Sour Grapes

I wish that I had been born of a strong Patriarchal family with a mother who dedicated her life toward supporting her children and husband in their processes of maturing into happy and effective human beings. I wasn’t. Oh well. This sub-optimum genesis of mine might have something to do with my general dismay when it comes to female-dominated groups. I’m somewhat loath to myself dominate such a group, except as absolutely necessary. That is, I would be delighted to be enlisted to work for a clear practical objective rather than something that gets me all hot and tingly.

I’d need a strong patriarchal advisor in order to keep me on track.

It is entirely possible that my reasons for largely shunning the company of women or pussy-whipped men are of the “sour grapes” variety, because, after all, I’ve tried, and tried, and tried, became repulsed, and stopped trying.

Now here I sit typing, basically a captive of my current circumstances, and otherwise more than a little bitter about the world around me. However, on the positive side, rather than living in a glass house, throwing stones does seem to make my life a bit more tolerable particularly since when stones are thrown back at me it adds excitement and challenges to my existence such as to distract me from misery. Lovely compliments are nice too as well as meeting of the minds and otherwise discovering that I am not actually alone in the universe even if physically I am mostly alone.

All that said, I think it is high time that people recognize on both sides of the Feminism spectrum (the pros and the antis) that most “misandry” and “misogyny” is just sour grapes. Persons who have not made heterosexuality into an overall success story tend to have some bitterness, justifiable or no. In my view, a lot of that bitterness is justified to be thrown at the feet of Gynocentric Utopianism which spawned Monogamy, Feminism, and centralized power over diverse belief systems such as to constrain them into those ideologies. Therefore, I’m more comfortable blaming those ideologies over blaming entire sexes, or “outlaw” adherents of sexuality/gender identity themselves, or races, even though the regressive elements of all demographics have been swept into the Leftist/Fabian agendas.

When it comes to belief systems however, as much as I may criticize Christian Churchians for their Gynocentrism, Utopianism, Monogamy, and thereby susceptibility to regressive agendas of all sorts, I do not want to see them fall to either Judaism or Islam, with Islam, in my view, being the more maniacal scourge like some sort of Candidiasis of anaerobic destruction.

I don’t think that sort of yeast would make for a very palatable wine.

Milo vs. Roosh

Two of the more controversial figures in the greater field of anti-feminism conservatives all too easily distance themselves from for ideological and religious reasons. Perhaps that distancing is not entirely of political or ideological necessity in my view but rather could have none too hidden economic motivations.

Ideologues of all sorts tend to dismiss these iconoclastic thought leaders.

Of course the religious considerations are important; however distinguishing modern religious propaganda from historical propaganda to include that purveyed by The Church is tricky! The wisdom of Solomon would be required to separate such concerns from economic, utopian, and power considerations. After each of us die, perhaps such motivations can be extracted by historians. However, good luck in the modern age framing that narrative dispassionately.

Part of the appeal to me of these two characters, Milo and Roosh, is their “outsider” status. As an “outsider” or iconoclast myself I’m prone to identify with them. That does not mean that I believe that the views of outsiders are necessarily objective or benign. We all have “self-interest” at our core to perhaps include interest in future generations, nations,  humanity itself, and even “God’s Plan”. There are also “useful idiots” and “good intentions”. The heart or soul tends to reveal itself over time to intimates. The camera, in the era of “crisis actors” is not a reliable witness. Neither is the human eye.

Only God sees the entire picture, hence the belittling of Theists by all those who are burdened with the disability of Paranumerophobia: Fear of irrational numbers.

As a treatment for this affliction, I recommend a course of study in Calculus, and if I may, I shall say a prayer of thanks to my maternal Grandfather and Grandmother for all the tools provided me of both rational and irrational nature by that Calculus professor (and Swiss immigrant Freemason!) and renegade late-marrying (in secret!) math teacher, respectfully.

However I do not hold them forth as archetypal idols worthy of emulation but rather very human iconoclasts in an era burdened by both The Great Depression and the debut of the magic big screen parade of Idolatry.

Speaking of Idolatry, in my view this is a problem which magnifies with State-mandated monotheism, by sheer volatility, rather than being effectively discouraged by it, regardless of how thick may be the burkha placed upon the mesmerizing figure or ban on graven images. Archetypal facets of the human condition are always going to be personified whether by myth or media, subject to the interpretation of the particular culture or age. The Greeks knew this and so do the Hindis. Camille Paglia, mysteriously  “Jewish” like Italian American Catholic Philadelphian Transsexual (FtM in her mind) that she may be, figured this out.

These Deities or Celebrities tend to have particular magnetic appeal to children regardless of whether one’s house of worship contains images of human forms, or actual humans.

Denying the poor access to such a powerful physical force in the way of Dieties by way of the senses does not diminish such a force. Television, in a vacuum of Religious Dieties may have too much power. In the case of all the monotheistic religions, in my view, visual deprivation of “Dieties” (except perhaps the dour, suffering, and chaste) propounds the scourge of child rape, whether by heterosexual or homosexual mien. It further provides energy to the cause of violent assault of infidel, whether sexually or not a.k.a. Jihad.

