Monday, September 15, 2014

Bring on the sexbots

There's a golden oldie over at Blackdragon's blog about the power reversal that would occur if realistic female sex robots were manufactured in large quantities:
I have said often that over the next 50 to 60 years, society is in for changes so massive, it is nowhere near ready for them. While it will be exciting to see these changes, it will be terrifying to watch an unprepared population deal with them.

One of these changes is sex robots. To bring you up to speed if you were not aware, for almost ten years now, I have made the following predictions:

Prediction One: At some point, technology will be able to make robots that are essentially indistinguishable from real human beings, or at least close to it. [Didact: Arthur C. Clarke once said something similar, along the lines that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. They are both correct.]

Prediction Two: The first major, open-market use of these robots will be for men to have sex with them. [Didact: Rule 34 in action.]

Prediction Three: The initial sex robots will be extremely expensive and thus unavailable to most. Regardless, they will sell like hotcakes and fly off the shelves. They won’t be able to manufacture them fast enough. Soon a saturation point at that price level will be reached. This will drive prices down at a rate faster than people expect, as is always true with mass-market technology innovations (excluding those made by Apple, of course). Soon, most men will be able to afford them.

Prediction Four (the most important prediction by far): Once the sex robots’ price gets down to the $500 – $1000 range, placing them in range of just about any guy who is not really poor (and even those guys will be able to rent them for a few hours), you will see the greatest shift in sexual power ever experienced by the human race. It will be equal to or greater than the upheaval during the Sexual Revolution of the 1960’s.

When any man can go home and fuck his Scarlett Johansson robot or Kim Kardashian [Didact: would that particular model come with an automatic hair removal option?] robot (or whichever celebrity will be considered super hot at that time), and he can do so without her demanding dates, free dinners, a sounding board for her drama, marriage, monogamy, picking up his socks, or refraining from burping at the table, and he can fuck Ms. Robot bareback to his heart’s content without ever needing to worry about pregnancy, child support payments, or catching an STD… oh, when that happens… you will see, for the first time in human history, women lose most (if not all) of their power over men.

“Oh c’mon! Not ALL men will go for that! Some men want more than just sex!”

Yes, some men do, but even the men who want more than sex still want sex, and even those guys currently don’t get sex without doing shit they don’t want to do to satisfy certain irrational female desires. But you know what? Let’s leave that argument for another time since it’s totally irrelevant. Know why?

Because even if only 20% of men do this, it will be a game-changer unlike anything anyone in our generation has ever seen. Women will have no power to compete with perfect-looking, totally compliant sex robots who will do whatever men tell them to do without argument.

It will be a massive game-changer in man-woman sexual relations.
Everything that Blackdragon wrote in that article, more than three years ago, is perfectly accurate. The creation of female sex robots will be quite possibly the best thing that could ever happen to male-female power relations in human history.

I say, bring it on.

Think about how dysfunctional, how utterly anti-masculine, and how inimical to freedom the current legal system is toward men when it comes to love and marriage.

In the United States, if you get married these days without a pre-nup in place, you're a fool, and you're literally daring your wife, and her scumbag lawyer, to take you to court and divorce-rape your ass.

We have sexual harassment laws in America's workplaces that not only allow, but encourage, women to destroy the livelihoods and careers of the men that they work with when subjected to the slightest provocation.

We see laws in place that put the burden of proof entirely upon men in case of a rape accusation or domestic violence claim- but do not require the same standards from women.

There is an endless array of examples where society has been turned into a weapon used to destroy the lives of men. And one would be justified in complaining about it.

But here's the thing- NONE of this could have happened without male cooperation.

It's not that hard to figure out. Despite female protests to the contrary, men still control the levers of power to a degree that women do not understand. They acquiesce to female demands because, ever since the passage of universal suffrage laws, women have become powerful voting blocs and appeasing those voters is of paramount importance in a democracy. (This alone is an almost unanswerable argument against both universal suffrage and democracy, but that's for another post.)

So why would sex bots change that power equation all of a sudden?

Simple: it would remove the single most powerful hold that women have over men. Men give up power to women because women give us sex. No one should ever discount or underestimate the power that sex gives women over men. And as long as that power was used for mutual benefit and exchange, there was nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Not for nothing is it said that women are the gatekeepers of sex, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment. (Bob Wallace once put it slightly better: "any woman can get laid, and any man can get married".) Traditionally, men have exchanged commitment for sex, to the mutual benefit of both parties involved.

But these days, women can get consequence-free sex, more or less on demand, at least for as long as their looks and femininity last, and are awarded cash and prizes for accepting a man's commitment and then taking him to court and divorcing him.

Thing is, though, that in order for women to continue enjoying that consequence-free lifestyle, the old model of commitment-for-sex has to continue. Without it, women are left with virtually no source of support. And the day that men start "going Galt" en masse is the day that this web of evil lies that we have built around ourselves will start to crumble.

It won't just be the Gammas and Omegas and sad lonely shut-ins who will go for these new sex-bots. It will be ordinary men who want sex without having to deal with all of the hassle and nonsense of dating, and all of the drama that comes from dealing with an actual woman. As ordinary Western men flee their harridan wives and girlfriends in exchange for gorgeous, always-on, always-ready, and always-lubricated sex robots, Western women will suddenly find that they have exactly zero power over men.

Now at this point I will readily admit that there will be certain exceptions. Some men will always prefer a real, live woman over a robot. And good for them. But, when a man's overall cost for sex with his robot goes to well below his overall cost for sex with real women, guess what will be preferred eight or nine times out of ten?

Ultimately, the advent of sex robots will be the major technological change that will cast down the last stone of the last feminist monolith upon the last screeching harpie of "Womyn's Rights". I say it can't come along fast enough.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Female porn addiction

Now this is one "disease" that I would have absolutely no problem helping its (straight and female) sufferers to cure: 
Women are just as capable of being ‘addicted’ to porn as men[Didact: well duh. It's not like that godawful Fifty Shades mommy-porn nonsense is being marketed to men, after all.] It's official. A new German sex study has confirmed what I have long suspected and that heavy use of pornography could make some of us “hypersexual” - a personality disorder that involves spending excessive time engaged in sexual fantasies. We love a dopamine hit as much as the next fella. After all, we’re human, and our brains are wired to find novelty exciting, irrespective of our genitals or gender.

