1,871 words
Bettie Page
Part 1 here
Much of a girl’s reputation had to do with chastity, but not all. A second aspect was the need to keep dates. When a boy asked a girl out, she had the right to say either yes or no. But if she said yes, she absolutely, positively had to go on that date. Standing a young man up was not acceptable. Mothers warned their daughters that men talked to one another. If a girl failed to appear for a date she had made, every boy in town would know about it in short order and none would ever ask her out again. A girl very nearly had to get run over by a car or kidnapped by gypsies before she was thought to have a valid excuse for not showing up to a date.
The reason this was considered so important, of course, was that young people dated not simply for fun but as preparation for marriage, which is a matter of keeping a vow. It makes no sense for a man to marry any girl who has demonstrated a casual attitude toward doing what she said she was going to do. To be “a woman of one’s word” was no less important that to be a man of one’s word. Keeping dates also demonstrated respect for the man, of course. In the America of the 1950s, women were not the only sex owed respect.
One little-remarked aspect of the sexual revolution is that many young women now freely make dates which they do not bother to keep, and in many cases have no intention of keeping. I once heard a man say that in his experience the odds of a girl showing up today are about fifty-fifty. They have no concern for their reputations, nor for how they treat young men. Perhaps old Mrs. McGillicuddy needs to resume gossiping with the neighbors. If women no longer respect men (while loudly demanding respect for themselves), this may be because they have ceased to fear gossip. Respect always traces its origins to fear.
Many men followed a rule about asking women out: if rejected, they would never ask again. In part, this rule performed the function of modern “harassment” law. Men did not simply go on pestering women who were uninterested in them. But it also served to benefit men themselves. When a woman turned a man down, she forfeited forever the right to become seriously acquainted with him. Should their paths ever cross in future, of course, he was expected to remain polite to her, but she could never expect more than a rather cool civility from him. This meant that turning down a man’s offer could be a matter of some consequence, and was not necessarily to be taken lightly. A woman could not tell three hundred different men she “liked them as friends” in the confident expectation that a three-hundred-and-first gentlemen more attractive than all of them would be required to show up later to suit her fancy. Many young women of later decades seem not altogether clear in their own minds on this point.
Of course, all this also had the advantage that courts were not clogged up with sexual harassment claims, and companies did not have to fear being sued into oblivion every time a female employee complained. But that’s just by the by.
The “never ask twice” rule applied when inviting a woman to dance as well. Men did not give women endless opportunities to reject them, so most women learned early on that their opportunities were not endless. In the lonely crowds of today’s megalopolises, not to mention on the world wide web, many women never learn about limitations on their opportunity until it is too late. There may be plenty of fish in the sea, but there is still only one boy for every girl, and even the sea is not infinite.
Many men who dated in the 1950s will remember making an unpleasant discovery: the girls were visibly less interested in them than in Mr. Elvis Presley of Memphis, Tennessee. When girls showed up for dates, they were friendly and civil to the young men, often more than can be expected of their successors today, but when mention was made of Elvis their eyes would light up and they found it difficult to restrain their excitement. Young, handsome, rich, successful, and famous, Elvis possessed to an unusually high degree just about everything women find attractive in men. This excitement was quite simply arousal, the female equivalent of what a young man experiences at the sight of a beautiful young woman’s nude body. Note that I say “equivalent,” not “same.” The women did not get erections over Elvis. How could they have?
Here we observe a simple rule for thinking about the sexes: they are complementary, but not identical. For everything distinctive that you observe in one sex, look closely enough at the other and you will eventually be able to spot its equivalent or counterpart. But it will be qualitatively different, not the same (and still less “equal”).
So the boyfriends would look at one another in chagrin, realizing that should Elvis Presley ever decide to take a stroll through their neighborhood the girls would all follow him like the Pied Piper and there would soon be no girls left in town. Fortunately, people were still sane in the 1950s. Young women had sense enough to realize the low probability of Elvis showing up on their doorsteps with a dozen roses and a heart-shaped box of chocolates. The men just had to put up with a bit of disagreeable but somewhat abstract and unreal competition from him.