Visual (or any other sense!) assault by pornography or mere advertising is not an improvement over censorship when imposed over a broad array of geography or culture such as is found in Globalism. Given that we have little in the way of independent States rights, thanks to Federalism, various international trade and military pacts, and porous borders, it would seem to me to be within the rights of any small community to impose their own local standards of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in terms of the public sphere as concerns idolatry, celebrity, pornography, and advertising.

However, having a mayor of London who admittedly hails from a regressive religion such as Islam impose such “community standards” offends me. He can pander to Feminists and Christian Churchians all he wants but I have to say that temptation is most pernicious when it is soft and mild.

Speaking of idolatry, there is a certain cigar bar around here which contains an image of Thomas Edison with a low-tech graphic alteration of a picture of a cigar taped to the photo. I love to sit in a certain chair and just stare up at him. I think that photo is sexy! I’d love to stand up and do a little strip tease for the man however I suspect that will get me thrown out of the cigar bar.

That said, my ideological heart is with Nicola Tesla even if I do not find his visage quite as hypnotic. His name however I find appealing and exotic even though I have to wonder about the long term trade protectionism objectives of having an entirely different standard of electrical power in the United States (along with a history of strange plumbing fixtures, etc.) as opposed to the rest of the world. That might sound like an off-beat segue but let’s say that my mind works in mysterious ways not entirely within my control.

Speaking of placating, pandering supposedly “secular” Islamists, I find myself increasingly suspicious of the sheer volume of obviously “Semitic” figures appearing in the public sphere as concerns actors, activists, talking heads, politicians, etc., even in the case of those who would appear to be singularly vilified; because:

Every crowd has a silver lining.

Every Crowd Has a Silver Lining

It may be entirely my feminine irrational sense of intuition, but, given a choice of salons in which to converse, smoke, or drink, headed by any of the live human celebrities mentioned or intimated in this piece, I would choose that of Milo Yiannopolis myself.

I’ll keep reading Roosh and Return of Kings because I believe I have the ability to filter out what may be stealth Islam conversion methods. I’m just going to put that out there. Not to throw the baby out with the bathwater or anything but is he the best that the Americas can do in terms of a Masculinist icon? How about one with perhaps just a little less of the Islamic beard? Hmmmm?


A “Real” Anti-Feminist

“Please respond, only if you’re real.”

The above is the tagline to be found in men’s online dating profiles to include the BDSM world with such regularity as to be hilarious. What is “real” when it comes to irrational romantic and sexual fantasy? Standards vary coast-to-coast as well as era-to-era, and that’s just in the United States.

I hate online dating by the way. I got married to the wrong man thanks to the rise of online dating, which confounded and intimidated me. More.

Nowadays I’m wholly jaded and entirely disabused of the validity of online dating. Hell is an online dating site. Church however is a polite catfight. Pass. Yeccccch.

I’d rather marry my martini shaker.

In terms of my “real” Dominant man? I suspect that the last shining example of such a creature died just over a year ago. That’s right. I’m almost 55, attractive enough for men on the street to approach me, but, as an “Alpha Widow” my hopes are so shot in terms of finding romance again, that I might as well be honest, right here, in my blog, in terms of the truth of Feminism, Statism, Healthism, and Churchism.

It’s all I’ve got.

It’s a lousy seduction strategy.

I am inspired to write this piece today in response to the latest from Roosh V. However, my response is not going to be an overwhelming love fest. Honesty from a woman is like that. I suspect that some men never receive honesty from a woman in their lives.

In his latest, Roosh issues a challenge in terms of how to flush out a “real” anti-feminist among women. Unfortunately, it is not without bias. However, on balance, I think he makes some good points, particularly given the examples he has used. I’m on board with his examples as such that I agree that these particular women are not anti-feminist for the reasons he’s outlined.

In defense of somewhat hypocritical anti-feminist women, I’ll say that most of them are interested in either building a brand and thereby making money, and/or finding a husband. I regret that these objectives are somewhat in conflict. Such is the way of the world. One day, perhaps, I’ll make up some up-to-date slick videos myself for those objectives. However, I haven’t done so. Does that mean that I’m a dried up old hag? Or does it mean that I’m tired of being physically attacked by both men and women who’ve decided that I’m some sort of she-devil because I don’t have the same damage that they do? Misery loves company. How could I not be a miserable man-hating shrew or so completely cynical that I drink myself to death? It must be because I am the enemy. Been there!

There is also the matter of the paradox between attention-whoring and modesty. If an anti-feminist woman never speaks up, how do you know whether or not she exists?

For the moment, I am blessed such that I do not have to solicit donations or otherwise curry favor with interests who may not have the same philosophical bent that I do. That situation may well change, and soon! Meanwhile, if you would like to donate to my survival, let’s get together and meet over a cigar or drink or something because you deserve to know who I am and what I will or won’t do for just a tad more security than I have now.

No I will not peg you. No you may not eat my pussy. No I will not find deep fulfillment by means of mechanical orgasms.

An intimate connection takes time! Have you got time? If not, please move on.

For a pick-up artist turned masculinist, is it definitive that Roosh is an anti-feminist? Or is that merely expedient for his age transition, in terms of his target demographic?

Does he spurn feminist or fake-anti-feminist pussy? Hmmm. I sense a conflict of interest.

That conflict of interest does not however make Roosh a rapist!

