Links - 24th February 2026 (1 - Feminism: Consent & Desire)

FearBuck on X - "A DoorDash delivery driver is going viral after she was fired from the company after claiming she was s*xually assaulted while delivering food to a customer who was passed out with his pants down and the door wide open"
FearBuck on X - "DoorDash delivery girl has been arrested on 2 felony charges after recording a man passed out with his pants down in his home and posting it on TikTok during a food delivery. She is being charged with unlawful surveillance and dissemination of surveillance images"
STUNNER on X - "Women defending this woman actually shows that they don’t understand what consent, sexual harassment, and sexual assault truly mean. I never knew that a drunk man sleeping naked on his own sofa at home could literally harass or sexually assault a woman. I never knew that was even possible. We learn everyday."

Thread by @KatanaSpeaks on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "The DoorDash girl is the victim.  Rape culture is alive and well, dismantling it begins with how we respond to victims when they are brave enough to expose those who have abused and violated them. The DoorDash girl's name is Livie Rose Henderson, what she's going through is horrible. This is a perfect example of DARVO.  Victims of abuse literally have to go through psychological warfare in order to get justice. People call us a liar, they will even go as far to say we are the perpetrators, it's disgusting.  It's rape culture... Also, indecent exposure can be considered sexual assault, not just harassment.
Horrific update:  Livie was charged with 2 felonies and the person who assaulted her hasn't faced any consequences.  WHAT. THE. FUCK!!!!  THEY MADE HER A FELON ALL BECAUSE SHE POSTED PROOF OF HER ASSAULT."
Thread by @KatanaSpeaks on Thread Reader App – Thread Reader App - "Livie Henderson, the woman known as the "DoorDash girl" was arrested on November 10th & charged with 2 FELONIES while the man who sexually assaulted her is facing 0 consequences.  SHE WAS CHARGED W/ 2 FELONIES FOR POSTING PROOF OF HER SEXUAL ASSAULT & THE PREDATOR GOT AWAY WITH IT
This happening right after Rho was also charged with a felony for posting about being assaulted & asking for community support...  This is extremely troubling news.  Please believe victims, we don't owe you proof, especially bc posting proof can get us charged with FELONIES.  They are making SA victims felons so it's harder for us to find jobs & housing & so we can't vote.  Y'all this is really really bad. The courts have made it a felony for SA victims to receive financial support from their online community after being assaulted. 2 cases of that happening just this month.  First Rho, now Livie.  If you post about ur assault, do it anonymously & dont post from a monetized account This is so fucked because victims DO need financial support after being assaulted.  We need to get organized and resist. Like oh my god. Remember that victims don't owe you proof & that it's dangerous for them to give you proof  Victims should be encouraged to name abusers anonymously, an abusers name is enough  And once victims give you names, please believe, support & protect them bc they are risking their lives Literally.  This is institutional DARVO."
♡ Honey ♡ on X - "And this is how you know a large chunk of women’s #metoo stories are unserious"
Clearly, we need to Believe All Women

Parents should get babies' consent to change diaper: Experts - " Early childhood researchers in Australia suggest that parents should be asking babies for “consent” before changing their diapers.  “At the start of a nappy change, ensure your child knows what is happening,” study authors Katherine Bussey and Nicole Downes, a research fellow and lecturer, respectively, at Deakin University. “Get down to their level and say, ‘You need a nappy change,’ and then pause so they can take this in,” they wrote in a November 2025 guide, per The Conversation.  According to the experts, it ensures that “consent becomes a normal, everyday part of life.”... They also said that the correct anatomical terms should be used, so rather than refer to parts as a “pee-pee,” “wee-wee,” or “bum-bum,” it is recommended that “vulva,” “penis” and “anus” should be the words of choice... Parents should also look for ways to give kids a choice in everyday situations, from choosing what they want to wear, what fruit they want to eat or whether they want to go to the park or not, as those little decisions “helps nurture their independence and can reduce power struggles” — so a win-win."
This is like how feminists and left wingers claim that asking kids to hug grandma is a terrible violation of their body
If you don't let your kids eat candy all day long, you're an abusive parent and deserve to be put in a nursing home and never have your kids talk to you

why is gen z so sensitive to small age gap relationships? : r/GenZ - "When the issue of consent hit its peak in the news I saw people on here suggesting that every single sexual contact must be prefaced by a verbal confirmation before it was okay. Which is honestly not necessary in many situations. They treat it more like a checklist than what it should be, which is more of a go with the flow type deal."
"I saw a group of Gen Z guys in a bar and started chatting with them. They had their eye on another group of girls at the bar. They were literally on Tinder seeing if the girls were available. They said going up and talking to them, or buying them drinks would have been "creepy"."

Why we're horrified by Bonnie Blue and Andrew Tate | The Spectator - "To someone of my generation, reared in the late twentieth century with its liberating principles, the passing of judgment on the legal sexual activities of others feels very uncomfortable – and I’m not heterosexual, so that adds another distancing factor. When you’ve been judged for your sexuality and its expression, you really don’t want to cast the first stone or any of the subsequent boulders. But, as they say, an onlooker sees most of the game. Gays like me can spot the stark differences between male and female sexuality by looking at what happens when you remove the opposite sex from the sex equation. Let me assure you, there are a lot of gay men enjoying chemsex parties and Bonnie Blue-style gang bangs. There are no lesbian chemsex parties or gang bangs.  Men and women are, after all, agreeing to very different things when they consent to sex. This is one of the few situations where our friends on the woke left, with their talk of differential power relations, are absolutely right, though their consistency of thought and methods of addressing those disparities are cuckoo. A quick flick through the most basic anthropological text will tell you all about the many and varied human cultural customs and rules that try to regulate for this difference, from the Taliban at one end, to the mild social shaming at the other end which is, or was, ours. Our end is very much predicated on legality and consent. This overlooks the fact that people often consent to all manner of legal but unpleasant or unwise things. Jo Bartosch says that ‘behind consent there is always a story, and always a power imbalance with the weaker party acquiescing to the stronger’. She’s right.  That is why shame and stigma are such important balances. But now we have done away with those too. We’ve replaced them with grotesque evasions such as ‘sex positivity’ and ‘sex work’. Feminist writer Kat Rosenfeld describes this situation as ‘the unfortunate side effect of all our traditional sexual mores having been discarded in favour of vapid, anything-goes sex positivity with a monomaniacal focus on consent. We barely even have the vocabulary anymore to describe bad or cruel or execrable behaviour that is wrong without being rape. Instead, we’re left with two categories of sex, consensual and criminal, the unspoken understanding being that you’re only allowed to complain about the latter’...   We have been liberated from shame, yes. But like many of the freedoms achieved half a century ago, we are left asking ourselves a question; liberation from what, and to do what?"
This has interesting implications for Neil Gaiman

Gia Macool on X - "Me: “Have sex with your husband.”
Women in my comments: “I don’t feel like it.”
Me: “He probably doesn’t feel like making money for you either.”
Women in my comments: “That’s not the same!!!”
A tale as old as time."
Why would a woman primote rape?!

Meme - Alexander @datepsych: "Token resistance:   Percentages of men and women who reported that they said “no” to sex, but who “had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse.”"
"Table 2. Percentage Reporting Token Resistance to Sex Among All Unmarried Subjects and Nonvirgin Subjects in the U.S., Russian, and Japanese Samples Subsample
Note: These are the percentages who said that they had at least once said no to sex although they "had every intention to and were willing to engage in sexual intercourse.""

Meme - "Example of Refusal Skills for Sexual Activity:
Eric: "That movie was really good Samantha but I think we should do something else now."
Samantha: "What do you want to do, then?"
Eric: "I was hoping we could engage in sexual activity."
Samantha: "I'm sorry Eric but I don't think I want to do that."
Eric: "Please Samantha I would really like to perform sexual activity with you."
Samantha: "I'm truly apologetic but I would like you to know that I am currently practicing Abstinence because it is the only truly safe form of sex and STD prevention, with a 100% success rate and a cost of $0 USD."
Eric: "I understand Samantha. I agree that Abstinence is that only Way to truly prevent teenage pregnancy and STDs at a young age. I apologize for my selfish and foolish Ways. Goodnight, I must be leaving now."
Samantha: "Thank you for respecting and understanding my viewpoints Eric, goodnight. I'd enjoy if we went on another date soon."
Eric: "Thank you. I would also enjoy that."
I can't tell if this is Christian, feminist or a shitpost

Great British Tea Party | Facebook - "“In Ireland, you go to someone's house, and she asks you if you want a cup of tea. You say no, thank you, you're really just fine. She asks if you're sure. You say of course you're sure, really, you don't need a thing. Except they pronounce it ting. You don't need a ting. Well, she says then, I was going to get myself some anyway, so it would be no trouble. Ah, you say, well, if you were going to get yourself some, I wouldn't mind a spot of tea, at that, so long as it's no trouble and I can give you a hand in the kitchen. Then you go through the whole thing all over again until you both end up in the kitchen drinking tea and chatting.  In America, someone asks you if you want a cup of tea, you say no, and then you don't get any damned tea. I liked the Irish way better.”  ― C.E. Murphy, Urban Shaman"
Comment: "The Serbian way is to get the tea, plus a pan of strudel hot out of the oven without waiting for the answer."
Iranian lady: "I don't take No for an answer. You come in to my home You will have a tea or a coffee or glass of wine for starters. Then I will make you a little plate of something... then will have a meal. My home my rules."
"Haha! In the Philippines we don't ask our guest, we serve and host them till the guest says their farewell, that will be after a week or so."
Weird. Feminists keep claiming consent is as simple as a cup of tea

Meme - "I need advice. On Saturday night I woke up at like 1 am and looked over at my girlfriend sleeping and thought she looked really pretty. So I snuggled up to her and gave her a kiss on the cheek. Then she stirred and asked what I was doing. I told her and all of a sudden she bolted upright and got really mad. She started yelling that I SA'd her because she couldn't consent to me kissing her in her sleep. She then grabbed her things and went over to her mom's house and hasn't responded to any of my calls or texts since. At first I thought she was just being dramatic, but now I'm not so sure. AITA????"

