What About Parasites?

After today's post, I'm going to get into the revelations I've had regarding romance while writing Arthurian fiction. In the meantime, let's talk about parasites when it comes to sex, Sex, SEX!

No, not those kinds of parasites! Get your mind out of the gutter!

I've heard podcasters yap about this conspiracy or that one wherein some organization or industry is secretly plotting to make us all unhappy, poor or degenerate. I'm not a big one for conspiracies as they require more intelligence to pull off than is generally available. 

When it comes to our current topic of how our modern culture has damaged the foundations of romance making women unhappy and men indolent, there is plenty of blame spread around. Here's my take on the parasites who are feeding off of our cultural rot.

Opportunistic Parasites

These are the ones who don't really care when happens to romance, but have found a way to profit from its demise.

Big Pharma. There's no question that Big Pharma is making money off of depressed women. The more depression, the more demand there is for anti-depressants. Having said that, they really don't have direct influence on the cultural components that support romance. Yes, they also make money off of puberty blockers and wrong-sex hormones, but again, that's just taking advantage of opportunities. I've not seen any direct marketing from them that raises suspicions about anything more serious than that.

Universities. More students means more money. More women chasing careers instead of marriage and motherhood means more students. It's pretty straightforward, but having said that, I don't see the administrations having a direct say in the way the culture bends. Yes, they absolutely are the petri dish where this hideous cultural mutation grew, but I don't think it was a deliberate effort to make more money.

Big Business. They are benefitting from single women in the workforce as both employees and customers. They certainly lean in to the whole lean in movement, encouraging the women in their employ to avoid pregnancy and pursue career advancement, but they're doing little more than carrying water for the feminists. It might be more accurate to suggest that the feminists coming out of the universities have been allowed to infest their HR departments and push the anti-romance agenda.

Direct Parasites

Porn. The porn industry knows what it's doing and doesn't care. It is smashing a whole generation of men and making boatloads of cash off of it.

Feminist activists. Bitter, unhappy women who hate men are the headwaters of the movement. This goes back to my previous post in this series.

Women are sabotaging other women. Modern feminism is the work of angry, bitter women who don't think they're going to get a man of their own making sure that other women won't, either and if they do, the men will be lousy. "If we're going to live in painful loneliness," they say, "you will, too."

Women are competitive, but their competition runs towards social undercurrents. Men fight, women scheme, plot and sabotage.

Think about what we've seen in this series of blog posts. It's all about equalizing the playing field for angry, ugly, bitter, lazy women by dragging all women down to their level.

The Democratic Party. Republicans beat the Democrats with married men, married women and unmarried men. Unmarried women vote for the Democrats 70% of the time. The Democrats are completely dependent on unmarried women. They absolutely know this and act on it all the time. Witness the recent "White Dudes for Kamala" struggle sessions where a bunch of low-testosterone simps whimpered about how hard it is to be a woman and even worse, a woman of color. All they did was feed into the victim narrative for unmarried women.

The ultimate example of a parasite might be the morbidly obese witch who was Christ in the Olympics' mockery of the Last Supper. It's all good, though. She's making a heart shape with her hands. She certainly doesn't hate tradwife Christian women.

There are probably more, but I think that's a decent roundup. Next, we will get into what really interested me about this whole topic.

I could not make a romance story work when I took away certain elements.

Other Posts in this Series

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.
• We aren't just denying sexual reality, we are fighting against it.
• Young women are being deeply injured by this.
• Many of our institutions have become incompetent because of this.
• There isn't a government solution for it.
• Angry, bitter women are sabotaging the lives of other women.
• The effort to spread the acceptance of sexual degeneracy is harming romance.
• We are all being harmed by the cultural shift away from romance.
• The changes in our culture are not hypersexual, they are hyposexual.

Hyper- or Hypo-?

I hadn't intended to drag current events into my series on sex, Sex, SEX!, but I can't pass up this opportunity to use it as a clear illustration of my take on the deliberate, cultural destruction of romance.

In case you've missed the rest of the posts in this series, a list is given at the end. The thesis is that we've destroyed the foundations of romance which has resulted in tremendous pain for women and massive underachievement by men.

On with the show.

By now, almost all of you have seen the hideous degeneracy from the Paris Olympics' opening ceremonies.

A group of perverts recreated DaVinci's Last Supper after performing masturbatory dances. And yes, I've read the absolute rubbish excuses from the organizers after the public response to their "art" turned so negative. "Why, we had no idea anyone would take this as sacrilege! We never intended it as an attack on Christianity. It was all about Greek mythology!" Yawn. The Secular Left rarely takes responsibility when they go too far. Everything they do is innocent and inclusive and blah blah blah.

