One of the meanest things women do

When I see an attractive woman, I feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 hour later, I will still feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 day later, I will still feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 week later, I will still feel like fucking her, and when I see her again 1 year later, I will still feel like fucking her.

The women are quite different. You have had an awesomely successful evening. You have gotten her so horny that she looks like she'll let you stick it anywhere you want. The only problem is that one of you has to leave (I mean, like, really has to), or, more likely, you simply have no access to a private place. You think "no big deal", because she so obviously desires you that you are convinced that there is an agreement between you that you will tear off each other's clothes and devour each other's bodies the moment you'll get the chance.

But when you meet her the next day or a few days later, and you're like "well, your place this evening?", she'll be like "look, maybe you misunderstood me".

In other words, you, like, have her seduced 95%, but a day or two later, you can't go on from that 95%, or even 90 or 80 or 70% – you're back to something like 10%. Your brilliant achievement the other night was for nothing. You'll have to do all the work again.

When I was made a fool like that for the third time, I finally realised that that's just what women do. That is, intellectually realised. Emotionally, I don't think I can never understand this kind of mind-blowing, earth-shattering insincerity and untrustworthiness of women. And need I say that yet another chunk of my heart (a rather large one this time) turned from flesh to stone?

To try to look at the bright side – getting abused like that helps one get over any scruples about taking advantage of women whenever one can. I mean, those creatures deserve no honesty or fairness whatsoever. It's hard to imagine anything (anything legal, that is) I could do to a woman that would be as mean as that.

Countries ranked by the women's beauty

 

  1) Colombia 7.45

  2) Portugal 7.30

  3) Serbia 7.22

  4) Russia 6.97

  5) Italy 6.90

  6) Croatia 6.82

  7) Venezuela 6.80

  8) Romania 6.70

  9) Dominican Republic 6.65

10) Moldova 6.65

11) Philippines 6.62

12) Macedonia 6.55

13) Thailand 6.47

14) Slovakia 6.45

15) Belarus 6.40

16) Greece 6.25

17) Czech Republic 6.25

18) Malaysia 6.25

19) Bulgaria 6.17

20) Argentina 6.12

21) Mexico 6.10

22) Ireland 6.10

23) Japan 6.10

24) Canada 6.10

25) New Zealand 6.07

26) Cuba 6.07

27) Ukraine 6.07

28) Poland 6.05

29) Brazil 6.02

30) Costa Rica 6.02

31) Taiwan 5.97

32) Qatar 5.92

33) China 5.85

34) Germany 5.80

35) UAE 5.70

36) Malta 5.65

37) Belgium 5.62

38) Latvia 5.57

39) Cape Verde 5.47

40) South Africa 5.47

41) Norway 5.45

42) Algeria 5.45

43) Singapore 5.45

44) Lithuania 5.42

45) France 5.35

46) Sweden 5.27

47) Hungary 5.27

48) Slovenia 5.22

49) Netherlands 5.20

50) Mongolia 5.17

51) Tunesia 5.15

52) Spain 5.12

53) Turkey 5.07

54) Switzerland 5.02

55) Hong Kong 5.00

56) Western Sahara 4.97

57) Dominica 4.97

58) USA 4.95

59) Montenegro 4.80

60) Austria 4.75

61) Jersey 4.62

62) Finland 4.52

63) Australia 4.50

64) Luxemburg 4.40

65) Chile 4.37

66) UK 4.32

67) Morocco 4.27

68) Vietnam 4.27

69) Gibraltar 4.27

70) Kenya 4.25

71) Honduras 4.10

72) Peru 4.10

73) Bolivia 3.90

74) Kyrgyzstan 3.82

75) Estonia 3.67

76) Namibia 3.62

77) Panama 3.57

78) Saint Kitts and Nevis 3.20

79) Ecuador 2.95

80) Vatican 2.40*

(40 women from each country; each woman rated 1 to 10; country's score computed as the average of those)

* Vatican's score is based on 5 photos only, because I couldn't find more.

Explanations

Background

It started as a part of another project but soon acquired a life of its own. I mean, I was really curious to find out which country in the world has the most beautiful women.

Method

How can one find out how beautiful is an average woman in one or another country? It would seem that, short of travelling to a country after country and checking out the women in person, the most accurate means is by finding a number of photos of women on the Internet and rating them.

As a matter of fact, there is an astounding number of online discussions where one guy would post a couple of photos of, say, Italian women, believing they will convince everyone that the Italian women are the most beautiful in the world, and then another guy would say "no, the Venezuelan women are the most beautiful in the world", and, to "prove" it, post a couple of photos of Venezuelan women. That is obviously not a way of getting anywhere. I tried to find something more objective.

So I defined a certain search algorithm and I defined requirements for picture quality, with the goal of finding photos of 40 women from each country without spending unreasonably much time.

Then I rated each woman with 1 to 10 points and calculated the average for each country.

Choice of countries

My research includes only a minority of the world's countries. That is because I only included countries that had at least some interest for me as travel destinations. I mean, I couldn't care less if Yemen, Guinea-Bissau or Suriname disappeared from the face of the Earth tomorrow, so I would hardly have any motivation to search for photos of women from there.

What is a country?

