I Tweeted this in between swigs of Jack Daniels last night, but I realized it was too important to leave there. We now have evidence that sexual deprivation makes men irrationally violent:
Any criminologist will confirm that the great bulk of crime in America is committed by unmarried young men. The best way to turn a criminal away from crime is for him to get hitched to a woman and become a father (though there’s surely a strong cause/effect conflation in that one).
Prescott applied this logic on a cross-cultural level. He performed a meta-analysis of previously gathered data on the amount of physical affection shown to infants (years of breastfeeding, percentage of time in direct physical contact with mother, being fondled and played with by other adults) and overall tolerance for adolescent sexual behavior. After comparing these data with levels of violence within and between societies, Prescott concluded that in all but one of the cultures for which these data were available (forty-eight of forty-nine), “deprivation of body pleasure throughout life—but particularly during the formative periods of infancy, childhood, and adolescence—is very closely related to the amount of warfare and interpersonal violence.â€
While the vibe of the article is a bit too Freudian for my tastes (the bogus dichotomy between sex and death that leads to hippie lunacy like the Global Orgasm for Peace), the thrust is simple and correct – men who get action don’t become mass-murdering psychopaths. Sex-hating right-wing Renfields everywhere are now crying tears of unfathomable sadness. I wish I could taste those yummy, sweet tears.
While reading the article, a thought came to me. Imagine a starving man locked in a cage with a freshly cooked, juicy steak on a table just out of reach. He can see it sizzling on the counter, smell its aroma of spices, imagine its tender flesh between his teeth, but he can’t reach it. It’s a scenario that most would agree is cruel, possibly barbaric.
Replace starving with “involuntary celibacy,” the real cage with a metaphorical one, and the steak with female sexuality, and you have the reality of life for an alarming percentage of men. Everywhere you go in America and any Western nation, women are flaunting their bodies, their sexuality, in every form imaginable. On TV, on the Internet, on billboards and signs, even walking down the street, you see women in various stages of undress, arousing you without your consent or desire. The only way to escape is to either shut yourself up in a cabin in the woods or join a isolationist religious sect. At the same time that images of sex are shoved in every man’s face, forces work behind the scenes to deny actual sex to many of these men. The steak of carnal release is waved in their faces every waking moment of their lives but is yanked away when they try to grab it.
And we wonder why some of those sexually deprived men go nuts and shoot up public places or join radical terrorist groups. We create our own monsters and then we feign ignorance when they unleash their perverted fury on the world. Even more amusingly, at a time in which society is most openly sexualized, the amount of men getting sex is increasingly small. Now that’s twisted.
Hat tip for the article: anoukange.
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
Wait – are you asking women to take some kind of responsibility for all this?
You chauvinist MONSTER!!! The onus is on men to not blah blah blah blah blah
“partially educated, preferably pampered, but certainly crestfallen young men for whom the usual safety valves of dissoluteness have for some reason failed to open.”
The safety valve concept of young male violence. Very interesting and I notice it’s been bandied about lately. At first I was skeptical for I didn’t feel comfortable with its inherent sense of helplessness and external placement of blame.
As I read the article, something very scary occurred to me. When I was in my early 20s, I very easily could have been one of those young men done in by his frozen safety valve.
Ah yes, the ole “marriage civilizes men” trope.
I actually think it is the reverse: marriages civilizes women, who then behave in civilized ways, and the civilized behavior of the female provide paths for the male to become domesticated to the marriage/fatherhood yoke.
While I hold everyone, male and female, responsible for what they do, I do find it interesting to note that the overwhelming majority of the fellows who abuse/rape women were grossly mistreated by one as a child.
This has been known for years.. Carl Sagan said so in a couple of his books.
It really comes down to reciprocity. If a man perceives being treated as less than human, he has no positive motive to treat women well. In any case, it is the ability to dehumanize that has far bigger repercussions in a technological society.
Complex technological societies cannot exist for long without active good faith from the vast majority (over 95%) of its participants. You see the problem… anything more than a tiny minority can actively/ passively degrade the system and create emergent negative feedback loops.
Somehow, I’m not violent despite not having sex in nearly 3.5 years, and even though I will probably never have sex again, I like having the sexualized flaunting on display since it makes the world far better looking and enjoyable place. Seeing a bunch of frumpy, boring women in public is far more liable to induce misery and frustration…
True, but as the comments indicate it’s only part of the story. It’s the sheanderthals that create uninvested violent men by their thug-chasing. This then forms a negative feedback loop.