That's all this was, going too far. This was Operation Market Garden where they pushed a little too deep into enemy, read: Catholic, territory and got spanked for it. Just like the Netherlands campaign in September, 1944, they suffered a loss, but two weeks from now, we Catholics will be in retreat again. It was a minor, but embarrassing loss for the Secular Left as they work to exterminate the faith.

I've seen the Catholic and Christian responses to it and they all get it wrong. The guy who gets closest to responding properly is Bishop Robert Barron.

To the Paris Olympics organizing committee, not good enough. #OlympicGames #Olympics2024Paris @Olympics pic.twitter.com/p8urrYLhA0

— Bishop Robert Barron (@BishopBarron) July 28, 2024

That was about as forceful as things got.

Briefly going even further down this rabbit hole, Gavin Ashenden, whom I admire greatly, went with the claim that the Secular Left revealed that they were afraid of us with this hideous travesty. No, Gavin, it showed the exact opposite. This was a blatantly dominant act against an enemy that was too weak to fight back in any meaningful way. This was a large, male dog forcing a weaker dog onto it's back to whine for mercy.

Getting back to the sex, Gavin and others made the mistake of saying that the masturbatory aspects of the dancing were hypersexualized. It most certainly was not. It was the opposite. Like the rest of our popular culture, it was hyposexualized. Yes, the costumes were pornographic, but the pornography was necessary for the participants and their fans to become aroused.

The "artists," the organizers and the fans of such things have deadened their senses to the point that they need exaggerated secondary sexual characteristics and primary sexual acts to get their jollies. That's hypo-, not hyper-.

This is commonplace these days. It's not just babies that are less common, it's sex. Just to take one aspect of this, it's well-established that frequent use of porn deadens sexual responses to normal attraction. Dig this snippet from Rod Dreher's essay on the Paris Olympics' Erectile Dysfunction Ceremony.

Men dressing as women. Jesus Christ as an obese butch lesbian. Dionysius, the god of wine and chaos, as Eucharist. And: children who believe their problems will be solved by castrating themselves or cutting off their breasts, and adults — even in government — who encourage them in this self-mutilation. Teaching schoolchildren about the ins and outs of sodomy. Hardcore porn, streaming 24/7 into the hands of billions. An “alarming increase” in young teenage girls being treated by doctors for anal prolapse and anal tears as “anal intercourse … has moved from the world of pornography to mainstream media. It is no longer considered an extreme behaviour but increasingly portrayed as a prized and pleasurable experience.” (Source)

I'm sorry, but if you're a teenage boy and you need anal intercourse to get turned on by a teenage girl, you are most certainly not hypersexualized. Teenage boys by their nature are hypersexualized. Craving degenerate sex acts is a sign of being hyposexualized.

The pervs in that expensive display of flaccidity in Paris were dressing in costumes and slithering around in front of the cameras because they can't perform any other way. They need the costumes, the drugs, the dancing to do what ordinary dogs can do all day every day when in season.

As we destroyed the foundations of romance, we crippled ourselves sexually. Now, like long-term porn addicted men, we lie about it to hide the fact that we can't perform. Yes, it was all sacrilege, but like any good sacrilege, it showed the perps for what they were. Pathetic, self-destructive losers.

Other Posts in this Series

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.
• We aren't just denying sexual reality, we are fighting against it.
• Young women are being deeply injured by this.
• Many of our institutions have become incompetent because of this.
• There isn't a government solution for it.
• Angry, bitter women are sabotaging the lives of other women.
• The effort to spread the acceptance of sexual degeneracy is harming romance.
• We are all being harmed by the cultural shift away from romance.

What Harm Is It To You?

 ... quite a bit of harm, as it turns out, even when it comes to sex, Sex, SEX!

Marketing campaigns can change the culture. Just take a look how our attitudes towards smoking have changed in the last 60 years. We've gone from smoking in restaurants to having smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants to no smoking indoors at all.

As a brief aside, I saw a guy smoking a lung dart in the gym parking lot a few days ago. His dedication to both ends of his health was impressive.

Anywho, I recently asked ChatGPT for a list of ad campaigns that had deeply affected the culture in the last 10 years. Three of them directly applied to the current theme on this blog that cultural changes are killing romance which is harming women and stunting the development of men.

