or no interest in sex. Reports of longterm impotence among closeted gay husbands are common. Girlfriends have told me that they have disrobed partially or fully in front of gay or suspected gay men, and the gay men did not look at them for one second and even acted like nothing in the room had changed!

This has actually been born out in the lab, as until recently all studies of so called “bisexual” men found that they tested in the lab exactly the same way as gay men:

  • maximally to men
  • minimally to women

The researchers concluded that “bisexual” men were simply gay men who cannot accept being gay due to stigma or prejudice, so they identify as bisexual because that is more acceptable to society.

This scenario continues to this day, as males in their late teens on through their 20’s identify at fairly high rates as “bisexual.” A common scenario is young men in their 20’s identifying as “bisexual” while they have wives or girlfriends. Yet these men spend most of their free time in gay bars and clubs. If you follow these men to age 30, you will find out that nearly of them have come fully out as gay by then. It simply took them all through their 20’s to accept that they were gay. Sad.

However a study was recently reported where researchers found a group of “bisexual” men who were actually bisexual in that they reacted significantly to both men and women in the lab. So it appears that they do exist. However, pure bisexual men or 50-50’s seem to be quite rare. Surveys show that only 1% of men can be classified this way.

Men are leaners. We either lean straight or we lean gay, often pretty hard one way or the other. This is even true of bisexual men. I do not know why this is, but that is what the research shows us.

2 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Left, Man World, Psychology, Psychotherapy, Ridiculousness, Science, Scum, Sex

by | December 12, 2016 · 6:22 PM

Taking the Sex Stuff out of the Alt Left Manifesto

The edited manifesto is here.

  • Promotion of mass sexual perversion to the masses: group sex, threeways, bisexuality, opportunistic or experimental homosexual sex, orgies, sex in public. *see Note 5*
  • Note 5. All of these are perfectly acceptable private lifestyles and sexual choices, but they should be private, not openly promoted, sexual styles. Straight men should not be hectored to engage in experimental homosexual sex, bisexuality should not be promoted as a fad, and the masses should not be openly encouraged to have orgies, engage in group sex, threesomes or public sex. Would you want people encouraging your mother, sister, brother, daughter or son to do such things?

OK, so what’s the problem then? Well, everybody is freaking out about it, calling me homophobe, Puritan, sex-hater, etc. If you know me and know how I have lived my life, you would laugh pretty hard at that idea. It’s also suggested that I dislike kinky or perverted sex. Once again, if you know me, you might laugh at that  idea too. But nevertheless a lot of people do not like this stuff.

My Mom doesn’t. I don’t think my Dad did. Are my mother and father hung up old no-fun Victorian fogies because they don’t want to do threeways, go to orgies, experiment with gay sex, or do it in the middle the street? Is my Mom a hang-up old prude because she isn’t down with getting gangbanged (and I’m quite sure she’s not down with that)? This is where this is all heading. The Cultural Left has so taken over the mainstream culture that you now see articles in the mainstream press cheering on and celebrating homosexuality, bisexuality, orgies and threeways.

I now read in the mainstream  press about how I need to have my girlfriend peg me in the ass with a dildo (look it up if you are not familiar). If I don’t let her peg me, I’m hung up. I have hangups. I guess I need to go to a sex therapist to straighten all this out so I can take it like a man from my strapped-on girlfriend.

I also read articles about how I need to go out and see what a penis tastes like, otherwise I guess I’m just no hip or something. The articles have heads like, Men: Have You Gotten in Touch with Your Bisexual Side? If you read the article, that’s if you can even stand to, it’s all about a bunch of men who are not biological homosexuals at all going out and experimenting with screwing guys just because it’s hip and groovy nowadays to do that. If they were biological homosexuals, surely we could forgive, tolerate, accept or even cheer them on. Because if they can’t help it, they need to have as happy and healthy of lives as we do.

I read articles about how I need to get cucked. That means I go and get great big studly Black guys (bulls) to have sex with my girlfriend while I sit back and watch and enjoy the humiliation of this spectacle. My girlfriend and the bull also join in and insult me, mock, and laugh at me for being so pathetic. I enjoy being made fun of and ridiculed like this, I guess because I am a great big pussy idiot.

