Maggie's FarmWe are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for. |
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Categories
QuicksearchLinks
Blog Administration |
Saturday, August 20. 2022Saturday morning linksI'm 30. The Sexual Revolution Shackled My Generation.Sexual symmetry between men and women was, is, and always will be a lie. The Nation wants you to remain scared about covid Christy Olezeski Phd., Director and co-founder of the Yale Pediatric Gender Program, bragged about her work helping children as young as 3 years old in there ‘gender tourney’ in a recent YouTube video. After widespread backlash, the original video has been removed. Spectator: Donald Trump has enemies everywhere. Even, according to Peter Navarro, inside his own house Sam Harris defends media bias (and lies) Elon Musk Reacts To Border Crisis, Says Lacking Media Attention 'Strange' Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
From the sexual revolution story: "What women need is the freedom to behave as men have always behaved, enjoying all the pleasures of casual sex, porn, BDSM, and indeed any other sexual delight that the human mind can dream up."
This is a failure of education, math for example. If men are having casual sex than for every example of that a woman is also having casual sex. For some inexplicable reason most people who expound on this subject can't seem to comprehend that math. Then there is "porn". Seriously have you ever watched the show bachelor and bachelorette? That is women's porn and they consume it constantly. Are you implying that before the “sexual revolution” there were as many women as men having casual sex? There is no evidence, mathematical or otherwise for that.
I have not watched Bachelor and Bachelorette so I can’t comment on it as women’s porn but suffice it to say that women’s “porn” bears very little resemblance to men’s “porn” in content or even in effect however “porn” is defined. Look what happened to “Playgirl” magazine. The problem with the “sexual revolution” was that it sought to eliminate one of fundamental purposes/responsibilities of women: to civilize men. It encouraged women to join in the worst practices of men rather than encourage men to join in the better practices of women vis a vis casual sex, etc. OK. Challenge taken. Let's say some man decides to go to a bar and meets a women and they end up in bed that night and never see each other again. That would be the generally accepted definition of casual sex. There are variations but to make my point none of those variations matter.
Was there a women involved? Well of course! We aren't talking about homosexual sex or animals or gee, i simply don't know what else. So, did she have casual sex or not... Take your time... But of course she did. And by logic and math evcery time a man has casual sex a woman does as well. OK, next challenge. What is porn. For some men it is sucking women's toes. Yeah I don't get it either but that is their porn. For most men it is bare necked women having sex with a man (and a lot of women too, a lot more than you might think). That is their porn. For a lot of women it is handsome men with muscles catering to and doing stupid things at the behest of silly giggling women. It IS their porn. Prove me wrong! "to civilize men." OK, I "kinda" agree with that point. However not for the reasons you state. I'm 79, when I was a teen the girls did not have intercourse with you, what we might call casual sex. BUT they did everything else!!! Was all those sweet nights holding here titties and fingering her pussy while she p[erformed various acts on my dick "civilized"??? I don't think so. They simply did not want to get pregnant but they really did want to screw but choose instead all the other options instead. In other words they were just as sexual and "uncivilized" as the men. Later, I was married and only heard about the action and sadly didn't partake. Girls/women who would do two or three men a night (not necessarily at the same time but kind of sequential) i could go on but you get my point. Most of the women I have seen would screw you and if you were unwilling they would screw the guy at the next table. Especially when fueled with alcohol or drugs. Not exactly the civilized sex. OneGuy: This is a failure of education, math for example.
The field is called network theory. Did you know that most people have fewer friends than their own friends (on average)? It's called the Friendship Paradox. OneGuy: If men are having casual sex than for every example of that a woman is also having casual sex. Consider ten men and ten women. One woman has sex with all ten men, the other nine women don't have sex with anyone. Per the Friendship Paradox, most people's sex partners have had (on average) more partners than they have. "Consider ten men and ten women. One woman has sex with all ten men, the other nine women don't have sex with anyone."
Well of course I considered that but wouldn't have said it because it is the same as calling women whores. IMHO sex, including casual sex is normal. NOT uncivilized for either man or woman. I think, from my limited life experience, that casual sex is simply a case where one or more of the participants didn't find their life partner and decided to end the sexual relationship, again something I would consider normal for humans. The problem, the fake part of all this, is the denial. Generally women want to deny they have sex or enjoy casual sex so they make it appear that it is only men who do so. But as I pointed out that is mathematically impossible and as you pointed out to say that some women are vastly more promiscuous than men isn't a pretty statement no matter how you say it. Another part of this fairy tale about sex men vs women is that women would prefer to wait to have sex while men want it on the first date. Well... For unmarried women between the ages of 13-30 something this is simply not true. However for women 40 something plus (married or not) it is not only true but it is the rule. This dichotomy and the desire for most women to rewrite their sexual history is where all or most all of the hearsay of women being more civilized comes from. To put that another way in the first 15 years of a women's sexual life she will do more men than a man does women in the same time period. After that she more or less could care less about sex 'except' to use it to get something she wants. Hey it is what it is. Sex is normal and everyone lies about it to one extent or the other. OneGuy: Well of course I considered that but wouldn't have said it because it is the same as calling women whores.