I knew this and it’s why I’m so hard on women for having children they aren’t ready for as well as by the wrong type of man. Childre, at birth, are innocent.
“Somehow, I’m not violent despite not having sex in nearly 3.5 years…”
-David, the whole comment is great but that part is especially so.
If you ask a woman whether the ability to pursue her happiness is worth a very slight chance of being offed by a Beta, I’d say most of them would take the deal. Regardless, I think the general theory about women’s lib causing mass-murdering betas is bunk. I would say that a higher percentage of women get killed in the United States than in the Scandanavian countries where feminism is accepted to an even higher degree and the marriage rate is lower. I would like to see a list of what countries have the highest percentage of single men and what countries have the highest rate of female murder victims.
All true.
So many women hate Game (even though 99.9% cannot grasp what it is), but in fact, they should be more worried about men with NO Game.
Men with no Game become Sodinis, or join terrorist orgs. Many people debate why well-off, well-educated people in the West join Al-Qaeda, without seeing that the one common theme is that they are not sexually satisfied.
It is the lack of Game that creates what women should worry about.
Of course, women don’t really grasp cause and effect very well.
Sex technologies will, ironically, make women much safer, since a fair number of Omega men will be safely addicted to this.
What I also find funny is that the lefty types who insist that ‘US policy is what creates terrorists’ (despite terrorist attacks on London, Madrid, Bombay X2, Bali X2, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, etc. after 9/11)….
…. refuse to see how feminism is turning ordinary men into violent ones.
So they have a ‘your actions created a backlash’ view in one area, but not another.
Zed has a good article about exactly this on The Spearhead.
Marriage + children civilizes women (not men). This is evident from a substantial shift in female voting patterns after marriage.
SEX makes a man harmless to society, because he cannot muster up the rage to actually commit violence against strangers if he is getting laid properly.
I didn’t think this would surprise any man. At least any young man. Don’t know about you guys (David Alexander? WTF) but if I don’t have sex for a couple weeks i’m far more aggressive. I feel like hitting things and I’m sizing up guys that i see.
Alot of professional fighters abstain from sex for weeks or months before a fight.
Isn’t it pure Darwinian. If males aren’t getting some then they gotta fight to get some.
People, don’t be fooled. This is just more liberal b.s. designed to get teens to have sex younger and younger, with the permission of their parents.
Notice how the article jumped from describing affection shown to infants, and then to, and I qoute, “overall tolerance for adolescent sexual behavior”
Though the premise of the need for human touch is correct, why is it assumed that such touch must come through sex during one’s teens?
Should parents stop hugging their kids and patting them on the heads once they reach their teens so that they can be freed up to have sex?
This is a very post-modern Western view of “human touch”. In other cultures you see much more affection shown between same sex friends and between families members during the teen years than you do in the US.
Why didn’t the article address the REAL issue here. Which is most teens in the US are from broken homes, lack attention and affection from their parents, lack extended family involvement and role models, and are just plain miserable because there is a genuine dearth of human bonding in the screwed up family system here.
They see their single moms and single dads on the internet trying to score and they follow suit.
Pathetic.
Moreover, the article lacks any real world info like the risk of teen pregnancy, STDs, and the like that loom large on the horizon of teens who indulge in sex. What to speak of stunting their academic careers because they are so busy out trying to “get some” and then of course all the drama and baggage that ensues once they do.
Yes, there is something severely wrong with American culture. It is blatantly obvious to anyone who comes here from the outside, but hint: it’s not repressed teen sexuality.
I’ll let you all try and figure out what it is.
Charles Manson had privileged access to a whole harem of hotties. Is he an exception to the rule?
I think guys like Sodini are actually the rare exceptions. Most lesser betas and omegas are sated through gaming and ubiquitously plentiful Internet pornography. Perhaps they’d be even further subdued by the freedom to treat themselves to a escort (who tend to be 8s and 9s) a couple of times a year.
The majority of dangerous thugs have no trouble getting laid. Thug game appears to net a far greater number of sexual partners than working-stiff-in-an-office-game. I don’t think most thugs started out as betas – as Mystery or Style originally were before devising their methods – only to consciously craft “thug game” as a deliberate pick-up strategy. They aren’t would-be Sodinis. (But then, I could see a guy like Mystery pulling a Sodini in absence of getting laid – he’s smart but fucking nuts.)