Roosh provides a list of questions with which one can determine whether a woman is a “real” anti-feminist or not. Here they are, with my answers:

  1. “Are you against homosexual marriage?” I’m against homosexuals raising or farming children. Sterilization ought to be paid by taxpayers, plus throw in a big screen TV or something, plus provide some sort of civic or do-it-yourself retirement/geriatric care package that does not require guilting one’s progeny into wiping one’s ass. It would be cheaper in the long run. Besides, homosexuals perform a service. What’s wrong with Domestic Partnerships? I think they are terrific vehicles. Now that homosexual marriage is here, however, good luck putting it back in the box, Roosh. Therefore this argument is facile.
  2. “Do you believe its [sic] ideal for a woman to remain a virgin until she gets married?” Depends on the environment. In some places, yes. In other places, no. It would depend largely on whether men have some sort of sex-training so that they can get good at it. If not (such as today or under the influence of the fairy tale of “peer romance”) then she is expected to teach him. Facile again. Not a real world hypothetical. I think that The Oneidas had the right idea in terms of teaching both parties how to enjoy sex; however, I won’t elaborate here given the current climate that has everyone up in arms even while disagreeing on terms. By the way, I’ve been the privileged guest at a number of similar alternative lifestyle communities. They’re not all bad.
  3. “Do you believe that its [sic] best for children to be raised by a stay-at-home mother?” Yes.
  4. “Do you believe a woman’s choices should be constrained by her husband, tribe, or church with the intention of doing what’s best for her?” Yes. Even me. Would love to be so constrained. Sigh. At least I have my memories.
  5. “Do you believe it’s wrong for a young girl to find herself by traveling around the world and trying new experiences?” Certainly not ideal. Effectively orphaned young girls however, do whatever they have to do to survive and get ahead, to include slutting it up with whoever will pay her for whatever value she may be able to supply.

Now here’s my challenge for male anti-feminists to determine whether they are “real” anti-feminists:

Please justify Monogamy for me and supply me some civic purpose for the women left behind in a “monogamous marriage is the only marriage” environment, after wars devastate the male population, and those remaining men beat the gay out of their boys.

The convent? Hah. How many ex-Catholic schoolboys are now Atheist SJW’s thanks to abuse from nuns? The whorehouse? Better. Lifetime employment within government bureaucracy? That’s how we got into this mess. Fail.

Please feel free to make an argument I haven’t heard already with regard to Monogamy that shows that you are capable of adding, subtracting, dividing, and multiplying numbers, that doesn’t sound all whiny with regard to “assholes” who get all the women. Those assholes are going to get all the women anyway, one way or another, if you guys insist on romancing women in a pussy-whipped manner.

Go for it. Show me how “real” you are.

Beating the Gay out of Boys

In my insistence on defending homosexual male behavior in Disqus discussions, I’ve come upon some theories with regard to men of my generation, and others, who grew up being beaten by their fathers.

In some cases, Dad was just trying to “toughen up” junior, which considering our dystopia might have had really good intentions. In other cases, it was to ensure that junior wouldn’t turn out to be gay. In some cases the idea that junior could possibly be gay was offensive or of conflicting appeal to Dad when it came to religious ideas of either abomination or the temptation of vice. There may also have been a chivalry component.

If society would appear to be crumbling such as to diminish possibilities of outcomes for little princess, then it might just be junior’s fault for not “manning up”, but instead succumbing to “vice” with the “abomination” of homosexual sex. In other words, in this view, male homosexual sex is an evidence of poor character or otherwise not having the ability to resist “temptation”.

However, the beating itself, being a violation of boundaries, might be the factor to initiate narcissistic or codependent sexuality, whether translated as homosexual or not. It is the violation of boundaries of the self which causes the feedback loop of requiring validation of self from another, in order to feel “whole”.

Axel was beaten badly by his father. Not because his father thought he was gay or to toughen him up, but because Axel’s mother had somehow persuaded his father to translate all of her dissatisfaction arising from her narcissistic insecurity onto his son. In other words, it was a perverse form of chivalry.

I tend to believe that these pathologies of both mother and father arose out of memory of The Great Depression. Instead of blaming the appropriate causes, I think that men blamed men and themselves and women blamed women and themselves in response to propaganda from Church, State, media, and marketing. It is easier to blame character in others (and oneself) for traumatic events than it is to realize just how helpless we are as citizens in the face of overwhelming corruption in industry and government, and the weight of demographics that diminish the possibilities of satisfactory outcomes for all.

It’s rats-in-a-cage syndrome.

Monogamy, in my view, is the most basic cause of this corruption. Female hypergamy and male chivalry are human characteristics that make life worthwhile in my view. Leveling the field, despite the fanciful notions of equalists, is not likely to actually teach women anything because I don’t think most women have the capacity to understand, regardless of how well they are educated or how “intelligent” they are.They’ll just get meaner, demanding more and more provisioning from the State.

I say, “they” because my own experiences well outweigh my historical education in terms of learning how these dynamics work, specifically, the overall lack of protectiveness from my father, which is not so different from being fatherless, but without having a strong female group to turn to either, or mother, and so effectively motherless. In a lot of ways, I have more in common with transwomen than I do cis-women; specifically, transwomen who are nonfeminist and are sexually attracted to men.

