Online Dating Advice to Use Now
The Slow Burn is Where It’s At
THE UNBEARABLE DARKNESS OF BEING
Avoid These Four Mistakes in Online Dating
On the Folly of Faking Interest in Casual Sex
How to Find Your Niche in the Dating Market
Boundaries vs. Ultimatums
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/
GOP Governor fails the DNC Wasserman test
Yes, the feminists were and still are for promiscuity(only on a woman’s terms never a man’s terms or a compromise), eroticism(again only on a woman’s terms, and homosexuality. They are against prostitution these days because they know that prostitutes are strike breakers walking across the lines of the union of women. However, they don’t want to punish the prostitute women to hard as one day virtually all prostitutes return to not prostituting themselves, and these same former prostitute women might return to the fold of the union of women. They want men to be punished more severely of course.
What this particular blog post highlights is a concept that I think has been somewhat downplayed and certainly not raised to the level of consciousness among men that I think it should have. We talk around it, we mention, but we haven’t given it a named and defined concept. And frankly I think it is the threat to men that is more insidious and is what I think is something that will supplant “feminism” among women.
James Poulos introduced me to this concept and is this heavy writer that coined the idea of The Pink Police State where the powers that be implement a police state but allow hedonistic behavior to be accepted, such that all sorts of marginalized groups bought into the power and accepted the totalitarian nature of the government. So buy in from women comes from allowing, even celebrating unconstrained sexual behavior from women.
He posted this essay that was controversial called “What are women for”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/16/what-are-women-for/
It wasn’t particularly “hot” by our standards but it did raise cackles among female readers. The big take away for me from the essay was a line saying that there is no one monolithic voice of women. He said “Reihan Salam has hinted that typically left-wing implications of academic theories like “erotic capital,” including mainstreaming prostitution, point in directions quite at odds with the dominant but failing framework of liberal sexual politics.”
The Slow Burn is Where It’s At
THE UNBEARABLE DARKNESS OF BEING
Avoid These Four Mistakes in Online Dating
On the Folly of Faking Interest in Casual Sex
How to Find Your Niche in the Dating Market
Boundaries vs. Ultimatums
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2014/mallorymillett/marxist-feminisms-ruined-lives/
GOP Governor fails the DNC Wasserman test
Yes, the feminists were and still are for promiscuity(only on a woman’s terms never a man’s terms or a compromise), eroticism(again only on a woman’s terms, and homosexuality. They are against prostitution these days because they know that prostitutes are strike breakers walking across the lines of the union of women. However, they don’t want to punish the prostitute women to hard as one day virtually all prostitutes return to not prostituting themselves, and these same former prostitute women might return to the fold of the union of women. They want men to be punished more severely of course.
What this particular blog post highlights is a concept that I think has been somewhat downplayed and certainly not raised to the level of consciousness among men that I think it should have. We talk around it, we mention, but we haven’t given it a named and defined concept. And frankly I think it is the threat to men that is more insidious and is what I think is something that will supplant “feminism” among women.
James Poulos introduced me to this concept and is this heavy writer that coined the idea of The Pink Police State where the powers that be implement a police state but allow hedonistic behavior to be accepted, such that all sorts of marginalized groups bought into the power and accepted the totalitarian nature of the government. So buy in from women comes from allowing, even celebrating unconstrained sexual behavior from women.
He posted this essay that was controversial called “What are women for”
http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/16/what-are-women-for/
It wasn’t particularly “hot” by our standards but it did raise cackles among female readers. The big take away for me from the essay was a line saying that there is no one monolithic voice of women. He said “Reihan Salam has hinted that typically left-wing implications of academic theories like “erotic capital,” including mainstreaming prostitution, point in directions quite at odds with the dominant but failing framework of liberal sexual politics.”
Se connecter pour commenter.
Commentaires