Interesting comment, Anthony. I only get laid with one or two women a year – and usually not for long. However, after I started training Muay Thai – and especially after I got decent at it – the dry spells bothered me a lot less. I can’t recommend highly enough to the average emasculated modern male office worker to start training Muay Thai, MMA, boxing or jiujitsu. At least get into something cool that enhances your feeling of badassitude – crossfit, cycling and rockclimbing work too. Being a mere office slave while getting no action is a pretty awful place to be in, mentally. My own life reminds me of Fight Club.
Whoever you are Ferdinand,
You “get it”. You have the West’s circumstances supremely nailed.
Its funny that so many adherents to the current zietgiest (girlzzz who love the bars and alpha chasing) will either be having one kid or zero kids, while the “traditional boring” people they despise have two and three kids. In forty years the winner of the current cultural competition will be the traditionalists and newcomers from other countries who have not forgotten what a family is. The current crop of 20-and-30 somethings will be lonely old people over 60 wondering why their lives turned out the way they did.
Z, you speak the truth.There’s nothing I find more pathetic than a desperate late 20, 30-something woman out at a bar trying to fulfill her alpha male fantasies. She way past prime. Old maids in training. Enjoy your Sex and the City, bitches.
does a lot to potentially explain the warlike mentality of certain *ahem* oppressive societies in the world/regions where there is strick conformity and oppression of sexuality.
“does a lot to potentially explain the warlike mentality of certain *ahem* oppressive societies in the world/regions where there is strick conformity and oppression of sexuality.”
Except for in those cultures people usually marry young and start having sex and babies much younger than we do. So no, I don’t see the connection.
The sexual repression of teens is NOT the cause for violence. This is totally off base.
If anything I think it’s the exposure to unhealthy and unbridled sexuality at such a young age that is ONE of the causes of kids in this country being so unhappy.
What do you think it does to a child to grow up seeing his or her single mom or day trying to “score”?
Where do single parents even find the TIME to date or go online?
It’s crazy.
If “science” wants to start promoting rampant teen sex with permission of parents, why doesn’t it also start promoting work, marriage and responsibility?
Why is it considered “healthy” for teens to have sex but not to get married and work to support the natural consequence of sexual activity, which is reproduction?
Science is promoting tribal sexuality here without promoting tribal values such as responsibility, family, adulthood and work, all at an early age.
But do to “civilization” kids are expected to prolong their adolesence well into their 20s, even 30s, with regards to everything but sexuality.
“have sex like an adult, but stay in prolonged state of irresponsible childhood at the same time” is the message here.
Who is going to foot the bill for all of this?
Mom and dad? (they’re too busy trying to get some)
The government?
What’s the systematic plan here for teen sexuality actually functioning within a working model?
It isn’t necessarily the sexual repression of *teens* (last I checked, Sodini and Cho were not teenagers), but rather the highly sexually charged culture coupled with a very inegalitarian way of distributing access to sexuality. That’s a mismatch. As Anakin pointed out in one of the articles linked here, the culture we live in blares female sexuality at men 24/7. In ways that today are no longer considered sexual — just a stroll down the local mall reveals this. Yet for all of this sexual displaying that is taking place by women, only a relatively small % of men are granted any access to sexuality or even other forms of physical affection by these women. That creates a mismatch — it stokes attraction and then denies it. That doesn’t justify the actions of people like Sodini or Cho, but it does create a culture that can create these kinds of reactions in men nevertheless.Someone mentioned several months ago that he thinks that you can judge the degree of intra-male cooperation in a culture by the way the women dress. In cultures where male cooperation is weak, women tend to dress more provocatively, because they are displaying for the small number of men that they are all trying to attract, and the cooperation level among the men permits this situation of de facto polygyny. In societies where this is less tolerated by men (i.e., the “hoarding” of sexual access by the top men), women have less incentive to dress in a provocative manner, because there is no point.
1. This article is specifically talking about teen sexuality and Ferdianand and other commenters are agreeing.
2. You say: “In cultures where male cooperation is weak, women tend to dress more provocatively, because they are displaying for the small number of men that they are all trying to attract, and the cooperation level among the men permits this situation of de facto polygyny.”
Which cultures are those? I’ve travelled the globe and what I see in cultures that are considered “less civilized” than ours, most everyone gets spouse, at a much younger age than we do here.
