Female Sexual Dysfunction

Return of Kings has an excellent article about Female Sexual Dysfunction.

Basically this is a problem where the female vagina no longer self-lubes properly, requiring artificial lubrucation to allow sex to occur. The author of the RoK article calls it Sahara Snatch and states that it indicates infertility, generally due to hormonal fucked-up-ness. I just call it Sand Bucket (as opposed to Cum Bucket) and went looking for another better-lubed hole.

The problem is quite widespread amongst the 30-something crowd, probably getting worse for the 40-something crowd. Above 50? Who the fuck knows? (Or wants to know.) In contrast, I've only run into it with a single sub-30 woman.

As for the cause, who the fuck knows? My opinion is that if you're shoving a cactus up your cunt and masturbating at 240 RPM to 50 Shades of Grey then the chances are you're gonna fuck something up pretty damn good. (Image stolen without fucking shame from Return of Kings.)

Apparently your hormones and fertility are the first to go. When your hormones go, your looks quickly start to follow. As the RoK author states, it's probably not helped in the slightest by the use of The Pill: artificial hormones that take the place of your own.

"No, wait! The Pill has been scientifically proven to be safe!" Wrong. Like they didn't test thalidomide on pregnant women, they didn't test The Pill on women over a 30-year multi-generational timeframe to see what the long-term effects were on her fertility. It ain't looking good.

At any rate, the incidence of fertility drops drastically as age goes up - doesn't help that by the time you're 30 you have only 10% of your eggs left. After a 15-year burn, the last 10% are supposed to get a woman through the next 10-15-years to 40 or 45? Yeah, right. By the age of 30 you are sexual and reproductive toast.

But wait - there's more! Even if you are infertile you can still have a baby, courtesy of IVF (in-vitro fertilization - aka have a test-tube baby). At a sweet US$12.4+k a shot, here are your chances of success:

Under 35yo - 39.6% success

From 35yo to 40yo - 22.4% success

Over 40yo - 11.5% success

Notice that they actually have statistics on under-35yo women. It's pretty fucking sad when they have these statistics for the years of a woman's so-called "sexual prime". Those little numbers there alone blow every single argument about a woman's sexual peak being in the thirties and fourties to shrieking shreds of feminist denials.

Good luck hunting for numbers as a percentage of actual fertility on the web - not easy to find. You might have to go to a clinic because they basically don't tell you elsewhere. All they say is: "If you're not pregnant after a year of trying, you're infertile." Too scared to let that info out to the general public?

Remember: "infertile" is the politically-correct way of saying "sterile".

One little stat that I could find is that at least 12% of women under 29yo are infertile (sterile). Which might be the reasoning behind the sudden resurgent thought of "25 is the new 35" - at least for women who want to have problem-free kiddies of their own. Yeah, I haven't mentioned much about sweet problems like Downs Syndrome and the like, 99+% of which is caused by eggs from older mommies.

Welcome to your daily dose of poison, you poor deluded mommy wannabes. Your choice: 14 years of sex-fun-play, or a family. I can smell the fucking toast from here.

Civilisation vs Immigration

Civilisation requires at a minimum that each family have three children. Two are just for the minimum continuation of the country, providing one extra for accidents (deaths). For a civilisation to properly expand requires four or more children per family. Any civilisation which disincentivises or de-emphasises children and the role that mothers have in having children is going to be outbred in three generations.

The populations of third-world countries (and immigrant minorities) will overwhelm these types of civilisation. Through simply outbreeding, they overwhelm through sheer numbers, out-competing your own citizens. Smilovich and his cronies were right: these refugees come in and they BREED. Until all of a sudden they are in control, because they outnumber your citizens and their culture now outweighs yours.

When a civilisation becomes soft enough to allow immigration through refugees - that civilisation's days are numbered. Their short-sighted compassion has overridden their long-term self-interests. Compassion for these unfortunates opens the door to yet more compassion for their circumstances, and more compassion to give them a break - its a very slippery slope down to hell.