You can buy F. Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia in Power here.
A kind of pornography existed in the America of the 1950s, as it does today, as it did in ancient Rome, and as it has in other societies throughout history. One of its most prominent figures was a pretty young woman named Bettie Page. Around the year 1950 she discovered a neat trick: she could partially disrobe while some fellow took pictures of her. These would then be printed on cheap paper and shipped out to spark the interest of lonely men all over the country. This provided Miss Page and her publishers with a nifty little pile of money. But it also upset a lot of people. Senator Estes Kefauver of Tennessee supposedly denounced her for undermining the moral foundations of America. There were women who viewed Miss Page almost as a personal enemy. If this vile women were ever to take a stroll through their town, it would be all up with their marriages!
Just what aroused such ire? In researching the present article, I did a bit of poking around on the internet. I ran a Google image search on Bettie Page, and sure enough, plenty of old pinups appeared. In some, she was wearing underwear, nylon stockings, and high heels. In others she had on a bikini bathing suit, something that did not become common and respectable until several years after her retirement. My computer was switched to the default setting called “safe search.” I then re-ran the search with this filter turned off. Lo and behold, I was presented with the exact same set of images. In other words, there seem to be few or no pictures of Bettie Page that would qualify as pornographic today, at least on the internet. The reader is welcome to try this experiment of the filtered and unfiltered searches with the name of whoever happens to be today’s leading female porn star, but I am not confident he would have the same experience.
Nevertheless, men in the 1950s would look about carefully before ducking into some disreputable establishment to purchase pictures of Miss Page. They might then pass these around to trusted male friends. But most took care never to let their wives or girlfriends see them doing so. Heaven help the man who got caught. It was sure to arouse the very devil in women, and they would find themselves being pelted with tomatoes and rotten eggs.
A little reflection on the part of the offended women, however, might have led them to the realization that the unscrupulous homebreaker Bettie Page was unlikely to turn up in East Podunk and lure all the men away from their wives, children, or girlfriends. The women merely had to put up with a bit of disagreeable but somewhat abstract and unreal competition from her.
Wait! Haven’t we read those words somewhere before?
Oh yes. Just five or six paragraphs back we were making similar observations about Elvis Presley. What do you know! It is almost as if for everything distinctive you can observe in one sex, you will eventually be able to spot an equivalent in the other. But it will be qualitatively different, not identical. No one could possibly confuse Bettie Page with Elvis Presley.
Despite this apparently perfect sexual symmetry, however, certain differences can be observed. Not many men refused to let their girlfriends watch Elvis on television. Many of them rather enjoyed his music themselves. So they adopted a stance of wry resignation at the ladies’ enthusiasm. But I doubt many girlfriends were surprising their boyfriends with birthday gifts of expensive, hardbound, full-color albums of Bettie Page photographs. Nothing less than absolute and universal male obliviousness to the very existence of Miss Page would satisfy the ladies, particularly the younger ones.
How much effect does the reader suppose all this had on the actual world of dating, marriage, and sex in the America of the 1950s? My guess is: not that much. People still dated. They still got married. After marriage they would have sex—or, as it was called in the more decorous language of that time, “go on a honeymoon.”
Occasionally, scandalous and shocking as it sounds, men and women of the 1950s had sex before getting married! That’s right: this unfortunate practice was not completely unknown in those far-off times. What usually happened thereafter was that somebody—the woman in the case, a family member, a clergyman, or even old Mrs. McGillicuddy—would start to apply moral pressure to the shabby, no good bum who had done this despicable thing. The woman (needless to say) was guiltless. Usually, such moral pressure worked. Despite a great abundance of jokes to the contrary, a clear majority (though not absolutely all) of the bums ended up marrying the mothers of their children. The fraction who absconded to Argentina remained rather small.