Coffee and Cleavage: Sex Education on Apple Podcasts - "‘I get being vocal, but being like, hey, so do you want to have sex right now? Fucking like, kind of awkward’
‘Yeah, it is’
‘And it kind of, I've experienced that before, when like, when you ask, hey, do you wanna have sex? It like kills the-’
‘It kills it, it kills it’...
‘Like, I've dated girls in the past where it's kind of like, you get to the point where you're just like, you wanna have sex? It's just like, oh, no. Like, well, you could have like, kissed me and done this.’"
This won't stop deluded feminists from pushing for affirmative consent and claiming those who don't like it are rapists

Env0 (@env0) - "my mom says she’s not a hugger. but when i put my arms around her on a gloomy day or after bad news she’s the last to let go. my dad says he doesn’t want gifts on his birthday, but i see the way his face lights up when i get him a card with a nice message and a box full of chocolate anyway. he’s just a kid inside, still. it makes" him giddy. my brother never says i love you. but when i tell him “i just need to finish the dishes before i vacuum!” he wordlessly goes to vacuum the entire house before i can, and if he sees me struggle with a wrapper or a jar or a bottle he mutters ‘c’mere’ and opens it for me without even sparing me a glance. the thing is, people love you quietly, and you love them quietly, and the air is buzzing with tiny but grand gestures & once you look for them, you find them everywhere. i think that’s really beautiful."
The feminists are going to be very upset, since they keep insisting that consent is as simple as tea

A Brooklyn Sex Club Promised Freedom. Some Called It Rape. - The New York Times - "Most people interviewed for this article — including those who said they were victimized — described Hacienda in overwhelmingly positive terms, saying it offered a refuge from judgment.  “It eliminates the stigma behind sexuality in general,” said Tatyannah King, a writer who said she had never experienced a problem at Hacienda and that the parties helped her grow in confidence. “You just have no choice but to be emotionally naked just as you might be actually naked.”  But even Hacienda’s fans acknowledged a reluctance to speak ill of the group for fear of jeopardizing a cornerstone of their lifestyle.  “These spaces are the opposite of black and white,” said Effy Blue, a former Haciend

a member who designed one of the organization’s early consent policies about a decade ago. “You need the social awareness of a brain surgeon to leave the space unscathed and never hurt someone and never be hurt.”"

Meme - pokimane @pokimanelol: "stop sexualizing people without their consent. that's it, that's the tweet."
Yu-kai Chou @yukaichou: "How do you ask for or obtain consent in a proper way?"
DAISY @thedivinedaisy1: "Ex: "May I comment on your body? May I fantasize about you/us? May I jerk off thinking about you? " Basically whatever you want to do, just ask."

Bumble Tells Women They No Longer Have to Make the First Move - The New York Times - "Bumble took a shot at winning back hearts and minds with a redesign, which includes a break with the app’s requirement that women make the first move. A new feature, which the company has called “Opening Moves,” allows women to place on their profiles a question, like “What is your dream vacation?,” to which men who match can respond. (In nonbinary and same-gender matches, both sides can include these prompts.)  The shift is a major one for Bumble. Until now, a man who matched with a woman on the app had to wait for her to message him. If she did not initiate a conversation, the match would expire after 24 hours. Whitney Wolfe Herd founded Bumble in 2014 because of her own personal experiences. She said that the idea was to give women more control... But over the years, Bumble received feedback from women who found that making the first move was “a lot of work” or “a burden”"
Clearly, affirmative and enthusiastic consent is the way to go and if a man has sex with a woman who is not vocally and enthusiastically into it, he's a rapist

Melissa Chen on X - "The evolution of Bumble:
- Sick of men inboxing women (“the patriarchy is so creepy and icky!”)
- Starts dating app to reverse the natural order (women now make the first move! So empowering! So brave & stunning!)
- Women complain it’s exhausting
- Reinstate the natural law"
Michael Tastad on X - "They found it “a lot of work” and a “burden”, seriously? All they have to do is message: hi"
Outa on X - "Anyone that’s used it would tell you that 99% of the time they would just leave a “hey” or “.”"

very moisturized on X - "The imminent failure of Bumble is a perfect allegory for why you can’t reverse engineer outcomes against some utopian ideal: women don’t like initiating, even if it precludes a “harassment” factor, and will just message the same 5% of men, who d

on’t really need the app. <

br>*Bumble’s stock is down 55% year to date."

Doctor Science on X - "I would regularly have after-parties at my house, inviting dozens of peopl

e, never planning to hook-up. 100% of the time a girl said, out of the blue, "Ok, but I'm not sleeping with you", we would end up sleeping together. As soon as I was ok with a no, her answer changed to yes."

Monica Almaguer on X - "I see it everyday. Men destroyed from their wives lack of sexual desire. Makes me sick the epidemic levels of marriages affected and the shame tactics women try to deploy to make him look like his God given biological drive is "not normal"."
Isaac Revo on X - "I guess lying on your back for 5 minutes twice a week to have a happy marriage isn’t worth it to a lot of women."
Artique on X - "Having sex done to your body while you are not aroused and into the act is traumatizing and damaging. It's the same as rape and it is rape. Would men be okay if their wives wanted them to lie down on their belly twice a week so some guy railed them from the back?"
Wilfred Reilly on X - "I mean....homosexual anal rape of a man, by an unrelated 3rd party who's not in your relationship, actually reeeealllly isn't comparable to you asking your wife for a five minute blowjob when she feels "too full" after date night.   You shoul

dn't have sex with your partner if they beyond-meh don't want to, but discussions of pretty standard relationship topics often reach this kind of hysterical pitch online - something that I basically never see in reality.   The original OP's post here was very very clumsily stated, but MOST people - about 95% - do feel a responsibility to sexually satisfy their lover...and find that it takes them 10-20 minutes to give the other person head, or to use their hands or some wine to get relaxed enough to enjoy sex themself.   Most adults are aware of this. If my Person comes back from one of KY's interminable Lady Princess of the Running Lady Horses-style events, and asks

for oral or a massage - sex would be to easy a test here, for a man - the odds of me saying "Yes" are ~85%.  That's pretty standard. If YOUR Person consistently or invariably says "No," in imperfect-but-normal situations like that, you obviously should NOT abuse them - but you do have a problem, and also shouldn't be guilted out of talking about it. The marriage/long-term standard just really isn't that any sex which begins when both people aren't perfectly in the mood is rape."

Wanting sex and consenting to sex are two different things. A new study of young adults finds that just over half say that they've consented to sex they didn't want before. Women were significantly more likely than men to agree to unwanted sex. : r/psychologyofsex - "I mean, the study seems to imply there is an issue with this. On its face, there isn’t.  The issue is the erroneous definition of want:  “Thus, unwanted consensual sex is often defined as consensual sex where desire is absent in at least one partner and there is no immediate pressure to consent to sexual activity.”  The study does not discern between sex that a party doesn’t/didn’t want to have vs a situation they wanted to have for reasons other than lustful desire.  Studies, and this line of thought is honestly harmful to sexuality. Labeling sex for reasons other than lust as “unwanted” is absolutely harmful and wrong.  Lust is not the only valid reason to want sex. There are other types of sexual desire, the desire for intimacy that comes with sex, the desire to please your partner, the desire to boost your own ego, all of these are reasons people have sex, and they are all valid (hell maybe even required on occasion to maintain a healthy and giving relationship).  They lump these individuals in with ones that have had actually unwanted sex, sex that in the moment the reason they did it was an internal issue with voicing negative consent and during and after the event they had negative emotions over the activity."
Too bad feminists think that if you have sex but weren't horny, you were raped