Dove Real Beauty Campaign

Objective: Challenge traditional beauty standards and promote body positivity.

Attack on romance: Denying the existence of objective standards of feminine beauty. They really exist and men really respond to them. You can be body positive all you want, but fat, slovenly chicks don't get a lot of attention from the guys.

Always #LikeAGirl Campaign

Objective: Redefine the phrase "like a girl" to empower young women and girls.

Attack on romance: Denying the existence of sexual dimorphism. Girls fight like girls. Boys fight like boys. There is a huge difference. When you watch videos of modern women wailing about the lack of romance in their lives, a common theme is that men aren't acting like men any more and being protective is near the top of the list.

"Love Has No Labels" by Ad Council

Objective: Promote diversity and inclusion by challenging implicit biases.

Attack on romance: Denying objective reality. There's only one way to make a baby. Our bodies and psyches are designed by evolution to do that. You can have whatever fetishes or sexual disorders you like, but babies still come from the same act. All sex acts are not the same. When you deny that, you culturally demote baby-making sex by equating it with every other way of getting your jollies.

I went to YouTube and watched a couple of the ads from each of these campaigns and they were actually really sweet. It's pretty hard to get agitated about a campaign that shows women of modest beauty embracing their looks instead of hating themselves. All of these campaigns were well-meaning, but they still did significant damage to the culture in general and romance in particular.

We didn't get to where we are - increases in depression and loneliness, decreases in marriage and fertility rates - in spite of these campaigns of kindness, but, in part, because of them.

What harm is it to you if Susie claims to be Jack and injects testosterone into her body until she looks like a pubescent, high school boy? Well, none, directly from her, but the corresponding campaign to force me to call her a boy does massive damage to me and everyone around me. It kills the foundations of romance which hurts the young women I know and stunts the development of the young men I know. I've experienced that personally. The harm is very, very real.

So my answer to the Dove Real Beauty people is no, this is not a good idea. It's one thing to accept your flaws, but it's quite another to say your flaws are beautiful. They just aren't.

These women are not beautiful. That's reality and convincing them that the rest of the world is wrong doesn't change anything, it makes them bitter at the rest of us.

More to follow.

Other Posts in this Series

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.
• We aren't just denying sexual reality, we are fighting against it.
• Young women are being deeply injured by this.
• Many of our institutions have become incompetent because of this.
• There isn't a government solution for it.
• Angry, bitter women are sabotaging the lives of other women.
• The effort to spread the acceptance of sexual degeneracy is harming romance.

Is It The Lizards?

Of course it's the lizards. It's always the lizards. This post continues the series discussing sex, Sex, SEX! with another post about who is benefitting from the destruction of traditional romance. It's the lizards, you know.

In short, the lizards are wrecking women's lives and they don't care. More accurately, their worldview blinds them to what they're doing, but given the damage they're knowingly doing to children, even if they understood what was happening, they probably wouldn't care anyway.

The Lizard Empire

Long-term inmates of this asylum will recognize "the lizards" as shorthand for the Lizard Empire, referring to the cultural forces that serve our lizard brains, the primitive part of us that seeks only food, survival and sex. It uses the Roman Empire as an analog for the changes we're seeing in the culture as sexual fetishes become more common and normalized.

One of the reasons the Romans liked a big empire was that it pushed the borders, where lived dangerous barbarians, far, far away from them. The larger the Empire, the safer you were, no matter where you were. I'd like to suggest that Jeffrey Epstein, children in drag and trannies in the library are all part of the modern-day American cultural Empire. That is, acceptance of their behavior expands the empire by normalizing ever more degeneracy.

Remember, your behavior might be degenerate under some definition, but the farther out the borders go, the less degenerate you look.

Let's create a mapping for the map.

• Rome is all acts acceptable to the Catholic Church.
• Italia is all acts acceptable in America, circa, say, 2000 AD.
• You, a person who likes to watch abusive threesomes online, are somewhere in Aquitania.
• Epstein is just barely beyond the border of Dacia. When ABC spiked the Epstein story three years ago, that was an attempt to conquer that territory and make Epstein acceptable.
• Trannies in the library are Brittania.
• Desmond is Amazing, the 11-year-old who dresses in drag and performs in gay bars, is Mauretania.
• Allowing children to choose their gender is Assyria.

In a previous post, we discussed how denial of sexual dimorphism and denial of biological reality are both corrupting the way the sexes relate and all the pathologies we're seeing today.

