Wednesday, May 6, 2015


I am increasingly convinced that the male-female communications divide is essentially similar to the dialectic-rhetoric divide.

Sunday, May 3, 2015

Half as attractive

Being fat cuts down male interest by at least 50 percent:
I’ve never bought into the lie, popular with some elements of the media, that everything will be better when you’re thin. But, as a single woman trying everything I can to increase my chances of finding The One, I was interested to see how much of an issue size is for single men.

So, to find out if men like fat women, I created two identical online dating profiles of me size 18 and size ten to find out.The rest of the profile details were the same for both. In the ‘photos’ sections, I put up a range of head shots and body shots of classic ‘thin’ me and classic ‘fat’ me.


Over the course of five days, 'fat' Yvette received 18 messages, 74 likes and 81 visits. Thin me received more than double the attention – 36 messages, 211 likes and 210 visits.

There was nothing dramatically different in the content of the messages – some men just sent a ‘hi’, some wrote essays, some tried one-liners and others just opted for old-fashioned compliments. And there was little difference in the physical attractiveness of the men messaging – they were a range of ages, shapes and sizes.

But it can’t be denied that, if the guys of OKCupid are anything to go by, single men prefer thinner women twice as much.
I say "at least" 50 percent because Yvette wasn't actually thin, she was merely less fat. Based on the fairly low number of messages "Thin Yvette" received, I would estimate that if she had actually been a thin and attractive woman, going up to a size 18 would have cut male interest in her by 95 percent.

Saturday, May 2, 2015

The end of marriage is the end of civilization

And feminism is killing both:
What exactly does marriage offer men today? “Men know there’s a good chance they’ll lose their friends, their respect, their space, their sex life, their money and — if it all goes wrong — their family,” says Helen Smith, Ph.D., author of "Men on Strike." “They don’t want to enter into a legal contract with someone who could effectively take half their savings, pension and property when the honeymoon period is over.Men aren’t wimping out by staying unmarried or being commitment phobes. They’re being smart.”

Unlike women, men lose all power after they say “I do.” Their masculinity dies, too.

What’s left of it, that is. In the span of just a few decades, America has demoted men from respected providers and protectors of the family to superfluous buffoons. Today’s sitcoms and commercials routinely paint a portrait of the idiot husband whose wife is smarter and more capable than he.

There was a time when wives respected their husbands. There was a time when wives took care of their husbands as they expected their husbands to take care of them.

Or perhaps therein lies the rub. If women no longer expect or even want men to “take care of” them — since women can do everything men can do and better, thank you very much, feminism — perhaps the flipside is the assumption that women don’t need to take care of husbands, either. And if no one’s taking care of anyone, why the hell marry?
The reason to marry is that civilization requires it. The tragic thing is that most men are going to avoid marriage when the problem could be easily solved by men refusing to comply with the divorce process. But today's men don't have the courage or the willingness to sacrifice themselves in the interests of their nations, let alone an abstract concept like civilization. Hence the declining male interest in marriage.

It's all about the incentives. If the penalty for attempted divorce-rape was death, few women would even think to try it. Whereas the penalty for marriage is about a one-in-six chance of divorce-rape, which is enough to dissuade many a man from marriage, or at the very least, delay his decision to pursue it.

Friday, May 1, 2015

Sex disparity explained

The fact is we don't need more women in STEM fields. We need more women in the vital home economic fields of wife, mother, and homemaker.

Thursday, April 30, 2015


Nothing says "Alpha Male" like begging for polyamorous-friendly dates over the Internet:
So, this is experimental. I’d like to go on a date in May. And for the first time, I’m going to try a bat signal: putting a call out on my blog. I don’t know anyone else who has tried doing that, so I have no precedent to work from as to etiquette or even arguments for or against doing it. So I’m just going to do it and see what happens and document and assess. If you know anyone who might have an interest in dating me, let them know. If you might have an interest, read on.

I’ll start by making sure anyone considering this is up to speed. I am polyamorous. I currently have many girlfriends. All I consider my friends. Some are just occasional lovers. Some I am more involved with. They are also polyamorous, or near enough (not all of them identify that way, but all of them enjoy open relationships). And I will always have relationships with them, as long as they’ll have me in their life.

Many different things can be meant by the following terms, but just for the present purpose, if by a primary relationship is meant someone you live with or just about as good as live with, a secondary as someone you date regularly, and a tertiary as someone you date occasionally, all my relationships are tertiary, but only because of geography. I live just below Sacramento, California, where the rents are cheap, which means, where no one wants to live. And I’m unlikely to move anytime soon. So relationships with me, at best, are likely to be tertiary—long distance chatting with occasional being together throughout the year. Even so, I always take such friendships seriously.
That certainly answers the zen master's ancient question about what the sound of 150 million vaginas simultaneously dehydrating sounds like. And here we all thought it was hypothetical.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Calling David Pakman

I look forward to seeing Mr. Pakman inviting Mr. Zakaria or Mr. Hussin to discuss the issue of Islam and "marital rape":
Malaysian Islamic scholar Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria has issued a somewhat surprising ruling that Muslim women have "no right" to refuse sexual relations with their husband, asserting that forced sexual intercourse in such cases doesn't constitute marital rape.

Speaking to the Malay Mail Online on Sunday in an interview published the following day, Harussani said "even the Prophet (Mohammed, founder of Islam - ed.) says even when they’re riding on the back of the camel, when the husband asks her, she must give."

"So there’s no such thing as rape in marriage. This is made by European people, why should we follow?," he said.

The Muslim authority cited a hadith, teachings ascribed to Mohammed, reading: "if a husband calls his wife to his bed (to have sexual relations - ed.) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also quoted the ruling of Muslim scholar Ibn Majah back in 1854, who wrote that if a husband asks his wife "to surrender herself (to him for sexual relations - ed.) she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle."

The Malaysian paper also spoke to Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin, who said that the term marital rape "is not accurate in the practice of Islam because rape in Islam is defined as forced sexual intercourse outside of marriage," meaning a husband forcing his wife to have sex is not considered rape by the religion.

"That means if the husband does not seek consent, it cannot be considered rape, but that action is considered not polite in Islam,” he explained, commenting that such non-consensual relations are not sinful but rather are "frowned upon."
It's all-too-typical that nominal cultural relativists such as Pakman would try to stir up outrage over a position that is held by most of the world, and the vast majority of the non-white world. Remember, my post to which he was referring was one that drew attention to an Indian court upholding the Indian Penal Code's statute which states that not even forcible "rape" is criminal so long as both parties are married to each other.

Legality is neither morality nor civility. The Left constantly attempts to conflate the three whenever it suits them, then turns around and claims "you can't legislate morality" when it comes to adultery or fornication.

The readily observable fact is that we can as easily ban adultery or fornication as "marital rape", and that both adultery and fornication cause considerable more harm than "marital rape". The fact that the Left is opposed to the first two and favors the latter is what indicates something I have pointed out all along: the purpose in criminalizing "marital rape" is to destroy the concept of marriage.

After all, what is the point of entering into a legal relationship that literally gives a man nothing at all? If marriage is not intrinsically a legal grant of sexual consent, then what is it? An agreement by which a man agrees to be held legally liable for a woman's finances in exchange for nothing?

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Move over, Vivian

Day by Day gets in on the action. It's fascinating to see how #GamerGate is inspiring creators in various industries to take a stand against SJW thought control.