The Anarchism of Men, Women, and Relationships

Dita von Teese inspired photo of Shibari or Kinbaku art

[For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary – Ed]

The photo is courtesy of reader, commenter, post contributor, and 41-yr young mother of three (here and here, too), “SSS.” It was taken by a local professional photographer with an interest in expanding her portfolio to include artsy nudes. Though given permission to use her full name, a mere reference is sufficient. The photo serves to kick off the theme.

I wonder how many who saw that first, before having any idea of the context, formed an impression about SSS largely based on various societal “norms,” ideological conditioning, and/or their own experiences. The prejudgment could even be “good” or “bad” which is to say, existentially baseless either way. The fact is, you don’t know anything about her.

But if you read about her life, values, and ideas in those posts and comments linked, does it change your initial impression? How about more data? See here, written by someone who knows her.

There is a woman that longs for a good, strong, dominant man. She lives in the middle of fly-over country and it seems she has her head screwed on right. She has taken the Red Pill and is tired of encountering wussy men.

Sexual Objectification

The old saw, isn’t it? Tantamount to the Doctrine of Original Sin, in Feminist ideology. As self-contradictory as it is, so is it with Feminism and objectification.

Everything outside of your (subjective) self is an object.  My hands are subjects, to me. To you, they’re objects. We all account for objects all the time. We regard, treat them, value them in different ways in different times, places, contexts. We form ideas and judgments about objects. We trade objects and we engage in trade with objects. We depend on many objects and many objects depend on us.

But these are all choices over circumstances within the ebbs and flows of life. We never have the luxury of taking some objects for granted, even inanimate ones—which is why routine maintenance against decay and wear is prudent.

Expressed or implied by hard-line Feminist ideology is that to sexually “objectify” any woman is to sexually “objectify” all of them. But, prima facie, some men and women desire such explicit sexual objectification between them. Demanded is that such relationships or trade—such as dollars for skin, in pornography or prostitution—be condemned or even outlawed by state force.

I’m a person. I’m a female. I have feelings. I demand validation.

Trade is essential in all of this and in all human prosperity. If you want someone to regard you as more than just another object walking down the street, what have you got to trade for that extra special attention in return? It’s really that simple, and every single effort to end-run that mutual exchange of value—where each party to the trade gives up something they have—because they want it less than what they could have in exchange—is rooted in a desire to get something for nothing.

Here are some different perspectives on sexual objectification from a couple of old timers.

Andrea Dworkin:

Female knowledge of objectification usually stops at a necessary but superficial understanding: beauty is rewarded and lack of beauty is punished. The punishments are understood as personal misfortune; they are not seen as systematic, institutional, or historical. Women do not understand that they are also punished through sexual use for being beautiful; and women do not understand the lengths to which men go to protect themselves and their society from contamination by ugly women who do not induce a lustful desire to punish, violate, or destroy, though men manage to punish, violate, or destroy these women anyway.

Camille Paglia:

“Turning people into sex objects is one of the specialties of our species.” In her view, objectification is closely tied to (and may even be identical with) the highest human faculties toward conceptualization and aesthetics.

I guess you can figure out which one I think is dealing with reality as it is, and which one has issues motivating a fantasy “idealism.”

Here’s the rub on all of this, at least to me. Is it really, really that women don’t want to be the sexual object of someone they may be really attracted to? No, they want to be a sexual object—whether or not they’ve done everything they can to be sexually attractive*—but they don’t want to bother with the normal social dynamics where such attraction often isn’t mutual.

(* I acknowledge that genes don’t deal a fair game. But that goes for both genders. What appears not to be the same for both genders is that one of them is not whining to be declared BEAUTIFUL when most people don’t find them that way.)

They want it both both ways.

So let’s say sexual objectification is just a fact of reality. If so, and it’s clear to me that it is, then repulsion is just as valid. That’s always been how society worked this stuff out: repulsion, attraction. In the end, the whole objectification thing strikes me as just a desire to have one’s cake and eat it too.

Female Entitlement and Affirmative Action

Here’s an “extreme” view, I believe from someone who has commented here; CL, a woman, incidentally: Tits or GTFO (a.k.a. How Women Ruin Everything). Some heavy excerpts.

Why is it that women can never apologise for anything? And why is it that when they come into a male space, they take it over?

Too many women will waltz in and expect to engage everyone, with no sense that perhaps they should just hang back once they’ve had their say if they even have it. They talk and talk and talk, derailing conversations, going off-topic usually to talk about themselves, until all that’s left is a room full of clucking hens and all the smart guys eventually get fed up and leave.

They want to be considered equals yet prove they do not deserve it both by showing that what they really want is to be up on that pedestal and that they are incapable of rational thought. They will act like they are having a debate on equal footing, but they don’t know when to back down, so they try to out-talk everyone until everyone gives up and the place is in shambles. That is considered a victory, because it’s all about winning, not learning anything.

If the kudos are not forthcoming, this is the way it goes with women. If the kudos are forthcoming, she will move on to the next man, looking for more, because she needs every man to think she is wonderful and it still won’t satiate her vampire soul because the one man she wants it from won’t give it to her. Yet she claims she doesn’t tingle for aloof alpha males. It is never about the words a woman says; scratch the surface and you find the patterns of behavior. […]

So, perhaps a new policy for women should be, since they refuse to apologise or drop anything, tits or GTFO.

If a woman is making no sense and adding nothing to the discussion, while making it all about her, defending other women, being a special snowflake and NOT wanting to learn anything, she is a liability and worthless in that forum, so she has reduced her worth to only sexual.  Therefore, she should just be sexual and show her tits to show she has something to offer.

Men do not do this to women; women do it to themselves. Due the their lame, banal talking, they show they are only good for sex. Showing her tits is a humbling and reminds her of her worth. With any hope, it makes her think and realise that in order to be more than a sexual object, she must STFU or prove herself able to be rational.

I am embarrassed for my sex. It makes me cringe to see how they ruin everything once they get their claws in, and how little they really seem to care for men and male spaces. We all want our own spaces free of drama. Perhaps they don’t realise that it is they who create all the drama, but apparently this is what women seem to want.

How many men don’t resonate to the bone marrow with that, in experience over time, tracking back to the advent of the Entitlement Revolution? This is not by any means all or most women. Otherwise, we’d all have committed suicide, by now. For what it’s worth, I’ve experienced many men who do essentially the same thing.

I’ll not make a single excuse and will affirmatively condemn the awful ways in which women have been treated and subjugated throughout Neolithic history, where in many places, the evil persists to this day.* The absolute cost of this treatment has been born by the women who suffered merely for being women. The secondary cost was born by society, Neolithic society. Imagine, for example, if women had been seen as equals in intelligence and creativity and inventiveness since the dawn of this age. Twice the societal brain power and a complimentary creative perspective would have been the norm. Had it been like that, much suffering would have been averted…and perhaps we’d all be reading about man and woman having gone to the moon hundreds of years ago, in old history books…

(* Principally by your religious institutions. Let me ask: how come the church doesn’t still burn or advocate burning women at the stake for the high treason of asserting her “God given” mind? Your institution is based upon divine doctrines, right? So are they  living doctrines, like the US Constitution; did God change his mind? Is he a reformed sadist? Where’s the Divinity in it?)

But there’s one…no, two…bugaboos. Were YOU personally brutalized, subjugated, tortured against your will? Or, are you merely claiming damages on behalf of those who actually did suffer, even die? The second bugaboo is that you’re not going after the actual perpetrators, most long dead. …But there’s no money or affirmation in them, is there?

Collectivization is the real cancer underlying all of this in a Neolithic social context; i.e., the politically energized and agitated demand for State involvement, which means: to get and keep the State in the marketplace of selling votes for entitlement. Votes are traded for the State to affirmatively act in getting more and more women, more and more of what they deserve less and less of. Why then work to trade and earn your sexual, business, or whatever recompense, if you can manage to get behind a big enough mob…so you can toss the smaller mob into the cannibal pot and have a feast?

Collective objectification and entitlement in the feminist sphere looks something like this to me:

Guy #1 to Guy #2: “Fuck you, asshole; cocksucker.”

Guy #2: “Oh, he doesn’t like me. Or, he’s pissed at me for some reason. Or, maybe I said something stupid. Or….hey, no! Fuck You!”


Guy #1 to Woman #1: “Shut up, cunt.”

Woman #2: “He called you a cunt. He hates women. Classic misogynist.”

Woman #1: “Thank you. Thank you. I was worried that it might be about me! Thank you. It  ’explains’ everything.”

Who wins and who loses? Woman #2 “wins,” and the real unfortunate loser is woman #1, persuaded and cajoled against any measure of self evaluation by peer pressure, with ideological standing, now. …And that, my friends, is what so many of my formerly feminist commenters have been identifying in comments over and over; in essence: “hey, if you thought men were bad, wait until you really understand the feminists.”

Or, they figured out where they were really getting screwed, and where the real love and devotion was to be had. In the end, this has nothing to do with women on whole. It has everything to do with some individual women being unwilling to have feelings hurt, be maligned, insulted or any number of other non-violent things cross their path. So this gets misdirected into an offense against all women collectively. We are the world! One for all and all for one!

Anarchy: Misogyny, Misandry, Men, Women, Alphas, Betas, Extroverts, Introverts, and Binary Thought

ItsTheWoo kinda let the cat outta the bag already, though not directly at me in my bait trap I set last night as a prelude to this post.

The great thing about being a free independent human being is you don’t have to default to these binary characters of “hard nosed masculine butch miserable bitcH” or “submissive woman child-in need of male support and assistance for all tasks”. You can *gasp* create your OWN identity and personality. Instead of wearing some random personality like a mask, why don’t you search inside of yourself and figure out who you are and what you want?

ItsTheWooo serves as an example for a good deal of what I’ve written thus far. I completely objectify her. She’s an object to me: a bloger, comments of hers I’ve read going way back, and we’ve even gone after each other in blogs—on hers and mine, and in comments. She never demanded any apology from me, nor I from her. She’s never entitled herself over what I do, nor I of her, and I don’t have to give up ownership of my blog domain to her in reparations, nor hers to me.

But I was, and still am, admonished to objectify her beyond that. She’s “this x,” and “that y,” all from people who have basically only ever read her in comments on blogs, or have read her skilled, often funny stream of consciousness rants on her own blog. Have any of them had lunch or cocktails with her? No. Seen her in action at work? No. Gone out on the town? No. Spent a weekend away? No. And no. And no. And no.

She has never lied to me. Hey, if she can call me a prick or a dickhead, or whatever else and I let it go, why would she need to? Having a thick skin is the best defense against people lying to you; day in, day out.

Wooo chose to pop into comments here recently for whatever reasons of her own, and with quite a roar, if you ask me. I disagree with her on a million things. I agree with her on 2-3 things (1st joke of the post). She makes me think a million times. It’s a simple lesson, to me. That someone begins as an object to you and will always be an object to you in fact, doesn’t mean you can’t explore that object more thoroughly; doesn’t mean you can’t find abiding value in that object. And it doesn’t have anything to do with any other individual, male or female. Nothing any female does, no injustice any female endures has the slightest relevance to Wooo in terms of how I, an individual, can deal with and value her.

In two comment threads last week on two guest posts—one on women stepping up their game, and the other by the enviable nude backside that leads off this post—intense, huge discussions began between A.B. Dada, Elenor, and ItsTheWoo. Or, I should say, total Anarchy and CHAOS! broke out. Why do I say that? You can pick through all of what ought really be a book on relationships from three different perspectives, and you will not find a scintilla of evidence that suggests people ought do anything but get off their asses and work this shit out for themselves. No elections were called for. No troops were called in. No Hobgoblins were summoned forth to menace and agitate the masses (they’re all previously engaged through November 6th).