I’ve travelled in Muslim countries that “allowed for” polygyny also and I did not see widespread polygyny. Monogamy is the overwhelming norm, with MOST (pretty close to all) men getting married, because marriage and family are valued and prized, considered a bedrock of society.
Funny how those countries are considered “un-civilized” isn’t it?
Scratch the second point. I read too fast and thought you were asserting that in cultures where polygyny was legally allowed and socially acceptable, only the top dogs get the wives.
I agree with you on the ambient porn in the US these days. “Training bras” for pubescent girls (11-13) used to be simply, plain white cotton. Now you go to any department store and you can see Victoria Secret style kiddie lingerie on display.
Yes — I wasn’t saying that in places with legally sanctioned polygamy only the top men get wives. De jure polygyny is always rare, because it requires a lot of resources to keep many wives and their respective children. Few men have access to those resources in any society.What I was referring to was our culture of de facto polygyny –> the top dogs don’t get all the women as wives, but they get sex with a hugely disproportionate number of the women *and* the women are deploying their sexual allure and sexual access in an effort to try to hook one of these hyper-desirable men into a commitment to them (almost always in vain). The women dressed like porn stars at the beach, the mall, the bar, and the club are not dressing for the “nice guys” and “dads” whom they may eventually settle for as a marriage partner. No, they’re dressing for the eyes of the top dogs and cads, hoping to snag one of them and “change him” so that he commits to her — the classic female fantasy of converting the cad to be committed to her and her alone.My point is that our culture permits this precisely because cooperation among men is low — men have not banded together and forced the cads to rein themselves in by forcing monogamy on virtually everyone. Allowing marital polygyny actually reflects a system of solidarity among men because the number of such polygynous relationships is always small due to the resource issue, and, importantly, the polygynists at the top are not monopolizing the mass of women sexually because they are limited to those women to whom they are married. The rest of the women are available to the rest of the men as mates. Some men do go mateless, but taking into account attrition due to health issues and higher death rates among men, as well as the truly unsuitable characters at the left tail of the male bell curve, a system which allows for marital polygyny for a few men and monogamy for everyone else is one that reflects a strong social contract among the men. When that social contract weakens, it goes to the advantage of the top dogs and the attractive women, while leaving both the less attractive women and most of the men holding the bag.
Regarding dressing like “pornstars” at beaches. Do you consider bathing suits to be “pornstar” attire? What would one wear to go swimming if not a bathing suit?
I’m beginning to think that the breakdown of the family and the sluttification of America was designed by corporate interests to make money. When people are single and looking, they will spend all kinds of $$$ on all kinds of stuff in order to attract the opposite sex. The longer they are single, the longer they have to keep on buying. Commercial advertisements play into the insecurities of both men and women, and the selling point is usually garnered around “improving” oneself or one’s status – to attract somebody.
As long as people feel they are not “good enough” with who they are or what they have, they will keep on buying.
I also think this benefits the pharmeceutical companies who get big payoffs from insecure people who suffer from “disorders” like depression, anxiety, and any other host of non-scientifically proven nor tested “disorders” that have been created by the Psychiatry Industry, which is in cahoots with Big Pharma.
I don’t think it’s as simple as “women want alpha males and will do anything to get them” being the downfall of our civilization. I think the state we are in right now has been very carefully planned for decades by vested interests behind the scenes.
“while leaving both the less attractive women and most of the men holding the bag”
Eventually these two groups of people will settle for each other and hopefully be happy. They were made for each other.
For those who like Evolutionary Psychology
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/evolutionary-psychology/
Around 800 news and 650 discussion messages posted per month or Evolutionary Psychology News
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/evol_psch_news/
Around 300 News and no discussion messages per month. Find out about the issues surrounding humans, their brains, minds, culture, society and evolution.You will find professors/researchers for evolutionary psychology, MRAs, feminists, physicists, mathematicians, geneticists, whistle blowers and the list includes the authors of “Sex Against War”…
More Liberal B.S – â€Eventually these two groups of people will settle for each other and hopefully be happy. They were made for each other.â€
Aw, how quaint.
I take it you aren’t particularly familiar with the subject matter frequently addressed on sites such as this.
Finding a compatible mate to happily settle-down with was once the case, but female sexual liberation has put an end to this romantic notion in two ways.