Some men even have their women lock their penises in little penis cages so they cannot have sex with the woman. Often they are not allowed to masturbate or at least not much. These guys apparently get off having sexual pleasure sadistically denied to them, I guess  because they are masochistic idiots. It’s not unusual for the woman and bull to want the man to service the bull bisexually at some point. Or to clean up the woman after it’s all done, which is also pretty bisexual.

Oh yes, and the man and woman are always White, and the bull is always Black. So it’s a Black guy cucking the wimpy White guy’s woman while the White man enjoys the insulting nature of this spectacle. The sexual/racial political implications of this are quite clear. If you know how the Cultural Left hates White man and how much they venerate and worship Blacks, you can see why the Cultural Left might want to promote this stuff. Is it “White genocide?” I doubt it, and I don’t even know what that is, but I imagine the Alt Right White Genocide crowd is not very happy at this latest sexual kink, to put it mildly.

I’m supposed to do this! This is presented as the latest coolest, hippest groovy thing to do, and I guess I’m just not with it if I balk at doing this.

I see an article about how a man throws a birthday orgy for his wife’s birthday. I guess he’s perfectly happy with a bunch of other men having sex with his wife. Whatever. The thing is, if I’m not down with this, I’m uncool. I’m not a hipster. I’m not a cool guy. I’m uptight. I have sexual hangups, from too much religion no doubt.

New York Magazine ran an article a while back about a week in the life of a gay man in New York. Well, it seemed to be a nonstop whirlwind of casual encounters and hookups along with an orgy or two thrown in for spice. By the end of the week, he may have had sex with 5-10 different men, I have no idea. This was written up in a, “Wow isn’t this cool and groovy!” style.

Well is it? I mean everyone knows that most gay men are anywhere from quite to sureally promiscuous, but is this something that should be celebrated in the mainstream media? If the gay media wants to celebrate it, it’s one thing. The Advocate or Frontiers or whatever the latest gay press outlet is can sing the praises of wild homosexuality all the want. But keep it behind the doors of the gay press, please, like I say keep the other stuff behind the doors of the adult press. Why should the rest of us have to read about this sort of thing?

Sure, insane promiscuity has caused all sorts of  problems for gay men, HIV just being one of them. There have also been epidemics of Hepatitis A and B, various parasites, syphilis, gonorrhea, and genital herpes and warts. And I assume there are others. All of these combined have resulted in something resembling a public health crisis among gay men, but once again, I think that’s there problem to deal with on their own. If they want to be crazy  promiscuous and catch all these diseases, that’s their business.

I don’t think their diseases make it out into the straight population that much with the exception of Black women, but that is the Black community’s problem to deal with, not mine. But once again, why should we, mainstream media readers, be subjected to celebratory articles about the wildly promiscuous lifestyles of gay men in our big cities?

I also notice that the Cultural Left sings the praises of gay men marrying straight women. I guess lesbians can marry straight men too. That’s pretty weird, but the Cultural Left says this is wonderful.

First of all, almost all of these often-young men are lying through their teeth about their homosexuality. For another thing, many if not all of these men are somewhere on the bisexual spectrum. How many are truly bisexual and how many are just gay men having sex with women, I have no idea, and this sort of thing is very hard to figure out in part because almost all such men are pathological liars.

Now this has actually turned out to be a significant social problem. There are many closeted gay and bisexual men married to women in the US. How many? No idea, but I would not be surprised if it was within the hundreds of thousands. In the vast majority of cases, this situation is a catastrophe. The men are hiding and lying about their gay sex lives from their wives, and the marriage ends up being more or less a disaster, certainly for the woman. Many or most women in this sort of marriage seem to be damaged by it. Further, the women often consider the time they were married to such men as a huge waste of the limited valuable time they are allotted in life. The women consider the years of these marriages to be wasted years.

85% of such marriages end in divorce, which is not surprising. Now you would think considering what a bad idea this is, the Cultural Left would not promote it. Nope. It’s just one more groovy bit of sexual weirdness, and if it’s sexual and weird, the Cultural Left must sing the praises of it, no matter how bizarre it is.

