She sure seems to be a lot of trouble.
Also I'm skeptical about the one creampie every Saturday part.
For what reason do you think Iggy Pop was putting on an act? I don't know much about him but it seems his punk self-identity was genuine.
And that same year (1993), black Jewish philosopher Laurence Mordekhai Thomas published Vessels of Evil: American Slavery and the Holocaust, in which he (from the publisher's description) "denounces efforts to place the suffering of one group above the other."
Did he mean this as criticism of the Holocaust industry?
If the wife is not in the bedroom but the open kitchen cooking, then it's not really possible to watch TV in the living room in peace.
Indeed they are.
American frontier families?
Promiscuity, when practiced by men both able and willing to engage in it, manifests as the running of soft harems and spinning plates. When practiced by women both able and willing to engage in it, it manifests as serial monogamy or branch-swinging. In other words, the average woman is sexually only interested in one man at a time – this is the one important difference between the sexes. When the woman in question has a sexual interest, and at the same time also appears to be a romantic or long-term relationship with another man, but the sex they are having is rare and basically manifests as pity/negotiated sex, then she is basically keeping this man around as a loser cuck, a convenient servant and an emotional sponge / garbage bin who dutifully performs all sorts of unpleasant tasks for her (he does the maintenance in her apartment, changes the faulty AC unit, mows the lawn etc). He is not a sexual interest and is sexually invisible to her.
On an related note, when you talk in person to female college students and your bros who have girlfriends, I suggest you take anything they say on this matter with a grain of salt, because they have all the incentive in the world to tell you a self-serving narrative that makes them appear good.
I doubt anyone has compiled data about that in particular. In terms of absolute numbers, I’m guessing it’s indeed down, but culturally it certainly is more normalized than it was 20 or 30 years ago, I guess. It’s data on STD rates that could conceivably give us more of a clue.
Good point. I guess the lowered libido of these people is then accepted generally as the new normal without anyone taking notice.
This is probably what is also driving the creation of so-called mancaves.
In the open concept kitchen the noise and smell that generates in the kitchen is not contained which means the living room is of limited use. Of course, lipstick feminism sees this as a sign of progress, as the helpless wife is no longer sequestered away as a slave in chains or something.
A couple of factors to consider:
On a smartphone or small tablet it’s convenient to keep wasting your time on social media while commuting, walking, loitering somewhere, eating out, hanging out, waiting in a queue etc., which is what normies usually do. On a laptop it’s not.
A smartphone is also normally used for calls and texting, of course, so for the average person it’s multifunctional. A laptop is not.
Operating and maintaining a laptop on a basic level requires some minimal level of human agency and a somewhat significant level of disposable income. For a traditional PC this applies even more. In the case of a smartphone it doesn’t.
It makes sense. The social reality is that in absolute numbers most sexual encounters take place within long-term relationships, despite the Sexual Revolution having fueled illusions to the contrary. The fewer such relationship there are, the less sex will be taking place.
I cannot imagine any other probable consequence.
As a rightist dudebro who hates modernity I wonder if the custom of installing a TV in the bedroom is driven by the adoption of the concept of the American kitchen, which makes the living room unsuitable for watching TV, which in turn drives the man in the house to watch TV in a different room.
If that were true, in countries with free or near-free higher education and/or with nationalized healthcare the youth would be significantly less leftist than in America. I don't think this is the case though?
I'd suggest that maybe it actually is. In fact, to the extent that rabid leftist youth subcultures exist in Western Europe, they appear to be motivated by woke ideologies disseminated online from the USA.
Noted. One would assume though that such a generational divide is exactly the sort of factor that would compel more political compromise though.
What's the potential political risk in refusing the aid the war aims of the current government then? It's not the concept of Israel that is the matter at hand here.
That’s not the issue at hand. OP claims the Dem establishment has no option but to keep giving all the support to Netanyahu’s government that it demands in the form of military intervention, arms shipments etc. For me it’s not clear why that is. Even if all the people with money and brains seem to still like Israel, which seems like a rather big stretch, the political situation at hand does not necessarily need to follow.
I’m not asking why these Dem leaders are not taking a clear stand with Hamas against Israel. I’m asking what perceived tangible political risk is there in them parting ways with the Israel Lobby and refusing to yield to them anymore.
Outside of the right genuinely becoming stronger through X, there is a one word answer: Israel. The establishment can't compromise any more on Israel. They have to vote yes when Israel asks for arms. They have to stand up and clap for Netanyahu.
Why?
Culturally Prussian, to be precise.
Are you subscribing to the interpretation of Dreaded Jim that the Great Purge of 1937-38 was a manifestation of left political singularity?
- Prev
- Next

Because he's living in Germany, I assume.
More options
Context Copy link