MAN

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

BIBLICAL MALE PORK ‑‑NATURAL "DOUBLE STANDARD" -- MONOGAMY & DO YOUR THING ‑‑ THE FORGOTTEN UNCHANGEABLE ‑‑ THE MATING GAME ‑‑ VIVE LA DIFFERENCE ‑‑ THE CROTCH AND THE MYTH ‑‑ PURITAN NYMPHOMANIA ‑ ‑ SOPHISTICATED PRIMITIVES ‑‑ MAN/WOMAN GUTTER ‑‑ RAPE RAINBOW ‑‑ WHERE WOMAN BELONGS ‑‑ FEMINISM TRAPS ‑‑ THE ABORTION ARENA ‑‑ GOOD OLD SEX RELIGION ‑‑ FEMIRANHAS ‑‑ OPEN SEASON ON THE WHITE MALE ‑‑ UNISEX LANGUAGE ‑‑ DEVOTION OR EXTINCTION ‑‑ GOD IN DRAG ‑‑ MONA LISA TELLS ‑‑ THE SIMPLE COMPLEXITY‑‑ MAN/WOMAN VS. REALITY -EVE'S PRIMORDIAL SUPERIORITY -- SCRAMBLED THOUG HTS

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

BIBLICAL MALE PORK

GENESIS, 2,22: "And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man"

GENESIS, 3,16: "Unto the woman he [the Lord] sa id, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children ; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he s hall rule over thee".

The sacr ed writings of the Jewish, Christian and Moslem religions grant only a guilty and subordinate position to the woman. The Cat holic worship of the "Mo ther of God" suggests a genital focusing in calling her "the Virgin Mary", but it put woman on an altar.

The cult of the Virgin Mary, and the promotion of woman to an exalted positio n in our Western World, resulted refinements we gained from the Moslem s after the 12th cen tury, as a consequence of t he Crusades.

Conventionally, such a result would seem absurd, considering the su bordinate position of the Muslim woman as a person and sex-mate. But it is in the Judeo‑Christian culture that obedience, devotion and sex are considered on a "subservient" level, in contradiction with the Christian glorification of common hu mility, bu t in accordance with the Christian dis approval of sexual ple asure as such, and taming the woman for it.

As it often happens from our fickle interpretation of reality, our Crusaders went to conquer and were conquered by a more refined culture; the Christians wanted to teach the Moslems and learned from them instead.

Our "politically and culturally correct" ideas of today (1993) are a morass of sophisticated primitivism affecting not only our society, but also the liberal humanities in American universities.

Just as Marxist materialism became an open enemy of the Christians, Adam's rib has become an ultra-feminist battle cry against Christianity.

Finally, the last and worst twist has come from the Islamists, who embalmed their culture in the quicksand of fanatical religionism, bound on the self-destructive doom of kill or enslave the "infidel" or be killed in the name of Allah.
According to their maniacal leaders, nothing will be acceptable other than the total destruction of the Western civilization.

NATURAL "DOUBLE STANDARD"

We know too little of the why, what and how of the processes that produced us. Yet, as soon as we manage to use our limited faculties, we create values commensurate to our limitations, and measure reality with th em.
That tricks us into th e delusion that we know reality.

We distort the truth to fit the modes we can understand.

We laugh about the people who di d it in the past; future ge nerations will laugh not less ab out our present a ssumptions.

Take the fundamental subject of m an‑and‑woman relationship.

First, nature gave man and woman puberty as the beginning of life‑ generating capability.

Accordingly, man and woman can start copulating and reproducing at about 12‑15. They often do.

Then, the average woman cannot generate children after menopause (between 40 and 50).. Man can continue fruitful copulation for another 30‑40 years. So, a 50‑90 years old man must choose women under 35‑40 for a fertile marriage.

There goes man/woman equality: the average woman over 40 cannot start a family. Man can. A woman can give birth to a maximum of 25‑30 children in her entire life. A man can impregnate hundreds of women, and father as many children, every year.

A married man who wants to generate children when his wife is beyond menopause must impregnate a younger woman.

That is a powerful motivation for polygamy, not to mention adultery.

Polyandry has never succeeded, because a woman cannot produce more children with more than one man, whereas a man can generate the more children, the more wives he has.

Besides, if a woman is promiscuous, no one is sure who the child's father is.

A man can have one thousand wives, impregnate them all, and no one has any doubts about paternity and maternity if the loyalty of his wives is assured.

This is one of the reasons for the "double standard", which is indeed the most fair for both men and women, no matter how unpopular with the present generation.

The "equality" rationalization against the "double standard" gives woman a perverted advantage in deference to a wishful ideology against nature.

The question of promiscuity alone is an obvious clue.

The erotic temptation is biologically and culturally much stronger for man than for woman. Therefore, man's fall into temptation is more forgivable than woman's.

This alone carries a multitude of corollaries strong enough to consider even the most macho culture fairer than American gender- feminist's.

Main corollar y: MONOGAMY & DO‑YOUR ‑THING

This is an oversimplified subject.

Or it will be simple after we have eliminated the stereotyped notions.

Why does man demand exclusivity in sex from woman?

