My readers are already aware that all wimminz lie, all the time. Even so, I find it funny to note the depths to which they commonly stoop, in a desperate bid for attention.

Meet “Sally,” a cute but dramatic redhead, who had few talents so prounounced as the ability to make public scenes. This was a briefer than usual pairing (we went out a grand total of two times), and the brevity was largely caused by the incredible energy drain of just being around her. This morning, she decided she wants some more of Boxer’s life.

I’m honestly unclear about the best way to give the brush to someone. She’s not worth talking to, but she’s also not worth cursing out. She was more annoying than the typical wimminz, but it was never personal.

No doubt she wants to tell me about how her cat died, or how she got fucked and chucked by five guys (at once) on Tinder, or how she just got arrested for robbing the liquor store. The problem is, I don’t care.

Over on Dalrock blog, a critical article was recently published about the work of one Pastor Doug Wilson (link). Wilson is a cunning neo-feminist who uses various lawyerly tactics to redefine marriage in order to conform with feminist norms. Wilson noticed the critical article, and immediately confirmed his feminist credentials, by poisoning the well with broad accusations of wife-beating. (link)

Of course, the fact that people disagree with Wilson doesn’t automatically imply that they beat their wives, and people who use these fallacious tactics are safely ignored. It did surprise me to see Wilson use this cheap trick. He’s a very clever guy, and his arguments are (formally speaking, anyway) quite well constructed.

When I see men in the sphere talking about wife-beating, I instantly prepare myself for a handful of distinct, but related, neurotic types. In the first place, there is the feminist, who socks up to indulge in black propaganda. Our deluded sister will pretend to be a man of the sphere, and under her very manly pseudonym, will boast about keeping “his” little lady in line. There are also the trolls, who write over-the-top parody. Matt Forney is alleged to have created a funny web page about this, years ago. Disguised as a female, he drove the saps crazy with sexual allusions and garnered a few bucks in the process, from thirsty simps who just couldn’t help but fantasize about a night with this prize catch of a drag queen. And then, there are the fetishists.

My nigga Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) is a quasi-famous polygamist and advocate of the spank fetish. Toad encourages men to spank their wives, going through a whole spectrum of less-than-optimal responses, until he touches on the perfect woman, with the perfect attitude.

The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red.  But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with.  She may love him and she may even be in love with him… but not like that.

If Toad’s thesis is correct, then, a wife who eagerly accepts her spanking is the perfect woman, who is perfectly in love with her man.

By the same token, there are men who may not be sufficiently interested in beating their wives for sexual thrills. These men are not merely people who have other interests. Toad explains in detail, as follows:

there are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear.  They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take.  Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen.  Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.

In other words, if you married bros aren’t interested in spanking your wives, it’s because you’re insecure. You must conform to Toad’s weird sexual fetish, or you’re not a real man.

If you disagree with Wilson, then you’re a wife-beater. If you disagree with Toad, you secretly wish you were a wife-beater, but your wife isn’t sufficiently attracted to you to make you want to beat her.

If I were to take this nonsense seriously, I’d honestly need a spreadsheet to keep track of all these convoluted arguments about paraphilias and sublimated desires.

In reality, most men just aren’t interested in spanking their wives. They’re probably too busy fucking to bother with any of this other nonsense. Most men aren’t anorexics, pedophiles or zoophiles. Most men don’t get turned on by smelly feet. Most men don’t have granny fetishes. Most men aren’t interested in anal or oral sex. None of these normative men have a problem. They’re perfectly happy. I’ll stop short of speculating on the underlying neurotic energy that makes people like Toad and Wilson focus so much of their efforts on wife-spankery. Maybe these people enjoy it, and it’s nothing to me, but the fact that not everyone agrees with them doesn’t imply some underlying hangup.

