Category Archives: gender issues

March 6, 2023 · 5:56 am

Why Alpha Males Are Bullshit (And Those Who Identify As Alphas Are Assholes)

I am a man.

I strive to be a good man.

I like to think I’ve done the best I can in that regard. I know I’m not perfect, but I still strive to improve. I also try my best not to judge others who don’t do as well or struggle to be the man they seek to be.

I say all of this as a precursor because I’m about to go on an angry rant, of sorts, on those who take advantage of insecure, vulnerable men. That rant will include profanity, tirades, and insults. So, if that doesn’t appeal to you, this is your warning. I’m just sharing that as a common courtesy.

Having gotten that out of the way, I’d like to make some important statements that hope finds its way to men and women alike.

Fuck every man who calls himself an alpha male.

Fuck every man who promotes the whole alpha male mentality.

Fuck every man who actually buys into the bullshit behind alpha males.

I understand that’s a bit terse, but I promise I mean every word. I only wish the English language had stronger forms of profanity to get my point across.

Because as a man who has written about men’s issues in the past, I have nothing but abject hatred and disdain for those peddling the objectively stupid notion of the alpha male. I would go so far as to argue it’s worse than the idea of “toxic masculinity,” another label I think is built on a foundation of bullshit.

But the notion of the alpha male isn’t just stupid and wrong. It’s dangerous.

It presents men with a rigid dichotomy that supposedly determines whether they’re a “real man” or just some loser weakling who can’t open a pickle jar. Either you’re some muscle-clad, sports-loving, macho douche-bag who builds his day around how many women he sleeps with or you’re some pathetic, scrawny weakling who deserves to get shoved into lockers in high school.

There’s nothing in between. You’re either one or the other. And unless you’re constantly striving for that alpha status, then you’re somehow a failure as a man.

Again, that’s all bullshit. I seriously cannot emphasize that enough. There is no such thing as an alpha male. That is not a thing in science, biology, or objective reality.

In fact, the whole concept behind “alpha males” is based on horribly flawed study about wolves in captivity that was later disproven. If you want to know the details, please see the following from Phys.org.

Wolf packs don’t actually have alpha males and alpha females, the idea is based on a misunderstanding

If you don’t care to read the whole thing, the long and the short of it is simple. The study that first coined the terms, alpha male and alpha female, was based on observations of social structures of wolves in captivity. However, that social structure does not manifest in the wild.

Instead, the structure is largely based on adult wolves looking after their pups. It’s not too different from how most social animals look after they’re young. We don’t call their parents alphas. That’s just a byproduct of having a particular social structure that relies on adults protecting, teaching, and guiding their young.

That’s exactly what happens in humans, too. We don’t call the parents of children alphas. They’re just parents. Their role is the same as the wolves observed in the wild. They raise their children as a family unit, looking after them and teaching them so that they can survive on their own.

At no point is there this alpha male of the pack who gets all the females and makes all the lesser males do his bidding. That’s not a social structure we find in nature. That’s a social structure we find only in cults, namely the dangerous ones.

That’s exactly what keeps the whole alpha male myth going. It feeds into the agenda of selfish, power-hungry narcissists who need some excuse for being the one who gets all the money, sleeps with all the women, and gets others to do his bidding with little to no compensation.

I won’t name names. But if you follow the news about people who throw around the whole “alpha” label, you know who I’m talking about.

Again, fuck those men and every asshole who buys into their bullshit.

Because that’s what this stupid concept propagates at the end of the day. It’s an enabling force for assholes seeking to exploit those who are vulnerable. Every cult leader in history does the same thing. Organized religion and toxic fandoms do it too. But the people who embrace the alpha male label are just uniquely insufferable.

So, the next time you hear someone throw that alpha male label around, remind them that it’s based on bullshit science and only exploited by wannabe cult leaders. And if they refuse to accept that, then don’t give them the courtesy of calling them alphas. Just call them insufferable assholes. Because that’s what they are and that’s what they’ve always been.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, gender issues, human nature, men's issues, psychology, rants

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

May 3, 2022 · 5:47 am

A Re-Re-Post In Wake of Recent Events: How Overturning Roe v. Wade Can (And Probably Will) Backfire

I know I reposted this once before after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I really hoped I wouldn’t have to repost it again, but I had a sinking feeling that I would. Given recent events surrounding the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, it looks like it’s about to be official. Abortion rights in the United States of America are going to backslide in ways we haven’t seen in over 40 years.

To anyone who has any appreciation of women, justice, and bodily autonomy, this should be very distressing. To those who support and celebrate this change, I hope re-posting this will offer some balance.

While I’ve generally avoided talking about issues like this in the past couple years, this is one I have a feeling nobody will be able to avoid. I also suspect it’s going to get uglier, meaner, and more volatile. I’m not looking forward to it, but there’s no way to avoid it anymore. This is the ugly world we live in. We just have to endure it.

unintended-consequences

As much as I dislike talking about abortion, I don’t deny that I’ve written more about it in the past year than I have since I started this website. I know that sends mixed messages, but I feel there are valid reasons for that.

I watch the news too, although never on a full stomach. I see the same thing everyone else sees with respect to the increasingly tenuous state of abortion rights. With each passing year, more and more restrictions are placed on abortion. As other parts of the world liberalize their laws, the United States is going in the opposite direction.

Now, in wake of shake-ups on the Supreme Court, it’s more likely than ever that Roe v. Wade, the case that legalized abortion nationwide in 1973, will be overturned. While I don’t think it’s guaranteed, I do think it’s possible. If I had to put betting odds on it, I would say that there’s a 50/50 chance that Roe v. Wade could be overturned by 2024.

If that happens, there are many implications. Many people who are more informed on this issue have already articulated as such. Making abortion illegal could lead to more unwanted pregnancy, increases in crime, increases in poverty, and serious health risks for women seeking back-alley abortions.

We’re already seeing some of these impacts play out in states where abortion is severely restricted. Several states have imposed so many restrictions that they’re down to only one abortion clinic. Due to these burdens, the impact on women, especially those who are poor, has been exceedingly harsh.

Those impacts are likely to intensify if Roe v. Wade is overturned, but I don’t want to get into that part of the issue. I also don’t want to focus on the legal issues, since I’m not a lawyer. Instead, I want to focus on unintended consequences.

I know that the anti-abortion crowd has this Utopian vision of a world after Roe v. Wade. They have this dream that the Supreme Court will overrule the 1973 decision and shortly after, every state will outlaw the procedure. They’ll throw a parade. They’ll proclaim to the world that they won.