‘Arousal-first’ desire may be more typical for women, and it doesn’t need a cure - The Globe and Mail - "[Meredith] Chivers earned fame in 2009 for her "bonobo porn" studies in which women responded physiologically to a startlingly wide swath of pornographic material, from heterosexual, homosexual and solo masturbatory human sex to bonobo apes mating – this despite saying they felt little for the visuals.  The provocative research revealed just how stunningly little we know about the mechanics of women's desire. Now, working on the forefront alongside other Canadian scientists to fill in the sizable gaps in our understanding, Chivers is homing in on arousal and desire – specifically which one comes first in women. While the traditional view has been that people are seized by spontaneous pangs of desire and then get aroused for sex, a newer school of thought proposes that we might have it backward, at least as far as women are concerned. Some sex researchers now believe this "arousal-first" mode of desire may be more typical for women – and that it doesn't require a cure.  It's a paradigm shift that leapfrogs over the hype this month of a "pink Viagra," after an expert panel of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cautiously approved flibanserin, a drug marketed to spark spontaneous desire in women by tweaking the brain's levels of dopamine and serotonin. Flibanserin has been rejected twice already for its troubling side effects and poor efficacy (the drug resulted in a meagre 0.7 more "sexually satisfying events" per month in trials).  Rather than pathologizing women who don't spontaneously crave sex and prescribing dubious pink pills to fix what might not be broken, some therapists are focusing instead on heightening arousal among couples – some with eyebrow-raising methods, from mindfulness therapy and prescriptions for porn to scheduling appointments in bed. This is not exactly date night, but it's a potential therapeutic game changer, especially for women struggling with low libido in long-term, committed relationships. "For so many women, it's such a relief to hear this," says Chivers, who punctuates her rapid-fire science-speak with bursts of laughter and deft one-liners about sex. She sits in her office, where a Joy Division poster ("Love Will Tear Us Apart") hangs on the wall. "Instead of this idea that there's something wrong with women because they aren't having spontaneous urges driving them to seek out sex, they're hearing that being responsive to their partner and environment is desire as well," says Chivers, adding, "It offers a whole other way of interpreting their sexuality."... clinicians reported female patients often had difficulties differentiating between desire and arousal. Today, some researchers and clinicians believe a more common experience for women might be "responsive desire": desire that arises in response to something pleasurable, not in anticipation of it. Emily Nagoski, a women's sexuality lecturer at Smith College and author of the new book Come As You Are: The Surprising New Science That Will Transform Your Sex Life, explains it this way: "Responsive desire happens when you're not really looking for it but something sexy like your partner comes along and starts kissing your neck. You're in a good state of mind, your body lights up and you go, 'Oh right, sex! That's a good idea! We should do that.'... What much of this new science of desire points to is a cold, hard reality: good sex takes effort, not popping pink pills. That's especially true for partners in long-term committed relationships who have exited the honeymoon phase and can barely remember the spontaneous fits of desire that marked the early years... Yet even as science reveals that arousal manufactured this way can jump-start desire, many couples recoil at the thought of "working" at better sex. There's a reluctance to give up the myth of lifelong, spontaneous desire: we believe that if it doesn't happen automatically, someone is being disingenuous. Instead of working toward arousal – or risking talking about what they actually like in bed – many spouses would rather contend with marital bed death... Amanda Blackie Parrish, a Tennessee mother of four and one of the most vocal participants in Sprout's drug trials, had described her sexual problems (before flibanserin) as such: "Once I started, it wasn't an issue. It was getting me started."  To experts such as Emily Nagoski, director of wellness education at Smith College, that didn't ring like sexual dysfunction. It sounded more like a woman with responsive desire, a woman who might not initiate sex in spades but responds perfectly well to arousal. "Responsive desire is not a disease that requires treatment. It's healthy, normal sexual functioning," said Nagoski, who attended the hearings and believes women with responsive desire need education, not medication."
Clearly, if you believe this you're a rapist, because if a woman doesn't actively desire sex, trying to make her desire it is sexual assault.
How ignorant. Doesn't she know women are as horny as men?

Bad Vibrations: The Lies Universities Tell Their Students about Sex

From 2020:

Bad Vibrations: The Lies Universities Tell Their Students about Sex

Universities today bombard students with two contradictory messages about sex, effectively encouraging them to carry a dildo in their pocket, while lugging a fainting couch behind them.

On the one hand, universities have returned to a quasi-Victorian concern with the unique fragility and vulnerability of college women in matters of sex. This belief in the frailty of college women flows from a lineage of feminist theory, whose foremost representative is probably Catherine MacKinnon, in which “structures of power” hold down women as inherently unequal partners in sex. These structures, the argument goes, must be reformed to correct historical wrongs, to reward and encourage the right sorts of individuals and activities, while punishing and suppressing the wrong ones.

On the other side of the campus sex ledger is the dildo raffle. At “Sex Week” festivities and other gatherings nationwide, colleges and universities actively promote sexual libertinism. During Sex Weeks, campuses routinely host BDSM demonstrations, and rhapsodise over orgasms, anal sex, sex toys, and more. The University of Wisconsin-La Crosse hosted a teach-in entitled “Clitoral Masturbation and Free Vibrator Giveaway.” It is considered repressed and repressive to criticize this cornucopia of carnal delight.

This hearkens back to other feminists of the 1980s, such as Gayle S. Rubin, who railed against “moral panics” and “erotic stigma” as “the last socially respectable form of prejudice,” functioning “in much the same ways as do ideological systems of racism, ethnocentrism, and religious chauvinism.” This makes the dildo a powerful weapon, a literal spear thrust at the prudish soul of bigotry.

What’s less obvious is that the dildo and fainting couch are part of one and the same campus dialogue. To their credit, campus activists want to banish the bad old days, when universities swept sexual assault under the rug, protecting or even aiding and abetting sexual assault in athletic programs. Accordingly, the Ohio State University puts on seminars about sexual violence and assault right alongside programs on “Kink 101” and “Sex Toys 101.”

Monitoring and coordinating this intellectually incoherent movement are the campus student-conduct offices. Through these budget-busting bureaucracies, universities impose byzantine rules regulating students’ sex lives. The message is: test the outer limits of sexuality! But be aware, a hall monitor is always watching!

Most universities today define sexual assault differently from how it’s specified in law. Colleges now define “sexual assault” so it includes lawful conduct that couldn’t be prosecuted under the criminal law in any state—whether red, blue, or purple. It includes missteps that, in years past, would likely have been considered just messy, “live and learn” encounters between inexperienced (and often inebriated) young people. When pressed, campus administrators justify their new definitions of sexual assault by asserting the right of educational institutions to teach “new values” to the student body. While some judge this an unqualified good, the reality is more complicated.

Certainly, increased awareness of sexual misconduct has made bad behavior less acceptable everywhere, from fraternity parties to boardrooms. And maybe “Sex Weeks” have encouraged more honest discussions among partners—these are no doubt positive developments. If women come away more assertive and more certain about what they want, who could argue with that?

But the redefinition of sexual misconduct, and its enhanced policing by campus administrators, frequently has catastrophic consequences. Students are coming of age in a climate that seeks both to outdo the sexual experimentation of the 1970s and to impose an atmosphere of neo-Victorian surveillance. Campus investigators interrogate inexperienced students not only about whether they had consent for sex, but how they knew they had affirmative consent for each separate act of physical intimacy—each touch, each kiss, each penetration, and each position assumed while performing the latter. The neo-Victorian thus atomizes intimacy into microscopic bits.

Students—particularly those who are socially awkward, sexually inexperienced, or have conditions that impair their understanding of subtle social cues—are routinely punished for conduct they genuinely believed was consensual, but that transgresses new campus rules. This has led to a wave of litigation by students who allege they were wrongly accused: since 2011, more than 600 such lawsuits have been filed.

At the same time, female students—although not exclusively—are advised that encounters they may initially perceive as regrettable but consensual were, in fact, non-consensual “sexual violence.” At Washington & Lee University, for example, the Title IX officer put on a presentation about an article entitled “Is It Possible That There is Something In Between Consensual Sex And Rape… And That It Happens To Almost Every Girl Out There?” In the article itself, the author argues that a large category of legally consensual sex is “rape-ish” (she describes no coercion or violence). Campus sexual misconduct officers take it one step further and redefine regrettable choices—in which women have agency—as acts of “sexual violence” perpetrated against them by another. In these the administration must intervene, discipline, and punish. 

This has important psychological ramifications, explains social psychologist Pamela Paresky: “The ability to make choices is how we know we are free, and no free person gets through life without making choices that in hindsight they would make differently. Knowing the difference between making choices and being forced to do things against our will is essential, not only to learning from our mistakes but maintaining psychological integrity and being truly free.”

The campus courts occasioned by this movement have also led to systemic violations of accused students’ due process rights, undermining the integrity of the whole project. Victims can find their cases overturned either on appeal or by a court when the accused sues the university over procedural violations.

Increasingly, plaintiffs, both women and men, are winning. A woman sued the University of Kentucky when it repeatedly botched her disciplinary proceedings by neglecting the rights of the student she accused. This kind of kangaroo court benefits no one, neither the alleged victim nor the accused. The woman finally took the university to court for its deliberate indifference to her serious complaint of sexual assault, and the court held that “the University bungled the disciplinary hearings so badly, so inexcusably, that it necessitated three appeals and reversals in an attempt to remedy the due process deficiencies.” This, it concluded, “profoundly affected [her] ability to obtain an education.”