Dada is a successful guy who, in addition to his businesses and international travels and homes, coaches both guys and gals on how to increase their Sexual Market Value respective to the opposite sex. Elenor does likewise for women, but doesn’t call it that. Wooo adds the perspective of Neolithic Institutional conditioning, and norms and such: with rant, ridicule and acid. Others contributed as well. I dare you to find that there’s not a lot to think about. Thesis. Antithesis. Synthesis. That’s Anarchy. The Dialectic. You don’t need a ruler. You need smart people, and I dare say that in terms of social dialectic, you find them here for virtually every post.

They’re speaking of something that involves the most basic aspect of human existence: men, women, relationships, fucking, and babies…and the very important care that goes into all of it. It makes the world go round to the general delight of 7 billion people. …But let’s be negative instead. Women get insulted sometimes. Stop The World!

All of this alpha, beta, misogyny, misadry, men, women, (x)verts, relationships et al,  is a spectrum of basic human antagonism. Virtually nobody is full anything; it’s just men and women in the practice of their lives. All these traits are distributed, and most fall in various ranges of alpha and beta, introvert and extrovert—and misogyny and misandry are the terms used by manipulators and purveyors of deception to label whomever they dislike or wish to smear.

Antagonism—short of force and violence—is a healthy human dynamic that makes us grow in knowledge, experience and understanding. While imperfect and too often unjustly enforced, prohibitions against force and violence have stood in principle since The Enlightenment. This illustrates why principles are important. We can refer to it, and everyone knows it.

Conversely, entitlement and affirmative action were not principles of Enlightenment at all, and in fact run counter. Such “progressive” notions are contradictory to Enlightenment principles in general because they require State force and violence be imposed upon some individuals in order to benefit others unjustly.

Are there really, really many males or females who really, really hate and loath the opposite gender? Really? Or, is there a healthy antagonism and and unhealthy antagonism…one of which serves to drive them closer together in deeper understanding, as something that can only be approached, but never fully understood—an eternal, beautiful mystery—or one which seeks imperatively to drive them apart…and don’t forget the middleman?

Was feminism essentially a well-sought-after relationship coach, or a refuge for those who failed at relationships and weren’t willing to look inside? With the world’s population at 7 billion and counting, it doesn’t seem that mutual gender hating is much of a problem outside of the desire for the unearned and undeserved. There are outliers, of course, and they are preponderately males; but in general, men love women and women love men…and it makes the world go round and round, spinning off babies. And a wealth of genuine care.


Women: I’m a man. In my life since about 16, I’ve spent more time, effort, money and even opportunity cost on women than everything and anything else combined. You know what else? Every single one of those women earned it; they had values I wanted, in themselves, more than all that stuff, even some personal aspirations.

Let’s cut to the chase and stop the pathetic lying and collectivization, debutante and size 16 bunched panties: It’s you I hate. And it’s extremely hard to get me to do that. However, its because you are detestable in every way I can imagine. Not women: YOU. Got it?

Stop deflecting and collectivizing the blame you deserve and own yourself. Hate me first and last if you like. I don’t give a fuck in the world. But I hate you; just you, not another woman in the world I can think of. Because, you deserve my hate, in my eyes. CL, the woman in that linked piece above? To a T pegged the sorts of women you are, individual women. I was willing to let this go forever ago. You? Never, ever, and if you look in the post where I pointed out that the debutante is just another liar, it was exactly predicted she would never let this go.

…And do have some decency and stop implicating that AHS volunteer you’ve mercilessly propped up and used to transparent ends, ends that are yours only yours. Who sent her flowers in sympathy? A gift card for a nice dinner? Encourage anyone else to do so? Ah, I see. Thought so.

…So we all objectified her, eh? I did so honestly, with unabashed indignation over the ideas, sarcastically. You did so dishonestly, pretending you were doing every thing else but that.

Update: Owing to valid criticisms, I went back in and cleaned this up in terms of flow, coherency, redundancy, diversion, clarification, elaboration, clarity, so on and so forth etc etc. Nothing has been materially changed from the original meaning.

[For an update, please see: Lemons to Lemonade Documentary – Ed]

Since Covid killed my Cabo San Lucas vacation-rental business in 2021, this is my day job. I can't do it without you. Memberships are $10 monthly, $20 quarterly, or $65 annually. Two premium coffees per month. Every membership helps finance this work I do, and if you like what I do, please chip in. No grandiose pitches.


  1. dr. gabriella kadar on September 2, 2012 at 17:57

    The only dificulty I have with the picture is she can’t get the cigarette to her lips. That’s a drag. Or not.

    • ladysadie1 on September 2, 2012 at 18:20

      It’s a fine way to stop smoking, Dr. Kadar! ;)

      • dr. gabriella kadar on September 2, 2012 at 19:35

        Clearly the content of the photograph is the main thing. I’m sure you are quite excited to have it ‘out there’. I did the same thing years ago of a professional art shot taken when I was 16. That was a lot of fun because a.) my body was fabulous and b.) I’m almost 55 now and not recognizable as the 16 year old naked person in the photograph. Mind you, I didn’t do it because I wanted a man at the time. Just did it as a means of encouraging other people at that forum to be more courageous and get themselves ‘out there’. The forum had more hits than ever in its history. I guess that was predictable.

        The photograph in its entirety though could be better. The hands appear to indicate either an acknowledgement of bondage or a desire to free them. The smoke in the left hand appears as unfinished business.

        The aesthetics of the picture are okay but not great. I suppose the suggestion of movement a less static pose might take away from the concept of the bondage. I don’t know. I’d have to see something where there was less of a still pose implied.

        Richard’s writing beneath the picture, I can’t follow. So I don’t understand the point or points he is trying to make.

        As to objectification though, we can do a great job of objectifying ourselves as we have by having photographs taken like this one and so long as there is an aesthetic, there’s absolutely nothing objectionable about them.

        Will this exposure achieve the desired result? That’s only something time will tell.

        And now, I’m lighting a smoke. ;)

      • ladysadie1 on September 2, 2012 at 19:42

        The entire photo (hand position, the cigarette and all) is a copy of another, more famous photo. I assure you the motives behind the photo were in no way to ‘catch a man’. I do appreciate your take on it. It is just a picture to me, but I don’t want to get into that here in a public forum.

    • Craig on September 3, 2012 at 11:37

      I was getting aroused until I saw the cigarette. :(

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 11:50

        I am in utter amazement that the cigarette (which I obviously can’t smoke in that photo) is garnering more attention than the bondage… Again, it is a copy of a photo from this book: Whether or not you care for the photo isn’t the point. The post clearly has to do with objectification and isn’t an advisio about the dangers of smoking, nor, by the way, was it an attempt to cause your arousal. It is topical, and nothing else. Sorry to deflate your, ahem, expectations!

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 11:57

        I prefer Kents myself . . .

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 12:21

        Beer and smokes? You might need coffee later:

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 12:07

        RG, nicely done. Laf. That is a Marlboro, and wild woman that I am, it’s even a menthol! (Oh, the humanity!)

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 12:12


        nothing like a nice smoke and a cold bottle of Schlitz . . .

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 12:28

        classic . . .almost looks like she’s enjoying it . .

        nothing like a little corporal punishment to keep a marriage interesting

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 12:30

        Agreed. What happened to that? Oh, yeah, feminism ruined it.

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 11:53

        As Richard will confirm, the cigarette was the first thing I noticed, and the sexiest.

        The determination of forced submission (what likely creates the most “offending”) is Abrogated with the cigarette (ie, “she’s not a slave!”).

        Without the freedom described by the cigarette, the premise of the photo is decisively different. Weak+strong is much more erotic, mentally.

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 12:04

        Interesting take, AB. The thing about this type of bondage is that there can be nothing forced about it. It takes time, skill, and a willing subject. In my case, that was a photographer’s assistant, and we laughed our way through it. Shibari, in general, is also a type of bondage that is NOT intended to lead to sex. It is strictly about the skill of the person doing the binding. Whether the intention is to admire the beauty of the ropework or the bound subject, depends on context.

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 12:10

        I never look at erotic art as sexual in nature always.

        “Eros” has roots meaning sexual desire but also sensual desire, and I think one can appreciate erotic art from all the senses, including the logical mind.

        I approach art with two viewpoints: “what is the artist’s story here?” and “what is my involvement in this story?”

  2. Rachel B. on September 2, 2012 at 18:09

    Hmm. I was all set to get outraged at you over this post, but then I realized that I can’t really figure out exactly what it is about. It’s got a lot of wacky stuff in it, sure. (Especially the excerpts from “Tits or GTFO.” Wow, that is one creepy post. I don’t care what sexyparts the OP had. It’s just creepy.) But I really can’t figure out if you’re trying to bash feminists, or perhaps justify feminism, or justify objectification between sexes(oddly, I sort of agree with you there), or throw some hate on that chick at paleodrama, or just portray yourself as a dude who really loves women. Or perhaps you just felt a need to throw a few “cunts” around the Interwebs today in case anybody got to sit down and relax for a moment there. I think your overall outrageousness would be more politically effective if your message was a bit more coherent.

    I guess what I’m saying is, you’re always super entertaining, Richard, but please don’t let yourself turn into the weird drunk uncle at the Ancestral Health holiday party.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 18:23

      Rachel B

      Kind of a funny comment. Sounds like I gave you a lot to think about if you want to.

      I never, ever deal in bromide, slogan, or any other sort of programmed, automatic thinking. Virtually everyone else does, which has the virtue of making articles easy to skim, because you always know what’s coming even though they take every measure to fake it.

      I never fake it.

      I’ll take on every single real argument, too.

      • Rachel B. on September 2, 2012 at 18:53

        Well, as I said, I sort of agree with you about the whole mutual objectification situation. It’s sadly obvious that neither gender is at all interested in stopping objectification! In fact, despite all protestations to the contrary, both genders continually ratchet up the standards of desirability and work ever harder to be considered desirable, no matter how wacky and out-of-reach the standards may become. So I agree: trying to stop objectification or even spending a lot of energy on protesting it does have a certain flavor of spitting into the ocean.

        And I visit your blog specifically to find things to think about. It’s no fun only reading blogs I already agree with, after all. But this post. . . I was not just trolling you, man. It’s incoherent and I really can’t tell what your actual message is. How can I have a nice argument with you if I can’t figure out what you are saying?

        And now I must bust on you a wee bit. You just said that you don’t deal in programmed, automatic thinking. Come on, man. Feminist-bashing is the most programmed, automatic thinking ever. It’s so old-school. It’s like mom jeans for your public persona. It just makes you look sort of frumpy and out of touch. You’re really capable of producing good stuff! Why would you resort to lazy, boring remarks about what an awful, soul-destroying bunch of cows the feminists are? That is so very yawn-inducing at this stage of the game. I want to see you in my mind as a sexy Alpha male, Richard. But when you have your anti-feminist mom jeans on, you just seem. . . I dunno. . . sort of Beta. Please sex it up for me with some original thought next post, huh? I’ll be waiting. (Oh, hey, look, there I am objectifying you. You’re right, this IS fun.)

      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 19:20


        There is a lot of background to this. I’d have never really thought to do a post about feminism, but there’s so much nonsense out there. Sure, it’ll go away eventually one hopes.