I count a territory as a country if it has its own Internet domain suffix. Thus, Jersey, French Polynesia and Western Sahara are countries; Martinique, Northern Cyprus and Kosovo aren't. That is absolutely not to be interpreted as an expression of any political sympathies.

What is a woman?

Obviously, I discarded children. Whenever the age was not indicated (and that was usually the case), I just looked at the girl and if I even suspected that she might be a child, I discarded the photo.

I also discarded women who were clearly too old to be considered sex objects.

Choice of photos

Admitting that a certain amount of subconscious whoreness bias was probably just humanly unavoidable, I consciously gave my best to discard photos only based on picture quality and the woman's apparent age, rather than keep pretty ones and discard ugly ones.

I gave my best reasonable effort to eliminate multiple photos of the same woman, but the Orientals were really tough to tell apart, so I might have made some mistakes there.

I discarded celebrities, because I might have been tempted to evaluate their reputation rather than beauty, and that would have distorted the results. (By the way, it was weird how Google searches for virtually any country's women kept turning out photos of Rihanna.)

In course of the selection process, I ended up setting stricter quality standards for photos of professional models, compared to regular people. There were two reasons to that. Firstly, the photos of professional models were so numerous. Secondly, in some countries (most strikingly, Thailand) the models you see on billboards and in magazines look very different from the actual women you see on the street. So I didn't want them to dominate too much.

The idea behind this survey was to give an idea as to in which country a traveller or expat could hope to find the most beautiful women. That's why, when a woman was from the country A and the photo was taken in the country B, I counted the photo for the country B, even if the woman was just travelling. By the way, I was amazed to notice how the Russian whores seem to have found their way to most countries of the world. Well, nothing doing. If Yekaterina lives in Malta, I count her as a woman in Malta.

Credibility

I gave my best reasonable effort to make sure that the photos were actually from those countries. Of course, I had to rely on the information provided on third party websites, so if they were lying, that would have distorted the survey results, but there was nothing I could do to avoid that. I believe it's reasonable to expect that most websites don't lie about the origin of their photos. (I found several that do, and blacklisted them, of course. Strangely enough, some websites that sell photos lie shamelessly about the model's nationality.)

Obviously the ratings given to individual women are totally subjective and reflect my personal taste only. I have seen many astonishing examples of different men's having extremely different preferences on women. There was no way to avoid this subjectivity, and I did this for myself anyway. Should that be not good enough for someone, they are welcome to conduct their own, more objective survey, if they so desire.

Comments on results

I rated the photos in random order, not country by country, so when I began to add up the points, I had little idea of what the outcome would be. Some results were quite surprising.

While wondering which country might turn out to be the overall winner, I spent no thought at all on Colombia, but to think of it, I've seen remarkably beautiful women from that country, so its victory is not all that surprising.

What doesn't make sense at all, though, is that Montenegro and Serbia should have so different results – or, for that matter, Dominica and St. Kitts & Nevis. Or Australia and New Zealand.

The very low rankings of Bolivia, Peru and Ecuador are not surprising, considering that they have large Amerind populations and I find the Amerind women the least attractive of all. What doesn't fit in at all, though, is Mexico scoring approximately as high as Cuba. The population of Mexico is mostly Mediterranean-Amerind mix, and the one of Cuba is mostly Mediterranean-Negro mix, and when I visited those two countries, I was amazed at the ugliness of Mexican women compared to Cuban ones – or, for that matter, to any other country where I've been. I mean, the German women just don't take care of themselves, but the Mexican women are really ugly.

It might also rise an eyebrow or two that Panama has scored so low, compared to Colombia and Costa Rica. That is apparently because among the photos of Panamanian women on the Internet, too many are pictures of Amerinds taken by the tourists, while the dominant group in Colombia and Costa Rica are photos of chicks in search for US husbands. Well, can't be helped. I could hardly have begun to discard photos based on race, could I?

(By the way, the tourists' obsession with minority groups is probably also the reason why Namibia's score turned out so much lower than South Africa's.)

I already mentioned Germany, the country full of ugly women, the country where people use in all seriousness the term Schönheitswahn (beauty-mania), considering foreign women's pursuit of beauty and foreign men's preference for beautiful women to be some sort of a collective mental disease. So it's implausible that Germany would score clearly higher than Austria and almost as high as the Czech Republic, whereas in the real world the contrast between the Austrian and Czech women's beauty and the German women's ugliness is striking. But again, nothing doing. I rated photos individually and it would have been grossly unfair to penalise photos of German women on the grounds that most German women are actually not that pretty.

Thailand and the Philippines scored almost equally in this survey. In the real life, though, I assure you that the Filipina women are very much more beautiful than the Thai women. There is absolutely no comparison. Neither are Thai women any prettier than Vietnamese women, it's rather the other way around. I also think that Mongolia should have scored higher – at any rate, in the real world I've found Nothern Oriental women clearly prettier on average than Southern Oriental ones. The reason to those illogicalities is obvious – some Oriental countries are overflowing the Internet with photos of hand-picked extraordinary beauties (often surgery-enhanced) who look nothing like the vast majority of the women in those countries. So a random selection from Google search results is not always a representative picture of a country's womanhood, especially so in East Asia.

