Home | Index of articles
Kanye West tore Wiz Khalifa a new one when he thought the Pittsburgh rapper was “coming out the side of his neck” and speaking ill on wife Kim Kardashian. Turns out, Wiz wasn’t, and the two have since made amends. But one can only imagine the epic Twitter rant Kanye’s going to go on after Ray J said his wife’s “ridiculous” vaginal odor acted as an “unbearable” penis repellent when they were together.
The R&B singer, who co-starred alongside Kim in Kim K Superstar and dated for three years in 2003, claims in a new interview that Mrs. West’s pH balance was so off at one point that he had to seek medical attention. “I went to the doctor and asked the doctor, ‘Is it me? Check me first. Okay, I’m good? What’s up with my girlfriend’s coochie?,’ ” he recalls in the interview that’ll surely piss Kanye off. “It’s ridiculous!”
Ray J says his doctor advised him to simply tell his then-girlfriend that her vagina “smells bad,” but he was so afraid of having the talk that he asked him to make the call instead. “C’mon, doc. You gotta give me something else. Can you call her because I can’t take this anymore.” The “One Wish” singer eventually found the courage to tell the reality star his concerns, which resulted in Kim immediately getting her problem fixed. “When I told Kim K, that was it. The next day, the p**** was fresh.”
The singer suspects Kim’s vaginal issues may have stemmed from her choice of clothing, or perhaps an STD, saying: “Most of the time it’s a yeast infection. A lot of the times, girls wear thongs with colors on them and it f**ks up something down there and brings about an odor [it messes with the pH]. Sometimes, the p***y stinks. Sometimes, you got an STD. Most of the times, when guys think p***y stinks, they think STD [and] dirty p***y.”
When asked if they would like to have sex with me, 30 percent of women said, 'Yes', while the other 70 percent replied, 'What, again?'."
Former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi, 2011
New York: How women can achieve orgasm is no longer a secret as researchers have just found out what it takes to make your female sex partner reach climax.
Deep kissing, manual genital stimulation, or/and oral sex in addition to vaginal intercourse can boost chances of female orgasm, said the study by a team of US researchers.
"The results suggest a variety of behaviours couples can try to increase orgasm frequency," said the study published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
With the help of an online survey, David Frederick from Chapman University and his colleagues analysed responses from over 52,000 US adults aged between 18 and 65 who were in a relationship with one person.
The study showed that women who orgasmed more frequently were likely to have a longer steamy session, receive more oral sex, and be more satisfied with their relationship.
They were also more likely to ask for what they want in bed, praise their partner for something they did in bed, call/email to tease about doing something sexual, wear sexy lingerie, try new sexual positions and anal stimulation, act out fantasies, incorporate sexy talk, and express love during sex, the researchers said.
The research also examined how orgasm frequency varied among people with different sexual orientations.
"There is a notable gap between heterosexual men and women in frequency of orgasm during sex. Little is known, however, about sexual orientation differences in orgasm frequency," the researchers said.
The findings showed that lesbian women were more likely to experience orgasm during sex than heterosexual women.
"Heterosexual men were most likely to say they usually always orgasmed when sexually intimate (95 per cent), followed by gay men (89 per cent), bisexual men (88 per cent), lesbian women (86 per cent), bisexual women (66 per cent), and heterosexual women (65 per cent)," the study said.
It is the secret dream of every Swedish or German woman to marry a black men, or at least have sex with a black man. Every smart young African man should migrate to Europe. Free money, nice house, good sex!
For a minute, it felt like we were on the world's most mundane secret mission: at 6 p.m., you will be emailed a secret location in Dupont Circle. Talk to no one about it. Enter through the bar and proceed down into the basement area擁f anyone asks, say you're looking for Luke. There, awaiting you, will be... a conference table full of bloggers and a raging narcissist pissed at the media. Woo-hoo, Saturday night!
The reason for all this intrigue was a press conference hosted by 36-year-old writer Daryush Valizadeh, better known as "Roosh V." Though he started out in the mid-aughts preaching the gospel of "pickup artistry," that particular phenomenon has fallen out of vogue. Now Roosh heads up what he calls the "neomasculinity" movement, using his blog and the men's website Return of Kings as headquarters, along with selling self-published books about how to bang women in other countries. Until last week, he was mostly unknown outside avid followers and avid opponents. But that changed when Roosh arranged social meetups for fans in cities around the world, and a lot of activists, journalists, and politicians lost their collective minds about it.