I love porn, and ever since I began researching it for my work, I’ve become increasingly seduced by its gushing celebration of the human body in all its variety; its capacity for pleasure beyond the bounds of moral, missionary stricture; and the fantasy outlet it provides. Far from believing that porn is responsible for our social and intimate decay, I am zealous about its capacity to cheer up our stress-rich, time-poor, care-worn lives. Whatever the fantasy you’d like to explore, there’s a porn clip out there for you. If you’re female, you might just need to spend a little more time riffling through the racks, so to speak. 
I was never much of a dabbler as a teen. Instead, as a keen reader, I smuggled my mum’s copies of the Kama Sutra [Didact: contrary to popular perception, the Kama Sutra is not JUST a sex manual, it's actually a guide to being a capable and skilled prince.] and Nancy Friday's My Secret Garden into my bedroom, stuffing them down the gap between the radiator and my single bed, dazzled by the variety of human sexual experience that sex education and Hollywood 12 ratings had not prepared me for. 
Later, I was far more interested in having sex than watching it, particularly, in front of mirrors. In my late teens, after a debilitating few years battling with anorexia, my sex drive had all but evaporated, [Didact: so this chick is an emotionally damaged sex addict. How original...] and when I ventured back into the online fold at university, I didn’t do it for pleasure. I was going through what I like to call my High Morbid Feminist phase, and searching for evidence of objectification and exploitation.

“Porn is the separation of the parts from the person,” read one feminist text I loved to quote in my modern literary theory class. [Didact: ... and people actually take feminists seriously?] But when I wrote my dissertation on Nabokov’s Lolita and the feminist dissections of it, something shifted. How could these theorists be riled about a fantasy depiction where the victim is a character? And wasn’t video porn full of characters too? I decided to go back to the online stuff.

Soon, I was logging on several times a week. It was high respite from the high-minded literary journalism sphere into which I was trying to break. There is some deeply erotic and artistic material out there, featuring men as beautiful as the women, and made by the likes of Erika Lust, Ms Naughty, and Pandora Blake. But I also love the raw, ragged, mainstream videos that populate the tube sites. I love kinky porn, queer porn, and decidedly hetero stuff, even more than girl-on-girl. And I love to imagine being THAT guy. [Didact: A reasonably fit chick that likes girl-on-girl porn? Gentlemen, the line forms outside...] 
Now, as a 30-year-old female boxing nut, I’m probably in possession of a higher sex drive - and the energy reserves to power it - than many of male peers. But once in a relationship, I’m enthusiastically monogamous. Without porn, there’d definitely be a sexual energy deficit I’d have to discharge somewhere else.
Personally I find this very amusing, not disturbing. If you know anything about women, you know that they are just as avid consumers of smut as men are- they just consume it very differently, that's all.

Contrary to popular perception, women, and not men, are far more likely to engage in, shall we say, sexual practices of a questionable nature. There's nothing particularly wrong with this, in my personal opinion- what goes on behind closed doors is the business of those participating and no one else's, as long as no one is harmed involuntarily.

But let's not pretend that feminists who protest against the objectification of women in porn are virtuous in any way. As the author of this particularly silly article makes clear, feminists are perhaps the least coherent and least sensible of all critics of pornography- all you have to do is look at that whole Belle Knox case to see just how ridiculous the feminist double-standard is when it comes to what is, and is not, objectification of women in pornography.

Let women watch all the porn that they want. Let them enjoy it too. What they do with it is their business and no one else's. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking that women are somehow more virtuous and more clean-minded than men, because that's just a load of pants.

Why extroverts can't leave us alone

Oh, the pain...

Every introvert, without exception, has his or her own particular bugbears about other people. The most common one goes something like this:
I'm perfectly happy being by myself, in peace and quiet- why can't you see and understand that?
The reason is actually pretty simple. Extroverts require something from us that we are incapable of providing. Unfortunately, it is rare that you will find an extrovert who has the intelligence, the sensitivity, or the perceptiveness to see this. And this is because, as Bob Wallace likes to say:
Introverts understand extroverts a lot better than extroverts understand introverts, just the way the smart understand the stupid a lot better than the stupid understand the smart.
Extrovert insensitivity to introverted needs is common and unavoidable. And this would be fine, except for the fact that extroverts tend to take an introvert's inability to provide them with the attention and conversation that they need rather personally.

Case Studies

A couple of examples from various introverts will serve the purpose of illustrating the problem.
Example 1: An introvert (I) walks into his apartment and is greeted by his extroverted roommate (E). The following conversation is adapted and edited slightly from an actual reader email.
E: "Where were you?" (Grinning & bubbly) 
I: (With a smile, in a mild tone) "Nosy, ain't ya? Ha! Out with some friends." 
E: (Immediately taking umbrage) "Oh, well, sorry! I was just asking is all. I didn't mean to upset you! I won't again, geez!"
I: (Indifferent) "...OK." 
(E huffs away, likely texting a friend about that asshole roommate)
Virtually every introvert, ever, has a similar story to tell of a similar interaction. That is just the way extroverts tend to be wired. It is immensely frustrating to us to have to deal with such silliness, but it is also unavoidable.
Example 2: A highly introverted couple invites over a highly extroverted couple for dinner at their house. These two couples have known each other for, quite literally, decades; the two husbands used to work together in the same company. The evening starts out pleasantly enough, but very quickly the extroverted wife starts to speak rapidly and at very high volume, and jabbers non-stop from the start of the evening to the end. Worse yet, she and her extroverted husband kibbitz back and forth constantly, arguing over trivial details in irrelevant stories, again at high volume and top speed.
The introverted couple are quickly overwhelmed by the extreme sensory load that they are experiencing, and rapidly retreat from the sources of discomfort by engaging "smile-and-nod mode", or by using any possible excuse to check up on the food.
Net result: the extroverts have a good time, completely oblivious to the pain that they are inflicting upon the introverts, and leave after a delicious meal prepared by the introverted wife, upon extracting a promise that the introverted couple will dine with them to reciprocate the favour sometime soon. The introverts, faced with a very uncomfortable choice between being rude in turning down the invitation, and being overwhelmed once again by a barrage of conversation, are browbeaten into accepting, though they do so with good grace.
Again, this case is a common situation for every introvert. It is also an extremely uncomfortable one for some of us. Introverts, particularly INTJ types like me, attach tremendous importance to simple virtues like honesty and integrity. To us, if we accept a dinner invitation, we are honour-bound to actually show up and participate, no matter how painful or distasteful such a thing might be.
Example 3: An introvert walks into a bar with a group of students from his XYZ school. Everyone is there to have a good time, to have a few beers and to loosen up a little bit. Yet, the moment he walks in the door, he is greeted by the physical shock of a wave of chaotic sound in the form of shouted conversations and music played at eardrum-shattering volume. Quickly resolving to put on the "social face" that is so necessary for introverted survival in such an environment, he orders a beer for himself and his friend, shoots the breeze for about 45 minutes, then makes his excuses and leaves as quickly as he can. During this time he notices that there are several attractive, well-dressed women who are not exactly unhappy that he is there- but because of the extreme sensory overload that he is experiencing, he can do nothing about it, and so he says his goodbyes and gets the hell out of there as quickly as he can.
As an aside- the funny thing about a situation like this is that there are some introverts who actually enjoy going to places with very loud music. In my case, for instance, I rather like going to heavy metal concerts. You would think that someone like me- the stereotypical deep introvert, who prefers books and video games and writing to any amount of human contact- would find such an experience overwhelming. In fact, a metal concert is actually a very personal experience. You are there to see a band that you love, and your experience in listening to the music is yours alone- no matter how many people are pressed up against you, no matter how many times you get kicked in the face by those f***ing crowd-surfers (I HATE those douchebags!), and no matter how close to or far from the stage you are.

