Sexual Selection, Physical Attractiveness, and Facial Neoteny

Let’s actually read this thing:

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1601&context=fchd_facpub

Abstract

Physical attractiveness and its relation to the theory of sexual selection deserve renewed attention from cultural and biological anthropologists. This paper focuses on an anomaly associated with
physical attractiveness-in our species, in contrast to many others, males seem to be more concerned than females with the attractiveness of potential sexual partners, perhaps because humans show far more age-related variance in female than in male fecundity. The resulting selection for male attraction to markers
of female youth may lead incidentally to attraction to females displaying age-related cues in an exaggerated form.

sounds like a justification for pedophilia waiting to happen, men actually desire sexual maturity first

men also like averages better than mutants

This paper reports cross-cultural evidence that males in five populations (Brazilians, U.S. Americans, Russians, Ache, and Hiwi)

no Europe in this study, so worthless, two nations minimum are mongrelised

show an attraction to females with neotenous facial proportions (a combination of large eyes, small noses, and full lips) even after female age is controlled for. Two further studies show that female models have neotenous cephalofacial proportions relative to U.S.

Anorexia does that, called a bobblehead.

Undergraduates and that drawings of faces artificially transformed to make them more or less neotenous are perceived as correspondingly more or less attractive. These results suggest several further lines of investigation, including the relationship between facial and bodily cues

biology looks at WHR already

and the consequences of attraction to neoteny for morphological evolution.

Problem 1 America is not a country with a genetic history, they aren’t even homogeneous.

Problem 2 I had to correct numerous spelling errors in the abstract alone, so paper is trash.

Feminine face traits are already neotonous, Marquardt (pictured) measured this with computer models.

That’s the most feminine female face possible.

Who cares what Brazil thinks?

The theory of sexual selection has advanced so far in recent years that it may be time for renewed attention to the relationship between sexual selection and standards of physical attractiveness in our species.

SS is conducted by women in this species.

It hasn’t changed at all. These guys are intellectually dishonest.

Men don’t have standards. At least, it’s rarer.

In many animal species, male reproductive success is more dependent on mating success than is female reproductive success, so sexual selection commonly acts with greater intensity on males than on females (Trivers I97I, Williams I975, Clutton-Brock and Parker i992, Andersson I994). The result is that in many species, males more than females show a syndrome of traits associated with intense sexual selection.

true, women don’t have the urgency to reproduce that men do

men are selected by women though

This “sexual selection syndrome” includes behavioral traits: males are more likely than females to resort to violence against sexual rivals and to force copulations on resisting partners;

rape is only r-selected, poor quality men, high quality men compete and win

males cpmmonly expend more time and energy and take greater risks than females in courtship;

women don’t court, they are courted

these guys are hacks

males will generally court and attempt copulation with a wider range of partners then will females.

no, that’s r/K already

The sexual selection syndrome also includes life-history traits: males commonly take longer than females to attain sexual maturity

no, untrue in humans

because of the sexual competition that they face from mature males; males commonly have higher mortality rates than females as a result of intrasexual competition;

no, stupidity, the low IQ doing dangerous things

males commonly senesce more rapidly than females because higher mortality rates reduce the selection pressure for longevity.

yes men age faster

might be genetic, as recently covered

Finally, the sexual selection syndrome includes morphological traits: males are more likely than females to display anatomical specializations for intra- and intersexual aggression, including horns, antlers, enlarged canine teeth, and body sizes in excess of the ecological optimum; males commonly show greater development of sexual advertisements, both tactile (complex genitalia) and visual (elaborate and brightly colored adornments)

selected by the females

Among humans, considerable anatomical and behavioral evidence suggests that males have been subject to stronger sexual selection than females

women are the ones doing it

these people are idiots

Human males are larger than females. Human males attain sexual maturity at a later age than human females

false, women don’t finish developing physically until the twenties

miscarriages and stillbirth is higher in teen mothers compared to women in their 20s, that’s the reason we married in the 20s in the middle ages

and senesce more rapidly

logically impossible given your prior claim

men age faster because they sexually mature faster, their system is simpler

they don’t need to carry a baby, duh?

Polygyny is much more common than polyandry.

No. Citation very much needed. You can’t just claim that based on current Third World religions about a time preceding those religious legal structures.

In one respect, however, human beings reverse the usual pattern of differences between more and less sexually selected sexes-men are more concerned than women with the physical attractiveness of a potential sexual partner.

Men are more shallow, yes. Doesn’t mean they have good taste.

Although women race mix less so maybe women are shallow in different ways.

This sex difference is not limited to Western society.
Buss (i 989) reviews survey data from 37 population samples from 33 countries and finds that in every sample males are more concerned than females with the physical attractiveness of a potential mate. The average sex difference is more pronounced among the non-Western populations in his sample.

Again why care?

The attractiveness of the man usually depends predominantly upon his skills and prowess rather than upon his physical appearance.”

You didn’t ask the women. Ugly researchers claim women don’t care how they look.

It’s pure cope.

Gregersen (i983) reports similar findings in a more recent review of nearly 300 societies,
mostly non-Western and nonurbanized. In other words, human beings seem to be an exception
to the general rule among animals that male attractiveness matters more than female attractiveness. The importance attached to female (as opposed to male) physical attractiveness in our species stands in need of an explanation.

Yeah this study doesn’t apply to Europeans whatsoever, only the bad faith actors are using this.

Male attractiveness does matter more. Third Worlders aren’t sexually selecting, they’re trying to survive or forced to marry. That isn’t evolutionary, it’s societal modern pressure.

Men wouldn’t go down the gym if they weren’t competing on looks.

Many anthropologists believe

not science

that human behavior is so radically different in its ontogeny from that of other organisms that the theory of sexual selection is not applicable to human physical attraction.

….or you’re wrong? And bad at your job?

Anthropology is mostly BS, they are not evolutionary biologists.

Polhemus (i988:8) probably expresses the attitude of a whole school of anthropology of “the body” concerning the human irrelevance of the theory of sexual selection when he writes:
A male baboon has a fixed idea of what a desirable female baboon should look like…. The same general principle is true of any animal that reproduces by sexual selection. But there is an important difference between baboons and ourselves. For other animals the physical ideal is ioo% instinctively determined. Thus all baboons of a particular species pursue the same ideal…. For humans, on the other
hand, ideals of beauty are learned….

This is not science.

In a worldwide and historical framework, there is no such thing as natural human beauty.

WHR, FU.

So they’re debunking their own paper.

If beauty isn’t objective, I needn’t continue. A little, then.

If this view of the difference between human and nonhuman psychology were correct,

no

the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species might be merely one more consequence of our having freed ourselves from the instinctive constraints that hobble the lives of other animals. This view, however, is doubly wrong.
First, learning often plays a large role in the acquisition of standards of attractiveness among nonhuman animals. An immense literature demonstrates that early experience influences later mate choice via imprinting (Immelman I972). Imitation, too, plays a role in mate choice among nonhuman animals, and social transmission of mating preferences can even result in “fads” in mate choice that change from one breeding season to the next (Pruett-Jones i992).

Mixed race ad propaganda explained.