Suddenly, women can no longer end an unwanted pregnancy. As a result, they have to start carrying their pregnancies to term. This will force the women, the men who impregnated them, and their families to take responsibility for their actions. They can no longer be sexually promiscuous. They now have to temper their behavior and live more restrained lives.

While nobody can predict the future, I can say without reservation that this dream will not come true. Human nature is never that simple, especially when it comes to law. Overturning Roe v. Wade will not end abortion. It will not make women carry more pregnancies to term. It will not lead to a society consistent with Pat Roberston’s values.

That’s because there’s one law that no court can ever overturn and that’s the law of unintended consequences. Make no mistake. There will be unintended consequences for overturning Roe v. Wade, many of which I doubt the anti-abortion movement has contemplated.

What follows are several unintended consequences of overturning Roe v. Wade that will make the anti-abortion crowd cringe. Whether they oppose abortion for religious reasons or for ethical reasons, these are consequences that will do more than taint that abortion-free fever dream of theirs. At the very least, I hope it gives those who oppose abortion a moment of pause.

Consequence #1: Abortion Will Become More Common (And Harder To Protest)

Remember when the United States banned marijuana and shortly after that, it disappeared completely? Neither do I because not only did that fail to occur, the exact opposite transpired. Marijuana has been illegal for nearly a century in the United States and it’s more popular now than it was in the days before “Refer Madness.”

Abortion is not like illicit drugs, but it’s subject to similar influences. In the same way making drugs illegal didn’t make them go away, making abortion illegal won’t make it disappear. It’ll only send it into the depths of the underground economy where the red tape that helps regulate the procedure doesn’t exist.

The history of “back alley abortions” is already well-documented. On top of that, these locations are not clinics where people can gather and protest. That’s what happens when you send something into the shadows. It’s harder to see, study, and scrutinize. In that environment, abortion won’t just become more dangerous. It may become more common because the traditional barriers for entry aren’t there.

If you think that seems like a stretch, just consider the choices involving marijuana. Would you rather try to sneak into a liquor store with security cameras or buy it in a dark alley from someone who has just as much incentive to avoid cops?

Consequence #2: Organized Religion’s Decline Will Accelerate

Even though the influence of religion remains strong, the steady decline of religion is well-documented. This is especially true among the younger generations who are more educated and informed than any generation before them. As a result, they will notice when religious groups take credit for banning abortion.

While those same groups often present themselves as saving babies, that’s not how everyone else will see it. We already live in a world where every racist, misogynistic, theocracy-loving sermon is captured on the internet. The same people who are becoming less religious will have even more reason to resent organized religion.

They won’t see the religiously-motivated, anti-abortion crusaders as holy people who saved innocent babies. They’ll see those people the same way we see those who used religion to justify slavery and racial segregation. Unlike previous years, being non-religious isn’t nearly as taboo and for organizations that rely heavily on adherents giving them money, that’s a big problem.

Consequence #3: An Entire Political Party Will Become The Anti-Woman Party

In the same way banning abortion could accelerate organized religion’s decline, a sizable chunk of the political spectrum could take a similar hit. In the United States, it’s primarily conservatives who oppose abortion and frequently side with religious institutions. They too probably see banning abortion as protecting innocent babies.

Again, that’s not how others will see it. Instead, an emerging generation will see conservatives as the party that put a gun to the head of every pregnant woman and demanded that she endure nine months of bodily rigor to have a child she may not be able to afford. Since women vote and make up half the population, it doesn’t bode well for their ability to win support in the future.

Women already disproportionately lean liberal and banning abortion will likely widen that gap. History shows that it’s hard for any party to overcome those gaps and stay in power. As I’ve noted before, this already played out in the 1960s in Romania. Conservatives would be wise to heed that lesson because that did not end well for the communist party and its leader.

Consequence #4: More Advanced Contraceptives Will Emerge Faster (For Women And Men)

One of the most confounding aspects of the anti-abortion movement is how much certain segments of the movement also oppose contraception. It’s downright hypocritical since education and contraceptive use has definitively shown time and again that it’s the most effective way to reduce abortions.

The fact that the anti-abortion crowd so rarely promotes those policies implies that a sizable chunk of that movement is less concerned about babies and more concerned about sex. I’ve tried to distinguish this crowd from the more sincere segments of the movement, but the lines have become more blurred in recent years.

Those lines might become a lot clearer if abortion were banned nationwide because that suddenly makes the contraception market a lot more valuable. At the moment, there isn’t much incentive to improve on the current contraceptives we have. Granted, they’re much more effective than they were before 1973, but there’s still room for improvement.

Without Roe v. Wade, the need for those improvements will be far greater and it won’t just be focused on women. Contraception for men will also get a boost because unlike 1973, there are more laws in place affecting men with issues like child support. For once, men will have to be just as vigilant about avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

This means emerging technology like the male birth control pill and Vasalgel will get a sizable boost in investment. It also means long-term, more-effective birth control like IUDs for women will get a boost as well. When the same anti-abortion crowd starts protesting that, they’ll reveal just how little they cared for babies in the first place.

Consequence #5: Promiscuous Sex Will Increase (For Entirely New Reasons)

Are you faithful or promiscuous? The answer could lie in your index finger | The Independent | The Independent

This could also be a direct result of the boost contraception research will get from banning abortion. It’s not just because people will have access to more effective contraception, though. This is one of those backlashes that has more to do with social forces than logistical forces.

For those who are sexually active and value their sexual freedom, overturning Roe v. Wade will come off as a direct personal attack. If you’ve been on the internet for more than five minutes, you know people rarely take personal attacks lying down. They’re more likely to fight back and do the exact opposite of what you hope.

In the same way people in a debate double down on their beliefs in a heated argument, those who supported Roe v. Wade will have another reason to engage in the kind of reckless behavior that the anti-abortion crowd hates. To them, it won’t just be a form of protest. It’ll be a form of trolling.

People already have plenty of reasons to have sex just for the fun of it. No government or religious institution has ever been able to stop that and banning abortion certainly won’t do the trick. While it’s true that banning abortion will make promiscuity more dangerous, it’s also true that people are attracted to danger. If it pisses off someone you already despise, then that’s just a bonus.

Consequence #6: Providing Abortion Services Will Become More Lucrative (And Harder To Regulate)

For every unintended consequence, there’s usually a basis in money. Even for issues that are fueled with high emotions and deeply-held beliefs, it often comes back to money. That’s why the drug war can never be won. That’s why Disney will never stop making movies with singing animals. It’s all about the money.