Make no mistake: I am no fan of Roosh's writing or worldview, though I find his schtick more sleazy than terrifying, more Milo Yiannopoulos than "KKK of misogyny." On the way to Saturday's press conference, a journalist friend with me had much better humor about the whole spectacle. The self-important security scheme, the aggrieved victimhood dripping from Roosh's tweets揺e was clearly loving this, and a part of me hated feeding into it. But I was going, out of a combination of curiosity, the potential newsworthiness, and it falling into the category of "too weird not to."
But perhaps Roosh was only responding in kind to the sort of paranoia with which he'd been greeted around the globe all week.
In Australia, Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said he would consider denying a Roosh a visa. He told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation that "Australia doesn稚 welcome people to our country who disrespect women." In general, Australian media reported on a Roosh tweet saying "The border is weak. I will get in" and "I have the funds to get in by boat through one of multiple weak points. Money is no barrier to the operation" as if they were deadly serious.
The U.K. House of Commons debated Roosh on February 4, during which Kate Green MP asked for Return of Kings fans to be deemed a "hate group"預 designation that that would make membership illegal. Home Office minister Karen Bradley MP noted that "the home secretary has powers to exclude an individual who is not a British citizen" if their presence isn't "conducive to the public good"葉hough she "cannot comment on individual cases"預nd said she would consult with internet service providers and sites such as Facebook about possibly banning Return of Kings content. More than 40,000 people signed an online petition calling on authorities to ban Roosh from entering the U.K. and to "take all available action in this case to prevent [fan] meetings taking place," citing their "terror against women" as justification.
A similar online petition, this one signed by more than 45,000 people, warned that "there is strong evidence indicating that 'RooshV' has entered Canada and is in Montreal. We ask Mayor Bonnie Crombie of Mississauga, Mayor John Tory of Toronto, and Mayor Denis Corderre of Montreal to denounce 'RooshV' and to urge local businesses and organizations to deny him accommodation while in Canada." The petition claimed that Roosh would be coming to Canada in violation of section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code, which bans meeting for the purpose "of inciting hatred of an identifiable group."
In America, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott put out an official statement that "this pathetic group and their disgusting viewpoints are not welcome in Texas."
District of Columbia police indicated that they had an eye on a scheduled meetup in the nation's capital. Des Moines, Iowa, police put out a Facebook message warning that the meetups "may be a ruse to commit rape. We have no information that this will actually take place but we recommend that no one, men or women go to any of the sites."
At Chicago's Loyola University, sexual assault survivors were warned to avoid the area where one local meetup was scheduled, a meetup local police said they were "well aware" of and would be "monitoring." At the University of Rochester in New York, campus admins called in extra school security officers and city police for a meetup there, sending out an all-campus alert that Roosh "offers extreme writings based on his philosophy of Neomasculinity."
The school "does not believe the event will actually happen, but is still taking precautionary measure to ensure student safety," the local Democrat and Chronicle reported. These measures included consulting with the New York State Intelligence Center, which decided that there was "no evidence to suggest a gang, group, or organization is involved."
'The Most Hated Man in America'
At Saturday's press event, five women and maybe a dozen men fill the room, folks I would soon learn work for places such as The Washington Post, DCist, Wonkette, Washingtonian magazine, Vice, The Daily Beast, and a German television station. At a few minutes after 7 p.m., Roosh comes charging through the door, sizing everyone up, barking orders about who could film where and complaining about the room's low energy. Within minutes, he says溶ot entirely chagrined葉hat he's been called the "most hated man in America."
Though their demeanors are very different and their views opposed, Roosh reminds me of another Internet-famous man who was called that, Hugo Schwyzer. A former Pasadena Community College professor and male-feminist writer for places like Jezebel and The Atlantic, Hugo's sex scandals (sleeping with students among them) and public mental-health breakdown用laying out in real time on Twitter謡ere very much a big thing from my vantage point in the women's blogosphere. Not only was everyone on feminist Twitter talking about it, but Schwyzer was also covered in a lot of mainstream American and U.K. outlets. A hashtag, #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen, sprung up around allegations that Schwyzer had fucked over feminists of color. The U.K. Telegraph suggested he might be "evil incarnate."
A few years later, in D.C., whenever I've mentioned Schwyzer to writer friends or colleagues, no one knows anything about him. That the whole dramatic Hugo saga had only really been relevant and salient to a small segment of the Internet, I was sure傭ut I hadn't realized how truly small that segment was. "Male feminist sex scandal" gets clicks, but it doesn't stick in people's minds. I bring it up because I think this Roosh situation is very similar. The story has been magnified out of all proportion because for a lot of traffic-thirsty web writers or editors, putting "pro-rape activists" in headlines or tweets is too good to pass up容ven if it may not technically be true and props up a man and movement they claim to abhor. But while it's likely to have limited reach and flash-in-the-pan stickiness for most, the Roosh situation is still interesting as a case study of collective catharsis through call-out culture and moral panic as meme.