And last but not least, I was shocked by the extremely low score of my native country, Estonia. I admit that I am thoroughly fed up with the Estonian women's ever-increasing arrogance, but as to their physical beauty, I never expected I would rate it so low compared to that of Russian, Latvian and Swedish, and even Finnish women. Now, as I mentioned, the German women look ugly because of their wide-spread disregard and even contempt of personal style, but in Finland there seems to be an outright feminist conspiracy with the aim of choosing one's clothes and accessories so as to make oneself look as ugly as possible. There is no denying that the Estonian women have gotten clearly uglier during the last decade or two, obviously because they imitate the horrible personal style choices that are fashionable in Finland. However, they are nowhere near as ugly as the Finns themselves. This survey, though, says the opposite.

All in all, those illogical results suggest that 40 women per country are too few. They also seem to suggest that an Internet search engine is not the best means of acquiring women's photos for such a purpose. Still, those results are better than nothing and they're the best there are so far.

Future

I am planning to increase my database to 100 women from each country, and sooner or later I'm likely to add a couple dozen more countries. I have ideas how to make sure the results won't be dominated either by professional models or by minority groups fancied by tourists.

However, I have many other things to do, so I will only be spending a little time on this project occasionally when I feel like it. Therefore, the new ratings won't be there any time soon.

I've been suggested that I sell my database of photos. That is absolutely out of the question. The reason is very simple: the photos are presumably copyrighted and it would be against the law for me to distribute them. I would have to contact each photo's copyright owner and ask him for a permission. That would obviously be a grossly unreasonable amount of effort.

It would have been easy to solve the economic crisis

Let us, for a moment, be very naive and idealistic and imagine a USA that was governed by politicians who actually wanted the best for the people and the country, rather than themselves and their buddies. What they could have done to solve the economic crisis of 2008 much better than the actual US government did, is this:

They could have rounded up everyone involved in the making of the crisis, and told them: we know you caused the crisis, and you know you caused the crisis, but we both know that what you did was technically not against the law, so we can't legally put you in prison for making millions of people into beggars. Therefore, we are giving you this choice: a) you hand over 90% of your and your family members' assets and we'll let you go; b) we'll use one thousandth of the proposed bailout money to hire the best detectives to rip your professional and private lives apart, starting from the richer and going down to the poorer, and for every, even the tiniest, misdeed you ever did, we are going to charge you with the severest crime we can, ask for the harshest punishment the law permits, and sue you for the biggest amount of damages we can.

I think most crooks involved in the real estate bubble would have had enough skeletons in their closets to eagerly give up the overwhelming part of their wealth (and still keep far more than any person can spend in his lifetime). The nation would have recovered many billions of dollars, maybe not enough to cover all the damage, but the psychological impact to the common people would have been huge.

Then it would have been easy to say to the people: see, we made the crooks pay and recovered so-and-so-much of the damage. However, we are going to use the money to help the people who are really in a desperate situation, like the ones who have no roof over their heads. We are not going to hand over taxpayers' money to those who merely lost the profits they were expecting on their speculations. And all those cry-babies who believed they were entitled to living in luxury on borrowed money forever, shut the fuck up and learn this new way of life: consume only as much as you have earned with your work.

Don't invest in women

Recently I came, yet again, across a bunch of articles offering generic advice for Western men hooking up with Thai girls. It's not like I'm looking for that kind of information. I have quite adequate first-hand knowledge and I know better information sources for learning more. No, it's just that sometimes when you're looking for something, you find something else.

Anyway, that brought my thoughts back to the subject of Western men being overwhelmed by the "Adult Disneyland". Many of them are doing incredibly stupid things like a child let loose in a candy factory might. Then there's a number of men giving other men tips on avoiding some unbelievabaly stupid mistakes in Thailand. And finally, there's another category of men who seem to greatly enjoy true stories about horrible things that have happened to Farangs in Thailand.

Some of the advice given is very impractical, like "don't fall in love", as if we ever chose to fall in love. Some overflow the readers with unnecessary cultural advice, like behaviour rules which are supposed to be absolutely necessary when dealing with Thais – except that when you have learned it all, you will see that the Thais themselves don't follow those rules. There is actually very little to learn. Don't give things with your left hand, never show the middle finger, never say "fuck you" – that is pretty much the only etiquette you'll need in Thailand, apart from keeping your eyes open and following the elementary rules of respectfulness, like a sensible person would do in pretty much every country.

As to dealing with Thai women, I came to think of one rule which I believe is the most important. I mean, there is absolutely nothing wrong with your reading several books on Thai culture. But if you don't want to bother with that just yet, there is one rule of thumb which is easy to remember and ought to keep you from losing your heart and your shirt.

The rule is: "Don't invest in a woman."

It means that the normal way of things is: she gives something to you, you give something to her. Avoid giving something to women for the mere hope of getting something in return in the future. No honey, no money. Panties down before money down.

In fact, that is a good policy even with the women back home, except that it's extremely hard to follow. In the West, it's commonly accepted that a man is supposed to invest a lot in the woman and she might return the favours or not, and there is nothing the man can do about it. That's a biological thing which has perfectly plausible reasons, but I am not going into details here. What is important for you to realise is that in Thailand we are not required to do that. We don't have to pay for hopes. We even pay for sex after we've fucked the chick. That's unheard of in Europe.