        But if I’m going to hit on something with so much history, then I do it right.

        It reminds me of religion. Lot of history there too, but everyone’s history is different. So I do a post on religion, and I get both “old history, why do you bother” and “thank you, I finally understand.”

        I just wish commenters would sometimes realize that they aren’t they only readers and unlike a media outlet, I have no concern for demographics. Instead, I write to what either interests me or concerns me in the spectrum of time. So sometimes it’s written in very simle terms and other times, in terms that seen incoherent to some, insightful to others.

        When I first began reading the philosophers back in 1990, I literally could not understand what I was reading, in spite of a college education with my best grades in English and writing. Rather than assume it was them, I just figured it was a matter of experience and what I was used to, I kept at it and it took not weeks, but days. And before long, I could write with similar structures.

        I had a similar issue trying to read medical studies and I got my absolute best marks in technical report writing. I just kept reading them and now it’s a breeze.

        I don’t want to be condescending, but I assure you that what I wrote is quite coherent. That doesn’t mean you have to agree with it

      • Rachel B. on September 3, 2012 at 05:43

        I had to go to bed and catch some sexytime so I didn’t read this post last night. But you gave me a nice laugh over my breakfast. Wonderful response! Managing to politely call me an under-educated light-weight while simultaneously placing your own writing in the same category as the greatest philosophers — now that’s a masterful paragraph. Good work. Very entertaining!

        Anyway, I went back and read your edited post again and even enlisted the assistance of my dear husband. It was like a little Free The Animal study session up in here!

        Once we drilled down into the meat of your post, the meaning emerged. We felt that you were trying to say that people can only relate as individuals, and that therefore it’s nonsensical for any group or organization to try to forcibly change or legislate interactions. That’s actually quite Buddhist: each individual is enmeshed in his own karmic journey, and it’s literally a massive waste of my energy to try to mess around much with anyone else’s karma.

        Since I am a Buddhist myself, I find myself in agreement with you! How nice. Of course, since I love being able to vote, drive, own property, and have access to education, I still consider myself a feminist. I even hope that someday all people could be paid the same work for the same pay regardless of who they are. How unpleasant of me! I hope you won’t let this drive a wedge between us, dear Richard. I’ll be looking forward to the next installment.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2012 at 07:31

        Sorry about that Rachel. Yea, I got a bit defensive there. Then I thought about it and went back to work. Glad it comes out a bit more clear.

        In terms of anarchy, I make no prescriptions or “should” anyone. Do what you like. Anarchy begins inside the individual, then family, home, the people you associate with. Perhaps one day it will extend to society and the notion of the oppressive nation State melts away.

      • Jscott on September 3, 2012 at 14:18

        Female Buddhists have a characteristic that I find lacking in many females. You just demonstrated it Rachel. It reminded me of the Presentation at Google by the Venerable Robina Courtin.

        “Be Your Own Therapist”

      • Rachel B. on September 3, 2012 at 18:28

        I’m not at all sure I want to know what characteristic you find lacking in many females. . . in fact, yep, I’m sure I do not want to know. But I will say thank you for the lovely compliment and also I am enjoying watching the excellent video.

      • A.B. Dada on September 2, 2012 at 19:48

        I think an anonymous guy warning the modern world about feminist-Marxism is displaying a beta action.

        I believe a public warning attached to one’s name is an act of leadership. And I’m not donning my FTA fanboi hat here, just calling it as I see it.

        The “feminist movement” is anathema to individual freedom, and all who love an individual’s right to succeed or fail must rail against it publicly.

    • Mountain Evan Chang on September 2, 2012 at 19:40

      “Let’s cut to the chase and stop the pathetic lying and collectivization: It’s you…YOU…I hate and loath, when I do[…]Individual you. Not women: YOU.”

      Looks pretty coherent to me.

  3. Jscott on September 2, 2012 at 18:23

    What? No contact form? Richard, you keep all to yourself!

  4. steve on September 2, 2012 at 18:34

    you’re going off the rails. I liked the photo but had to scroll past all the angst.

    Get a fucking grip, brother.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 19:08


      You’re welcome to put all your stuff in a single comment, if you like.

      And if this is over your head, I get it.

      Since you probably have comment notification, you are going to get to be shamed by a lot of women who do get it. My prediction. Let’s see what happens.

      BTW, no brother of mine would ever post that last sentence, sibling or otherwise. Take your faux bullshit somewhere else or state it like a man.

  5. Preston on September 2, 2012 at 18:36

    Great hair. I always notice hair first. Just the way I’m wired.

    The past couple of posts and comment threads have been thought provoking. Thanks.

    • dr. gabriella kadar on September 2, 2012 at 19:47

      Noticing hair is a good thing. Good hair is associated with good health. So if looking for a healthy female, I think it’s fair. Next body countour and especially, for me when I assess body structure I look at the calves. Hers are well formed. Which also means her feet are good. Hard to tell with the shoulders because she has them raised. If they would be uneven heights, then mild scoliosos, twisted pelvis, possible eye muscle problems etc. You do have to assess the physique because no one wants any nasty surprises. She’s got a nice layer of subcutaneous fat on the back, not too much, but enough to indicate health and fertility. Ribs sticking out would not be attractive at all.

      She’s an excellent specimen of 41 female (at least from the back).

      Would need to see the face in profile to determine other things but that is not available at this time.
      Plus the dental arches, ratio of lower face, mid face and forehead. Unfortunately there can be disonance between front and back.

  6. steve on September 2, 2012 at 18:49

    jesus christ richard,
    wtf is this?

    not terribly alpha looking…
    what will ab dada think?
    looks like you’re wallowing in high reward behaviour.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 19:01


      Oh, yea, like you just stumbled on that. Gotcha. Least you could be honest and post it like a man. It has been floating around for weeks.

      Try this. Get in a chair, relax with no concern of who might be watching, bend over something, inhale while making sure your diaphragm is fully relaxed.

      We used to do this as skinny kids for fun.

      • steve on September 2, 2012 at 19:26

        yeah, I did just stumble on it.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 19:34

        yeah, I did just stumble on it.”

        I don’t believe you.

      • steve on September 2, 2012 at 19:38

        It just got posted on paleo drama, that’s where i saw it.
        2 hours ago according to paleo drama time stamp.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 19:52

        Ok, ok steve. Then my apologies and I was wrong. I don’t typically monitor that unless I get an email with a link, which seems to happen just about every day.

        Fuck, I hate being wrong. Sorry, man.

        Still haven’t seen the posts but I’ll check it out. Surprised it took the debutante so long. Size 16 bunched panties posted it within minutes of Jimmy putting it out there on Twitter during AHS.

      • steve on September 2, 2012 at 19:58

        i get it now, melissa is the debutante and size sixteen is carbsane.
        all ist klar

      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 20:32

        You’re a quick study, Steve.

      • Jscott on September 2, 2012 at 23:48

        So nice Nikoley ( I wanna russian name) is.

        Ev. Steve you are what us redditors call….

        You are what us internetters call…

        Fuck it. All Your bases are belong to us.

    • dr. gabriella kadar on September 2, 2012 at 19:49

      Why? Arafat was an alpha male……..until he was poisoned with Polonium.

  7. Longtime Reader on September 2, 2012 at 19:16

    Yeah, looking forward to your forgetting about Melissa McEwen. She’s boring, and she makes everything around her boring.

    BTW, “Steve” is “Lara”.

  8. George Henderson on September 2, 2012 at 19:22

    I’m only going to say this once, but it has to be said;
    if objectification is some sort of hate crime, then WTF is a vibrator?

    • ladysadie1 on September 2, 2012 at 19:27


      “if objectification is some sort of hate crime…” Nevermind the vibrators. If objectification is a hate crime, the first ones who ought to be punished for it are the feminists themselves, as evidenced at the RNC this year in the completely disgusting protests of some of the most rabid feminists to ever walk the earth. Sorry to everyone for posting the link, ewww!

      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 19:42


        This goes to a number of points made in the post, but the number one is that they are their own worst enemy.

        What’s the message? Love vaginas? Men love vaginas, it’s a priori (don’t need to get up off the couch to Know it’s true). Love THEIR vaginas. Uh, now that I’ve gotten to know you, not so much.

      • ladysadie1 on September 2, 2012 at 19:45

        Yes, they are their own worst enemies. As for “Uh, now that I’ve gotten to know you, not so much.” part of the comment, please clarify.

        My “ewww!” Wasn’t about vaginas in general, it was about how the supposed champoins of women would reduce themselves in that way.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 20:25

        I should have put quotes around that. IOW, me talking to them, after demanding that because they have vaginas, they are per se a value to one and all.

        “It’s just your equipment, baby. I have mine too. What else you got, and I’ll show you what else I can do.”

      • ladysadie1 on September 2, 2012 at 20:30

        Oh, that makes it much clearer, I thought you meant me personally, not them.

        …and yep, it’s just equipment. Can you imaging the horror and outrage if men dressed up in rather outlandish and creepily realistic costumes of their equipment to protest?

      • A.B. Dada on September 2, 2012 at 20:35

        I’m thinking about starting a movement where us guys dress up as huge phalluses and demand free condoms and Viagra.

        It’s our right to protect our junk while we throw it around.

        A wrestling match between the two costumed activism groups would be rated NC-17.

      • ladysadie1 on September 2, 2012 at 20:40

        Brilliant idea, AB!

      • Jscott on September 2, 2012 at 22:52

        I am in KCMO and I would support Email me. Jscottmays @ the gmail dot coms

      • Jscott on September 2, 2012 at 23:06

        I would never dress as such but would cheer on the parade. Come to new orleans we love an excuse to parade.

      • Jscott on September 3, 2012 at 10:42

        I need work with my humor. By “support” I meant I would be in support of this Dress up movement of A.B’s. It was clear to me last night. Not so much now.

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 10:46

        I would support some guys dressing up like that too, no worries, the meaning was clear. Imagine the outrage!

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 11:55

        Balls or GTFO?

  9. A.B. Dada on September 2, 2012 at 19:38

    Fwiw, It’s AB Dada, not AD Dada, captain. Easy mix up, happens often.

    The “chaos” of relationships boils down to one element: biological imperative (to pass on one’s genes).

    Feminists may try to stifle the man’s power in this, but history (ancient and recent) prove that most women want babies with powerful men. They may cuckold a beta provider and cheat with a cocky asshole to get pregnant, but feminism is a lost cause. Women and men are not “equal” because they have totally different drives to fulfill those biological imperatives they share in common. We are, without a doubt, too different to try to make us equal.

    Women who succeed in procreation and succeed in creating an atmosphere that gives a man happiness in monogamy are happy women with happy men. Women who fail their biological perspectives are miserable, and if they procreate but don’t make a happy environment for their men, they’re miserable. A man can be monogamous, if the woman provides a reason to be.

    “Sex at Dawn” and “Sperm Wars” are solid reads on why women need to “beg” a man to be monogamous; the begging comes in the form of her creating an environment where the man’s needs are met. If she does this, the man will generally meet her needs.

    Step up, ladies. It’s time to woman-up!

    • steve on September 2, 2012 at 19:44

      ‘Fwiw, It’s AB Dada, not AD Dada, captain. Easy mix up, happens often.’
      Re-read the post, chief. It’s a “b” i wrote, not a “d.”

      Easy mix up though, it happens often.

      Btw, I like your singling out of “high reward behaviour” as being a bad thing. I read your comments in previuos posts. You write some good stuff. I’m gonna keep an eye on you.