Second, physical attraction in humans cannot be entirely a product of enculturation. This is shown most
dramatically by the experiments of Langlois et al. (i987).
In these experiments, infants between the ages of two and three months were exposed to pictures of women rated attractive and unattractive by adult raters; infants spent more time looking at faces rated attractive. This held even across racial/cultural boundaries: for European-American infants looking at faces of AfricanAmerican women rated by African-American men and for African-American infants exposed to EuropeanAmerican faces rated by European-American men.

Everyone knows.

Thus students of physical attractiveness are asking for trouble if they start out assuming that nonhuman
animals are creatures of instinct and humans constructions of culture. A better starting point regarding the role of learning in behavior is suggested by several decades of research in comparative psychology: as a general rule, organisms have relatively “hard-wired” or canalized responses to stimuli that have had relatively unvarying fitness consequences over evolutionary time and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with positive fitness consequences and sometimes with negative. In other words, given that learning entails costs, in terms of trial and error, organisms are expected to adapt to selectively important invariants in their environments with corresponding behavioral, cognitive, or motivational invariances (Seligman I970, Johnston 1982).

These people are morons.

How can we apply this principle to the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species? Let us define the mate value of a potential sexual partner, A, as the expected reproductive success from mating with A divided by some baseline expected reproductive success. The baseline expected reproductive success might be the expected reproductive success from mating at random or from mating with an individual of maximum mate value.

r v K

As a general rule we expect that human beings, and other animals, are likely to have both relatively canalized, “hard-wired” responses to visual stimuli that have been consistently associated with high mate value throughout the evolutionary history of the species and relatively flexible learned responses to stimuli that have been associated sometimes with high mate value and sometimes with low. In other words, standards of physical attractiveness are likely to have both species-typical and population-specific components, and variation in these components may be predictable given knowledge
of human biology and local circumstances (Symons I979). For example, since fat stores may be selectively advantageous in environments subject to episodic food shortage and disadvantageous in environments requiring considerable physical movement, one might expect that esthetic responses to fatness would vary between populations depending on social learning and on individual assessments of the consequences of being fat or thin, rather than developing in a uniform fashion within the human species.

Pro-fat argument.

By contrast, one might expect human beings to have a relatively invariant, species-typical emotional response to signs of aging, because age has a relatively invariant association with fecundity and thus with mate value.

association is weak, not causation

distinguish aging from maturation, you cannot

In a classic article Henry (i96i) reviews data on age-specific fertility rates in a wide range of “naturalfertility” (noncontracepting) populations. The levels of fertility in these populations range from a lifetime average of 6 to i i children per married female, but the shapes of the curves of fertility versus age are remarkably similar across all populations. For all populations, female fertility rates at age 30-34 are around 85% of rates at age 20-24, with further declines to around 35 % for women aged 40-44 and o% for women aged 50-54.

They don’t count teens because they are not mature to breed.

More recent work suggests that the curve of natural fecundity (potential reproduction) differ somewhat from the curve of natural fertility (actual reproduction) because the latter is influenced by such variables as age of spouse and frequency of intercourse (James I979, Menken, Trussell, and Larsen i986). Studies that control for the latter variables suggest that the decline in female Fecundity between 20 and 35 is less pronounced than the decline in female natural fertility-but the overall shapes of the two curves are fairly similar.

Accurate.

Most drop in conception is the men aging, paternal age.

That’s why older woman/younger man couples are more fertile.

The shape of the curve of fecundity versus age is very
different for males. Goldman and Montgomery (i989),
reviewing data from several traditional societies, report
Eertility declines to about 90% for men between 45 and
50, relative to younger men, and to about 8o% for men
over 55, after controlling for age of wife and duration of
marriage.
Fecundity versus age curves thus have two important

characteristics that may help to explain the anomaly of
female attractiveness:

????

the curves (i) are relatively invariant in shape across populations

no, relatively means you’re wrong

and (2) show an earlier and more pronounced decline in fertility among females than among males.

Paternal age studies debunked this.

Given the general rule that organisms commonly have invariant responses to stimuli that have had relatively invariant fitness consequences over evolutionary time, the first characteristic
suggests that human beings are likely to have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of aging. The second characteristic suggests that these responses are likely to be stronger in males’ evaluations of females than in females’ evaluations of males.

Bullshit.

Men are too weak to be judged on their looks by women. Too triggered.

This does not add up to a complete theory of physical
attractiveness, of course, or even a complete theory of
age-related changes in physical attractiveness. Fecundity
is only one component of mate value. Other components
include the ability and willingness to provision offspring
and heritable viability or attractiveness (“good genes”),
and these components of mate value may also vary with
age, while sensory bias will ensure that attractiveness
does not track mate value perfectly. Nevertheless, agerelated changes in fecundity are likely to be a particularly important component of age-related changes in physical attractiveness, especially in females, both because these changes have been relatively invariant over the history of the species and because other components of mate value such as provisioning ability and inclination may be more readily assessable on the basis of behavior than on the basis of physical appearance.
There is one alternative explanation for male attraction to youthful features in females that requires a more extended treatment.

Extended? You’ve done nothing so far. This paper is filler.

Gowaty (I992:23I-40) writes:
There should be strong selection on males to control
females’ reproduction through direct coercive control of females….

It’s called marriage.

Evolutionary thinkers, whether informed by feminist ideas or not, are not surprised
by one of the overwhelming facts of patriarchal cultures, namely that men … seek to constrain and
control the reproductive capacities of women…. Juvenilization decreases the threat some men may feel when confronted with women;

weakness

many men are comfortable around women whom they can clearly dominate and are profoundly uncomfortable around women whom they cannot so clearly dominate.

r-types, not real men

The hypothesis that femininity signals ability to be dominated through juvenilization is an alternative to, but not necessarily mutually exclusive of, other evolutionary hypotheses that posit that femininity signals, sometimes deceptively, reproductive value and fertility.
Several findings seem to be at odds with this hypothesis.
Berry and McArthur (i986) presented subjects with a series of outline profile drawings representing individuals ranging from juvenile to adult and collected ratings of
perceived social characteristics of each drawing. The
drawing rated weakest and least threatening was the
most juvenile-looking. (Subjects judged this drawing to
represent a 4-year-old.) The drawing rated sexiest was

intermediate in juvenility. (It was judged to be 23 years
old.) In other words, the level of juvenility that maximizes perceived vulnerability does not maximize perceived sexiness.

Because only pedophiles like children sexually.

Real men like sexually mature WOMEN.

Kenrick and co-workers (Kenrick I994)
show that for teenage males the ideal sexual partner is
older than they are-again, more consistent with the
hypothesis that males are concerned with cues to female
fecundity than with the hypothesis that males prefer
younger, more easily dominated females. Thus current
evidence suggests that female attractiveness cannot
simply be equated with powerlessness and that something more than changes in perceived vulnerability is involved in age-related changes in physical attractiveness. However, nothing in evolutionary theory rules out the possibility that markers of female submissiveness may be attractive to men, and the topic certainly deserves more research.

duh

There may be room for argument about why attractiveness changes with age, but, in spite of a considerable literature devoted to the claim that human sexuality and standards of physical attractiveness are culturally constructed, there does not seem to be any evidence from any society that seriously challenges the proposition that physical attractiveness is perceived to decline from
young adulthood to old age, especially for females.