Sure enough, I've taken a Thai bargirl out on a dinner, and she chose the restaurant, and it was rather expensive for Thai standards, and of course I paid. But that was only after I had fucked her. I didn't take her to a nice expensive restaurant in order to make her like me more so that maybe she would reward me with sex someday. No, I took her out to dinner because while in bed with her I took a liking in her as a person, and I figured she was good enough for more than sex. I agreed to her choice of restaurant because I liked it. The money I spent was absolutely worth the food I ate and the good time I had in pleasant surroundings with a pretty girl who was kind to me.

That's the way to go. Whenever giving something, ask yourself occasionally: am I getting what I'm paying for?

Some argue that it's not quite "panties down before money down" in Thailand either. They would (correctly) point out that when you go into a bar in Thailand, you are required to buy a drink, and (more or less gently) pushed to buy one or two for the girls as well. I say: but you are getting something in return immediately – you are approached by scantily clad friendly pretty women, you get to touch them, and you are not the one who has to struggle to make conversation – they are. Isn't that worth the price of a couple of drinks? I say it is, totally.

Then, you pay the bar fine before you get to screw the chick, but isn't that worth being provided the environment where you can comfortably and unhurriedly check out a score of women, almost each one of whom is eager to be taken away by you? I think it is. Totally.

So those examples don't violate the principle "don't invest in a woman". What does is flying back home and sending money to "your" chick in Thailand so that she would go to school and give up prostitution, and to hire a detective to spy on her. (I saw a guy in Bangkok who provides exactly that service.) When you fuck her, give her money. When you don't fuck her, what the fuck are you giving her money for? If you want her for your wife, accept her for what she is. What is the point trying to change a prostitute into an innocent woman? If you want an innocent woman for a wife, go to an agency and buy a virgin, instead of sending the same amount of money to a bargirl and worrying yourself sick that she might still be sleeping with someone else.

What exactly is investing and what isn't? There is this test. If she would die or disappear or get married this moment, would you feel that the money, time and emotions you spent on her were more or less adequately compensated by whatever you got back from her? Or would you think: dammit, now it's all wasted?

Needless to say, that's a good question to occasionally ask yourself with the girls back home, too.

Stupid question of the year

I saw this on a website the other day. It left me gasping in utter amazement:

Why Do Men Date If They're Not Ready for a Relationship?

What kind of a retard needs to ask something that obvious?

As every man knows, men date because they believe it's a necessary prerequisite to sex. Relationships haven't got anything to do with it.

There are very few men in the world who want to date a woman before sex, let alone have a relationship before sex. Unfortunately, though, there are very few men attractive or skillful enough to seduce a woman without dating. Therefore, the overwhelming majority of the men have to entertain women on dates and pretend to be interested in a relationship, in order to satisfy their vital need for sex.

As someone so brilliantly put it: "A relationship is the price a man pays for sex. Sex is the price a woman pays for a relationship." Men's and women's biological needs are antagonistic: the man desires to fuck as many women as possible, investing as little as possible; the woman desires to withhold sex until the man is emotionally addicted to her, so that he would stay with her permanently. It is always an unsolvable conflict – that is, it's impossible to arrange things between men and women so that both would be satisfied. (If someone knows a way, I'd love to hear about it.)

It is ludicrous to suggest that a man be "ready for a relationship" before he has even fucked the woman – and, for that matter, fucked many other women in order to be able to choose the best possible life companion. And there are many men for whom a long-term relationship isn't suitable at all – not a monogamous one, at any rate.

The myth of men's mid-life crisis

It is a common belief that throughout most of their life, men prefer sex partners close to their own age, but at a certain age, they suddenly freak out and develop a preference for much younger women. Many wannabe experts have offered mystical explanations to that phenomenon.

It is undeniable that many men in their 40s or 50s start pursuing much younger women, but I say that it has a perfectly logical explanation.

It has to do with reward-to-effort ratio. One has to put up a certain amount of effort in order to seduce a woman, and one gets a certain amount of satisfation if that goal is reached. Let us create a model that enables us to understand a man's partner choice situations throughout his life.

I am sure that pretty much every man finds younger women more attractive than older women. Of course, different men's preferences are hugely different and a woman's attractiveness is influenced by many other factors apart from her age, but I dare to suggest that it's pretty close to the truth to say that if an average 20-year-old woman's attractiveness for an average man is 1 unit, then the average 30-year-old woman's attractiveness is 0.8 units and an average 40-year-old woman's attractiveness is 0.2 units.

As to the amount of effort, it is reasonable to assume that it's relatively easier for a man to find sex partners among the women he interacts most with, and it's reasonable to assume that a person interacts most with people in his own age group. Considering the social custom that a man be slightly older than his partner, we can say that every man has a certain comfort zone (as far as we can ever talk about any comfort when seduction is concerned) which is the age group slightly below his own. In other words:

1) for a 25-year-old man, it is, on average, easier to seduce a 20-year-old woman than to seduce a 30-year-old or a 40-year-old woman;

2) for a 35-year-old man, it is, on average, easier to seduce a 30-year-old woman than to seduce a 20-year-old or a 40-year-old woman;

2) for a 45-year-old man, it is, on average, easier to seduce a 40-year-old woman than to seduce a 20-year-old or a 30-year-old woman;

That would be because those are the women he has most social interaction with, and has more in common in terms of discussion topics and such.

