Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Advice To Potential 'Self Help Gurus' ('Life Coaches', Marriage Counsellors, Sex Therapists, etc)

There are often two paths when it comes to advice about life, yet in cases where this is true, the path that is followed is the one that is perceived as the sole option, as those who follow this path are blind to the existence of the second, and more importantly, correct, path. For example:

Let's say the advice in question is regarding a married man, self described as "happily married," who is guilty because even though he loves his wife and the marriage is great he can't stop wanting to sleep with other women. He doesn't act on it this desire, but he feels it. Often. Now, the path most travelled, seen to those taking it as the only path (they're wrong) is the sit down/discuss the relationship/examine the self/spice up the sex life with the wife path.

If you want to really help people, stay away from that path. The people on that path are playing in a matrix of socially approved and spread ignorance they just don't see (or they do but they deny it because it is threatening to them in some way). There's a second path, at that path is truth. Real truth. Often politically incorrect truth. So, in the example above regarding the husband with the wandering eye, the second path would be the that's natural/there's nothing to worry about/and p.s your wife does the same thing path.

Stick to the second path and you'll draw the ire of the masses but you'll also be truly helping people and what could be nobler than that?

Saturday, June 21, 2014

Man becomes Woman and Talks About Privilege

This is a post I saw on reddit (unfortunately I did not record the link when I saved this into my drafts) and thought it worthy of sharing. 

"I'm a woman, who......

Brace yourselves......

Used to be a man. There. I said it. So I know exactly what it's like to be a man, and exactly what it's like to be a woman. With that out of the way:

1. Men do not earn more than women. The Wage Gap is a myth that really does follow the Nazi's philosophy that "if you say a lie loud enough, for long enough, people will start to believe it". All you have to do is look up information freely available from the US Department of Labour and Statistics. The numbers are right there. Women do not earn less than men.

1.1 As a woman, I'm now earning FAR more than I ever did as a man.

1.2 In some parts of the country, women earn some 120% of what men make. But we'll never hear about those.

2. Men do not have a better chance of winning political office. Women simply do not run for office as much or as often as men, because it requires work they are not willing to do. Again, this is information freely available.

As a man, I could only be a doctor. If I were a male nurse, I'd be laughed at. If I were a male nurse's aid, I'd be laughed at even harder. If I were an orderly, I'd be a loser who just pushes brooms because he couldn't make it as anything else.

As a woman, I can be a doctor, a nurse, a nurses aid, OR an orderly, and at no point along the way am I laughed at or put down. In fact, I'm applauded the whole way through. Even if I want to stay at home, I'm still applauded!! Because now I'm a little home maker!

So is it any wonder that men MUST push themselves relentlessly to make it as CEOs, while women simply do not have to. And we wonder why there are more men CEOs.

3. Promiscuous behavior, you say? Check this out.

As a man:

if I went into a sex shop, I was a pervert.
If I walked by a playground, I was a pedophile.
If I looked at a woman the wrong way, I was a rapist.
If I said the wrong thing at work, it was sexual harassment.
If I tried to hit on girls, I was a pathetic desperate loser.

As a woman:

if I go into a sex shop, I'm an independent woman exploring her sexuality.
If I walk by a playground, I must be there to pick up my child.
If I look at a man the wrong... pfff come on! I can look at a man any damn way I want! I can tell him to go to hell and he has to applaud me for it!
If I said the wrong thing at work, I'm forgiven. All I have to do is pout and look sorry.
If I try to hit on men, I get men. I can have any man I want. I can hit on women too and it's still perfectly fine, because being gay is gross but lesbians are HAWT!

Thursday, May 29, 2014

About This Elliot Rodgers Thing. Look, It's Not Misogyny or 'Rape Culture' That's To Blame

There has been a ton of talk online since the shooting happened and most of it is centred around misogyny, rape culture and guys feeling entitled to sex with girls who are not interested in them. The mainstream media, bloggers, etc have been postulating about this stuff and the answers they put forth are almost always missing the point. It's really, really, REALLY simple and it's not about hating women or seeing them as objects.

It's ignorance of human biology.