Random‑chosen rea sons:

(1) Man can copulate only a few times a day, or less. Woman can copulate scores of tim es daily.

Some prostitutes can copulate with over one hundred men in one day.

(2) Man can do it only with women who exc ite him. Otherwise, he can not even reach the nec essary erection. Woman can copulate wit h or without ple asure, awake or asleep, with anyone, whether she likes them or not.
Indeed, the less she fee ls it, the more frequently and the mo re men she can copulate with.

(3) For a normal man, physical attraction wit hout romantic love is suf ficient to seduce him into complete copulation. Woman's power to seduce him is so strong that he would make love with hundreds of women a day, if he had the physical possibility, and he would conce ive scores of children daily. A normal woman needs more enticement than pleasure to feel attrac ted to a man, since orgasm for her is vastly less significant than c onception. It seems that nature wants the man to be motivated by pleasure and the woman by whatever promotes evolutionary mating and childbearing.

That would make her the superior sex, but we ar e not to mention it.

(4) A woman with (but also w ithout) the same sexua l desire as a man can be more promi scuous than any man could possibly be. She would find it almost impossible to resist such t emptation with scores of men daily, although she cannot produce more than one child every 10‑12 months. Any husband, lover or child of such a woma n would find it impos sible to lead a normal family life with her.

This d ilemma is apparently at the root of the double standard.

Other reasons (consequences of the above):

(5) Seducing a man is remarkably easier than seducing a woman. Therefore, it is much easier to forgive a man, without c ondoning the sin.

(6) A man's "sin" has no physical consequences on him personally.
A woman's "sin" can produce a child, namely a new life and the endless consequenc es connected with it for many years.

The enormity of these consequences is so unpredictable that the safest thing is to focus on the woman: classify the promiscuous woman as a prostitute (or non‑child-bearing, non-marriageable love professional, as in some ancient or new societies) and guide the wife/mother companion with limitations that cannot be distorted .

(7) Many reasons have been brought for the difference of male and female possessiveness toward their partner.
Two are seldom mentioned: as the male needs the female to satisfy his powerfu l sex urge, he fears s he may no longer be available if allowed free choice. for the average woman is not so desirous of sex as he is.

The woman, on the other hand, wants a decreed monogamy and forbidden promiscuity lest th e man could leave her when she grows ol der or less attractive.

We must also consider how "cle verly" nature has programmed us:

As we are desi gned to like sex for reproduction purposes, nature wants man to be sexually attracted to "beautiful" women : women w ith the attributes typically displayed between the beginning of puberty and the s tart of menopause.

Women, on the other hand, are programmed to almost disregard "handsomeness" and youth as the dominant motivations, because men can be fertile most ly until death.

This is a hurried expla nation of a very complex matter.

We may question the validity of that argumentation only b ecause of what we fail to mention.

Practically, all developed cultures have reached the same ‑or very similar‑ "double‑standard" co nclusion; this conf use most objections.

If we seek clues in the animal world, two interesting ape patte rns are loaded with meaning to be interreted:

(1) The gibbon is monogamous and lives in a patriarchal pattern.

(2) The chi mpanzee is sexually promiscuous and lives in a ociety.

It is not difficult to understand that monogamy and polygamy resolve the paternity question and conduce to a patriarch al arrangement.

Promiscuity and polyandry render paternity an unanswerable quest ion; therefore, matri archy is the natural outcome where only the woman can be the nucleus and head of a family

in which no one knows for sure ho the fa ther is.

Feminists would like it in princile, but, like normal women (the overwheming majority), men and children, they could not live with it, beside the fact that it would kill femnism faster than anything else.

THE FORGOTTEN UNCHANGEABLE

Nature shows the essentials:

Male bears, bulls, birds , apes, and most male mammals en gage in fierce fights to gain the exclusive right to mate with the available females. They are c ompelled by an instin ct, which say s that o nly one male may copulate with all available females, after defeating all other males.

The male who fights is also the one who hunts, dominates, leads and protects, like the human male who c ourts the female, goes to war, fights, bu il ds, composes, leads, creates.

The primordial females of the above mentioned spec ies wait impartially for the outcome of the fi ghts and obligingly co pulate with the victorious male.

This results in h er best interest, fo r it assures the best progeny, at least in the evolutionary sense.

A fter copulation, the females undergoes pregnancy, delivery, feeding, raising and nurturing of the y oung: "domestic" tasks.

The male is not affected by copulation. So, h e keeps hunting, protecting, leading..., a nd fighting for the rig ht to copulat e with the next batch of f emales...: competitive tasks that become le ading, building and creative tasks in our pr esent so ciety.

I f we analyze th e wh ole scenario, the above desc ribed pattern is only possible, in a primordial society, if woman is born with an instinctive hostility toward the adult man. Reason is not enough to protec t the pregnan t or otherwise vulnerable female body ag ainst contamination from promiscuity.

When the natural woman has chosen (or has been chosen by) a man, she caters to him by subservience or other forms of nurturing, so that he p rotects not only her survival, but also the in tegrity of her child bearing organism.
It cannot be otherwise, for independence", "rights" and any other oblig ation are not a suffic ient defense against the continuing e fforts of normal men to sed uce normal w omen.