Yeah, funny that? Especially but not only. Men hit the Wall too, it’s called being human.

Because women are the ones selecting, idiots. Beggars can’t be choosers. Men are sexually desperate, overall.

“The correlation of female age and sexual attractiveness is so
intuitively obvious

not science

also not causation

when is the actual study? this waffle is nauseatingly wrong

that ethnographers apparently take
it for granted-as they do the bipedalism of the people
they study-and the significance of female age tends to
be mentioned only in passing, in discussions of something else” (Symons I979:i88). Symons cites passing references to the effects of aging on female attractiveness
in ethnographies of the Kgatla, pre-revolutionary China,
the Yanomamo, and the Tiwi. Additional references can
be found in ethnographies of Trobriand Islanders (Malinowski I987 [i929], Weiner I976) and Gawa (Munn
I986) of Melanesia, Mende (Boone i986) of Sierra Leone,
and Mehinaku of Amazonia (Gregor i985), to name just
a few.

aka NOT EUROPE.

Why is this being applied to white people?

Who is this intellectually dishonest?

A number of social psychological studies (reviewed in Jackson i992) have documented such agerelated declines in physical attractiveness and demonstrated the expected sex differences as well.
Let us summarize the argument up to this point. Human beings are anomalous among sexually selected species in the importance attached to female (relative to
male) appearance in mate choice.

unproven, not science

Human beings are
anomalous in another respect as well: female fertility
commonly declines to zero long before the end of the
life span.

Biology explained this.

As a result of menopause there is considerably
more age-related variance in fecundity among adult females than among adult males in our species. The second anomaly may explain the first: the importance
attached to female attractiveness in our species may reflect the operation of adaptations for assessing agerelated changes in fecundity, a component of female
mate value.

Men aren’t the peahens of the species! LIES.

Whether for this reason or another, social psychological and ethnographic evidence provides overwhelming support for the proposition that human beings have relatively invariant esthetic responses to signs of males’ aging and that these responses operate more strongly in evaluations of females than vice versa.

“overwhelming support for the proposition” WHERE

you are making that up

Women assess men all the time. We’re more realistic. They try to call us fussy but a lot of fuggos survive under dysgenic conditions, it’s realistic to think most men look like a dumpster fire compared to the WW2 gen. Look at photos!

Thus far we have been exclusively concerned with changes in attractiveness with age rather than differences in attractiveness between individuals of the same age. However, if age-detecting mechanisms do not operate with perfect accuracy, then adaptations for choosing a mate of a particular age may lead incidentally to nonadaptive biases in the choice of mates from among individuals who fall within a particular age-class. In other words,

BULLSHIT SON.

non-adaptive adaptations are impossible

clue’s in the name

what mental midgets wrote this shit?

given that attractiveness varies with age, individuals may be more or less attractive than others of the
same age in part because they have facial proportions associated with younger or older ages.

no attractiveness is lower genetic load, stfu

there are young ugly people and older hot ones

Because the retention of traits from early stages of the life cycle into later stages, relative to ancestors or to other members of the population, is known as neoteny (“holding on to youth”), the proposition above may be rephrased: given that attractiveness varies with age, neoteny may be a component of facial attractiveness.

MAY.

That wall of text for MAY?

MAYBE?

This proposition may hold with particular force for female facial attractiveness: a by-product of the human male’s attraction to markers of youthful fecundity may be an attraction to adult females presenting markers of youth to an exaggerated or “supernormal” degree.

No, we call those sexual predators.

This is now the Pedo Paper.

Beginning with the anomaly of female attractiveness in our species, we are led to the hypothesis that neoteny may be a component of female facial attractiveness.

aka we guessed

not science

and there is no anomaly

The remainder of this paper will be given over to testing and elaborating this hypothesis.

I doubt it.

These scribbles are not scientific. You need computer models like Marquardt to measure it!

There is no breadth of jaw variation, no round or narrow eye shape, no flat or pointed nose, no mouth breadth or narrowness!

A shape subject to positive cardioidal strain (k > o) shows a downward and outward expansion in features located toward the bottom and a downward and inward contraction in features located toward the top.

aka manjaw

while the transformed faces were redrawn from the original face with the assistance of polar coordinate graph paper.

This is not a paper. It’s a joke.

These affect the relative sizes of eyes, noses, ears,
and lips. “Beginning at age 25, the eyebrows steadily
descend from a position well above the supraorbital rim
to a point far below it; sagging of the lateral aspect of
the eyebrows make the eyes seem smaller” (Larrabee
and Makielski I993:I4). Cartilaginous tissues grow
steadily throughout adulthood: ears get bigger, and
noses get longer, wider, and more protrusive with increasing age. With the loss of connective tissue, the vermilion or red zone of the lips gets thinner (Enlow I990,
Larrabee and Makielski I993, Susanne I977).
As a result of changes in hard and soft tissue with age,
it is possible to estimate ages of adults using information about the relative sizes of eyes, noses, and lips

I dunno, gamines exist as do old-looking young people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neotony

wiki-tier

Gould also argued “that the whole enterprise of ranking groups by degree of neoteny is fundamentally unjustified” (Gould, 1996, pg. 150).[21] Doug Jones argued that human evolution’s trend toward neoteny may have been caused by sexual selection in human evolution for neotenous facial traits in women by men with the resulting neoteny in male faces being a “by-product” of sexual selection for neotenous female faces.[22]

MAY – no proof, but it MAY! I may sprout a dick and call myself Charlie! I MAY!

so the pedo-bears are only finding this shitty paper from the 90s thanks to wikipedia [22]

talk about cherry-picking, all evobio is against this

anthropology is nothing

He’s right, Gould, but Marquardt already measured this.

Neotony – large round eyes (down to almond) – MOST important feature for this trait

Peramorphic – slanted, narrow eyes

Neotony – large forehead (3rd)

Peramorphic – short forehead

Neotony – soft gracile jaw (2nd most important feature for the trait)

Peramorphic – square or manjaw

The actual studies have been done, in computers. By real scientists.

Women also have a narrower mouth than men to match the jaw, also dimorphic.

Comparing races using ONE trait is ridiculous.

One paragraph on wikipedia is all it gets for human neotony, and doesn’t actually list the traits, distinguished from pedomorphic ones.

It doesn’t even study white countries, let alone compare European nations to one another!

Who uses this and doesn’t bother to actually read it? Mental manlets, mostly.

“My own observations in Brazil corroborate his account of sexuality in China. “

Brazilians often suggest that men in such relationships are especially vulnerable to cuckoldry and
economic exploitation.

because the WOMEN are the sexual selecting sex!

Cuckoldry wouldn’t happen without it!

What sort of weeb would cite this?

. But Symons’s (I995) recent work on this subject has persuaded me that we need direct tests of the possibility that estrogen/androgen ratios and parity have effects on facial attractiveness over and above the effects of aging.2

This is very simple. Measure women on every race in their native continent and test their saliva for T and E. No Pill users allowed, they cheat. Dare any weeb to do that study because manjaw women are higher T.