We think these problems stem, at least in part, from the impossible tension, under the tutelage of campus officialdom, between the dildo and the fainting couch. The history of campus activism in matters of sex suggests a more sensible solution.

University surveillance of the student body has, in some ways, come full circle. The college administrators dissecting the minutiae of students’ sex lives walk in the footsteps of the 19th century administrators of Victorian universities. At that time, the institutions scarcely expected students to be adults, certainly not in matters of sex. Campus sex was prohibited. Students were also forbidden to marry and expelled if they did.

Deans and faculty were substitute parents—in loco parentis. The earliest surviving handbook of Yale College, from 1887, reflects the assumption that students could not behave as adults. It even admonished them to clean their rooms: “students may be excluded whose rooms have been reported to the Faculty for disorder at any time…” Other rules even forbade them from “sit[ting] on the College fence on Sunday”—an apparent red flag of loutishness.

In parallel with contemporary “cancel culture,” the Victorian university proscribed insulting others. Yet the call to be “woke” would doubtless have befuddled bluebloods in the Gilded Age; likewise, the assertion of a civil right in the recognition of personal pronouns, “micro-aggressions,” and many other academic trends loosely associated with identity politics. But 19th century gentlemanly honor codes placed just as much emphasis on validating students’ subjective feelings as would any present-day identitarian code of conduct.

Yale’s code was meant to make these young gentlemen feel safe on campus: “If a student interferes with the personal liberty of a member of another class, or offers him any indignity or insult, he may be permanently separated from his class.” The cardinal rule could be summarized: ACT LIKE A GENTLEMAN! This became Law Number 1, added to a 1901 revision at Yale: “Students will be held accountable for violations of the ordinary rules of good order and gentlemanly conduct, whether the particular acts are specifically forbidden by the College rules or not.”

Unsurprisingly, the colleges of the Victorian era didn’t have many sex rules. They didn’t have to, because most excluded women, and when such rules initially appeared they were straightforward. The first to address women at Yale appeared in 1923: “Ladies may not be entertained in College dormitories except by the written permission of the Dean.” No phalanx of university administrators was needed to enforce rules like this. Women were simply banned.

Even early coed universities had simple rules. At Brandeis University in the 1950s, socializing between male and female students was limited to a few hours per day in common rooms. University regulations even barred fathers and brothers from women’s dormitories—unless they were helping to carry luggage, in which case their presence was announced by a shout of “Man on the hall!”

These rules changed dramatically as sex desegregation hit the campus. But in loco parentis held on in parietal rules, “parietal” meaning literally a “wall” between the sexes, designed to keep students from having sexual intercourse. Campus rulebooks also quadrupled in girth—though modest beside the tomes handed down by campus “judiciaries” today.

Student activists led the campus co-educational revolution of the 1960s and 1970s to dismantle these regulations. But the movement would be scarcely recognizable to 21st century student demonstrators. Rather than demanding greater regulation, the students of the 60s and 70s bridled against the oversight of their private lives.

At Yale College, Junior Aviam Soifer spearheaded a student committee that pushed for a “Coeducation Week at Yale” in 1968, against Yale’s administration. The students organized the visit of approximately 300 women from women’s colleges to spend a week in the male dormitories of Yale. The presence of 300 female students (as opposed to the numerous working women) was considered so disruptive that the police increased the officers on night patrol. 

When Yale finally admitted its first women’s class in fall 1969, protests quickly erupted over administrative obtuseness. President Kingman Brewster, Jr. announced to students that Yale wouldn’t house women in any buildings with men. Students quickly shouted him down and “deplatformed” him. Fearing for his safety, President Brewster preserved himself by speedily capitulating to student demands. Yale distributed its first female class of 250 among the different residential colleges. Even so, there was a separate entrance for them, “with a guard and parietals” in place. The Yale student handbook still strictly controlled “visiting hours” for women. 

Despite similarities to contemporary student radicalism, however, there were significant differences. Students largely asserted their freedom from campus bureaucrats’ supervision, rather than asking to be protected. They did not demand ever-more complex restrictions to govern their sex lives, nor call for sensitivity training. They were rejecting, flaunting, and breaking the rules—sometimes daring administrators to do anything about it. 

The social upheaval of the late 1960s and 1970s—not to mention the widespread availability of the Pill—transformed sex on campus in ways that became permanent. It’s difficult to imagine any secular American university returning to “open door, one foot on the floor” policies. Yet although premarital sex among students is now the norm, it’s subject to increasingly confusing rules, policed by an ever-expanding campus administration. The pearl-clutching of yesteryear has been replaced by clipboard-clutching bureaucrats. 

Where did these rules come from? 

Surprisingly, they came from a groundswell of student activism. It wasn’t an overreaching federal government that first imposed them, as critics often complain. In 1991, at the prompting of a group called “Womyn of Antioch,” Antioch College in Ohio adopted a sexual misconduct policy that redefined what it meant to consent. According to the Antioch policy, “[t]he person(s) who initiate(s) the sexual activity is responsible for asking for consent,” and “[t]he person(s) who are asked are responsible for verbally responding.” Not only was verbal consent required, but “[e]ach new level of sexual activity requires consent.” Previously, campus policy focused on whether someone said “no.” Antioch focused, by contrast, on whether someone affirmatively said “yes.” The eventual rule had no fewer than 14 elements defining the unambiguous “Yes.”

An eruption of ridicule greeted these new sex rules in the early 1990s. The idea of requiring verbal permission for each step of sexual activity spawned countless jokes. Saturday Night Live even aired a sketch featuring a quiz show at Antioch called, “Is It Date Rape?”

Over the years, however, the concept of “affirmative consent,” so widely ridiculed back then, became the norm in college sexual misconduct policies. These policies start from the presumption that sex is non-consensual and must be proven otherwise. They also seem to assume that women have little to no sexual agency, or worse, that women are passive victims. A Title IX training slide from Boston University, for example, cites “poor communication” as something that can render sex non-consensual, and thus turn it into sexual violence. An avalanche of lawsuits has brought to light the conduct that the neo-Victorians now condemn. 

One former Northwestern University student sued after he was expelled over a sexual encounter in which he supposedly used “‘emotional and verbal coercion,’ apparently because [he] requested sex more than once that evening.” Repeating the request was considered sufficient evidence of coercion, not because the man, turned down, then forced his girlfriend to submit (the school found no evidence of force), but because his request itself was unwanted. Behind the expulsion lies an assumption that the young woman, like her Victorian ancestor on the fainting couch, was too fragile to withstand the verbal overture and bereft of the ability to assert her will and say “No.”

In another case discussed by Hanna Stotland in The New York Times, a male student was expelled because—though it was undisputed the young woman consented to sexual intercourse—the man didn’t desist quickly enough when she began to cry. Her alleged emotional trauma alone was enough to condemn him.

Nor is it always women recast as weaker vessels. At Brandeis University, for example, a student, J.C., charged his ex-boyfriend with sexual misconduct for, among other things, “occasionally wak[ing] him up by kissing him” and “look[ing] at his private areas when they were showering together.” Brandeis’s special examiner determined that “J.C. … was not strong-willed or forceful enough” to stand up to these supposed onslaughts and condemned the ex-boyfriend for “serious sexual transgressions.”

If the groundswell of support for these new campus norms came from below, the apparatus that now enforces them did not. In large part owing to federal regulations and guidance, every university has established a “sex bureaucracy,” justified by the federal law of Title IX, dedicated to policing students’ sex lives.

Passed in 1972, Title IX prohibits sex discrimination at federally funded educational institutions. In the 1990s, courts extended Title IX to include an institution’s deliberate indifference to student-on-student sexual assault and harassment. Thereafter, Title IX enforcement was rapidly institutionalized throughout higher education. Between 2013 and 2016, for example, Title IX spending at UC Berkeley rose by at least $2 million. Similarly, Harvard University in 2016 employed 50 full- and part-time Title IX coordinators across its 13 schools.

All of this sends today’s students a message that is, to put it mildly, mixed: you should enthusiastically embrace sexual freedom and experimentation—but make one misstep, even unintentionally, and you will be branded for life as either a sexual predator or trauma victim. This pathologizes the awkward, messy, unavoidably emotional landscape of youthful sexuality.

Obviously, no one wants to return to the days when simply fraternizing with the opposite sex could get you expelled, nor to a time when colleges looked the other way at sexual assault. But the rules of the Victorian university offered one thing that’s now sorely lacking. And that is clarity.

The world of the dildo and fainting couch offers no clarity whatsoever. If administrators genuinely believe that 25% of the female student body will be sexually assaulted, it would be a lot easier to go back to single-sex dorms and strict parietal rules. Yet it seems illogical simultaneously to encourage unbridled sexual experimentation, but only under the strictest guidelines. Staffing universities with the equivalent of hall monitors, who peer into the most granular details of students’ sex lives, seems a failed social experiment.