The sexes can be reversed, but it related to your statement, which is supposed to represent some mathematical truth. What mathematical truth? OneGuy: But as I pointed out that is mathematically impossible What is mathematically impossible? Please be specific. "What mathematical truth?"
Glad you asked, but if you had any reading comprehension you wouldn't need to. OK Again for those who don't know sex between a man and a woman means that there is a man there AND a woman there!! TaDah! So whether you are talking about 1 or 1 million examples of casual sex there is a man AND a women having casual sex. It's a one to one thingy. "What is mathematically impossible? " It is mathematically impossible for their to be casual sex between a man and a women and yet for the woman to not have had casual sex. How do you not get this??? If a man is 'doing' a woman then (wait for it...) there is a woman being 'done' and vice versa. Dah! "it's quite possible for most men to have multiple sex partners and most women not to have multiple sex partners." Yes and vice versa! But that doesn't change the fact that if a woman is having casual sex with a man that there is an actual man there. It's a one on one thing. You seem hung up on an unprovable and illogical belief that there is this one woman out there somewhere and she is the only woman to ever have had casual sex and all the rest are as pristine as the driven snow, Where did you grow up? In a nunnery? Believe it or not women do have sex but they prefer to deny that they have sex. It simply does not change the formula. If a man or woman is having sex (do I need to point out again I'm not talking about homosexual or animal sex) than their is a woman or man having sex with them. It is a one on one thing and that is how it works.
#1.2.1.1.1
OneGuy
on
2022-08-20 15:44
(Reply)
OneGuy: Again for those who don't know sex between a man and a woman means that there is a man there AND a woman there!!
You had referred to "a failure of education, math for example." That's it, huh? Seriously? Don't think that people have sex is much of a mystery to most anyone in high school.
#1.2.1.1.1.1
Zachriel
on
2022-08-20 16:39
(Reply)
You had referred to "a failure of education, math for example.
Yeah something as simple as 1 + 1 = 2. "Don't think that people have sex is much of a mystery to most anyone in high school." Exactly! You got it now. What is a mystery is why people lie about it and accept the lies.
#1.2.1.1.1.1.1
OneGuy
on
2022-08-20 17:37
(Reply)
For instance, it's quite possible for most men to have multiple sex partners and most women not to have multiple sex partners.
Conversely, it's quite possible for most women to have multiple sex partners and most men not to have multiple sex partners.
Re: Sam Harris
Harris, and leftists in general, believed it was appropriate to censor stories exposing malfeasance of Hunter and Joe (sorry Sam, Hunter’s laptop implicates Joe too) because Trump is so “dangerous”, then what else is appropriate to “protect” the country from him? Voter fraud, maybe? He uses the Trump University issue as an example that puts Trump beyond the pale. I don't know a lot about Trump university but I have trouble understanding why it is worse than having China, Ukraine etc. etc. etc. give piles of cash to Hunter with 10% going to the "Big Guy".
I used to think he was interested in the truth and we disagreed on some points. Now I see him as indifferent to the truth if it gets him the policies he wants. Republican congressmen are saying that the courts and the FBI need to make the affidavit and other info public to shed light on this raid and restore the publics trust in the FBI. But it is likely that if we did see it all then it would be obvious that the FBI intentionally committed a crime to make sure that Trump would not run in 2024, thus destroying the public's faith in the FBI and the DOJ. What to do, what to do?
On Sam Harris, watch the whole interview - it's quite a denouement, and shows the strength of the positive-reinforcement echo chamber that progressive liberals have built for themselves. I've never listened to him, but Harris comes across as a glib, clever fellow who is used to painting pictures with words, pictures that he hides himself behind. The interviewers did a very good job of bringing out his true take on things, and Harris has been busily using still more words to try to make it look like he didn't say what he really did say, ackshually.
It's good to see at least one feminist wake up and finally realize that men and women are profoundly different, and yet this difference can actually be something pretty complimentary. Long may this breakthrough in critical thinking continue. The Transgender odyssey craze will hopefully die as a consequence once this thinking takes hold. One of the downsides of TDS, is that it overshadows whatever good points the speaker is trying to get across, just as the bruhaha over Harris demonstrates.
It's hard to be sympathetic, though, because their obsession or mania over Trump is what enables Trump to suck all the air out of the room. I have no issue with calm, objective, reality based criticisms of Trump, but I suppose that doesn’t get any traction or clicks($$$$$). Another thread on the topic:
https://www.samizdata.net/2022/08/samizdata-quote-of-the-day-1639/ Christy Olezeski Phd. should be investigated and prosecuted for advocating child abuse. I wouldn't have an issue with her work with adults with body dysmorphia (which is what the transgender mindset is), but when she says 3 year olds can pick their own gender, she is a dyed-in-the-wool groomer.