Sexual Dimorphism and Romance

(Emphasizing the physical differences between men and women) reveals the genius of the Arthurian romances. They are classics because they speak to this truth. A knight must choose between the atheist's route and simply dominating the lady as a stallion dominates a mare or allowing his spiritual nature to control his animal passions. In that case, he must prove to the lady that he will protect, provide and cherish her to the exclusion of all other women. That is romance. The ladies are the motivating forces in the stories while the knights are the active forces.

On the flip side, the women must attract and encourage the men. Given the self-denial required on the part of the men, the payoff in terms of the Horizontal Monkey Dance and the pleasure of having the lady by his side has got to outweigh the cost of his sacrifices. That manifests itself in allure, charm and praise. It's the Arthurian version of the three things men want from a woman: respect, admiration and sex. That, too, is romance.

Denial of Reality and Romance 

(Following a discussion of the transgender madness ...) Parents instinctively protect their offspring with vigor and sometimes violence. For some reason, tens of thousands of us have been psychologically altered in some way to not recognize obvious harm any more. Instead of fighting to defend our children from poisoning and mutilation, we actively support it.

It's not just that our culture has become evolutionarily inferior to others as evidenced by differences in fertility rates and population growth, it's that we are now actively fighting not only reproductive biology and sexual dimorphism, but reality itself.

A Sample of Degeneracy

Dig this, chosen at random.

“Family-friendly all-ages” Los Angeles pride event yesterday. How is this legal?

🎥 @ReduxxMag pic.twitter.com/Do4k28qbGX

— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 10, 2024

I'd include more, but what's the point? They're all the same. The lizards are making a push to normalize pedophilia and with each assault, they gain more ground.

While the primary target here is children, women are collateral damage. In order to satisfy their sexual degeneracy, they have to knock out two key pillars of romance - sexual dimorphism and biological reality. It won't do them any good to knock them out locally, just within their social circle, they need to knock them out globally so they don't end up in jail. We all need to deny sexual realities.

It is in this fetid swamp that normal women, women who are driven to become wives and mothers because their biological urges aren't warped, must live. As the foundations of romance crumble, the chances for an average woman to live a happy, satisfied life do as well.

Who benefits from the destruction of traditional romance? The lizards.

Other Posts in this Series

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.
• We aren't just denying sexual reality, we are fighting against it.
• Young women are being deeply injured by this.
• Many of our institutions have become incompetent because of this.
• There isn't a government solution for it.
• Angry, bitter women are sabotaging the lives of other women.

Who Benefits From Wrecking Women's Lives?

Maybe the answer is "Other women."

I'm going to start the analysis section of my recent series on sex, Sex, SEX! I'm not claiming that any of this is true, it's just something that occurred to me as I was writing another Arthurian story with ChatGPT and we started talking about the archetypal romantic relationships in the Arthurian Legends. As of this blog post, my longest such conversational session went on for 137 pages, but I promise to only share a very, very condensed subset of that.

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.
• We aren't just denying sexual reality, we are fighting against it.
• Young women are being deeply injured by this.
• Many of our institutions have become incompetent because of this.
• There isn't a government solution for it.

Evolution And Romance

Whatever its flaws are when it comes to intra-species mutations, Darwinian evolution certainly applies within a species. For humans, that includes culture. If there are two cultures living side-by-side, the one that produces the better competitive results in conflict and reproduction will dominate the other.

Women get pregnant, men do not. During their last month of pregnancy, it's difficult for women to provide for themselves. Babies are vulnerable to all manner of threats for the first 5 years of their lives. For these reasons and many more, a culture that encourages men to protect, provide and cherish their women and children will dominate a culture that does not. Evolution will select for men and women who desire this kind of relationship. The culture will evolve to promote it.

When you watch videos of women in tremendous emotional pain as one romance after another ends in loneliness and rejection, you're seeing the results of a culture that is anti-Darwinian. When you watch the slow-motion demographic train wreck that is Europe, you can see cultural evolution in action. Islam respects biology, the Secular Left does not.

So far, we're only discussing biological reality and the mathematics of demographic progressions. These are factual data points, not opinions.

And now, down the rabbit hole we go!

Sabotage!

I'm not saying this is the explanation for what we're seeing, I'm only saying that it fits the facts. Life is hideously complicated and anyone selling a single-cause answer is selling snake oil. There are plenty of other forces at work harming women, but the realization that female sexual sabotage fits the data shocked me. I'll work through some of the other causes in other posts, but for right now, let's go with perhaps the craziest of them all.

