Plumbing

I've always been somewhat torn between amusement and facepalm groaning at the complete fucking stupidity of all the people who buy into the LGBTQ-whatever and 72 flavors of sexual retardedness that goes on out there these days. Thank you, academia.

Which is funny, because recently I heard of someone who basically screwed up their thesis on LGBTQ-whatever so thoroughly that even academia was seriously thinking of throwing it out. Given how hypersensitive academia is about this, and how they lap up the runny shit of anything dealing with it, you have to basically figure that it was a massive screw-up.

FAIL!

The best part, though, is still the warped thinking about all this that's going on out there. As I believe certain people have stated, there is:

PLUMBING

...vs...

SEXUAL PREFERENCE

So these retards in academia and femicuntism get it 110% wrong when they go on and on about different "sexes". No, it's different sexual preferences.

I think it was Terrence Popp who said something along the lines of: "If you're burned to a crispy crittur in a fire, and they look at the corpse, what do they see? Plumbing: 'This one's a woman, this one's a man.'"

Never mind. The stupidity will not-breed itself out of existence, along with the retarded ones who are easily brainwashed into believing this type of shit.

Both ways, evolution is removing the unfit.

Darwin Award to California for Encouraging Child Prostitution

Time to rip the leftists and wimminz a new one. Sadly, they will not cry at this - instead they will simply cover their ears and chant "lalalala I can't hear you lalalala" at the top of their lungs. This is because they are utterly incapable of learning anything - due to their brains being a safe missing the key and welded up that has been set into a 100x100x100 meter block of concrete dropped into the remotest part of the Challenger Deep...

So on the Washington Examiner, I see that the state of California Californication has supposedly legalized child prostitution.

Wait, whut?

I read further into California Democrats Legalize Child Prostitution, and realize that the bloody title is (surprise!) shit-awful clickbait material. Reading a bit more:

Beginning on Jan 1, prostitution by minors will be legal in California. Yes, you read that right.

Hmm. Sounds like fuckin' horseshit to me. Dig a bit further - it turns out that the end result might have similar effects to having made some things legal. In that, the police will no longer be able to arrest (or prosecute) the underage for selling their bodies:

SB1322 bars law enforcement from arresting sex workers who are under the age of 18 for soliciting or engaging in prostitution, or loitering with the intent to do so. So teenage girls (and boys) in California will soon be free to have sex in exchange for money without fear of arrest or prosecution.

Wait, whut? Fuck, there's an echo here...

So time to go check out Snopes commentary on Child Prostitution Legalized In California:

The Democratic governor announced he signed SB1322 to ban police from charging people under the age of 18 with prostitution. 

Interesting.

This does not, however, mean that child prostitution is legal. It is still illegal for Californians to hire prostitutes (child or otherwise), and sex traffickers will still face consequences if they are caught prostituting children. The new law means that children involved in sex trafficking and prostitution will be treated as victims instead of criminals.

Ah. A very fine line. And that actually means?

Going back to the first link:

Pimping and pandering will still be against the law whether it involves running adult women or young girls. But legalizing child prostitution will only incentivize the increased exploitation of underage girls. Immunity from arrest means law enforcement can't interfere with minors engaging in prostitution - which translates into bigger and better cash flow for the pimps. Simply put, more time on the street and less time in jail means more money for pimps, and more victims for them to exploit.

A few notes:

1/ Note that only women and girls are mentioned, not young boys. Expected bias from a mainstream news source. They seem to think that nobody is going to be interested in sodomizing young boys - or perhaps boys getting fucked up the ass is of no concern whatsoever. /sarcasm

2/ It's not legalizing child prostitution in any form. It simply stops the police from easily getting them off the streets.

3/ Since the police can no longer get them off the streets quickly - then what? Straight back into it once the car is out of sight? "Hey mister, I'm eleven years old - want to fuck me?"

As the article states straight-up: "Minors involved in prostitution are clearly victims, and allowing our law enforcement officers to pick these minors up and get them away from their pimps and into custody is a dramatically better solution than making it legal for them to sell themselves for sex." Barring the bullshit about making it legal - the general idea for this situation seems sound, get them the hell out of the area/game asap.