      • A.B. Dada on September 2, 2012 at 19:55

        I mean Richard’s original post above.

        As for my “high reward living”, if you’re not being sarcastic, thanks. Im hoping credentialed researchers and laymen alike can join me in critiquing my individual opinion of this subject. I’ll be writing over at paleogamy dot com starting this week.

      • steve on September 2, 2012 at 20:03

        Not being sarcastic,
        dead serious.
        High reward living is endemic, but it’s not good.
        I suffer from it.

        I’ll be sure to check out paleogamy. :-)

    • Jscott on September 2, 2012 at 22:54

      Sex at dawn is a bad prop. Mainly cause sex at dawn wants to be what it is not.

      • Sean on September 3, 2012 at 07:13

        Yes, Robin Hanson thinks Sex at Dusk debunks a lot of Sex at Dawn especially “paternity indifference” theory, not that I’ve read either one, but I’m very skeptical of paternity indifference. See also this review in Ev Psych Journal (long ass quote):

        Where Sex at Dusk really shines is in Saxon‘s exposé of the subtler prescriptive
        message of Dawn. Ryan and Jethá are not simply arguing for a revision of the scientific
        view of ancestral human sexuality as more promiscuous than the ―standard narrative‖
        would have it. Upon closer inspection, what they are actually up to is advocating for a
        change in contemporary human female sexual behavior, or at least a change in how
        everyone views women‘s sexuality; specifically, Dawn advocates a shift from women as
        ―whores,‖ to women as ―sluts‖ (e.g., pp. 64, 159)3. You see, according to Dawn, a whore is
        a female who engages in sexual activity in exchange for resources or other benefits beyond the act itself. A slut is a female who engages in promiscuous sexual activity only for the
        sake and pleasure of it. Ryan and Jetha attempt to convince the reader that whoredom is an
        unnatural consequence of post-Pleistocene cultural systems (and a bad thing), while the slut
        is a female‘s natural, primitive state (and a good thing). Au contraire, Saxon argues,
        whores are the order of the day across the living world (p. 328). Even Dawn’s paragons of
        promiscuity, female bonobos, are strategic about when and with whom they engage in
        sexual behavior, as if to maximize returns on the effort (e.g., pp. 105, 108). The reason for
        widespread whoredom, Saxon explains, can be traced to the disparities between males and
        females in parental investment. Reproduction involves a quite significant investment of
        resources on the part of females, human females especially. Such a costly endeavor
        explains why females are, in most species, the choosier, more discriminating sex when it
        comes to mating; and the more costly reproduction is, the choosier females are. Thus, if
        human females are in some way anomalous in this regard, as the characterization of
        women‘s sexuality by Dawn makes them out to be, it must be explained why. I assume the
        reader does not need to be told of Dawn’s success or failure at providing such an

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 08:58

        I’m not providing the books as gospel or truth, just as an alternative perspective.

        The truth likely lays somewhere in the middle, or outside both even.

      • Sean on September 3, 2012 at 13:39

        The truth likely lays somewhere in the middle, or outside both even.

        Perhaps one of the more vacuous statements I’ve read in quite a while. Truth is something that sort of exists after we all take a bong hit and stuff, right?

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 13:43

        Your words, not mine.

        S@D postulates that humans are not meant to be monogamous. The critiques tend to force the issue to support that humans are meant to be monogamous.

        I’m in the camp of “to each their own, but avoid social mechanisms that don’t make sense for your needs and desires.”

        I am not a polyamorist but I don’t subscribe to monogamy. I belong to neither side of the debate, yet I’m cognizant of both their strengths and weaknesses in the debate.

      • Sean on September 4, 2012 at 14:20

        Alright, the statement struck me initially as scientific marxism, but in the context of Sex At Dawn vs Sex At Dusk, etc, I have to reluctantly admit it makes sense. Now go fuck yourself (insert smiley face here).

      • A.B. Dada on September 4, 2012 at 14:23

        I would, but I find that masturbation doesn’t really bring much gain for me other than cleaning out the old sperm and making way for fresh ones. And since I am not trying to procreate just yet, I’d rather have a pretty girl taking care of those needs.

        (insert heart symbol here).

      • Richard Nikoley on September 4, 2012 at 14:57

        Sean, you’re such a standup guy and I have never seen you use smileys flippantly, so I known you’re fuckimg serious.

        Did you get the Andea Dworkin Commemorative Editon Pink Cock Ring I sent, yet? (insert smiley here).

  10. A.B. Dada on September 2, 2012 at 20:06

    Since I’m just spinning opinionated theory, I’m going to back up my thoughts with plenty of N=1 trials on myself. Which will be very interesting, as my high reward activities are very different than the average guy.

    Here’s to self study.

    • Jscott on September 2, 2012 at 23:38

      That would be interesting.
      Then no more talk of sex at dawn. Bad research is still bad research, yes?

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 09:02

        To say an entire premise is wrong because of mistakes is to refuse expansion of discourse into psychology, which is a baby science.

        For me, S@D provides at least some new perspective. Is it right, is it wrong? I don’t care about that, since I don’t believe any guide to living, diet, exercise can cover every individual’s uniqueness. All we have is N=1 in the end.

        I tried polyamory with the same passion as I tried monogamy. Both were failures. I gained great knowledge from both, and I am much more in touch with my own needs and my abilities to fulfill the needs of others.

        To me, relationships are economic in nature, involving an ever changing supply and demand. To fight economic pressures is to be left unfulfilled, IMHO.

      • Jscott on September 3, 2012 at 10:50

        I did not say the premise was wrong. Either-or it makes for good pre-bedtime talks.

  11. Elenor on September 2, 2012 at 22:08

    Ha. My first reaction was: “nicely built girl — oh, but she smokes: yuck! Disgusting habit.”

    I agree with a small of of your quote from “CL” and disagree with a lot of it (without bothering to go read the whole thing). I’m annoyed that women (well, feminists…) insist they HAVE to be allowed to join men’s … whatever, clubs, sports, jobs, — swearing they won’t change them, they just want the benefits men get from them. (Actually a legit position: the bennies, not the change them…) But, once in, they immediately begin to try to make the group more suitable/less uncomfortable. I SO deprecate that dishonorable behavior.

    On the other hand, because our society has been destroyed, women HAVE to have access to business connections (including those bennies) to have a way to make a living. I (now) run a small manufacturing company that I inherited from Michael. Thankfully, I’m (I HOPE) smart enough, talented enough, and have enough business and ‘industry’ experience that I think I can keep in going. I don’t HAVE a father to fall back on, he died in 1983. I don’t have sons or brothers to ‘take me on’ as a charity case. (I’m a technical editor by profession– and that field is well-nigh destroyed by our various crashes.) If I were denied the ability to make connections, to ‘act as a man’ in the workaday world — how would I eat? How would I keep my house? How would I live? Where, once, women were provided for and protected by the men of their tribe (and men took seriously their ‘duty’ to family and tribe); today, women HAVE to fight “the system” to provide for themselves.

    As for chattering? It’s a woman thing: we use talking as a way or establishing and maintaining a network of connections. We women are built for connection — not just to a mate and children, but to a network of friends (a “tribe” — in a deracinated species…), and we DO annoy or overwhelm men with our talking; just as we are annoyed or feel abandoned because men DON’T talk. (Yes, Michael used to wryly say that if men had to LISTEN to women’s chatter, the men’s brains would explode: he called what I did “chirping.” He *heard* me, but was not expected to answer or remember. He let me ‘make connection’ with him, without it causing him “harm.”)

    These sex-linked differences are real, no matter what academe lie… er… claims about them. Understanding them allows both sexes to have an easier and more successful time dealing together. (If y’all ever get a chance to see the one-man show: “Rob Becker’s Defending the Caveman” — MAKE the time! It’s the perfect explanation / display/ showcase for the differences between the sexes — but it’s done with a light touch: no snarling females, no grimly-furious men. Just prepare to be nearly sick from laughing so hard for so long!)

    If paleolithic EATING is a place to start in determining our own nutrition; why isn’t paleolithic ‘social brain formation” a place to start in understanding male-female differences? (And, I’d hope, that would include not discarding the female brain as “not male”; but teaching both men and women how to interact without their brains exploding!)

    (An anecdote, if I may… After a year or so married, when I’d ask him to “pulease talk to me!” Michael used to say, teasingly; “I’ve told you everything. I assure you, if I find anything new, I will let you know!” Finally, one evening at a restaurant, in my desperation (for connection, right? female brain?), I said; “Look, I don’ t care if you just tell me the throw-weights of WWII weapons — just talk to me about ANYthing!” (He was a WWII expert as a hobby; a historian by education; and the owner of a manufactury as “the last refuge of a ne’er-do-well, the family biz.”) So, he actually DID begin telling me the throw-weights of various WWII weapons systems (and oh! swoon, I could’ve listened to him talk for hours!); but I actually paid attention to him and asked him intelligent questions, and to his amazement, we had a very pleasant conversation.)

    • Longtime Reader on September 2, 2012 at 22:19

      Nice comment, Elenor.

      A few years back, I was dating a great woman. Really cared about me, really nice person, very attractive, great sex. But she could not stop talking. And not about stuff that was important to her. She literally could not stop prattling about endless trivia — where she and co-workers (she didn’t care about) went to lunch that day, what everyone ordered. The narrative of trivia never ended. Seriously, she never took a breath; didn’t seem to be capable of it.

      I would talk to my therapist about it. He said there was a therapeutic term for it: “oral avalanche.” And that’s exactly what it felt like — being buried alive by a never-ending stream of trivial input.

      Finally, I had to dump her. Better to be alone than to be drowing 24/7 in a dumpster load of nonsense.

      OK, Melissa, talk about what a shallow bastard I am. Yawn.

      • dr. gabriella kadar on September 3, 2012 at 05:35

        That ‘disease’ is not restricted to some women. I knew a guy who was like that. The ‘avalanche’ consisted of a replay in paraphrase of ‘he said, then I said, then he said, I said, then she said and she said and………..’ all of it trivial and ennui inducing. I can’t explain any of it other than it was some sort of socially developmental abberational behaviour. Who in their right minds would think, if thinking came into it at all, that anyone outside of themselves would be so interested in the minutiae of their life? Unfortunately it seems people like this are hardwired, have no insight and cannot change. Minimizing exposure or avoidance is the only realistic response to this sort of person.

      • Tracy on September 12, 2012 at 08:33

        Agreed – I’ve known both men and women like that. I avoid both like the plague.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2012 at 00:40

      “Ha. My first reaction was: nicely built girl — oh, but she smokes: yuck! Disgusting habit.'”

      Odd first reaction, to me at least. Given the setting…nude, tied up, b&w, camera filter, I’d never have presumed the ciggy was anything more than a prop. Beyond that, it’s none of my business.

      • Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 09:51

        The setting was great, fine, appropriate — the ciggy?! bleah.

        My immediate reaction is “the story” that goes with the picture: what came before, what comes after, that moment in time. (No, you simpleton gutter-brains, NOT “who comes first.” sheesh.) — and the story would always be…. ruined … by the smoke. Most smokers don’t realize how they smell and taste to non-smokers. (S’pose it’s another male-female diff: y’all just see the picture; we (many of us) see the romance novel around it! Tee hee hee!)