Women are sabotaging other women. Modern feminism is the work of angry, bitter women who don't think they're going to get a man of their own making sure that other women won't, either and if they do, the men will be lousy. "If we're going to live in painful loneliness," they say, "you will, too."

Women are competitive, but their competition runs towards social undercurrents. Men fight, women scheme, plot and sabotage.

Think about what we've seen in this series of blog posts. It's all about equalizing the playing field for angry, ugly, bitter, lazy women by dragging all women down to their level.

Potentially beautiful women are wearing unflattering clothes, have masculine or hideous hairstyles and cop unpleasant attitudes. If you don't want to lose weight, don't think you're pretty anyway and you don't want to work on having an alluring personality, you can wallow in your unhappiness more happily if most of the other women have been taught to do the same.

Romance is founded on biological differences. You weren't going to get any romance, so if you minimize or deny sexual dimorphism, a lot of other women won't, either.

In a society where classical beauty and traditional sexual roles predominate, your status as the angry, bitter, ugly woman would stand out in sharp relief compared to happy, pretty, young wives with families. Who benefits from lower marriage rates, lower birth rates and more depression among women? Certainly not the girls who would have otherwise found protective, caring, devoted husbands.

And what about the men? Who benefits from the men wasting their sexual energies on porn? Certainly not the women who would have been wooed with vigor and joy. If you feel like you were doomed to romantic starvation, you'd feel a lot less isolated if other women were in the same boat.

Going back to my long conversation with ChatGPT, here's part of its analysis.

Payoffs for Angry, Bitter Women

1. Spreading Misery:

Shared Unhappiness: By promoting an environment where traditional courtship and chivalry are devalued, everyone, including those who might have thrived under traditional norms, ends up dissatisfied. This equalizes the playing field by bringing everyone to a similar level of dissatisfaction.

Destruction of Traditional Joy: The joy that pretty girls might have experienced from being wooed and cherished is undermined, making their romantic experiences less fulfilling and more akin to the disillusionment felt by bitter women.

2. Reduction of Competition:

Lowered Standards: By making sex easily accessible and reducing the emphasis on traditional romantic efforts, the competition for attention based on beauty and charm is diminished. This theoretically makes it easier for less traditionally attractive women to engage in sexual relationships.

Erosion of Special Treatment: Pretty girls no longer receive special treatment or extra effort from men, which can be seen as a way to level the playing field by reducing their advantages.

3. Ideological Validation:

Justification of Anger: The feminist narrative that challenges traditional gender roles and romantic norms provides ideological justification for the anger and bitterness of women who feel left out of traditional romantic dynamics.

Empowerment Through Disruption: Disrupting the traditional romantic and sexual landscape can be seen as a form of empowerment for those who felt marginalized by it, even if the overall effect is to reduce happiness for everyone.

I dunno, man. It sounded crazy when I first started the conversation, but those are all hitting the bullseye as far as I can see.

Equality now!

Is It The Money?

I had planned on starting the series positing an insane conspiracy theory explanation to conclude my sex-Sex-SEX! series, but I haven't had sufficient caffeine, time or psychic energy for it. Instead, I'll share this one.

Being a twice-divorced man with kids, that one hits me right in the gut. That pain is real. Its absolutely searing. In the context of this series, it dawned on me that a substantial number of Americans know, viscerally, how horrible this is, either as parents or as children. And yet it goes on and anyone who says there is an objective morality involved in the making of babies is chastised as judgmental.

We hear from the secular left all the time about the need for government-funded child care. While that might be interesting, it's not the real problem, is it? Babies want mommy, not ersatz mommy. Mommy needs daddy, not gub-mint daddy.

It's almost like we're mammals or something, the kind of mammals where the couples mate for life and nurture their young together with their roles defined by sex.

Anyway, it's no big deal. Gender is a social construct.

Watching that video, I'll go back to my exit question. 

Who benefits from her agony and the agony of her child and how?

Extra Super Special Bonus Gross Idea

Here's my idea. How about if we make a Pride Progress flag, only with the colors faded and a diagram of the owner's preferred way of achieving orgasm shown in bold stick figures?

Someone recommended this epileptic-fit-inducing one, but I'm not jazzed by it. Too tame.

I'm not kidding here, not even a little bit.

The problem with these flags is that they announce a virtue, but hide the actions behind it. To fly one is to say, "I am open-minded and non-judgmental." Fair enough, but open-minded about what? Non-judgmental about what?