Abortion, in its current form, is not a huge money-making venture. It’s treated like a medical service. However, put it in the same black market as illicit drugs and suddenly, the profit margins go way up. Remove it from the current medical infrastructure and all the regulations that keep it from being profitable go with it.

Instead of skilled, licensed doctors doing this procedure, people with questionable qualifications can get into the mix. On top of that, they can charge as much or as little as they want without the AMA or the FDA condemning them. That’ll make it more dangerous, but if there’s money to be made, it’ll happen.

Remember, making abortion illegal doesn’t make the women seeking abortion disappear. If they’re desperate enough, they’ll brave that danger and they’ll pay that price. Those willing to navigate that danger and exploit those situations will gain the tax-free profit. For the anti-abortion crowd and the government, it’s lose-lose.

Consequence #7: An Entire Generation Will Despise Its Elders (And Their Traditions)

Throughout history, younger generations have rebelled against older generations. You don’t need to single out the hippie generation of the 1960s to see that. Young people and old people have always whined about each other. These days, you can’t go more than five minutes without seeing a story about how Millennials are ruining something we used to love.

With abortion, there is already an established divide. According to Pew, younger generations tend to be more pro-choice than older generations. On top of that, abortion laws are more likely to affect them because they’re still building their lives and they’re going to get horny/lonely along the way.

This same generation is already more accepting of things that older people resent. They’re more accepting of divorce, polyamory, homosexuality, and all sorts of sexual practices that make priests, monks, mullahs, and rabbis gag. It certainly doesn’t help that the people in power deciding these issues are often old men who will never need an abortion. In terms of optics, it’s a pretty ugly sight.

It won’t just stop at young people distancing themselves from organized religion. It won’t stop at distancing themselves from a political party, either. Overall, the emerging generations will see their elders as the ones who stripped them of a right that they got to enjoy all their lives. That doesn’t just paint them in a negative light. It turns their values and traditions into a target.

Young people don’t need many reasons to rebel against their elders, but this is bigger than someone who can’t work a cell phone. This is an issue that affects the ability of an entire generation to make choices about their bodies, their sexuality, and their future. When another generation takes that away from them, it’s going to evoke more than ridicule. It may get pretty damn ugly.

As always, I want to remind everyone that this is just speculation. I can’t predict the future and there’s no telling what other factors may emerge in this exceedingly controversial issue. That said, I still feel comfortable stating that overturning Roe v. Wade will have consequences, many of them unintended. Some will be minor, but some will result in a full-fledged backlash. It’s just a matter of how we’ll deal with them.

Leave a comment

Filed under abortion, gender issues, human nature, Marriage and Relationships, men's issues, religion, sex in society, sexuality, women's issues

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 22, 2021 · 5:49 am

How A Female 007 Can Succeed Or Fail

We live in a strange era of popular culture. While trends and tastes are always changing, I can’t recall a time when they’ve changed in such varying ways. Superhero movies went from being a niche genre to the biggest box office draw in history. Beloved children’s movies are becoming live-action remakes. Horror movies are even starting to reinvent themselves.

One trend that has garnered more controversy than most has to do with a certain kind of remake. Specifically, it involves remakes that attempt to swap the gender, race, or some other characteristic of an iconic character. The first major franchise to try this was “Ghostbusters” in 2016 and to say that this was controversial would be like calling a tornado laced with cow shit a light breeze.

Now, I’ve tried to stay out of the discussions involving gender-swapping or race-swapping because it’s rarely productive. I’ve never seen those discussions produce anything other than frothing hatred, regardless of whether it’s online or in person. With the COVID-19 pandemic finally waning and movie theaters opening back up, I’m content to just go into movies with an open mind and hope for the best.

However, I don’t see this trend ending anytime soon. Even though “Ghostbusters” tanked at the box office, I suspect Hollywood will keep trying to push the envelope, if only to garner attention and clicks. The prevailing sentiment seems to be that the old ways of crafting characters, villains, and stories just isn’t viable anymore. They need to shake things up and do things differently.

I can already sense certain people banging their heads against the wall or groaning in dismay, lamenting over the idea that Disney may one day make an “Indiana Jones” reboot featuring a black transgender double-amputee woman as the new Dr. Jones. I understand that dread. At the same time, I think there is room for innovation. It’s just a matter of not destroying what makes stories, franchises, and iconic characters great.

One franchise that is poised for a new direction that may either reinvigorate or regress it completely is the James Bond franchise. In terms of franchises in need of a boost, I think Bond needs one more than most. The last entry, “Spectre,” was somewhat of a downgrade compared to the billion-dollar box office that “Skyfall” achieved. On top of that, Daniel Craig has made clear that he wishes to move on from the character.

For a while, the big controversy was the rumor that Idris Elba would take over as the new James Bond. While Elba eventually debunked that rumor, it still ignited a glut of angry debates over the future of the franchise that only got worse when issues of racism entered the conversation. Now, if recent rumors surrounding the development of the next Bond movie, “No Time To Die,” are true, those debates will only intensify.

While the details haven’t been confirmed, the plot of the upcoming movie includes Lashana Lynch playing a black, female agent who may or may not be Bond’s replacement. Not surprisingly, this has generated plenty of uproar and it will only intensify if these details prove accurate. While I don’t have any strong feelings about Ms. Lynch playing 007, I suspect the controversy it garners will extend beyond the movie.

After what happened with “Ghostbusters,” there’s certainly cause for concern. Aside from losing money, that movie damaged both a franchise and a concept. It showed just how badly things can go when a franchise attempts to reinvent itself in a way that panders to political sensibilities while undercutting the very things that made that franchise great.

I don’t think James Bond is in a position to endure that kind of setback. It doesn’t have the same status as “Star Wars” and occupies a genre that is difficult to adapt to a world where internet trolls are a more pressing threat than Russian spies. At the same time, I believe the James Bond franchise is in a better position than “Ghostbusters” or “Star Wars” to succeed in a way others haven’t.

Make no mistake. The odds of the next Bond movie succeeding are stacked against it. If this movie tries too hard to be too progressive, then it won’t just ruin the story. It’ll set the franchise back for years. If it succeeds, however, it could reinvent the franchise in a way that will appeal to a new generation who never had to worry about Soviet sleeper agents.