If I go to an IRON MAIDEN concert, for instance, I'm there with like 15,000 other people- but the experience is a deeply personal one for me. I'm watching the greatest band of ALL TIME performing live before my very eyes. That experience is something that no extrovert, no crowd of thousands, can possibly take from me.

The extroverted handicap

Yet, no matter how irritating such interactions are for us, it is important to remember precisely why it is that extroverts cannot ever leave us alone- not least because, once again, introverts can (and should) understand extroverts far better than extroverts will ever understand introverts.

Extroverts require constant mental stimulation through the presence of other people. When left alone, they wither and wilt. They gain energy from being around others, by definition. They thrive on sensory loads that would drive a deep introvert to madness within minutes.

Introverts, by contrast, are extremely sensitive to high-stimulation environments, such as bars, nightclubs, and loud or noisy public spaces such as restaurants and public parks. Every introvert has a horror story to tell about a dinner outing at an otherwise very pleasant restaurant that is very rudely interrupted by some extroverted dick-breath who can't stop talking in a voice like a foghorn on a clear night- it's like having to breathe in someone's second-hand smoke for the entirety of your meal, and has the same effect upon our overall mood and disposition.

The reason extroverts do this to us- beside the fact that they're mostly congenitally incapable of recognising the damage that they are inflicting- is because introverts do not give them what extroverts need to thrive.

Extroverts absolutely require companionship and stimulation. Introverts absolutely require solitude and silence. Our wants and desires are fundamentally incompatible.

Because introverts are comfortable with being alone, we have rather limited patience for those who demand our company- we regard such demands as an affront and an imposition, simply because we don't see the point.

Those demands, though, are second nature to an extrovert. And thus, because we do not give them what they need, they do not give us what we need.

The introvert advantage

Should introverts therefore go out of our way to satisfy the demands of our extroverted counterparts?


Our need for solitude is non-negotiable. Solitude is not a source of fear or discomfort for us- it is a source of strength, faith, and succour. Solitude is what heals us, gives us our unique gifts, and redeems us when we fall short of our own standards.

That is the great gift- and the great curse- of an introvert. We require nothing more than time alone to bring forth our greatest gifts. Those who respect this facet of our personalities tend to become close and valued friends and confidantes; the very best of these tend to become spouses, or at least long-term partners- my own parents are a great example of two deep introverts who have forged a very happy and very stable life together.

At best, in situations where interaction is required, we should politely converse for a few seconds, then disengage gently but firmly and get on with our lives. This is not always going to be possible- Example 2, for instance, where people are actually invited over for an evening of entertainment, would be one such situation- but for the most part, extroverts need to be made to understand that our boundaries are to be respected and should never be intruded upon.

Every introvert needs time alone- especially when he or she returns home. For us, our homes are more than merely places to eat and sleep. They are our sanctuaries, our places of refuge and cherished silence. Introverts tend to make our homes as comfortable and cosy as we possibly can- because we spend so much of our time there.

An introvert who is unable to find refuge in his own home will very quickly find himself unable to adapt to the world around him, because the source of his strength is cut off from him.

So, no, we should not give extroverts what they need at our own expense- not least because extroverts simply cannot help but feed off our energy, and we have limited amounts to give.

Instead, we should always seek to streamline our interactions with extroverts to the greatest extent possible. We need them, and they need us. But the interactions should be on our terms, never theirs.

Saturday, September 13, 2014

"A long, twilight struggle"

As the Cold War reached what mathematicians refer to in functional analysis as a "local maximum" during the late 1950s and early 1960s, American appeared to be on the back foot, retreating in the face of relentless Soviet pressure. The Warsaw Pact's military machine was thought to be overwhelmingly powerful; the diplomatic offensives that the Kremlin was executing in the Third World had left American and European diplomats reeling. It appeared as though the Pax Americana was doomed to a slow and painful decline, and that the only way forward was for America to compromise and negotiate from a position of parity or weakness with an ascendant enemy.

From this counsel of despair came a speech by the otherwise young and dynamic President, John F. Kennedy, which alluded to a "twilight struggle" in which America would have to mix compromise with firm stands over shared values:
In 1961 the world relations of this country have become tangled and complex. One of our former allies has become our adversary -- and he has his own adversaries who are not our allies. Heroes are removed from their tombs, history rewritten, the names of cities changed overnight.

We increase our arms at a heavy cost, primarily to make certain that we will not have to use them. We must face up to the chance of war if we are to maintain the peace. We must work with certain countries lacking in freedom in order to strengthen the cause of freedom. We find some who call themselves neutrals who are our friends and sympathetic to us, and others who call themselves neutral who are unremittingly hostile to us. And as the most powerful defender of freedom on earth, we find ourselves unable to escape the responsibilities of freedom and yet unable to exercise it without restraints imposed by the very freedoms we seek to protect. We cannot, as a free nation, compete with our adversaries in tactics of terror, assassination, false promises, counterfeit mobs, and crises.

We cannot, under the scrutiny of a free press and public, tell different stories to different audiences, foreign, domestic, friendly, and hostile.

We cannot abandon the slow processes of consulting with our allies to match the swift expediences of those who merely dictate to their satellites. We can neither abandon nor control the international organization in which we now cast less than 1 percent of the vote in the General Assembly. We possess weapons of tremendous power, but they are least effective in combating the weapons most often used by freedom's foes: subversion, infiltration, guerrilla warfare, and civil disorder. We send arms to other peoples -- just as we can send them the ideals of democracy in which we believe -- but we cannot send them the will to use those arms or to abide by those ideals.