The f amily-based civili zed society is too shak y if female promiscuity is a pursued female "right".

In the original life proce ss, for millions of years, there has been neither time nor reason fo r anything else.

Moreover, anyone who w ould have talked about gender superiority, inferiority, equality, or rights to our distant antecede nts would have made a hole in the water.

Reveal to a lioness, or to a female antelope, elephant or "natural" woman that she is wr ongly classified as inferior to the male of the species, and de prived of her rights... Sh e would consider the revelation as ludicrous as the finding that a r ock can not sing any better than a finger.

The matte r is ridiculously insignifica nt, compared to life and death, family or individual survival, food search and storage, mating fights and selection, copulation rituals and consummati on, pregnancy, birth, raising the young, training them into independenc e and struggle for survival...

Superiority, equality, racial prejudice, sexism, chauvinism are frivolous wastes of time for peo ple who are unable t o focus on more seriou s matters such as survival, education, nutrition, sc ience, health, cultural, sci entific and artistic matt ers.

On one extreme, a woman consumed by the passion t o compose an immortal symphony, o r immersed in the for mulation of a cosmic mathematical theory couldn't care less about fe male equality and rights, as expounded by the "feminazis" (label presumably created by professor Thomas Hazlett, of th e University of California in Davis) or politicians, who are often on the extremes of mediocrity and uselessness.

T he creative woman would advocate education as the solution. Those who label her "in ferior" could never understand how absurd the label is, unless they a cquire the necessary knowledge.

Legislating t he wished change in their attitude is apparently faster, but ultimately much longer than the time they need to learn the truth.

It is the feminazi who perpetuates inequality and chauvinism through imposition of deviant equality and divisive rights.

THE MATING GAME

Probably,a our present ve rsion of the mating game started after the Jewish(?) invention of sin.

The players are man and woman .

Nature pulls the strings.

She loads man with blind sexual desire, and woman with maternity instinct.

Man is attracted by the female's appearance, as dictated by nature's reproduction requir ements.

A s stated before, it is not a coin cidence that the woman man finds most "sex y" has the age, and the physical attributes most fitting fo r pregnancy, childd delivery and child‑raising.

It is a delusion to think t hat man makes the
"f ree and independent" decision of choosing the young and "beautiful" woman.
Choices based merely on hair or dress style, lips, eyes, legs e tc. can play an important role, but some have reasons we don't comprehend and some are temporary fashions (evolution may experiment also by hit and miss).

The anti-male submissive hostility of the primordial woman becomes almost unnecessary as civi lization advances. But it is not eliminated: it remains in her con sciousnes threshold and surfaces whenever a stimulus brings it up.

Sometimes it surfaces distorted into self destructiveness, as it does with the voc iferous minority of gender-feminists.

The criterion of today's "civilized" woman for choosing a ma n is more than just a "handsome" or "sexy" man to sustain her in pregnancy, mother

hood and the long child‑rearing years. While her erotic desire is much less intense, her need for sex is more pe rvading and endurin g for its consequences, while the mal e urge is temporarily extinguished after orgasm.

Because of her extensive requirements, woman shows the instinct to attract man already at an age before man starts desiring her.

When the adolescent man develops a conscious desire for the female body, he also develops the ability to display appreciation for her "total person", a conventional mean s to persuade her to cop ulate w ith him.

Woman, on the other hand, finds it necessary ‑or at least useful‑ to feign much more sexual desire than she actually feels (which was unnecessary in the primordial society, in which man simply grabbed woman and copulated; and she tolerated it) in order to obtain the man s he needs for reproduction and nurturing. Then, she has no trouble holding him in her power, if she cult ivates the skills to give him the pleasure he becomes addicted to.

Man has to do more than that to hold her in his "power". Originally, the sex impulse itself was the necessary and sufficient power that conquered woman and procreation.

When both are successful in convincing their mates of the authenticity of their displayed feelings, they have set each oth er up for trouble.

The woman is offended when the man rolls over and sleeps after copulatio n.

The man is disgusted when he discovers that the woman was "phony" when she claimed she coveted him erotically.

"Men are hypocritical pigs; all they want is sex..."

"Women are deceiving b itches...".

VIVE LA DIFFÉRENCE

Both convictions of an/woman equality and o f superiority of either are surrogates for knowledge.

Where male superiori ty is the rule, one may accept it on the basis of muscular strength, or on the ba sis of the male's function to protect the child‑rearing woman.

Shrewd women may parad e male‑su tion to gain real advantages over the thankful male.

On the other hand, realistic people ignore the male‑supremacy convention and give prominence to the "b etter" individuals, re gardless of gender.

Such societies often have more female leaders (over men and women) than societies who observe the off icial cult of male/female equality.

In the latter, authentic male‑female equality is made impossible by the distorting misinterpretation of "equality" and "rights".

In societies like America, where women demand equality with men, this very demand could betray a female complex of inferiority (with a defensive pretension of superior ity or equality), for one wants to be equal only to those who are "better".