Whether the sex occurred before or after the wedding, however, a little miracle would usually ensue within a fairly short time: a new child would appear in the world. Life went on despite the worst that Elvis Presley and Bettie Page put together could contrive.
Oh, and one final point: women of the 1950s never had sex with their commitment-shy boyfriends before the wedding with any view to ensnaring them into marriage. This never, ever happened. Not even once. Premarital sex was solely and exclusively due to men’s wicked and unbridled lusts overcoming all decency and plunging women into shame and misfortune. Women are innocent creatures, and never employ cunning to achieve their ends. Anyone who doubts me is clearly a misogynist.
59 comments
“Usually, such moral pressure worked.”
What a freakish world of coercion.
So the last several years haven’t been “a freakish world of coercion,” eh? In which we’ve been admonished, lost jobs and worse, for not expressing the right approvals, not making the right condemnations, not using the right pronouns, etc.?
I think she was obviously being sarcastic / joking
Apparently you’re not familiar with the Glittering World of Buttercup Dew in these parts.
I wasn’t.
Personally, I don’t see why mild social shame & gossip, with the goal of getting dads to not abandon their children or of convincing women to not get pregnant by deadbeats who won’t be good fathers, is a bad thing. It still exists in most of the world. Even a lot of small towns in western Europe have this attitude and the ratio of single moms in the EU (a bastion of oppressive thinking, apparently) is half of White America’s.
“we”?
You can and should lose your job for targeted harassment (misgendering). But you’re probably one of these fools who thinks they should be able to make aggressive political statements in the workplace.
Oh, how terrible.
Just wait until your arm is twisted into living a life you hate. Then you’ll learn. Or probably not.
Maybe that will happen some day. Currently I am happily married with children, have friends and family members who love me, an advanced degree, and a job I like.
This is the second time on here in which a poster turned things personal. I wonder what drives people to do that when a topic is discussed impersonally. I sub it up to spite.
Anyway I rather rather have such social pressure versus the billions of dollars in bastard taxes and social pathologies caused by promiscuous unions that result in fatherless children.
Any form of restraint put on women and men to properly raise their own children and to have sexual propriety is looked at as mean (coercion). Better to have an incel slave class footing the bills and rampant social pathologies.
An advanced degree and a job. Lol
Can’t say I care about taxes or whatever deranged theories you’re espousing about “social pathologies”. The real social pathology is being an internet blowhard who wants to tie women down to trash and put runaway fathers in a position of legal privilege. Weirdos.
Some people can be a bit pushy about certain things, and don’t understand that they’re wasting their breath. Please don’t let it deter you.
A large problem (and there are many) in the behavior of modern women is the inability to apply social pressure. Women’s behavior can be easily changed when the village or a country’s ethos harshly enforced morality. That has been taken away and that is due to the societal initiative on being nice and subsequent the changing of language. One can’t call a coquettish women a whore anymore or a street walker (and only fans girl) a prostitute anymore. There’s a term for that—its sex worker. I think the Jewish media is to blame but also women in general. They made their kryptonite disappear so they can have their “liberation” and do whatever they please.
“Women are innocent creatures, and never employ cunning to achieve their ends. Anyone who doubts me is clearly a misogynist.” What kind of infantile, bizzaro, world are you living in? Are you still living with your mom? 🤪
He was joking, ya know.
In that case, I extend my sincerest apologies to the writer. I didn’t realize it was satire. 🥹
Har har . . . I’ve done my last explaining of satire!
Rereading this article, I can clearly see it is satire. I expect that in a future article, the writer will shift gears and call for a return of: dunking chairs, gossip masks, dunce hats, chastity belts and the right of the husband to beat his wife with a wooden stick not to exceed the width of his thumb. 😎
“…but when mention was made of Elvis their eyes would light up and they found it difficult to restrain their excitement.” Back in the 80s and 90s they displayed the same behavior at the mention of Michael Jackson or Lionel Ritchie, so much so, that many of them pursued black males over white males. I don’t know what non-white males out there today of whom they are ovulating and lusting over. 😘
Not sure where you lived in the 80s or 90s, but where I grew up, no White women were swooning over Michael Jackson or Lionel Ritchie. There was no interracial dating in my part of NY and if a black face turned up, there was going to be a fight. If any girl was burning coal, she was sneaking off where her family and friends wouldn’t catch her. I worked with a guy who’s sister went black in the mid-90s, no one in his family ever spoke to her again.