      • ladysadie1 on September 8, 2012 at 12:30

        Ok, Elenore, this is much like the fat-people-donut-healthcare discussion. Why leap to some ridiculous assumption that fat people shouldn’t be shamed, but rather helped and encouraged, yet, smokers… well, that’s fine. I would never say of a fat person, they ‘don’t realize how utterly repulsive and disgusting they are to fit people’. So if you have a problem with the smoking, if you happen to find some tips on natural ways to help break the addiction, then, by all means, share it. Meanwhile, if you have nothing constructive to say…

        As for the story before and after the picture. There is no romance novel around it. The photographer’s assistant had never done that form of ropework (although he and his wife most definitely had some items that were great props which were used in other photos, so I am guessing that he knew a bit about bondage) He followed a “pattern” that I made for him using a teddy bear and some light cording. I wore some cheap panties while the ropes were arranged and we cut them off right before the pictures were taken. Right about the time that we started taking the photos, they started mowing the church property (my back yard at the time) so, the assistant kept having to hold up a sheet in front of the windows periodically because I refused really didn’t want to give the church caretaker a heart attack. If we were to do it again, I would still have the smoke in my hand it’s not the same photo without it, but it was entirely unnecessary in the front views. Which, by the way are spectacular, but that’s on the photographer, not me.

        For anyone keeping score, the photographer is a woman, a rather large one at that, and her assistant, is a very funny man who spent lots of time fussing over every little detail of every photo over the entire 2-day shoot. Despite the wonderful assessments that have been offered here, it is, in the grand scheme of things, only a photo and I was little more than a prop for the talent on the other side of the lens.

      • Elenor on September 9, 2012 at 15:28

        “Ok, Elenore, this is much like the fat-people-donut-healthcare discussion. Why leap to some ridiculous assumption that fat people shouldn’t be shamed, but rather helped and encouraged, yet, smokers… well, that’s fine. I would never say of a fat person, they ‘don’t realize how utterly repulsive and disgusting they are to fit people’. So if you have a problem with the smoking, if you happen to find some tips on natural ways to help break the addiction, then, by all means, share it. Meanwhile, if you have nothing constructive to say…”

        Point partly taken. However, that fat person with the doughnut, unless sneezing the powdered sugar in my direction, is not … encroaching … on my airspace. Most fat people are very careful to NOT impinge on someone else’s space (airline baby-seats notwithstanding!) Most smokers (and the exceptions can’t make up for it!) are not so careful!

        I do not have an “addictive personalty” as the terminology goes; so, I do not understand, I cannot fathom, someone choosing to stay addicted to something. (I sort-of consider myself addicted to pasta — I’m what the Monel Labs in Philly calls a supertaster: I DO crave it, I do sink into joyous drugged *bliss* if I have it — and so I do not have it. {shrug} Did it take multiple “attempts at ‘quitting”? It did. But I also did not inflict my addiction on the people around me. (Can’t really see a way I could’ve? Maybe offer ’em a bite?) I did not and do not intend offense to you LadySadie, but if the shoe fits…

      • ladysadie1 on September 9, 2012 at 15:39

        I understand your point, partly, as well, Elenor. But, fat people are allowed everywhere. Personally, I think that they should have the same restrictions as smokers. (Not fat folks in any public place, yay!) Smokers (in this state/county) are allowed to smoke on private property, and not within 30′ of a building with a public entrance, including places of employment. That leaves your house, your vehicle, and oh, yeah, your house and your vehicle. If you are in my yard, well, tough cookies… I pay my mortgage and my rent (a/k/a property taxes) so I get to smoke here.

        Please bear in mind, that I did say if you knew of something that would help break the cycle of dependence, I would like to have the advice. I am sure if you had an acquaintance that admired you for being more fit and healthy than the average person, and asked you advice about improving their diet, you would gladly offer some insight. Thus, if you have tips for de-toxing from nicotine, I am all ears.

      • Tracy on September 12, 2012 at 08:37

        @ladysadie1 e-cigs worked to get me off smokes/tobacco – nothing else did. Might be worth a go, if you’re interested (and you can use them anywhere)

      • Elenor on September 20, 2012 at 05:15

        “But, fat people are allowed everywhere. Personally, I think that they should have the same restrictions as smokers”

        Sorry, I can’t help you with breaking the addiction (I’ve read CiGRX helps). However, I don’t know if you’re intentionally glossing over the problem, or as a smoker just don’t see it. Fat people, ‘allowed everywhere,’ take up space (an effect) but cannot get into MY body with their fatness. They cannot make MY clothes stink, MY hair stink, and MY lungs hurt just by being around “everywhere.” Smokers? That’s what they DO!

        No fat person has even carelessly burned a hole in my expensive wool cape just by standing near me. No fat person has ever made me go home and have to wash my hair, and hang my clothes in the garage to air out. No fat person has ever set a fire by carelessly ‘throwing fat’ out of a car. No fat person has ever made public places dirty by chucking butts (of either kind! {wink}) on the ground, because they’re too lazy (or unconscious/uncaring) to throw them in the trash. (And the smokers who carefully and considerately do not do these things, cannot make up for their (many more) fellow-addicts who do!)

        Do you not see — or just not want to admit — that smoking as a habit has a huge effect on the (individual) people around the smoker, where ‘fatness’ as a habit does not? I’m sorry you’re an addict, I’m sorry you are having trouble freeing yourself of an addiction that affects the people around you. But the negative effects are there, and the effects are not there with “fatness” (addiction to food, if you will, to make it *seem* equivalent).

        And, no I do not deny there is a huge cost (diabesity and etc.) to *the public*; that huge cost exists also for smokers (lung cancer and etc.) — but on an individual, personal level, the two are in no way equivalent!

    • rob on September 3, 2012 at 03:15

      I think it is important to develop the ability to appear keenly interested in what a woman is saying even when you are not. You have to appear attentive and once in a while you have to say something to assure her that you are, in fact, listening.

      This is particularly important when what she wants to talk about is “things you do that annoy me.”

      Eventually she will talk herself out and you can go about your business and everybody is happy.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2012 at 07:23

        That’s what I do, rob.

        I’ll often finish a sentence for my wife or tell her I know about something already.

        “oh, so you were listening.”

      • Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 09:57

        Rob, exactly. (Well, approximately…)

        Michael and I worked out that he didn’t even need to APPEAR interested. I came to realize that he did actually hear me (“chirping”), but because we both knew it was ‘connection-making’ (the girl thing) and not information-passing (the boy thing), it was perfectly fine for him to let it float by and not try to retain it. (Back when we commuted together 84 miles a day, we’d pick out a book (non-fiction, usually) and I’d read aloud to him. Over 3-4 years, we got through a LOT of books!)

        The balance to that was, when I did need him to BE (not appear) interested, I would ask directly for that: “this thing I wish to discuss is important to me, and I need to you to pay attention to it.” Then I would keep it short, direct, and to the point. Information passing is a different skill, and one women can (and I’d suggest: should!) learn to use, and use judiciously — to keep men’s heads from exploding! (And women’s hearts from breaking.)

      • Tracy on September 12, 2012 at 08:44

        Lol! My fella and I worked the same thing out. Though I’m not overly chatty, there are times when I need to ramble on about something, and he knows all he needs to do is let me. He had to learn that not everything I talked about required solutions or attention, and I had to learn that him not looking at me directly didn’t mean he wasn’t listening. Saved us a ton of emotional energy.

        Of course the downside is that I also have to ‘listen’ to him when he rambles on about things he just needs to vent about ;) The upside to that downside is I can ‘man-listen’ and he’s not offended.

      • Elenor on September 20, 2012 at 05:20

        Tee hee hee! I used to try to ‘set Michael off’ — get him “wound up” on some topic near and dear to his heart (the money system or his fav explanatory video: “Money As Debt,” the concept of societies as having an organic life cycle, anything WWII) — so he would ‘lecture’ me for an hour or so… *I* was learning stuff, but also getting my heart’s delight: *connection*!!!!

        (I even sneaked a few recordings of him ‘on a tear’ — which, after his death, have become talismans… {sigh})

    • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 09:06


      Re: “social brain formation” is specifically why I’ve been venturing down the path I’m calling paleogamy. I see the healthy human as someone who looks at the evolution of human diet, human activities, and human relationships. I believe the relationship portion has been hereto ignored by the paleo community.

      I do wonder if paleo diets plus activities that lead to a fully balanced endocrine system will lead men to become more masculine, and women to be more feminine.

      I believe there is much more to it than most people realize. Diet is only one part of healthy, happy living.

    • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 09:34


      You have quite an interesting story. I love how you illustrated the opening up of communication over Michael’s interests. (““Look, I don’ t care if you just tell me the throw-weights of WWII weapons — just talk to me about ANYthing!”)

      Smoking aside, you and I have a great deal in common. Simply out of necessity, I have to deal with men in a manufacturing setting, much of the research and work product end up dictating processes that must be implemented. It isn’t easy on many levels, but I have learned a great deal about communication in the workplace. I don’t think anyone here has advocated for “discarding the female brain” and very little, if any commentary has to do with workplace interaction.

      Mostly, the discord seems to be in non-work settings. I just with we could all get to some sort of understanding where we can have the reaction that you did over making a connection, ” and oh! swoon, I could’ve listened to him talk for hours!”

      • Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 10:19

        Ladysadie: “…I have learned a great deal about communication in the workplace. I don’t think anyone here has advocated for “discarding the female brain” and very little, if any commentary has to do with workplace interaction.
        Mostly, the discord seems to be in non-work settings. I just with we could all get to some sort of understanding where we can have the reaction that you did over making a connection, ” and oh! swoon, I could’ve listened to him talk for hours!”

        But I see a fundamental disconnect exactly there: the difference between the workplace and the ‘personal’ sphere. In my view — in the workplace, the female brain IS … well not discarded, but relegated to a silent partner. I’d suggest, (in a woefully incomplete brief:) I support and teach Pat Allen’s view the the workplace is a masculine domain, and ALL people in it should be acting out of their masculine selves. The masculine energy is: “I think, I want…” The feminine energy is “I feel, I don’t want…” There should not be a differentiation (in the workplace only!) between thinking and feeling — work is for thinking! This goes back to my earlier complaint about women saying they want ‘in’ to the boy’s club and they won’t change anything — and once the men fall for that, the women immediately start demanding all sorts of changes: most esp. to “protect their feelings.” (And, yes, of course, there’s a type of civility that we lost long ago — another book I recommend very highly is: “The Benevolence of Manners: Recapturing the Lost Art of Gracious Victorian Living” by Linda S. Lichter. (Sorry Richard — may I post a long excerpt from her book?)
        Can we conceive of measuring this nation’s progress, no less its greatness by what men do for women? All we do today is lament what men do to women. In the last century, entire books were written on the daily courtesies men owed to women. Should we ridicule — or envy — the unquestioned female rights to chairs of choice, decent language, assistance into a carriage, a smoke-free environment, and countless other “ladies’ first” privileges?

        In the broadest sense, the superior strength of men entitled them to serve, not to be served. Chivalry required that men not only live for women but die for them as well. Chivalry’s historic culmination — and its finale — actually occurred eleven years after the Victorian era officially ended. Yet that event was quintessentially Victorian in spirit.

        Everyone knows the story of that fateful April night in 1912 when the “unsinkable” Titanic struck an iceberg in the North Atlantic. As Wyn Craig Wade recounted in his book The Titanic, only a third of the 2,235 passengers and crew survived; most who did were women and children. When one of the ship’s officers was asked during a subsequent investigation if this “women and children first” policy was the captain’s rule or the rule of the sea, he replied that it was the “rule of nature.”