No longer possible, the police just can't stop (or protect) them any more. Shades of the Rotheringham sex ring, only now it can be semi-open - not quietly ignored or swept under the carpet.

So, some simple-yet-complex questions:

a) If a pedophile gets picked up for paying an underage prostitute, can he plead guilty to paying for sex rather than having sex with a minor?

b) What about prior acts? Can they be re-pleaded as per the above, so long as the pedophile paid for it? (As being different from abduction/kidnapping/rape/whatever.)

c) What about pizzagate, with the above things in mind?

I'm rather stunned by the level of idiocy displayed by the morons who signed this into law (back in September). There's a reason that I'm going: "Wait, whut?"

'Cause while it is still not legal to pay for prostitutes of any age or sex - it looks like in the state of California it will be a helluva lot easier to find those underage prostitutes. Sure, you can probably get them off the streets, though it likely means that Social Workers Wankers rather than the police will have to become involved to do it.

Which makes me wonder at the real reasons behind this abomination of law. Every damn pedo in America looking at California and going "hmmmm" with anticipation. The Social Workers having even better job prospects, and (possibly) more powers handed to them. Perhaps even an increase in the number of police to deal specifically with the unintended fallout from this law.

Leftists and wimminz. I'd almost laugh, if it wasn't so fuckin' frightening. The feelz and intentions are more important than thinking things through thoroughly and looking at the worst of what might happen - never mind adjusting to what actually happens in reality.

For this, I have to hand it to California for the stupidity-uber-allez Darwin Award: likely turning your own leftist/SJW promised land into a smoking hellhole of sexual perversion. Way to go ya morons.

Choose Your Fights Wisely

A lot of people out here in the festering swamps of teh interwebs seem to pick some damn stupid fights at times.

How here's a solid example of a good fight to pick: Vox Day when he got together the Rabid Puppies. Targeted, effective, achieveable, measurable. Plus it stuck the knife into some SJW pricks and twisted, good'n'hard. Good bonus there, watching those little pieces of shit squirm and listening to them squeal. Excellent payoff for all and sundry, whether participating or just watching from the sidelines.

Now here is a rough idea of a bad fight to pick: exchanging internet jabs with a pansy/troll/thing that you just know for shit-damn-sure will absolutely refuse to fuck off and die. No matter what you do, you're never going to be able to finish the job.

So I find myself wondering at times, why people do this. These pointlessly boring internet feuds. It's not like an old-style family feud, where you can punch the sonofabitch in the face or shoot him. You can't nuke the site from orbit. Even if you could and did, this cockroach just comes back.

So why waste the energy and time on a brainless troll? All you're doing is validating the troll. "Wooo, he answered me! I must be important!" Preen, masturbate, etc.

Targeted - yeah I suppose so.

Effective - not at all.

Achievable - hell no!

Measurable - only in its overall banal pointlessness.

When you see two people do this, it comes across as - to use "mainstream manosphere" terminology - a pair of Gamma's engaging in an endless bout of verbal posturing and ego-masturbation. Like women, they attempt to drown the other in a bottomless pile of shit - the one who piles on the most shit "wins".

Though of course, neither can admit to being beaten - the eternal posturing part - so it's always hammer-and-tongs banality, ad infinitum.

Dull. Boring. Pointless. Juvenile.

You Poor Bastards

From Goodbye America:

Narcissistic duckface selfie. With your dying grandmother - or her corpse. And 147 people ghouls like it.

Fuck's sake.

Bromance, No Homo, and Slash

Commentor Anonymous over on Uncle Bob's came out with this comment (regarding the German Pilot who crashed a plane with all hands aboard):

Well, the guy was a pilot after all. I thought that women regarded pilots as being sexy, adventurous and attractive? I thought pilot was one of the "sexy occupations" for men, like doctor, cowboy, fireman, 50-Shades-of-Grey billionaire, etc., that women dreamed of. So to go off thinking that this man had problems attracting women and was an "omega" guy without any other information is bizarre (the guy looks ok in that picture with the golden gate bridge (no homo)). Was the guy recently divorced or broken up with a girlfriend?

