The Rape "Game"

 

Now, what is this? Could it be a pamphlet AGAINST rape, warning men that that fantasy they have about abducting, binding, torturing, raping and maybe even killing women is not good for either them or said woman? Naaahhh, the wording is more like "have fun, doing sexy acts with "party girls" (whatever that is)"

As we know, Erotic transference is quite common. Many (?) women may dream of a situation like that, but how many - and whom - have acted out that fantasy? Almost nobody, whereas countless men have acted upon their fantasies of empowering women who somehow "tickle their funny bone", so to speak. Actually, these women may not even notice them, but that isn't obvious to the men who are caught up in fantasies of "girls lusting for their body". 

I would say that this particular case may look like a joke, but it's anything but funny if red under-wear is being seen as a sexual invite because of the color. After all, there is a reason why underwear is called under-wear: It's not being flaunted unless the clothes covering it is being ripped off. Not even if the rape victim had been stark naked, it would be an invitation to just everybody who might have a fantasy of her or someone like her. Men's fantasies don't oblige her in any way, just as her fantasies don't oblige them.

Even serial rapists and/or killers like e.g. Ted Bundy have said that porn sent them headlong into those erotic transferences of a non-violent and non-criminal sex urge into dreams of acts that grew more and more wild with the actual experience of rape and murder: The more women they raped and killed, the more they needed this stimulation to get sexual satisfaction. Without that, they were left with those "blue balls" all of them hate.

 

In a Patriarchy, girls are being taught from an early age that they should behave in a certain manner not to provoke the allegedly predatory male sex drive. It may be wise in certain cultures, but it shouldn't be necessary. However, new tricks are appearing everywhere, and it's annoying that women and girls aren't safe when they go out to have a drink or more. I'm glad to know that some bars, etc. see the problem and do their best to help the women.

 

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/590549 

 

https://medium.com/@russellhowell86/mens-sexual-fantasies-26930278d8c5 

 

https://boobytrapec.blogspot.com/2024/06/blue-as-balls.html 

 

Wikipedia 

 

 

The REALITY of the Assumed Reality

 

No, one doesn't turn into the person whose looks one borrows for a short spell, even though the new, "natural" silicon masks may make one feel that way. The same goes for digital AI-images that are able to turn one's true - i.e. GENUINE, NATURAL - persona into something quite different. To cheat by making oneself look like a beauty queen when on the net may not be all that seldom, whereas it would be to turn oneself into a sort of Quasimodo when one in reality is a beauty queen. People expect those they have romantic affairs with on websites, chat-rooms or whatever to be what they say they are and to look like they said. As we know - e.g. from the MTV-show "Catfish" - that's not always the case. Some get very offended that the one they declared to love wasn't a handsome hunk, but Quasimodo.

Charles Laughton as Quasimodo

However, the everyday transformation of women when applying make-up is considered more of an obligation than "cheating". It may be very obvious that a specific woman doesn't have eye-lashes that long, but somehow these additions to her looks become part of whom she is and thus what people expect her to look at all times - which she most certainly doesn't.

At what stage escapes one's true personality and turns into what is expected by other people? That moment is difficult to pinpoint, and I shall skip it for now and instead look at one special aspect with this make-belief-trap: Make-up signals that this specific and made-up woman adheres to her assigned role. That may not be what she herself wanted, but that is what most of those who see her think. Once I read that some women without make-up were harassed in Japan for being perceived as "feminist" which the fragile male egos couldn't take.

https://www.womenshealthmag.com/uk/beauty/skin/g38588295/celebs-without-make-up/

The Mental TrickleDown

 

Exaggerated danger of MENTAL TrickleDown? No, I don't think so, and we should be alert to the dangers of growing up as a "Trickler". 

What America has become may very well be a prelude to something much worse. Losing its innocence has made it turn into something that looks very different from what it was.

From this image of former greatness to what? Well, as a mirror of what it used to be at a special historical moment it might turn into something like this:

These men are symbols of certain actions and ideologies which some find innocent, but which more and more see as a threat to everything that America used to be and which it should become in the future. After all, no country can sustain its image without rooting out what these images represent.
 

Certain individuals might love to see this image as the new Mount Rushmore which really is a potent symbol of what's going on in the USA right now. However, others find the very idea a deadly stab in the back of the USA they want to see in the future, namely the one that's not wrapped in "DIPS", "Insider tradings", sheer "bluff and theft". 

Boobs Out In The Free!

 

Presumably "Tea Cup Sallie"

Yup, some women don't need trays, but even so, most women wouldn't endanger one of their best assets with hot liquors of any kind: No coffee, no tea should get too close to what's both a part of their sexual attraction and their natural "milk station" for babies.

I bet this isn't a baby girl, but a baby boy because that way he may represent the "double consumer" of female breasts without being coarse. To see the happy smile of a baby doesn't suggest that his Mom is a "hoe" - or something like that - for ripping out what nature gave her to feed her baby: It's "innocence" in something that might be called a "desexualized sexualization" of breasts.

This joke is a very fine summary of what might be called "the breast situation in modern times": What this young woman is doing is very natural and in full accordance with her role, as well as obligation, as a mother. She is breastfeeding her child, but lo and behold, it's done in the open which turns it into something that seems to be suggesting a sexual act. Oops!!!! Not her wish, but the mind of the not breastfeeding gender see it that way because they have been conditioned to do so: First and foremost, women "are" sex-objects, and their breasts have been symbols of many different things in the Patriarchy.
 