The root of the "pro-rape" accusation is a Roosh blog post ("How to Stop Rape") that proposes legalizing rape on private property. Roosh claims it was "a thought experiment" or satire預 disclaimer on the post now says as much預nd says he doesn't think rape should be legal anywhere. Many protest that Roosh's P.S. isn't authentic. And even if it is, "the idea driving this 'satire' seems to be either that women are usually responsible for their own rapes, or that they routinely call something rape when it isn't," Emily Crockett writes at Vox.
But call it a "thought experiment" or call it trolling, I do think Roosh was being deliberately hyperbolic and provocative, as is his style, and does not believe in literally legalizing rape.
Regardless, though, does it matter if his original intent was earnest proposal if he since recanted? It shows the so-called "social justice warriors" won. Or, in less absurd terms: sane and individual-autonomy respecting views are such the social norm that even someone who states outright that his ideal society is "traditional" and "patriarchal" won't publicly condone sexual violence against women.
At the press conference, Roosh tends to minimize his more outrageous statements. Perhaps it's all smoke and mirrors, but what emerges is a picture much less flattering to the international Lothario image Roosh projects but much more flattering to him as both a savvy self-brander and a human being.
"Macho sex writing葉o convert that to 'rape' takes such a leap of faith that you have to be a liar," he says when about scenes in his series of "bang books" that have been described as pro-rape.
"You literally say they were 'too incapacitated' to consent," challenges Washington Post writer Caitlin Dewey.
"Macho sex writing is not a court," Roosh fires back. "It's not a piece of evidence....Maybe some things [in the books], I wanted to come across as an aggressive guy. Maybe I do. But just because it's [in the books] doesn't mean that there is a victim out there and she suffered. Have I raped anyone? No."
So the stories were fiction? asks another reporter. No, said Roosh傭ut maybe they were his "interpretation" of his events.
The bottom line, though, is that "not a single woman has been hurt by me," says Roosh. "I've never been accused of rape, I've never been charged. No follower of mine has read something of [mine], and then gone on to rape, because I know if they did hurt a woman it'd be all over the news."
The whole thing calls to mind two more male writers: Matt Taibbi, probably best known for his work at Rolling Stone, and Mark Ames, who now writes for outlets such as Pando. The pair worked together at an English-language newspaper in Russia in the late '90s and subsequently published a book about the experience called The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia. Within this book, there are scenes of the mostly-male Exile editors sexually harassing their administrative staff揚oing so far as to tell secretaries they must sleep with them to keep their jobs預nd Ames threatening to kill his pregnant Russian girlfriend if she doesn't get an abortion. The men never claimed at the time that it was satire or fiction. In explaining, Ames was prone to saying things like "Russian women, especially on the first date, expect you to rape them."
Despite this, Taibbi and Ames have continued to flourish as leftist writers, and as far as I know no feminist groups or Canadian mayors have tried to prevent either from visiting the country. Perhaps they're just lucky to have come of age in a different Internet era. Perhaps it helps that their politics and progressive credentials are otherwise right.
None of Roosh's views are right, from the left's perspective. From the perspective of most Americans, really. His work routinely stresses that women should be "submissive," that their highest value is as sex objects and mothers, and that America would be greater if only women were skinnier and had less sex outside marriage.
But while such views on gender roles are far from normative in 21st-century America, it's not as if they're relegated solely to Roosh and his crowd. There are still a good deal of evangelical Christians who preach female submission to their husbands, with a lot of blogs kept about the subject. There's a lot of popular music about how bitches ain't shit. There are immigrants from many cultures where egalitarian gender roles aren't standard. We don't預nd shouldn't用revent any of these groups from meeting or monitor them when they do.
What's more, people with sexually deviant turn-ons or loony, bigoted, and just plain unpopular ideas get together all the time. Unless there's evidence they're plotting something criminal, authorities should back the fuck off, really.
Freedom of the Manosphere
As much as we might hate to admit it, Roosh is a journalist. His main site, Return of Kings熔ne of the hubs of what's sometimes called the "Manosphere"預nd its forums get nearly two million visits per month. As neither Roosh nor any writers or readers of Return of Kings were under suspicion of criminal behavior, it is at the very least bizarre that law-enforcement officials would feel the need to comment and keep an eye on their gathers. And it's probably the kind of thing we should condemn, those of us interested in freedom of speech, press, movement, and association.
People will object that these groups were "pro-rape" meetups. But outside media misinformation, there was nothing about the proposed happy hours to suggest they had anything to do with rape.