My emphasis the "no homo".

What immediately struck me was that a completely anonymous commentor still felt the need to add "no homo" when (presumably he) stated that the pilot looked okay in his picture.

Thinking back on things, I've heard guys say that they have a "bromance" with another guy. As in "me and him have a bromance thing going on". Were these guys homosexual? No. They used the word to describe a deep male friendship. (A word that I've only heard in the last half-decade - though that might simply be NZ being isolated from the rest of the world.)

Then I had a think about "Slash" fiction. This is basically fan-fiction (usually by women) where the male friendship of a pair of well-known characters in regular fiction is characterized as strongly homoerotic. Sometimes the fan-fiction has it changed (twisted?) to a flat-out homosexual relationship. (Notable example: Kirk and Spock from the Star Trek series.)

Interesting.

So this appears to be more evidence of the poison going on in society: the pathologization of male-male friendships. Society seems to be surreptitiously getting across the idea that all male-male friendships are essentially homosexual in nature. The triple concepts of bromance, no homo, and slash are all some evidence towards it. There are probably more that I don't know of or recognize.

It would seem that no heterosexual guy wants the slightest hint of homosexuality in his male-male friendships. In his gut he likely feels that this (homosexuality) is wrong on a deep level - if he felt otherwise then he'd possibly have homosexual leanings himself.

Note that I'm saying "it would seem" and "likely feels" because I have no data: only my own gut feelings. YMMV. Try to use your own perspective on this, rather than reflexively using the herd-socially-approved-groupthink of equalism, equality, tolerance, etc that has been drummed into you via the modern leftist/socialist school system that we've been forced to endure.

At any rate, this seems to be another method of controlling males: if you demonize male-male friendships, these bonds never form, the male is left isolated and alone with no male support group. All the better prey for the female to control in all ways. Especially when you see the loss of a mans friends once he becomes married - until his "friends" become the socially-approved emasculated husbands of the wifes friends.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.
=================
Note: Back in the post on LGBT are Dodo's, I stated that they are biological dead-ends and attention-whores. If they're quietly telling you their sexual preferences (and you're not family) then they're probably interested in hooking up with you and think you might be interested. When they go out into full-on "shout it to the world" then they're just attention-whoring for the social-pass that these minorities have.

Sub-Rosa Prostitution

UncleBob has an interesting post about something that I've seen doing the rounds recently:

Bachelor Nation: 70% of men aged 20-34 are not married

I haven't bothered to post on it myself. Too much of a rehash of old information - and I hate repeating myself too much. It makes me worry that I'm treating people as if they were subnormal when you definitely aren't.

However, while I was reading it again - something occurred to me. I posted it in UncleBob's comments, here it is quoted:

New Report: 48% of First Children Born to Unwed Mothers

That is from 2013. Given that this somehow made it to the mainstream news back then, we can pretty-much figure that it was underreported at the time - the media does toe the line about some things. It being 2 years on, I do not for an instant believe that it is under 50% now.

These single mommies are whores, pure and simple. No, they may not get paid directly and upfront for their bodies in a simplistic transaction: no $100 love you long time here. They must maintain plausible deniability.

Instead they expect to be paid sub-rosa in the coin of: dinners, drinks, nights out, romantic escapes, vacations, and "I've come up a little short for X bill, can you help me?" With a guilty look on her face.

When they get knocked up: government handouts and child-support, plus moral validation and ego-stroking for being a brave, battling single mommy. This appears to be the lifestyle of the modern long-term whore. There is no surprise that 70% of younger men are not married.

I find it bleakly amusing and ironic the furor about prostitution, in the face of this sub-rosa and very profitable long-term prostitution. The sub-rosa whores are upset about the more honest and upfront whores. If the men start using the more honest and upfront whores, the sub-rosa whores lose out.

I begin to think that the whole bushwa about how women "can't find a man" and the decline of men, etc is nothing more than a smokescreen. If a woman really wants a man and marriage - she'd get it. By throwing up a smokescreen and shedding crocodile tears they can maintain plausible deniability, play the victim card, <i>and</i> get their sub-rosa prostitution game-plan all at the same time.

