First: I’m a guy.

Second: These pictures disgust and offend me. I believe them to be true (but I can’t conclusively prove them to be, and there are a few good arguments against that).

Third, If the acts depicted in the pictures were really rape (I already established I believe them to be), I would honestly have a very hard problem deciding whether to throw these soldiers in jail forever, or to slice their throats with my own hands. That should clear a few biases from my path.

However, I have a couple of objections (points to raise?) with the comments on the article.

I’m a man, not an abuser

To Yiva. No, men don’t hate women. At least not me, not anyone in my family and none of the people I regard as friends. It’s not a men thing to hate women. It’s an abusive thing, which does not equal men (but does correlate in a small minority of cases, just as it correlates with women as well).

I resent you calling me an abuser that rapes you, takes your picture and sells it online, because I’m not like that, and I am offended by your generalization. Naturally, I’m not as offended by your generalization as much as I am offended by the pictures (I’d say the rapes depicted on them offend me at least twenty times more), but I just didn’t think your gratuituous hate speech should go unobserved and uncontested.

Rape is rape. Calling anything else “rape” is misleading and treacherous, and devalues rape victims.

To womensspace (2): Sorry, but the act of creating the pictures is not rape, or a “version” of rape. Rape is rape. The act of taking the pictures is not. You’re deliberately misusing the words to create public confusion, and I resent that — not the least because it’s a blatant lie. Let’s call things by their names, instead of conveniently slapping “apple” on a “tomato” because “it’s a kind of red fruit”.

The confusion you seek to further is convenient for some people’s agendas because they (I suspect you fit the profile) would love nothing more than to eradicate most (if not all forms of) erotica in the name of “re-humanizing” women and regaining moral values. Which is nonsense!

The pictures are not porn. The pictures are a depiction of a violent act called rape. I detest your (untimely) seizure of these incidents as a “foot on the door” for you to inject your wrongheaded notions of morality.

Sex and porn are not what triggered these incidents. They also are not to blame for the decay in moral fiber.

Watching sex does not make people animals. Obedience does.

Want real moral fiber? Stop giving out sanctimonious morality theaters. Start parenting better. Infuse your children with a healthy dose of critical thought skills. Lest they become animals in the future, like the ones depicted in the picture. Animals, not because they watched one hour of porn too many, but because they “were simply following orders”.

Priceless!

It’s bullshit.

No es cierto que la mujer tenga más resistencia física o emocional. Eso es mentira. Ninguna atleta mujer le puede ganar a un atleta hombre con el mismo peso. Libra por libra, el hombre es más fuerte porque tiene más testosterona, y eso es elemental biología — tan cierto como que las cosas caen al suelo por la gravedad.

Sólo si una mujer se suplementase con testosterona (adicionalmente al entrenamiento extenuante de los atletas masculinos), podría ser igual de fuerte, libra por libra — pero ningún hombre quiere clavar a un muñeco peludo y pepudo, excepto los gays. Y las lesbianas gordas motociclistas (rayos, ¿por qué es tan difícil decir dyke en español?)

Lo que sí es cierto, pero no es equivalente, es que la mujer tiene un umbral del dolor más alto… únicamente después de haber tenido a su primer hijo.

Y si el hombre pudiera dar a luz, también lo tendría.

…aparentemente, no somos la única especie donde “hacerse el difícil” estimula el deseo del sexo opuesto. Los roedores también experimentan lo mismo.

A ver si finalmente los/las deludidos/as terminan entendiendo que está en la naturaleza humana ser mal llevado.

Sí, soy feliz.

Tengo amigos. Tengo más de los necesarios para no encontrarme solo, si yo así lo escojo.

Ando con mujeres. Si me lo propongo, puedo ejecutar un one-night-stand perfecto. Tengo algo de experiencia. Y estoy 100% seguro de haber tomado la ruta correcta, cuando he terminado con todas mis exes.

Pero, de vez en cuando, Amarok toca esa canción. Los recuerdos me asaltan.

Y me descubro suspirando.