The gender feminists are just the kind of persons who would never accept equality with those they feel superior to.

Many men in the feminist camp are promiscuous foxes in the chicken coop.

Men who campaign for feminism are often affected by a smug complex of male su periority.

Both creat e a degenerate male‑female hostility that is worsened by every feminist or macho remedy.

The argument that female libbers aim at men's rights, not at results, is only misleading, for their claims for equal rights irresis tibly slide into claims for equal results and demands to obtain them by rights instead of merits.

Here again, only the more simplistic members of such societies believe that gender equality or superiority can be generalized or meani ngful.

The more we delve in the problems of equality of man or woman, the more entangled we get into a snarl, for real equality, superiority and inferiority are extran eous to the man/woman reality.

Wherever man's superiority is accepted, it works because it cannot be taken seriously. Where male /female equality is the rule, it self-destructs because it takes itself too seriously.

There is a pers pective for woman superiority, but it is far beyond the simplistic feminist and macho comprehension.

It was the equality and independence fetishism that s tarted the confusion.

The belief that man and woman must be equal, independent and self‑sufficie nt individuals "freed" man and woman from mutual responibility, but trapped the woman into the inextricability of her vital need for a man to fulfill her womanhood.

Nothing galls a man|
hatiing "femiranha" more.

This is most unfortunate, because man needs no woman to ful

zfill what is now considered "independent manhood", a macho delusion.

This is also the harbinger of woman's resentment and complexed "inferiority", brought about by the equality and independence fetish.

Woman can only be "inferior" to man from a perspective of macho parameters, as well as man "inferior" to woman on feminazi parameters.

T he evidence that almost nowhere in the w orld woman enjoys t he kind of legally enforced equality and independence advocated by almost onl y American gender feminism is an overwhelming message against that very goal.

If equality of mutual dedication and unconditional devotion are chosen in place of a hostile equality and independence, the latter look like the human waste it really is.

THE CROTCH AND THE MYTH

Recently, an enlightened friend of mine claimed that the bond of marriage should never restrain a spouse from le aving the present partner for a more attractive one. "The proof that I love my wife", he said "is that I consider her bound to me only until s he finds another man who would satisfy her better than I".

T his view is not as remarkable in itself (as an ages‑old failure to sublime crotch mo tivations to a qua si‑Platonic level) as my friend's crusading attitude that all should follow it, for "it is the most logical approach for modern times".

Let us see where this log ic can bring us.

Suppose that we have a gigantic super‑computer containing and updating all con ceivable psychological, physical, cultural and whatever information on each human being on earth; that is, on 2‑3 bill ion men and 2‑3 billion women.

From "common sen se" and traditional logic, we have that: no 2 human beings are 100% equal, and only one person, in the entire world, comes closer than anyone else to one's marriage ideals and

req uirements.

Thus, even the most optimistic would deduce that chances are millions against one that we can find ‑without that miraculous computer‑ the ideal mate, o r tha we have marrie d that one.

Hence, like any married man, I could safely say that I married the wrong wom an.

The computer's oracle would show that the woman I should have chosen is lovely Ponga Ponga, from Equatorial Africa, or delica te Choo‑poi‑ping, now living in a Chinese ri ver boat.., or heavenly Mabel Smith, who happens to dwell just right in Missouri, USA...

To foll ow my enlightened friend's ethics, the new computer‑facilitated awareness should let us all dissolve our obviou sly wrong ties and set tle with those who ca n fit us best.

All happy thereafter?

I am afraid not, because the solution would only be the start of a longer rosary of problems than ever before.

As countless people are born and die every minute all over the world, just as many reach a dulthood, gain new ex periences, traits, virtues, defects, new knowledge, attitudes, desires, etc.

We all change continuously, beside growing older.

That means that, days or hours after I have settled with Ponga Ponga, the computer indicat es that Maria Boccarosa, from Florence, has developed into my new best choice, as well as Wolfgang von Schwarzv ogel, from Hamburg, is the new best for lovely Ponga Ponga.

So, let's change again. Then, I switch again to June Mu chdough, Sidney, and Maria to Krishna Visnukioto, an Indian Japanese with a Lao touch...

And so on: new partners, until computers do us part.

In this l ight, every one who remains many months with the same partner, including my enlightened friend, should b e suspected of being a failure.

It would seem, then, that marriage is one of the obsolete myths we must dispose of.

The new approach would be emotionally uninvolved and sexually promiscuous.

But this is exactly what mankind abandoned -at least in principle- after many thousands of years of experience.

At the end of this ex perience, every culture in the world, mostly i ndependently of the others, evolved into some form of marriage and family which tends to become more permanent and meaningful as its cultural environment progresses.

Uninvolved promiscuity decreases also in the animal world, from lower to higher species.

As if to confirm it, dependence‑period of the yo ungsters from their parents increases at the same rate. Man's children probably have the longest parental dependence among the known livi ng things.

That needs the most enduring form of marriage; just as marriage needs -at least conceptually- children.

The "new thing", th erefore, is not loosening the bonds of marriage ‑as today's fa d would have it‑ but evolution of marriage toward more m eaningfulness and permanence.