First, they get let in. Then they are given things out of the goodness of your heart: food, housing, education. Compassion gives them preference with certain things: higher education, jobs, the ability to vote. Special treatment that they haven't earned. Special treatment that your own citizens do not get and cannot hope to compete with. Out of compassion they are allowed to keep their own customs - which YOU have to acknowledge, out of compassion for their circumstances.

YOU have to be tolerant of them, out of compassion, rather than them having to adjust to your customs. THEY are the ones who should be doing the tolerating, NOT YOU. Reality is that we've given them a second chance, and they walk all over us - and we allow it, out of compassion, letting them play the victim card. We are such fucking pussies that we give them another chance in a much better place to live than they had, and then bend over so they can ream our asses. Out of COMPASSION.

The correct response to refugees is to keep them in their own countries: that way they will sort out their problems instead of running away from them. If they actually are capable of emigrating - moving and surviving and fitting into another country and culture on their own - then they will be great citizens and are welcome to be there. Otherwise they MUST stay in their own country: if they don't like how their country is run, DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Revolution is the only possible check on government excess, theirs and ours.

Democracy is for pussies and whiners. OF COURSE some motherfucker is going to take advantage of the system. OF COURSE people are going to be selfish and vote for things that benefit them. The Republic is the only way to go: only responsible citizens can vote, only people of means (landowners) are citizens, citizens have the duty to protect their country, only children born of parents from the country are eligible to become citizens, etc.

Non-citizens have comparatively minimal rights - though they CAN immigrate and, if successful, become citizens (by proving their worthiness over time). Citizenship is not a right, it is EARNED.

Along the same vein: GIVING technology to the disadvantaged is as much a crime as GIVING them citizenship. You and yours sweated, thought, and developed this technology. You earned the fruits of it. Giving the results of your sweat to someone else, out of the kindness of your heart, is stupidity of the greatest order. It is the one advantage that you have and handing it to another on a silver platter is stupidity.

The same for outsourcing labour to other countries - usually hell-holes and the third world. You are effectively letting someone else do work that your citizens are quite capable of doing, and at the same time denying your citizens the wealth required to buy the results of this labour. All in the name of greed/profit for someone - so your country falls behind as a natural result.

After all, your competition outbreeds you and grows strong on your prior sweat. Their outbreeding will then leapfrog you as well: once you've given them the hand up to being your equal, you're done. A population of 1 million with 10% geniuses will fall behind a population of 10 million with 5% geniuses. If you've outsourced everything to them as well, then you have no bitch when they outstrip you: you enabled it, and you no longer make anything.

Civilisation is only possible with worthy men teamed up with worthy women. Note: worthy. Many men and most modern women are worthy of nothing. So while I keep looking for a worthy woman who is available, I will do as I please with whichever women I choose. Thank you for the fuck, I quite enjoyed it.

Hamster Implosion

Here we have a woman whose Hamster is in the process of imploding. She hit the wall a while back, has been in denial, I sucked a few drops of juice from her before she went batshit, and now she's attempting to interact with me again.

Warning: while amusing, this is not pretty. Pass it up if you have a weak stomach.

Her: given up dating met the wrong guys they dont want to no me etc no nice men out there

Wrong. If she hadn't gone batshit crazy I'd have kept squeezing a bit of juice out of her, given her 50 shades of orgasms. I'm a strangely equitable person: if someone takes care of certain needs of mine, I make certain to take care of her similar needs.

Her: I'd like a man to take me out to dinner or the movies whats wrong with that give up

Of course you'd like a man to take you out to dinner or the movies. You're still in denial. Any rate, that's never a good thing: he either becomes a wallet or pisses you women off because you don't like the insinuation that a strong, empowered woman like yourself cannot cope financially. The mental disconnect that you girls often display is incredible.

At any rate, I'm not answering. This crazy cunt is not family, girlfriend, or fucktoy. Piss on her and her stupidity.

Her: I'm not silly I new u only wanted one thing from me

Correct, I made it plain from the beginning - and you were 100% down with it at the time. You even invited me over out of the blue to stay the night with you. And you had several orgasms from my cock, fingers, and tongue.