Plus, women love any excuse for drama and bitching.

Think it over, If this is the unconscious MO of modern women - and it actually looks somewhat plausible - then society is in for one helluva shakeup if/when that knowledge goes mainstream.

Remember: this doesn't have to be a conscious thing. On the surface can be honest Female Best Intentions. Underneath that layer is Female Doublethink and Self-Deceit. Plus there's the hidden Lies Women Tell Themselves so that they can live with their actions without slitting their own wrists (or accidentally giving away the game to men).

So, am I seriously thinking that there is some overarching conspiracy of people (women and mangina's) setting this up? No. As I said once before, I don't believe in that tinfoil hat crap. It's more likely that three selfish bastards named Tom, Dick, and Harry are taking advantage of the situation that they see to make a buck. With women as a whole going along with it because it's nice and "it's for the children" (underneath the doublethought is: "I can benefit from this if I get unlucky", which is only a short step to go to a full-on "I'm going to take advantage of this").

So back to that comment: hmmm. It's got a kind of creepy plausibility to it. Unconscious. Sub-rosa. A little bit of selfish doublethink going through the heads of many, many million women - and it actually looks kinda possible.

It might actually be something that's kinda happening, accidentally coming into being, by a strange default. While we are turning our backs on women, and the PUAs are fuck'n'chucking women, and the MRAs are trying to make things "fairer" with regards to women. The MRAs especially might want to have a close look at the possible path they may end up going down.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Women's Self-Delusions Coming Apart

So feminasty Jessica Valenti, of "I Bathe In Mens Tears" t-shirt fame, got caught going full-retard. It happens all the time. JudgyBitch caught her out and gave her a (very mild) ass-raping:

Jessica Valenti coughs up a ball of full retard

I think the mildness of JB's response is because of two things: 1/ JB tries to stay classy (unlike most women out there), and 2/ Jessica is another woman - it's an unconscious pulling of the punches with a fellow-member of Team Woman™. Even if you loathe them.

The strange thing about Jessica Valenti is - that this is not a strange thing. Feminists go full-retard all the time. Hell, many women go full-retard all the time and just about all go semi-retard all the time - it's what makes us men wonder if (or conclude that) they're morons.

When a girl goes full-retard it's basically a case of Female Doublethink and self-delusions coming apart at the seams. She can no longer keep the lies straight, her justifications go all wonky, she says contradictory things, and she ends up coming across as a complete fucking loon. (Of course, most people will give her the Pussy Pass™ for it. JB is an exception, even though her evisceration is mild.)

What's the process that's happening here?

Imagine a bank vault door in Jessica's head. Behind that door is swept all the crazy bullshit and lies that she has to keep straight, plus all the self-delusional rationalizations which she can't allow herself to think about consciously. This is all the lies that she's told herself so that she can live with herself - rather than cutting along the dotted line. It rots down into a pool of festering, moldering sludge and shit.

Then it rots through the bottom of the safe and starts leaking, like a drum of toxic waste. After all, nobody said the floor was as good as the damn door.

This is what causes her to go full retard, spazzing around like a lunatic, dribbling out sound-bites of insanity and hatred. Depending on what's in the pool of sludge and bubbles to the surface in the moment. (Gotta suck, having a direct brain-to-mouth-no-filter-in-between situation - maybe she needed more beating as a child.)

Now we have to admit, most women don't get to the full-retard state. The toxicity of the pool of sludge varies. Perhaps 1% (at most) would be generally okay with very little crap going on in their pretty little heads. These'll be the very few genuinely high quality girls that you run across.

The remainder - well, they're the airheads and retards that end up in the fuck'n'chuck / pump'n'dump social situation commonly referred to as the cock carousel. The sludge has eaten through their brains, leaving them as selfishly-entitled fuckwits who just don't get it.

They aren't (quite) as fucked up as Jessica Valenti, though. She's an advanced case. Extreme, even.

Jessica: you bathe in mens tears? To the point of going full-retard?

I sip women's tears. It adds savor to the schadenfreude that I enjoy with my Grand Marnier.