If There’s Grass On The Field, Play Ball

Don’t get the wrong idea. Read through to the summary…

…A few days ago I got a bit of shock and turmoil from a years-long correspondent in the UK. Older dude, sends me stuff he finds interesting very often—sometimes several per day. And I maintained the correspondence because he did often shoot me stuff that was not run-of-the-mill.

Over the years I’ve learned, for example, that there’s some Catholic Cardinals with deep intellectual minds who can write (as well as other Catholic intellectuals). I rather like reading a well-thought piece from a Cardinal that intersects with secular philosophy and science. Never forget: I’m an integrator, synthesizer, and dot-connector. And in that vein and contrast, the quotidien politics and social antagonism is often quite a laugh for me—as people now make popcorn to watch the CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews entertainment channels.

Recently, my correspondent began sending me gotcha stuff about the whole Epstein, et al and et al morass. I told him I don’t really care that much about any of it, never have, and I told him why.

Paraphrasing—since I deleted the thread after awarding him a block for life—it’s something like this: “you’re a pedophile and I’m embarrassed to have ever communicated with you!”

In This Post:

  • God or Nature, As You Prefer
  • Civilization Picks Fucking to Fuck With
  • Good Rules Become Bad Law
  • Lolita
  • The Law vs. Human Sexuality
  • We Gotcha!
  • Summary

God or Nature, As You Prefer

Secularists, scientists, and humanists agree with religionists on one thing: nature. The only real difference between them is how it all came about.

I understand why that’s an interesting argument to have (I’ve had my share on both sides). But, what if it doesn’t matter? Your Evolutionary-Nature is pretty much identical to another’s God-Nature. Suppose you could come to an agreement on how it came to pass in the first place. Does it really change anything?

Everyone still has to eat, drink, sleep, defecate, fuck, and raise offspring.

There’s another aspect of nature vis-a-vis the human condition that both the secular and religious agree upon.

Puberty is the process of physical changes through which a child’s body matures into an adult body capable of sexual reproduction. It is initiated by hormonal signals from the brain to the gonads: the ovaries in a girl, the testes in a boy.

Various sources all agree

In my way of putting things: a boy gets pubic hair and imagination-and-longing induced erections, seeking to make something of it; girls get a delightful bush and a monthly anguish that makes them resent the whole world and seek lifelong recompense.

Puberty changes everything.

Everyone has a different take on the fairness-scale of what Nature or God has set in place for humans who’ve attained reproductive status. Aside from the woke-culture narrative that women have it all far worse—in everything, always and forever all the time, and no exceptions ever—a man can never know what it’s like to grow another human, birth it, raise it in that specific context, and get to see what happens to a creation from literally inside himself. To me that’s awe.

I think puberty for a boy is far less complex and reduces to: I want one of them and then, that one becomes those ones.

Civilization Picks Fucking to Fuck With

I could perhaps make a speculative list as to plausible reasons that, as we grew out of tribal, primate orgies into a man-made ordered civilization with first, religious and social rules—then codified into statutory secular law—that while we did socialize and codify many rules and rituals regarding food, water, and sanitation; we picked fucking, to fuck with the most.

I think it makes sense. A lot of sense.

The very best—and I think obvious—reason that civilising humans honed in on the Nature-God aspect of puberty at about 13 years old is that allowing fucking and making offspring at that level of inexperience saddled the tribe and village, and set up the couple for failure in the context of what’s required for successful civilization. Civilization, essentially, arises from the recognition that Nature-God is insufficient to the task. The only difference is that secular naturalists have a different take from the religionists on why that is.

The solution was to create a civilizational apprenticeship of about 5-6 years, where girls learned how to be civilized women who can competently cook, keep house, and raise children. Correspondingly, it’s a period where the boys learn to become men who can provide the means for all of that.

As good as that is, it doesn’t make Nature-God suddenly evil.

Good Rules Become Bad Law

If I had to bet, I’d bet that bad and stupid laws account for the preponderance of young-teen pregnancy. It’s speculation, but I’d wager that long times ago, such things were pretty outlier.