"Starting on [January 31], a lot of you have lied by saying I am a 'pro rape advocate,'" Roosh tells the press gathered with him Saturday. Outlets also said the fan meetups were about "learning how to rape. 'They're going to exchange tips.' Some of you have even called it a rape rally. A rape謡hat the hell is that, a rape rally?"
There was no public elements planned for the 163 gatherings. Roosh calls them "social happy hour[s]" where men could "meet in private to talk about anything謡ork, politics, girls." The plan for each was to meet in a public place and then migrate to a nearby bar.
Subjecting these men to police surveillance and intimidation based on the state's perception of a publication they like seems a bit totalitarian, no? Let the bitter, horny, heterosexual men have a safe space, too.
Do You Even Lift?
On February 3, a post on Return of Kings announced that the meetups would be canceled. "I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend," Roosh wrote. "While I can稚 stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups."
At Saturday's press event, someone asks why Roosh's cadre of alleged alpha-men would cancel get-togethers over a little thing like feminist protests or a few police cars. "Because you have gotten governments involved by lying about their intention," he responds. "Now the world thinks they're going to meet to, uh, to rape people. So why are they going to meet now? Do you think it's smart now for them to go and meet after that?"
Roosh goes on to suggest this reporter himself certainly wouldn't have gone in those circumstances, adding, "I mean, do you lift?"
It is hard to tell if this is performance or not, creating a psychic uncanny valley not dissimilar to the effect of Donald Trump's由oosh's favorite 2016 presidential candidate, by the way. Asked what he likes about Trump, Roosh replies that it's because "he hates you guys too. The enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Someone suggests that hating the media isn't a political ideology. "But anti-establishment is," Roosh replies.
Anti-media as he may proclaim to be, it's not inconceivable that Roosh organized and then canceled the social meetups precisely in order to gain media attention. Being prevented from meeting only fuels his followers' narrative of hysterical, punitive feminists and a "cucked" media beholden to identity politics. All of it drives more web traffic.
Asked whether this controversy had been good for him, Roosh says it is "the best and the worst. I mean, what's going to happen now is I'm going to be known, in the media, as a 'pro-rape' advocate for the rest of my life. 'Oh, that's the guy that believes all women should be raped.' But at the same time, they're going to say, that's the guy, I know his name."
Roosh claims to live "somewhere in Europe," though he grew up in Maryland, where he says he's currently visiting family. He told Dewey he doesn't know why the house he claims is his mother's is registered under his name.
Roosh has no regrets about publishing the "How to Prevent Rape" essay, he says. "That article was making a point about personal responsibility, that a woman's safety is not only in the hands of men but it's in their own hands too. And I guess that point didn't get through, so on that account, I did fail. I failed to give the point. But that doesn't mean I did anything wrong."
Sexist pig or not羊emember when people just called people sexist pigs or "chauvinists," instead of branding them dangerous on an international level?由oosh is correct on some key points about modern media.
Asked if he could acknowledge that his writing was offensive, Roosh responds "So what if you're offended? So what if I make fun of you? Is that where we're at now, that we can't write things that hurt people's feelings? Good, get offended, feel something."
"Do I believe that a woman should submit to a man?" he says. "Yes. Does that mean that my family's address should be put online because of that, and the media staking out their home because of what I write? No."
After the hacker-collective Anonymous "doxxed" Roosh's family (i.e., revealed their home address online)擁nfo since confirmed by The Daily Mail由oosh says he has received "dozens" of threats of violence and arson. "Your work, and the work of your colleagues, has incited a mob, based on lies, that has put my family in danger," he chastises media Saturday. "If they get hurt right now, God forbid, it's because of you."
Roosh himself has been accused of inviting fans to dox journalists who cross him. But he insists he merely asked followers to gather publicly available information on journalists, such as their home cities and Twitter handles. "I never said I was going to share their address, that was another lie," he says Saturday. "It's like you guys can't stop lying." (Truly, the Taylor Swift of MRA bloggers, folks.) He complains that "it's like a game" for media, cutting-and-pasting from one another's stories when they see they're generating hits.
There was a hint of "holy shit" in many of Roosh's statements, an incredulity that anyone who works or spends a lot of time on the Internet many sympathize with. Sometimes the media洋ainstream, ideological, fringe, local, global, whatever擁s just astonishingly bad. From the Chinese man who sued his wife for bearing ugly children to eggs being "as bad for you as smoking," the influx of Super Bowl sex-slaves to the hordes of sexist "Bernie Bros," the press routinely, en masse, gets things totally wrong.