The regular and severe beatings that Axel suffered may or may not have had an effect on Axel’s growth. He started out in youth as “above average” and then just stopped growing. Extreme stress combined with possible injuries to his adrenals can do that to a child. Fortunately, he was able to put on highly efficient muscles and broad shoulders, otherwise he would not have been able to finally succeed in defending himself against these assaults, definitively, even though his father remained much taller than he was. Axel had a deep well of viciousness capable of direction to appropriate targets, as well as a highly developed sense of biomechanics and physics, which became part of his courses of study.

On the opposite spectrum, in my case, I think that the very different stresses that I was subject to as a child caused me to overproduce cortisol which converted in my body to testosterone, giving me an ability to put on mass, in terms of muscle and bone, which make my body different from most White women. Therefore, being confused for a transwoman, particularly in the modern age, is not so uncommon for me. I’m not offended. I think it’s funny.

It would seem however that this condition of mine is becoming more common not less.

Part of the reason for my humor in being mistaken for a transwoman had to do with Axel’s attraction to and from them. I got to meet quite a few. As per Axel’s taste, they were all fairly convincing such that they would have no trouble using a ladies’ room in that no one would notice.

In terms of the chivalrous hostility toward gay men stemming largely from Conservatives, Axel was thereby a continued recipient of it by proxy. Since he wasn’t provisioning women, men knew that they could gain brownie points from weak women by virtue-signalling their disdain for Axel, rhetorically. This trash talk didn’t stop women from throwing themselves at Axel however. On the contrary. Moreover it did provide a teaching moment to straight women in terms of why they ought not to expect provisioning from Axel, even though Axel was plenty chivalrous particularly in terms of feats of strength, counsel, and any of the many mechanical and physical skills he could put to bear for practical purposes. He just wasn’t going to take any of them in and marry them, much less pay the lion’s share of expenses. Besides, he had no use for the trappings of suburbia or urban appearances.

In terms of how God looks at gay male homosexuality, I regret that I do not have enough faith in men’s use of language to put much credence in modern interpretations of scripture. I believe that a certain level of male homosexuality in society is inevitable even though its existence indicates a demographic to opportunity imbalance of some sort. Since we’re never going to have a perfectly balanced world, then gay male sexuality is normal and expected. That doesn’t mean that I believe that it should be advocated. I just find it to be, as Gore Vidal believed, more of a financial issue than a “moral” one, in that patronizing competing temples where prostitution of all sorts was offered was supporting other religions. In other words, it was idolatry.

Whereas certainly narcissistic behavior of any sort is pathological, I fail to see the narcissism of a Conservative gay man who desires to build a better world by his own output rather than the provisioning of taxpayers. In a sense, such a man is not only manning up but is likely supplementing the lives of women through his taxes. That’s not fair.

If Jews decided that there was no allowable percentage of gay men allowed in their midst, I wonder if this was due to pressure from their wives and daughters to force such men to provision them. This would typify “Jewish American Princess” behavior. It would certainly seem so. What if the whole interpretation of scripture is wrong, based on generations of “empowering” women through Monogamous marriage?

Axel on the other hand was very kind and paternal toward gay men although he had no sexual attraction to them. A transwoman on the other hand who was convincingly feminine was attractive to him.

I suspect that as cis-women become more obnoxious, more transwomen will be displacing them in romantic relationships. This competition just might be the teaching moment to heterosexual women, because it engages their competitive nature.

Men with traditional ideas about putting women on pedestals are going to be particularly resistant to gay rights as being contrary to the provisioning of heterosexual women. It is not “phobia” but rather a threat to the worldview of female free choice and independence. However, I don’t believe that women are actually happy with this free choice. Rather, it is a projection on the part of men subconsciously urging women to “man up” to meet the void of men and masculinity in the world.

It is not going to work and certainly will not forestall invasion by La Raza or Islam.







Sodomy vs. Polygamy

It would seem to me that Christians are so determined to hang on to monogamy that a global Caliphate is practically inevitable. Apparently, to all too many Right-wing Christians, a society that allows Sodomy is [edit] intolerable, but questioning the goodness of monogamy as the only legal standard of marriage, even though there’s no scripture basis for monogamy, is unthinkable.

As for Left-wing Christians, they would appear to be appeasing and abetting Islam in record numbers.

I mean, really? Is that how Christianity will end? I’m not a Christian but I’m starting to feel sorry for all the henpecked Christian men, in a strictly maternal sense. Whereas most Arabic men I’ve known are essentially chemically castrated (epigenetically) given the completely decadent predation by their oligarchies; therefore, Islam is not an improvement, except on a highly piecemeal basis.

It just goes to show that there’s such a thing as too large of a harem, just for the sake of one that is. No man in his right mind would want more women than he can control, and by control I’m not talking about sophisticated surveillance, security, or even mind-control technology which comes increasingly necessary in a dystopic world.

In my world, game would suffice. Women of my world, love irrational control, and such can benefit from competition with other women rather than appeasement.

I’m not entirely opposed to decadence, don’t get me wrong. I just know that it’s love that makes life worthwhile. I’m not entirely certain that it would be worth it to collect an overlarge harem/coven without love, although doubtless those who do so can rationalize or irrationalize it (that is, “For Allah”).