And while we believe not only in the force of arms but in the force of right and reason, we have learned that reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men, that it is not always true that "a soft answer turneth away wrath," and that right does not always make might.

In short we must face problems which do not lend themselves to easy or quick or permanent solutions. And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient, that we are only 6 percent of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.

These burdens and frustrations are accepted by most Americans with maturity and understanding. They may long for the days when war meant charging up San Juan Hill, or when our isolation was guarded by two oceans, or when the atomic bomb was ours alone, or when much of the industrialized world depended upon our resources and our aid. But they now know that those days are gone and that gone with them are the old policies and the old complacencies. And they know, too, that we must make the best of our new problems and our new opportunities, whatever the risk and the cost.

But there are others who cannot bear the burden of a long twilight struggle. They lack confidence in our long-run capacity to survive and succeed. Hating communism, yet they see communism in the long run, perhaps, as the wave of the future. And they want some quick and easy and final and cheap solution -- now.

There are two groups of these frustrated citizens, far apart in their views yet very much alike in their approach. On the one hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of surrender -- appeasing our enemies, compromising our commitments, purchasing peace at any price, disavowing our arms, our friends, our obligations. If their view had prevailed the world of free choice would be smaller today.

On the other hand are those who urge upon us what I regard to be the pathway of war: equating negotiations with appeasement and substituting rigidity for firmness. If their view had prevailed, we would be at war today, and in more than one place.

It is a curious fact that each of these extreme opposites resembles the other. Each believes that we have only two choices: appeasement or war, suicide or surrender, humiliation or holocaust, to be either Red or dead. Each side sees only "hard" and "soft" nations, hard and soft policies, hard and soft men. Each believes that any departure from its own course inevitably leads to the other: one group believes that any peaceful solution means appeasement; the other believes that any arms buildup means war. One group regards everyone else as warmongers; the other regards everyone else as appeasers. Neither side admits its path will lead to disaster, but neither can tell us how or where to draw the line once we descend the slippery slopes of appeasement or constant intervention.
It is remarkable, is it not, to see just how similar the currents of history are between two different points in that great and endless river; not for nothing is Mark Twain often misquoted as stating that "history never repeats itself but it rhymes".

Today we see almost the exact same phenomenon in America's approach to dealing with the resurgence of the global Islamic Caliphate. Now I have written on this subject numerous times in the past, and I have provided advice rooted in the firm realities of historical events to show that Islam is at its core a political ideology that is economically, morally, and intellectually bankrupt, and cannot pose a real challenge to a dedicated and powerful Western response.

The problem is that the West today refuses to see Islam for what it is, and insists on fighting it in completely the wrong way.

Take President Jackass's recent reassurances that America would fight ISIS to a standstill, no matter where or when. I am aware that the man is literally incompetent to execute the requirements of his job, and I know that he has at best a tenuous grasp of world history. But even so, it's appalling to think that a milquetoast like him, who has almost surely never even formed a proper fist in his life, could possibly be the man to take on a global Islamic insurgency dedicated to restoring some mythical Golden Age.

The problem with his approach is exactly the same as the problems with the original "pragmatist" or "moderate" school of foreign policy that dominated through the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations. Every single one of these Presidents started out as hardliners against Communism and over time gradually retreated to more "moderate" positions, thinking that America simply needed to "compromise" or "negotiate" with its enemies in order to secure a lasting peace.

The issue with this approach is simple. The Israelis could talk about it all day long.
There can be NO negotiation with an enemy that wants to DESTROY you.
It's just that simple. Political Islam does not seek compromise with anyone or anything. It seeks domination. America's leadership is utterly deluded to think that this is a problem that can be solved with nothing more than a bunch of showy, explosion-filled air strikes and empty speeches.

If we were living in a world scripted by Michael Bay, this would work. But we don't, so it won't.

It took a man by the name of Ronald Reagan to figure out that age-old truths about confronting evil head-on still hold firm. Under his aegis, America rebuilt its armed forces, confronted the Soviet menace from a position of strength, and refused to back down in the face of outright aggression by those who sought to bluff and bully their way out of a weaker position.

That is exactly the same course of action that must be followed in dealing with ISIS, and any other Islamic threat. These rogue states are not strong- they are weak. They are economically and politically bankrupt. They are incapable of standing up to a truly strong and powerful nation.

But in order to become that strong and powerful nation once again, America's policies and ideals have to change.

First and foremost, enough of this nonsense about intervening through boots on the ground or "thunder from above". Airstrikes accomplish nothing other than generating a lot of noise and some nice explosions. And given that America explicitly refuses to use its military for actual conquest, and instead relegates its soldiers to "humanitarian" efforts, rather than the actual, y'know, purpose of the military- killing people and breaking things- boots on the ground make no sense either.

Better by far to pull all of the troops out of the Middle East, and let the Iraqis and Syrians rediscover the "joys" of living under a true Islamic Caliphate. Better by far to instantly revoke the citizenship of ANY American who is stupid enough to go over there to fight against his own people. Better by far to completely cut off all immigration, of any kind, from ANY Muslim-majority nation, and to institute trade embargoes against the same.

Trade sanctions, by the way, are an act of war under orthodox libertarian theory, and rightly so. Of course, seeing as how Islamists divide the world into dar al-harb (the House of War) and dar al-Islam (the House of Islam), there is nothing aggressive about such a posture, so there is no conflict with libertarian ideals.

And better by far to completely disown the Middle East, to concentrate on solving the massive economic and social problems right here in America, and to leave Israel alone to do what it does best- killing and breaking its enemies in rapid succession and with relatively minimal collateral damage.

Such a programme would be a foreign policy of strength and realism. It would be a policy geared toward a true American victory over a 1,400-year-old ideology bent on war and genocide and slavery.

And precisely because it makes sense, precisely because it would work, precisely because it would be the right thing to do, America will never adopt it.

So why keep harping on about it? Because once upon a time, a man named Ronald Reagan warned, for twenty years, that America's approach to the Soviet Union was dangerous, misguided, and deeply flawed. He was ignored and ridiculed and marginalised for his "extremist" views.

Yet twenty years after Barry Goldwater suffered the most crushing electoral defeat ever registered in a Presidential election up to that point, Reagan's ideas were ascendant, and he was given the chance to put them into practice.

He succeeded beyond anyone's most optimistic expectations, possibly even beyond his own wildest dreams. But he did so because he never once stopped sounding the clarion call for a strong and free and prosperous America. He believed in such things with every fibre of his being, and his convictions ultimately carried through and proved him right.