In the lonely crowds of today’s megalopolises, not to mention on the world wide web, many women never learn about limitations on their opportunity until it is too late.
One of the most vivid memories of my teens was chatting with one of my aunts about this. She was in her early 40s and was visiting from California.
While drinking, she became a bit emotional and started talking with me about how she regretted turning down high quality men for ‘exciting guys.’ She had been one of the most beautiful girls at her high school and was considered significantly above average in L.A. – there had been plenty of intelligent and wealthy guys interested in her but she had written them off and spent her 20s dating musicians and players. Her ‘type’ wasn’t long term relationship material.
Once she hit her early 30s, she started receiving less attention from high quality men and immediately regretted wasting so much time.
As we chatted, she told me that it was obvious to her that my sister was already following the same pattern and that she wished someone would talk to her. She had zero illusions about my mother’s ability to do so (for me, this was the most refreshing part of the conversation as I had a strained relationship with my mother and it was nice seeing another relative notice her behavior).
Why is this pattern so common? I think one reason is that many misunderstand how being beautiful impacts a woman’s life. There are some negative aspects (such as unwanted attention and false assumptions) but there can also be a certain degree of unrealistic thinking that stems from ‘living in a bubble.’ Many beautiful women have never had anyone warn them about the consequences of their actions. From my perspective, parents have an obligation to do this.
Thanks in very large part to my consumption of articles like this one over the past 15 + years I have made a point to become vocal with my friends who appeared content to let their daughters date or live with their boyfriends with no end-date in sight, and the young ladies and gentlemen themselves. One friend didn’t speak to me for several days, then took my advice. She sent her husband to have lunch with the young man to ask his intentions. The young folks have now been married for 4 years and are expecting their second child. Do I take full credit for this? No, just about 80-90%.
I also council the young women I work with in the same way. Literally NO ONE else has ever talked to them about this matter. They seem shocked, then you can see the understanding come over them. I do this as kindly as possible, but it has a hard edge all the same. These girls are starved for good advice. I haven’t had anyone tell me to bugger off yet.
My next big challenge: I plan to gently suggest to my very favorite young coworker that I do not believe she is actually gay. She is just deeply insecure. These women she is attracting are bully dykes and I’ve had enough of it.
I sound like I’d be fun at parties, right? 😹
I’m curious – what’s your take on the “parking” phenomenon back then? For the kids these days who haven’t heard of it, it’s the affectionate activities that might happen on a date (typically while parked in Lover’s Lane) such as steamy kisses and the range of intimate caresses all the way to “heavy petting”. One way of looking at it was that it was a fairly reasonable compromise when holding hands wasn’t enough but one didn’t want to risk premarital pregnancy.
Parking?! LOL. My mum used to tell me about this. On dark nights the dogs would bark, she’d see car or truck lights on the country road half a mile away, then the lights would be turned off. She said it wasn’t just romance happening; often it was guys having a few beers because there would be a bunch of beer bottles in the ditch the next day. Country life.
“…I then re-ran the search with this filter turned off. Lo and behold, I was presented with the exact same set of images. In other words, there seem to be few or no pictures of Bettie Page that would qualify as pornographic today, at least on the internet…”
Simply try “Bettie Page naked” in Yandex images and see the results.
I’ll take your word for it!
You are right, she tries to explain it away as being due to (((them))) giving her alcohol. 🫣
There are some really disgusting pictures of Page. It wasn’t all cute ‘n perky bikini pics
One can find plenty of nude and explicit BP pics on Google, just type in “Bettie Page nude”…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Uz32RYdmnc
You’re still allowed to dream
Outstanding follow-up! Loved it.