Why in God’s name would a lesbian marry a straight man? That’s so bizarre. Even a lot of lesbians think this is horrible, and they are dead-set against it. But the Cultural Left has promoted this idiocy in articles. I assume they even promote gay men marrying lesbians. Now why any two such humans would want to do that in the first place, I have no idea. The very idea is so weird, it is hard to even contemplate. I haven’t seen an article on this yet, but I have heard of a few cases.

Now look, back in the day, we had all sorts of kinky people advocating this sort of thing too, but I did not mind it one bit. That’s because this stuff was relegated to the adult magazines like Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, etc. Because that is where it belongs. It belongs in the adult media. If you want to go read the adult media and hear about all the latest kinks and even be harangued to try them, it’s perfectly fine with me. And on the web, there is the whole porn side of the web where all of these kinks are well on display. And there is adult media too. There are sex zines and media outlets that report on the adult industry.

I don’t care, as long as they make it clear that it’s a sex or adult magazine so you know what you are getting into. I just don’t want this stuff in the mainstream media. I don’t want my Mom to pick up the LA Times and read about how she needs to get gangbanged or go do a three-way tonight.  I don’t think she wants to read that either.

I would call this the Pornographication of General Culture. Once again I don’t mind, but it ought to be kept behind the walls of the adult media so people can read about this if they want to or not. I just don’t want to see it on Alternet or Slate.

Do you follow?

Now being against this sex stuff or not wanting to have it officially promoted, sanctioned, and strewn through the mainstream media  is apparently very controversial. People are up in arms about it. I’m a Victorian prude. I’m against sex. I’m uptight. I’m no fun. I’m a fuddy duddy.

I’m none of those things. Actually I am more like the opposite of those things, and this actually a bit of a problem in itself, but that’s another matter.

  • Support for anything goes pansexuality. Come now. Can’t we have some limits on degeneracy and depravity? Just some?

This is still in there, but people are already yelling that this is too puritanical. I am leaving it in for now.

What do you all think about this subject? Do agree with me on this or do you agree with my critics? Chime in please.

156 Comments

Filed under American, Blacks, Conservatism, Cultural Marxists, Culture, Gender Studies, Health, Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, Idiots, Illness, Journalism, Left, Political Science, Pornography, Public Health, Race/Ethnicity, Ridiculousness, Scum, Sex, Social Problems, Sociology, Weirdness, Whites

by | October 15, 2016 · 7:31 PM

Cultural Left Idiocy of the Day

14650499_1779469268938636_7011084955539063466_n

This stuff is just getting nuttier and nuttier all the time, you know?

I am going to start posting this sort of insanity on a regular basis I think.

13 Comments

Filed under Animals, Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Heterosexuality, Left, Man World, Pacific, Psychology, Regional, Ridiculousness, Romantic Relationships, Scholarship, Sex

by | September 27, 2016 · 8:46 AM

Which Gender Are You?

From the Gender Master List. I understand that at one time, Facebook allowed you to choose between 144 different genders. I am laughing as I write this. A lot of people think this stuff is evil, but I mostly just think that this is sheer, utter, insipid idiocy. I couldn’t even read more than a handful of entries before I was laughing so hard that I had to stop reading.

This is stupid! It’s retarded. I can’t believe that people actually talk about this stuff with a straight face without busting up laughing at the idiocy of it all. It should be disturbing that there are so many people who take this crap seriously, but mostly it’s just ridiculous.

Oh one more thing. I believe that almost all of these people are homosexuals if I am not mistaken. Every nonbinary idiot I have met so far was a homosexual. Have any of you met anyone who claimed to be genderqueer? Have you any of you ever run into a genderqueer idiot who was not a homosexual? Just testing my theory here that these are all gay people.

But I did meet one very normal straight female in her 20’s who told me she was a little bit genderqueer. I was stunned when I heard that, but then I started laughing. You have to realize that asinine behavior is somewhat contagious, especially when the people engaging in it think it is dead serious and don’t realize how preposterous it is. There’s hardly a fad too moronic that lots of humans won’t take it up.

One more thing: I must warn you to be aware that there are trigger warnings in this list. Be careful when you read this and make sure to have a Med-Alert handy in case you feel like you’re dying or whatever. With that word of caution, I urge you happy reading.