The m arriage myth? Yes, the one of man and woman to become an indivisible unit in mutual devotion..

A myth that separates from today's corrupted reality to take its place. er than it.

Superficial people discount myth because they see only its initial separation from reality, not its strength to adapt and reabsorb reality.
Marriage may fail in our society, but its myth remains to reconstitute man/woman nunity n 9mutual and permanent devotion w hen we are ready for it.

========================================================================================================================================================

=====================================================

\==================================================

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

***********************************************

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

The presen t crisis has many reasons, not all clearly und erstood.

The worst, however, A e:
1) U.S.A. I

hi23v34 m giwever howeverorth mentioning here stems from opularized pseudo Freudianism.

The misinterpretationFof Freud's all‑including "libido" has caught us into the semantic trap of not only fusing all passions, drives, and affections with sex, but of solving most of them through sex, sex technique, unrestrained sex gratification and so on.

Within this current, whereas the old Puritanism considered sex indulgence as a sin, today's "liberated" puritans consider NON- indulgence in sex a worse sin.

Yesterday's puritans went to the confessor or minister to be freed of sexual temptations. Today's puritans run to the therapist when they feel unable to indulge in, or enjoy, sex. Some therapists insist with priggish intransigence that the patients use the word "fuck" instead of "make love", to be "realistic and sincere".

This may be especially strident to "normal" women (and many man), whose nature is best expressed with "make love".

The "unisex" tendency and the inadequacy of most psychologists are remarkably harmful.

It is true that evolution favors the sex‑loving, erection‑capable man for procreation reasons.

But this is far from true in the case of the "hot" woman. A man needs orgasm to procreate. Not the woman.

Many frigid women are among the most fertile. Then, men have the overwhelming tendency to avoid marrying a "hot bitch".

They tend to relegate the "hot" ones to the conventionally childless role of prostitutes.

As devotion and love are more essential, for a mother and wife, than orgasm, evolution has given women an approach to sex made more of love and tenderness than pure and simple erotic pleasure.

This makes the mother sublime.

To require the woman to feel the same as some "masculine" sex athletes is a distortion of her nature.

Today's word, for the enlightened, is ORGASM.

Lack of orgasm is a worse tragedy than lack of love.

Orgasm without love is now more acceptable than love without orgasm. Not only the zoologists agree with it.

Women devoted to this doctrine often fall into the nymphomaniac vortex of trying again and again with always a new man, with the result of worsening their frigidity and their feminine sensitivity.

The male counterpart seeks reassurance of his potency in a detached promiscuity that can culminate in impotence, since the essential "passion" component of his love‑making capability is progressively numbed through uninvolved, sterilized sex.

The self‑destructive meaning of this pattern is recognized not only by the discredited Freudians (who connect it with the "death instinct" from fully gratified libido), but by almost all mentionable psychologists.

One might as well accept the ultimate solution offered by the praying mantis, who kills and eats her lover at the conclusion of the mating act: his life's supreme libido has been fulfilled; what is left if not death? The human mantis seeks another and another partner, instead of death; which, in the long run, means the same.

For "human" humans, however, marriage is not simply mating or sublimation of sex.

The most obvious uniqueness of a marriage is in the children: a child is, and symbolizes, the inseparable union of a unique man and a unique woman.

No divorce can change that reality.

Even without considering the children, man and woman unite ‑with and beyond pathos‑ to form a new entity from interaction: a new entity which acquires a life of its own and yet is made of the lives of that man and that woman converging through love.

It happens even if we don't understand it.

It fails to happen only to those who sacrifice devotion and fidelity to some "personal freedom", personality enrichment from giving to defensive individualism, the pursuit of meaningfulness to the pursuit of mere pleasure.

Instead of personal fulfillment in converging awareness, they pursue the death of pathos in aimless self‑gratification.

Their love is copulation, their freedom is isolation, their mutual respect tends to mutual indifference, their communal involvement is individualistic but impersonal.

Their apathy knows no bliss and grief: they are turned ON and OFF like appliances.

A society based on their approach, aided by depersonalizing technology, tends to become an ant‑hill (perhaps, I should apologize to the ants).

PURITAN NYMPHOMANIA

It is easy to suggest that universal love is the solution. It is not.

Love is the MEANS to the solution.

This is not just a semantic problem.

The unpopular truth is that love has been degraded to a sentimentalist banality, a metaphysical triviality.

As a goal instead of means, love has become the object instead of the verb.

Dedication to love tends to become inhuman, insofar as it uses human beings for its implementation.

This is evident in a wide gamut from puritan righteousness to nymphomania, depending on the interpretation of love, and on the people used for it.

It may be humorous to talk of a puritan nymphomania, but it is a reality.

Nymphomania is mostly the result and cause of frigidity at the same time. Because of her obsession to find the man who gives her the orgasm, the victim is progressively desensitized by the fruitless search and by confusing the consequence with the goal.

The same happens with the love worshipers, who sacrifice themselves and others to a love that becomes more tantalizing the more they fail to reach it.

Many hide ‑even from themselves‑ their deep hostility by parading passionate love.