We think three things would lead to a more practical approach. They all begin with a simple plea—that universities be honest with students.

First, we agree that universities should be free to set rules to safeguard the educational environment. Potentially, this can embrace new values—like the spectacularly successful co-education movement of the 1960s. Maybe it should include a new dialogue about consent today. But universities should stop telling students that rules about affirmative consent define actual crimes of “sexual violence.” At most, universities administer limited civil infractions. They are not prosecuting crimes. Campus definitions of affirmative consent have been uniformly rejected as criminal law standards. While every sexual assault that could be prosecuted as a crime would meet the definition of sexual assault under campus conduct codes, the reverse is not even remotely true. 

If cases really involve sexual violence, they should be addressed by law enforcement. No one wants a world where genuine sexual violence is swept under the rug. But this is what universities do, holding themselves out to students as protectors simply by expelling actual violent offenders—who then return, free and at large, to society. Real criminals of course should go to jail. Yet the sex bureaucrats tell students they are saving them from “sexual violence” and “rape,” implying real crimes, when what they are really doing is punishing students who have violated, not the law, but rather a new set of campus sex norms. Schools also project the message that the Title IX office is a more welcoming place to report “sexual violence” than the criminal justice system. But this sympathetic environment exists—if it does—mostly because the Title IX offices prosecute conduct which isn’t strictly criminal. Universities should be honest about this, too.

Second, they should stop promoting fainting-couch culture. Alleged victims, we’re told, are too traumatized to submit to cross-examination. Really? Women outside the ivory tower didn’t get this memo, nor do witnesses to murder, kidnap victims, or victims of other traumatic crimes. These and similar myths propagate the message that college women are too frail to participate as full adults in civil society, another parallel to the Victorians. Universities should treat college women as strong enough to assert their rights in a free society as equals. 

Universities are free to promote sexual experimentation. But they should be honest that pushing norms and boundaries involves making mistakes. It’s the nature of experimentation that there will inevitably be regrets with something so intimate and personal as sex. This, however, should not be quasi-criminalized.

Finally, although universities should have the authority to enforce their own rules, including sexual misconduct, they should be honest about the fact that the values they seek to instil are neither intuitive nor even widely accepted. Instead, universities act as if they have discovered the importance of “consent” for the first time, a concept long established in criminal and civil law. It’s simply understood very differently beyond the ivory tower.

Schools should develop a nomenclature that reflects this fact. If students violate campus rules, schools may punish them. That doesn’t mean students should be expelled as sex offenders. Of course, if the conduct is a real crime, that’s a different story.

If schools want to radically re-define sexual agency, sexual mores, and consent, that’s their prerogative (within legal limits). Maybe they’ll succeed; maybe they won’t. But they shouldn’t create a generation of neo-sex offenders and neo-trauma victims to give birth to this brave new world.

 

Girls Night in 2025 / 1818 WMAF

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Chinese Sex Euphemisms

Via EUPHÉMISATION DES TABOUS LINGUISTIQUES / Sijia PANG

氧化钙 = 操 (Fuck)
鱼水之欢 = Sex
缴 械 投 降 = Erectile dysfunction
婊子, 野鸡, 鸡, 街头女郎, 公关小姐, 吧女, 按摩女郎, 发廊女, 三陪, 情感陪护小姐, 小姐 = Prostitute
掰直 = To turn a homosexual heterosexual
掰弯 = To turn a heterosexual homosexual
援交 = Student prostitution
黄片 = Pornography
约炮 = Booty call
首开/首次开工 = Prostitute seeing a customer for the first time
坚强 = To rape
嘿咻/嘿~嘿~嘿~ = To have sex
啪啪啪 = To have sex
鼓掌运动/为爱鼓掌/鼓掌 = To have sex
咳咳 = *censored* (to indicate the presence of pornographic content)
我咔 = I fuck [your mother]
鸡儿 = Penis
早泄 = Premature ejaculation
高潮 = Orgasm
炮妹子 = To have sex with women
插句话 (插菊花) = To insert [one's penis] in your anus
木耳 = Vaginal lips
鲍鱼 = Vulva
金针菇 = Small Penis
巨根 = Large Penis
公交车 = An easy woman
活塞运动 = The act of sex
炮友 = Fuck buddy
炮王 = Someone who has many booty call girls
送炮 = To deliver oneself of one's own accord as a booty call
骗炮 = To trick someone into a booty call
小车车 = Erotic content
绿 茶/圣母/白莲 = Female Prude
下半身 = Genitals
白帽 = Muslims
子宫 = Pregnancy
嘴巴服务 = Fellatio
岛国片 = Japanese Adult Videos (JAV)
滚床单 = To have sex
卖肉 = To prostitute oneself
肉文 = Erotic works (smut) as opposed to 清水文 (sexual literary works)
纯肉 = Erotic
偷尝禁果 = Teenage sex/masturbation
打开[潘多拉魔盒] = To have sex
断袖 = Homosexuality
获得了生命的大和谐 = To have sex
多人运动 = Orgy
走后门 = To have anal sex
一柱擎天/金枪不倒 = Erection
双管齐下 = Double penetration
插嘴 = To put [one's penis] in someone's mouth
下面 = Penis
雄起 = To get an erection
同房/房事/云雨 = The sexual act
xxoo/ooxx = To have sex/sex
插(菊)花艺术 = The technique of anal sex (sodomy)
凹凸 = To have sex
丁丁 = Penis
肉偿 = 肉体偿还 = Paying with your body
咪了个咪/喵了个咪/猫了个咪 = Your mother's genitals (妈了个屄)
我去年买了个表 = I fuck your mother (我去你妈了个屄)
老司机 = Someone who has a lot of pornographic movies and shares them with other people online
国产车 = Pornographic films from China
日韩车 = Japanese/Korean pornographic films
欧美车 = European/American pornographic films
高速 = Uncensored pornographic films

This excludes decomposition, e.g. 米青液 for 精液 (sperm), substituting English words, substituting English initials, pinyin, pinyin initials, homophones, emojis for words etc

Ridiculous Zuccs: Gender Queer

Facebook zucced me for posting a photo from the book "Gender Queer".

Facebook claimed that "it does not follow our Community Standards on nudity or sexual activity.

This is a ridiculous zucc because left wingers keep telling us that "book bans" of Gender Queer (i.e. not letting students have access to it in school) are unjustified and homophobic/queerphobic, and that there's nothing in it that's unsuitable for kids.

Malawi man dies after intense love-making session with sex worker

Malawi man dies after intense love-making session with sex worker

A man has reportedly died from an "extreme orgasm" after he passed out while having sex with a sex worker.

Malawi man Charles Majawa lost consciousness during sex with a woman in the district of Phalombe.

Local newspaper Nyasa Times reported the 35-year-old died shortly after doing the deed, with a post-mortem officially determining the cause of death as an "excessive orgasm".

The sex worker reported the death to police after speaking with her colleagues.

Police and a medical examiner from Migowi Health Centre viewed the body and confirmed the cause of death on August 18 last year.

A post-mortem report listed the cause of death as being due to "excessive orgasm which caused blood vessels in the brain to rupture".

Local newspaper Nyasa Times said the man "died of too much sexual excitement and sweetness".

Innocent Moses, a Phalombe Police Station spokesman, confirmed "Majawa booked a room with the sex worker", but "ended up collapsing and becoming unconscious while in the act".

Police said the woman wouldn't be charged over his death.

 

 

Horse Saddle / Seattle Streetwalker / Fridge

"Horse saddle
£150· Brough
Selling this horse saddle, dont have a horse so got my dad to model it. Good condition, strong buckles. Message me for more details .. Will deliver for small cost"

, @Zvbear: "I got nothing bad to say about Seattle after I seen the video with this street walker Need to find her so I could show her a better life"

"Works perfect I can deliver
$125. Victorville, CA
ge fridge *photos of fridge, and photo of woman's private parts*"

Penis Worship / Aristocratic Elegance / Penis Size and Intelligence

The Hellenist ☀️ @The_Hellenist: "Large penis worship is just another form of slave worship. Virtue and penis size are inversely proportional. Shaming men for having small penises is anti-European and anti-aristocratic. Enjoy your free lunch while it lasts, slaves. Your time in the sun is coming to an end." *African idol with big penis, Greek/Roman statue with small penis*

“Bad” Billy Pratt @KILLTOPARTY: "The aristocratic elegance of the small breasted woman" *Sadie Sink*
Loulou Gunner ❤️ @GunnerLoulou: "Can we do a post about men with small dicks?"