What to do when one is a conscientious woman who want to do good for her baby? Well, don't be too free with those female assets if you don't want to provoke the public, even though it should be possible to do so without misunderstandings of any kind. 

Yup, that should do it, although there will be loads of people - male and female - who resent that possibility of gaining freedom, even for one night.

Teachings By Rape

 

Well, firstly, "bitches" don't move on anybody like he is describing his actions. And, by the way, I bet he will call these actions "seductions" even though they technically are rape, or attempted rape. Because Don the Con has lulled himself into this strong belief in the rights of a "star" he has earned the nickname he likes the least: Felon. However, no matter what, he is, and he stays a felon for his assault on E. Jean Carroll. 

As is well-known by all/most of us, what happens may be interpreted totally different by two - or more - people who experience the same event. Something that may drive the police up the wall with annoyance when questioning several witnesses who don't seem to have seen the same crime they have. What tRump did, and was convicted of doing, to e. Jean Carroll was gross and demeaning of her as a woman. I'm glad she won her lawsuit, but I doubt she shall ever have the money he was to pay her for his assault on her - at least I haven't heard that she has got it yet, which doesn't bode well for her.

Now, why do I snigger involuntarily when reading about Olga, when I get fumingly angry when just thinking of Don the Con with E. Jean Carroll and the other 25 victims who have accused him over time? That doesn't seem fair, but that is how it is: I find the female sex offender "funny", maybe even cool up to a point, but the male offender I want to tar and feather or even worse. I think the cause of this is that the male's rape of a woman is sort of built into the Patriarchy, whereas the woman's assault on a man is a rare event, something that doesn't fit the general image of the sexes: Men are being suspected of doing something like that because the statistics tell that that's what they do now and then, whereas it's more seldom in women. We haven't got used to the idea of female rape yet, but it does happen now and then, for instance in older woman-younger men-constellations. 

 

Not that I find female rape a good idea, but maybe that's the only crime that may make it obvious to men that they should stop their all too common assaults on women.

Virgin Birth

The so-called "Virgin" was a young woman who was engaged to get married to an older man. Nothing strange in that, as that was what many young women experienced - and still do - in The Middle East. The strangeness of her fate doesn't appear until she - THE VIRGIN BRIDE!!!! - gives birth to a boy before marrying her betrothed, Joseph, claiming that God himself is the father of the child.

 

As we know this legend started a mental as well as political process of changing the Jewish faith into a new religion of a "virgin" giving birth without having sex. In a way that turns the focus on Jesus onto his mother, "The Virgin", but that focus has only been kept by The Catholic Church and cthey don't take the next step: Could it be that Mary got pregnant on her own, with no assistance of anybody, Yahweh, Joseph or an anonymous goat herder?

Naahh, the believers will say, that's impossible, as it takes two to have a baby. Actually, such a belief of a virgin birth would be in concordance with some of the older religions, but that's not as interesting as the biological possibilities: Would a woman be able to give birth without having sex? Most people would say "NO!!!", but I'll say that with the use of artificial sperm, it's possible to skip sex to have a baby. Or, rather, that's what is about to happen in the future when science moves from e.g. mice to humans. As far as I know, nobody has tried to make a woman give birth after fertilizing her with artificial sperm, although the system is working in animals.

Mary and artificial sperm aside we still have one question: Could a female human - also known as a "woman" - become pregnant on her own? Naahh, it doesn't seem so, or it happens very seldom according to Wikipedia: "In 1955, Helen Spurway, a geneticist specializing in the reproductive biology of the guppy (Lebistes reticulatus), claimed that parthenogenesis may occur (though very rarely) in humans, leading to so-called "virgin births". This created some sensation among her colleagues and the lay public alike. Sometimes an embryo may begin to divide without fertilization, but it cannot fully develop on its own; so while it may create some skin and nerve cells, it cannot create others (such as skeletal muscle) and becomes a type of benign tumor called an ovarian teratoma. Spontaneous ovarian activation is not rare and has been known about since the 19th century. Some teratomas can even become primitive fetuses (fetiform teratoma) with imperfect heads, limbs and other structures, but are non-viable." 

 

^{OK, if you say so - although you're a grandmother}

 

Virgin birth - also called "parthenogenesis" - is common (List of taxa that use parthenogenesis) in some plants as well as invertebrates, and most often favoring female offspring which may be the exact copies of their single parent: The mother. As it is, in biology the male human may be put out of business, so to speak, but I've never heard any women suggest that as a solution to gender wars, misogyny, etc. - at least not yet ....

 

 

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/27/1177191913/sperm-or-egg-in-lab-breakthrough-in-reproduction-designer-babies-ivg 

 

 

Wikipedia

Stealing The Money!!!

 

Basically, to be eaten by a dragon or by the political system of modern times is the same: Eaten you are and others are harvesting what you toiled to turn into the nest-egg that would save your Golden Years, yes, maybe even the lives of you and your family. In America a big part of this Eater-Free-To-Eat-system is what's called The TrickleDown, and it's nothing but a state established robbery of people who don't own much. The less you have, the more you're being robbed, and it's disgusting to watch how Americans are forced into paying for nothing.

Allegedly, the TrickleDown should go from the rich to the non-rich, but in reality that's not the case: It goes from the non-rich to the rich, and there it stays. I shall NEVER, for the life of me, understand why the American people don't revolt against such a system which I see as criminal. As an European I'm used to a system of governments which administer taxes from the people for the common good of the country, but not sort of direct it into the pockets of the wealthy by letting them off the tax-payer-hook. No taxes for billionaires mean loads of taxes for non-billionaires.