Category Archives: Sex

Free Speech bus vandalized by LGBT activists

As in Spain, so in New York…

World War T continues…


Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

Is the tolerance and diversity crowd really as tolerant and diverse as they claim?

Consider this story from the Washington Free Beacon about the Free Speech bus created by the National Organization for Marriage.


A bus with social conservative slogans denouncing transgenderism was vandalized Thursday in New York City by trans activists.

[…][T]he bus never left New York. The National Organization for Marriage announced Thursday that the bus had been defaced by angry activists wielding hammers.

Oh, such hate speech! Much offended. Only hammers could fix this problem of other people having different opinions than the secular left extremists.

They even attacked the driver:

National Organization for Marriage president Brian Brown told USA Today that the driver of the bus tried to stop the vandals, but was tackled by one of the activists.

Newsbusters also reported on the mainstream media’s coverage of the attack:


View original post 264 more words


Again, a man’s life left in ruins, while his sexual-assault accuser goes about hers

Christie Blatchford has the story

Mike Kydd is the poor man’s Steven Galloway — not a famous author; not a professor-cum-department head, but rather a lowly, un-tenured instructor; not particularly powerful.

Yet Kydd and Galloway both have been brought to ruin by adult female contemporaries and former students with whom the men had a consensual sexual relationship that then retrospectively morphed into various misconduct complaints against them.

While the investigation report commissioned by the University of British Columbia in the Galloway case hasn’t been made fully public — making it difficult to know with certainty precisely what the findings were — Postmedia has managed to confirm many significant details about Kydd’s case.

Details at the link; all too typical a tale…

I don’t know why male profs keep foolishly having relationships with their female students, when over and over again, this sort of thing occurs.

Learn from what happens to others, idiots! And don’t repeat their mistakes.

P.S. I’m not victim-blaming here – if you think that, then you’re thinking like a feminist – but simply pointing out that, deplorable as the misandrist double standards are, one can avoid being victimized by thinking with one’s big head (and conscience) and not one’s little one. That’s all.


Disney doesn’t want foreign Muslim dollars, either

I was right that Disney has become more about SJW agitprop than money-making, despite its history; see Vox Day’s post:

Not that we didn’t know Disney was among the most evil and SJW-converged corporations on the planet, but it’s still a little remarkable that they’d rather not show the movie at all than sacrifice a few seconds of homosexual propaganda aimed at children:

Walt Disney has shelved the release of its new movie “Beauty and the Beast” in mainly Muslim Malaysia, even though film censors said Tuesday it had been approved with a minor cut involving a “gay moment.”

The country’s two main cinema chains said the movie, due to begin screening Thursday, has been postponed indefinitely. No reason was given.

You literally cannot exaggerate an SJW’s commitment to convergence uber alles. It rivals on religious fanaticism, probably because it is, for all intents and purposes, their religion.


I suppose one could give them credit for consistency; unlike companies that have attacked various states for policies on SSM or transgendered etc. not in line with the prog zeitgeist, but who freely operate in Muslim countries where ‘out’ queers get executed.

But SJWs are pure evil, so I won’t give those devils their ostensible ‘due’.

Do not be them; do not be like them, as our friend Chris says.


Middle-aged Japanese man’s 6-tonne porn mag collection collapses on top of him, crushing him to death; body not found for 6 months

Porn is bad for you, spiritually.

But sometimes it’s even deadly, literally.

Here’s one such case:

A lonely Japanese man who amassed more than six tons of porn died when a huge pile of magazines fell on top of him.

And even more tragically, the man’s body was only discovered six months later when the landlord entered the flat to find out why the rent had not been paid.

The man’s lowly death was revealed by a member of the cleaning team, who said his company had been hired to remove the magazines discreetly in a way that would not be noticed by neighbours and the man’s family to save them from the shame.

He said that the dead man, a 50-year-old former carmaker identified only by the name Joji, had died buried underneath under a pile of the pornographic magazines.

It was unclear if he had suffered a heart attack and fallen into the stacks of magazines which had then fallen on top of him, or whether he had been crushed by the mass of paper.

But the cleaner said that if he was still conscious, the paper would probably have muffled his cries.

Every space in the flat was filled with piles of magazines, which also stacked on tables and on shelves.

There were also clippings from erotic magazines where it appeared the man had cut out his favourite articles, and thrown away the rest of the magazine.

Despite his trimming, at the time of his death the collection weighed in at six metric tons (13,228 pounds).

So now his family not only now have the grief of mourning their loved one, but also the embarrassment of this becoming known worldwide.