Even Asian men are reported to prefer white women!

A classic example is reported by Wagatsumc
(in the paper Jones cites). On first contact, Japanese mer
perceived white Western women as less physically at
tractive than Japanese women in most features, includ
ing skin texture, facial hair, and eye color. But the men
perceived Western women’s typical skin color as more
attractive, because it was a bit lighter than the adult
Japanese female average and, hence, close to their ideal

Oestrogen causes paler skin. That’s why they bleach.

From the Latin lover trope, even among whites, S Europeans have slightly higher T but this only works best within a race.

If there is significant interpopulation variation in fa
cial proportions, the perception of neoteny may be anal
ogous to the perception of skin color. That is, human
males may have been selected to prefer female faces:
features that are relatively neotenous, by local stan
dards, rather than to prefer certain absolute facial pro
portions. If so, males will not necessarily prefer female
features that are neotenous by the standards of every
human population.

those are pedophiles

Surely it is possible for a woman’s eyes to be too large, her lower face too short, her nose
too small, and her lips too full (imagine Betty Boop as a real woman). In fact, Jones’s data imply a ceiling effect for the attractiveness of facial neoteny even within populations.

Their example of neotony is a white woman, study ignores Europe.

RIGGED!

So the add-on admits you can’t apply between races nor use one trait to judge everything.

That’s literally the conclusion in their own anthro paper. Do not cite this, creeps.

A species-typical male psychological mechanism that instantiates the rule “Prefer female skin that is a bit
lighter than the adult female average” (in ancestral populations relative lightness probably signified nubility, nulliparity, and high estrogen levels) would result in very different absolute skin color ideals in Nigeria and Norway

Yeah Nigerians are rejecting all the Norwegians girls as “too light”. That’s reality.

Nigerian men would perceive Norwegian women as much too light

Yet high androgen levels in women are positively correlated with reproductive system dysfunctions, and observable indices of high androgen levels-such as acne, hirsutism, and a high waist-to-hip ratio-seem to be systematically perceived as unattractive. To my eye, the faces in Jones’s figure
appear to differ more in “masculinity” than in age.

Maternal bone formation rates are elevated during pregnancy, which may permanently lengthen the mother’s face, and a growth hormone (hGH-V) is expressed in the placenta and secreted in large amounts into the maternal circulation which may permanently “coarsen” her facial features.

What is this paper. No, that doesn’t happen.

If the human male’s preference for neotenous facial features is merely a by-product, it presumably would have entailed at least some costs in ancestral populations. For example, assuming that Jones’s hypothesis is correct, an ancestral male given the opportunity to choose between two potential mates of the same age one of whom (A) had a more neotenous face than the other (B), would have been willing to pay a higher bride price for A because of her more attractive face, although B, at a lower bride-price, would have represented better value; or he might have failed to acquire B’s superior weaving skills, which would have contributed something to his fitness, and instead acquired A’s more gracile jaw, larger eyes, smaller nose, and fuller lips, which according to the by-product hypothesis, would have contributed nothing; or he might have chosen an older female with neotenous features over a younger female (higher mate value) with average features.

Genetic load explains that.

Narrow mouths are also neotony, look at babies. That’s why the lips look full.

” While this paper has emphasized the “biological” side of physical attractiveness, with the modern
theory of sexual selection as a starting point, this theory will undoubtedly have to be expanded and revised to allow for the unique importance of social learning in our species”

Nurture applied to biology, that’s why it’s wrong.

Europhiles love a predator

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-51133850

“By no stretch of the imagination could a contemporary author write so blithely of his seduction of underage girls – and, in Matzneff’s case, of boys too.”

Oh, like that’s worse? Because he also raped boys?

Seduction isn’t Hollywood, that’s a lie. By definition, seduction is against that person’s individual (legal) will and consent, and seduction is still illegal under common law for many reasons, especially of children.
Paedophiles have tried to normalise everything but a fetish to children and only to children is sadistic, they wish to harm and corrupt. That’s the process of evil.

“And even if he did, there would certainly be no-one leaping to his defence, accusing his detractors – like they accused Bombardier 30 years ago – of reactionary neo-Puritanism and failing to understand the wellsprings of teenage sexuality.”

I’m sure there’d be some Muslims in pick-up, somewhere, that’s the re-brand attempt.
It’s disgusting some Westerners try to justify these attacks, knowing the child outcomes of child abuse (mental problems, addictions, suicide, pair bonding issues as an adult, trauma and PTSD). Worse, they say it’s ‘culture’ if the predator is white but apparently a Muslim is so foreign. You can’t pick and choose pedos.

The real rape culture is the ‘free love’ left-wing ‘culture’ that assumes everyone is “up for it”, even children. But what was the kid WEARING when they were raped type of victim blaming. In the First World, we can show skin without some subhuman trying to absolve themselves from their actions with a convenient ‘loss’ of control, ‘loss’ of agency.

Bring back hanging for rapists, it’s very simple. They’ll magically find their impulse control if not enabled by victim culture that sees the scum of the earth as a ‘slave’ to their libido (who isn’t? deal like everyone else) who ‘can’t help’ (can’t resist) attacking. Let children and women defend themselves, they lack the physical strength to do it without weapons. Re-open the asylums if the poor, pitiful, woe-is-me predators can’t function in society, this is why we have so many now. They closed the asylums to normalise this.

Most predators are serial offenders, it’s a tiny group of pedos doing this.

There’s the telling projection of ‘fun’, pedos do find getting away with it ‘fun’ and try to groom victims to agree, to normalise.

“And yet just a generation ago, evidently, the idea of sex between adult men and adolescent girls was not only not shocking – in “enlightened” circles, that is. More than that, it was seen as liberating for the youngsters themselves – a final casting off of the sexual bonds imposed by the old pre-1968 order.”

The Kinsey data was forged, he was a sadist pedo into teen boys and eventually fired for it.

“Gradually his star faded. There was growing distaste for his sexual predilections, and before this latest controversy he was an all-but-forgotten figure outside the Left Bank.

But in 2020 the moral compass had shifted 180 degrees. What had been seduction was now abuse.”

It always was, it’s even in the law, from breach of promise to criminal conversation. Hollywood lies should not be treated as real. Hollywood has imposed a fake norm on us, glamourising predation, what we see now is Power to the People, from the internet.

Hell, they’re still making films that glamourise child rape e.g. A Bigger Splash. 2015?

Memoryholed:

https://worldhistoryproject.org/1938/frank-sinatra-is-arrested

“Frank Sinatra was arrested in 1938 on charges of adultery and seduction. Yes, they used to be able to arrest people and charge them with seduction, something that faced a 23-year-old Frank Sinatra.”

You want traditionalism? A high trust society? Re-instate the charges or the West shall perish.
It’s now called “grooming”, who could ever possibly agree with legally permitting grooming? 

Protect women and children or the future is done for.

It’s a return to history the cuckservatives are too blue-pilled to ever suggest. What if it’s their daughter, their son? Their wife being accosted when they’re away at war? You can’t be around all the time, there must be legal recourse.