We who see the truth, and can articulate it- however poorly, for I am nowhere near as skilled a communicator as Reagan was or as many of my own contemporaries in the Manosphere are- will win out in the end. The truth always does, because by simple virtue of being true, it holds together where falsehood chips and shatters.

Friday, September 12, 2014

Lessons from the "sugar daddy" phenomenon

It is often said on Manosphere blogs- not without very good reason- that women seek the highest-status men that they can find for the specific purpose of securing comforts for themselves. It is also often said, again with very good reason, that men are attracted to youth and beauty, while women are attracted to wealth and power.

Feminists try to refute the obvious through tortured logic and no end of easily dismantled straw men. It is refreshing, then, to see that the truths outlined above will soon be captured and documented on film for the world to see:
A new documentary is set to hit our screens in December, which will lift the lid on the sugar daddy dating phenomenon; an industry which is quietly booming in the U.S., but one that is, for many, little understood. [Didact: Alpha fux, Beta bux, anyone?]
Daddies Date Babies follows the trials and tribulations of five New York-based 'sugar babies' in their late teens to twenties who provide sex and companionship to 'sugar daddies' - wealthy, generally older men - in return for financial support. 
'The women want as much money as possible for as much stability as possible,' one participant says in the film's trailer. 'The men want to pay as little as possible for as much novelty as possible.' 
The concept behind the short documentary was formed after filmmaker Parinda Wanitwat happened across immersive journalist Melanie Berliet's undercover account on being a 'sugar baby,' penned for Vanity Fair
The site Miss Berliet used to source her Sugar Daddy encounters was Seeking Arrangement; the industry's equivalent, and the site where Ms Wanitwat was to source her film's subjects. 
Launched in 2006, Seeking Arrangement matches willing sugar babies - 44per cent of whom are female college students - with wealthy sugar daddies. It's free to join for women, and there are approximately eight women for every one man on the site.

'I got into sugar babying because I didn't have a job, had graduated from college and needed money,' one of the film's subjects, 25-year-old Tess Wood, told The Huffington Post. 'It seemed easier than bar-tending. It seemed like a very available option. It seemed easy to fall into.'

Ms Wood, who says she agreed to take part in the documentary to 'deconstruct the stigma' of sugar daddy dating, has enjoyed both success and disappointment as part of her experience. 
She has been involved in 'mutually beneficial' relationships in Chicago, New York and Florida, and feels that the 'shame' people feel around sex and sex work needs to shift.
Well, at least the girls involved in this business are honest about their motivations and desires. That is far more than can be said for most college-educated feminists.

Believe it or not, the first thing that I thought of when I saw this was a concept in economics called "partial equilibrium theory". (Yes, my mind works in strange ways. Especially when I'm on an endorphin high from a hard squats workout, combined with the effects of alcohol.)

Partial equilibrium theory concerns itself with how an "equilibrium" is found for a single market between the supply of a good and the demand for it. In this specific case, the good is, quite simply, sex. Essentially, we reduce the market down to two basic variables- the woman who supplies sex with the aim of maximising her material comfort, and the man who demands sex with the aim of minimising his overall cost.

In graphical terms it looks something like this:
{Insert awkward nerdy memories of Econ 201 from uni here}

Minus all the fancy notation, all this means is that there is a point at which the demands of rich men meet the demands of hot young women. And the method by which the costs of the transaction are minimised is a "dating" website, which as it happens is actually an extremely efficient way for both parties to obtain what they want.

Several rather interesting questions spring out immediately from this thought experiment.

First, what is the difference, if any, between what these women are doing, and outright prostitution?

Answer: none whatsoever.

These women provide sex in exchange for material reward. One could argue that this is true of almost any modern dating exchange- IF you are the blue-pill sap that pays for everything, that is. The basic fact is that these women are prostitutes. They sell their bodies in exchange for material comfort- without engaging in the reciprocal duties that are otherwise expected of a wife or girlfriend (or, in Blackdragon-style terminology, MLTR/OLTR/LTR).

And, as long as these women are comfortable admitting this to themselves and to others, there is no conflict. Let them pursue their individual ends just as they want- they are doing no harm to anyone else, they certainly are not doing harm to me, so as far as I am concerned, let them be as slutty and promiscuous as they please.

As Inara Sera would say,
One of the virtues of not being puritanical about sex is not feeling embarrassed afterwards.
Second, are the "sugar daddies" in these exchanges really doing the best they can in economic terms?

Answer: no way.

Think about it. In order to access a ready supply of young women for sex, these men are willing to pay not exactly insignificant sums of money for each sexual encounter. The mathematics is pretty brutal- look at this video from good ol' Badd Popp if you want an extreme example of this phenomenon:

From a man's perspective, you should never, ever, ever have to pay more than the minimal price necessary for sex. Make no mistake- every man pays for sex, one way or another. There is always a cost associated with it. That's just the way it is- there ain't no such thing as a free lunch (TANSTAAFL).

Third, with this lesson in mind, are these "sugar daddies" acting sensibly from a red-pill perspective?

Do I really need to answer that at this point?

The reality is that these are very rich men who otherwise have next to zero game, who use their wealth to secure what other men can secure for themselves at a far lower cost.

Do wealth and power hurt you when it comes to pulling hot women? Of course not. There is a reason why otherwise average, and even ugly, men- like, say, the current and previous President of the Communist nation formerly known as France- are able to pull very hot women into their beds.
Left: Gormless gurning idiot. Right: Well, she ain't exactly a cave troll...
Anyone else notice what a midget Sarkozy really is?
With that being said, it is entirely possible to master a few simple rules and get women of this quality without anything like the expenditure that these sugar daddies are engaging in. All you have to do is follow the advice of men like Halfbreed or Blackdragon- if you do indeed decide to pursue a hedonistic lifestyle like this, your cost per bang is going to be dramatically lower than what these men are paying.

And if, indeed, you DO want to pursue such a lifestyle, you should always seek to reduce your total expenditures on women. There are other important things in life on which to spend your money- a reasonably comfortable apartment, grass-fed beef, great books produced by great minds, gym memberships, Krav Maga lessons, concealed carry permits... The list goes on and on.

It is perfectly acceptable to spend money and time in the pursuit of women. It is never acceptable to waste either commodity.

Ultimately, these men are simply thirsty Delta males who seek to use their money as a shortcut to get what they want- but because they have not put in the work and the effort required to secure what they want, they end up paying a far higher price than they otherwise would have if they had bothered to learn some basic truths about the world that we now live in.