Look, the whole point of the Pride flag is to let everyone know you're down with achieving orgasm in a way that doesn't have a prayer of making babies, even if there were not chemical or physical or biological barriers. Whenever I see one, I wonder just what the owner likes. Is he putting on a rabbit furry costume and doing it with a goat? Is she strapping on an electric dildo and doing it with her dog and a bearded libertarian of indeterminate gender? 

Seriously, I wonder about those things. After all, the people who fly these kinds of flags are advertising their sexual, err, flexibility.

So let's do it. I'm sure there are mountains of LGBTQWERTY artists, and I do mean mountains, writhing, squirming, soiled mountains, who could create vast libraries of stick figures to superimpose on the standard pride flag. All you need do is fade out the colors of the pride flag to make the stick figures stand out.

If you think that's too gross, get over your squeamishness. For those of us who have spent a decent amount of time with military enlisted and heard them tell stories about various kinky sexual acts they've performed with random strangers, the stick figures are no big deal.

Believe me, anything you can draw the stick figures doing is nothing compared to what is happening in my imagination.

Besides, you're not a prude are you? You don't think that marriage and making babies has some kind of objective moral value, do you? After all, your response to that video above is to talk about the need for Federal funding for day care.

Are High Heels Worth It?

Yes, this is part of my sex, Sex, SEX series, but not in the way you think. Among other delightful effects, heels make a woman taller. Sometimes that's a big help.

Dig this image from the attempted assassination of Trump.

That's a secret service agent right there. Her job is to cover the VIP, Trump, with her body. She is about a foot shorter than Trump which means his head is left exposed when she finally gets into position. Her short stature is what allowed the capture of this iconic image.

If she'd been the height of the secret servicemen, we wouldn't have been able to see Trump's head, which is kind of the point of the scrum of secret service in situations like this.

Earlier, Secret Service Director Kim Cheatle let everyone know that one of her goals was to see the Secret Service be 30% women. Yay.

In a job where size matters, they're ignoring basic sexual dimorphism, making it problematic to do their primary job. It's paralyzingly stupid.

Exit question: Who is benefitting from this and how?

Super Special Bonus Video

Absolute humiliation for this gaggle of female Secret Service Agents.

Look at the disorder:

- Can’t holster weapons
- Gear falling to the ground
- Erratic, fearful movements
- No show of force, composure

DEI Secret Service make Presidents LESS Safepic.twitter.com/o6HcHzxEUw

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) July 14, 2024

Bonus Content And Exit Question

Here's some bonus content for the current series on sex, Sex, SEX!

She didn't do this to herself. She is living in a culture where career trumps marriage, where women aren't supposed to need men, where men are marinating in porn and on and on and on. This is happening to her and she hates it.

What is happening is not evolutionarily superior. It's not mirroring reality. It denies sexual dimorphisms. It makes people less happy by a wide margin. While this girl, as some have suggested, might be suffering from a breakup, what she is expressing has been expressed to me by many women her age. While the narrator, a MGTOW guy, blames her for her problems, his takes are only part of the story as men have complimentary issues.

Exit Question

So it's counter-rational, it's paying off in suffering and self-negation, but we're still doing it. Someone has to be seeing a payoff.

Who benefits from her suffering and how?

Are Those Real?

What are we on about today? Sex, Sex, SEX!

Admiral Rachel L. Levine serves as the 17th Assistant Secretary for Health for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Richard Levine is a mentally ill man who claims to be a woman and calls himself Rachel. He was made an admiral by the current administration with the full support of the news media. the entertainment industry and academia. None of them will say that he's actually a man.

Dig this response to a university lecture where simple, well-known sexual dimorphisms are listed.

Wokeism is a mental illness. pic.twitter.com/umMN9KF24p

— Fight With Memes (@fightwithmemes) July 11, 2024

Well.

Parents instinctively protect their offspring with vigor and sometimes violence. For some reason, tens of thousands of us have been psychologically altered in some way to not recognize obvious harm any more. Instead of fighting to defend our children from poisoning and mutilation, we actively support it.

It's not just that our culture has become evolutionarily inferior to others as evidenced by differences in fertility rates and population growth, it's that we are now actively fighting not only reproductive biology and sexual dimorphism, but reality itself.

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.
• We aren't just denying sexual reality, we are fighting against it.

In the next blog post, we'll start trying to make sense out of what has happened to us.

Hot Or Not?

More about sex, Sex, SEX!

Dig this image from Gillette.