I have identified what kind of writing this is, it is a “mockery.” Here is the definition: “An absurd misrepresentation or imitation of something.“ If you are going to hyper-idolize a decade, wouldn’t it make more sense to go back to the: 1940s, 1930s, 1920s or 1910s? 🤔
I am a bit older than Roger so slightly closer to the era he is describing, though we both know it mainly nth-hand, through pop-media sources that were themselves highly derivative, and usually concocted by people a generation older than the keen teens of the 1950s, thus reimagining their own long-ago youth. (Digression: The Weltanschaaung of 50s sitcoms such as Ozzie and Harriet and The Bob Cummings Show has little to do with anything novel and specific to the 1950s. It was essentially a retread of old tropes and jokes common in the 1920s and 30s: madcap fads and follies and frats, jalopies and raccoon coats—a John Held, Jr. cartoon, barely updated. Even Ricky Nelson’s pop-idol phase circa 1960 was just a repeat of his parents’ big-band career thirty years earlier. No accident that early 1960s TV had an obsession with the flappers-and-Capone era.)
But what I came to say: My impression is that 1950s proprieties and dating games were not much different from those of the 60s, 70s, 80s (which I do remember); or of the 20s, 30s, 40s (which I know at one remove). Anyway Roger’s tone of mockery is there on purpose, as Devlin tongue is firmly within Devlin cheek. And one is supposed to mock and misinterpret the Fifties. Until the age of The Fonz, when the real 1950s got fictionalized and traduced with faux nostalgia, the Eisenhower Era was remembered as a time of horrible films and books (By Love Possessed) and music (pre-MTV, pre-Scopitone, the latest pop tunes got enacted for you every week on Your Hit Parade and Perry Como) and automobiles of surpassing ugliness and obsolescence-by-design, at least after 1956.
In the August 1969 issue of Esquire somebody tried to write an article about how agonizingly bad the 1950s were, and he did it mainly with a litany of clichés and catch-phrases. The article is now doubly impenetrable because it is not 1969 anymore and, man, we like all that stuff. Or most of it. Grace Kelly, Roy Cohn, Jack Kerouac, Richard Nixon, for criminy sakes…
We like Roy Cohn too? I thought nobody does, not even right wingers.
Oh, I really truly like Roy Cohn, more and more as time goes by. How the hell did that Stephen Miller become a Trump acolyte? Duuhh! Gives such a similar vibe. The Donald must have noticed it first time they met. Stephen doesn’t have most of Roy’s baggage (family history, sexual hangups, on and on) and he didn’t help make Joe McCarthy look ridiculous. But hey, Steve didn’t get to help fry the Rosenbergs either. So it all balances out. Loyal attack dog, all the same, and never mind the AKC papers.
A word of caution for Mr. Devlin. Now that you have said,
“…No one could possibly confuse Bettie Page with Elvis Presley…”
you may have challenged or invited some sophomore computer whiz to Photoshop, or should I say AI generate a photo of Paige and Presley reversing roles.
You know, they weren’t that dissimilar, although sweet Betty was a natural brunette, whereas Elvis was a fair haired youth before he dyed it. Both held sincere Christian beliefs of their upbringing until the end.
I can think of no better outcome for both of them than if Betty had dated and married Elvis. They both shared very similar ethnic backgrounds, Scotch-Irish, and German, and of course their spiritual outlook.
Really, it is a shame that they both didn’t take the broad courtship advice that was afloat in that era. Their sad ends may have been different.
Just for a heads up:
Gretchen Mol gives an excellent portrayal of Betty in the movie “The Notorious Betty Paige”. She also shines as JFK‘s moll in the now, not so fictional movie about his assassination called, “An American Affair”.