Many unite "in love" with those with whom they can share hostility toward others.

Subconsciously or not, love‑worshipers abhor real understanding and involvement.

They withdraw into hostility when they realize that further involvement may change their comfortable hostility into arduous understanding.

SOPHISTICATED PRIMITIVES

Another vicious class of primitives has sophisticated their propaganda, but embalmed their education in crass prejudice: the ultra feminists.

They can be described in two main categories: the "feminazis" (so called also by Rush Limbaugh, most brilliant radio commentator in USA 1990‑2003..), dedicated to dictating female rule, abortion holocaust, elimination of the family, triumph of lesbianism, and the "femiranhas" (my designation), compulsive male‑haters so busy attacking men that they cannot do anything else coherently.

The terms are ultimately interchangeable.

They are an insignificant minority among women, but incredibly vociferous.

Quoting them is like quoting vicious lunatics.

Among typical examples:

"The simple fact is, every woman must be willing to be recognized as a lesbian to be fully feminine", (National Organization for Women Times, Jan. 1988), or:

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking marriage.

Freedom for women cannot be without the abolition of marriage" (Sheila Cronen, one of the many "authoritative" feminist sources).

The truth that man is normally physically stronger than woman infuriates the femiranhas and embarrasses the civilrightniks.

Give them the idea that we have the right to fall upward, as well as downward, and they will start a war against the law of gravity, which will be obligingly declared unconstitutional by the civilrights‑ apparatchiks.

We have those bizarre havens for battered wives, in which the husband is regarded as the malefactor "a priori". They are shown as places where wives can take refuge when husbands get physical. They don't.

They offer much less than a friend's or relative's home, a police station, church, hospital, motel, Salvation Army, YWCA. In reality, they are places to make ultra-feminist vampires feel good about themselves, infect vulnerable women with their man‑hatred, and receive funds to empower feminazism.

There, a "battered" woman will find only help to worsen her situation with husband and children.

And salivating shysters are waiting around the corner.

They are run, whenever possible, by militant women who allegedly have been victimized by men.

They are as impartial as bigots.

We laugh about foxes running chicken coops, but feminazis and femiranhas get furious if militant hens don't run fox dens.

Ultra-feminists exaggerate women's problems beyond credibility.

They encourage women and children to pose as victims, regardless of the illegitimacy of their claims and of the permanent self‑ degradation.

The more victims they find, the more "entitlement" money they get.

If they don't, they have to close shop and lose their juicy do-gooding funds.

The problem of battered wives, abused children, raped women is undeniable where it occurs, but it loses credibility when it is handled as a crusade by femiranhas, feminist‑fearing dogooders, politicians who need their votes, and news media who need their patronage.

No place is shown where a husband can go to seek help against a vicious wife.

If a man dares to merely say that there are vicious wives, he endangers his job, political career or social standing, let alone being attacked by the ultra-feminists.

We are so naive ‑or biased‑ that we think only physical violence by men hurts.

This doesn't even apply to animals.

Humans can inflict and experience emotional suffering that can be worse than physical pain.

It is implied that man can hurt woman, not vice versa.

Asking to hear the other side of the story is frowned upon and politically incorrect.

From the start, the militant fem inist pretends to have women (half of mankind) prej udiced on her side .

Women dedicated to battered‑wife shel ters reflect the most intense male-phobia, as well as the highest per centage of divorc es. The huge percentage of fem ale divo rcees with horror stories of male brutality and drunkenness is ridiculous and fraudulent.

Many are male‑defying women, who more than any other women do everything possible to goad men into beating them. These women, by the way, are not the norm, but they are so vociferous and so eagerly listened to by the media,

lawyers and politicians, that they give the impression of being at least 50 times their number.

They claim that they fight for women‑equality.

They do it in a sadomasochistic way, by hitting all the weak spots they have learned about their men.

They enjoy doing it and dressing it with presumably lofty ideals of freedom and equality; especially when they have no talents or virtues that could motivate positive postures.

Their triumph comes when they are finally beaten : they wallow in hatred, they feel proud rather than a shamed of its causes, and m ake a lot of friends they would never have w ithout the shared hatred .

Without that, they would hopelessly remain in a life of boredom and worthlessness befitting their lack of interests, goals and skills.

Many of them are typical femiranhas.

For every femiranha I have met, I have known at least 20 man-loving women. Yet, the former are so vituperously loud and militant that we end feeling as the latter hardly existed.

In spite of their debilitating hatred, the ultra-feminists have t he satisfaction of pontificating about the suffering of the poor women and about the only solution they can suggest: more hostile power for the women.

Not to help men, but to push them into a corner, goad them into something wrong, and blame them more for the desolation of anti‑male freedom.

The observation that there are no similar havens for men beaten by other men, or women, is not as silly as it seems.

The flip response that men can defend themselves only applies to the stronger ones who win.

Battered men are even more numerous than battered women. Battered men, like battered women in the past, hate to publicize their troubles.

Some are right, others not.

Havens for battered men would b e ridic ulous and superfluous, because the law already provides enough remedies.

Well, wouldn't you guess that the same could be said about haven s for battered women? Besides, why are there no havens for women battered by other women and men battered by oth er men (or women)?