Over recent decades, people have traded away the advantages of their close-community social rules for state statutes. They do so partly because they don’t have to enforce it hands-minds-and-money on, anymore—village, church, and community style…they’re seduced by the magic of the state.

Obviously, it’s a fucking disaster and a hot mess—particularly when entwined with drug use (oh, yea, the state to the rescue for that, too…so nobody has to get up off its ass to train kids in the ways).

So, what does everyone do instead of going back to the old ways that worked pretty well?

Double-Down On Laws!!!

This might seem far fetched to you, but I think there’s an integration of competing but potentially aligned interests, and dots that connect.

As an example: women aren’t dummies. They know very well that men are who they are, and that as women age, have babies, and gradually become less sexually attractive by Nature-God, men are less attracted sexually to them. Man’s sexual attraction-drive remains intact, however: zero difference over decades. So, young housewives—in league with expert mothers and grandmothers—did their damn-level-best to keep that provider coming back home at the end of every day. Film and TV from the 50s and 60s highlight it well. Now, the law-society—law-replace-community social order—has replaced all husbands and fathers.

The State now fills “all needs” for women—though it doesn’t provide a free vibrating dildo, batteries included. The typical result is that most women now just get more fat, ugly, spiteful…thoroughly unattractive on a base and raw sexual level to men of self-respect.

…Nobody of any standing wants to fuck them, and so they reminisce over high-school where, if they were one of the ones, every boy wanted them. …And they can’t, for the life of them, figure this simple equation out. Or, can they? …But it’s far easier to use the law to divorce-rape their husband—and their children’s fathers—than it is to make and maintain a sexually attractive environment, such that he’d never want anything else—and for him to know and understand what he has to lose soulfully, morally, and socially by not meeting his end of the bargain.

But that’s just the one part. The other is the morass of laws regarding money-for-sex, “underage” sex, and “sex trafficking.”

What if all of that is really, at root, the result of sexually unattractive—to men—women feeling scorned and getting back by means of the overpopulation of beta-male pussy-boys who’re more than happy to enact laws in their favor—motivated by having the approval of sexually unattractive women?


In about 1950, Vladimir Nabokov began writing a crazy book that took him 5 years to complete.

Lolita is a 1955 novel written by Russian-American novelist Vladimir Nabokov. The novel is notable for its controversial subject: the protagonist and unreliable narrator, a French middle-aged literature professor under the pseudonym Humbert Humbert, is obsessed with an American 12-year-old girl, Dolores Haze, whom he sexually molests after he becomes her stepfather. “Lolita” is his private nickname for Dolores. The novel was originally written in English and first published in Paris in 1955 by Olympia Press. Later it was translated into Russian by Nabokov himself and published in New York City in 1967 by Phaedra Publishers.

Lolita quickly attained a classic status. The novel was adapted into a film by Stanley Kubrick in 1962, and another film by Adrian Lyne in 1997. It has also been adapted several times for the stage and has been the subject of two operas, two ballets, and an acclaimed, but commercially unsuccessful, Broadway musical. Many authors consider it the greatest work of the 20th century, and it has been included in several lists of best books, such as Time‘s List of the 100 Best Novels, Le Monde‘s 100 Books of the Century, Bokklubben World Library, Modern Library’s 100 Best Novels, and The Big Read.


Given that novel’s notoriety and popularity over more than 65 years now, there must be shit-ton millions of “pedophiles” around the world.

Or, is there something about it that resonates in terms of the human experience vis-a-vis Nature-God?

Human Sexual Desires, Drives, and Seductions

It seems to me that in the reading of various old literature; and later, viewing theatre, then film…we’ve all been pretty obsessed about all of it from the beginning. It’s the stuff of the most basic tensions that create the most obvious conflicts that make for stories you want to see play out.