        For Victorian men worthy of the name, making the ultimate sacrifice was the rule of nature, as well as civilization’s triumph over the primal instinct of self-preservation. The fact that man was descended from the beasts was no excuse to act like one. On the contrary, the capacity for self-sacrifice was seen as a fulfillment of the truly human nature that raised us above our bestial origins. The behavior of the men who went down with the Titanic testifies to the power of these ideas to guide their thoughts and actions. We can give an ideal no greater testament than to die for it.

        Sworn testimony revealed that several male passengers refused to enter lifeboats because they could not be certain all the women aboard had been saved. One man, when ordered into a lifeboat, not only went under protest but even made the ship’s officer sign a statement describing the circumstances, to dull the stigma of surviving a calamity that claimed female lives. Among the few cowards who dashed for the lifeboats, one was evicted and beaten bloody by men who stood stoically on deck, facing death but spared dishonor.

        The all-but-forgotten monument to the Titanic calamity, a relic of a forgotten chivalrous age, isn’t even mentioned in many major guidebooks. Sadly, a similar tragedy today would likely have a less-than-inspiring outcome. By the modern laws of survival, only the fittest cross the finish line. Women would be left to sink or swim — quite literally — unless they were stampeded or pitched overboard by men racing for lifeboats. If push came to shove, no politically correct quota system could preserve a percentage of lifeboat seats for women. It would truly be every man for himself. (I’d like to believe the children would be saved, but I wouldn’t bet my life on their chances.)

        This scenario illustrates the misogynist peril of the strict gender equality that looks good on paper and makes for stirring sound bites. Victorian civility — not feminist consciousness — conquered the brutality of a kill-or-be-killed world. The twentieth century’s march toward every form of liberation has often produced Pyrrhic victories that laid waste the best traditions of the past, and left us to do our atavistic worst.

        The smallest gesture of “sexist” gallantry divides women now, and its crowning glory divided women in 1912, when suffrage was a deeply divisive issue. Radical suffragists rejected the chivalrous spirit demonstrated aboard the Titanic. One English socialist warned women on both sides of the Atlantic to “consider very carefully whether it is worthwhile to let men assume the entire burden of physical sacrifice in times of danger.” But this view posed its own “danger” — making it “difficult to get men to relinquish their heroic ideals.”

        However, the historic valor of those chivalrous men on the Titanic was criticized by the Chinese Merchants Association in a public statement issued shortly after the British liner sank. As Wyn Craig Wade recounts in The Titanic, a spokesman expressed contempt for a culture that placed the lives of women above those of men. Were the ship Chinese, he said, men and children — but no women — would have been saved. (Although the spokesman didn’t press the point, little boys would doubtless have outranked little girls among the children on this survival scale.)

        Would I go back to those times? No on a bet! But in “our” rush to (western-style) modernity, we’ve wiped out the fact of Nature that WOMEN are more valuable (to Nature) than men. Men are (alas) expendable; it is a man’s place to provide for, protect, and cherish his woman and children — and, yes, to die on their behalf, if called to it. (Pat Allen makes it longer; she asks men to pledge: “I promise, on my honor, to give, protect, and cherish women, kids, animals, the planet, even when they’re illogical, irrational, and irritating! And women to pledge: “I promise, on my honor, to respect the Yang [masculine-energy] man I’ve chosen to follow, even when he’s inefficient, ineffective, and often uneconomical; even when I know I’m smarter and could do it better if I wanted to. Furthermore, I promise to keep my Yang mouth shut when he goes by the correct off ramp. For if he listens to me, he’s my widdle-boy and if he doesn’t, he’s my arch enemy.”)

        In the ‘personal sphere’ — in relationships outside work — each partner NEEDS to anchor in one or the other ‘side’ — masculine or feminine energy. Usually, it’s the woman who *feels* better being the feminine; and the man who thinks better of himself (and is thought better of: disrespect for chronologically advanced boys and Peter Pans, yes?) when he’s anchored in his masculine self. If both try to be the same at the same time: clash!

      • Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 10:29

        And on a second reading of that quote, I think Lichter is a bit too harsh on modern men. (Been there, snarled about that.) Having watched that Costa cruiseliner — and the folks doing a lot of self-rescue cause, the crew wasn’t well trained (and the captain was an ass!) — many, many men did indeed help women and children and the old, as one would expect of a ‘Victorian gentleman.’ (Albeit without the class differences….) Although many ‘gentlemen’ (or “real” men — an equally valuable type of man) have gone into hiding; are living behind enemy (feminist) lines and keeping their heads down… they ARE still out there! *If only* more females would return to feminine energy in their personal lives, they’d likely find more ‘real’ men around.

  12. Richard Nikoley on September 2, 2012 at 23:06

    Alright you assholes. Thanks for about another 1 1/2 hours time on this.

    Update: Owing to valid criticisms, I went back in and cleaned this up in terms of flow, coherency, redundancy, diversion, clarification, elaboration, clarity, so on and so forth etc etc. Nothing has been materially changed from the original meaning.

  13. RG on September 3, 2012 at 06:44

    look at these homos-


    • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 09:14

      I really don’t think that those people, young, attractive and nominally diverse are representative of the feminist crowd.

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 09:33

        College age- sure why not. . .the dudes are probably vegans too . . .

        not that there is anything wrong with that . . .

      • rob on September 3, 2012 at 10:17

        When I was their age I had long hair that I carefully washed, rinsed and conditioned with only the finest of salon products, I then blow dried it and hoped it wasn’t too humid outside.

        Young men try to look like whatever it is that young women appear to want at that particular moment in time.

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 10:32

        I’m not sure I buy that . . at all . .

        I recommend the Tao of Steve . . .

      • rob on September 3, 2012 at 10:55

        In that movie was Steve 19 years old?

        I rest my case.

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 10:58

        . . .and I thought you were joking . . .about your luxurious locks . . .next thing you know . .

      • rob on September 3, 2012 at 15:06

        What can I say, back then during the Jurassic period chicks dug long hair.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2012 at 15:19

        It varies for me. On my wife, I love short, cropped hair because it brings out the native American Indian genes that form the bone structure of her face.

        Years ago, we did a very expensive trip to Vegas. Suite at the Four Seasons at the top of Mandalay Bay (met George Forman at checkin). Did the Cabana at the pool every day, and of course she had her spa pampering and hair dressing. 5-star restaurants every night.

        But the hairdo is what I remember the most. She has waves, and thick, course hair. The gay guy cropped it short and straightened it, and it was to me just wonderful, the way it enhanced the beauty of the bone structure of her face.

      • rob on September 4, 2012 at 05:08

        I go with number 3 clippers these days but as soon as my hair is fully silver I’m going back to the long hair.

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 09:35

        As we know from Hollywood/BigEntertainment, the plebeian masses respond best to beauty.

        Whatever the demagogy is in terms of government’s quest to destroy individualism, that is what they’ll use beautiful people in for their marketing campaigns.

        When we see a beautiful person, our brains are flooded with Epinephrine, Dopamine, Phenyl ethylamine and Endorphins. This media campaign here even helps us along by including different races and even a curvy gal.

        It’s really perfect, hat’s off to the producer of the photo. Well played.

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 09:43

        hmmm, I object to the application of the term ‘curvy’ to the chunky girl.

        I think I have provided quite an example ‘curvy’ minus the fat and the feminism.

      • A.B. Dada on September 3, 2012 at 09:44

        Ha, I’m just using the Marxist terms when dealing with Marxist topics. I like to reinforce the hilarity of modern socially acceptable adjectives.

        I’ll agree, she’s fat.

      • ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 11:56

        It’s precisely those big girls that constantly ‘advise’ me that men like a woman “with some meat on their bones” and that I need to gain weight. It’s honestly tiresome. I know that many women at my height and weight combo lack definition and have no appreciable curves. Those waif types, not my thing…clearly, I don’t have that problem. Anyone who is upset by my shape and definition can certainly criticize it, if my self image was wrapped up in that silly photo, I would have never allowed it to be placed on a post for public viewing.

      • Elenor on September 9, 2012 at 15:32

        … ‘course, she’s probably the only one able to birth a baby without medical intervention!!

      • ladysadie1 on September 9, 2012 at 15:42

        Are you talking about the ‘curvy’ girl birthing children? If you are, my midwife and I disagree.

  14. Liz on September 3, 2012 at 08:56

    RG– Kinda off-putting! You don’t have to agree with their T-shirt agenda (even I think it’s a little silly), but would you consider not using the word “homo” as an insult, a negative?

    With love,
    –A big ol’ Paleo Homo ;)

    • RG on September 3, 2012 at 09:10

      I just wonder who’s getting more . . .

      dick that is . . .

      (probably those silly metrosexuals)

    • Richard Nikoley on September 3, 2012 at 09:40

      Yep, Liz, FWIW, made me wince.

      • RG on September 3, 2012 at 09:50

        OH . . . homo is a such BAD, BAD word . . .forgive me . . .

        glad you’re so enlightened Richard. . .(this from a man who throws “cunt” around)

        god forbid I offend the massive homosexual community on this forum

      • Liz on September 4, 2012 at 07:32

        Thanks, Rich–doubt we were the only ones. And as for you, RG, even if there were no “paleo homos” on this board, it’s not any less offensive…besides, Richard has already explained that his use of the word “cunt” describes a woman he feels is acting like one, same as if you call a guy an asshole or a dick.

  15. dr. gabriella kadar on September 3, 2012 at 10:51

    ‘I just wonder who’s getting more . . .

    dick that is . . .

    (probably those silly metrosexuals)’

    Sounds like you want some.

    • RG on September 3, 2012 at 10:54

      . . .and it sounds like you need some

      • Liz on September 4, 2012 at 07:36

        Gabriella and RG–this sounds like an argument at a high school cafeteria: “men who want dick” as an insult, “women who need dick” as an insult. Jesus fucking Christ!

  16. LeonRover on September 3, 2012 at 12:02


    Really cool likeness of you over at Paleo-Drama.

    Hope you are getting repro fees.


  17. William on September 3, 2012 at 12:48

    Well shit ol’ dear, anyone can get out of being hog-tied with a lit cigarette! No trick there!

    • ladysadie1 on September 4, 2012 at 08:13

      I can assure you, William that a standing position is not “hog-tied” and, also, no, there is very little chance I could have smoked that cigarette, or gotten out of that position without assistance. :)

      • William on September 4, 2012 at 17:45

        Nothing was meant one way or the other by my comment, Ladysadie. It was just my style of humor, saying this post just didn’t reach out to me. Maybe I’ll take one of those online courses that teaches one how to get their humor across on the internet, the way same person is capable of doing in person. I’m just an ol’ fart who enjoys feeling good as a result of finding this blog, and implementing its philosophy, for four years now. :)

  18. Shelley on September 3, 2012 at 12:54

    It’s a holiday weekend and drop something like this?! It will take me a work-day to read, understand and comment anything meaningful.

    In the meantime, SSS, stunning photo. And I agree with AB: “Without the freedom described by the cigarette, the premise of the photo is decisively different. Weak+strong is much more erotic, mentally.”

  19. ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 13:19

    LOL, ” It will take me a work-day to read…” Thanks, Shelley, for the compliment!

    • Shelley on September 3, 2012 at 13:36

      You know, SSS, the truth is (other than the perceived irritation of the rope going up the crack of your ass :-) ) the photo is nice, bold and free. For me, the photo doesn’t require the post. My interpretation will necessarily be different than yours and different from Richard’s, but that is the beauty of art.