Do even the ugly girls now act as you describe them in the current dating scene? Personally I dodged a bullet being young in that sweet spot of the late 60’s, early 70s so I wouldn’t know. I did however, learn a lot later in life from your great work, SEXUAL UTOPIA IN POWER.
(Laughing is better than crying. )
https://youtu.be/_ngrccnbGuY?feature=shared
Search “bettie page nude” and there she is.
It seems to be a very difficult thing, even for an authoritarian regime (Iran is an example), to exert the type of incentives and social pressures to get the people to reproduce at a proper rate. And ideally you’d want the best to reproduce more than the worst so the average quality of the population increases.
Perhaps in time this problem will be solved by technology. Efficient artificial wombs would enable an illiberal government to simply budget the number (and type) of people they wish to produce. Birth rate is such an important societal parameter with long term consequences that it is perfectly legitimate and tremendously advantageous for a government to have control over it.
And before people say that parental care is necessary for the proper development of the children, I say that is wrong. Research has shown that compared to genetics, the influence of parental care is trivial on the future outcomes of the child in question. We also have the historical example of Sparta, where male citizens were taken from their homes at a young age to be educated in a communal setting.
And in time, as biotechnology advances, we’d be able to remove romantic and sexual desires altogether as unnecessary distractions from higher pursuits. And at that point, women are an obsolete relic from history…
“And before people say that parental care is necessary for the proper development of the children, I say that is wrong.”
Fatherlessness is linked with every social deviance.
“Fatherlessness is linked with every social deviance.”
It is a spurious correlation, there is no true causal link. Both fatherlessness and social deviances are caused by genetic factors. In other words, bad genes in the father cause both fatherlessness and social deviances in the child.
There is conclusive empirical evidence that genetics is the most important factor for life outcomes and out of environmental factors the environment outside of home is more important than anything the parents do, which is of trivial importance.
Well, certain things correlate, like Negroes and illegitimacy.
In his famous 1960s Report on the subject, Catholic Sen. Daniel Patrick Moyhnihan blamed Black illegitimacy on the White Man and slavery destroying the “Negro family.” No doubt, if they only went to the pews on Sunday and took the vino and wafers, they’d be as right as rain.
Perhaps Senator Moynihan envisioned the Negro Family as naïvely as Kennedy Democrat Jack Valenti envisioned the Motion Picture Production Association and its new rating system as being able to save (((Hollywood))) content for grownups and also protect wholesome “Family Values” before getting pushback from artsy Lesbian film directors and the rest that they are precisely not interested in 1960s Disney “family” values.
In any case, today, it’s the Soul Sistahs themselves ─ whether they bees Black Power Professors or the simple folks who take in a whole host of Basketball Baby Daddies temporarily, and aspire to collect reparations from the government for the privilege of raising they kids in the Projects without no damn man.
You don’t have to think that monogamy is just not the authentic way of African culture; that is what they will tell you, an’ Whitey just needs to butt out and keep them government checks coming.
Many a young coalburner’s father ─ who was never taught to see reality coming after the Civil Rights revolution, and probably never imagined where it would or even could go ─ has learned this the hard way after being left with a Zebra grandbaby or two to raise, the girls credit cards all maxxed out, Suzy herself addicted to something stronger than coffee, with boi Rastus Jackson now in some other town shooting some strange hoops.
Yeah, so I don’t know whether it is Race or Culture downstream from genetics, but sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade.
Africans should always be considered separately from non-Hispanic Whites in statistical surveys, especially when formulating either pragmatic or values-based policies.
🙂
You should write a novel about how the spergy hatred of women on the Right will lead to a biopunk future for the White race.
I like this series of articles. But I would say that the fundamental problem with such attempts to portray the sexual mores of earlier generations is the sheer disparity of experience between the pretty, the ugly, and the average people. The attractive people of each generation seem to live on different planets from the incels.
That was muted with enforced monogamy.