We men (and women, but the focus for now is on men) all have a biologically imposed need for sex and the objects of said need are going to be largely the same (ie, 'hot girls') as the 'hot ones' are the ones that bear the indicators of good genetic material. You know, youth, symmetry, health, hip to waist ratio, etc*(see below). These guys don't lust after these girls because they think of them as objects that they have a right to; they lust after them because millennia of evolutionary imperatives compel them to. This is exactly the same type of compulsion that drives women to want to feel safe and protected with their man. Are these women viewing men as security objects? Oh, what's that? "That's different?" Okay, explain how without just implying that sex is somehow less valid a need than security.

Hmmm...silence. Odd.

Want a hint? Either we all view one another as objects (because we ALL want certain things from someone else) or none of us do and it's all a part of life. You don't get to pick and choose which needs are 'okay' and which needs are 'objectifying' people. Doing that is simply sexism; ironically the very charge you're levying against the guys for wanting sex (which you do too, right?).

Look, snarkiness aside, all guys want sex; the only difference is the Elliot Rodgers' of the world never get their urges satiated. Year after year of this resulting in them becoming enraged after years of frustration is understandable and NOT a symptom of rampant misogyny. It's simply frustrated biological urges manifesting in a terrible, terrible way.

The real answer is not gun control, blogging about rape culture or any of that other nonsense: It's education, better communication in our society regarding sex and relationships, a removal of the stigma against male sex toys and legalized and affordable prostitution for guys who cannot get laid but really need to. You'll never get rid of the urges, nor can you change the fact that some guys will never get said urges satiated. So what you do is allow them to legally and safely satiate those urges, thereby allowing it to be done without harming another person.

You'll never get guys to stop lusting after women. And to think if you just educate them about "women not being objects" they will stop feeling this way is really missing the point. If you think you can condition this into them then logically you could condition the girls to be into the guys they aren't into, right? I mean, men aren't objects and maybe that nerd is an excellent person- if only she could get past her culturally induced ideas about what is attractive, right?

Oh, what's that? Suddenly biology is a factor?

Make up your damn minds!

I'll end this with this thought: Even if he did view women as "objects" how did those women view him? As nothing. would you rather be sexualized or totally ignored?

*Right here is where the 'women as objects crowd' will get all excited and say "see! he's talking about them like they are objects as well." Here's something you all need to hear, so listen up: People have physical characteristics and it is these characteristics upon which they are judged by men when it comes to sexuality. This is much in the same way as THOSE SAME GIRLS JUDGE THE GUYS AS NOT BEING 'WORTHY' OF SEX. Either both sides are objectifying the other, or neither is. Pick one but stop putting the onus on the guys only. As i pointed out above, if you want to talk about sexism, it's actually here in this area, and it's against men. Women categorize men all day long but anytime they feel like a guy might be categorizing them suddenly there's an epidemic of men viewing women like they are pieces of non sentient meat.

Friday, May 16, 2014

Women Should Be Treated Like Corporations

I know how that may sound, but bear with me here.

There are a bunch of women out there vying for your investment (emotional, time, and yes, even money) and just like real companies, not all are solid investments. When you invest in stock you do an inventory of the companies' history (business dealings and practices, financials, etc) the current price at which their shares are being traded and you make an educated guess as to how their future will play out. If it seems favourable, you invest. If it does not, you don't. Simple. No guarantees (you can still lose everything) but you're not just dumping your eggs into the first basket that comes along. You are investing in the one that is least likely to cause you to lose everything/most likely to pay off. 

This is exactly how you should treat women. You don't just throw your currency (love) into the first thing that comes your way (or every thing that ever comes your way). Not all are deserving of it and you will get burned. Invest in the best ones only, and reduce your risk. 

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

On Guys Being "In Trouble" and Being Servants: Observations at Birthday Party

*This was written a few weeks ago*

So this weekend I attended a birthday party. There were several couples there and I noticed a disturbing trend. You know the classic relationship dynamic (especially these days) where they are out in public and somehow, the guy always ends up "in trouble?" He usually says something she doesn't like (often a joke) and he gets "the look?" Then they have that awkward whispered conversation, or that even worse nonverbal one, either way it's in public so they're trying to do it discreetly but holding back so they aren't really saying anything?

Well, there was a lot of that going on at this party. The guy would get "in trouble" (usually the "look") and then awkwardly try to explain himself to her but without fully having the actual conversation because there were people around. Then, if they think there's no one looking, the guys will often kiss her and talk to her with that annoying babying voice, trying to soothe her and get back in her good graces.