"BLACK. Big Penis Low Intelligence
WHITE. Small Penis Normal Inteligence
Asian. Very Small Penis Very High Inteligence
Women. No Penis No Inteligence"

My parents vs me at 30 / Kinky shit / Massage

"My parents at age 30
Woman: Let's have kids
Man: yes
Me at age 30
Man: 'Yeah man, stretch my wife's slutty holes with that big juicy cock'
Bull: 'I shall do my best sir'"
*Bunny Colby - The Cuckold And His Wife / 'Fuck My Wife While I Watch' / Exciting Times For Lovely Bunny*

"Looks like I underestimated how serious she was when she said she was into some kinky shit *female clown with plungers over breasts*"

"Massage session $50. Enjoyed with happy endings *drops of water*"

We booked Dad a hooker for Father's Day... and MUM turned up

Presumably fake:

AS THE NATION CELEBRATES THIS SPECIAL DAY SPARE A THOUGHT FOR THIS POOR FAMILY...

We booked Dad a hooker for Father's Day... and MUM turned up

RANDY George Thomas got the shock of his life when his boys paid for a HOOKER to cheer him up on Father's Day - and their MUM turned up!

The 54- year- old had suffered from depression since his divorce from Aileen, 50, seven years ago.

And when he admitted feeling lonely to his three teenage sons, they decided a bit of female company would be just the thing to cheer him up.

So last year the teenagers clubbed together to pay for a call girl, along with a slap- up meal and a hotel room for the pair.

Eldest son Adam, 19, said: "Mum walked out on us with no warning when we were kids. It was hard for Dad, having to bring up three young lads.

"He hasn't had a girlfriend since Mum left, not a sniff.

"When he confessed one night af- ter a few whiskies that he was lonely, we decided to do something about it." So along with Scott, 18 and Harry, 17, they decided to hook their old man up with an escort.

Adam said: "We booked a nice room at the local Premier Inn and a table at a nearby restaurant. Then we started looking at escort sites.

"We booked a woman who billed herself as 'The ultimate MILF'.

"Dad was furious when we told him what we'd done, but we eventually won him round and off he went."

But an hour later George stormed back home.

Adam added: "He was really angry. He eventually told us, Your so-called bloody hooker was your mother!

He said Mum even offered to give me a blowie in the toilets for old time's sake."

Adam then joked: "This year we'll be getting him a nice bottle of whiskey!"

The Piper Perri Difference / Hugging yourself / Jack's sketch for Rose

Normal Person: *normal female reproductive system*
Piper Perri: *super long vagina reaching up to her breasts*

"When you don't have someone to hug, so you hug yourself *Woman holding legs in sexual position*

*Jack on Titanic shows Rose a sketch*
*Jack doggy styling Rose with Django Unchained face*
*Shocked Rose, grinning Jack*

Lurkers / Ton of Pussy / Execution Device

"How you look in a meme group lurking but never posting or reacting *People with plastic cups of drink watching woman get railed in doggy style by guy*"

"Bruh ... When you said there'd be a ton of pussy here, this is NOT what I thought you meant *gorssly obese woman*"

"What' if you Are This Man *cowboy tied up with a flaccid penis with a pistol pointed at him, with naked woman in front of him, but with apparatus such that if he gets erect he'll be shot*"

Mandarin XXX Keyword Spam

I saw a Twitter account with a hilariously inappropriate name (not to mention a ridiculously long one) spamming replies, and decided to translate them (with some help), partly for the benefit of someone who doesn't understand Mandarin:

"幼女厕拍抄底顶臀街射足交偷窥迷奸足控恋足偷拍幼幼呦呦处女丝袜捡尸走光强奸反差|乱伦监控街拍主播
@Kimberl24555715
进群在线看片💃各种稀缺绝版⏰特殊资源都有！看不到群内容请联系http://t.me/UN711bot 中国人不骗中国人 全网唯一真实资源群主100T资源看过瘾 永久更新，跑路必死family✈️"

The Twitter name is a collection of sex-related Mandarin terms:

幼女 = young girl(s)
厕拍 = footage taken in the toilet (i.e. spycam)
抄底 = upskirt
顶臀 = the act of repeatingly bumping one's hardon against a woman's butt, usually in public transportation eg crowded trains/buses
街射 = sexually harassing a female in public until ejaculation, most commonly by bumping a woman's butt, but not necessarily just that. Can also refer to pervs spreading their semen in public areas eg handrails
足交 = footjob
偷窥 = peeping
迷奸 = raping using drugs/drug facilitated sexual assault
足控 = foot fetish
恋足 = foot fetish (this term is influenced by the Japanese equivalent)
偷拍 = spyshot
幼幼 = young girl(s)
呦呦 = young girl(s)
处女 = female virgin
丝袜 = silk stalkings
捡尸 = sex with passed out women (drugs or drink) you find in public places (Usually outside clubs/nightlife places)
走光 = zaogeng (being exposed in public but often )
强奸 = rape
反差 = contrast. Quiet-seeming girl who is wild during sex
乱伦 = incest
监控 = surveillance (CCTV/indoor camera footage of sex)
街拍 = snapshots of women in the street. street photography. not obscene but just taking candid photos/videos of pretty women
主播 = traditionally used to refer to news anchors, but in today's atmosphere can refer to a Twitch streamer, SNS (Social Network Star, a Korean term), OF girl, etc etc. Youtube doesn't count, usually livestreaming but not necessarily sexual in nature eg can just be games

论人该嫖

世事浑如春梦，韶光真似浮云。
人生聚散有何凭。瞬息青年可敬。
若论赏心乐事，无过月夕花晨。
从来柳陌胜蓬瀛。自古高人亲近。

Forehead Kiss / Menu / Villain Origin Story

"XVIDEOS
Forehead kiss
Free 36,947
Forehead kiss (36,947 results)"

Waitress: "Welcome!!
*Menu written on breasts*: "Shrimp fried Rice
Burger n fries
Costgo Hotdog
20 mins with maid
Chowmein
Butter Chicken
Oolong Tea
Kawfee
Milk (from source)
Pepzi
Chocolate Milk"

Clips For You 🔥 @ForYouClips: "The start of his villain origin story… *Man coming through door with balloon seeing woman being fucked from behind*"

Dysentry / Sucking Dicks / Facetime

"Your ancestors who died of dysentery watching you lick buttholes for funsies" *Cowboy Skeletor looking at Skeletor wiping his teeth after eating a woman's ass*

Woman's T-shirt: "I LOVE SUCKING DICKS WITH MY BUTTHOLE"

"I <3 FaceTime *woman sitting on man's mouth*"

Public Service Announcement from the WNBA (Women with Nice Boobs and Asses)

"We're in the club"
"Having a conversation"
"Everything is going great"
"And then your eyes start to wander"
"What is your deal, dude?"
"You have a choice, between these *eyes*, and these *breasts*"
"My breasts... are down here!"
"Every year in this country, women spend, like, 3 billion dollars on bras, so"
"Do you think think I'm wearing this bra because it's comfortable?"
"I want you to look at my tits"
"Look at my tits"
"Stare at my tits"
*Spanish*
"Why not?"
"Sure, there are times I wanna be taken seriously."
"Those times I don't wear this shirt"
"Meet my ladies. This is Gertude, and this is Stein"
"The nipples, are the eyes of the chest."
"Look me in the eyes. *opens top to reveal pixellated breasts* I dare you"
"Brought to you by WNBA (Women with Nice Boobs and Asses)"

The Myth of the Orgasm Gap

We are told that the orgasm gap - that lesbian and bisexual women have more orgasms than heterosexual women - is a great injustice. For example, one study (which used an online survey and which many articles on the "orgasm gap" cite) found that 86% of lesbian women usually-always orgasmed when sexually intimate, but only 65% of heterosexual women.

Yet, the observant reader might've noticed a complexity here: the proportion of sexual encounters during which one orgasms is not the same as the number of orgasms one has. So this term, "orgasm frequency" is potentially misleading.

The paper cited as evidence for the orgasm gap asked participants: "During the past month, how often did [you]/[your partner] reach orgasm when you and he or she were intimate?’’ (1 = Never, 2 = Rarely, 3 = About half of the time, 4 = Usually, 5 = Always). Participants could also indicate‘‘not applicable, we were not intimate,’’and these participants were excluded from the dataset."

So whether someone had sex once in the past month or every day in the past month, or even multiple times per day in the past month, is not reflected in the data. Nor are people who didn't have sex in the last month.

To estimate the total number of orgasms one had during sex in the past month, one could make certain assumptions.

To start with, based on Figure 1, Reports of own orgasm frequency during past month for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual men and women, among heterosexual women, 33% always orgasmed, 32% usually orgasmed, 17% orgasmed half the time, 10% orgasmed rarely and 8% never orgasmed (numbers don't add up to 100% due to rounding). Meanwhile, among lesbian women, 59% always orgasmed, 27% usually orgasmed, 8% orgasmed half the time, 3% orgasmed rarely and 3% never orgasmed.

Always orgasming could be assigned a 100% orgasm frequency, usually orgasming a 75% frequency, half the time 50%, rarely 25% and never 0%.

Based on these numbers, one could derive the probability of orgasm per session, like so:

Heterosexual women have a 0.68 probability of orgasming during sex, while lesbians have a 0.84 probability of such.