Or maybe this one from an article on the best body positivity accounts in social media.

Here's a snippet from the article. 

There are so many incredible things that follow an engagement - parties, celebrations, the wedding planning journey itself! Something else that unfortunately tends to run side-by-side with getting engaged is the pressure to look 'perfect' on your wedding day. What does that even mean?

"What does that even mean" indeed.

Just so the gals don't feel picked on, here are some guys to ogle.

Here's a bit about the Odobenus rosmarus above.

Arcadio Del Valle, 30, used to let his size XXXXXL frame hold him back from experimenting with style, but after sharing some of his risqué outfits alongside empowering messages encouraging other men to celebrate their bodies, he started clocking up online followers who were inspired by his body positive mantra.

Empowering? You bet. I am the Walrus might be his theme song.

Are they hot or not? They certainly are pretty common in marketing campaigns. We're told they're hot and are expected to think they're hot.

As a bonus bit, here's what is happening in women's clothes as a result. It's a YouTube short and I don't see an easy way to embed it so you'll just have to go watch it. It's by Billie Rae Brandt. She's worth a follow on YouTube.

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.
• We are told to believe that ugly is beautiful.

More to follow.

Are We Having Fun Yet?

Wow, the last post went viral somehow. I just popped in to drop this bit of gibberish and saw that the last one had over 4000 visits. Crazy! I'll have to track down who drunk-linked to that post. For now, let's ask this question about sex: Are we having fun yet? How's the whole hookup culture thing going for us? We're all in on everything from furries to trans to LGBTQWERTY to body positivity and more. Is it working?

Over the past few decades, our young people have become ...

Sadder,

lonelier and

deeper in debt. This las one might seem unrelated, but we'll try to tie it in with the rest a bit later

Does that look like we're having a ton of fun?

Hmm. That's not what we were promised when we changed our culture, was it?

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.
• Our younger generations are less happy, more lonely and deeper in debt.

More to follow.

Is It An Evolutionary Advantage?

More sex posting! Yay! 

Today, we'll ask this question: Do the cultural shifts in the last, say, 50 years, make Darwinian sense? That is, do they provide an evolutionary advantage? Our first order data says no.

Replacement rate is 2.1 or so. Anything below that and your population is shrinking. 

Something that occurred to me when I saw that graph was that secularists, while winning the national culture war, are parasites, growing by consuming other groups' children. If each group stayed completely to themselves as if they were different species, the secularists would die out.

Does that sound like Darwinian success to you? If it isn't, then the subgroup is pursuing a cultural strategy that is in direct opposition to evolution.

Meanwhile, looking globally, Muslim birthrates are on the order of 3.5. That level is off the scale at the top of the chart and almost triple that of the secularists. In secular Europe, they're waking up, probably too late, to the realization that all that evolution stuff they were taught in school applies to them, too.

Recapping recent blog posts, here's where we are so far:

• Classically beautiful and feminine women are a rarity these days.
• Romance is founded upon the biological differences between women and men. The more you deny and minimize those, the less romance you will have.
• Whatever cultural changes we've been making, they are in opposition to evolution and are not driven by natural, Darwinian forces.

More to follow.

Is It Romance?

After a year or so of exploring fiction writing, I've come to the conclusion that romance is the spiritual dimension of reproduction. I use the term spiritual because, when writing Arthurian romances, materialist stories are reductive in the extreme. Two knights love the same lady, they fight, one wins, he takes the lady to bed. No matter how you slice it, that's the way it goes.

This came as no surprise to me. Darwinian romance is an oxymoron. For Darwinians, a species is improved when mating partners are selected for genetic strength as demonstrated through fertility for the lady and strength for the knight. If you read the Arthurian Legends through an atheistic lens, that's what you get. Back in the 1980s, Arthurian analysis, criticism and fiction was dominated by that approach. Sir Gareth overcame the Knight of the Red Launds in order to have sexual access to Lady Lionesse. Ooh la la ... yawn.

Here, the lady binds her knight's wounds so that his genetic material can mix with hers and create robust offspring which will perpetuate their DNA as far into the future as possible. She smiles with the knowledge that he is in the top 4.372% of all possible mates in terms of strength, disease resistance and longevity.

You might as well have been reading about cattle. I have no idea what Arthurian analysis says these days. I couldn't stomach the reductive, feminist trash 40 years ago and I'm sure it's only gotten worse. The movies and television shows certainly have.