Gender Master List

This is an ongoing list of gender identities. If you see an identity with a confusing or wrong description, feel free to message us about it and we will answer as soon as possible. Feel free to mix and match your own prefixes and suffixes to create the identity that best describes you.

Any gender named _gender may be made into _boy, _girl, _nonbinary, etc. (example: demigender, demiboy, demigirl, deminonbinary)

Abimegender: A gender that is profound, deep, and infinite; meant to resemble when one mirror is reflecting into another mirror creating an infinite paradox.

Adamasgender: A gender which refuses to be categorized.

Aerogender: A gender that is influenced by your surroundings.

Aesthetigender: A gender that is derived from an aesthetic; also known as videgender.

Affectugender: A gender that is affected by mood swings.

Agender: The feeling of no gender/absence of gender or neutral gender.

Agenderflux: Being mostly agender except having small shifts towards other genders making them demigenders (because of the constancy of being agender).

Alexigender: A gender that is fluid between more than one gender, but the individual cannot tell what those genders are.

Aliusgender: A gender which is removed from common gender descriptors and guidelines.

Amaregender: A gender that changes depending on who you’re in love with.

Ambigender: Defined as having the feeling of two genders simultaneously without fluctuation; meant to reflect the concept of being ambidextrous, only with gender.

Ambonec: Identifying as both man and woman yet neither at the same time.

Amicagender: A gender that changes depending on which friend you’re with.

Androgyne: Sometimes used in the case of “androgynous presentation”; describes the feeling of being a mix of both masculine and feminine (and sometimes neutral) gender qualities.

Anesigender: Feeling like a certain gender yet being more comfortable identifying with another.

Angenital: A desire to be without primary sexual characteristics without necessarily being genderless; one may be both angenital and identify as any other gender alongside.

Anogender: A gender that fades in and out but always comes back to the same feeling.

Anongender: A gender that is unknown to both yourself and others.

Antegender: A protean gender which has the potential to be anything but is formless and motionless, and therefore does not manifest as any particular gender.

Anxiegender: A gender that is affected by anxiety.

Apagender: A feeling of apathy towards ones gender which leads to them not looking any further into it.

Apconsugender: A gender where you know what it isn’t, but not what it is; the gender is hiding itself from you.

Astergender: A gender that feels bright and celestial.

Astralgender: A gender that feels connected to space.

(POSSIBLE TRIGGER WARNING) Autigender: A gender that can only be understood in the context of being autistic.

Autogender: A gender experience that is deeply personal to oneself.

Axigender: When a person experiences two genders that sit on opposite ends of an axis; one being agender and the other being any other gender; these genders are experienced one at a time with no overlapping and with very short transition time.

Bigender: The feeling of having two genders either at the same time or separately; usually used to describe feeling “traditionally male” and “traditionally female”, but does not have to.

Biogender: A gender that feels connected to nature in some way.

Blurgender: The feeling of having more than one gender that are somehow blurred together to the point of not being able to distinguish or identify individual genders; synonymous with genderfuzz.

Boyflux: When one feels mostly or all male most of the time but experiences fluctuating intensity of male identity.

Burstgender: A gender that comes in intense bursts of feeling and quickly fades back to the original state.

Caelgender: A gender which shares qualities with outer space or has the aesthetic of space, stars, nebulas, etc.

Cassgender: The feeling that gender is unimportant to you.

Cassflux: When the level of indifference towards your gender fluctuates.

Cavusgender: For people with depression; when you feel one gender when not depressed and another when depressed.

Cendgender: When your gender changes between one and its opposite.

Ceterofluid: When you are ceterogender and your feelings fluctuate between masculine, feminine, and neutral.

Ceterogender: A nonbinary gender with specific masculine, feminine, or neutral feelings.

Cisgender: The feeling of being the gender you were assigned at birth all the time (assigned (fe)male/feeling (fe)male).

Cloudgender: A gender that cannot be fully realized or seen clearly due to depersonalization/derealization disorder.

Collgender: The feeling of having too many genders simultaneously to describe each one.