      Don’t get me wrong, Richard, you did a thorough job in capturing the crazy thoughts of an irrational woman, whom I try to avoid like the plague; I don’t even engage in argument with them; and I typically can sniff them out long before a word is spoken (as I suppose most men can as well). These women, and their wimpy-ass men-followers/enablers, have been around and will continue to be around until there are enough of us who ignore them into non-existence.

      For the feminists out there reading this, please do not speak for me!

      • Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 10:32

        “other than the perceived irritation of the rope going up the crack of your ass”

        Yeah, I thought that TOO! {wink}

      • ladysadie1 on September 8, 2012 at 11:16

        I will get to your other comments, in a minute, Elenor… For those of you who are so certain that the rope on the backside would be irritating, I assure you that is the least of the sensations you would have tied up in that manner. (Yeah, I am talking about physical sensations.) ;)

  20. Jscott on September 3, 2012 at 14:37

    Archie Bunker on feminism. (H/T A.B. “No D” Dada for sending me down the rabbit hole)

  21. ladysadie1 on September 3, 2012 at 15:14

    Nice link!

  22. Emma on September 4, 2012 at 05:34

    “The secondary cost was born by society, Neolithic society. …Imagine if women had been seen as equals in intelligence and creativity and inventiveness since the its dawn. Twice the societal brain power, a complimentary creative perspective. I sense synergy and synthesis. Imagine if we all read about man going to the moon hundreds of years ago, in history books…”

    Out of this whole post, this comment gave me the most to think about, it made me sad for the lost opportunity. Maybe somewhere, on a parallel universe, this happened – imagine the possibilities….!?

    • Contemplationist on September 4, 2012 at 14:04

      How about this for ‘radical’ – Women were not seen to be equals in intelligence and creativity because…they weren’t (on average). If any radgem wants to scream oppression to explain why in the year 2012 there are hardly any major women mathematicians, physicists, computer scientists and engineers etc, they can stay on For the others, can you ponder how this imponderable might be true?

      • Contemplationist on September 4, 2012 at 14:05


      • Shelley on September 4, 2012 at 14:42

        Being a EE and the only white female in my college, I will say that men do seem to be more “into the sciences” than I ever was. They obsess over it – I do not. I don’t know if that signifies less intelligence; but more that a woman’s interests are more strongly directed to different areas than men.

        And now, several years later, though still in the technical field, I am not a designer or scientist, but rather progressed through product marketing/sales/law.

        So, no oppression for me (in fact, quite the opposite), just not what keeps me awake at night.

      • Richard Nikoley on September 4, 2012 at 15:41


        I find that hard to believe, frankly.

        Shurley (or Shelley), you must have found roadblock over roadblock of men standing in your way, and so on. It could not have been a natural progression.

        Oh, yea, I forgot. You met men on the battlefield and got an EE. Naaaa, “women’s studies” is the ticket!!!!

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 03:13


        I don’t think you know this, but there is too much crazy competition in women’s studies; a lot of cat-clawing, back-biting, feeling-raged competition. If you have experienced any of this type of behavior, you would run so fast! It might be ok, if they experienced this form of rage once a month, so that I could call in sick at that time, but it seems to be every other day. They spend the whole day (and night) scheming, gossiping, planning the demise of others. They spin countless accusations until men are afraid to look or talk to them lest they get hit with sexual discrimination. And couple that with calling in sick a lot for personal days and kid-sick days. You wouldn’t be able to swear in a meeting any more or smoke a cigar in the parking lot; and they use HR laws an awful lot to their advantage.

        And when they tire of wearing down their opponents in their arena, they start moving on to different battlefields, where their opponents either have to run or declare war! I say declare war!

      • A.B. Dada on September 5, 2012 at 06:18

        I dated a women’s studies Ph,D a few years ago and I’ll confirm what Shelley said. I also have some dear friends who are in those programs.

        Quiet hilarious, from a Red Pill perspective. Also, absolutely off their emotional, psychological and mental rockers.

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 06:36

        I generally expect this type of behavior from women (not all), but when I am shocked is when a man acts like they’ve minored in women’s studies. It’s just pathetic when a man starts whining, gossiping and complaining. Or worse – a grown man intimidated by a female – egads! They are complete failures and deserve what they get.

      • A.B. Dada on September 5, 2012 at 06:40

        The thing that bugs me most about the vast majority of my friends in Gender Studies (and their colleagues) is where their funding comes from.

        I have libertarian-leaning friends who are currently finishing up their M.D. and they tell me the horrors of the political bureaucracy (NIH, — I can’t imagine how the internal wranglings of Gender Studies must be.

        Oh, but how I love their battle cries. It’s so cute. There’s nothing more fun than to pat a Gender Studies Ph.D on the head and call her adorable.

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 06:49

        What do you do with a gender studies degree anyway? How is it worth any funding?

        Careful, AB, while patting on the head, there are internal machinations planning on how to get you in touch with your feminine side.

      • A.B. Dada on September 5, 2012 at 06:56

        Shelley: The Marxists were the reason behind women’s lib and even universal suffrage. While some good things came out of the beginning (and even that is debatable!), their long view is what people ignored.

        Oh, this just came across my newsfeed:

        “Several 1000 clicks within a few hours was an astonishing fact for us, but also confirms the need for a counter public to gender studies.
        Our message, that Gender Studies are acting outside of the established sciences and in case of a confrontation their arguments sink into speechlessness has obviously arrived here as well as in the Social Democracy in Scandinavia. “

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 07:15

        $56M of funding to one college for this garbage and they call it science?!! And then they finally say: “the social benefits of gender studies are being put into question.”

        It seems simple what they desire: They want you neutered – you stand in the way of their collectivist, herdist mentality.

      • A.B. Dada on September 5, 2012 at 07:17

        The feminists are cute in how they’re fighting the war: they use the long game.

        Make males in their country effeminate, make them ripe for the pillaging later. No need for tanks and missiles when you have soy-fed pansies running around in their jeggings showing off their retro sunglasses and tape cassette players.

      • ladysadie1 on September 5, 2012 at 07:23


        “soy-fed pansies” sounds like the name of Justin Bieber’s back up singers.

        (Serisously, I am following along, I just haven’t had much extra time to comment. Work keeps getting in the way of my playing around on the internet.)

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 07:27

        Oh – jeggings – that is so fucking hot!

        I hate to say it – they seem to be making some serious strides when Sadie and I are more “manly” than a good percentage of men of today. :-( And you tell us to be demure – how can we get so demure as to appeal to a pansy in jeggings?

      • A.B. Dada on September 5, 2012 at 07:29

        I will work on those retrosexuals, you work on demure and sweet.

        Just practice these lines for the next week’s homework:

        1. “I’m so glad you’re home, honey, I made a roast!”
        2. “I seem to be having problems with my new panties, can my sexy mr. fix-it come and help me?”
        3. “Sweetie, I don’t think this shower is too small for the both of us.”

        There will be a pop quiz later.

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 07:37

        It is really as simple as that, so thanks for reminding me, AB. I get so tired and run-down sometimes. So, my husband will love you tonight (that is if I were honest and gave you the credit, but I will not).

      • A.B. Dada on September 5, 2012 at 07:41

        It’s very simple and I can confirm it works for 80% or so of the relationships I have to help out with.

        I’ll tell you my #1 most amazing secret I give to guys who can’t connect emotionally with their women. It’s truly rocket science brought down to the level of Lego brick building:

        “Remember just two things your wife/girlfriend says this week that don’t matter to you at all, write them down discretely, and then bring them up again in 2-4 weeks.” Example: “Hey beautiful, what ever happened with your friend Lisa’s work troubles?”

        Too bad you can’t share this with your husband. It makes the hamster happy. Complete perfection and the #1 best way for a husband to re-engage his wife’s need for random tenderness.

        Let me know how the previous 3 lines work for you.

      • ladysadie1 on September 5, 2012 at 08:06

        There, you go, AB, fixing things…Whatever happened to helping me? (Pouting)

      • Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 11:13

        “Remember just two things your wife/girlfriend says this week that don’t matter to you at all,”

        I reminded of a work colleague from long ago (a not very masculine man, alas, despite Air Force service) — I was discussing Deborah Tannen’s work on male-female communication differences. He was amazed to learn about them, and reported back one day that he was getting up and getting ready for work, and his wife said, “oh, come lie back down and talk to me.” (How many men have struggled with that!!”)

        He decided to test what I’d been telling him, so he went back to bed, and told her — as he described it — the STUPIDEST trivia about his work day!! The most INANE and idiotic interchanges he’d had …. for about 5-6 minutes (as long as he could stand it). Then he got up and went on with his day. To his amazement (and my vindication) — she was so grateful, and happy, and fulfilled and delighted with him for weeks afterwards! (Just for five minutes of him boring himself! {wink} Pretty great ROI!)

        He also later ended up divorcing her, and one of the most amazing things he described — just made my skin crawl — was that she would pluck *his* eyebrows, even though he told her to knock it off! Talk about boundary violation!! Trespassing!! Ye gods!! (And he was not some uni-brow; he was quite nice-looking already!)

        (Alas,that I did not learn that lesson as well as I might: when I first moved to Georgia to live with Michael, I was still all wrapped up in Washington state “ecology” teachings — and actually turned his bathroom faucet off, WHILE he was using it (brushing his teeth {eye roll}) because he was “wasting water.” Thankfully, HE knew how to draw very stern, very gentle boundaries… (I still cringe when I remember it….)

      • Richard Nikoley on September 4, 2012 at 14:48

        Disagree, C

        In this, women have a point about culturalization. The structures of their brains are similar if not identical. But neurons are formed after birth.

        Suppose there were three genders of humans and what we regard as males had been subjugated to a third over eons.

        There are women physicists, now, finally. That’s falsification of your hypothesis,

      • Contemplationist on September 5, 2012 at 12:33

        Lol Richard I can’t believe you actually made that argument. As you know this is a statistical argument, not an absolute one. Of course there are many women physicists! But they are tiny in number compared to males, and they are almost NEVER at the top of the field earning Nobel prizes and what not. We know Marie Curie was able to win a Nobel back in the Age of Oppression. What the fuck happened 100 years since then? I don’t doubt that average intelligence for men and women is probably almost the same. But the variance is undoubtedly higher for men. There are far more men that are either retarded or geniuses than are women (in either). Women seem to cluster around the middle.

        Geniuses, retards and criminals => men
        Average performers => women

      • Richard Nikoley on September 5, 2012 at 12:46

        Lol, contemplationalist.

        I can’t believe you used a stastical argument to try and besmirch an argument that only sought to illustrate that women can be right outliers too.

      • Shelley on September 5, 2012 at 12:50

        Contemplationist – that’s because girls at the top of average spectrum are king at multi-tasking, which keeps us as wonderful jack-of-all-trades. I couldn’t imagine being tied to one subject and missing out on everything else, so screw your nobel prize.

        Girls on the bottom of the average spectrum are busy trying to get you geniuses to be their sugar-daddy, which they seem to have figured out just the right equation for that and would, I imagine, also tell you to screw your nobel prize.

      • Contemplationist on September 5, 2012 at 18:02

        Outliers are where the differences in variance shine the most!

