Tuesday, September 30, 2014

Pornography, Whores and Fuck Dolls

I mean sexbots.

Okay, so marriage is at a 93-year low. Plus, if Pareto's 80/20 law is true, then 80% of men are considered below-average by women in attractiveness.

Incidentally, one of my friends told me his very good-looking son is popular with women, and his roommates, who are mostly dope-smoking, game-playing slackers, are a bit envious of him. They've given up on women because they can't get any.

Perhaps it's true: 20% of the men get 80% of the women. I do know I was the object of envious attacks when I was 21.

Curious that women always blame their problems on men, and very few will look in the mirror.

I've mentioned before I used to own a taxi and ran hookers around. Some of the guys paid for them to watch movies or go to a restaurant. Didn't even have sex with them. And, boy, was that a revelation.

I did understand the guys who were just physically fucked-up - crippled, deformed, things like that.

So what are these utterly unpopular guys going to do? Pornography, of course. The internet is full of it, and for free. Whores, too. And the economy is so bad they're getting cheaper and cheaper (when driving my taxi I was offered BJs for cheeseburgers and rides).

I do wonder about sexbots, though. They're pretty damn expensive. There are the cheaper versions, like fleshlights.

About five years ago one of the sister's computer-nerd friends died, and in his house I immediately checked the top shelf in the bedroom closet. Pornography and a fleshlight. I put them in the dumpster before his parents found them.

Did "feminists" expect this in their attempts to remake men into women? Of course not. Leftists have no understanding whatsoever of human nature.

The next step is the attempt to ban whores, ban pornography, and ban sexbots? So what are the utterly unpopular guys going to do, then? Just die? Become invisible? Be exiled? Or go MGTOW and collapse the economy?

Of course, the naive will claim they just need "Game," that panacea for all problems. That's why they're naive.

No families, no women, no wife, no children, no love. Sheesh!

The feminist-types aren't thinking this though, as usual.

2 comments:

A.B. Prosper said...

Its a regression to the primate mean, where 20% of the men get all the goodies.

Basically the net product of that type of ideology is the Middle East where there is constant strife and a fair to middling chance women are virtual property.

Nice going feminists

On the other hand I think MGTOW is generally a net plus to society in the same way going Galt is. Its a peaceful quiet way to rebel against a non reparable system.

I think and I'm not sure but going Galt and MGTOW are better than say a full bore civil war vs the Cathedral and replacing it with say a Right Wing Collectivist Dictatorship. The later might work to some degree however it butts into BS national myths of individualism and "liberty" and would be downright unpleasant for many

A bit more on topic you know as well as anyone sex while fun has never been worth the costs beyond "one hooker" for most people anyway

In the past sex was an expected benefit along with whats that old term, ah yes a "helpmeet" and a partner it wasn't the reason for the gig.

The gig isn't coming back for a few more generations after war/partition and the oil runs out so in the meantime why not MGTOW if they aren't miserable.

That said if we wanted MGTOW to produce more wealth (and we really don't since we don't have work for them) and we can't change the social rules making prostitution legal would do it.

This won't happen in most places since all the date and courting money women extract would be lost but it would be fine for men. It might happen in California though, maybe,

anyway at about $300 us an hour or so that's a song incentive to work a little err harder.

Robert What? said...

Yeah, forget the "99%". In the future the "80%" will be utterly devoid of hope. However they will be fertile grounds for a tyrranical government looking for cannon fodder.