Every single time there was an issue, it was the girl getting annoyed at the guy, and almost always over a joke or just something he said. Well, the thing I really noticed more so now than ever before was the fact that these guys will often look at the woman after making a joke to make sure that he's not getting "the look."

It's almost like they are kids dealing with a humourless mommy.

The other thing I noticed was that whenever something needed to be grabbed from the car, another room, or even 5 feet away, it seems to always be the guy that has to do it. The most painful one was my cousin forgetting her camera in the car and instead of going to get it she said to her fiance (oh, the camera is still in the car." His response? "Well you know where the car is." Right on brother......oh wait, except for the fact that he said it in a voice that betrayed the fact that not only was he joking, but he was doing it overtly so, in an effort to let her know that he didn't really mean it. What was her reaction? A dirty look, followed by him saying "of course I'll go get it".....which he did, right away.

Bunch of pandering, snivelling, grovelling little manslaves. Do they have no self respect?

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Alcohol, Sex, Consent, Rape and Contradictions

So as you all know there's been a lot of talk about drunk sex lately and it seems that there's a push to consider consensual sex while drunk to actually be sex under duress. Which, unless I am missing something here, logically places alcohol on equal footing with "roofies."

Assuming we accept that premise, I would go on to point out that girls don't really believe this themselves. An overstatement? Perhaps, but on some level at least, they make the distinction between alcohol and roofies without realizing it themselves. I say this because they:

a) Aren't asking for alcohol to stop being served/sold without a prescription ("roofies" are prescription only, not sold at bars but, following their logic, if it has the same effect, what's the difference?)

b) Willingly avail themselves of this free flowing alcohol (but not ingesting "roofies")

Am I wrong in thinking that perhaps this is indicative of an underlying contradiction in this new way of thinking?

P.S. I've certainly heard this said before but it bears repeating: If they aren't responsible for having sex while intoxicated then why are people who drive drunk responsible for their actions? Which is it, ladies? Do drunk people have agency over themselves and their own actions or no? Or maybe an even better one is a guy cheating while drunk. Are they prepared to let him off the hook? Oh, they aren't? Okay, let's see them explain that without a major contradiction or invoking special pleading.

EDIT:  I want to make clear right now that in NO WAY would I advocate someone plying someone with booze, getting them blackout drunk and having sex with them. I am merely talking about the usual "go out, have 3-4 drinks, end up with someone" thing that is now coming under fire. 

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

Advice To Potential 'Self Help Gurus' ('Life Coaches', Marriage Counsellors, Sex Therapists, etc)

There are often two paths when it comes to advice about life, yet in cases where this is true, the path that is followed is the one that is perceived as the sole option, as those who follow this path are blind to the existence of the second, and more importantly, correct, path. For example:

Let's say the advice in question is regarding a married man, self described as "happily married," who is guilty because even though he loves his wife and the marriage is great he can't stop wanting to sleep with other women. He doesn't act on it this desire, but he feels it. Often. Now, the path most travelled, seen to those taking it as the only path (they're wrong) is the sit down/discuss the relationship/examine the self/spice up the sex life with the wife path.

If you want to really help people, stay away from that path. The people on that path are playing in a matrix of socially approved and spread ignorance they just don't see (or they do but they deny it because it is threatening to them in some way). There's a second path, at that path is truth. Real truth. Often politically incorrect truth. So, in the example above regarding the husband with the wandering eye, the second path would be the that's natural/there's nothing to worry about/and p.s your wife does the same thing path.

Stick to the second path and you'll draw the ire of the masses but you'll also be truly helping people and what could be nobler than that?

Tuesday, July 23, 2013

Being Single Is Selfish....Sure, But Relationships Are Just As Selfish

Find that shocking? Ridiculous? Demeaning? Insulting, even? Okay, tell me: Why do YOU get into relationships then? Why does anyone?

(Note: This is a follow up of sorts to an earlier post I did regarding the selfishness of having kids. Click HERE if you want to read that one.)

 Here are some (arguably) selfless reasons (I say arguably given the selfish altruism theory popular in some psychology circles):

Friday, April 5, 2013

How Do You Feel About Love/Relationships At This Point In Your Life?