Even sodomy can be irrationalized (“For Allah”) which is not to say that Islam allows for ordinary men to do what they want, ever, unless it’s for purposes of forcing submission or degrading infidels.

Among Christians, monogamy is what produces the decadence, demographically, in the long run. This causes that love they seem to believe they have a monopoly on to lose its savor. Love shouldn’t have to mean, “worship the woman!” That’s positively Egyptian!

Meanwhile, every over-inflated bubble produces a correction, and the bursting of the gynocentrism bubble will not be pretty.

Gay men don’t worship women! At least not sexually. Women demanding to be the center of attention get tiresome to mature gay men who take responsibility for their own outcomes, specifically, those on the Right.

I sympathize with the Lesbian-adverse views of Milo, among everything else he says in this video: Milo at Orlando Shooting Site (Queued at 12 Minutes)

I’d kiss him too! (Then he, like Gavin McInnes, might be the one to gag afterwards, but hey, what do you say, Milo?)

In a sense, the Jews perform a tremendous service for the Christians determined to demand that either children be produced within all populations or celibacy imposed, women be worshiped, and gay men reviled. That service, specifically, is to oppress the peasantry. Otherwise, farm nutrition plus reproductivity can cause the peasantry to over-expand their numbers, particularly when the ovulation cycle has been disrupted by grain-dependence. The engineered solutions which Jewish economics, sociology, and demographics have devised keep that population in check, to a point. In a technocracy however, there’s no check on either oligarchic or Jewish power. The balancing act has therefore become broken, and largely due to Feminism.

Overpopulation relative to resources not only produces homosexuality (and thank goodness!) but other sorts of abnormal sexuality to include behaviors which destroy culture, eventually, such as pedophilia, narcissism, Communism, and Anarchy. A preponderance of homosexuality is, in my view, the first piece of evidence that there are too many people relative to resources and opportunity, compounded by stale, entrenched oligarchy. It’s the canary in the coal mine. It can be found among all animals for the same reason.

But killing the canary won’t solve a thing! Besides, gay men and bisexual women are very useful to society! Lesbians (sorry!) less so. However, under monogamy, lesbianism is inevitable, followed by far worse, as demographic imbalance proceeds.

For more on Anarchy, I recommend Steve Sailer: Anarchy in the U.S.A.

My comment to the piece held in moderation due to my spelling out of the word “asshole” I assume, is here:

Whereas gay men and bisexual women are the canary in the coal mine, when lesbianism in society becomes more and more obvious and obnoxious, it’s only a matter of time before the canary dies.

Meanwhile, the Jewish version of monogamy is no improvement over the Christian version. But they have made themselves essential to the Christian oligarchy, who in turn have made themselves essential to the Islamic oligarchy. For now.

The Left, of course, is just fine with Islamic and Jewish money, and imposes their own ideology on pain of starvation and homelessness. When will Christians, Jews, and the unaffiliated Right come up with a legal challenge in terms of Islamic monopoly on polygamy? In my lifetime? Are they prepared to die for monogamy???

The Left however is fine with female-dominated group-marriage, and welfare to subsidize the reproductivity of single women, while many secretly hope that some handsome sheik will come along, and give them some of that “magic” they’ve been craving, such as is available to decadent European divorcées in Morocco for a price. Effectively castrated married men in the U.S. are mostly being homosexually serviced by Peggers and “Bulls” with the latter I suspect having more than its share of convicts. Convicts of course convert in order to gain some protection against being predated upon while in prison, as well as for a host of benefits such as better food.

Black American Muslims are blatantly used as tools in order to advance the Caliphate, for their largely stabilizing influence on communities predated upon by Leftism. However, if history repeats, Arabic Muslims will castrate them when no longer useful. Meanwhile, there’s no harm in pandering to them as well as to Leftist institutions of all sorts.

Speaking of Black American Islam’s views on homosexuality: Farrakhan responds to Pres. Obama endorsing Gay marriage.

Leftists who believe that Islamists have to “Hate” in order to slaughter homosexuals aren’t paying attention. Rather, one only needs to love Allah in order to commit Jihad. However, don’t expect a straightforward answer from an Islamic spokesperson on how that works, as they are required by Islam to lie to us.

Detain and Question that Woman!

There are many theories going around as to the two recent shootings in Orlando Florida. This is an urgent call to demand the detaining, questioning, and otherwise inconveniencing of one infamous vixen by the name of Dita Von Teese.

Miss Dita Von Teese is the former wife of Marilyn Manson, the artist responsible for the Columbine massacre. Miss Von Teese is thereby an appeaser of the chief bewitcher of Goth-music-loving young men who sadly became so disturbed by listening to this music, that they shot up a school. She’s “The Devil’s Music” muse!

The Climate of Hate brought about by Donald Trump is a similar menace.

It is this Climate of Hate which caused, one, or perhaps two confused young men, according to some accounts, or even three, to fire off guns within a closed building for a surprisingly long time, just like at Columbine.

With a reputation like hers, Miss Von Teese, is a highly suspicious person who needs to be questioned immediately. There is no time to waste. She could be appeasing who knows how many horrible straight men who would dare sell a gun to a poor confused son of an immigrant Afghanistani politician who just happens to have a security clearance. She might even be a Trump supporter!