Note that this is the probability that a woman has at least one orgasm, so multiple orgasms would be reflected only once. The original paper does not talk about multiple orgasms, and in any case, Karen et al (2017) report that men had a greater desire to increase their frequency of multiple orgasms than women in mixed-sex relationships, who in turn reported a lower desire for multiple orgasm than women in same-sex relationships, so inasmuch as we are concerned about the "orgasm gap" as leading to lower sexual satisfaction (as opposed to just being a way to bash heterosexual men), multiple orgasm is relatively unimportant. Note the curious fact that while men orgasming more frequently is supposed to be an injustice to women, women actually have less of a desire for multiple orgasms than men, which is something I will come back to later.

Now, we need the other half of the equation - how often lesbian and heterosexual women have sex.

I found 2 studies on this - a 1983 book which was co-authored by Philip Blumstein and Pepper Schwartz (of course), but also a more recent 2021 one "debunking" lesbian bed death. In the latter, in the matched sample, 3% of heterosexual women reported having sex 8+ times per week, 8% 5+ times, 24% 3-4 times, 34% 1-2 times, 20% 2-3 times a month, 7% once per month, 4% once every few months and 0% no sex at all. The corresponding figures for lesbians: 2% of heterosexual women reporting having sex 8+ times per week, 5% 5+ times, 11 3-4 times, 34% 1-2 times, 25% 2-3 times a month, 12% once per month, 10% once every few months and 1% no sex at all.

Once again, certain assumptions must be made to get an average number of sex sessions per month (to match the former study, which asked about sex in the last month). Assuming, for simplicity, 4 weeks a month, 8+ times per week can be coded as 10 times a week, 5+ times a week as 6 times a week, 3-4 times a week as 3.5 times a week, 1-2 times a week as 1.5 times a week, 2-3 times a month as 2.5 times a month and once every few months can be 0.33 times a month.

We derive an average number of sex sessions per month for both populations, then multiple this by the probability of orgasm per session to derive a number of sex sessions with orgasms per month, as below:

As we can see, though lesbians are somewhat more likely to orgasm during sex than heterosexual women, because they have sex overall, heterosexual women are still having more sex sessions with orgasms than lesbians.

In any event, sex for women is not as orgasm-centric as it is for men, so it is curious how people go on about how much of an injustice the orgasm gap is. As noted earlier, women want multiple orgasms less than men, which suggests that orgasms are less important to women during sex than to men.

At least one paper also finds that "Women valued their partner’s orgasm more than their own", another found that "Lack of orgasm does not mean the absence of sexual enjoyment" and qualitatively, some women report that they can have good sex without an orgasm, or that not having an orgasm is no big deal. Similarly, women report diminishing marginal utility from increased orgasm consistency, which is why "women can still feel satisfied if they don’t orgasm all the time". Given that we know that women have sex for a lot more reasons than men do, all this is not surprising.

In short, the orgasm gap is a myth because straight women have more sexual episodes involving orgasms than lesbians, and anyway orgasms are not as important to women as to men.

Sexual Harassment, the Arab Spring and Social Decay

Responding to Lara Logan (wrongly labelled as Laura Logan):

Hussein Aboubakr Mansour on X

"How did it start?
I was living in Egypt at the time, and I remember these events somewhat vividly. The ubiquity of sexual harassment in Egypt was always one of the main issues that deeply distressed me about the country and made me disillusioned about the Arab Spring very quickly.

The beginning of the phenomenon of what came to be known in Arabic taharush gamae'e, or mass sexual harassment, can be actually pinned down with exactitude in the summer of 2006. The first major incident took place during the opening night of a movie called Alia al-Tarab. It was a spoof stupid film that had become the default of Egyptian cinema starting from the late 1990s. Vulgar films of very low quality that were more of a montage of scenes of vulgar comedy, crass music, sexual inuendos, and sexual suggestiveness primarily catering to the tastes and chauvinism of working-class young Egyptian men. It was likely the worst point of decline in the history of the Egyptian film industry, the oldest in the Middle East.

The main female character of the movie was the famous belly dancer named Dina, who was attending the opening night in a movie theater in downtown Cairo. This was Eid night, the first day of the holiday following Ramadan. According to the news reports I remember from the time, as Dina showed up in front of the theater, a commotion started in the large crowds of young men gathered around the theater. She suddenly started dancing in front of them, which led to an explosion of chaos that sent Dina running to take shelter in the theater, and left the aroused young men hunting in groups in the streets for women to sexually assault.

Dina denied the incident later (I'm surprised I remember all of this), but here are the facts: that night in downtown Cairo, several women, usually in the company of their families, were savagely sexually assaulted by groups of young random men. The group of men, through acts of chaos, would usually isolate their victim from her family, drive her to either a street corner or to the middle, and then proceed to assault her. This was the first time such thing, at least with such a high profile, ever happened: in the middle of downtown Cairo adjacent to Tahrir Square (think Times Square), where much of the Egyptian government and the police forces are headquartered, on an Eid night when a very large number of people is out, and with such barbarity.

This was a shattering incident. It was first called by the press su'ar gensi, or an explosion of 'sexual rabis', and it incensed public opinion. The days after, the Ministry of Interior denied that the incident ever took place, despite the footage, and accused al-Ahram, the government's own press outlet, of spreading false information. Others blamed Dina and the movie makers for the incident, accusing them of debauchery and spreading immorality amongst the youth. Bottom line, no actions were taken.

In the following years, the incidents started to increase at an alarming pace with the highest risk typically on national holidays or soccer matches, days in which large crowds are expected to be present. The victims were of every age and of every background: younger women, older women, veiled, unveiled, etc. The perpetrators also became diverse: older men, younger men, and more alarmingly, and in my opinion, more key to understanding this, large groups of male children as well. (We are talking 11 years old) The government seemed helpless to respond to this in any way, public order and morality seemed to be collapsing at an alarming rate, and the frequency created a sense of normalcy in which this became a part of life for which the term taharush gamae'e, or mass sexual harassment (really, assault) was coined. Women had to deal with it and calculate their moves in public as to minimize the risk to the largest extent.

Then came the events of the Arab Spring in 2011, during which Logan's incident took place. I personally witnessed it twice, once around Tahrir Square and once in Zamalek, an upscale Cairo neighborhood with a lot of embassies and Western residents. Later on, and following the waves of migration to the North, European cities will become familiar with the phenomenon.

I remember the first time I witnessed this in Tahrir Square and it is still very hard to put into words. It was like watching a zoological documentary on National Geographic. It erupted suddenly without signs when a large group of young men, whom I'm certain did not know each other nor did they coordinate in any verbal way, formed a large circle around a young woman to attack her. I was frightened, but I hesitantly got close due to a vague urge of something, maybe a hazy sense of duty, to do something. I got close enough to see the people's faces, and it was, without exaggeration, one of the most terrifying scenes in my life: they were human faces that were not human faces. The eyes were completely empty except from raw instinct in action, like the face of an animal. I found myself looking in the face of a human condition I never thought ever existed: a state of pure animal existence without a trace of humanity. My friends pulled me away afterward.

The second time, which took place in Zamalek, though much less dramatic for the girl was thankfully quickly rescued by a passing vehicle, I still also remember clearly, but for other reasons. I was with two good friends, Amir and Hala, leaving a seafood restaurant after dinner. It was maybe around June, so five months after the beginning of the Arab Spring. Amir and Hala were other fellow Tahrir Square protestors, the kind Obama hailed and featured in American media: middle class, Westernized, generically liberal, etc., the Bassem Youssef type. They were optimistic about "the revolution" and the Californian future awaiting Egypt, a view which, at that point, I no longer shared. I had become disillusioned and believed that Egypt, and the entire Middle East, was heading towards unmitigated disaster, in great part because of the collapse of public order and morality which led to this kind of sexual assaults.

I had spent dinner trying to convince them that the cause was already lost and that there was nothing to hope for. They, on the other hand, were optimistic, calmer, and very hopeful, playing down everything I said (being dismissed in this way seems to be my fate) They insisted I was exaggerating and unable to see the historically inevitable progress awaiting us (both of them now live in the West) and I insisted they were delusional. As we were exiting the restaurant, we saw the incident in which a large group of young men running after a young, pretty woman wearing a nice short dress (this was Zamalek) and it wasn't hard to guess what was going on. Thankfully, a car, I don't know if the driver knew the girl or not, sped through the men, let the girl in, and took off with speed. I didn't need their validation then.

Now, if you I got you to read this far, you must read the rest of what I have to say about this,
Followers of Western leftism, a despicable ideology, would have a hard time fitting this into their worldview they would usually deny its existence altogether. So would liberals, whose ideology became a form of intellectual retardation with its recently acquired delusional and infantile views on human nature. Those who are disposed to suspicion of Islam or Arab culture would happily blame it entirely on an eternal Muslim or Arab ethos. As a person who lived it, I find all to be delusional.