But most of that is in the context of adulthood. Lolita is scandalous because it broaches the taboo of talking about similar things in the context of that apprenticeship time from puberty to adulthood. I think there’s a good reason for that. When puberty is attained by boys and girls, they are fully-fledged, bio-sexually mature, and able to reproduce offspring. Boys are aware of it, and so are girls. And some girls learn early and astutely that full-fledged men are just as easy to sexually entice as are the boys—if not more so—and with higher potential reward.

Speaking to my own experience in that era from about 1974-1979, it’s pretty damn awkward and in retrospect, I was wholly outmatched by the girls my age. They saw me coming from miles away, if you get what I mean.

The Law vs. Human Sexuality

Painting by wide brush, small communities throughout burgeoning human civilization understood it and dealt with it pretty damn well. There was a problem: Nature-God makes kids sexually mature at about 13-ish.

Too early. Civilization in large part is all about delaying that for 5-6 years, minimum.

In primate world, that means the alpha male gets first dibs of the newly minted, and it proceeds to basic forever-squalor from there.

In human civilization, we creates rules, erect idols, craft rituals, write catechisms, et al, for the sole purpose of persuading humans to toe established, man-made lines. That’s civilization.

We operate by rules.

There were and are places where sexual attraction and abandon still prevail, but they’re not representative of human civilization and are generally regarded as primitive or even worse.

But another stark reality of human civilization is to metastasize social awareness and boundaries into a cancer of socialism: the illusion by which everyone derives great benefit at the expense of everyone else.

I profit, you pay the costs.

Heads I win, tails you lose.

While it’s all an illusion, it nonetheless seduces humans of all stripes easily, and has done so for thousands of years already. It is the fall of civilizations.

Civilizations operate by rules, just like good card and board games.

…Some players and actors within civilization are clever enough to get these rules and norms crafted into a code we call LAWS!!! and the state—in league with its self-anointed-and-appointed LAWYERS!!!—is its own enforcer, adjudicator, jailer, and executioner.

SEPARATION OF POWERS!!! is a complete illusion and often enough, a clown-car circus. Just observe the abject joke that is SCOTUS. It’s amazing to me how a judicial body that’s not a fact-finder, nonetheless does everything in its high power to blatantly ignore myriads of falsehoods-in-fact—where their only operative “wise” discernment is to judge whether the falsehoods are legal, or not.

…The law codes undergo an evolution of socialism; whereby, some laws become more important than others in ways that harm the roots of civilization in the first place, whilst enhancing the outcomes and spoils of those presumed to be the guardians and bolsters of that same civilization.

That’s widespread, encompassing most of the law code, but the subject here is human sexuality and specifically, how the law is a gotcha for basic human sexual attraction, arousal, and behavior towards those post puberty, but not fully adult.

In some attempt to put it succinctly, let me muddy the waters, for those of you who call other people pedophiles because they violated the specific law you’re familiar with.

In some states you’re a pedophile, in some states you’re not

Want the water muddied even more?

So, in some countries you’re a PEDOPHILE!!! if the chick is under 21 but in others, you’re A-OK if she’s only 11.

Don’t fail to notice one of the two light-brown countries.

The Age of Consent in Japan is 13 years old. The age of consent is the minimum age at which an individual is considered legally old enough to consent to participation in sexual activity. Individuals aged 12 or younger in Japan are not legally able to consent to sexual activity, and such activity may result in prosecution for statutory rape or the equivalent local law.

Japan statutory rape law is violated when an individual has consensual sexual contact with a person under age 13. At 13, Japan’s base age of consent is the lowest of any developed country. However, many prefectures also have local “corruption of minors” or “obscenity statutes” (淫行条例) which raise the de-facto age of consent to 16-18, unless they are in a “sincere romantic relationship”, usually determined by parental consent. For example, the effective age of consent in Tokyo by local statute is 18. The age of marriage is 16 for girls and 18 for boys with parental permission, and 20 otherwise (as stated in ” ナス邃「窶慊カ窶「ナクナスニ停?邸”, the Child Welfare Act of Japan.