That Columbine is a weapons-manufacturing town is of no concern whatsoever. Neither are the preponderance of Gay Republicans in Orlando. That information should have no bearing on Miss Von Teese’s highly suspiciously tight corset.

Fortunately, all places where people who gather in order to learn, play, listen, or whatever, can protect themselves from the cruel influence of Miss Von Teese by installing extremely expensive thought-control devices at their entrances, and frisking all corset-wearers…

And cigar smokers! (See comments).


Not Too Proud to Work

This video inspired a flood of memories for me: Women Overvalue Themselves – TFF Episode 39 by Janice Fiamengo.

When I got into technical writing, in the ’80’s, in the computer software and hardware industries, it was mostly male-dominated and engineers. I got in as more and more women did the same. Meanwhile, male technical writers started to move into multimedia or web design. I am not an engineer but I did very well in terms of my prestige and pay grade in the field in terms of single-source design and otherwise improving accuracy and efficiency in the markets where I worked. Whereas according to my interpretation of studies cited in the video, women in tech might be overpaid, in my case I had stock options, raises, performance reviews, letters from customers, letters of reference, and even awards as evidence that I was worth every penny. I would read the specifications and internal documentation produced by engineers, examined the product, and then produced a list of questions which I would walk through the company in order to obtain the answers, almost entirely from men, followed by outlines, drafts, and review copy which I would circulate until highest possible degree of confidence (with yours truly often being that final arbiter in a small company with tight release schedules) was achieved.

I would try to be both charming and efficient about my work, and since I learned fast, would quickly gain broader respect throughout the company such as to be somewhat of a curiosity if not an internal design, development, and quality assurance resource, a position which I found personally gratifying. However, although customers would write letters about how pleased they were with my output I would resist invitations to meet them. Since I considered it my job to find out all of the skeletons in the closet of a product but either frame them as desirable, list them for future resolution in release notes, or pretend they didn’t exist, according to management directive, I wasn’t sure how well I would stand for anything like customer interrogation without caving and otherwise betraying my employer.

Throughout my career, although I was attractive enough to have a very active dating and romantic life, I never received anything that could be even broadly called “sexual harassment” on the job. There were a few hamhanded requests for dates which I turned down, but no negative results. Furthermore, any “shaming” was usually in terms of competitors for my position or similarly unholy objectives having nothing to do with misogyny or “patriarchy”, and I would often rise to those challenges such as to turn the tables. I stood by my work even taking blame where I had failed or made a mistake but usually triumphing in such disputes, often with the backing of management or administration (or whoever realized how much money I had saved the company when lesser writers were replaced by me). My “self esteem” was developed according to results and good will not some sort of government-paid or media-driven initiative. My female coworkers however often had different and conflicting or even Machiavellian agendas.

However, I am not representative of women in tech because not only did I have no ambition to have children, I wasn’t personally sexually attracted to geeks without game. Those that had “it” I found intimidating and besides they usually had more pussy being thrown at them than they could handle, so I didn’t bother with them to the point of outright resisting providing the professional favors solicited by them, unless there was a professional quid pro quo. Whereas the women were offering no such favors in their guile to obtain “chivalry” even from me, “because you’re so smart!”

Such interruptions from female coworkers prompted me to produce internal FAQ guides on how to use one’s computer and a pile of them sat on both my desk and the IT manager’s of various companies. Interesting it was usually the IT manager who possessed the most game and thereby we would usually form a professional and personal alliance in order to protect each other’s productivity from female poaching.

Further separating me from my female coworkers was that I had no desire to move into a management or administrative role. I just liked the technical writing work itself whereas training others usually amounted to being downsized in favor of one’s trainee. I saw this exact effect happen to others, often to my inadvertent benefit.

It was women who held back my profession, in my view, and it was women who lowered standards of technical writing such that it largely became an offshored or HB-1 visa profession, or eliminated altogether in favor of hands-on training and call centers in many of the high-end specialized markets in which I worked.

As much as I may tout all my accomplishments and achievements, professional success was no substitute for a committed relationship with a man. It interfered with same until I was found ripe for the picking by the criminal con artist I married, given my degree of burying myself into my professionalism at the expense of feminine and romantic attributes.

One of the greatest gifts that Axel gave me was to apply to me one of his skills in “feminizing” me. I suppose I felt insecure about my femininity given an effectively abandoning mother, which I imagine is a state of affairs that is increasingly common as mothers either heed the siren call of professional success at the expense of their children’s lives or have no choice but to work for someone else. To Axel, I was woman enough to keep his house and wardrobe in order, cook for him, and even assist him on the job from time to time, as well as, of course, to obey him completely sexually, socially, and every other way as his “number one” and the sole holder of the title, “Axel’s submissive”. (The others were “play partners.”) It was a heady and entirely positive and healing experience, particularly after my experiences with my husband and the trauma of Venezuela. Axel was a very positive Svengali for me even though we both felt that I was a work in progress that he would not be able to complete given that he was dying.