The feminazis have chickencoops where they hatch hatred eggs to nurtur against men. , not against females, nor humans against humans.

This is an issue that only foments evil ... divides men and women in factio ns worse than political parties, with the added advantage for women that many men take women's male-hating side to man ifest that they are not "male chauvinists".

I have a mother, sisters, daughters and a wife. I love them and they love me.

I don't need to vilify men to show my love for women.

Every woman has a father. Most women have brothers, sons and husbands.

That alone should dispel the suspicion that I see two compact sex blocks, as befits the saga of the "adversary system", which would be preposterous in the family.

Conventional American wisdom seems confused if it doesn't force men, women, old, young, whites, blacks, employees, employers, rich, poor..., all people whose existence they can perceive, into adversary blocks.

It is the essence of a perverted freedom worse than the freedom of the jungle, because the latter at least follows the natural laws of survival and reproduction together.

Women, of course, are thought to be one solid block against violence because they would be the losers in a violence conflict they may (unnaturally) engage in against men.

Women are not less violent than men, when they can attack phycally.

Nowhere and in no time in history have men been as hostile to women as ultra-feminists to men nowadays.

Besides, the violence of many "feminist" women against their own children is notoriously worse than male/female violence.

The problem is that people stop at the report that a woman has been beaten.

They don't want to know why and how, lest they get the feminist militants and the male self‑flagellants after them.

We treat wife‑beating worse than assault, theft or other crimes in which the victim did not provoke the criminal.

How probable is that the man attacked the woman without any provocation?

There are, of cours e, contemptible men.

But, what about the overwhelming majority of the normal ones?

Suppose that the woman ensnared and badgered the man into it, which is so common that it has become a cliché.

Suppose that the man is weak and extremely excitable, and the woman knows too well how to lure him beyond self‑control, so that he hits

her and she can wallow in a legal case against him for months or years (for a matter that could often be resolved in a few minutes)...

Setting up someone for extortion or blackmail, causing an accident or a fire for financial gain, teasing a man into a phony sex‑harassment situation are every‑day tricks.

Women do it to men and women, as well as men to men and women.

Murders, maiming attacks and other abuses against men are t reated with more forgiveness and "understanding" by ultrafeminists than husbands who lost their tempers.

At this writing, the most recent example I read about was the case of a woman who accused her boss of sexual harassment after having made love with him for "at least 40 times a year for four years".

Wives who set up their husbands for legal troubles have become commonplace. Husbands also do that, but much less than wives.

Suppose the woman hit the man first. Or that she threw to his face some horrible revelation... We just accept that a woman slaps a man, or worse, if he says something offensive. A man who does the same is condemned. What is a double standard?

History and literature overflow with cases of women who drove men (and vice versa) into insane suffering, torture, murder and suicide without any physical violence. When women do the same to men, the matter is not news...

The above and worse is more frequent than many care to admit. We can not ignore it just because of our anti‑male‑violence crusade. An anti‑ male‑violence crusade instead of an anti‑violence and anti cruelty crusade is viciously dishonest. Our sophistication consists in never condoning violence. Which is alright, but ludicrous as an absolute as such and against men only.

We don't investigate the causes, when a woman has been beaten by a man.

It is dishonest, or at least incompetent, to assert that emotional hurt (by the woman or man) can not do more harm than physical violence.

We even justify homicide as a defense in some extreme sadistic circumstances.

The legal language has the expression "justifiable homicide", but not "justifiable violence"... That is odd.

This oddity has the characteristics of a primitive anti‑violence psychosis. Slapping a child is not necessarily a crime.

And so forth.

For thousands of years, woman developed the talent of emotional manipulation as a balance to man's physical strength.

We are reluctant to acknowledge it, probably because we don't know how to analyze it.

Yet, on the quicksand of this ignorance, we have built a lopsided defense system against the menace of male physical violence.

Our propensity to unconditionally believing a woman who claims to be victimized by a man has an anti‑male slant.

The number of allegedly violent alcoholic husbands, for instance, is admittedly greatly exaggerated.

The number of divorced or separated women, who describe persecutions by alcoholic and violent men, is simply too large to be believable.

Women are somehow rewarded when they claim to be victimized by men.

People exposed to the public eye are afraid to show any doubts about the anti‑male, as well as anti‑white, accusations.

The femiranhas have developed a defiant class militancy ready to crucify any male who dares to doubt their anti‑male claims.

With this grotesque sense of justice, it is not strange that the American woman is enticed into a subtle viciousness toward man. The rest of the world has already noticed it.

The American male in the public eye avoids to mention it.

The law must punish the violent man. There is no reason why the woman should not be punished too, if she has provoked the man.

Why are the courts reluctant to punish both?

It is easy for a woman to get away with anything, if she knows how to goad the man into slapping her.

It is peculiar how we use the opposite approach in a prostitution interaction, in which, however, none of the participants is a victim.

We punish the woman who provoked, o merely accepted, the man into the victimless act.

Apparently, the feminazis have a particular pique against the prostitutes, who offer an abundance of sex appeal the femilibbers resent not to have.