I do think there is a general problem (with both social and individual dimensions) with fetishism. One aspect of paraphilic degeneracy (whether it be the spank fetish or something else) which seems universal, is the gradual overtaking of all other aspects of the relationship, by the primacy of the sexual fetish. For men like Toad, real emotional intimacy, and interpersonal connection, is secondary to the act of beating a woman’s ass. The fetish eventually comes to replace feelings of love and union. The act of beating a woman’s ass may eventually become a substitute for actual sex. Experiencing the beating is the telos, and intercourse may never occur, or may be a halfhearted, masturbatory afterthought.

Pull the full PDF (here)

So, what do people in your state hate?

The moral to this illustration is not to be a nice guy. Women just assume you’re desperate, and will treat you accordingly. Be an asshole, instead. It’s what they respond best to…

Down below, Renee complains:

Astutely, she brings up the correlation between being a side bitch (or a side nigga) and being LJBF’d by someone. In the first case, a side nigga is someone who is used for sex and possibly emotional/financial support also. Such a person is strung along by the object of his desire, while she (or he) makes great plans for the future with her (or his) first choice — who isn’t the side nigga. In the second, the situation is precisely similar, though even the sexual contact is removed.

If someone pretends to like you, and manipulates you into meeting her (or his) needs, while not even deigning to have sex with you, then you’re a chump. My prescription is to dump that bitch (or that nigga) and quit wasting your time.

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself, in any relationship, if you are benefitting. If you’re not even gaining a tiny advantage in return for your time invested, then you should cut your losses immediately.

The correlation between the side nigga and the LJBF certainly needs some further deconstruction. Look for a more serious article in the near future.

An excellent illustrative article that shows the inherent weaknesses of Christianity, along with the inherent manipulative proclivities of women. This bitch can justify any contradiction, no matter how ridiculous.

“I would describe my relationship with Jesus as a bratty sub with a dominant…”

http://nypost.com/2017/07/13/a-christian-womans-secret-life-as-a-dominatrix/

For weeks, I’ve hesitated about posting this, because I knew that if it got any replies, they’d be from angry manosphere types going all FUCK YOU MOM! Recently, however, I realized that if I can’t troll my own blog, then I might as well take it down. I subsequently acknowledged that I’m less interested in the focus of this article than in improving regular peoples’ ability to read serious research.

Months ago, on some other blog, I read the following:

Women absorb and carry living DNA and cells from every male they have sexual intercourse with

Linked to the claim was a discussion on a conspiracy theory web forum. A few links deep, however, there were a couple of serious journal articles. More generally, this claim has been bandied about since, as though it were unshakeable.

Just as a spoiler, the quoted claim above is wrong (and not only is it wrong, the opposite is true). Even so, something interesting is going on.

Can a woman’s prior sex partners influence the characteristics of her children with an unrelated male? That’s the question being asked in a 2014 study (pdf download), headed by Angela Crean (link) of the University of Sydney (Australia).

ABSTRACT

Newly discovered non-genetic mechanisms break the link between genes and inheritance, thereby also raising the possibility that previous mating partners could influence traits in offspring sired by subsequent males that mate with the same female (‘telegony’). In the fly Telostylinus angusticol- lis, males transmit their environmentally acquired condition via paternal effects on offspring body size. We manipulated male condition, and mated females to two males in high or low condition in a fully crossed design. Although the second male sired a large majority of offspring, offspring body size was influenced by the condition of the first male. This effect was not observed when females were exposed to the first male without mating, implicating semen-mediated effects rather than female differential allocation based on pre-mating assessment of male quality. Our results reveal a novel type of transgenerational effect with potential implications for the evolution of reproductive strategies.

At least in fruit flies, previous matings seem to alter the phenotypical traits of children, conceived by a different father. This is a nongenetic transmission (paragenetic? – ya boy Boxer is not a Biologist, and doesn’t know the correct term). In plain language, no DNA is being recombined or stored. Even so, something appears to be happening that no one can sufficiently explain (yet).