Now wrap your mind around what I’ve already written. When I lived there—Hayama Kaigon—from the age of 24 to 29, I was constantly on the prowl and my experience was one of it having on average the most chaste chicks on the planet, as well as the most virgins even into early 20s.

Is it because their tight culture and social norms are much more SAFE AND EFFECTIVE!!! than a million laws?

How would yapping invokers of the magic word “pedophilia” explain that difference?

We Gotcha!

Perhaps all of the forgoing is enough already to clue you in on how this PEDOPHILLIA!!! bludgeon works. Very near every single conservative, Republican, and religionist in the whole world clamors to it; while at the same time, leftists laugh at how they’ve all been hoist by their own petard pawned, yet again.

The very stupid Republicans spent all capital over a year pursuing Bill Clinton over a consensual blowjob from a woman who was not his wife, and it was IN THE OVAL OFFICE!!!

Republicans can never get over their abject stupidity in this way because they have faith they’re in the right and that it will prevail.

Got news for ya idiots…

…And right on cue, they dogpile all the Epstein related stuff which has been a yawn for me throughout and for lots of others too.

I’ll tell you why it’s all a bunch of bullshit, and why most people simply don’t give a fuck, and for good reason—all implicit in what I’ve written above.

It’s simply because all the girls are past puberty and sexually mature. Sure, some may have been down on their luck and used that age-old, first-profession asset to advance themselves—but it’s not like they were turning drive-up tricks on some boulevard in LA. This was high-end stuff—the famous and elite flying in private jets for an evening or two of that sort of fun. And perhaps they make some connection. Perhaps it opens a door. Whatnot.

Instead, they’ll just pick a jurisdiction where age of consent is 18 rather than 16 or lower, then legally define the Johns as pedophiles.

Not interested.

Here’s the thing. If you had a rational law—like Japan at 13 (corresponding to the age of puberty)—or simply use puberty itself, then it’s easy and rational. Plus, there are already existing laws in place for when coercion is involved: rape, incest, battery, kidnapping, imprisonment, etc.


  1. I highly support the social, cultural, and community rules and norms in most of the world where young teens who’ve become sexually and reproductively mature undergo a period of apprenticeship from adults as to how to prepare for a life that includes raising offspring. My favorite idea is even more strict than the norm. I would encourage keeping the girls very close to home while encouraging the boys to get established. Ideal, for me? 18-22 year old woman married off to 28-32 year old man with a tradesman job or better, a modest home, car, no debt, and an impressive amount of savings…and his first marriage.
  2. Unless it’s the social norm, I see no value in boys or men having sex with very young post-pubescent teens. I’ve known many girls—including the one I’m with—who “lost it” at 14 (mine actually pursued the seduction herself at 14, 31 year old man, father of her two daughters she had at 16 and 17…rural Thailand).
  3. This post is NOT about any sort of celebration of very young teen sex.
  4. This post IS about the silliness and arbitrariness by which we use laws for political plays and gotchas when nothing in Nature or by God Himself is being violated.

OK, that about covers it. If you think I up my game when I put together very unconventional more long-form material like this—that motivates you to think outside the paradigmatic narrative of the quotidien antagonism—then you’re invited to up your game too.


The price for membership is $20.00 every 3 Months.


$20 billed quarterly.


The price for membership is $65.00 per Year.


$65 billed annually.



The price for membership is $325.00 now.


Never pay again.


  1. Matt Miller on January 11, 2022 at 16:50

    When I first caught wind of this Epstein stuff, I was under the impression that it involved little kids. I guess that’s not really the case.

    There are some photos surfacing they’re supposed to be damning… but the girl in the photo looks 16 or 17.

    That’s not what I picture when I hear the word “pedophile.” And it doesn’t evoke a strong emotional response. Not like it would if there were photos with 6 or 7 year olds.

    You called this a yawn, and said most people don’t give a fuck.

    You’re probably right. And you could probably go further and say that the people on the right don’t truly care either – at least not as much as they let on.

    Their true motivation isn’t to “end sex trafficking.” What they really want is to punish the elites that they believe are behind it.