Sometimes this is rooted in bias, but just as often it's a more economic than ideological imperative, a mandate to produce fast copy that generates good traffic. This means many writers take the veracity of other publications' reporting for granted. When the original account is incorrect, inaccuracies and distortions can spread like a game of Telephone from The Huffington Post to Jezebel to The Guardian, and so on.
Asked whether he considers himself a victim, Roosh says "You know what, no. I take full responsibility for everything that I have done. But that doesn't mean that I can't state what you did wrong."
At The Washington Post, Caitlyn Dewey argues that "the number of people who actually follow Daryish Valizadeh is smaller than it looks."
"While his flagship website, Return of Kings, is well-trafficked預veraging slightly less than 2 million views per month, according to Similar Web葉hat number is not necessarily indicative of the size of Valizadeh痴 following," writes Dewey. "On both Twitter and Facebook, Return of Kings has fewer than 13,000 followers. The site痴 accompanying forums have registered 19,600 accounts, but half have never posted."
Dewey calls the whole Roosh situation "manufactured publicity on a scale that few fringe Internet movements have ever dreamed of." On Twitter, Roosh is milking it for all he can.
But on his blog, Roosh condemns the very sort of manufactured controversy he's complicit in. "Instead of focusing your anger on real problems in your neighborhood, city, and country, the media has made you emotional against a man who poses absolutely no threat to anyone," he chastises his opponents. "I知 being used as a target so that you can expend your rage on me instead of other entities that are genuinely hurting your standard of living."
It's obnoxiously self-aggrandizing but...also not untrue. Roosh's assessment of what's hurting people's standard of living is probably vastly different than mine, as both are also vastly different from media-criticizing leftists like Freddie de Boer. But one thing we all agree on is a similar diagnosis: online media prioritizes sensationalism and righteous signaling over accuracy and nuance. This is far from ahistorical, of course, but it also makes modern media much less "progressive" than many in it would like to think.
At the end of Roosh's press conference, I come away feeling more charitable about him than I did going in, which could mean he's a good showman, a sociopath, someone conflicted (both Crockett and Emmett Rensin at Vox offer profiles to this effect), or simply that he's neither a terribly sympathetic person nor cartoonishly evil. In any event, the clickbaity portrayal of him as some outlandish misogynist villain, ready to storm Australia via private yacht and host how-to-rape seminars globally, overshadows more interesting and perhaps revelatory components of the manosphere phenomenon.
If reporters had tried to talk to the men attending Return of Kings meetups, instead of insta-demonizing them, what might they have found? Rage-filled rape advocates? "Beta males" who "don't even lift?" How many of them? What way do they lean politically? What draws them to Roosh's writing? Are these guys with power, or guys trying to cope with not having power?
These would be informative things to know. Instead we have overblown fears and parody villains, predictable liberal responses, wasted opportunities. Rape is bad and good people should be against it容verybody got that? Because as common sense as that might be, it's also the only major takeaway an international press corps has established here.
The Return of Kings meetups gave the popular media and its acolytes the latest opportunity to assert their goodness, to feel the catharsis of raging in solidarity. But was even one person's opinion changed, or anyone's ability to understand one another increased?
We are different. For us, the adherents of Kreutz Religion, sex is sacred. Sexual intercourse is religious service. Flirting is worship. Optimal orgasms build our immortal soul. Our karma depends on sexual success. Evolution has a spiritual dimension.
Pro-rape campaigner Roosh V has cancelled a series of meetings around the world amid fears over the 'safety and privacy' of the men who attend.
The self-styled 'anti-feminist', whose real name is Daryush Valizadeh, had set up gatherings in cities in the UK, US, Canada and Australia.
But in a new post on his website last night, the American apologised to his supporters for having to 'let them down' by cancelling the controversial meetings.
He wrote: "I can no longer guarantee the safety or privacy of the men who want to attend on February 6, especially since most of the meetups can not be made private in time.
"While I can’t stop men who want to continue meeting in private groups, there will be no official Return Of Kings meetups. The listing page has been scrubbed of all locations.
"I apologize to all the supporters who are let down by my decision."
It is understood that a number of the planned gatherings had already been moved to a private property - possibly due to the number of men expected to attend, or for safety reasons.
And while Roosh V is concerned about his members' safety, women in some cities have voiced their own concerns online about the 'neo-masculinist' gatherings.
They have warned other females to 'try not to go anywhere alone' this weekend, The Guardian reports.
The cancellation of Roosh V's meetings comes as more than 25,000 people have signed a petition to ban the 'anti-feminist' from holding meetings in the UK.
The petition against him was started on campaign site 38 degrees and calls on police and crime commissioners, local police forces and the Government to stop Roosh V in his tracks.