This was a forum topic I recently encountered and the following was my response:

At this point, having been married, single and everything in between, as well as seeing the experiences of people around me and reading about these things online, I have to say that I am opposed to relationships in which the two parties are living together. At least for now. I own my own house and am perfectly content being alone in it. I have absolutely no desire to live with another woman at this point (I have lived with 2 in my life).

As far as relationships that don't involve cohabitation go, I am not necessarily opposed to them but at this point in my life I don't even want that. To be honest, I have much more fun hanging out with friends/my brother than I ever did with a girlfriend/my ex wife. Really, if you take sex out of it, you have a friend, but in most cases, one that isn't as fun to be around as are your male friends since females and males are often so different (what they consider fun, the conversations you can have, etc). Of course I am generalizing here but that's the nature of the conversation.

I really believe that despite what we tell ourselves, access to sex might really be the biggest/most potent motivator for the forming of relationships. Not many relationships survive without it and guys will go to extreme lengths to put up with **** that they would NEVER take from friends and the reason for that is sexual desire- which, if you really want to deconstruct this, is simply the biological urge to procreate. I believe that alone is the basis for all of it, and everything else is  a nice little narrative constructed around it.


Saturday, March 10, 2012

Sex Before Marriage Rant

I wanted to rant about premarital sex and religion, and I decided to do it in the form of a response to a fictional character who would represent the real fears of many real people. Hence, witness my rant in the form of a response to Sam, a ficticious 18 year old who is concerned about the fact that he and his girlfriend of four years just had sexual intercource for the first time, despite the fact that they were planning on waiting for marriage. Sam feels dirty and ashamed of his 'sin,' as he calls it, and he is terrified of the possible consequences awaiting him in the afterlife.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

Treatable STD Scarier Than Fatal Flu

http://www.livescience.com/18461-treatable-sti-scarier-fatal-flu.html


Passing someone a sexually transmitted infection is viewed as worse than giving them the flu — even if the flu turns out to be fatal, a new study finds. The stigma surrounding STIs can keep people from getting tested, discussing testing with partners or disclosing to partners that they do have an infection, Moor said. She and her colleagues wanted to understand how much stigma really influences people's perceptions of these diseases. To do so, the researchers gathered 1,158 volunteers via the Internet and had each read a short paragraph about someone transmitting either the H1N1 flu, also called swine flu, or chlamydia to another person. Though H1N1 usually causes nothing more than a few days of misery, people with compromised immune systems, the elderly and the very young can die of it.



In every scenario in the study, "Christina" or "James" feels a little ill, but shrugs off the symptoms, goes to a party and has sex with a fellow partygoer. In some cases, this sexual encounter transmits chlamydia to their partner. In other cases, it transmits H1N1. After reading one of these scenarios, each participant answered a series of questions about how selfish, risky and all-around irresponsible they would rate either Christina or James.


Keeping a sexual mode of transmission constant was meant to control for any automatic "sex is taboo" reactions from participants, Moor said. But despite the fact that the characters James and Christina acted sexually identically in all scenarios, chlamydia seemed to strike extra fear into participants' hearts.When Christina or James were said to have transmitted chlamydia, people judged them harshly, ranking them as almost as selfish and risky as was possible in the survey. When H1N1 was the disease in question, however, people rated the transmitter much more generously. Even when the sexual partner actually died of H1N1, transmitting chlamydia was seen as much more risky and irresponsible than transmitting the flu.


"It's quite confusing," Moor said. "If sex is taboo and that's why people are thinking STIs are so stigmatized, we just nipped that in the bud. We're showing that you can get H1N1 through sex, but it's still not stigmatized."

This is something that I have considered for some time, and I am glad it is finally garnering attention in the scientific community. While the findings seem to concur with my feelings on the subject, I do have one criticism to make: They say that it is inexplicable that people view STI's in a harsher light than they do say the flu, even if both are transmitted sexually. They say that they controlled for the "sex is taboo" factor by making sexual activity the mode of transmission in each scenario. However, I think they are missing one crucial point: STI's are linked, in people's minds, with sex, while the flu is not. And this is quite likely directly resultant of the taboo nature of sex in North American culture.

Thoughts?