They would be far richer as a result- and the young women that whore themselves out to them would otherwise have learned some very valuable life lessons to boot.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Dumbing down domestic violence

For some reason both ESPN and CNN- along with probably every other major "news" network out there- seems to think that wall-to-wall coverage of the Ray Rice incident is both necessary and justified.

Let's get the boilerplate stuff out of the way right now: I do not, now or ever, condone unprovoked aggression against anyone. Anyone- man or woman- who punches someone else out for no good reason, deserves whatever he gets.

However, if you watch the video, that is not what happens here:

Vox did a pretty good analysis of this and I think he got it exactly right. This Ray Rice character, whoever he is- remember, I don't bother following American sports- did NOT step in to punch. He raised his hand, hard and fast, and ended up making contact with his then-fiancee's (now wife's) chin with his knuckles.

And Vox, as usual, nailed the social justice warriors who are carrying out this crusade to have Ray Rice thrown out of the NFL forever to their own cross:
The football world has been striking poses left, right, and center, pretending that Ray Rice is the Second Coming of OJ Simpson. The Ravens released him and are giving out free jerseys in exchange for his old ones, the ever-sanctimonious Roger Goodell added an indefinite suspension on top of the previous two-game suspension, and various players and commentators are ritually denouncing him. 
And for what? A single punch. 
This is absolutely and utterly absurd. There are punches thrown in NFL games and practices every single week. If the NFL were to apply the one-punch standard consistently, half the African players would be out of the league by the end of the season
This is not to say that Ray Rice is a good guy. If you watch the video closely, it looks like he does something to provoke her in some way at the elevator buttons. It almost looks as if he spits at her, she shoves him, he shoves back, and then she charges him and gets KO'd. We're clearly not dealing with a pair of innocent angels here
But here is the salient point. He's not "beating her up". He's not abusing her. He's not attacking her. In fact, the reason she got knocked out isn't because he's a big strong man, but because she was rushing at him. What he threw was clearly a defensive punch, and quite likely an instinctive one.
This is plainly not abuse. It is, at best, an overreaction to a threat.

Even the man's own wife has made it perfectly clear that she does not regard this as anything like the epic crisis that the media seems to want us to think it is:

And remember, this woman is married to a man who was, until fairly recently, a rising star in the NFL. If she wanted to, she could, under this country's increasingly absurd divorce "laws", take her husband to court and reduce him to penury simply by virtue of being a woman and claiming spousal abuse.

She has not done that. This tells me that: a) Ray Rice didn't intend to harm this woman, and; b) we can all move on with our lives.

Unfortunately, this tendency toward sensationalising "abuse" is not restricted just to men who strike women. Let's look at another story in which a woman is accused of making light of domestic abuse by giggling about punching her ex-boyfriends, real-life badass Jason Statham and real-life-probably-a-wuss Danny Cipriani:
Kelly Brook has been labelled 'disgusting' and 'despicable' by viewers on Twitter after 'laughing' during an interview about 'punching' two of her former boyfriends. 
The former glamour model was appearing on This Morning on Monday to discuss her new autobiography Close Up, when she reportedly made light of hitting out at exes Jason Statham and Danny Cipriani. 
People took to the social networking site to voice their anger at the 34-year-old's attitude, with one writing: 'Disappointed with @itvthismorning for laughing along with Kelly Brook RE her hitting boyfriends in the face! Domestic violence isn't funny!'. 
The backlash towards the brunette beauty, who was dressed in a plunging turquoise dress, continued with one Twitter user writing: 'So Kelly Brook laughs & admits to punching ex bf's in the face. If a guy had admitted doing that to a women they'd be uproar! #ThisMorning.

And: 'Kelly Brook and the hosts giggling about her punching her boyfriends in the face for talking to other women. Despicable. #thismorning'.
If you've actually seen what Kelly Brook looks like, it's very, very difficult to take seriously the idea that she would be capable of inflicting significant harm on any of her paramours- let alone Jason Statham:

Left: Soft cuddly plush toy with nice big airbags as standard. Right: Genuine hardass. WHO YA GOT?!?
(Incidentally, a good friend of mine apparently knows Kelly Brook reasonably well in a professional context. She's supposedly even shorter than she looks in that picture- all 168cm of her. Jason Statham, by contrast, stands just shy of 176cm tall. And you seriously expect me to believe that a woman with a 10cm height deficit could really hurt a guy like Statham?)

Oh but wait, it gets better:
And Danny also faced Kelly's wrath after they headed to the Spearmint Rhino strip club together in Las Vegas and she discovered her man had given his number to a stripper. [Didact: Any girl who goes to a strip club with her boyfriend can't be all bad.] 
She wrote: 'As I headed back to the table, I saw Danny walking towards me. 'Babe', he said, 'I've been looking for you!' I punched him straight in the face.' 
Kelly revealed that four bouncers leaped on her, before she tried to have another 'pop' at him.
In other words, Kelly Brook hits like a girl. Hardly surprising, given that she's known more for her curves and smile than her combat-worthiness.

Now, let's be clear: there is a definite double standard at work here. If a man did what Kelly Brook did in a strip club, he'd be crucified, rightly or wrongly (probably the latter). This problem is made even more sobering by the fact that roughly one-third to one-half of ALL domestic violence cases involving a man and a woman are actually caused by the woman.

But that is still no excuse for turning every punch and every accident into a domestic abuse complaint.

Real domestic violence- the kind where people end up with serious physical and mental injuries- is not to be trivialised. But that is precisely what people have done in these two very different and yet oddly similar cases. They have taken incidents that, in the cold light of day, cannot possibly be considered true abuse, and have twisted them into public circuses.

Ray Rice and Kelly Brook should both be judged by the weight and merit of their actions.

Ray Rice knocked out his then-fiancee; given the actual video evidence, all I can say is that he's a bit of a hothead and needs to learn some self-control. He could very well be the world's biggest douchebag- or he could be the nicest man you could ever hope to meet. I don't know either way. All I can go by is the evidence presented before me, and the evidence tells me that he made one very stupid mistake. And that's it.

Kelly Brook apparently tried to punch two of the men she was dating. Given that the woman has a history of banging a long string of high-status men, has conceived (and miscarried) at least once, and is now 34 and apparently desperate to settle down with her latest toyboy, I can't say I have terribly much sympathy for her. She's the classic case of a high-maintenance woman riding the carousel and hoping desperately to find The One by sleeping her way through 500 Miles of Mr. Right. She's also almost surely incapable of actually hurting anyone with a punch- and given that, if she had really tried to punch someone like Jason Statham, he could very easily have cleaned her clock, I think we can all reasonably conclude that this is nothing more than an embarrassing memory that she wants to make public for the purposes of self-promotion.