I didn't actually read The Nation article, but I can assure you I am very afraid of COVID. Well, not COVID itself, but the length that government - in collusion with social media and the regular media - went to shove half-baked horse crap down our throats while claiming all the while it was the finest Swiss chocolate in the name of fighting COVID. They're doing the same with the Green New Deal, claiming that the existential climate emergency demands that we stop using electricity, cars, factories, heat and food. (Except bugs, we need to eat the bugs. And trust me, there will be lots of bugs once they outlaw pesticides as well as herbicides and fertilizer.)
Sharyl Attkisson reveals how low the FBI will go
The forty-two seconds of the Rumble video embedded below are truly shocking. Courageous journalist Sharyl Attkisson testifies to a congressional hearing about the depths to which the FBI has sunk in its attempts to discredit one of its most effective critics. In case you don't know, while she was working as a reporter for CBS, Ms. Attkisson's work and home computers were invaded and taken over by the FBI, evidently because she had incurred their ire over her reporting. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2022/08/sharyl_attkisson_reveals_how_low_the_fbi_will_go.html feeblemind (quoting): "In case you don't know, while she was working as a reporter for CBS, Ms. Attkisson's work and home computers were invaded and taken over by the FBI, evidently because she had incurred their ire over her reporting."
Haha! Yes, we should all believe Vox instead of Congressional Testimony or the actual proof provided by the security experts, because Vox would never, ever allow bias to color their writing or misrepresent the story.
Aggie: we should all believe Vox instead of Congressional Testimony or the actual proof provided by the security experts
They interviewed a security expert. But you don't have to be a security expert to know that hacking doesn't normally involve taking over someone's keyboard and deleting what's on the screen, but that a stuck delete key explains it much more neatly. I've replaced many defective keyboards after coaxing them along for months. It doesn't work that way - nobody remotely 'takes over' a keyboard that requires physical input, and a keyboard with a stuck key is otherwise inoperable since no other key stroke will register while the key is stuck. Try it yourself. If someone was accessing a computer remotely, they would be using their own keyboard and not somehow channeling through the one connected to the computer. Did anybody ask Attkisson if her keyboard had a stuck key? Did Vox? Did they chase that one down? No.
Their own writing style is sarcastic, incurious, overly skeptical, and biased throughout, which is one reason they struggle for legitimacy in the broader markets. Like many conservative sites, they have reduced themselves to a small hysterical audience that is able to read their jargon and suspend disbelief and absorb it without thinking critically.
#7.1.1.1.1
Aggie
on
2022-08-20 15:52
(Reply)
(((Quibble-DickZ))) gotta quibble even when the evidence proves they're wrong.
#7.1.1.1.1.1
Zachinoff
on
2022-08-20 16:40
(Reply)
Aggie: It doesn't work that way - nobody remotely 'takes over' a keyboard that requires physical input, and a keyboard with a stuck key is otherwise inoperable since no other key stroke will register while the key is stuck.
Which is what the video shows.
#7.1.1.1.1.2
Zachriel
on
2022-08-20 16:42
(Reply)
And not what Atkisson said, either.
Hey! Look at this! An FBI agent is convicted of erasing his government laptop multiple times in an obstruction of justice, while knowing it contained relevant exculpatory evidence pertaining to a prosecution that he had worked on! [url]https://katv.com/news/local/a-former-agent-of-fbi-pleads-guilty-to-charges-connected-to-jon-woods-trial-ex-arkansas-lawmaker-now-in-prison-says-he-and-other-inmates-wants-to-build-trumps-wall-ecclesia-college-springdale-robert-cessario[/i] I guess he used to work for Hillary & Bill, eh?
#7.1.1.1.1.2.1
Aggie
on
2022-08-20 21:23
(Reply)
Get the boat https://wilderwealthywise.com/the-unraveling/ A good read. Won't make you feel good about what's coming.
Comrade commissar Fauci is working on Gain Of Function for Spanish Flu and Big Pharm is readying a not-a-vaxx.
By any means necessary. It is clear now that many of our government organizations need more oversight. The FBI, DOJ and IRS for sure and likely the Dept. of Ed and DHS too. Each of these departments should have a congressional committee with 8 members; four from each party with two of them from the House and two from the Senate. Each party chooses their own members and no one can serve for more than two years. Each committee would have to meet with officials from their specific government agency once a week and the agency must report on everything they are doing, no exceptions no omissions and no redactions. Each member of the committee can on their own discretion decide that an issue from the committee is so important that it must be heard by the entire senate or house in a classified forum and no one can overrule that decision.
|