“What Matzneff saw as a celebration of sexual adventure with partners who, though young, were always consenting, had become an evil power game.”

No, they groom them, BBC. Children CANNOT consent, but psychologically abusing anyone would vitiate the ‘consent’, legally.

You can tell the BBC covers for pedos by pretending the victims are ‘up for it’.

Again, the laws pre-dated this for good reason, it was pro-social to protect children, boys and girls.

“And when publishing executive Vanessa Springora brought out a book this month describing the traumatic effects of her own relationship – aged 14 – with Matzneff, it was clear that he was now a literary non-person.”

Pedos lie, shocker. Predators lie about their victims.

They also lie to their victims – lovebombing, gaslighting, future faking (specifically covered under breach of promise) – things previously covered under seduction, now euphemistically called “grooming” (PC term, grooming for rape aka seduction). Coercion isn’t legal, whatever you do it for.

“In France the age of “sexual majority” is 15. If an adult has sex with a person under 15 he or she will face prosecution, though not necessarily for rape.”

Then why can’t they vote at 15? They don’t really consider them mentally able, which says it all.

France was over long before they invited the Muslim pedos. Actually, that’s why they invited the Muslim pedos.

Pedos like other pedos.

“At the age of 14 you are not supposed to have a 50-year-old man waiting for you when you come out of school; nor to share a hotel room with him and find yourself in his bed… when you should be having your tea,” writes Springora in Consent.”

Huge age gaps should be outlawed anyway, it always predicts some form of abuse beyond a solid generation (25-30 years or so). When one party’s brain hasn’t finished developing, we have no scientific reason to allow people under 25 to “date” whoever they want, the parents also dropped the moral ball and should be ashamed socially as enabling the rape of their child.

“The other people in his “seductions” also existed and their story is now being told.”
Pedos lie, they’re predators. If they’ll rape a child, boy or girl, why not lie about it?

This is like thinking murderers will obey gun laws.

Age of consent must be majority, sex is medical. Minimum age to marry must match as well, especially in a Catholic country, otherwise this is such a convenient oversight for the Weinsteins.

Europhilia is pedophilia with more wine.
Pushing the culture of places with dehumanising ages of consent, despite their claimed Catholic relgious background, is very telling.

France isn’t losing money on tourism because of Muslims, but the white, French men acting like brutes. It’s been losing money for decades thanks to the Boomer generation of degenerate losers. They’re stalking teenage girls (and pre-teens) and young women, shouting obscenities at them, trying to rub up against them on trains, publicly exposing themselves for public urination like a dog and flashing when a girl clearly just wants to go shopping.
The West needs to get its adult men in order, police to a first world standard already.
The Boomers who enabled this in media and TV should be up on charges of aiding and abetting trafficking, because a steady supply of groomed teenagers doesn’t just happen.

The stories of solicitation of women/girls also require punishment, there’s no such thing as ‘pick-up’, it’s solicitation.
Free love is free license to rapists and harassment, stalking, lying to get in a woman’s house are not uncommon. Psychiatrists know about these tactics. To catch a predator. The West needs to stop making excuses the predatory scum use to harm children, in particular.

Freud and the first religious rape gangs

http://www.unz.com/article/freud-sexual-abuse-and-cover-up/

Bear in mind, Jung bitterly referred to Freud’s work as “Jewish Psychology” after he left, because Freud generalised the problems of Jews (or normalised their pathologies) to all of humanity, falsely.

He was fundamentally intellectually dishonest, that is why a surgeon claimed to be the first psychiatrist.

Like, the aggression/low IQ link is somewhat known, but the circumcision/violent crime (especially rape) connection is almost unheard of….

What do the groups otherwise have in common?

This reads like something about Muslim slavers (sex slavery).

“the dismal history of how far too many of those cases have been assiduously concealed both from the public and from the police: how influential rabbis and community leaders have sided with the alleged abusers against their victims; how victims and witnesses of sexual abuse have been pressured, even threatened, not to turn to secular law enforcement for help; how autonomous Jewish ‘patrols,’ displacing the role of official police in some large and heavily religious Jewish neighbourhoods, have played an inglorious part in the history of cover-ups; … how some Jewish communities have even succeeded in manipulating law enforcement officials to protect suspected abusers.”

The likes of Kinsey were also frauds, previously covered and connected to sadistic pedophilia.

S&M used to be a pathology (as per Psychopathia Sexualis) but their ilk normalised it with postmodernism as an eccentric paraphilia. That isn’t strictly true, a paraphilia refers to objects and enjoying pain of others doesn’t meet the standard. They’ve also blocked “sexual sadist” and “sadistic personality” from entering the DSM (which would make it legally actionable) despite how Marquis de Sade types (read about his crimes) prevail in the modern day and forensic jurisprudence is powerless to label them.

The story has been told by Jeffrey Masson in The Assault on Truth: Freud’s Suppression of the Seduction Theory (1984).[1] In 1895 and 1896, Freud, listening to his neurotic and hysterical patients, became convinced that most of them had suffered from traumatic sexual abuse in their childhood. The traumatic origin of “hysteria” (an overused diagnosis in those days) had already been discussed by neurologists, including Jean-Martin Charcot, whose conferences Freud had attended in Paris, and Hermann Oppenheim, who published in Berlin in 1889 a treatise on traumatic neuroses. Yet psychological traumas of sexual nature were rarely discussed openly. On the other hand, there were medical publications, known to Freud, documenting the frequency of violence on children, including sexual assaults, but they focused on the physical consequences. In April 1896, confident to have made a major breakthrough in psychiatry, Freud presented his findings to the Society for Psychiatry and Neurology in Vienna, his first major public address to his peers. His lecture met with total silence. According to Masson, Freud was urged never to publish it, lest his reputation be damaged beyond repair. He found himself isolated, but nevertheless published his paper, “The Aetiology of hysteria.”

Of course he did.

Freud wasn’t even the father of psychology, as is often claimed, it was the gentile Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt, a brilliant man.

He was conducting laboratory experiments into behavioural science (empirical) while Freud was a child.

Explain that, small hats.

Jewish “doctors” also told white women of the time they were oppressed by their husbands (especially since some men in those days were circumcised by concerned “doctors” and thus, dissatisfying to their wives – see below) and further, they were told they were too ‘frigid’ to be adulterers or fornicating whores and must remedy this aversion to promiscuity for their very sanity. That rhetoric continues to this day.

The Freemason and con artist quack salesman Holloway built a women’s college for the procurement of fresh meat and also an asylum for women who talked about all the Satanic abuse they suffered at the hands of powerful men, because that isn’t weird at all… then his wife suddenly died under suspicious circumstances and the building has known tunnels to places unknown… as well as a roof nobody is allowed to see on the tour. I’m sure they do nothing dodgy... but there’s a lot of Freemason symbology on the FRENCH styled castle if you go on the tour.

But the 1960s were seeded about half a century before, have no doubt.

If we take hysteria as a legitimate amygdala response to trauma, it cannot be definitively female, since plenty of boys are targeted by pedophiles (most pedos are male seeking male victims). Still, they toy with our language.