…remember the promise you made…

Results in big: Tight Ass, Cute Face

Thanks for taking the T and A and C test! Based on your selections, the results are clear: you show an attraction to larger breasts, smaller asses, and cuter composures than others who’ve taken the test.

Note that you like women thin and top-heavy. This is best achieved with plastic surgery, but some specimens do exist in nature.

My third variable, “cuteness” is a mostly objective measure of how innocent a given model looked. It’s determined by a combination of a lot of factors: lack of dark eye makeup, facial expression, posture, etc. If you scored high on that variable, you are either really nice OR you’re into deflowering teens. If you scored low, you are attracted to raunchier, sexier, women. In your case, your higher than average score suggests you appreciate a cuter, nicer look. Kudos!

Deflowering teens. Hehe.

In case you want to take the test yourself, follow this link.

I don’t exactly agree with Ayn Rand on some subjects, but I have to concede this: Show me the woman a man sleeps with, and I, too, will tell you what he thinks of him.

Yes, I am. I’ve been seeing this girl for about a month now. It’s a kickback to a time I was seeing several other girls, and happened to go out with her, then got involved with her exclusively for like two weeks.

We’re again involved this time around (yes, I’m aware of the fact that I’m breaking cardinal rule number one: never get back together with a girl you’ve broken up with).

And it’s hard. It’s excruciatingly hard. As it turned out, she couldn’t meet me for New Year’s celebration.

(I’m breaking this story for one paragraph to tell you how the New Year’s celebration was: it was fantastic. We partied, danced and drank continuously and copiously till 9:30 AM at a small place called Sasha, right down the lobby of the Barceló Colón Miramar resort in Salinas. I dunno if spending 60 bucks a head was worth it, but me and my crew enjoyed an unforgettable night entirely devoid of sorrows and chock-filled with thrills.)

I’ve been missing her for the past few days. That, coupled with several misunderstandings (partly brought to you by the enterprising folks at Porta), hasn’t helped a bit. Thing is, it feels like she’s not into me at all. I hate to mathematize the issue, but I know she’s in the sixties (60%) and I know it’s just a matter of time till she breaks the 90% barrier (after all, we’re talking about me here). So then, why do I feel like I’m not making any progress? Am I being too impatient?

I’ve been sweet, understanding and attentive. None of that seems to have mattered now, because she seems unappreciative. There’s a lesson to be learned here: giving people what they say they want is definitely not the way to make them happy.

I’m sure I can break it off and shake this unsatisfactory feeling off in a snap — the question is, do I want to? My current reply (you can quote me on that) is “not at the moment”. But I’m prepared to do whatever it takes. Not “whatever it takes” in the sense of keeping her with me, but whatever it takes to ensure my own happiness.

I know this post is low on details (and intentionally so). But maybe this girl deserves a chance. What do you guys think?

Claro, reconocer esto en público, hoy, sería sepultarse bajo varias toneladas de incorrección política. Por consiguiente, esta imbécil ideología ha cambiado gradualmente: la última “moda” en línea con esta ideología es el famoso aserto “las mujeres son buenas para las palabras, los hombres buenos para los números” y enteleqias relacionadas, coronadas con alguna estúpida explicación que está radicada en “genes” o algo igualmente lapidario.

Afortunadamente, todavía tenemos gente que continúa trabajando para investigar y descubrir la verdad. Resulta que un artículo de la revista Science relata un experimento:

• a un grupo de mujeres se les hizo tomar un test de matemáticas,
• después, a cada una se le dio un “paper”; algunos papers decían que decía “las diferencias en habilidad matemática entre sexos están relacionadas con los genes”, otros decían que “las diferencias observadas eran cuestión de práctica y experiencia”, y un tercero no se pronunciaba en ninguna dirección,
• finalmente se les hizo tomar un segundo test de matemáticas.

Resultado: las mujeres que leyeron el paper que explicaba la “incapacidad” de las mujeres en los genes ejecutaron su segundo test significativamente peor que las otras.

Conclusiones? No seas vago — ese es mi trabajo — y déjamelas como comentarios.