Getting back to romance, it's become clear from writing that it's based in biological realities. Women are smaller, softer and weaker than men. They are vulnerable when pregnant and nursing. As Jordan Peterson has pointed out many times, their vulnerability and the vulnerability of their infants makes them much more sensitive to threats and as a consequence they have much higher levels of anxiety and neuroticism than men.

In a medieval world, those risks are front and center in any woman's life. They need protection and that can only come from a man. Their reproductive role also drives them to seek a committed man, one who won't wander off to other women. Finally, their anxiety drives them to crave demonstrations of affection. I've heard this manifested in talks given by women over and over and over again. You can see it aplenty if you watch YouTube channels that focus on frustrated, single, young women who struggle to find a man who will "treat them right."

All of that reveals the genius of the Arthurian romances. They are classics because they speak to this truth. A knight must choose between the atheist's route and simply dominating the lady as a stallion dominates a mare or allowing his spiritual nature to control his animal passions. In that case, he must prove to the lady that he will protect, provide and cherish her to the exclusion of all other women. That is romance. The ladies are the motivating forces in the stories while the knights are the active forces.

On the flip side, the women must attract and encourage the men. Given the self-denial required on the part of the men, the payoff in terms of the Horizontal Monkey Dance and the pleasure of having the lady by his side has got to outweigh the cost of his sacrifices. That manifests itself in allure, charm and praise. It's the Arthurian version of the three things men want from a woman: respect, admiration and sex. That, too, is romance.

Again, the legends are classics because they speak to truths of the human condition.

A year ago, using an earlier version of ChatGPT, the AI would constantly try to drag the story into a feminist framework and I would argue with it. While annoying, these arguments are what revealed what I've described above. When AI went all boss-babe on me, it utterly ruined the stories. Our discussions showed how and why that happened. The ass-kicking girls of modern movies are biological lies and you can't write decent or even indecent fiction based on lies.

The earlier version of ChatGPT destroyed stories of romance because it denied the biological realities upon which romance is based.

The truth of our natures, our sexual dimorphism, can't help but drive tales of romance in very particular directions.

Is It Porn?

This week is going to be all about sex. Sex! Sex! Sex!

I've spent the last year playing with ChatGPT, writing Arthurian fiction. I've worked through almost every conceivable story arc and I'm out of ideas. Now my writing is more conversational and experimental. I'm trying to figure out why I've loved the Arthurian legends all my life. For example, I used to collect antiquarian books, specifically, illustrated versions of the Arthurian legends. As far as I know, at my peak, I had every single English-language version ever created. It was on the order of 80-100 volumes.

In the process of my conversations with AI, we've had long discussions about the nature of romance and therefore, sex. In short, Romeo and Juliet is romantic while watching dogs go at it in your front yard is not. Why? Therein lies all kinds of interesting topics for conversation.

Today, let's take a specific, real world example and ask: Is it porn? It may seem tangential, but it really isn't, which I hope you'll see when I'm done ranting at the end of the week or whenever this series of posts concludes.

The Case

I was at our local supermarket recently when I noticed the young lady in the checkout line ahead of me. I couldn't help but notice her. She blew every other woman in the store out of the water. Her hair was mid-length and subtly well-styled. She wore red lipstick which was the only dramatic thing about her. She wore a modest white blouse, a knee-length, A-line skirt and pumps with 1" heels. She looked something like this.

Our supermarket is near the local public high school. I've ranted before about the girls there. They are universally, deliberately ugly. Frumpy, overweight, tats, bizarre hair colors, sullen faces, if there's a way to take all the glorious beauty of a girl in her late teens and utterly ruin it, they do it.

The employees at the supermarket are no different. Fat, sullen, bizarre makeup, hair that looks like they dunked their heads in the effluent from a Chinese chemical factory, the women working at the store are experts in being homely.

The girl described above wasn't showing off her body with revealing clothes or wearing date-night makeup. She was simply elegant, appropriate for going to the supermarket. She was so much more beautiful than all her competition that the first thing I thought was that it was practically pornographic.

Exit Questions

1. Was it porn? She was several standard deviations more attractive than everyone else in the store. Is that a decent definition of porn? If a woman does things to her appearance that make her stand out that much, is it porn? 

2. The girl wasn't dressed inappropriately. She wasn't slutty. She wasn't even trying that hard. Her clothes weren't from Nordstroms, they were of average quality. What made her stand out was that she was intentionally pretty. What happened to young women where a girl making a relatively minor effort at classical beauty blows all her competition away?

My own answers to those questions will come in future blog posts.