Without knowing the details of the plot, it’s difficult to know how it will pan out. However, I believe there’s a right way to do a remake that attracts a new audience while not alienating long-time fans. Unfortunately, there are always fewer right ways to do things than wrong ways. What follows is my idea on how this new era of James Bond can succeed and how it may ultimately fail.

How A Female 007 Can Succeed

Female James Bond: 10 Actresses We Think Should Play 007

This is, by far, the most important aspect of the upcoming movie. If 007 is going to be a black woman played by Lashana Lynch, then this part has to work. I understand that’s a tall order. Some may say it’s impossible. I respectfully disagree. I believe that there’s no reason 007 can’t be someone of a different race or gender. It’s just a matter of building that story around that of James Bond.

Please note that I differentiate between 007 and James Bond. While I realize the two titles often go hand-in-hand, I don’t think they’re dependent on one another. James Bond can still be the same womanizing, martini-loving super spy he’s always been without the title of 007. In fact, he’s been disavowed and fired from his role on more than one occasion in more than one movie.

Titles like 007 change hands all the time in the world of James Bond. It wouldn’t completely undermine the spirit of James Bond for someone else to wield that title in some capacity, even if they’re black and female. It’s just a matter of building a proper story around it.

If the plot rumors are to be believed, James Bond is still alive in this movie. However, he has since retired from MI-6. That opens the door for someone else to take on the title of 007 and that’s where Ms. Lynch’s character comes in. Due to this connection, their paths eventually cross and the story evolves from there.

I believe this story can work, but only if both James Bond and Ms. Lynch’s character complement one another. By that, I mean they have to be true equals in terms of skill, grit, and charisma. Ms. Lynch can’t just be another female agent who occasionally clashes with Q and Moneypenny. She has to share Bond’s bravado, recklessness, and cunning.

That gives her and Bond a reason to work together. It also compounds the threats, danger, and volatility of the conflict. They don’t have to be best friends and they don’t have to try to seduce one another. They just have to demonstrate that they need each other. They make each other better at what they do. One need not outshine the other.

How they achieve this depends on the plot. It certainly won’t be easy and I definitely have my doubts that it can be done. I don’t think it’s impossible, though. If those involved find a way, then it could be a bold new direction for the James Bond franchise. There will always be room for James Bond, but having a new 007 in the mix could open up many possibility.

How A Female 007 Can Fail

There are almost too many ways for me to list how this idea can fail. Like I said earlier, making a bold concept work is difficult. Failing spectacularly is easy. For James Bond, it’s just a matter of how that failure plays out. I think the biggest risk may come from this movie not learning the same lessons as the “Ghostbusters” remake.

Chief among those lessons is maintaining the spirit of the original. James Bond is a womanizing, martini-loving embodiment of raw masculinity. Trying to make him something other than that or trying to make him the antagonist will completely derail both the story and long-time fans. Even if Ms. Lynch’s character is done well, it won’t matter whatsoever if James Bond isn’t James Bond.

Even if James Bond’s character remains intact, Ms. Lynch’s character could also derail the movie just as much. If she’s going to wield the title of 007, she can’t just be some flat character with no distinct personality traits. Being black and female, there will be a temptation to make her either too much like Bond or too different.

If she’s too competent, then she could get lumped with the infamous Mary Sue label that plagued Rey in “Star Wars.” If she’s just as reckless and promiscuous as Bond, then she’s not her own character. She’s just a black, female James Bond and nothing more. It may seem like an either/or scenario, but I believe there’s plenty of room to disguinish her. I’m just not convinced that the lessons of “Ghostbusters” have sunk in.

Even if both Ms. Lynch’s character and James Bond are intact, there’s still the matter of the overall story. That could easily get lost in the effort to make Ms. Lynch a convincing 007 that fans will embrace. If the villain or threat is unoriginal or predictable, then even quality characterization won’t help the movie succeed.

Like superhero movies, James Bond movies often succeed on the strength of their villains. Times have changed since the Cold War. The biggest threats of today aren’t what they were in the mid-20th Century when James Bond established himself as the ultimate spy. Recent movies, going back to “Casino Royale,” have noted that Bond is a relic of a bygone era. That doesn’t mean he can’t have a place in the 21st century.

At the moment, if I had to bet money on the success or failure of this movie, I would bet on it failing. I wouldn’t bet everything, but I believe the odds are stacked against it. Between the outrage culture that constantly rages on the internet and the growing cynicism surrounding remakes and reboots, there are so many forces working against this movie besides just making it entertaining.

However, James Bond is one of those rare franchises that has endured for decades. It has found ways of reinventing itself before. If ever there was a franchise that could raise to the challenge, it’s this one. Time will tell, but it’ll take more than gadgets, martinis, and sex appeal beat the odds.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, movies, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, sex in media, sex in society

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

July 12, 2021 · 5:52 am

Finding Love Has Become An Extended Job Interview (And For Good, Yet Unromantic Reasons)

Being a self-professed romantic and an aspiring erotica/romance writer, I often scrutinize the nature of romance more than most. Whereas some might watch a movie or TV show and see the basics of a romantic sub-plot, I’ll dig much deeper. I’ll identify which romances are inherently flawed, why some work beautifully, and why love triangles are inherently awful.

That scrutiny goes beyond media, popular culture, and my own efforts to tell a good love story. I often find myself observing how romance unfolds in real life. Whether it’s how people have pursued romance in the past to my own romantic endeavors, there’s a lot to break down and it doesn’t always make sense. Love isn’t known for being rational, after all.

It’s because of this tendency of mine that I notice things that rarely come up in discussions about romance. Recently, I realized something profound while reading several stories about how modern dating has changed in recent years, of which there are many.

Modern romance has become more a job interview than an emotional journey.

I imagine some will roll their eyes at that notion. Some might even agree with it and not need any convincing. A few probably think I’m giving this too much thought, even for a romance fan. That may be a fair point, but I believe the evolution of modern romance is becoming a lot less romantic.

To be fair, finding has undergone many upheavals throughout history. It wasn’t until the past couple centuries that people actually married for love. Those who claim to champion “traditional” marriage probably aren’t aware that marriage and formal relationships were little more than passionless business contracts for most of human history.

Love and romance were always there. We, as human beings, are hardwired to form loving bonds. It just took different forms and people went about it in very different ways. Most people have a general idea of how people go about it today. It tends to go something like this.