Your shaming attempt to get me to interact with you has failed. I want nothing to do with your stupid mental meltdown. I refuse to tell you about the petite Asian girl that I'm sparking - who so far has paid everything for our dates together. Beyond the lulz, I have zero interest in you at all - other than as an example of female insanity for my readers.

Here readers. Here I open up and show the black poison in my soul.

How did it get there?

Drop by drop, from crazy entitled females like this one.

"The (dating) situation we have today is like a large lake. On one side you have armies of women pissing and shitting and dumping as much raw emotional sewage as they can create into that lake. On the other side you have the group of so-called 'nice normal' women who are beginning to realise that their drinking water is no longer as sweet and fresh as it used to be."

Compliance Tests

From the comments in The Rational Male, I display my response to a female question aka compliance demands aka shit tests:

Special note for @SSM regarding the following question aka compliance demand (aka shit test): “If you don’t mind, may I have a source please for your assertion that the shape of the human penis evolved to scoop out a competitors’ sperm?”

I do mind.

In the future use your own initiative (ie stop asking men to do simple stuff for you) and do a Google search for “human penis scoop out semen” yourself. The Scientific American article above was the second result.

With due regards to Roissy’s maxim “everything she does is cute” – there comes a point when incessant “why’s” are not cute and simply become wearing. You got fingers, you got a brain (presumably), so use ‘em.

Note that I am deliberately pointing this out, not (quite) trolling – rather, to illustrate to all men here:

1/ the reflexive entitled mentality of even supposedly “aware” women

2/ the reflexive conditioned habit for men to comply with a woman’s “requests” (aka shit tests) even when we are supposedly aware or becoming aware of them

It’s a long, uphill battle.

Thus: I purposefully fail your shit test, to illustrate to my fellow male readers your female dynamic. I’ll count this as an overall win for me.

It's one hell of an uphill battle. Sometimes rudeness is the only option for these retards, to both retrain yourself and to retrain them to be better people (ie up their female game).

Remember: they ain't bloody helpless.

Edit: plus they need to learn not to be so bloody lazy. These are empowered women who don't need a man - they are fully-functional human beings who can answer basic research questions on their own and not ask men to do it for them.

Get Your Rape On

PIV is always rape

Remember that, boys. So, get your rape on. Women looooove being raped!

Hey, if PIV is rape, then how's about PIA. A lot of chicks looooove being anally raped too!

Sneak up on you

Old habits can sneak up on you, catching you out of the blue, making you embarrassed when you realise what you've done. An extremely sneaky one is when a woman catches you off-guard - say, by handing you her purse.

All of a sudden you realise that you're acting like her man-bitch, holding her fucking purse.

Thankfully there is a quick way to get that dignity back, assuming that you think fast. Just open her purse and start rummaging through it. If she asks what the hell you're doing, say: "I'm looking for your condoms, I'm out." She'll never give you her purse again.

Compliance tests are such a bitch to deal with, because they're usually done so naturally - and you've had umpteen years of conditioning to make you reflexively submit. So rummage through her purse, or sip her drink, or whatever.

Not perfect yet, always striving to improve.

S.C.U.M. Manifesto

S.C.U.M. is literally titled: Society for Cutting Up Men (author: Valerie Solanis)

This person is mentally sick. Reading her litany of hatred and insanity puts me into a dark, cold rage.

You women, you implicitly endorse this sick insanity.

Every little "joke" about Loreena Bobbit.

Every little put-down of the men you purportedly cannot find.

The fact that when you saw this manifesto and didn't scream to Heaven: "Put that insane woman into an asylum!" at the top of your collective voices. You didn't raise a murmur of dissent.

If you do not explicitly oppose something, then you implicitly and passively endorse it.

You say that you cannot find good men. You ask where all the good men have gone. You have great long rants and passive-aggressive whines on the subject.

We are hiding from your collective insanity.

You Haven't Seen Rage Yet

In digging around, I've run across this old article from the Toronto Sun (full attribution given). I feel the strange urge to respond to this privileged child, from my position 15 years in the future:

September 20, 1999

Feminism led to masculine rage

By JEAN SONMOR

Toronto Sun

I'm walking around steaming and I don't know who I'm mad at -- except maybe myself.