Oh well. At least his life and death can be an object lesson in how not to live, for men everywhere to heed.

Sayonara, dude.


Study finds straight women have fewest orgasms

Surely not that surprising to us Red Pillers, but anyway:

Heterosexual women have fewer orgasms than men or lesbian or bisexual women, a study suggests.

The findings came from a study of 52,600 people in the US, exploring the “orgasm gap” between the genders and different sexual orientations.

The report in Archives of Sexual Behaviour revealed a “variety of behaviours couples can try to increase orgasm frequency”.

These include oral sex and manual stimulation.

The study, by Indiana University, Chapman University and Claremont Graduate University, showed the proportion of people who usually orgasmed was:

  • 65% of heterosexual women
  • 66% of bisexual women
  • 86% of lesbian women
  • 88% of bisexual men
  • 89% of gay men
  • 95% of heterosexual men


Few heterosexual women climaxed through penetrative sex alone, the report said.

The study showed that “of particular importance was incorporating oral sex along with other activities during a sexual encounter”.

There was a clear pattern between more oral sex and more orgasms in heterosexual women, lesbian women, bisexual women, gay men and bisexual men.

Only in straight men was no link detected.

Other behaviours linked to greater orgasms in women were:

  • Asking for what they wanted in bed

  • Praising their partner for something they did in bed

  • Calling or emailing to tease about doing something sexual

  • Wearing sexy lingerie

  • Trying new sexual positions

  • Anal stimulation

  • Talking about or acting out sexual fantasies

  • Engaging in sexy talk and expressions of love during sex

Assuming, as appears, that the sample size chosen was large enough, and the methodology of the study sound and valid, how might we interpret their findings?

One thing I noticed immediately, is how different bisexuality is between the sexes. In women, bisexuals are only 1% different in their overall rate from straight women in their rates of orgasms, and both far experiencing a clear difference from lesbians who report 20% more orgasms than bisexual women and 21% more than straight women. Whereas in men, bisexual men interestingly report only 1% difference from gay men, and both only a small amount of difference from straight men, the range only spanning a difference of 7%. We can easily conclude that bisexual men are essentially gay men who occasionally hit it with women, whereas bisexual women are essentially straight women who occasionally have flings with women.

So, setting aside the bisexual data, what can we make of the greater range of levels of sexual satisfaction reported by women, versus the much narrower range (one third the size) reported by men?

The key is looking at the behaviours linked to greater rates of orgasms in women, in the short list above.

They essentially boil down to two main things: communicating one’s desires to one’s partner (preconditions of which would be: having such desires in the first place, and knowing what they are and/or having a willingness to try out new things, not being too shy to talk about such, and caring enough about one’s partner to have a level of openness and communication between each other that one feels comfortable and natural in raising such subjects), and caring enough about one’s partner to enjoy engaging in behaviour, activities, and dressing up in ways that stimulate the interest and desire of one’s partner, and therefore doing such things.

From the foregoing, given church culture often, in the past, downplaying female desires (telling women that they ought not to care about such matters), and given feminism’s and churchianity’s encouraging women to misuse their sexuality as a weapon to manipulate men (don’t give him any unless he does things for you that you want him to do, from taking out the trash and/or washing dishes, not leaving the toilet seat up, voting for who you think he should vote for, etc.), rather than as a means for married couples to grow closer to each other and enjoy each other’s company, is it any wonder that straight women in our society report lower sexual satisfaction than everyone else? When even those who recognize the problem can’t help but tell women to keep using sex as a manipulation tool, as a reward for doing dishes, etc.?

Of course, the media spin it as all men’s fault; and if only we men could be more like lesbians:

“Damn men, keeping on screwing up feminism from working properly!”

Blah blah blah fishcakes…


Pope and Change

Dreher reports and reacts:

A Catholic priest sent in this shocking, outrageous AP story from Rome. Excerpts:

Pope Francis has quietly reduced sanctions against a handful of pedophile priests, applying his vision of a merciful church even to its worst offenders in ways that survivors of abuse and the pope’s own advisers question.

One case has come back to haunt him: An Italian priest who received the pope’s clemency was later convicted by an Italian criminal court for his sex crimes against children as young as 12. The Rev. Mauro Inzoli is now facing a second church trial after new evidence emerged against him, The Associated Press has learned.

The Inzoli case is one of several in which Francis overruled the advice of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and reduced a sentence that called for the priest to be defrocked, two canon lawyers and a church official told AP. Instead, the priests were sentenced to penalties including a lifetime of penance and prayer and removal from public ministry.