  • Two people meet, either in person or online
  • There’s a spark of attraction
  • They both pursue each other
  • They go on dates to learn about one another and explore their romantic connection
  • If the connection is strong enough, they forge a lasting relationship and build a life together

Granted, this is an exceedingly gross simplification. It still covers most of the basics. That’s the problem, though. It only deals with the basics and people are rarely basic.

It starts shortly after a mutual attraction is established. Once two people start pursuing one another, the dating phase starts. Movies, TV shows, and romance novels tend to be vague about how this unfolds. However, it’s here where the parallels with job interviews start to show.

While a love story may depict candle-lit dinners, coordinated dancing, and intimate gestures, the bulk of that process tends to involve more pragmatic acts. For two people to understand whether they’re romantically compatible, they need to get to know one another. To get to know one another, they need to interact.

That, in and of itself, doesn’t make dating indistinguishable from a job interview. For that, the modern structure of relationships is what fosters that and I’m not just referring to marriage. This affects couples who cohabitate, as well as those who are serial monogamists.

From a logistical standpoint, a modern romance has many moving parts. It’s not enough to just be attracted to one another, enjoy each other’s company, or have great sex. People often have to find a way to fit one another into their lives. There are jobs, career aspirations, and living situations to consider.

These days, people aren’t as likely to stay in the same place they were born in, especially if the opportunities in that town are limited. The same goes for their families. Even if they stay, sometimes their parents or extended family move away. Maybe it’s for retirement, going to college, or pursuing their own romantic interests. Having to accommodate all that into a relationship can be daunting.

In the same way you might be qualified for a job, but not in a position to take it, you might find yourself in a similar relationship with romance. All the emotional, physical, and sexual chemistry is there. However, you’re just not in a position to pursue it. You can’t maintain that relationship when you’re both living in other time zones or pursuing different paths.

That’s not to say long distance relationships can’t work, but it’s like trying to do a job remotely. There’s only so much you can do when you’re not present. If that weren’t the case, everyone would work from home or from a tropical paradise. I that as someone who has been unable to pursue major opportunities and broken up from good relationships due to distance.

Even if you can work around issues of distance and time, there’s also the matter of becoming entwined with family affairs. As the “Meet The Parents” trilogy so hilariously demonstrates, being with someone is rarely just about being with them, individually. At some point, if the romance is to be serious, their family will get involved.

That process can be as complicated as matching qualifications for a specialized job on a resume. You’ve got to make sure both families can get along. They can’t just tolerate each other at the wedding or during the holidays. They have to be capable of co-existing in a way that doesn’t undercut the romance.

It’s very similar from having a job that matches your skill set, but for an organization that is just insufferable. A lot of people have had to endure jobs they hated, even if they paid well or matched their various talents. When the organization within the job is awful, then even a dream job can be awful.

You can love someone with all your heart. You might even have someone your family loves. However, if your lover’s family is an absolute pain, then the romance will suffer. Now that relationships aren’t just business arrangements, we have to navigate around one another’s lives and their families. To do that, it’s necessary to treat dating like a job interview.

You have figure out if this person fits into your life.

You have to figure out if their hopes, dreams, and abilities match what you’re looking for.

You have to prove that your hopes, dreams, and abilities match theirs as well.

You have to determine whether you fit into the organization of their life and their family.

Ultimately, you have to build that shared life together around all of that, knowing that breaking up/being fired/quitting comes with a personal/professional cost.

On the surface, it’s hardly romantic. At the same time, there’s an undeniable pragmatism to it. As society has evolved, complete with more egalitarian gender roles and fewer taboos about being single, we’re in a better position to chart our own romantic path. We don’t just have to settle for limited options and few opportunities. We can dare to seek something greater.

As a byproduct, the basic romantic elements of intimate chemistry can never be enough. It’s necessary, if not unavoidable, to assess a prospective lover’s entire life to determine of that romance is even viable. It’s not easy and it’s exceedingly imperfect, as the rate of divorce and abusive relationships indicates.

However, being the romantic I am, I still say it’s worth pursuing. That process is still very likely to change as society, technology, and attitudes change. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are sure to change it even more. Whether it becomes more or less like a job interview remains to be seen.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, human nature, Love Or Obsession, psychology, romance

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 22, 2021 · 5:59 am

Catholic Priests Defy The Vatican To Sanction Same-Sex Unions (And We Should Cheer Them On)

I tend to be very critical of organized religion and those who take religion to extremes. I make no apologies for that, but I do make an effort to be fair. That’s why I go out of my way to highlight that most religious people, regardless of the religion they follow, are generally good, decent people whose faith genuinely enriches their lives.

That’s worth acknowledging because people can do genuinely good things in the name of their faith. It’s a beautiful thing. Just look at someone like Fred Rogers. That’s religious devotion at its finest.

I know I don’t highlight those stories enough. In my defense, the stories of people who actually practice what they preach and do genuine good for the world rarely makes the news. Then again, the news relies almost entirely on doom and gloom these days, so that shouldn’t be surprising.

That makes the effort to highlight the good a lot harder, but it’s still worth doing. To that end, I want to highlight a good story about religious people that stemmed from a bad story about a religious institution with a history of unholy behavior.

Recently, I bemoaned the Vatican’s decision to essentially cling to their traditions of marginalizing LGBTQ people. They still call homosexuality a sin and refuse to bless same-sex unions. Never mind the fact that Catholics still get divorced and eat shellfish, the Vatican still refuses to embrace change.

At a time when religion, as a whole is in decline and support for LGBTQ rights is growing, this just feels backwards, even by the standards of the Catholic Church. However, not all those who identify as Catholic feel the same way.

Even though the Vatican is set up as the central power of the Catholic world, there are those who go against that power. A few priests are daring to defy the Vatican and I want to take a minute to acknowledge their boldness. This is what Reuters has reported.

Reuters: Rebel priests defy Vatican, vow to bless same-sex couples

A dissident band of Roman Catholic priests leading a disobedience campaign against the Vatican said on Tuesday they would carry on blessing same-sex couples in defiance of Church orders.

The Vatican said on Monday that priests cannot bless same-sex unions and that such blessings are not valid, in a ruling that disappointed gay Catholics who had hoped their Church was becoming more welcoming under Pope Francis.

In some countries, parishes and ministers have begun blessing same-sex unions in lieu of marriage, and there have been calls for bishops to institutionalise de facto such blessings. Conservatives in the 1.3 billion-member Roman Catholic Church have expressed alarm over such practices.

“We members of the Parish Priests Initiative are deeply appalled by the new Roman decree that seeks to prohibit the blessing of same-sex loving couples. This is a relapse into times that we had hoped to have overcome with Pope Francis,” the Austrian-based group said in a statement.