Some of Freud’s work is interesting e.g. inversion (cycle of abuse, projection) but don’t think for one minute he lacked motives.

It’s funny to watch Frasier and spot all the jokes in two categories: anti-white and childhood trauma.

It’s 90% of the show.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2019/01/07/circumcision-risky-behaviours-studies/

They’re really touchy if you point out no woman wants a man with a mutilated manhood:

“While some of the respondents commented that they thought the differences were in the men, not the type of penis, the consistency with which women felt more intimate with their unaltered partners is striking. Some respondents reported that the foreskin improved their sexual satisfaction, which improved the quality of the relationship. In addition to the observations of Maimonides in the 12th century, one survey found that marital longevity was increased when the male had a foreskin [21]. Why the presence of the foreskin enhances intimacy needs further exploration.”

“The lower rates of fellatio, masturbation and anal sex among unaltered men [5] suggests that unaltered men may find coitus more satisfying [20].

“”Clearly, the anatomically complete penis offers a more rewarding experience for the female partner during coitus…. Because these findings are of interest, the negative effect of circumcision on the sexual enjoyment of the female partner needs to be part of any discussions providing ‘informed consent’ before circumcision.”

They’ve been trying to destroy Christian marriages the same way their mothers destroyed theirs.

Circumcised men (partial castrati, technically) are impotent, the data’s in the link.

From top link:

Among other remarks, he suggests that children who aggress sexually other children do so as a result of having been sexually abused themselves: “children cannot find their way to acts of sexual aggression unless they have been seduced previously.”

True observation but…. how did he know?

Using Hollywood to spin seduction from predatory to complimentary lead to the pedophilia of various “rock stars” and actors. You can’t prove a negative. It blames the victim, gentile or child.

From the standpoint of Freud’s earlier theory—which he euphemistically called the “seduction theory”—his new theory of spontaneous infantile sexual fantasies can be seen as a projection, not unlike sex offenders’ tendency to blame their victims: the patients themselves are now accused of both sexual passion and murderous fantasies toward their parents. By repressing these self-generated impulses, says Freudian orthodoxy, they have created their own neuroses which may, in hysterics, take the forms of false memories of abuse.

“look what you made me do, sexy person” …savages

Sandor Ferenczi wrote in his diary in July 1932 that the Oedipus complex could well be “the result of real acts on the part of adults, namely violent passions directed toward the child, who then develops a fixation, not from desire [as Freud maintained], but from fear. ‘

Passion is a bad thing, whatever the publicity for the word. Read the Bible for more.

The First World has always rejected the excuse of “feels” for being bestial in sexual conduct. Jesus himself blames the lecher, lechery is a sin – existing in the vicinity of one is not.

Recently, a mother was shamed for not putting a bikini top on her child. …Why? What if a pedophile pinned her down, that’s still on the predator! Even if we did cordone off all attractive women and girls, the creeps would seek them out still. The r-solution is always protecting themselves from the responsibility for their own feels and acts.

His paper contains a number of important ideas confirmed by later research, such as the victims’ psychological “identification with the aggressor,” or “introjection”: “the aggressor disappears as external reality and becomes intrapsychic instead of extrapsychic,” so that even the guilt feelings of the aggressor are introjected. Ferenczi hypothesized that helplessness causes the victim to empathize with the aggressor, a process today known as “Stockholm syndrome”.

Why pedophiles claim their victims ‘love’ them.

Like serial killers who claim multiple women “made them” angry because they’re too weak to impulse control, so too is the sexual deviant and serial rapist (most acts of rape are re-offences by the same parties, SJWs dread mentioning this fact for fear we might not infantilise the predator and might not want them out in society after ‘rehab’, their deviant form of buying forgiveness from the church).

“Extreme adversity, especially fear of death,” may also trigger a premature development, for which Ferenczi uses the metaphor of “a fruit that ripens or becomes sweet prematurely when injured by the beak of a bird, or of the premature ripening of wormy fruit. Shock can cause a part of the person to mature suddenly, not only emotionally but intellectually as well.”

R-selection, deliberately depriving their future competition.

Creeps breed by predation, the young are just the softest prey. Most naive.

They actually never complete mental maturation, when the body skips ahead. Hinted here:

Such traumatic maturation happens at the expense of psychological integration, and Ferenczi brings in the notion of a personality split: “there can be no shock, no fright, without traces of a personality split.” In his personal diary, reflecting on a patient who cannot remember having been raped, but dreams of it ceaselessly, Ferenczi writes:

“I know from other analyses that a part of our being can ‘die’ and while the remaining part of our self may survive the trauma, it awakens with a gap in its memory. Actually it is a gap in the personality, because not only is the memory of the struggle-to-the-death effaced, but all other associatively linked memories disappear… perhaps forever.”

multiplicity, occurs in all people, rarely pathological

also why psychopaths are “nice” and oddly blank, like Bundy – to fit in better

still no excuse to commit offences, it doesn’t absolve the predator of criminal responsibility (the purpose of infantilisation)

actually, isn’t it funny offences went from rape and murder to saying certain words or ideas?

Pathological dissociation is a little different but various drugs pushed by the postmodern academics (most notably weed) produce dissociation on purpose then wonder why schizophrenia and brain retardation in development occurs during the critical windows.

….Secondly, and more importantly, why was Freud’s theory so successful, despite being long proven scientifically flawed, and its therapeutic value baseless?

They have an unspoken rule:

If it enables pedophiles, they keep it.

I’ve heard them discuss how we “cannot marginalise these groups” by “conforming to archaic notions of stigma”.

So stigma seems to be a keyword.

As if child abuse victims suffer no injury.

Well, the same sniff test passed with whores via the libertarian shitstains ignoring drug abuse, mental illness and suicide rates, so why wouldn’t they try it on?

They go after women first, then girls and boys, then finally the men too weak to stand up any of the other times. This is their MO, again and again.

First it’s “let your daughter strip”, then “let your grand-daughter ‘date’ age 12, by the way she’s on the Pill” and then “let your son be a drag dancer” and finally “by the way, we won’t let your grandson hit puberty because he glanced at a Barbie once”. The men who allow all those moral violations along the way and enable evil because they like the idea of brothels and porn are a pox on decency.

They don’t deserve to live in a First World society.

Most SJWs would cease to exist if men stood up to the moral rot at the ‘stripper’ stage. A lot of them secretly crave the old bans back on obscenity too, haven’t you noticed? They have a false moral consciousness. Hence their constant hand-flailing appeal for white men to “do something”.

We all know what.