In some cases, the priests or their high-ranking friends appealed to Francis for clemency by citing the pope’s own words about mercy in their petitions, the church official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the proceedings are confidential.

“With all this emphasis on mercy … he is creating the environment for such initiatives,” the church official said, adding that clemency petitions were rarely granted by Pope Benedict XVI, who launched a tough crackdown during his 2005-2013 papacy and defrocked some 800 priests who raped and molested children. [Emphasis mine — RD]

Note well:

Francis scrapped the commission’s proposed tribunal for bishops who botch abuse cases following legal objections from the congregation. The commission’s other major initiative — a guideline template to help dioceses develop policies to fight abuse and safeguard children — is gathering dust. The Vatican never sent the template to bishops’ conferences, as the commission had sought, or even linked it to its main abuse-resource website.

And so, the precious concept of mercy becomes a byword for perpetuating clericalism and injustice, swaddling it in a slanket of sentimentality.

I’ve noticed, at The American Conservative in the past, and again in a comment on this piece, some people comparing Pope Francis to Trump; seeing him as a maverick, coming in, breaking rules, changing things, etc.

I contend the comparison is invalid; that Pope Benedict was more like what Trump is: someone who tried to drain the swamp, and truly go against the grain of what had been (and unfortunately is, again). In the comments, Leon Podles (yes, that onenoted:

Ratzinger’s hard line against abuse (which was ignored by John Paul II) is being undone by Francis, all in the name of “mercy.”

So, Benedict was the maverick, the radical reactionary who came in and tried to fix things, only to find himself blocked, and his efforts undone by his successor.

The better comparison, IMO, for Pope Francis, is in fact to Obama; he is changing some things, in a negative direction, while trying to undo the good that Benedict wrought.

As Podles went on to further observe:

Francis supporters want him to legitimize divorce and remarriage and silence his critics; if it also means tolerating pedophiles, well, what’s a few kids as long as Francis goes long with the Sexual Revolution in the Church.

Just as, in politics, progs loved Obama for radically pushing their agenda, and didn’t care about any other considerations, like increased Islamic immigration and resultant terrorism, the alienation of poor and working-class heartland whites, increased black militancy and racial strife actually resulting rather than improved racial harmony, etc.

Of course, the difference is, the order is exactly backwards between the Roman Catholic Church’s Trump and Obama pope analogues, in terms of the prog following the maverick conservative trying to actually fix things. I can relate, as a Canadian, because, for all the issues I had with our last Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, he actually tried to and did accomplish some good, much of which is being undone by Justin Trudeau, prog Canadians’ ‘hopey-changey’-wet-dream, selfie-mad leader. (Though I’m happy with the Brexit and Trump votes, and the trends we are appearing to see in France, the Netherlands, and Germany, and for that matter Kellie Leitch’s theme in her campaign to be the next Tory leader, I’m frustrated that my fellow Canadians chose to embrace our own Obamesque, hopey-changey figure at precisely the time when the rest of the west is turning in a nationalist and populist direction. {Sigh}…)


Age of consent should be teenage years

God made humans sexually mature, i.e. physiologically adult, capable of reproducing, when they become teenagers, more or less (can start earlier, but by the time they’re 13, they’re certainly all into puberty, and girls can certainly get pregnant at that age).

In centuries past, many people did marry quite early on; this is documented. There are other cultures where this is still the case; they do not have any conception of ‘adolescence’.

Our extended adolescence and delay of adult responsibilities is stupid. Our laws punishing sexual relations between someone over 18 and someone under 18 but bearing secondary sexual characteristics, able to reproduce, are irrational.

If parents want to protect their children, they need to bring them up right with proper values, and keep them at home until they consider them marriageable. Maybe for some, that isn’t till 18, or 26; for others, maybe at 14, they’re ready. No reason why 18 should be the age; that’s completely arbitrary, and it isn’t when people become physically capable of reproducing.

The laws should be changed. Teach your girls not to be sluts, if you don’t want them fornicating. Encourage them to marry while their fertility is at its peak, rather than delaying for the sake of education and career.

P.S. There should be no such thing as ‘jailbait’; if a teenage girl flirts with an older man, and seduces him, he shouldn’t be criminally liable for engaging in consensual activity with her. Again, if fathers want to protect their daughters, it should be up to them to bring them up right so they don’t fornicate; it shouldn’t be the state’s role to punish men who take advantage of willing, consenting slutty teenage girls.


Posted by on February 24, 2017 in law, Sex