“We will — in solidarity with so many — not reject any loving couple in the future who ask to celebrate God’s blessing, which they experience every day, also in a worship service.”

Whether you’re religious or not, let’s take a moment to applaud these priests. They’re doing something that Jesus himself once did. They see a powerful institution doing something wrong and they’re protesting that by doing what’s right.

In the process, they’re providing love, tolerance, and acceptance to a marginalized group that has suffered plenty, often in the name of religion. You can call that ironic, but I prefer to call it heroic. They have to know on some levels that they’re going to get in trouble for this.

They are likely going to get criticized. They’ll likely face protests from hardline conservative Catholics who cannot tolerate any deviation of any kind from certain traditions, no matter how outdated or intolerant they are. The fact these priests still went through with it says a lot about their character, as well as their faith.

It’s also worth emphasizing that what they’re doing is commendable in ways beyond the religious angle. They are just a small group of individual priests. The Vatican is a vast, powerful organization with immense wealth and influence. They have the benefit of being able to say with a straight face that their authority comes directly from a deity.

That’s a power that many governments envy. Some claim they’re inherently divine, but the results are often less-than-divine.

That power matters because it means they can change if they wanted. It would be a lot easier than what these rebellious priests are doing. The Pope could just come out and say that homosexuality isn’t a sin anymore for the same reason eating shellfish isn’t a sin anymore. He did it with purgatory. Why not do it with homosexuality?

That’s the problem with powerful organizations, though. When they’re powerful, they have the luxury of taking the path of least resistance. The easiest thing for powerful organizations to do is not change. It’s much less strenuous on the people and the systems around them to just keep doing what they’ve always been doing.

It keeps them in power.

It means less work for them and those who support them.

It means less thinking, contemplating, and second-guessing that maybe they’re doing something wrong.

At best, it’s lazy. At worst, it’s callous and negligent. Contrast that with the Catholic Priests who dare to go against such power. They know what they’re doing will bring consequences. They know they’re going to upset some powerful people, but they do it anyway.

That’s brave.

That’s bold.

That’s a level of spirit that religious and non-religious people alike can respect.

Regardless of your affiliation or your opinions of Christianity or Catholicism, take a moment to acknowledge that these men of faith are doing something great. They’re offering love and acceptance to their fellow human beings, even though they’re marginalized and demonized. It’s probably the most Christian thing they could possibly do and I, for one, salute them. I suspect Jesus would, as well.

1 Comment

Filed under Current Events, gender issues, political correctness, politics, real stories, religion, sex in society, Uplifting Stories

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

March 18, 2021 · 5:46 am

The Vatican (Unsurprisingly) Won’t Bless Same-Sex Unions And Why That Still Matters

When the Vatican makes the news for all the wrong reasons, few are surprised anymore. For the past few decades, major scandals and stories of horrific abuse have become common knowledge. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not fake news. This stuff happened and the Vatican doesn’t bother denying it anymore.

Despite this, they still wield a great deal of power, authority, and reverence for millions of people. People still see the Vatican as the central authority for their faith. Even when more terrible scandals come out, it barely shocks anyone anymore. It’s tragic and infuriating, especially to the victims.

That’s why when the Catholic Church makes a sweeping moral judgement that affects millions of people, including those who aren’t Catholic, it evokes a special kind of frustration. This is an organization whose corruption and hypocrisy has directly led to widespread suffering and death. They do not any moral authority, especially on matters pertaining to sex and family.

Remember, this is an organization run by a bunch of old men who have taken a vow of celibacy. Getting advice from them on matters of sex is like getting advice from a vegan on how to cook a steak.

So, with that in mind, when the Vatican comes out and says same-sex unions are sinful and unworthy of their blessing, it should not carry any weight. It should not be taken seriously, either. They have as much credibility as Jenny McCarthy’s position on Quantum Field Theory.

Unfortunately, because they still wield the zeal of centuries-old religious authority, a lot of people do take them seriously. That’s why we shouldn’t be too surprised when they announce that their attitudes towards things like same-sex relationships is the same as it was several centuries ago.

AP News: Vatican bars gay union blessing, says God ‘can’t bless sin’

The Vatican declared Monday that the Catholic Church won’t bless same-sex unions since God “cannot bless sin.”

The Vatican’s orthodoxy office, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, issued a formal response to a question about whether Catholic clergy have the authority to bless gay unions. The answer, contained in a two-page explanation published in seven languages and approved by Pope Francis, was “negative.”

The note distinguished between the church’s welcoming and blessing of gay people, which it upheld, but not their unions. It argued that such unions are not part of God’s plan and that any sacramental recognition of them could be confused with marriage.

Again, this organization’s deplorable history with covering up egregious sex crimes should bar them from making such judgements. If they didn’t have religious tradition to hide behind, their statement would be a joke worthy of its own Onion article.

For countless Catholics, as well as same-sex couples and millions who identify as LGBTQ, it’s no laughing matter. What the Vatican is doing shouldn’t surprise anyone, no matter how frustrating it is in the grand scheme of things.

It’s easy to just cling to tradition. It means they don’t have to change. They don’t have to come out and say they were wrong about something for hundreds of years. They also don’t have to apologize and face possible legal issues for all the abuse they enabled over many years.

To the powers that be in the Vatican, it’s the path of least resistance.

To everyone else, it’s pure cowardice.

Now, please don’t misconstrue that as a sweeping judgment on all Catholics or those who respect the Vatican. As I often say whenever I criticize religion, most religious people, including most Catholics, are decent people. Many are actually in favor of LGBTQ rights, including same-sex marriage. They don’t hold the Vatican in that high regard and for understandable reasons.

However, the Vatican’s refusal to break free of old dogma is a testament to how stubborn and flawed this institution has become. Between all the scandals that have come out in recent years and the overall decline in religiosity, the powers within the Catholic Church are doing themselves no favor by clinging to their dogma.

At the same time, they’re continuing the stigma and harm that LGBTQ people continue to face all over the world. Many of the hate and oppression they face is religiously motivated. The Vatican is in a position to condemn it, but they choose not to. That is a moral failing on their part and one that further undermines their credibility, as a moral organization. Then again, how much moral authority can an organization have after covering up rampant child sexual abuse?

1 Comment

Filed under gender issues, political correctness, politics, religion, sex in society

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

January 12, 2021 · 5:49 am

Young Adults Are Making Better Decisions About Their Sex Lives While Older Adults Still Complain About Them

It’s a tale as old as time and no, I’m not referring to “Beauty and the Beast.”