Additional insight has been supplied by two books published almost simultaneously (1979), one in French and one in German, both translated in English in 1982: Marie Balmary, Freud and the Hidden Fault of the Father, and Marianne Krüll, Freud and His FatherBoth draw extensively from Freud’s letters to Fliess, which document how Freud was led to his theoretical about-face by his introspective self-analysis. Balmary and Krüll point out that Freud undertook this self-analysis just after the death of his father Jacob. On November 2, 1896, ten days after his father’s death, Freud wrote to Fliess about a dream he had the night before the funeral, in which appeared a sign saying, “You are requested to close the eyes,” which he interpreted as referring to “one’s duty to the dead.” Yet on February 11, 1897, after mentioning that forced oral sex on children can result in neurotic symptoms, he adds: “Unfortunately, my own father was one of these perverts and is responsible for the hysteria of my brother (all of whose symptoms are identifications) and those of several younger sisters. The frequency of this circumstance often makes me wonder.” The following summer, he went through a depressive episode, and wrote on July 7: “I still do not know what has been happening to me. Something from the deepest depths of my own neurosis set itself against any advance in the understanding of the neuroses, and you have somehow been involved in it.” Soon after, September 21, he announced to his friend: “I want to confide in you immediately the great secret that has been slowly dawning on me in the last few months. I no longer believe in my neurotica [his seduction theory].” He gave as one explanation, “the surprise that in all cases, the father, not excluding my own, had to be accused of being perverse.” In the next letter, October 3, he wrote confidently that in the case of his own neurosis, “the old man plays no active part.” Finally, October 15, he referred to the Oedipus story:

“A single idea of general value dawned on me. I have found, in my own case too, [the phenomenon of] being in love with my mother and jealous of my father, and I now consider it a universal event in early childhood.”

Narcissists assume everyone is like them, nobody may experience life differently (key to critical theory) and the Jewish temperament never ceases to amaze with its grandiosity.

As always, it starts with a deadbeat.

Balmary and Krüll bring in the equation a recent biographical discovery of Jacob Freud’s less than perfect behavior; a forgotten second wife named Rebecca, who mysteriously disappears, possibly by suicide, at the time of Jacob’s marriage with his third wife, the beautiful Amelia Nathansohn, half his age and already pregnant of Sigmund (a fact Jacob tried to conceal by falsifying Sigmund’s date of birth). In light of post-Freudian developments in transgenerational depth-psychology,[2] it is possible that Freud had from early age an intuitive sense of a “hidden fault of the father” linked to his own identity, which may have combined with memories of his father’s sexual abuse on himself and his brother and sisters.

The only true pansexual is, like the rapist god Pan, a pedophile.

During his self-analysis at the age of 40, the whole thing came knocking at the door of his consciousness, but he finally surrendered to the subconscious imperative to “close the eyes.” To cover-up the menacing truth of his father’s faults, Freud invented the Oedipus complex, charging children themselves of “polymorphous perversion.”

“What was the girl in Rotherham wearing?”

DARVO.

Classic predator behaviour.

Chastise people in the First World for being free, especially if white.

Thus, in the complete myth, Oedipus’ predestination to kill his father and marry his mother is not determined by his own impulses, but by the fault of his father. For Balmary, Freud’s ignorance of this part of the myth reveals and symbolizes his own blind spot, his failure to discover the secret guilt of the father—both his own father and, by consequence, the fathers of his neurotic and hysterical patients.

Neither Masson not Balmary deal with the Jewish aspect of the issue. Marianne Krüll hints that the father’s mandate to “close the eyes” was a question of “filial piety on which, ultimately, the entire Jewish tradition is based” (Krüll, p. 178), but, although Jewish herself, she does not insist on that aspect.

An aspect of all shitty societies – Chinese oppression, Muslim abuse, Jewish abuse….

How about don’t be a shithead to your kids? How about that?

In other words, comments Cuddihy, Freud “proposes a theory to explain the play’s power over him and to make ‘intelligible’ why he should identify so deeply with its hero, Oedipus. It is in the course of that effort that the core of the theory of psychoanalysis is born.”

Rationalization. Absolute bullshit dressed up in fancy words.

Americans continue this tradition to this day and your replication suffers because of it.

bears an uncanny resemblance with another story that had made a lasting impression on Freud a few years earlier, as he explained in The Interpretation of Dreams. This is a story that his father, a shtetl Jew from Moravia—where Sigmund was born—, had told him when he was ten or twelve years old,

“to show how much better things were now than they had been in his days. ‘When I was a young man,’ he said, ‘I went for a walk one Saturday in the streets of your birthplace; I was well dressed, and had a new cap on my head. A Christian came up to me and with a single blow knocked off my cap into the mud and shouted: ‘Jew! get off the pavement!’ ‘And what did you do?’ I asked. ‘I went into the roadway and picked up my cap,’ was his quiet reply. This struck me as unheroic conduct on the part of the big, strong man who was holding the little boy by the hand.

Bluffing is huge.

Chutzpah.

Glibness of a psychopath, call it what you will.

“Freud presumably experienced not only this rage and shame, but guilt about the rage and shame. He quickly ‘censored’ these unacceptable feelings, unacceptable to a dutiful son ostensibly proud of his father; he ‘repressed’ them. Years later he encounters Sophocles’ tragedy and it lays a spell on him.”

According to Cuddihy, the supposedly universal “Oedipus Complex” that Freud thought he discovered was in reality the veil of a characteristically Jewish complex of his time.

..we can appreciate how Cuddihy draws attention to the fact that Freud’s father—the father whom he felt compelled to exculpate, but toward whom he nevertheless experienced a murder wish—was a Jewish father recently immigrated from Yiddishland into the heart of European civilization.

And so the gamma self-destruction takes down the locals.

Most “psychoanalysis” is just bitchy stuff a gamma would come up with.

Literally “your mom” tier. Gaslighting a whole society.

Pathologizing the enemy like Communism did later….

In the preface for the Hebrew translation of Totem and Taboo, for example, asking himself rhetorically what is Jewish in his work, Freud answered: “a very great deal, and probably its very essence.[5] In a speech prepared for delivery at the B’nai B’rith Lodge in Vienna in 1926, Freud explained his motivation for joining thirty years earlier (1897):

Lodge…..

“Whenever I have experienced feelings of national exaltation, I have tried to suppress them as disastrous and unfair, frightened by the warning example of those nations among which we Jews live.

integration is a myth yo

it’s fake news

But there remained enough to make the attraction of Judaism and the Jews irresistible, many dark emotional powers all the stronger the less they could be expressed in words, as well as the clear consciousness of an inner identity, the familiarity of the same psychological structure. … So I became one of you.”[6]

birds of a feather

This statement is an excellent illustration of what Cuddihy calls “the ordeal of civility,” the struggle of every Jew who wishes to assimilate yet feels unable to overcome the “dark emotional powers” of his ancestral Jewishness, with its implicit imperative not to assimilate. Jewishness has much to do with what Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy calls those “invisible loyalties” that can bind a person to his ancestors, by an irresistible system of values, obligations and debts.[7] The question is to what extent Freud’s psychoanalytical theory is the result of Freud’s surrender to those “dark emotional powers.”

We must take Freud seriously when he tells us, in The Interpretation of Dreams, that his own Jewishness took the form of an identification with Hannibal, and the fantasy of “taking vengeance on the Romans.” He went on to say:

“I myself had walked in Hannibal’s footsteps … Hannibal, with whom I had achieved this point of similarity, had been my favourite hero during my years at the Gymnasium; … Moreover, when I finally came to realize the consequences of belonging to an alien race, and was forced by the anti-Semitic feeling among my classmates to take a definite stand, the figure of the Semitic commander assumed still greater proportions in my imagination. Hannibal and Rome symbolized, in my youthful eyes, the struggle between the tenacity of the Jews and the organization of the Catholic Church. The significance for our emotional life which the anti-Semitic movement has since assumed helped to fix the thoughts and impressions of those earlier days. Thus the desire to go to Rome has in my dream-life become the mask and symbol for a number of warmly cherished wishes, for whose realization one had to work with the tenacity and single-mindedness of the Punic general, though their fulfillment at times seemed as remote as Hannibal’s life-long wish to enter Rome.”