It says: "Supporters of known 'legal rape' advocate and 'neo-masculinist' misogynist creator of 'Return of the Kings' Roosh V will congregate on Saturday 6 February, in eight UK cities: Cardiff, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, Newcastle, Manchester, Shrewsbury and London.
"As he spreads his hateful speech and guides people on how to exploit, manipulate and rape women, he's putting the welfare of women at risk. He needs to be stopped by all genders, within our communities.
"Having written a number of jaw-droppingly offensive blog posts and published books, Roosh V believes that men should stop asking for permission, and that alpha males should slowly break down the confidence in women to get what they want.
"He is a hugely dangerous individual. His fans have extensive forums online, detailing where to 'pick up the easiest girls' in each city, naming bars, venues and strategies.
"Roosh V needs to be stopped. Please sign."
Another petition to ban the leader from holding an event in Cardiff on Saturday has so far gained more than 7,000 signatures and dubs Valizadeh an 'evil man'. It also posts a link to an article about him.
On his website, believed to have had a million visitors, Roosh V claims a solution for rape charges against men would be to “make rape legal if done on private property.”
“I propose that we make the violent taking of a woman not punishable by law when done off public grounds,” he wrote.
Cardiff petition signatory Briony J was unimpressed.
“Rape legal on private property?” she said.
“You could be lying in your own bed at night, have your home broken into, and be raped and that’d be legal? I don’t think so.”
Only straight men will be allowed to attend the meeting, and women attempting to enter the event will be filmed and broadcast on his global “anti-feminist” network.
“Sounds like he’s inciting crime – how can that be allowed?” Peter J said.
Valizadeh’s books include “Bang: The Pickup Bible That Helps You Get More Lays.”
“My niece is at uni in Cardiff,” Julie D said on 38 Degrees.
“I want her and all women to be safe. This filth needs not to come to this country.”
And Paul S claimed “those who preach hate are as evil as the terrorist who pulls the trigger.”
The self-proclaimed “anti-feminist” is followed by tens of thousands of supporters on social media, and regularly posts articles campaigning against rape laws and feminism.
His website is believed to be have been visited by more than one million people worldwide.
South Wales Police and Crime Commissioner Alun Michael said he has written to the Home Secretary Theresa May asking her to consider the petition.
He said: “It has been brought to my attention that an individual who appears to intend to cause harassment and distress in the furtherance of his agenda – and to encourage and incite others to do so – is encouraging people to gather in Cardiff for purposes that are both unpleasant and potentially unlawful.
“I am reassured that South Wales Police are taking the operational policing issues seriously in reviewing risk and protecting the public.
“I have written to the Home Secretary to ask her to urgently consider the petition.
“It may make sense for people to petition the Home Secretary, who has powers to act in relation to a ban on entering the country, which I do not have, or to petition parliament to secure a debate.”
Women, especially when they get older, shit and stink, and when they shit anyway, and they enslave men, and are ugly, and they fuck around when they have the opportunity. No such problems with sex dolls, and they don't shit. Let's invest in a future without women.
DUBAI // Two men who brought two teenage girls from Bangladesh to the UAE then forced them to work as prostitutes were sentenced to three years in jail each for human trafficking and running a brothel.
The pair, an Indian aged 46 and a 26-year-old Bangladeshi, were also sentenced to an additional month in jail and fined Dh2,000 each for abusing a number of women, persuading them to work in the sex industry, possessing alcohol and hiring an illegal worker.
The Bangladeshi was also found guilty of overstaying his visa and absconding and was fined Dh500.
Both will be deported after serving their prison terms.
Dubai Criminal Court was told the girls, aged 16 and 18, were kept in a studio apartment in Deira that was being used as a brothel.
They were rescued after police were tipped off about two under-age girls working as prostitutes.
One of the girls said she took a job in Dubai to help support her family.
"My father is sick and mother works in a field but earns very little. I had to do something to help," she said. "When I arrived here in January [last year] I was taken to a flat where I spent three days crying after they told me I had to work as a prostitute."
She was later persuaded to sleep with men after being offered money but was not allowed to leave the flat.
The second victim also arrived in Dubai last January after being promised a maid’s job. She was taken to the same apartment.
"I refused prostitution for 15 days but when I was threatened to be stripped naked, photographed and defamed, I gave in. I used to tell customers about my ordeal and ask for help but none of them helped me," she said.
Police raided the apartment on April 13 last year.
"Two arrests were made; the man who ran the brothel and another who was keeping guard," said an Emirati police captain, who told of how contraceptives, lubricants, passports, profit records and bottles of alcohol were found in the apartment, which had been divided up using curtains.