Younger generations clash with older generations. The older people are appalled at how the youth are conducting themselves. They see them doing things and behaving in ways that they never would’ve imagined in their youth. It’s not new. In fact, it’s been happening since ancient times in some form or another.

It’s especially pronounced when sex enters the equation. Older people don’t like thinking about their kids having sex and young people don’t like thinking about their grandparents having sex. We know it happens. There are over 7 billion humans on this planet. It happens a lot. It just makes us both very uncomfortable.

From discomfort comes assumptions and from assumptions come irrational fears. It’s not always overt, but it’s present in popular perceptions. Personally, I’ve never heard someone over the age of 60 claim that young people today are far more responsible in managing their sexual behavior. I doubt anyone in that age group could say that with a straight face.

However, that’s not what actual, verifiable data says. According to recent research in Psychological Science, young people today are more responsible than ever when it comes to making decisions about their sex lives.

Psychological Science: Young Adults Make Rational Sexual Decisions

We examined risky sexual choice under the lens of rational decision-making. Participants (N = 257) completed a novel sexual-choice task in which they selected from among hypothetical sexual partners varying in physical attractiveness and in the probability that one would contract a sexually transmitted infection (STI) from a one-time sexual encounter with them. We found that nearly all participants evaluated the sexual-choice alternatives in a coherent fashion consistent with utility-based theories of rational choice. In subsequent analyses, we classified participants’ responses according to whether their sexual preferences were based on maximizing attractiveness or minimizing the risk of STIs. Finally, we established an association between sexual choice in our task and reported real-world sexual risk-taking.

It doesn’t just stop with responsible choices, either. There has been a relatively consistent trend over the past 40 years. Sexual activity, as a whole, has been going down, so much so that it’s a demographic concern. That has corresponded with a decline in teen pregnancy, abortion, and unwanted pregnancy.

These are all good things for society for the most part. There are some legitimate concerns that a lack of physical and emotional intimacy could be detrimental on these young people, but with respect to the rampant promiscuity that older generations often complain about, the reality just isn’t as titillating.

That’s not to say there aren’t irresponsible young people in this world. There certainly are. I’ve known quite a few. Most people have. It’s just not this big, decadent trend. Cable news and popular media love to paint young people as these strange, tradition-hating deviants who seek to destroy our most precious institutions. They are simply wrong.

They’re also trying to sell you a bullshit narrative to get ratings, but that’s another story.

Even in matters not exclusive to sex, older generations still try to find ways to criticize these crazy young people. It’s become more popular in recent years to call anyone under 30 a cohort of over-confident narcissists. Some go so far as to say there’s a narcissism epidemic.

Research says young people today are more narcissistic than ever

‘Somebody high in self-esteem values individual achievement, but they also value their relationships and caring for others,’ she says. ‘Narcissists are missing that piece about valuing, caring and their relationships, so they tend to lack empathy, they have poor relationship skills. That’s one of the biggest differences, those communal and caring traits tend to be high in most people with self-esteem but not among those who are high in narcissism.’

Again, this is a flawed and incomplete narrative. It’s also incompatible with with the notion that young people are somehow more decadent sexually. Among the key traits of narcissism is promiscuity and it’s not just related to the sexual kind.

It’s hard to be narcissistic and responsible for the same reason it’s hard to be relaxed and enraged. The human psyche just doesn’t work like that. Society, as a whole, doesn’t work like that either. It can’t. If young people really were as decadent and narcissistic as old people thought, then our civilization never would’ve made it this far.

I know I’ve brought up flawed assumptions about young people and their sex lives before. I doubt old people will stop complaining about the deviant, decadent behaviors of young people anytime soon, even if a mountain of data says they’re better-behaved than their predecessors.

The reason I bring it up now is because this is one of those years when we should all re-assess our perspectives. The grim events of this past year have affected everybody, young and old. It’s affected our society, our emotions, and our sex lives. A lot will change as a result of this year. Generations afterwards will feel it.

As someone who will one day become old and cranky, I hope to maintain a healthy perspective regardless of what happens. I don’t doubt that when I get to a certain age, I’ll see young people behaving in ways that I find shocking. Some of those shocking ways might involve their sex lives. If I ever have kids, that’s going to concern me.

At the same time, I imagine that part of me will envy those young people for having the time, energy, and passions to behave in such ways. On some levels, I think many older people share those feelings. Their youth is a memory. The days of breaking traditions and upsetting their elders is long gone because they’re not elder. It’s just part of life.

We can’t avoid it, at least not yet. I don’t know what kind of state the world will be in by the time I turn 60. I just know I’ll have plenty to complain about. The fact that young people are bucking those complaints gives me hope that it’ll be better than any false perception.

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, health, human nature, Marriage and Relationships, outrage culture, political correctness, politics, sex in media, sex in society, sexuality

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 15, 2020 · 5:51 am

Another Anti-Gay Politician Caught Doing (Extremely) Gay Activities (And It’s Hilarious)

Every now and then, a story comes along that is just so absurd, so outrageous, and so appropriately hilarious that you can’t help but feel glad to be alive. The only thing that makes it better is when the story involves powerful people being exposed as hypocrites in the most embarrassing way possible.

Even in a year as bad as 2020, those stories are still uniquely enjoyable. I would argue we need them now more than ever.

That’s exactly why I have to thank Jozsef Szajer, a Hungarian politician you’ve never heard of, but will never forget after this story. Recently, he just raised the bar for hilarity, hypocrisy, and sheer absurdity.

You don’t need to know much about Mr. Szajer’s politics. You just need to know he’s vehemently anti-LGBTQ and has campaigned against it for years. Usually, when someone is that vocal about LGBTQ issues, that raises some red flags. Just ask Ted Haggard.

Well, after this, I think it’s safe to say that Mr. Szajer has risen the bar. Rather than simply paraphrase the sordid details, I’ll let the headline from the Irish Post do the talking.

The Irish Post: ‘Anti-gay’ Hungarian politician resigns after getting caught at ’20-man homosexual orgy’ in Belgium

A Hungarian politician has resigned after he was caught by police attending a ‘20-man lockdown orgy‘.

Jozsef Szajer, who has regularly campaigned against LGBT freedoms, was spotted fleeing the party, which took place above a bar in the Belgian capital of Brussels on Friday.