Let us say that when the difficulty of seducing a woman in one's comfort zone is 1 unit, the difficulty of seducing a woman out of one's comfort zone is 2 units.

(By the way, the numbers don't really mean that much. We could just as well set the attractiveness of a 30-year-old woman at 0.9 or 0.7, the effort to seduce outside of one's comfort zone at 1.5 or 2.5 or 3.0. The following calculations would still be essentially the same.)

Now, let's look at the pussy hunting choices of a 25-year-old man.

Prospective partner's age	Attractiveness	Effort to seduce	Reward to effort ratio
20	1	1	1.0
30	0.8	2	0.4
40	0.2	2	0.1

For a 25-year-old man, the situation is the simplest. He has the most interaction with the most attractive age group, so he has no need to spend any thought on older women. (Meaning: he probably wouldn't mind fucking them if they were to offer themselves, but he hasn't got a reason in the world to make any effort to approach them.)

When the man has turned 35, his choices are as follows:

Prospective partner's age	Attractiveness	Effort to seduce	Reward to effort ratio
20	1	2	0.5
30	0.8	1	0.8
40	0.2	2	0.1

In his 30s, the man still pursues women of his own age group, but not, mind you, because he finds them most attractive. If he could take any woman he wanted (like in a brothel), he would rather choose a 20-year-old, but since he has most interaction with 30-year-old women and feels most comfortable around them, it's easier for him to settle with them, rather than make the extra effort to approach the 20-year-olds. In other words, at the age of 35, the women in his own age group aren't yet ugly enough to push the man out of his comfort zone.

Now the man has reached the age of 45:

Prospective partner's age	Attractiveness	Effort to seduce	Reward to effort ratio
20	1	2	0.5
30	0.8	2	0.4
40	0.2	1	0.2

The 40-year-old women are much, much less attractive than even 30-year-old ones. So the man has reached the point where staying in his comfort zone is no longer rewarding enough – he has to leave it. The important thing to realise is that it's not because the man's preferences have changed. The man has preferred 20-year-olds over 30-year-olds over 40-year-olds throughout his life. What has changed is that the women in his own age group have gradually become uglier as they aged, so it's inevitable that at some point they have become so ugly that they're no longer worth pursuing. So, for better or worse, the man has to leave his comfort zone.

Why 20-year-olds then, rather than 30-year-olds? When we look at the table, the answer is obvious. When it's equally difficult to seduce a 20-year-old or a 30-year-old, one naturally goes for the 20-year-old. And as I said above, it doesn't matter if their attractiveness ratio is 10 to 8, or 10 to 9, or 10 to 6. The result remains the same – the reward-to-effort ratio makes it more reasonable to pursue younger women.

By the way, even if you would argue that it's easier for a 45-year-old man to seduce a 30-year-old woman than a 20-year-old one, it would alter the figures in the last table in favour of the 30-year-old women, but the 40-year-old women would still clearly remain the underdogs. So it won't change the general result – that at a certain age, it is perfectly natural for a man to start pursuing women much younger than himself, and, contrary to the popular belief, it is not due to the man's inner change, but to the external change in his circumstances. In other words, it doesn't happen because the man suddenly begins to fancy much younger women, and one doesn't need any Freudian mumbo-jumbo to explain it. It happens because of the obvious fact that as women age, they become increasingly less attractive, to the point when they're barely tolerable, so that the man is forced to leave his comfort zone unless he's willing to give up sexual pleasure altogether.

Obviously, I am not suggesting that it necessarily happens when the man is 45. Some men might reach that point a 40, some at 60, but it happens inevitably sooner or later. The above numbers are just a rough approximation to make the general principle easier to understand.

Actually, there are other factors, apart from the reward-to-effort ratio, that contribute to this phenomenon:

1. The man learns eventually that it's actually possible to be desirable to women much below his age.

This is something totally counterintuitive. Since younger women are obviously more attractive than older women, men naturally assume that the same goes for men. They can't even imagine that a 20-year-old woman would desire a 45-year-old man.

I am sure that it's one of the biggest surprises in every man's life to learn that many 20-year-old women actually believe that older men don't desire them but prefer women closer to their own age.

2. As the man gains more life experience, he will at one point have enough inner strength to liberate himself from the social taboo that it's somehow unseemly for a man to hang out with women young enough to be his daughters.

Unsurprisingly, older women are doing anything in their power to uphold that taboo, because once their physical attractivess is gone, they are desperate to keep their men from leaving them. So they keep screaming "pedophile" whenever they see a man with a woman 20 years younger. (Do you know what the woman's definition of a pedophile is? "A pedophile is any man older than yourself who desires women younger than yourself.")

3. By the time a married man's children have grown up, which usually happens sometime in his 40s, it is safe for him to leave his wife without risking financial ruin through the so-called child support payments.

So, these are the perfectly logical reasons why men tend to start pursuing much younger women sometime in their 40s or 50s.