First, as many of these less attractive women will have had numerous sexual partners (needing only to be willing) in their individual quests for men of higher (than their own) sexual market value, they will experience a decreased ability to form strong pair-bonds with any subsequent lovers/mates.
Secondly, women tend to assess their own sexual market values relative to the “highest†they’ve been able to attain (other women will judge her based on her “lowestâ€). Simply put, a woman who would rate a 6, who has (on some occasion) had sex with a man who would rate a 9 or 10, comes to convince herself that she is at the same market value level as that man. She further convinces herself that she deserves men at that level. To move down a notch will harm her perceived valuation. Not attaining subsequent sexual encounters with such highly prized men is the dreaded indicator that even her willingness to have sex can no longer attract such a man – her valuation is slipping.
Thus, when it comes to settling, ending up with a man at her own (actual) level will feel as though a humiliating fall from her “peakâ€, to the point of having no other viable options. This is NOT a “happy place†for such women. To women, “settling†has become a very unsettling concept.
A woman may end up marrying some guy that others would judge that she was “made forâ€, but the chances of her being happy in that arrangement are nowhere near as good as they would have been prior to the female sexual revolution. Settling for “Mr Good-enough†will likely leave her pining for the times she banged some rock-star or bad-boy passing through town.
And, from the guys perspective, he’s settling for other men’s left-over’s. Which is why, once both have reached the age where the woman has resigned herself to “settleâ€, many guys are opting to say, “No thank you!â€
There are bathing suits and there are bathing suits. A tasteful, taut one-piece is one thing, a string bikini that is more revealing than underwear is another. It’s just crazy that we accept that kind of behavior at the beach when we don’t accept it anywhere else — yes, it’s the beach, no it isn’t your boudoir, honey.
Men and women alike, really. Many women are shy about marriage if it involves anything that could be construed as “settling” — something which, for the reasons you point out, slw, is a category applied to most men by today’s women given their “access” to higher men in their 20s. I remember when Laurie Goldstein wrote an article in The Atlantic a couple of years ago recommending settling (having herself recently become a single mother by choice) –> she got reams and reams of angry letters from women who berated her bitterly about recommending that they do something as condescending as settling for any man who does not check every box on their lengthy lists. And maybe those women are right. Staying with The Atlantic, we of course had Sandra Tsing Loh’s now infamous confession piece about her own marriage and divorce (and the marriages of her friends — all 40 something marrieds in Pasadena), and about how the women still pined for men with more alpha-like characteristics rather than their “kitchen bitch” (she used the term) family man husbands. More indications that the taste of alphasex is ruining women for stable marriages with Dad-type men.
I agree with Nova’s last comment, but I would argue that evidence suggests the contrary to his point about male cooperation.
Male cooperation is highest among places/peoples where monogamy and suppression of women-hoarding by Alpha Males is the norm. There you have rule of law (mostly) not men, suppression of “Big Man” syndrome, a relative flatness of social behavior, an abhorrence of groveling and stuff before a social superior, and so on. Examples of this would include America up until say, the 1990′s, Canada, New Zealand (now), and Europe up through the 1970′s.
Men cooperate when there is no penalty to do so, and in fact they are rewarded for doing so. Restriction in some way of female sexuality (women cannot play with Alphas forever) is part of this social structure.
Places where male cooperation is low (Africa, Latin America, particularly the Muslim World) is characterized by groveling behavior (“Your Excellency,”) and defacto harem building. Mohammed bin Laden, Osama’s father, had 22 wives and 57 children. His wives were “divorced” once he had a kid and was bored, this happened to Osama at age 9. Depending on how well he had been pleased, he would “give” the discarded wife/sex-toy to a higher/lower ranking person in his company. It is estimated that about 33% of Arabian marriages are Polygamous, similar numbers apply to significant parts of Africa. Jakob Zuma for example married his fifth polygamous wife just recently. He has 22 children.
Monopolization by the top men of reproduction and women make women and kids the Big Man’s things, and targets for lesser men when opportunities arise. This explains the otherwise puzzling targeting of women and children in Polygamous Africa.
A good example of cooperative/non-cooperative male behavior and polygamy is the Mormons vs. everyone else. Men cooperated to kill Joseph Smith and his followers (they were threats to the non-Mormon men) over indeed, polygamy. During Brigham Young’s reign, Mormons provided peace by raiding neighbors and taking women, with an excess of young men funneled into missionary work. This was no long-term solution, and indeed the younger men by the 1890′s could see the writing on the wall — they were in competition with older brothers, uncles, cousins, indeed fathers, for the same small pool of young women. This made the switch to monogamy easier than expected — it saved Mormons from a ruinous civil war amongst themselves over the same small pool of women or a disastrous war with their larger, numerically superior, non-Polygamous neighbors over women.