Remember- if you're reasonably young, reasonably hot (and Kelly Brook is rather more than that), and reasonably insensitive to public criticism, then there really isn't any such thing as bad publicity.

In conclusion- it's high time we all stopped shouting "ABUSE!!!" every time someone throws a sloppy half-punch and accidentally ends up connecting. Doing this triviliases very real abuse suffered by very real victims, and diverts our attention to the panem et circenses that our Noble Overlords would like us to focus on, instead of spending time paying attention to the terrible evils that they inflict upon us every day.

Other bands play- MANOWAR KILLS!

I love MANOWAR. They're the stupidest, cheesiest, most over-the-top band on Earth (well... short of RHAPSODY OF FIRE, or whatever those guys are called these days), but they're still awesome, no matter what:

Monday, September 8, 2014

Free the lands of the north

There is no depth to which the Unionists of the (possibly soon to be dis-)United Kingdom will not stoop in order to scare the people of Scotland into staying in the Union:
Like Boris Johnson, my sense is that Scotland will eventually vote no. But what a kerfuffle we are seeing in the meantime. A once mighty economic and political power stands on the brink of dissolution. Only now is the world, and the markets, waking up to the potentially seismic geopolitical and economic implications.

But rather than witter on about the threat to Britain’s place in the world, I want to focus instead on what kind of economy awaits if Scotland does decide to take the plunge.

The first thing to make clear is that Scots have absolutely no idea what they are getting into. [Didact: This is actually almost surely true.] I mean this in a literal, rather than a patronising, sense, for virtually all the terms of separation have yet to be negotiated. However, one thing is clear. Whatever the outcome of subsequent negotiations on the terms, it won’t result in the feather-bedded welfare nirvana promised to them by nationalist campaigners. The currency issue alone is what’s going to make this impossible. Scotland is being taken independent on the basis of a false prospectus. What to do about the currency has always been the major flaw in the case for independence, and it remains very much the big deceit at the heart of the Yes campaign. One of the reasons why the polls have been narrowing in favour of a Yes vote is that Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, has been highly effective in convincing voters that Westminster is bluffing over the pound.

And up to a point, he’s right. One of the major mistakes made by the unionist establishment is that of lecturing the Scots about what’s good for them. Scare tactics about the pound have only succeeded in further fanning the flames of independence. It was the wrong approach. They should simply have said, you can have the pound if you want, but just be aware of the price. There’s nothing in principle to stand in the way of monetary union with the rest of the UK, even if the leaders of all three main political parties have said they won’t allow it, nor could Westminster stop Scotland unilaterally adopting the pound – so called sterlingisation.

But both approaches would deny discretionary monetary policy, would severely limit fiscal and financial independence and would certainly be incompatible with the Scottish National Party’s vision for an independent Scotland, big on welfare and apparently impervious to fiscal constraint.
Let's be clear about one thing: neither side of this debate is truly in favour of freedom.

The Unionists want to preserve the United Kingdom because it is a political and economic union that has brought tremendous wealth and prosperity to its citizens over the past 400 years, ever since King James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English throne after the death of Queen Elizabeth I.

However, there is absolutely no good reason to keep the Scottish people from exercising the national sovereignty that they desire. Scotland is their country- anyone who has ever visited it (I have) can tell you that the Scots are a people entirely distinct from the English, with their own customs, traditions, and social mores. The union between England and Scotland was created amicably; it is best to let it end amicably as well.

The Unionists foresee economic disaster if Scotland decouples from Britain. Notice that this is the exact same set of arguments used to deter nations from exiting the fiscal and monetary black hole that is the European Union. Sovereign nations are told that they are to surrender any and all control over their national economies, their borders, their cultures, their very identities, and in return they get- what, exactly? Sweet nothings whispered by their masters that everything will be fine? That they are simply seeing things, and that their freedoms are not, in fact, being stripped from them at gunpoint?

For these reasons alone, the Scots should seek independence. Their land is theirs by right, and only they should have a say in how it is ruled and administered. And if they make a hash of it, that's their bloody problem.

Which brings us to the reality that the Scots face now.

The Scottish people are far more left-wing than their English brethren. They believe openly in near-Swedish levels of welfare-statism. They believe very strongly in high taxes, heavy spending, and loose money. They had strong socialist tendencies when I visited them ten years ago; I am given to understand that those tendencies have only gotten stronger in the intervening years.

No nation that is in favour of heavy-handed statism, of generous welfare budgets, and of loose fiscal policies can possibly be considered a true friend of freedom. Of course, by this measure, almost every civilised country on Earth would qualify as inimical to human freedom, including the USA- but that's hardly news to anyone who actually lives here.

It could very well be that an independent Scotland would end up an economic disaster area. But that is their problem, let them sort it out. The Scots have historically not been very responsive to outside interference and molly-coddling; indeed, before their peaceful union with the English, the Scots caused no end of headaches for their counterparts to the south.

(Ever seen "Braveheart"? Good movie, although it took a LOT of liberties with the source material. That movie did, however, get one very important aspect of the historical story of William Wallace right- he was a giant pain in the arse for the English nobility.)

I conclude with a warning to the English. If this vote is as close as it looks to be- roughly 50-50 for and against, judging by the latest polls- the end result could very well be outright civil war in Scotland. This is a quagmire into which the English absolutely should not get involved- they should remember what happened to Ireland.

And indeed, Ireland is a model for what could happen here. For years, many predicted the same terrible disasters that are being bandied about now that Scotland seeks independence. And most of those fears turned out to be completely baseless. Yes, the Irish made a horrible mess of their economy for decades- but they kind of sort of figured it out eventually. (Their incredibly stupid decision to enter the European Monetary Union notwithstanding, that is.)

Let the Scots go. Let them be their own people, in their own land. Let them stand or fall as free men and women. Their country is the most breathtakingly beautiful I have ever seen; their people are a tough and hardy race; their culture is unique and rich and beautiful. Theirs is a God-blessed land; they are a God-blessed, and blessedly stubborn, people.

As Carey pointed out, "whom God loves, He corrects"; if indeed the Scots make a mess of things, they'll figure out how to fix it one way or another in the end.

Three simple gym rules

1. DON'T do curls in the squat rack.

When the world finally does what is right and inevitably elects the Didact as Supreme Overlord of Mankind, curling in the squat rack will be punishable by a swift boot up the ass. Or a kick in the head.
Which, in the case of anyone who curls in the squat rack, is actually the same place. Such idiots suffer from severe Rectal Cranial Inversion.
2. DON'T half-rep.