He reportedly had “bloody hands” after picking up a suspected injury while trying to escape, and police later found drugs in his backpack, according to La Derniere Heure.

“We interrupted a gang-bang,” local police said, after confirming they found 20 naked men inside the party.

Szajer, who has a wife and a daughter, resigned from his post on Sunday.

You read that right. This is not an article from The Onion. Even they couldn’t come up with something this hilariously fitting. It’s just too perfect.

You have a vehemently anti-LGBTQ politician.

You have a 20-man orgy during a global pandemic.

Somehow, this guy managed to get himself caught. He was either really conflicted, really horny, really stupid, or a potent combination of everything.

There’s a lot I’d love to say about a guy like this. However, I don’t think I need to make a larger point here. It’s just too easy and too hilarious on its own.

An anti-gay politician got caught in a gay orgy during a pandemic.

Let’s just leave it at that, laugh hysterically, and be happy that there’s still entertainment like that in this crazy world.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, funny, gender issues, human nature, LGBTQ, politics, sex in society, sexuality

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

December 8, 2020 · 5:53 am

Florida Strip Club Owners Lobbying To Lower Dancer Age Limit From 21 To 18: Do They Have A Point?

At what point does someone transition into an adult, with all the rights and responsibilities?

It’s not an unreasonable question. It’s also not easy to answer. There are plenty of laws regarding age limits and how people under a certain age are judged. I’m not a lawyer, but I do understand the intent. There are some things that children and people below a certain age just shouldn’t be able to do in a civil society.

At the same time, I don’t deny that not every adult is capable and not every child is ignorant. I’ve known people over 40 who have the maturity level of a 15-year-old. I’ve also known kids who are more mature than people twice their age. Everybody is different in terms of how and to what extent they mature. Some can handle adult situations better than others.

That brings me to strippers. I’m sure I have your attention now.

I bring it up because, this past year, a few strip club owners have been making waves in the news. Specifically, they’ve been protesting a law in Jacksonville from February 2020 that changes the minimum permissible age for a stripper from 18 to 21. That contrasts from many other jurisdictions, in which the minimum age is 18.

However, as what happened with the legal drinking age, this has become somewhat of a legal trend. Other jurisdictions have been seeking to raise the age limit, as well. They’re often met with protests, but so far the limits have been upheld. That may change with this case, as reported by AP News.

AP News: Jacksonville strip clubs fight to lower dancer age to 18

A lawyer representing 13 clubs and four dancers in Jacksonville argued before a federal judge that dancing is a form of expression protected under the First Amendment.

“This is just a ban on speech,” attorney Gary Edinger said.

The city law currently bans dancers under the age of 21 and was passed in an effort to reduce sex trafficking. The measure also requires dancer to have ID city-issued cards.

City attorneys said younger people are more susceptible to the coercion that’s often part of trafficking and argued that 21 is a safer age.

Now, set aside your feelings towards strip clubs for a moment. As someone who has been to more than a few and had a genuinely good time, I’ll make that effort too. I understand that, being a man, my perspective is going to be skewed. I still think it’s a relevant issue. Beyond the titillating undertones, there’s a bigger picture here worth considering.

It goes back to the questions I raised earlier about when someone becomes a legal adult. For much of the United States, reaching age 18 is often seen as a major milestone. It’s the age when you can become legally emancipated, which permits you to do all sorts of things like buy a car, buy a place of your own, and sign a contract.

What is it about that age that is so special? Legally speaking, it’s fairly arbitrary. We, as a society, just agreed that most people when they reach this age are mature enough to handle adult responsibilities. Sure, some take longer than others. Some reach that point before that age. It’s an imperfect judgement for an imperfect society.

However, we do make some exceptions, as we did with alcohol. Now, I don’t know if that exception is warranted. When I was in high school, I knew plenty of people under the age of 21 who drank regularly. Most were fairly responsible. A few couldn’t handle it. They’re just lucky Instagram wasn’t around back then.

If that exception is so flimsy, then what makes 21 better than 18 when it comes to strippers? We’re not talking about ingesting a substance that can kill you if taken in large quantities. We’re talking about people being allowed to show off their sexy bodies for willing customers. What’s the justification for raising the age requirements just three years?

The lawyers say that it’s a means of combating human trafficking. That’s a perfectly respectable effort, but one that is often misused and abused to attack the sex industry, as a whole. It can also be very counterproductive, as I’ve noted before. I can’t find any evidence at how raising the minimum affects human trafficking, but I doubt the lawyers involved in this case need it to win the argument.

You’ll never lose political points for saying you’re against human trafficking. The problem is when your efforts are largely symbolic or arbitrary, the results will lack substance.

Beyond this shallow justification, it’s also inconsistent. How can we explain to a legal adult that 18 is not old enough to allow them to strip for money? At 18, you can legally skydive, give blood, and join the military. All three of those activities come with dangers, but we let 18-year-olds consent to doing them. So, why do we make an exception for stripping?

Again, I’m not a lawyer, but I have a hard time justifying that exception. I’ve heard coherent arguments about the drinking age being 21. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument about making the minimum stripper age 21.

Just saying it’ll help combat human trafficking isn’t enough. I’d like to see some evidence of that. I’d also like to understand why it’s still legal for an 18-year-old to have consensual sex, but they need to wait another three years before they can get naked for money. That just too arbitrary and inconsistent.

I understand age limits will always be arbitrary to some extent. I also understand that people get very uncomfortable when it comes to sex, nudity, and the people who do it for a living. We can never stop people from being horny or doing sexy things for money. We should have some reasonable regulations in place to govern that sort of thing. My question here is simple. Is raising the age requirements for strippers to 21 reasonable? Please let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Leave a comment

Filed under Current Events, gender issues, men's issues, political correctness, politics, prostitution, sex in media, sex in society, sexuality, women's issues

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

November 14, 2020 · 10:03 am

Jack’s World: How “Megamind” Gave Us The Ultimate Incel Villain

The following is a vide for my YouTube channel, Jack’s World. It once again explores “Megamind,” a movie I’ve highlighted in the past for it’s colorful subversion of the superhero genre. It felt like the time was right to discuss it on my channel. This time, I explore how “Megamind” gave us the first true Incel villain before the concept of an “incel” was a thing.

Like anything involving incels, it’s a distressing topic and bound to generate some less-than-comfortable feelings. I still welcome comments and discussion. Enjoy!

Leave a comment

Filed under gender issues, human nature, Jack's World, men's issues, movies, politics, superhero movies, YouTube

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,