This kind of truly barbarous, anti-social, and uncivilized behavior was actually a new development in Egypt, traditionally the most modernized and middle-class Arab society for most of the 20th century, and was, until 2006, unknown and unimaginable. Egypt was not a feminist society by any Western measure. Sexual harassment and assault, including street cat-calling, existed long before. Yet, and until my teenage years, it was still a largely civilized society. There were clear codes of public civility and morality; some derived directly from religion, some from modern Western bourgeois morality, and much from social norms of family relations, the honor institution, neighborly conduct, and settled ethical norms.

These ethical systems had their own structure of social authority, which most people intuitively obeyed. Again, it was not perfect, nor did it conform fully to Western standards; for instance, a man could slap his wife in public in case of an argument (not that it was very common) and expect little interference. But such public demonstrations of sheer cruelty and sexual barbarity was something that went through every grain of public order, morality, religiosity, and social expectations. Their explosion was a sign, not of the presence of a certain system of non-Western morality, but the erosion of one along with traditional authority, law and order, and the collapse of entire systems of civilizing restraints.

It is an important story not because it exposes some essential barbarity at the heart of Muslim or North African men, but a story of a society that went through a process of decivilization and in which it's institutions were no longer capable of transmitting its capital of social knowledge and psychological inner restraints, and regulated releases, to the low strata of its members. It is inseparable from the story of social implosion, state collapse, and proliferation of ever more cruel forms of violence in many parts of the region. Reducing the entire issue to 'culture' or 'Islam' is not just unfair to the people, (screw fairness) but it blinds us to understanding how a process of drastic civilizational and social erosion can happen at such a speed. The pundits who keep selling you easy answers, neat explanations, full packages, etc. are mostly lying to you and do not know what they are talking about. Understanding what happened to Arab societies since the disaster of decolonization until today and the leftist revolutionary culture wars (already happened in the MidEast in the 1950s and which the Arab left won decisively) and the revolutionary gradual destruction of every psychological restraint and social institution could be your cautionary tale about what is happening to Western societies today.

Lastly, and more importantly, these terrifying and beasts of men I watched in these terrifying episodes were still human. They were as human as myself and as every other human I met in my life from all faiths and races. If Western liberalism wants to become a pathetic lie, offering the Western youth a rosy image of a Disneyland human nature, its a lie that no self-respecting person should participate in. Civilization and socialization, things that are easier lost than gained, are the most precious accomplishments of any society, but they are accomplishments nevertheless. We are not born with them. We inherit them, we appropriate them, we take part in them, and we preserve them. They are things that arise not from design but from accumulated experience through countless lives in the past. To squander such an inheritance for the sake of a lie is the worst self-betrayal one could ever commit.

This life experience of mine is the reason I do believe in the possibility of progress but also of regress, and I consider any Western ideology that believes in laws or inevitability of progress to be nothing but the lies of of empty minds and shallow souls."

Clearly, making any link between this and allegations that Muslim migrants in Europe are linked to sexual harassment is racist and xenophobic, so Hussein Aboubakr Mansour needs to be deplatformed and prosecuted for hate speech.

Addendum:

Hussein Aboubakr Mansour on X

"Since this got around, I have a few more thoughts on the issue, and I wish you read and share if you did with the first tweet.

Sexual perversity is not a unique trait of this or that culture. Sexual perversity, as a form of pathology and ill-socialization, exists in every society with varying degrees and exists on individual levels, which is often the form that may be scientifically called pathological. And since I'm not a postmodernist or a Marxist, I would say that despite that there are apparent ambiguities and variations in how each society regulates its sexual life, there is most certainly sexual pathology and perversity that are universally recognized as so in the overwhelming majority of organized social units almost at all times. Incest, rape, self-mutilation, excessive promiscuity, bestiality, asexuality, etc., are some of the clear examples. There are, of course, caveats and exceptions. For instance, asexuality is normally considered perverse; however, as a religious vow or a monastic path, it becomes a sign of holiness. In many Muslim societies, marital rape is not considered rape, but that is exactly the point: it is not identified as rape, yet the very category of rape, as a form of anti-social and perverse behavior, exists intact.

Having said all of that, Western societies have been showing alarmingly increasing signs of mass sexual perversity, such as excessive pornography (in fact, I'm convinced American-made porn in which the world is awash is an important factor in the behavior of those young Egyptian men), the obsession with transsexuality, turning sex into identity and meaning-making mechanism, and the insertion of these sexual perverse obsessions into early child education leading to the genital mutilation of children. These are some of the forms of the current prevalent eroticism in the West, a post-Christian ideology that seeks to fill the void of religion, community, and meaning through the deification of human libidinal vitality, which is ironically leading to self-castration.

One could claim that these forms of sexual perversities are qualitatively different than the ones I mentioned earlier in Muslim society, for they do not entail any cruel violence on par with what happens in many parts of the Muslim world. It is an objection that I'm willing to concede to (after all, I prefer to live here and not there), but only partially. The qualitative difference is a matter of degree and form, not of substance, and which may develop in many directions (I'm trying to explain a developmental story, not an essentialist one). A mob of young Muslim men attacking a female is indeed a high degree of cruel, inhumane violence, but isn't letting a child irreversibly damage their body through hormone treatment and surgical genital mutilation also a form of cruel social violence? It is a highly rationalized, technicality, structured, ordered, and methodological violence: the suggestible child is influenced by school teachers and Tik-Tok, the parents are promised a special kind of social prestige if they become the guardians of a trans angel, the pharmaceutical industry capitalized on the profit, and the politician finds new delusions to sell. A medical professional administers purposefully damaging toxins and eventually holds the scalpel in a very sanitized and hygienic environment to remove the breasts of a young girl or the penis of a young man. Very orderly, very neat, and very civilized form of cruel and dystopian violence.

Again, I recognize the qualitative difference between the two forms, yet I'm not sure that it makes the social outcome any better or that it is not another manifestation of a similar process of social disintegration and moral collapse as the one that happened in the last century in many Muslim societies. As a matter of fact, I actually believe it's a continuation of the same process of social disintegration, which, due to the internal weaknesses of many Muslim societies, happened at an alarmingly rapid pace and in the forms we saw.

This then brings us to the question of religion and Islam. I receive a lot of disapproving comments and notes about how I talk about Islam and its role. Even the majority of educated and liberal Arabs became utterly committed to the idea that Islam is the source of all evil. What I have to say about this is the following: these sexual evils, including what we saw on Oct 7th and with ISIS, are manifestations of Islam as much as transsexualism and pornography are manifestations of Christianity. As a matter of fact, the degeneration that happened to religion in the Middle East at the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Ayatollahs, the Salafis, etc., was part of the process of social and moral disintegration, and ultimately, so is this universal condemnation of Islam itself, which I situate within a historical development which started with revolutionary decolonization. The rising state brutality in places like Egypt, Syria, and Iraq, the Arab high-culture elites selling out their entire society to the international left and infesting their societies with pathologies of anti-Americanism and antisemitism, Western universities pumping out Arab intellectuals brainwashed with various forms of Western leftism, the rise of Salaism, which might have been conservative in its original Saudi context, to deconstruct social units and breakdown social solidarities to recreate austere individuals and societies, and complete American incompetence in dealing with the region are some of the conditions which must be taken into account if there is any sincere attempt to understand the conditions of the Middle East of today.

Lastly, Americans, and many if not Jewish elites have been particularly unhelpful, if not outright harmful, in this story. To understand what I mean by this, you must first assume my viewpoint. For the sake of the argument, assume I was right. Assume that the problem wasn't an essentially tribal, violent, anti-Western, or antisemitic Arab or Muslim culture, but a dynamic development that came to be in the 20th century due to a factorial complex of causes which includes the Western university, modernization efforts, etc. What did most American and Jewish elites who are concerned with the Middle East do (if they were not leftist) but write books about the Arab Mind, 7th-century Arabian battles, and medieval Islamic theology, Bin Laden's Muslim theology, how hopelessly militant Islam is, etc.? What would the result be but contributing further to the factors of progressive social disintegration and political collapse? I understand that this might be a disturbing possibility for many, that good American men, Jews and none, who wanted to make the world better actually helped it to become worse, and that is exactly how I see it, but without any moral condemnation. As a matter of fact, I prefer to work with many such people to help correct their views.

I do not claim that I understand these issues well. Actually, I admit fully that I do not understand at all how society or history works. However, I'm also certain that most of are so confidently speaking on these issues are even much more ignorant than I am. This is why I can not in good conscience be quiet when I see people so enthusiastic about people like Mosab Hassan Youssef going around talking about Islam as an evil mental illness. Not because I want to defend Islam, I'm not Muslim, but because a person like him, a story like his, should actually typify the story of social disintegration I'm trying to talk about: terrorism and political upheaval destroying human lives, the most basic family relations, intimate bonds, social cohesion, and the very religious and moral foundation of a society. "Islam is an evil mental illness" is just another advanced station on the train of "capitalism is evil" and "Zionist conspiracy," "American imperialism," etc. the same way the the destruction of the sexual organ and vitality themselves was an advanced station on the train of "sex is meaning and identity.""