I share a lot of war stories with men in terms of our bad marriages. My own marriage has more in common with the nerdy male taken advantage of by the female siren than it does with any woman I know. This situation could well have been a consequence of my own insecurity about my femininity (other than purely sexual traits which of course were validated regularly). I still have some insecurity about my femininity albeit I suppose it has developed into mostly disdain for my peers, as well as anger about the state-of-affairs which my feminist peers have wrought to my personal detriment as well as to the detriment of everyone else.

On the job, a fair portion of my female coworkers were on the prowl for easy romantic marks themselves in technology companies, doing little actual work themselves and otherwise adding more drama to the workplace than productivity, or using their wiles to their advantage in sales and marketing which at least was a net benefit to the company. In fact, I got started in tech in sales and marketing myself. It was perceived to be advantageous to take me to trade shows and otherwise capitalize on my youth and good looks. However, I didn’t enjoy that at the time. I think that perhaps I would enjoy such work more now but only if it was a product that I could believe in, such as a boutique cigar brand or nutritional supplement perhaps rather than a high-tech product produced under the corrupt circumstances of which I became painfully aware during my career as being epidemic to the computer software and hardware industries.

It would seem that for the benefit of women who simply want to meet men in tech, and for the benefit of men who welcome them, a better solution than employing these women would be to have “mixers” where nerdy men can meet women off the clock. Such mixers would allow for dating that at the least is not interfering with the real work that needs to be done. That would separate such women from the Feminists who want all the chivalry and privileges of being a woman but not providing any real value for them—not sufficient productivity nor even sex.

For me it was always about the work. For some reason, when my intellectualism is engaged I am less likely to feel sexual not more. To engage my sexual side it is prose not specifications that has a higher rate of success. I cannot see how it would have been possible for me to produce the quality output that I did in the midst of emotional drama within the workplace. On the contrary, my workplace was a retreat from the drama of my marriage. As my marriage developed in horrific fashion I threw myself even harder into my career, hoping that more money would improve life at home. It didn’t.

Moreover, since women in the workplace it would seem largely thrive on drama I would make efforts to avoid them too. Today as well I tend to avoid the drama of women. This would significantly reduce my chances of being “a third wheel” in an existing relationship, except perhaps as a mere sideline or “consultant”. I’ll make an exception for sex workers and genuine “sluts”. I get along with such women just fine.

Most women, rightfully and biologically, are more interested in their children’s lives than the bottom line of the employer and therefore any manipulative urging into the tech professions while dangling the possibility that they might meet “Mr. Right” while disrupting the productivity hurts everyone. It even hurt me by association, dragging down all women right along with them, and I was very successful professionally until my job was offshored. I have no sympathy for women trying to disrupt the “boys’ club” unless it’s “Ladies Night”. I’ll make an exception for women like me and lesbians who just want to get the job done such as to enjoy romance on their own time. We didn’t need “parties” and all the crap that the largely female Human Resources departments devised. After all, we were salaried and therefore expected to get the work done not eat crappy catered buffets.

I wonder how many women in tech who “overvalued” themselves in the surveys mentioned in Janice Fiamengo’s video were hired simply for their overall demoralizing and reduced productivity in the workplace effects, such as to short the company stock or psychologically prepare employees to train their offshore replacements.

I wonder sometimes if I were to convert Caprizchka to a money-making venture and otherwise approach my blog (and books) with a more professional edge, would that help or hurt my romantic chances? On one hand the risk is inside me in that I tend to compartmentalize my intellectualism from my sexuality; however, that hasn’t worked out so well for me in terms of enriching the pockets of executives, investors, and my criminal husband, and meanwhile here I am poor and neither really working nor romantically involved. Should I enrich my finances however that’s sure to attract even more con artists than I do now. Simply being reasonably healthy-looking, obviously educated, and being a White Middle Class American Woman does that anyway. I’m honestly at a loss.

I think sometimes that what I need is to be hypnotized and brainwashed to my own interest and specifications this time. For instance, if I could be remolded to resemble an Eastern European woman (for which I obviously already have an interest given my moniker) then maybe I would both be more likeable and more con-artist-resistant at the same time. I’ve spent plenty of time in Saxony and I look the part of an East German at least well enough for passerby therein to ask me for directions. (However, that happens to me just about everywhere. I look like I know where I’m going I guess.)

I have also thought about hiring a professional matchmaker or attending something like charm school. Readers are welcome to apply their recommendations for my future direction. I’m not too proud. Thanks!




It is Better to Give than to Receive

While I have written frequently about the largely one-sided open relationship I had with Axel and the importance of negotiation in a relationship, what I haven’t written about is how easy that “negotiation” was between us. Since I was so in love with him, it was easy to say and believe that whatever made Axel vital and full of enthusiasm for life and love was OK by me. Since variety was the spice of his life, variety it would be.

I made the condition however that pillow talk about yours truly be preempted by the phrase, “buy the book,” but otherwise wholly trusted his judgment as well as awareness of “safe sex”.

We didn’t know that he was going to die of a sexually transmitted disease that had likely been incubating for decades but for which he attributed to his being a first responder to Katrina in terms of the shock to his system and immune system. (He was erecting showers in the field to the survivors rather than say administering oral sex, in case that’s what you’re thinking.)

By the way, here is a reassuring article in terms of how Axel’s disease progresses and why I am not at risk nor are my partners, past and future: HPV Oral Cancer: Low Risk for HPV Transmission.