      • Contemplationist on September 5, 2012 at 18:05

        Nobel prize is just an external validation. That’s fine – screw it, and I agree. But look at the most fantastic accomplishments in history – the women are simply missing, and they’re still missing. The modern world itself was created by men. Is it possible that in 200 years women will dominate accomplishment? Sure, it’s possible. But so far that hasn’t been the case and the trend doesn’t look good for the equalist hypothesis. As you say, it could also mean that women are not INTERESTED in high accomplishment. They value family and children among other commitments more than men. I accept both reasons – interested self-selection and lower variance of ability

  23. jonw on September 4, 2012 at 17:59

    Good photo. Haven’t read all the comments but, to me it represents the best of “femininism”. A display of defiance in the cigarette and of course in the public nudity (both standing at the window and the posting on the internet). But yet completely soft and demure.

    • ladysadie1 on September 5, 2012 at 07:29

      “…it represents the best of “femininism”

      Um, no. ::shudder:: I assure you, jonw, I am not a feminist, and I had no intention of portraying any remotely feminist values, nor did the photographer. Look for Wooo’s description of what the photo represents, I like her assesment more than some of the others.

      • jonw on September 5, 2012 at 18:55

        “feminine – ism” get it? I made it up since “feminism” has too much negative political connotations. The counter part of masculinity. Probably there’s a better word existing but I sure can’t come up with it.

      • ladysadie1 on September 5, 2012 at 19:20

        Nicely done, I just had to cringe at “feminism”

  24. Simon Carter on September 7, 2012 at 13:01

    Well I’m late to this party…the photo, first reaction…….great ass, thanks for holding my cigarette while I take this photo, now bend over as I grab a handful of your hair and …..
    Lady Sadie, you are in great shape for any age, but amazing for 41 years, kudos to you!
    Guys, seriously, am I the only one that got a boner looking at this! Aren’t you all supposed to be cavemen! Lol
    As a piece of art, the photo is visually interesting, lots of tension…a very private act that could be clearly seen from out side…bound by ropes but an upright, almost defiant stance…the cigarette…

    • Richard Nikoley on September 7, 2012 at 13:04

      Now that’s a compliment!

      • ladysadie1 on September 7, 2012 at 14:19

        Yes. that is a wonderful compliment! Thank you, Simon

  25. Elenor on September 8, 2012 at 10:59

    “I think the issue is more of minimum human respect… i.e. don’t scream out a sexual profanity or anything vulgar, don’t follow someone, don’t harass anyone physically or verbally. Minimum respect.”

    Minimum human respect…. freighted term…. in my world.

    I was exposed to a LOT of (magazine) porn in the Navy: in the watchroom was “the porn locker” — a dresser filled to overflowing with porn; and not just your pretty little inoffensive Playboy and Hustler. I’m talking (er… writing) about really hard-core serious porn. I was 22? 23? *Very* innocent and a nice girl (despite “the Sexual Revolution” in college)… Because I was trying to ‘be a man’ (I SO wanted to be a Naval officer, not a woman officer, which are two very different things or were in the ’70s), I read a lot of it… And I came away quite changed, quite damaged.

    Michael and I used to go round and round in discussion — because I could not *imagine* a world wherein any human could DO those sorts of things to another human, and NOT hate that ‘object.’ Part of what made me such a tremendous man-hater (back then) was my horror: how could any man think he “liked” women, when he not only DID those things to women, but photographed and sold and bought the pix!! I couldn’t imagine doing such things to an enemy (I still can’t!) (okay, so I’m a girl…); but men did these things for *pleasure* — and shared it because it brought more men pleasure. He tried — and I guess somewhat succeeded — to get me to realize that the men doing those things– and buying and enjoying those things — were NOT doing them “to a woman” — they didn’t see that ‘object’ as a woman, she was a prop… Part of the male difference is that, sexually (and y’all can correct me if you see it differently), they differentiate between “their woman” and “women.” The women they “use” for raw sexual pleasure (in real life or in porn) aren’t *real* to them.

    A woman reading an erotic romance novel (and whew! they get pretty steamy nowadays! {wink}) is seeing the hero AS a person; either putting her man in that role, imagining him ‘if only” he could be that way, or enjoying the dream that there could be such a man in her life… (Most?) Men don’t put “women they know” into their porn/erotic images. They are just enjoying the picture. (And if their kink goes a certain way, they try to find the woman who has the complementary kink! But she’s still not the same thing as the porn object.)

    I try to explain it to my list-ladies this way: you know how when a woman sees a cute puppy or a baby, she gets all gooey and “aawwwww.” It’s a natural, instinctive response: the heart opens and we’re drawn to it. For men? They get a version of that instinctive reaction to a nekkid lady: “WANT that!” (or at least “want to LOOK at that!”). It’s not a comment on the woman, or the man, or the world we live it: it’s the kneejerk reaction to the stimulus the brain/body is designed to react to (just like women react to babies). You couldn’t PAY me enough to raise a baby — there isn’t that much money on the globe! — and yet my heart opens and I’m drawn to them “awwwwww, lookit the little cutie!” (As long as I can give them BACK to their parents!)

    Still struggle with the concept though — how men cannot see the “porn object” AS a woman… bothers me. I acknowledge it, I mostly accept it… I just can’t imagine how a brain could work that way. (I’m reminded of that long-ago ad-guy saying, of prunes: “still rather badly wrinkled though…”)

    • Rachel B. on September 8, 2012 at 13:27

      Well, my first thought is just this: what we enjoy in porn is often not that closely related to what we enjoy in real life. For example, I have on occasion enjoyed wacky Japanese porn about tiny fairies being violated by dangerous, hostile woodland insects. . . this does not mean I find insects sexy, or that I would like to be violated in real life. And I’ve enjoyed tentacle hentai as well, but I don’t get the shivers when I see a real octopus! Porn is fun, but it’s not real. It’s just for your enjoyment in your mind/underpants. So even if it’s full of creepy stuff, that doesn’t necessarily mean the consumer is a bad or dangerous person. Perhaps enjoying this creepy, dark, scary porn is a good way for someone to experience that side of themselves in a safe manner.

      But I do have another perspective on it. I am a professional massage therapist. I work out 7 days a week in part because I have many clients who need the deepest, most intense amount of pressure I can bring to bear. I basically cram my elbow into anything I can find and do an elbow-plank all over their bodies. These clients may be either men or women, either large or small, and they can not even start to relax until I hurt them a whole lot. Way more than most people could ever stand. These people crave very intense sensation because of something about the way their nervous system is wired. What would be unbearable pain for someone else is blessed relief to them. So as a therapist, I put aside my opinion about what I personally like and just give them what they need. And I do think that in the sex part of life, something similar exists. People are just wired to different levels of intensity, both physically and mentally. And it’s all okay with me as long as both partners are completely on-board, consenting adults.

    • Elenor on September 9, 2012 at 16:13

      Woo: “Why would you force yourself to read hard core porn?
      Why would you think being a naval officer required this?
      When you felt traumatized and “damaged” from exposing yourself to this porn why didn’t you stop?”

      No, I felt damaged by it later (or perhaps I should write: I realized much later that I had been damaged by it), when I was recovering from many years trying to “be a man.” If you’re trying (as most women do — I’d suggest it’s innate to the sex) to ‘fit into’ your milieu, and your milieu is one that values masculinity (and deprecates femininity) and, yes, likes porn; then to “be one the the boys,” you ‘take on’ the qualities and characteristics (and values) OF the boys, and so you do what you think you need to do to ‘fit in.’ And usually, without actually applying a value judgement. The thing I valued: being (well, becoming) a Naval Officer required BEING a man. (It was actually several years after I got out before I ever realized that it was not a personal failing; there was no way I could EVER be a Naval Officer because I was a woman.)

      And, at the time … well, if this (porn) was how men truly thought of women… then this WAS how men truly thought of women. {sigh} (What did I have it to compare with?) So, I was going to try to be the best man I possibly could be.

      Force myself? No, it was “What a Naval Officer Did.” (When I initial-cap “Naval Officer,” please visualize air quotes.) I was, actually, the ONLY woman officer at the command; indeed pretty much at the entire Navy base, except for Navy nurses — who of course, were not Naval officers, but medical folks. {shrug}

      (I remember fondly, when a new LT came to the school (my new boss), and (my Chief told me later) he was asking the Chief about me: why did I spend so much time hanging around the male officers studying at the school? The Chief laughed and said all I ever asked them or talked to them about was: what was it like on a ship, what was it like in the “real” Navy, how did they use the stuff they learned at the school? I was SO not ‘husband-hunting,’ I was trying to learn how to be a Naval Officer!)

      (I also remember the Commanding Officer once snarling at me to “ACT LIKE AN ENSIGN!” I pointed out later, with huge despair, to the Executive Officer — that I had never SEEN an ensign!)

      Here was my… assumption… cause it wasn’t really thinking: If I wanted to be a Naval Officer, and if the Naval Officers around me did this thing (the porn locker), why then… that’s what I would do to be a Naval Officer!

      The porn itself was arousing; {shrug} porn always is, even when it’s distasteful — and some of this stuff was REALLY distasteful… And, of course, the really horrible stuff I’d chuck back in the drawer, but you can’t un-see what you’ve just seen… and, as with anything… familiarity breeds complaisance. Stuff that is really bad, over time, becomes merely bad…

      (Another sea-tale to show how I could never be a Naval Officer: one of those male student officers told me once about an ‘un-rep’ — an underway replenishment — where the supply ship steams along very, very close to the war ship, and supplies are ferried across using lines and pullies. (Very dangerous maneuver.) This fellow told me (and I assume this is what sparked the sea-tale) that thus-and-so-song (that we’d just heard on the radio) was their “breakaway song,” to signal the crew that the last line had been dropped. (Oh wow, thought I, what a clever idea!) So, when I was describing this with great excitement to this (old “mustang” = ex-enlisted) LT I was then working for, he said, “oh, yeah, our breakaway song was thus-and-so.” (me, in my head: “WHAT?!?!?! EVERY ship has a breakaway song?!?”) How was I ever to become a Naval Officer, when everything every male officer knew (without knowing) was out of my reach?!

      (And yes, when I entered the Navy, they allowed women to serve on ships — hospital ships — of which THERE WERE NONE! About four months after I arrived at the school (my first command), they actually opened up NINE spaces for women officers at sea. You had to apply, your command had to recommend you — it was a politically sensitive trial. My CDR asked if I wished to apply, and with the loyalty of the young (and maybe a bit of common sense about the odds), I said that since I had just arrived, and gotten a grip on my duties, and the school was already very shorthanded for officers… I’d stay and not apply.)

      • Elenor on September 9, 2012 at 16:17

        Oh crap. I am SO old!

      • Richard Nikoley on September 9, 2012 at 16:24

        Yep, Elenor, every ship has a breakaway song, played over all speakers at the breakaway. unrep isn’t only for supplies. It’s mainly for refueling. I was 1st Lieutenant on USS REEVES for a year or so. That’s the guy in charge of all deck operations. I lived for underway replenishment (unrep).

        2 am unreps were my favorite.

        In the French navy when I was on exchange, as luck would have it, the navigator, me, was in charge of unrep. My favorite part of the job.

      • Elenor on September 20, 2012 at 05:30

        And (way back then) no MALE officer would ever have thought to TELL me about breakaway songs — because it was just normal to “every” officer. To me, it was just one more proof that — despite the “promises of the Navy” — I could and would NEVER be a “Naval Officer.” {sigh} So many of the things that “real” officers took for granted were foreign to me. I tried (didn’t actually know I was trying, but that’s what it turned out to be) to find out, to learn by asking, all the ‘stuff’ I couldn’t get by being a shoreside officer… but of course, that could never work.

        (I actually viewed refueling as taking on “supplies,” but I take your point! {wink})

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.