Colorgender: A gender associated with one or more colors and the feelings, hues, emotions, and/or objects associated with that color like pinkgender, bluegender, yellowgender.

Commogender: When you know you aren’t cisgender, but you are settling with your assigned gender for the time being.

Condigender: A gender that is only felt during certain circumstances.

Deliciagender: From the Latin word delicia meaning “favorite”, meaning the feeling of having more than one simultaneous gender yet preferring one that fits better.

Demifluid: The feeling of your gender being fluid throughout all the demigenders; the feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluid.

Demiflux: The feeling of having multiple genders, some static and some fluctuating.

Demigender: A gender that is partially one gender and partially another.

Domgender: Having more than one gender yet one being more dominant than the others.

Duragender: From the Latin word dura meaning “long-lasting”, meaning a subcategory of multigender in which one gender is more identifiable, long lasting, and prominent than the other genders.

Egogender: A gender that is so personal to your experience that it can only be described as “you.”

Epicene: Sometimes used synonymously with the adjective “androgynous”; the feeling either having or not displaying characteristics of both or either binary gender; sometimes used to describe feminine male-identifying individuals.

Espigender: A gender that is related to being a spirit or exists on a higher or extradimensional plane.

Exgender: The outright refusal to accept or identify in, on, or around the gender spectrum.

Existigender: A gender that only exists or feels present when thought about or when a conscious effort is made to notice it.

Femfluid: Having fluctuating or fluid gender feelings that are limited to feminine genders.

Femgender: A nonbinary gender which is feminine in nature.

Fluidflux: The feeling of being fluid between two or more genders that also fluctuate in intensity; a combination of genderfluid and genderflux.

Gemigender: Having two opposite genders that work together, being fluid and flux together.

Genderblank: A gender that can only be described as a blank space; when gender is called into question, all that comes to mind is a blank space.

Genderflow: A gender that is fluid between infinite feelings.

Genderfluid: The feeling of fluidity within your gender identity; feeling a different gender as time passes or as situations change; not restricted to any number of genders.

Genderflux: The feeling of your gender fluctuating in intensity; like genderfluid but between one gender and agender.

Genderfuzz: Coined by lolzmelmel; the feeling of having more than one gender that are somehow blurred together to the point of not being able to distinguish or identify individual genders; synonymous with blurgender.

Gender Neutral: The feeling of having a neutral gender whether somewhere in between masculine and feminine or a third gender that is separate from the binary; often paired with neutrois.

Genderpunk: A gender identity that actively resists gender norms.

Genderqueer: Originally used as an umbrella term for nonbinary individuals; may be used as an identity; describes a nonbinary gender regardless of whether the individual is masculine- or feminine-leaning.

Genderwitched: A gender in which one is intrigued or entranced by the idea of a particular gender but is not certain that they are actually feeling it in themselves.

Girlflux: When one feels mostly or all female most of the time but experiences fluctuating intensities of female identity.

Glassgender: A gender that is very sensitive and fragile.

Glimragender: A faintly shining, wavering gender.

Greygender: Having a gender that is mostly outside of the binary but is weak and can barely be felt.

Gyragender: Having multiple genders but understanding none of them.

Healgender: A gender that once realized, brings lots of peace, clarity, security, and creativity to the individual’s mind.

Heliogender: A gender that is warm and burning.

Hemigender: A gender that is half one gender and half something else; one or both halves may be identifiable genders.

Horogender: A gender that changes over time with the core feeling remaining the same.

Hydrogender: A gender which shares qualities with water.

Imperigender: A fluid gender that can be controlled by the individual.

Intergender: The feeling of gender falling somewhere on the spectrum between masculine and feminine; note: do not confuse with intersex.

Juxera: A feminine gender similar to girl but on a separate plane and off to itself.

Libragender: A gender that feels agender but has a strong connection to another gender.

Magigender: A gender that is mostly gender, and the rest is something else.

Mascfluid: A gender that is fluid in nature and restricted only to masculine genders.

Mascgender: A non-binary gender which is masculine in nature.

Maverique: Taken from the word maverick; the feeling of having a gender that is separate from masculinity, femininity, and neutrality but is not agender; a form of third gender.

Mirrorgender: A gender that changes to fit the people around you.