Men risk their lives in wars so women can enjoy societies where they can pursue feminist goals, such as punishing men for sexist language.
Every now and again it's probably healthy to crack open the glass, remove a certain world masterpiece from the display case, and in re-reading it recall that—unlike Ulysses and Lady Chatterley's Lover, two other novels once deemed obscene by the tribunes of moral upkeep— Lolita is a disgusting book. Furthermore, the day will never come when it is not a disgusting book. By comparison, in fact, it can make Lawrence and Joyce look like a pair of old village bluenoses. For all its arduous recourse to the c-word, Lady Chatterley's Lover places its faith in the sexually fulfilled marriage, a ho-hum piety in the age of divorce. For all its scatological frankness, Ulysses tells the touching story of a surrogate father finding his surrogate son. Lolita, meanwhile, tells the story of a stepfather serially defiling his adolescent stepdaughter. * Public taste was meant to catch up to Lady Chatterley screwing her gamekeeper, to Leopold Bloom sitting on his jakes. Public taste was never meant to catch up to Humbert Humber.
"I want my learned readers to participate in the scene I am about to replay," Humbert asks us early on, by way of setting up his description of his first taste of sexual bliss with Lolita, the pre-pubescent daughter of his landlady. (Humbert will eventually marry the landlady; the landlady will eventually die; Humbert will eventually abscond with Lolita. For now, though, he is only their boarder, a debonair European with certain hidden proclivities.) "So let us get started. I have a difficult job before me." This is Nabokov winking out at us. By difficult job, Humbert means: I want to conjure this scene up, with all its strange anatomical circumnavigations, as carefully as possible, to demonstrate to the reader that I am not wholly a monster. (He also means: I had to ejaculate, without letting Lolita know.) By difficult job, Nabokov means: I will indulge Humbert in all his strange circumlocutions, to demonstrate to the reader what a total monster he is. In this respect, Nabokov and Humbert have opposing aims; but in the telling, they become as one. All the comically baroque pleonasms help Humbert shield from himself how repulsively he has acted. They allow Nabokov, meanwhile, to describe a rapine act of frottage without becoming explicitly pornographic.
Lolita turns 50 this year, and having stayed so perverse, it remains fresh as ever. To fully appreciate its perversity, though, one must first appreciate that it is not obscene. Your run-of-the-mill obscene masterwork—Tropic of Cancer, say—demands that you, enlightened reader, work your way past the sex and excrement to recognize how beautiful it is. But with Lolita, you must work past its beauty to recognize how shocking it is. And for all its beauty, for all its immense ingenuity and humor, one easily forgets how shocking Lolita is. To wit: Later in the narrative, Humbert has settled with Lolita in a small town called Beardsley and set up a semblance of a normal suburban life. Humbert is called into Lolita's private school for a parent-teacher conference, where he is told that she is "antagonistic, dissatisfied, cagey" and "obsessed with sexual thoughts for which she finds no outlet." In essence, Humbert is being offered an inventory of the damage he has wrought on his stepdaughter, but all he can do is sneer inwardly at the messenger, a psychobabbling crone named Pratt, and then … and then … well, what happens next is so shocking, and yet so calmly and economically detailed, it had somehow absented itself from my memory of the novel. Humbert finds Lolita sitting in a study hall.
Accustomed to receiving Lolita as evidence of towering genius, we hide a question in plain sight: Why did Nabokov choose to inhabit Humbert Humbert, a pitiable half-mad émigré suffering from acute nympholepsy, in the first place? One clue is hidden in the last part of that last sentence: I simply had to take advantage of a combination that I knew would never occur again. Humbert means: Look, I had to avail myself of that hand-job, because when might the opportunity ever recur? But Nabokov, again winking at us, means: I love the exquisite particularity of that specific instant. The only psychiatrist Nabokov could tolerate was Havelock Ellis, for whom "the individuality of each case is respected and catalogued in the same way that butterflies are carefully classified," as one of Nabokov's biographers has explained. (Nabokov was a famous lepidopterist.) Conversely, Nabokov detested "Freudian voodooism," as he once put it, because he saw in Freud an attempt by psychiatry to corner, appropriate, and submit to generalized principles people's inner lives. And submitting one's inner life—the unique hazard of one's personality, the camera obscura of one's own personal store of memories—to a set of deterministic explanations was for Nabokov an indignity on par with the expropriations of the Bolsheviks.