The floating brothel

It's outrageous how the modern Western society is constantly conditioning people to automatically assume that whenever there is a conflict between men and women:

1. the men are criminals,

2. the women are victims,

3. the worst kind of torture imaginable is when a woman is being fucked and she doesn't desire to be fucked.

I ran across a book titled "The Floating Brothel" or something. I skimmed it, reading a page here and a few pages there, but then I didn't buy it after all. The book is about English criminals who were exiled to Australia, then a young British colony.

The beginning of the book describes the fate of a number of people who committed one or another petty crime and were caught and spent some time in prison and were then sentenced to the exile in Australia.

The final part of the book is about the hardships the colonists faced after they had arrived in Australia.

The middle part is about the journey. A number of convicted criminals (keep in mind that the crimes might have been quite trivial by today's standards) were loaded onto a ship which set sail for Australia. Technology was not too advanced back then, so the journey was long and arduous. In particular, food was rather scarce during the journey, and now we come to the "floating brothel" part. It would appear – unsurprisingly – that some of the female passengers let the crew members fuck them in exchange for extra food. Amazingly, the author bemoans the fate of those poor women who "had to" let themselves be fucked by men they didn't fancy.

Let's examine the situation more closely and apply some elementary logic.

The first question is: why didn't the passengers get to eat as much as they wanted to? Was is because there was abundant food on the ship, but the crew members were so mean that they gave only very little to the passengers? I don't think so. Obviously it was because the ship's capacity was limited and they were able to take only so much food, so it had to be strictly rationed, so that as many people as possible would make the journey alive and reasonably healthy, and perhaps some food would remain to feed the colonists until they would be able to produce their own food.

The second question is: when a female passenger had sex with a crew member and was given some extra food as reward, where did that food come from? Did it fall from the sky? No, I don't think so. I am quite sure that it came from the same place all the other food did – from the ship's hold. Which, considering what I just said about the severe limitedness of resources, means that because of that woman getting more food, someone else got less.

So, who were the actual victims in that situation?

Was it the women who had the choice between:

a) let a perhaps-not-too-desirable man fuck them and get extra food, or

b) not do anything and get their regular food rations?

Or was it the men (and the very ugly women) who had only the choice (b), that is, who, for better or worse, had to do with their regular rations, or actually a little less than their regular rations because some of the food that was rightfully theirs was given to the whores?

For the authors (as well as the overwhelming majority of book reviewers) the answer is obvious. The victims were the women who "had to" (actually, chose to) have sex for the privilege of appropriating someone else's food.

It's, of course, the same everywhere. Women have always the option (but not the obligation) to exchange their sexual attractiveness for other goods. And still we're being drowned in feminist whining how the women are being oppressed and how women are supposed to get equal salary with men – in addition to having been born with the facilities that enable them to get a large share of men's resources by doing little more than lying on their backs. Half of the money and all the pussy – that's supposed to be equality.

That's capitalism for you

How do you learn to take advantage of people?

The title is a bit misleading. Actually, the article's about a woman's experience in a company's so-called customer service. She describes in blood-chilling detail how she is (as are her colleagues) pressed to persuade the customers who are CALLING FOR HELP to order insanely expensive services, even if she could just give them some instructions over the telephone so that they would be able fix the problem on their own.

That company's behaviour is very close to the crime known as fraud, and in some countries they would certainly get fined by the government's customer protection agency. Anyway, according to the libertarian theory, companies who cheat their customers like that ought to lose their reputation and go bankrupt. In the reality, though, such practices seem to be in the increase (although maybe they're merely being written about more).

P.S. The original article was down for some reason, so I posted the cached version. Scroll down and you will see the article. Should the cache be gone and the original page back up, google for the string  "how do you learn to take advantage of people".

Uus leidlik kasutusviis sõlgedele

Kui tunnete muret, et eesti rahvariided jm. rahvapärand ei ole tänapäeval enam praktiline ja kaob seetõttu kasutuselt, siis siin on Hongkongist pärinev idee, mida Eestiski saaks kasutada, ühendamaks vanu traditsioone uue aja kommetega:

http://www.amateurasianpornhunters.com/2011/03/asian-hottie-from-hong-kong-pierced-nipples/

Caution: recycled virgins

This is an interesting article about hymen restoration. What surprised me, though, was the mention of a court decision annulling a marriage when the bride turned out to not be a virgin. The surprising thing was that it was in France.

How can that be? I've been taught that the basic principle of the European law is that all people are equal, and now it would seem that there is different law for Moslems and non-Moslems. After all, I am sure that if a Frenchman would demand the annulment of his marriage on the grounds that the bride was not a virgin, he would be laughed out of court.

Are the nationalists right after all? Is the danger of Islamic law in Europe really real?

Photography can do wonders to a woman's body

It is no secret that many women shave their body hair. Even those who don't aren't too keen to expose their hairy parts, and I've yet to see one woman who takes pride in her body hair.

This is the first time for me to see a photographer use a technique that makes the model appear to have awfully hairy legs or belly:

 

It's truly amazing. If I were that girl, I would sue the photographer. ;-)

The burial of Google is overdue

Has it happened to you that you were looking for information on some rare band, and you typed it in the Google search field, and you were overjoyed to see several pages offering you that band's records, discography, lyrics, mp3 downloads, karaoke and whatever; and then you opened the page only to see some fucking generic record shop that had not one bit of information on the band you were looking for?