Visto en un artículo de Hanna Wallach

No sé si eso califique como “mentir”. Y no sé si lo que les voy a contar califique como “mentira” o “insinceridad”, pero en esta página podrán encontrar ejemplos brutales de lo que se puede hacer cuando se está armado con Photoshop y amigos. Pásenle el puntero del ratón a la imagen y sorpréndanse. Y disfruten de las otras fotos en la barra lateral — que también son obras de arte digital a partir de nuestra imperfecta naturaleza humana.

Lo deja a uno pensando: ¿cuántas de las fotos que vemos hoy en revistas son retocadas? No lo piensen mucho, porque todas son retocadas. La “perfección” fotográfica (especialmente en cuanto a fotos femeninas) ha llegado a tal punto, que es más fácil hacer un muñeco perfecto que maquillar a una mujer y fotografiarla para obtener resultados “magazine-like”.

Es verdad, señores. Vivimos sumergidos en una gran mentira feliz.

En cuanto a mi foto, pues, se la calan. Si alguien quiere la foto en resolución completa, para verme como Dios me trajo al mundo (y con ropa que yo compré, pervertidos), pueden pedírmela. Créanme que no es muy diferente a lo que ven — y con certeza nada diferente al artículo que enlacé en el párrafo anterior.

Después de haber visto ese corto vídeo, me pregunto: ¿será que nos hemos acostumbrado a ver algo que no es belleza, y esperar que las mujeres sean “demasiado perfectas”?

Espero que reflexionen como yo reflexioné hace unos minutos.

La métrica es sencilla: si estás casado con cero, dos o más personas, entonces no eres monógamo. Sólo se es monógamo si se está casado con una sola persona.

Si estás hablando de tener un solo novio, o ponerle los cachos a éste (o a varios), eso no tiene nada que ver con la monogamia. Tal vez quieras decir “fidelidad” en su lugar.

Do you ever wonder if people who divorce were really in love at the time of marriage? Because I do. Although there are multiple causes for this phenomenon, here’s a small bit of an explanation for that.

The prudish ‘no sex before marriage’ school of thought has made a huge mistake out of ignorance, and has spread that ignorance around the globe. What’s their mistake?

Thinking that sexual desire and love are intertwined or the same. And using this belief to justify placing an absurd value on virginity.

Sexual desire and love are not intertwined. When you’re young, they appear to be, because both love and sexual desire are new feelings and both feel good. But, in fact, they’re not. You can be:

• horny and want someone,
• in love with someone else,
• both things at the same time (about the same person or different people)

Now, ideally, before you get married to someone, you should both desire and be in love with a person.

But, in reality, uncontrolled desire can cloud your thought and can easily make you confused about true love. You see, horny guys (or girls) can’t think straight. A horny person really can’t help it — horniness can make you disregard and ignore dangerous or undesirable traits in your partner. Hell, you could end up marrying someone who eats toenail clippings or something!

And then, when the desire is satisfied (usually after marriage), the problems start cropping up. Unreconcilable differences in opinion, nasty traits in one or both partners. That’s disaster in the making.

So, what’s the quickest solution to tell love and desire apart?

Well, just eliminate the desire component of the equation. Have (safe) sex. The more, the merrier. Once you have a calm state of mind (usually after the post-orgasm fog subsides), you can really make up your mind about whether your partner is a keeper or not. Obviously, more often than not, your partner won’t be a keeper… but would you rather know after tying the knot?

(Got inspired while reading David Shade’s Journal.)

1. No deep vaginal stimulation. The penis can’t go in as far as is the case with other positions, and can’t press as hard as possible against the deep end of the vagina. Of course, this is not good.
2. Poor clitoral stimulation. The clitoris doesn’t get well stimulated — the man usually has to pull himself up to achieve this, and consequently decreases penetration depth.
3. No G-Spot stimulation. The Grafenberg spot usually gets bypassed — though your mileage may vary depending on the diameter of your penis.

Future posts will discuss alternative positions that cure the problems with missionaries around the world. For the moment, enjoy the 3D Vulva.