Nothing pisses me off than watching some douchelord stack up 225lbs in the squat rack, and then go down to maybe half-depth. These guys think that going to depth will hurt their knees, or some such BS. You won't hurt your knees by going down to depth; you will hurt your knees doing half-reps when I walk over and break them with a f***ing crowbar.
Which, in my ever-so-humble opinion, is a perfectly acceptable punishment for this flagrant abuse of the lifting code.
3. DON'T bitch-hiss (more for the ladies- and possibly gay bodybuilders)

Bitch-hissing is actually more common in martial arts than in the gym. It's used on the mat in the same way that all those kung-fooey movies from the 80s used the "haiii-YAAAAAH!!!" thing to make it sound like the actors knew what they were doing.
Now I have nothing against grunts when you're lifting actual daddy-weight. But bitch-hissing just makes you sound like a girl. Don't do it.
(Major props to BroScienceLife for the awesome vids. Do Dom, and yourself, a solid and subscribe.) 

Lesbians are fat and ugly?!? Say it ain't so!

Clearly, I need to keep up with current events a bit better. Vox got around to mocking this one a damn sight faster than I did. Though, admittedly, the results of a recent government investigation- which cost, ISYN, $3 million to conduct- are pretty amusing in and of themselves:
The study being carried out by the National Institutes of Health, now in its fourth year, has another two to run.

It comes after official data released earlier this year showed 69 per cent of American adults over 20 are classified as overweight or obese.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, nearly three quarters of America’s lesbian population falls into one or other of these categories – compared with half of the heterosexual female population.

On the other hand heterosexual men are nearly twice as likely to be overweight than their homosexual counterparts.

In the US, there are five million lesbian and bisexual women, according to one estimate. [Didact: Let's do a little MAFF. Five million out of a population of 322 million, of which, say, 48% are women, results in... knit one, purl two... 3.235% of all women who are gay.]

One of the linked studies found that lesbians were less likely to participate in team sports than heterosexuals because of lower athletic self-esteem. [Didact: So the butch lacrosse player stereotype is false too. Actually, I didn't see that one coming.]

Researchers also found obese lesbian women were likely to consider themselves as being of a healthy weight but gay men tended to think of themselves as being overweight when they were not.

The research has been carried out by a team led by Bryn Austin, an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and associate professor at Harvard’s school of public health.

“There are differences in cultural pressures to be thin between gay men and lesbian women,” she told the Telegraph.

She said the study would also examine whether obesity could be linked to differences in physiological response to stress between men and women.

While critics regard the research as government waste, Prof Austin, insisted it was necessary.
So basically:
Male fantasy
... Announces Emergency Dyke Reinforcement for failed New Orleans Levees
Lesbian reality
(Sorry about that last picture, folks. I'll be passing out free barf bags in a moment.)

Before we proceed, I must point out that the metric used for classifying people by weight, the BMI, has some serious methodological issues, so this 69% figure is not particularly accurate. For instance, according to any online BMI calculator, I have a BMI of anywhere between 26 and 28, which classifies me as overweight.

Anyone who's ever met me in person, or seen a picture of me these days, knows damn well that most of my weight is pure muscle- you can't do what I do in the gym or on the training mat if you're mostly flab.

And most people who have tried sparring with me have generally discovered, to their rather rude shock, that I'm a lot faster than I look.

Like I said, the BMI has a lot of issues.

That being said, anyone who has spent any significant time in the USA knows quite well that this country is full of heffalumps.

Anyway, at this point I'm having a hard time deciding whether to be:
a) Irritated at the fact that the US government- which, need I remind you, is functionally bankrupt- spent $3M of your money and mine researching the weight issues of lesbians; or 
b) Amused at the way the study confirmed a number of empirical truths.
For instance- take that little nugget about how fat homosexual women are less likely to think of themselves as obese than skinny homosexual men. This is interesting because it ties into a rather startling observation in Robin Baker's Sperm Wars: when it comes to sexual strategies, gay men basically act like hyper-sexed men, and gay women basically act like hypo-sexed women.

Yet, overall, gay men act like women- the gay-fairy stereotype exists for a reason- and gay women act like men, as anyone who has ever had to deal with the distasteful aftermath of a gay pride rally has found out.

It is therefore unsurprising that gay men think that, like, they look totally fat in those jeans, darling- while gay women would be more interested in the donuts and Twinkies Danishes muffins pastries.

Also, look what happens when we do a little number-crunching. If you're from my generation or younger (Lord but that's a depressing thought), then you've almost surely grown up with the whole "10% of the population is gay" factoid. This is used to justify all manner of utter nonsense by way of gay "rights". As the very basic number crunching that I did above confirms, the true figure is maybe 4% of all people. Given this, what possible justification can there be for upending thousands of years of tradition, morality, and Biblical law in order to satisfy the demands of less than 5% of the entire country's population?

Somewhat surprisingly, I'm not the only one who figured out what the numbers mean. The reactions of an ardent defender of gay "rights" are telling:
Reaction to a study like this is sadly predictable. The comments below the article are no more edifying than I would expect. Here is a typical example: “It’s pretty obvious, They are fat first, obviously can’t get any hetero action, so change to the other team where other fat women are less discerning.” That’s right ‘tyrannosaur’ (as you call yourself) women have no other interest in life other than attracting men and if we can’t do that we just give up and go for women instead.

Perhaps, more truthfully, lesbians are less likely to want to conform to the magazine stereotypes of straight women. [Didact: Wrong. Other than being fat and ugly, lesbian women on the whole tend to be far more like the stereotypical hausfrau than the average straight woman.] I would hazard a guess that these stereotypes are not necessarily attractive to men either. [Didact: Does this woman actually know any real men?] Does anyone really find a hugely underweight model with a miserable expression on her face alluring?

Lets be absolutely clear. Lesbians are not gay because they can’t get a man. All of the lesbians I know, and I know quite a few, have had to fight off the attentions of men frequently. Studies like this only serve to give ammunition to this type of prejudice.
Witness female solipsism at its finest. The author of this Telly opinion piece goes on to attack the sampling bias and methodology of the study, yet remains blissfully ignorant of her own biases in response.

I'm guessing- and it's only a guess- that most of the lesbians she knows are reasonably slim and attractive, hence her innate biases come to the fore. However, the study- which could very well be badly done, since it's government work- is not interested in who she personally knows. It is interested in aggregate data.

And the aggregate data tell us statistically what many of us have discovered empirically: that lesbians on average tend to be fat and ugly.