For a long time now I've grown used to it that a large percentage of Google searches result in the first couple of pages being filled with crap sites that are using some sort of engine that creates a huge number of pages, which promise relevant information but are actually meant only to get high results on Google, so that people would be lured onto their website and perhaps click on something else and buy something.

It is an outrage that Google allows itself to be spammed like this. Remember why we all switched to Google in the first place? Because it had the stunning ability to give us just what we were looking for. Sometimes it felt really eerie, as if Google was somehow able to read my thoughts. Those days are long gone. This page I saw today was possibly the worst I've ever seen:

I mean, they have taken it to the next level. They don't even pretend to have what you are looking for! They say directly: "we don't have any of this", and Google still leads people to them. 
I ended up on that page accidentally. I wasn't looking for "Philippines Girl In Up Skirt". But the point is, someone who is searching the term "philippines girl in up skirt" is expecting to find something containing "philippines girl in up skirt". Instead, Google is taking him to a website that not only doesn't, but has the nerve to openly admit it doesn't. Obviously they have written a script which creates a number of fake webpages, obviously with no other purpose than to mislead the search engine. Such a site ought to be banned from the search engine altogether, because allowing such spamming eventually makes the search engine useless and therefore induces its users to switch to another service.

Anyway, people who are good at programming things, listen up, there is a huge market gap out there. Google may be swallowing one web service after another, but getting bigger is no substitute for providing good service. Google is a dinosaur ready to die. I am ready to switch and forget all about that G-shit the instant any proper search engine comes along.

A breakthrough in men's rights?

A few days ago I discovered something that sounds too good to be true.

Until now, any man whom a woman deigned to accuse of having raped her, has been considered guilty unless proven innocent – which in most cases is impossible.

Now, it would seem that the Italian Supreme Court has decided that rape cases are to be handled with at least some regard to the evidence. In the case in question the "victim" apparently had jeans which were so tight that they could not have been removed without her cooperation. In the court of first instance, the accused was, of course, automatically convicted – after all, the accusation was rape – but the Supreme Court reasoned that if the jeans were so tight that they could not have been removed without the woman's cooperation, her claim that she had not agreed to sex was not credible, and acquitted the man. His reputation and career will probably be ruined anyway, but at least he won't have to spend any more time in jail. That's something.

This is the original article. Unsurprisingly, the author is enraged that any court would ever dare to acquit a man accused of rape. And so he brings on childish nonsense like the court's decision's meaning that ANY woman wearing ANY jeans can be forced to sex without punishment under ANY circumstances. Obviously, the decision doesn't say anything to that effect.

Now, that ruling doesn't, of course, bring the legal practice anywhere near to fair handling of rape accusations. The case did only deal with the problem of automatically regarding the man as a criminal and the woman as a victim, no matter what the circumstances. A vital next step would be a legal provison to the effect that a rape conviction would require evidence apart from the "victim's" word.

It is one of the most elementary principles of criminal justice that to convict a person of any crime except rape, the prosecution needs to prove that the accused has committed that crime. Outrageously, in the case of rape accusations, it is commonly considered sufficient that a woman simply claims after the sexual act that she didn't consent to it. No other evidence is required (at least in some jurisidictions). While we don't have the islamic law that the word of one man is equivalent to the word of two women, we seem to have the unwritten law that, in rape cases, the word of a woman weighs more than the word of a man.

The common legal practice to handle rape differently from any other type of crime puts every one of us in danger. Every time a man fucks a woman, he risks having his life ruined, should the woman be displeased with anything afterwards, and decide to file a rape accusation to get back on him. Because gone are the times when falling victim of rape was an awful shame for a woman. These days rape accusation is merely a convenient way for a woman to damage a sex partner she no longer likes.

You think I'm exaggerating. To a certain degree, I may be. But ask yourself: how could the man in that Italian case end up convicted in the first instance, and acquitted later merely because of the jeans? Obviously, there was no proof of rape to start with. Had there been any proof of rape, the Supreme Court could not have ignored it and based their ruling on the jeans. The tightness of the jeans could not outweigh, for instance, signs of violence on her body or any other evidence suggesting resistance. So it would seem that the court of the first instance convicted the accused without any evidence of involuntariness.

In any situation other than a rape accusation, the victim's word against the defendant's word is not sufficient for a conviction. Suppose S sells a ring with a stone of cheap material to B for 50 Euros (or dollars, if you prefer). Then B files a complaint with the police, stating that the stone was actually supposed to be a diamond, so the ring would have been worth 5000 Euros, and that he actually paid 5000 Euros to S. He presents as proof the ring with the stone which is not a diamond, and it's also proven that S possesses more than 5000 Euros. S claims that B only paid him 50 Euros (the 5000 Euros having been received from numerous other sources, as is common for vendors), and that there was an understanding between them that B pays 50 Euros and gets a ring that is actually worth 50 Euros.