The reason for my irritation is simple enough on one level: Those nasty engineers at Queen's University in Kingston, the ones who like to dye themselves purple for frosh week, are at it again. Apparently -- trying to outdo each other insulting and degrading women. "Go Down or Go Home" is their pathetic rallying cry.

Ho hum. Old story. Sexual bravura at its least alluring. A decade ago their predecessors were more violent. Queen's achieved international notoriety for their posters responding to the No Means No campaign-- "No Means Kick Her In The Teeth," "No Means On Your Knees, Bitch"

This year, though, my son is there. First year, living in the thick of it all, in residence. So now I have a personal interest in how brutal and misogynistic the prevailing attitudes are at the place where my husband and I are spending $13,000 or $14,000 over the next seven months to have our son "educated." (The total cost is more but he's contributing his summer savings.)

In the summer there was a minor skirmish when signs went up identifying the AMS (the Alma Mater Society, the student government) as the "All Male Society." The matter was handled internally -- after all, seven of the top 10 jobs are held by women and the editor of the school paper is a woman. "All Male Society" had its ironic twist.

It would be naive to think there aren't rambunctious anti-feminists everywhere. But at Queen's they seem to feel a little freer -- or maybe a little angrier. But the steam that's rising from me, although provoked by the hyper-aggressive poster-makers, has more to do with the ugly impasse between the sexes that we're living through. And for that I blame my generation of women. How come we didn't see this coming? How come we were so caught up in our own stuff that we turned men into the enemy, and now must suffer the consequences?

These students are kids, for heaven's sake, not bitter, wounded 50-year-olds who've been through the marital and professional wars and lost on both counts. Their attitude is societal rather than personal. These guys have absorbed their hostility from the air around them. And who's providing that air? Their feminist mothers and fathers? The media? The women they date?

More and more worrying goes on about what has happened to this generation of boys. Skyrocketing suicide rates. Plummeting grades. Little ambition or focus.( A recent American survey of Grade 8 kids found the girls twice as likely as the boys to aspire to a career in management.) And if you have teenagers you don't have to read books such as Harvard psychologist William Pollack's Real Boys: Rescuing Our Sons from the Myths of Boyhood to see how much surer girls are than boys about where they're going and what they want. "It's as if our sons are unwittingly mirroring ... our own adult ambivalence about masculinity," Pollack writes.

At least some of the hostility toward women must be laid at the feet of feminism. That dreary, doctrinaire me-firstism that many women find embarrassing is still around in spades. In commenting on a recent story that fewer men are now teaching high school, the women educators were indifferent. High school boys don't need teacher-role models, they said. No research shows that. But we've spent nearly two decades on affirmative action trying to balance the gender equation at the universities. Why? Presumably because role models are important to young women. Go figure.

Anyhow, I digress. What I wanted to say was about how carelessly a certain kind of woman embraced feminism in the 1970s. (I'm not discounting myself but I tempered my views as I watched my sons grow up -- living proof that the personal is the political.) We tried to seize power. We saw an opening. We saw unfairness. We never bothered our heads about the consequences. But, looking back, it's pretty clear to me that many -- though not all -- of us already had all kinds of power. It was subtle but very real. Almost without reflection, en masse, we threw over that highly nuanced balance between the sexes and decided to redraw the map -- unilaterally.

What did we expect? Capitulation? That all we had to do was say we wanted to take our place at the boardroom table, show we were smart and strategic enough, and the men, those who prized that kind of accomplishment above all other, would simply bow and retreat? And retreat to what? The housework and family nurturing that we had suddenly decided wasn't enough for us? Now, if you can believe the trend watchers, many women are burned out on superwoman and want to head back.

Trouble is, with all the carnage -- and attitude -- around, that's not possible.
***
Jean Sonmor can be reached by e-mail at jsonmor@sunpub.com.

Letters to the editor should be sent to editor@sunpub.com.

Copyright © 1999, Quebecor New Media Limited Partnership.