    It’s understandable I guess. It really does seem like the world is being taken over by a cabal. And it’s not clear how to stop it or slow it down. But if you can expose a bunch of them for being pedophiles, it might undermine their authority and public support, plus get some of them locked up.

    I have to admit that I found myself invested in this case over the last year or so. And if I’m honest with myself, it’s for the reasons I just stated.

  2. Gordon on January 11, 2022 at 20:04

    The only things we really know about with the Epstein stuff are the 16-17 year-old girls. I think there is some suspicion that worse things were happening on that island, related to that creepy temple and whatnot. But we don’t have that information.

  3. Don on January 11, 2022 at 22:12

    Interesting piece. I agree culture is paramount, and I’m going to comment on that aspect rather than the age of consent. What I will say is not popular and that’s why I will say it.

    I’m 57, my wife is 55. We met at 16 and 14, dated at 18 and 16, married at 20 and 18. We have 11 kids together and currently 20 grandchildren, going on our 37th year of marriage.

    She is very religious, traditional Catholic, Latin Mass, wears dresses, head coverings in church, the whole nine yards. Me, I believe in God, but…not so much. But I agreed to raise my kids like that so I did. We abstained from intercourse until married and our first son was born 9 months to the day after we were married. Sex is phenomenal, better now that we know what we’re doing and what each other like, 2-3 times a week, oral or anal if I want it. Not what you would imagine for a religious woman; a whirlwind in bed. But she takes care of herself to keep her man at home and does what is necessary to please him, just like you stated women used to do. She said her mother told her the secret to keeping man is to be a maid in the living room, a chef in the kitchen, and a whore in the bedroom. Not what most women aspire to these days with big brother providing for them. These women turn out shrill and nasty, not like the bubbling, happy, content woman I have. And I, in turn, work my ass off for her.

    Her culture inculcated this. Why? There are well founded reasons for marriage and children being the guardrails for the sexual roller coaster. There are good reasons for a young age at marriage and a courtship in the teen years when sexual maturity develops. There are excellent reasons for impregnating women with as many kids as you can. These reasons can be discerned when viewing the trainwreck modern mores have caused. Men and women both have no idea what they’re losing when they throw long developed cultural norms overboard. Their boat will sink.

    On your pieces– I enjoy your thoughts, whether I agree or not. You are an original thinker, precisely because you not only seek out as many dots as you can, you do your own connecting. I, personally, would enjoy you branching out into other subjects, but you have to give your audience what they want. I think we would enjoy having a few drinks together. Maybe some day…

  4. Justin W on January 12, 2022 at 01:45

    Wanna muddy the waters even more? Pretty sure bonobos (and maybe chimps too) occasionally engage in sex with children. Which brings me back to what I was saying on our exchange before. I don’t think our culture is even close to having this conversation in a mature manner. Like what if it’s just the case a subset of our population to be sexually attracted to children? What do we do about it? Can we at least let them seek help without having their lives ruined? I can’t imagine living like that. Feel kinda bad for them because they can’t help how they feel, only how they act. And most don’t act on the urges. Most offenders aren’t actual pedos.

    • Richard Nikoley on January 12, 2022 at 06:05

      Yea, I recall the exchanges…Sex At Dawn and whatnot.

      Not really what this is about. I have no interest in attempting to account for the individual hearts and minds of billions of individuals. Having any curiosity about their private sexual thoughts, fantasies, desires is a wanking waste of time for me.

      What I care about is human civilization and so far as I’m aware, there’s not a child-raping, competing civilization in bonobos or chimps. Not even primitive human tribes where incest is rampant. Here in south Thailand, for example, there are “sea gypsies,” a sort of mix of Burmese, Malaysian, and Thai. They have a small enclave here in Rawai—good seafood—but they’re not civilization builders.


      I’m talking about the rules it requires to get beyond bonobos and chimps fucking kids, and primitive humans engaging in incest, etc.

      The only distinction I’m making is where enacted laws conflict and contradict with a perfectly rational bright line of puberty.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.