Mrs. McGillicuddy? Of the Reeks? The only Mrs. McGillicuddy I can associate with the 1950s is no scold or gossip or prudish Mrs. Grundy, but the slightly befuddled mother of Lucy McGillicuddy Ricardo, as played by actress Kathryn Card (according to The I Love Lucy Encyclopedia, 1997 edition).
What Mrs. McGillicuddy Saw! was the American title (the Brit original – 4:50 from Paddington – as always, so much better) of a 1950s Agatha Christie novel (that one being a ‘Marple’).
Interesting commentary on the implications of saying yes and no to a date. My cousin admitted that she would shamelessly say yes to dates when she had no interest in the guy just for the free dinner.
Very common behavior. The late dating coach “Doc Love” used to recommend giving a goodnight kiss at the end of a first date to flush out such female parasites. The girl genuinely interested in you would accept the kiss, while the girl who only dated you out of boredom or for the free meal would turn away.
Doc Love. I remember him. Always get the phone number, he advised.
Has anyone here read Dr. Robert Glover’s book No More Mr. Nice Guy?
I was a phone client of Dr. Glover.
This article reminded me of a pertinent quote from Sexual Utopia in Power: “What is both inconsistent and morally indefensible is what feminism and the misguided gallantry of certain male conservatives are now combining to promote: freedom for women to do as they damned well please, with blame and punishment for men if the women are not happy with the results of their own behavior.”
The biggest obstacle to premarital sex prior to the mid-1970s was pregnancy. I have older cousins old enough to have fought in Vietnam who’ve told me they knew nothing about birth control. A lot of marriages were due to “early” pregnancies and if a man tried to run, fathers, uncles, brothers and cousins would hunt the boy down and deliver him to the priest or justice of the peace. In the 1950s, beating a young man who ‘ruined’ a young lady wouldn’t have been prosecuted and the cops might’ve helped out. There were a lot of factors to the decline of female chasteness in the US, the biggest has to be the availability of birth control and abortion.
Well said. Birth control probably was the biggest game changer.
In 1984 it was Madonna. Material Girl played constantly on MTV and my boyfriend was obsessed. Blonde and perfect-looking, who the heck could compete? I felt like a mud fence compared to her. Now I look back at pictures of my 17 year old self and wish I knew I was too cute for that dork. (He grew up to become a liberal.)
Madonna? Woof!
I always thought that Madonna was pretty homely. Like Cher when she was with Sonny.
🙂
Male sexuality freed of all constraints is far worse. It’s hard to argue otherwise. Anyone who doubts it can look up war rape.
” Oh, and one final point: women of the 1950s never had sex with their commitment-shy boyfriends before the wedding with any view to ensnaring them into marriage. This never, ever happened. Not even once. Premarital sex was solely and exclusively due to men’s wicked and unbridled lusts overcoming all decency and plunging women into shame and misfortune. Women are innocent creatures, and never employ cunning to achieve their ends. Anyone who doubts me is clearly a misogynist. ”
Hello Mr. Devlin, I own the Brooklyn Bridge and I am willing to sell it to you. It is located in South Boston, Massachusetts and I can sell it to you for ten million dollars.
I can assure you that women always have plans and they expect us men to allow them to maintain their double-standard. I have seen it from many women.
This piece may be of interest to you: https://counter-currents.com/2025/03/a-short-note-on-satire/
Not that I am very knowledgable about any of this, but I could not help noticing, and I don’t think anyone else had commented on this ─ but it is hard not to notice with the early pornography that it has to be about anything other than sex. It is more about deviance and perversions.
So as long as you have two girls doing weird stuff to each other ─ without a man ─ then it is not about sex and it evades the censors.
So the straightforward pin-ups that might titillate a healthy blood-redded boy, immediately becomes more hard core by getting not into simple nudity but into bondage and a bunch of other “fetishes” like cuckholdry, and what David Cole calls “interracial.”
Jews especially loved the trope of Santa Negro coming down the chimney and getting all rapey with the Mr. and Mrs.
I don’t know about the plants, but I don’t think that’s what Goys crave.
🙂
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.