"Pathetic rallying cry" - way to pull out the old shaming language. "Ho hum. Old story." - yup, so childish, you've seen it a million times before - more shaming language.

The old accusation of misogyny - pull it out and wave it like a banner, girl. The sly insinuation of pathetic "rambunctious anti-feminists" - well-played!

"How come we didn't see this coming? How come we were so caught up in our own stuff that we turned men into the enemy, and now must suffer the consequences?" The old victim's cry of "why us?" Poor little dears you still don't connect cause and effect very well do you. You don't like consequences, they should be banned and you be allowed to return to your dream-life of unicorns and rainbows and unicorns that shit rainbows.

"Their attitude is societal, not personal" - wrong. You women made the political personal and that isn't anything to do with social - it's personal. You can try to deflect, minimise, or hide it - you're wasting your time. I especially like how you casually discounted "bitter, wounded 50-year-olds" - female deflection and solipsism at its finest.

Now look at the "but I tempered my views as I watched my sons grow up" - really? Yet you still fling around accusations like a fully-fledged member of the sistahood. You never came to your senses at all, you simply said that you did because it was temporarily convenient for this article. Else you wouldn't be steaming. YAWALT.

You women deserve to be burned out on Superwoman. More, you deserve to be unable to take it all back the way it was. Choke on it, women, you got what you wanted - in spades - to get burned out exactly like a man. Given "the attitude" that you personally still exhibit, you know exactly where your sons and the other young men absorbed their attitudes from - it was a reaction to you. Deny that reality if you wish.

You got your Ph.D. - piled higher and deeper - while at the same time taking away the best possible male sanctuary and refuge from all that shit and garbage: his home. You took away the best things that would make it all worthwhile: meaningful sex and tender ministrations from a person who truly loves and appreciates what her man is going through for her and her children's benefit.

Pissing off men in the process was a sweet bonus for you. I think that women love torturing the "helpless". It seems to be in your blood and bones. You have not a shred of tolerance for the slightest hint of weakness.

Which is what got us all in this place, in this state, in this complete mess.

Steaming? Oh, right - because that's easier to deal with than that sickening dead spot of gnawing shame and fear within you. The gnawing shame and fear and dread at the knowledge that you went way too far and you are waking up to the realisation that there will be consequences (nasty things that should be banned). You sure as shit don't like the thought of what the retribution might be.

More: I think you have a problem that you haven't thought about yet.

You and other women have yet to see full-on insane, seething, frothing, out-of-control rage from a man. Women have nothing on it in comparison. We don't have pathetically childish screaming fits like you. Oh no - that's not how we roll when we lose it.

We break bones.

We bite off ears and noses and rip off faces.

We cripple and maim for life.

We leave people in a bedridden vegetable state.

We kill.

When it happens as a group from men pointed towards women (hate bounces) you are going to wish that you were only oppressed.

Hate hate hate

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan - former president of the National Ourganization for Women (NOW) and editor of MS magazine

I must offer a deep and sincere apology to Ms Robin Morgan - and by extension, to all women. I feel so deeply ashamed. I honestly never knew how terribly oppressed you women truly were.

I never realised that the treatment you and your mother and your grandmother - that all women throughout time and space - received at the hands of oppressive men was so profoundly bad. So I feel moved to sincerely apologise for the following treatment of you and yours:

I apologise for you being chained in the darkness in a 10-foot cell all your lives.

I apologise for the three-times-a-day gang-raping.

I apologise for the morning and evening beatings that left you a pulped and whimpering, bleeding mess.

I apologise for the once-a-day bowl of watery gruel which left you so malnourished that the babies resulting from your gang-raping all miscarried.

I apologise for you being forced to sleep naked in your chains on an ice-cold concrete floor in minus-20-degree temperatures.

"Oppression." Listen to me snigger. Feminists. You are so fucking full of shit.

Fat Elbows

It gets so you just need to look at a girls elbows.

If the elbows are fat - when you can barely see the point, lost in the dimples - you know that she's overweight.

I call this "fat elbow syndrome".