Nevertheless, I have made the largely principled stand to refuse cunnilingus, as I explain here: Goodbye Cunnilingus. It was not a great sacrifice, as I am too sensitive down there to enjoy it 90% of the time anyway. Besides, I’m a giver, and such was the full extent of my limited extra-relationship activity while Axel was alive, and which, it so happens, is the limit of my sexual activity today, albeit highly infrequent. There just aren’t a whole lot of men out there who I am interested in worshiping, even for just an evening.

None of Axel’s past partners or their partners or my partners to my knowledge have come down with any HPV-related symptom, and I am in touch with many of them, and the six-degrees-of-separation grapevine, to include the Swinger communities of which Axel was a part (I was too, for a brief period, long before I met him, but Swinging is not my scene so no big loss).

All that said, if there is a man reading this who has decided not to meet me out of concern for Axel’s disease, the above explanation is not intended to change such a man’s mind. I’m not that desperate. Any man not wholly enthusiastic about meeting me is not to be encouraged. Period. That would include a certain man who was about to be the recipient of a sizeable grant on my say so. Oh well. Boo hoo. I’ve ceded my role to someone else entirely in that regard. I couldn’t handle the responsibility, besides, particularly given how my life has been going lately.

Meanwhile, I’m between a rock and a hard place with regard to my living situation which has become increasingly perilous given the money at stake as applied to other owners in my retirement community. I was recently treated to just how perilous without elaborating much here (but rather in private to a host of individuals across the Eastern Seaboard who will start asking questions and raising a stink should I stop writing here or otherwise disappear).

Meanwhile, as if it would be any consolation, I have been practically besieged with offers to eat me out by near strangers. Do I have a sign on my forehead that says “Challenge to Pussy Eaters. Take your best shot!”?

I would like to live somewhere that I like better, around people and ideally a man who I admire, and instead I get an abundance of offers that I don’t appreciate. This would be the death knell of masculinity as I know it. It is almost weird how today, the anniversary of Axel’s death, I fantasize how much I loved to suck his cock. If he is still with me, and I believe that he is, he knows this, and that comforts me. It is my consolation as I return home after a three-week excursion to a place where I’m worth more dead than alive, that at least I was the best cocksucker that Axel had ever had. Please make that my epitaph.





The Pleasure of Foolishness

While it would seem that just about every woman I meet, but especially around my age, knows everything about everything, the pleasure of being a fool is underrated.

While the young attractive woman, newly in love may be foolishly optimistic, there is an argument for euthanasia when the foolishness wears off. Perhaps senile dementia can help?

Wholly putting responsibility into the hands of a beloved man while swearing obedience is one of those “foolish” feminine things now out of fashion. Women who resist fashion are either fools or eccentrics, with the latter implying some sort of financial means. I suppose that I’m a little of both.

However, being an eccentric ought not to mean, in my view, license to demand positive affirmation from others. However, if positive affirmation is what amounts to much of today’s courting behavior from men, then my revulsion for it just tars me as weird and damaged.

I have to thank Edwin Oslan, a commenter to my recent piece on my lack of “femaleness” for helping me to clarify my feelings on the subject.

For me, the most romantic pet names and adjectives to describe me are considered by the Feminist hive mind to be demeaning. Only a fool would melt romantically in response to such patronizing endearments. Forgive me for being coy on the specifics except the most benign, that is, “kitchen slut,” an inadvertent reference to the etymology of the term, “slut,”  that is a servant woman confined to the kitchen.

So much of catfighting is about class. Being forbidden from entry to the kitchen is an honor, for some. For me, it is a dubious one, although, of course, I enjoy being taken out to dinner as much as the next girl. As a way of life, only relying on others for kitchen duty would mean a loss of agency and pride for me.

I remember how I once asked Axel if he wanted to help me with the dishes after a particularly elaborate meal that I had prepared, and received a stern rebuke. I deserved it. While Axel used his considerable skills to do far more dirty and dangerous work to include the handling of toxic chemicals, crawling in crawl spaces, and even the filthy end of plumbing, at home he was King. I might be a little tired after an involved recipe but he knew as well as I did that I would perk up for sex or BDSM. I therefore learned to put myself in the proper mindset for all such drudgery as it would serve to create an environment that would inspire him romantically. A sink full of dirty dishes would not.

It was particularly difficult for me however to prepare for him a meal, and watch as he cleaned up and dressed to go out, with another woman afterwards. Most modern women would call me a fool for agreeing to that dynamic. However, I always knew that whenever he approached me it was not merely out of physical need but that he wanted me to be the one to satisfy him. For that reason not once was sex between us dull or “routine”. It was always a main event.

I was responsible for the clean up afterwards there as well.

Occasionally, Axel would check up on me, to make sure that I was happy and otherwise satisfied with our relationship. Axel wasn’t in the least complacent about our relationship which in turn helped me to feel treasured by him. He also expressed his appreciation for all that I did for him, and I for all that he did for me. Personally, I find it foolish for women to expect labor and gifts from men as some sort of tribute and doubt that women are actually happy with that arrangement for its own sake, but are rather merely imitating what they see on television and advertising.

Men who are happy with that state of affairs are also fools. However, in my view, a relationship only needs one fool and I’m happy to be it.