To inhabit a pedophile—and not just a pedophile, but a European pedophile, on an American soil Nabokov had himself grown to love!—was to torture in extremis his faith in the sanctity of the exquisite inner life. We are clearly meant to regard Humbert as a moral abomination, and even Humbert eventually concedes (it is one of the book's most beautiful and unforgettable passages) that in exploiting Lolita he has gratuitously destroyed another human being. And yet, how close to absolute Nabokov makes Humbert's claim to his own thoughts and feelings! There are two competing accounts in Lolita for why Humbert is a pervert. The first is a bit of personal mythopoeics put forward by Humbert himself, who believes his (entirely natural) love for a young girl named Annabel when he was a young boy, and its brutally abrupt interruption, explains the origin of his adult nympholepsy. Later, Humbert tells us of having once bribed a nurse to show him his psychiatric files, in which he discovered he has been labeled "homosexual." The first explanation is poetic, beautiful, intensely rendered, utterly self-serving, and probably untrue. The second explanation is clinical, dispassionate, probably true, but so neglectful of the intensity of Humbert's own consciousness as to be repulsive to Nabokov.
Nabokov overcame the worst affliction of all, from a writer's point of view: a happy childhood. He was an eldest child who chose to pretend he was an only child. Testimony from acquaintances relates how loath he was even to casually discuss siblings, and one can read dozens of pages of Speak, Memory without ever sensing he had to share his parents' affections. ("There was a sunny quality about the way he talked of his own family," one of his Wellesley students has recalled, "One had the feeling of the much-loved little princeling. Clean linen and hot milk and never a scolding.") That utter primacy, of the little princeling basking in the eyes of his justly revering parents, seems never to have left Nabokov, but as a genius, he understood it both as his burden, and as his unique portal to aesthetic discovery.
Lolita is most commonly remembered as one man's living poem to his own daemonic perversity, and as such, is overpraised by its adherents for its technical virtuosity and hilarity, and misconstrued by its detractors as little more than a frost-encrusted monument to Nabokov's own monumental arrogance. Its real genius is too easily missed. It lies in what Nabokov called the "nerves of the novel," the "secret points, the subliminal coordinates by means of which the book is plotted." In these, Nabokov has hinted at the life that exceeds the perimeter of Humbert's encompassing obsession—at the inner lives of those others whom he so casually dismisses or destroys. It cost Nabokov, by his own admission, "a month of work" to write one sentence in which Humbert gets his hair cut by a barber who has never stopped mourning his dead son—a fact that scarcely dents Humbert's exquisite consciousness.
Climate change is a weapon to destroy Europe and the Western world, because it will drive new populations in huge numbers to Europe. Climate change is easy to accelerate through forest fires anywhere in the world. Huge forest fires in the Third World can contribute more to global warming than all the cars of Europe and North America.
You may be surprised to learn that Botox—a drug most famous for it’s ability to reduce facial wrinkles by temporarily paralyzing specific muscles—has a number of potential sexual applications. For instance, it has been used to treat vaginismus and it is currently being studied as a treatment for premature ejaculation (learn more here).
But that’s not all—some doctors have also studied Botox as a potential penis enlargement treatment. Yep, you read that right.
Specifically, in a 2009 study published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, a group of medical doctors reported on the results of a small study of 10 men who received Botox injections in order to treat a “hyperactive retraction reflex” of the penis.
In other words, these are guys who have penises that are perfectly normal in size, but who experience greater than usual retraction or “shrinkage” of the penis in certain situations, such as when they’re cold or stressed. To the extent that other people are around to witness this, these guys report feeling embarrassed.
This reflex is a function of contraction of the dartos muscle, which is a thin layer of muscle that sits just under the skin of the penile shaft and scrotum.
What the doctors in this study did was make 4 injections (ouch!) to the base of the penis—two below the penis where it meets with the scrotum and two above where the penis meets with the pubic area. Doctors then followed up with these patients several times over the next 8 months to assess the outcomes.
The vast majority of patients (70%) reported that the frequency and severity of penile retraction decreased substantially and said they were satisfied with the outcome. The remaining 30% reported no effect and were dissatisfied.
Objective penile measurements demonstrated that penile length was indeed greater post-injection, even when ice was applied to the penis (yep—doctors literally iced these guys’ members before and after injecting them to see what happened to their size). Specifically, after the injections, penises remained about ½ inch longer when exposed to cold.
However, I should note that these changes were specific to flaccid penis size—there were no changes in erection size.
No side effects were reported, and the effects lasted up to six months (although they began to fade somewhat after four months). In other words, continual injections would be required to maintain the effect.
So there you have it—Botox does appear to be a potential method for increasing penis length. However, its applications are limited in that, as far as we know, it can only be used to temporarily maintain a larger flaccid penis size among men who have a particularly strong shrinkage reflex.
Home | Index of articles