Molligender: A gender that is soft, subtle, and subdued.

Multigender: The feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigender and omnigender.

Nanogender: Feeling a small part of one gender with the rest being something else.

Neutrois: The feeling of having a neutral gender; sometimes a lack of gender that leads to feeling neutral.

Nonbinary: Originally an umbrella term for any gender outside the binary of cisgenders; may be used as an individual identity; occasionally used alongside of genderqueer.

Omnigender: The feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigender and polygender.

Oneirogender: Coined by anonymous, “Being agender but having recurring fantasies or daydreams of being a certain gender without the dysphoria or desire to actually be that gender day-to-day.”

Pangender: The feeling of having every gender; this is considered problematic by some communities, and thus has been used as the concept of relating in some way to all genders as opposed to containing every gender identity; only applies to genders within one’s own culture.

Paragender: The feeling very near one gender and partially something else which keeps you from feeling fully that gender.

Perigender: Identifying with a gender but not as a gender.

Polygender: The feeling of having more than one simultaneous or fluctuating gender; simultaneous with multigender and omnigender.

Proxvir: A masculine gender similar to boy but on a separate plane and off to itself.

Quoigender: Feeling as if the concept of gender is inapplicable or nonsensical to one’s self.

Subgender: Mostly agender with a bit of another gender.

Surgender: Having a gender that is 100% one gender but with more of another gender added on top of that.

Systemgender: A gender that is the sum of all the genders within a multiple or median system.

Tragender: A gender that stretches over the whole spectrum of genders.

Transgender: Any gender identity that transcends or does not align with your assigned gender or society’s idea of gender; the feeling of being any gender that does not match your assigned gender.

Trigender: The feeling of having three simultaneous or fluctuating genders.

Vapogender: A gender that sort of feels like smoke; can be seen on a shallow level, but once you go deeper, it disappears, and you are left with no gender and only tiny wisps of what you thought it was.

Venngender: When two genders overlap creating an entirely new gender; like a Venn Diagram.

Verangender: A gender that seems to shift/change the moment it is identified.

Vibragender: A gender that is usually one stable gender but will occasionally changes or fluctuate before stabilizing again.

Vocigender: A gender that is weak or hollow.

18 Comments

Filed under Cultural Marxists, Gender Studies, Homosexuality, Idiots, Ridiculousness, Sex

by | September 17, 2016 · 10:59 PM

The North Korea Has a Nuclear Bomb Bullshit

People do not understand how nukes work.

First of all, just because you can test a bomb underground does not mean that you really have a nuke, although I think it does mean that you have finally figured out the triggering mechanism, which is so devilishly hard that many nations have never been able to master it. You have to get the triggering down to the 1000th of a second and there are a million things that can wrong.

North Korea has also not been able to fit a nuke onto a warhead and put that warhead on a missile that will work when you fire it. A lot of their missiles don’t even work, so their missile tech is not that good either. It is extremely hard to make a nuclear capable missile and many nations just gave up after trying a while.

Once you finally get a working missile, now you need to somehow fit that bomb into a warhead. Have you seen the size of the Little Boy bomb we dropped on Japan? Try sticking that on a rocket. This is also devilishly hard. North Korea has been trying for years to make a nuke into a warhead and will launch with a capable missile, but they have not yet been successful. This also is devilishly hard and many nations once again gave up after trying for a while.

Nuclear tech is not even really exportable. Yes, Progressive magazine ran an article called How to Make a Nuclear Bomb, but so what? Now go make one. I dare ya. The tech is fiendishly difficult and most of the material is certainly not in the public domain. The necessary tech that other nations used can be acquired, but it is very hard to find and especially to copy. Saddam’s regime had a very hard time acquiring manuals for their program.

You also need rocket scientists and nuclear physicists. They don’t grow on trees. Really no nation can become a nuclear power without building up a pretty significant military, industrial and educational infrastructure.

Oh and one more thing. There’s no such thing as a suitcase nuke. That’s just some lie a bunch of media whores made up so they can scare you more and get more viewers.

2 Comments

Filed under Asia, Military Doctrine, NE Asia, North Korea, Nuclear Weapons, Regional, Ridiculousness