Monday, May 16, 2011

RANT: Religion and Masturbation

I recently watched a movie entitled 'Teeth.' The movie (which wasn't very good but I digress), an indie horror with some comedic elements (it mostly failed on both fronts....some of it was amusing, none of it was scary, but again, digressing...), is about a very religious teenage girl who has taken a vow of 'purity' (aka abstinence) and goes around to other schools prattling on to younger kids and other teens about the 'evils' of sex and how it's only right to save your 'gift' until marriage, and blah blah.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

Vatican Priest: Sex With a Condom is like a Mugger Wrapping the Pipe he uses to Beat People in Foam

So, Pope Ratface recently made a comment on condom use that has gotten the world a talkin'. Here is said comment:
There may be a basis in the case of some individuals, as perhaps when a male prostitute uses a condom, where this can be a first step in the direction of a moralization, a first assumption of responsibility...

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

The REAL Cause of Earthquakes......Women!!



http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/131693/Earthquakes-caused-by-women-who-wear-short-skirts-says-Muslim-cleric/

Barmy Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi insisted girls who behave "promiscuously" are responsible for burying thousands under rubble. In a sermon the religious leader said: "Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes." Women in the strict Islamic state are forced to hide their hair, and sometimes their faces, by law. But some young girls have dared to bare their bodies by wearing tight clothing and loose headscarves. And Sedighi raged: "What can we do to avoid being buried under the rubble? "A divine authority told me to tell the people to make a general repentance. Why? Because calamities threaten us."

Does he actually believe this bullshit, or is her merely doing the ol' get the people in line via the usage of fear bit? That's what I'd like to know.

Friday, January 22, 2010

Our Ideas Regarding Sexuality/The Body/Nudity Are Screwed Up

Warning: this blog contains FOUL LANGUAGE.


Still here? Alright, let's rock.

I just saw this picture of a fashionable, unknown (to me), pretty celebrity:


And it raises the question: In a society where nudity is frowned upon, how does putting a little star over your nipples make it okay to walk around with your tits out? Somehow we have decided that breasts should be covered up, but then have arbitrarily determined that it's only the nipples that are the ''offensive'' part? It's the nipples that somehow make the breast a breast?

If that's true, then why can guys walk around without a shirt? Obviously we aren't really ''offended'' by nipples. So if nipples are okay, and clearly, breast tissue surrounding the nipples is okay (that's why media outlets with no nudity policices allow pics like that) then I have to ask....what the fuck? How does that make any sense? Are female nipples somehow ''offensive''? If females walked around in topless bikinis at the beach, would that cause irreperable harm to those who witenssed it?

I also love how on a webistes with nio nudity policies, or in ''no nudity'' magazines, a good ol' girl who ''won't do nudity'' not only has no problem showing off 99% of her breasts (as long as those nipples are covered), but she will show her ass....oh, but she's wearing a thong. Um, that desn't cover the ass, at all. I can clearly see your ass, honey. So I guess asses aren't nudity......?


Good thing that ass is covered. Otherwise I'd have been offended

The whole thing, like so much else in life, is so arbitrary, and really, fucking stupid. I don't know how it was determined that our bodies are evil/dirty/sinful whatever, but it's ridiculous. It leads to stories like the one where that guy was arrested for making coffee naked in his own house,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6406630/Man-arrested-for-making-coffee-in-own-home-while-naked.html

because some woman was walking by with her little son and they looked in his window and saw him. OH NOES! A PENIS!! Guess what, sister? YOUR SON HAS A PENIS. Penises are not offensive. They are only shocking because we randomly said they are. If no one made a big deal out of it from the start, there would be no issue. Seeing a penis should not be a traumatic experience.

Funny thing is, she probably wouldn't have batted an eye if they walked by a male dog. Somehow, it's not dog penises that are the problem, just human ones. Unless this nutcase would have tried to get the dog arrested as well, who knows. Fucking soccer moms.

My mother in law exemplifies this. It's natural for babies to touch their genatalia. Well, when my daughter does it, my wife and I don't bat an eye. But my mother in law immediately moves her hand and scolds her (a ten month old baby). I haven't said anything yet, because I haven't seen it (my wife told me about it the other day) but when/if I do see it, I will make a point to nicely tell her that there is nothing wrong with it, and see if she tries to defend her position. I can't see her arguing anything other than ''it's just not nice.'' ''It's not proper for a lady.''

SAYS FUCKING WHO? If we ALL do it, maybe you should just shut up and accept it's normal, rather than punish people for not meeting some false, arbitrarily imposed bullshit standard.