Competition over women is always men’s weak point. No man can be “safe” in a system that allows any form of polygamy, and so cooperation declines as it does now with defacto weak polygamy.
There are of course different kinds of polygamy: the Arabian or Mormon strong kind, with women clothed heavily and guarded, or the “weak” West African non-muslim kind with women flitting about from Alpha to Alpha. The latter seems to be that of the West, and surely we will become much like West Africa.
Just look at Jersey Shore and the Situation.
More indications that the taste of alphasex is ruining women for stable marriages with Dad-type men.
No, women are also useless before tasting “alphasex”.
In case you guys are interested. Had to write out some concepts before I start talking about the effects of technology on women’s behavior, choices and feedback loops.
http://dissention.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/prelude-to-bad-faith-03/
No, Slwerner, I’m perfectly aware of the ideology around these parts and my statement was meant to be sarcastic. However, I do believe that men and women who get together truly deserve each other.
Karma’s a bitch.
More Liberal B.S. asks (rhetorically?) “What’s the systematic plan here for teen sexuality actually functioning within a working model?”
Here’s your answer:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MzY0NTZmMWVkMWFhNmJlYTgxNThkM2ViZWY2ZWVlNzI=
I hope you took no offense at my response, then. Sarcasm is sometimes hard to pick up on, and there are still any number of white-knighting, backwards-looking guys who come around.
Personally, it helps a thick-headed guy like me when people use clear indicators, such as [/sacrcasm], to denote their sarcasm.
Sestamibi, I agree with that article, but we both know that is not the agenda of Planned Parenthood or Sex Education in the schools.
If we could start teaching Jr. High School kids marketable skills, and for the ones that have the capacity, start them with a Universty Program, right from about age 14, we would have full fledged doctors by 20.
I’m all for it. However the educational system would have to be fully revamped and family culture would have to change. There is very little family stability in the US right now. How many divorced parents do you think are capable of teaching their kids how to have a successful relationship?
I find that adolesence has been so prolonged in this country that even 40 year old single moms and dads are online as much as their teens trying to “hook up”.
It’s ridiculous.
5th horseman: Men with no Game become Sodinis, or join terrorist orgs.
Only a very tiny minority of men are pick up artists or something similiar, so what you’re saying is that the vast majority of men will snap and become mass murderers or convert to Islam and join a terrorist group. Really?
5th horseman: Many people debate why well-off, well-educated people in the West join Al-Qaeda
Because they are Muslims.
Liberal BS: Funny how those countries are considered “un-civilized†isn’t it?
It’s funny because it’s true.
And yeah, I’ve never had sex in my life and probably never will, yet I am not plotting a shooting spree or displaying a sudden interest in the Quran. Justifying some terrible deed by complaining that you couldn’t get laid is just an excuse. Or maybe other men just are that weak and desperate.
- Liberal BS: Funny how those countries are considered “un-civilized†isn’t it?
– It’s funny because it’s true.
Which countries have you been to?
What relevance could that possibly have?
Are you kidding me? How old are you?
Anyway, I’ve been all over the world, my entire life. The US has a just as many “uncivilized” customs as any place. Just different ones.
So first you randomly ask me what countries I’ve been to, as if that somehow mattered… and then you abruptly move on to randomly asking how old I am. As if that somehow mattered.
Well… I’m looking forward to your next outburst of randomness. I guess.
And yes, all cultures are indeed morally equal. For example, in Japan men can have kind of a fixation on schoolgirls, whereas in Afghanistan they murder schoolgirls or disfigure them with acid (unless it’s Thursday and they’re raping young boys). A subtle difference, to be sure, but one that should be readily apparent to the trained observer.
Aspergers? Too much smoke? The question was not random, dude. It was in response to your “because those countries ARE uncivilized”….. which countries have you been to?
Duh.
An no, not all countries are morally “equal”. Not all people are morally (or intellectually or reading comprehension skills equal either – obviously.)
Women honestly SUCK.
Gay’s have it too easy (thank god for AIDS).
{ 3 trackbacks }