Crean et. al. constructed a series of different experiments, in an attempt to control for environmental factors that would muddy the results. Well-fed fruit flies, for example, are larger than poorly nourished ones. Nutrition was safely ruled out by the researchers. There was also an attempt to filter out non-penetrative attempts at mating.

What we end up with is some evidence that the transmission of semen has some effect on children, despite the lack of any genetic transmissions. The researcher’s conjecture is that some unknown component in seminal fluid is effecting ovules (i.e. immature eggs). No one knows the mechanism of transmission. What was established was a statistical anomaly that our present understanding of heredity can not account for.

If a female fruit fly mates unsuccessfully with a large male, and then goes on to successfully mate with a small male, her offspring will have a significantly greater chance of displaying a large male phenotype, despite having no genetic legacy from the large male.

What this study shows is generally not the claims made by conspiracy-theorists and hardened MGTOW types in the ‘sphere, but it remains interesting. Namely: Something is going on with promiscuous female fruit-flies, and all the usual things that might cause it have been successfully ruled out.

What Crean et. al. hypothesize is only one of a handful of possibilities. There are similar studies suggesting an indirect epigenetic link — basically the stress of an immune response methylating DNA in the mother to activate various gene expressions. It’s something like common sense to suggest that if the stress of smoking cigarettes can influence gene expression, and it does (pdf download) then getting pumped full of strange jizz and STDs on a regular basis might also. Nothing definitive exists, though, and nothing is likely to be done to address this obvious question in the foreseeable future.

In an ideal world, we’d have qualified people trying to replicate these findings, testing for specifics, and eventually performing parallel research on mammals. In our current feminized milieu, that’s not likely to occur. The results of future tests would draw attention to, and invite criticism of, the hyper-promiscuous ‘you go girl’ cultural facets which we all know and love. Both men and women are supposed to be able to slut it up, and if (motherfucking science!) gets in the way of that, then it needs to be suppressed.

tl;dr: I’ve often wondered why my Mormon aunties were able to have healthy kids until 45, and generally just assumed that it was a statistical quirk. In fact, there’s some motherfucking science! suggesting that women who start having kids early have an easier time having them late, too.

I subsequently assumed that if there was a correlation, it was caused by negative pressures (sluts who jack themselves up on synthetic hormone birth control, have abortions, and get their uteri scarred by HPV and gonorrhoea having a more difficult time conceiving). No, that’s not the whole story either.

In our study, peak fecundability was approximately 29–30 years among parous women and 27–28 years among nulliparous women. Among parous women, age was associated with increasing fecundability until age 30 years, after which it decreased; among nulliparous women, there was little increase in fecundability after age 20 and a marked decline starting around age 28 years.

Read the whole thing here:

Click to access nihms448571.pdf

Credit to Heidi (part of the award-winning Dalrock research team) for finding this article. Show her some love (here).

Just in time to illustrate the bounce-back phenomenon I wrote about mere hours ago, is this little gem, which I received at about 23h50 yesterday evening.

There are eight different conversations here. One is a relative, age ten. One is a colleague. Two are bitches I’m currently fucking. Three are bitches who want to fuck me. Then there is instagram ho’. My readers will remember instagram ho’ from this entry (link).

In my conversation, I express confusion as to why this bitch would be texting me out of the blue. Of course, I’m not actually confused. As all my readers know, this is what ho’s do.

Several weeks ago instagram ho’ decided that I wasn’t sufficiently invested in her, and she wanted me to man up. As is my custom, I told her I understood, and bid her good luck as she stomped away, nose in the air, to find someone more manly. I imagine that she’s had several tinder flings in the interim, but apparently no one else is giving her even the meager and insufficient bounty of attention that I did. Thus, the bitch wants to re-enter orbit.

Instagram ho’ was very good at sex, but was otherwise dull as dirt. It makes no sense to hold grudges, but as I have other options at the moment, instagram ho’ has a long wait in line which I predict she won’t be able to tolerate. It’s just as well.