There is no court in the civilised world that would convict S of fraud on B's word alone. When the crime has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt, the defendant has to be acquitted. That is the basis of civilised criminal justice. But if the accusation is rape, those exact same judges wouldn't hesitate to convict the accused of rape on the "victim's" word alone, without any further evidence. For that matter, even traces of sperm in the "victim's" vagina aren't required because he could have used a condom. And a rape attempt doesn't require any evidence whatsoever. (Which is why it was used in the former Soviet Union as a convenient means of disposing of dissidents. The modern democratic world has, unsurprisingly, improved on that – the offence called sexual harassment does the job even more easily.)

Pretty much the only thing left to our protection is the women's decency, and that, judging by what I hear from countries like the USA, is vanishing rapidly. The most outrageous case I remember was a teenage girl who had to explain to her parents why she was late coming home in the evening, so she lied that she had been raped. To make people think she had been raped was clearly a lesser evil for her than angering her parents and getting grounded or such. Hearing about cases like these helps one to put into proper perspective the feminist whining about how horribly women are supposed to suffer when raped. Yes, there are those who do suffer, but they don't run around screaming that they were raped, even if they actually were.

And this brings me to a sad paradox about rape. A decent woman who actually suffers terribly from rape, is horribly ashamed of it. So she does everything in her power to prevent anybody from ever learning about it. Usually she only files a rape complaint when a family member sees her acting strangely and squeezes the truth out of her or something. So their rapists who actually deserve to be punished often go free. On the other hand, the modern arrogant bitch who uses her sexuality to take advantage of the men without the slightest scruples, doesn't really suffer when being fucked against her will, except for the indignation that a man has had the insolence of refusing to be her obedient toy and to meekly submit to her teasing. She wouldn't think twice about filing a rape complaint even when there was no rape but she simply happens to feel that a man needs to be taught a lesson. It's a game to her, a game where she can enjoy watching the man suffer while risking nothing herself (because women filing false rape accusations are almost never prosecuted). And that is probably the reason why 40 percent of rape accusations are proven false, further 55% are estimated to be false but can't be proven so, and merely 5% are actual rapes – and at the same time many rapes are never reported. (The feminists, of course, scream about the latter but completely ignore the former.)

Some Western countries have moved beyond even that, and others are following suit. It would seem that in countries like the USA, any man's professional career and family life can be easily ruined by having any woman pointing a finger at him and claiming sexual harassment. Just as with a rape accusation, the accused is not only left with the impossible task of proving that no harassment ever took place, but his reputation will be badly damaged by the mere fact that such an accusation was made. I read about a case where a female employee went to a male superior and stood very close to him, rubbing her breasts against his body, and then she went and filed a sexual harassment complaint, and he was apparently in big trouble without being able to do anything about it. In some places it seems to be police routine that a male police officer never interrogates a female without a female police officer present – drawing pay for just hanging around as a witness, in order to protect the male officer from a possible sexual harassment accusation.

It would seem that in such countries, every man in an influencial position has to constantly walk on eggshells, hoping to be able to get through his life without ever provoking a woman to accusing him of sexual harassment. It seems to me that the only reasonable thing to do for any man is to get the fuck out of such a contry as soon a he can afford it. As a matter of fact, I intend to leave this country before it becomes a clone of the USA or Sweden – and we're on our way just there, that can be clearly seen.

The official goverment policy and legal practice in the Western countries is nothing short of genocide against men. Satisfying his natural need for sex is difficult enough for a man as it is. It's like playing a game of dice where you have one die and the woman has three. But the governments do all they can to increase that disadvantage by giving the woman the fourth die. Even that is not enough for the feminists who still keep screaming about discrimination and demand that the women be given the fifth die, and why not the sixth while we're at it?

While the above-mentioned verdict of the Italian Supreme Court is to be celebrated, I don't see any hope that the rule of law would ever be fully extended to the area of sex crimes. That would require admitting that a proper woman wouldn't:

a) dress and act like a whore in public, and scream bloody murder whenever any man as much as lays a finger on her (I understand that in some countries the men are severely scolded even for looking at the exposed body parts of an exhibitionist woman);

b) routinely let men take her on dates, knowing perfectly well that the only reason they would ever ask her out is in the hope of having sex with her, and never have sex with them.

There are words for that kind of indecent behaviour. The first is called sexual harassment, the second is called sexual abuse. Yes, that's right. When a woman wags her body in front of men, enjoying her ability to make them horny and leaving them unsatisfied, it's sexual harassment of men. And routinely letting men entertain oneself without giving them sex in return – that's date abuse, a form of sexual abuse of men.

Don't try to tell me that a woman who isn't ashamed to show herself on the street dressed like this suffers horribly when raped.

And don't try to tell me that a woman who repeatedly goes into a man's apartment after dates and still keeps refusing sex does not deserve to be raped. 

For that matter, as long as the false rape industry keeps destroying innocent men's lives all over the world, I find it impossible to have compassion with any raped woman.

Just to avoid any misunderstandings, I absolutely advise against raping sex refusers (or any women, for that matter), as it would ruin your life without doing her much damage. A better idea is to simply tell her that a relationship without sex is not acceptable to you. If she gives you any LJBF bullshit, just break up all contact with her. I did that some time ago, and guess what – a few weeks later she contacted me and agreed to have sex with me. How do you like them apples?