It seems American society nurtures the anti‑male attitude the same as the fashionable anti‑white racism.

The civil rights movement and feminazism are allied against the white male.

They are sophisticated primitives, for they have sophisticated their "anti‑" activities on primitive half‑notions of historical, philosophical, anthropological, psychological, biological, medical, ethical, religious, literary and basic cultural factors...

Their present exponents, from Gloria Steinem to Jesse Jackson (?), reflect the sophisticated maneuvering and primitive concepts typical of their trend.

By the way, their claim that their causes converge would be best disproved by letting them marry or live together... Of course, just as a laboratory experiment...

They would also be deactivated and forgotten if racial and gender animosities were resolved.

The American public may be uninterested in the intricacies of this problem, but they are defeating the Equal Rights Amendment and oppressive racial integration out of the gutsy feelings that these measures will overcure the symptoms and worsen the ailment.

Women and anti-white racists never had more dangerous traps to fall into.

One new emerging fact is the documented awareness that women's violence against men is not less frequent than men's against women.

A report by Prof. R.L. McNeely (University of Wisconsin ‑Milwaukee) and Gloria Robinson‑Simpson, disturbed children program supervisor in Norfolk, VA, indicated that domestic violence against men in the decade ending in 1985 has been proportionately the same as against women.

The report appeared in the December issue (sorry, I forgot the year) of "Social Work", in the article "The Truth About Domestic Violence: A Falsely Framed Issue".

Probably no more than 5% of domestic violence cases against men are reported to the police, because men tend to hide the fact, just as much as militant women pride themselves of parading the suffered violence.

A man would feel ashamed to report his wife's violence to the police, although the law would require him to do so. But then, would the police heed him? Wouldn't they laugh at him?

It also reaffirms that the femiranhas (that is, I repeat, the anti-man and anti-family so-called feminists, not the true, original feminists) are furious at the "injustice" that man is stronger than woman.

What if the woman were physically stronger?

Violence is not a male problem; it is a human problem.

WOMAN GUTTER

The realities of man and woman, and their differences, persist unchanged, as in the past, regardless of our theories, and whether they are understood or not.

On the other hand, opinions, theories and guidelines are clear, regardless of their validity.

Often they are believed to be reality itself.

Today's rationalized fads have produced a clear mandate: man is not allowed to voice any opinion or formulate guidelines in the man‑woman relationship, unless they are "feminist"‑approved and man‑flagellating.

Woman is mostly declared the victim and the only one who can voice opinions and principles about women and man/woman relations.

But how can "victims" be impartial? They substitute vengeance for justice.

Man is loaded with the guilt still in the process of being listed in the new general inventory of crimes against woman.

The mere listing a male "guilt" is accepted as a convictiloll. kkk

The inventory rules are simple:

Take the history of mankind and call it "male history". Select everything unpleasant, ugly, harmful, wrong and negative, and attribute it to the male.

Don't worry about proofs.

Man is in charge (really? Most of man's subconscious personality is formed in his early childhood, when mother's influence is permanently dominant), therefore he is responsible and guilty.

Then, cull everything loftier, anything more clever, beautiful and pleasant than what really happened, all that was idealized by man himself but remained wishful thinking, because neither man nor woman could realize it.

Take it, or any of it, and ascribe it to women, and say that women were not allowed to realize it because males were in charge...

There is enough of it to write volumes and volumes without effort, once one has learned the routine.

Then, go ahead and rewrite history.

A little practice can make it look scientific and exhaustively researched.

Enormous lists of anti‑male indictments are thus being compiled for the trash‑cans of history.

Man is not allowed to participate in today's witch‑hunt, for he is the witch.

The anti‑white‑male witch‑hunt is "in", not because it makes any sense, but because it is the new fad, like the hula‑hoop, the pet‑rock, the "minority" person in the TV commercials.

Besides, it gets the "feminist" votes block. Politicians need it badly.

Go to any book store and look for books written by women who ridicule, disparage and accuse man as the callous, obtuse, deliberate originator and perpetrator of today's evils, as the oppressor and corruptor of our morality, liberty and life, as the truly inferior sex: these books are not only plentiful, but they keep multiplying like cockroaches.

Human male and female cockroaches have always been plentiful.

If a man tries to publish a book that ridicules, disparages and accuses woman as the callous originator and perpetrator of today's evils, as the oppressor and corruptor of our morality, liberty and life in general, as the truly inferior sex, he will hardly find a sympathetic publisher, for obvious reasons.

Even if there were one, he would not dare to publish anything against the taste of the "feminist" Inquisition.

(White) Man has no First Amendment.

Publishers scurry to print anti‑male literary nincompooperies with the same haste of those who must sell hula‑hoops faster than the duration of the fad.

But they don't have much to fear: the fad will last quite a while, for the majority of women is not less mediocre and incompetent than the majority of men.

They love the male‑blaming nincompooperies they can use as excuses for their failures.

A typical approach of many of those books goes as follows:

The author (mostly a woman‑psychotherapist) first goes to spacious lengths to assure her readers that what she writes benefits men as well as women, just like a