The significance of this public confession, printed in 1899 for all the world to read, cannot be overestimated. Here Freud names as the driving force in his life the fantasy of entering Rome (the Christian world) and destroying it to avenge the Phoenicians (the Jews).

Wait, weren’t the Phoenicians practicing Satanic orgies, child rape and cannibalism?

It was a Babylon mystery cult, wasn’t it? There were so many it’s hard to keep up.

God destroys it over and over for a reason!

If Freud was deeply influenced by his Jewish background, so were the other founding members of the psychoanalytical movement. Dennis Klein writes in Jewish Origins of the Psychoanalytic Movement:

“From its beginning in 1902 to 1906, all 17 members were Jewish. The full significance of this number lies again in the way their viewed themselves, for the analysts were aware of their Jewishness and frequently maintained a sense of Jewish purpose and solidarity. … this feeling of positive Jewish pride formed the matrix of the movement in the psychoanalytic circle: As a spur to renewed independence, it tightened the bond among the members and powered their self-image of a redemptive elite.”[8]

The exception is Carl Jung, whom Freud named president of the International Psychoanalytical Association in 1910 precisely to deflect the reproach that psychoanalysis was a “Jewish science.”[9] Interestingly, Jung is the only member who never subscribed to Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality. In response to a letter by Karl Abraham, who complained that “Jung seems to be reverting to his former spiritualistic inclinations,” Freud explained : “it is really easier for you than it is for Jung to follow my ideas, for … you stand nearer to my intellectual constitution because of racial kinship (Rassenverwandtschaft). Freud asked Abraham not to antagonize Jung because “it was only by his appearance on the scene that psychoanalysis escaped the danger of becoming a Jewish national affair.”[10]

In contrast to Jung, Abraham was the most zealot supporter of Freud’s theory of infantile sexuality. In The History of the Psychoanalytic Movement, 1919, Freud wrote that, “The last word in the question of traumatic etiology was later on said by Abraham, when he drew attention to the fact that just the peculiar nature of the child’s sexual constitution enables it to provoke sexual experiences of a peculiar kind, that is to say, traumas” (self-inflicted traumas, so to speak). Freud was referring to a 1907 paper by Abraham, “The Experiencing of Sexual Trauma as a Form of Sexual Activity.” It is perhaps significant that Abraham, son of an Orthodox rabbi, was also the most ethnocentric of Freud’s disciples. He wrote in 1913 an essay “On Neurotic Exogamy,” diagnosing Jewish men who say they “could never marry a Jewess” with a neurosis resulting from “disappointed incestuous love.”[11]

….Ivanka.

In the 1890s, Freud’s clientele was drawn exclusively from the Jewish middle class. Imagine if Freud’s seduction theory had earned him the recognition he craved for: although he disguised the identity of his patients in his case studies, it would not have been long before his work was attacked, not just as “Jewish science,” but as evidence of the depravity of Jewish mores.

But then Hollywood/porn/brothels proved everybody wrong!

. Anything contradicting this superiority creates a cognitive dissonance which is overcome by denial.

superiority complex, like the guys who go on and on and on about how ‘stupid’ women are… but not so stupid as to be tricked into going out with them, interestingly…

Denial means projection: to protect the dirty secret of child abuse in Jewish families—including his own—, Freud projected an imaginary repressed infantile perversion on all mankind. Projection, in turn, means inversion: Freud’s close disciple Otto Rank claimed that Jews had a more primitive, and therefore more healthy sexuality than Gentiles (Rank, “The Essence of Judaism,” 1905). Freudians and Freudo-Marxists have systematically denounced Christian civilization as suffering from sexual repression.

Women who don’t want to be sluts and love their husband are “frigid”, a type of sexual insanity according to Jews.

It just so happens those therapists wanted to bone them.

According to Wilhelm Reich, anti-Semitism is itself a symptom of sexual frustration, and could be cured by sexual liberation (The Mass Psychology of Fascism, 1934)—an improvement from Leo Pinsker’s theory that Judeophobia was a “hereditary” and “incurable” “disease transmitted for two thousand years.”[12]

“We’re all equal but you can’t question us”.

Pull the other one.

In order to understand the psychological background of this Reichian messianic mission to cure the Christian West, and in order to see more clearly the projective nature of the psychoanalytical theory of repression, it is helpful to know the personal story of Wilhelm Reich, which reads as a caricature of Freud’s: At ten years old, when he realized that his mother was having an affair with his tutor, the young Wilhelm thought of blackmailing his mother into having sex with him. Eventually, he confided in his father about his mother’s adultery. In 1910, after a period of beatings from his father, his mother committed suicide, for which Reich blamed himself.[13]

Well… yeah. You can see why they hate Darwin to this day and all theories that extend from it, including Trivers parental investment (a purely K-theory).

Faithful fathers are biologically more successful, mathematically. It’s been proven.

The “spread your wild oats” bullshit is Jewish, similar to the ‘frigid’ rhetoric, as is the “quantity over quality” fallacy applied to men who deadbeat their children (note the Jews themselves do not do this?). It’s been debunked.

Child psychology has also shown since the outcomes of abandoned children to be poorer across the board (physically, mentally, financially) so anyone pushing that “men are supposed to be slutty” bullshit is either stupid or certainly thinks you are.

It’s literally bullshit peddled by Victorian Jews to seduce Christian wives.

And naturally, they cannot appeal to Darwin on the subject of sterile sex, it’s a false equivalence, they’re not having real sex (reproductive) and manwhores are functionally homosexual.

Nobody tells them this but it’s known. Well accepted.

They have the same disease risks, fertility issues, impotence performance, porn addiction and everything.

Well, the circumcision link goes into some of it.

“Adult circumcision appears to result in worsened erectile function”

They can’t even really get it up, perform and keep it up to satisfy women. They don’t even like adult, round breasts, small waists proportionately (not athletic or anorexic), with broad hips and pubic hair that make nubile women, nubile. Secondary sexual characteristics dictate sexuality, and with it fertility.

The r-select category is not hetero-specific, they’re on that half of the spectrum. It’s a series of acts and vices, including a preference for only sterile sex. Arguably, such men are functionally virgins. They’ve never engaged in the reproductive act with a fertile female human. Only chemical crones. Which they expect all women to be, or become repulsed by those women. Functionally homosexual.

The Jewish and Muslim obsession with anal is explained:

The remaining prepuce and any remaining portions of the frenulum can be preferentially stimulated by masturbation and oral sex, whereas the sensation of deep pressure dominates during hetero- sexual coitus. The imbalance from not having the input from the missing fine touch receptors may make the experience less satisfying, causing a man with an incomplete penis to supplement his sexual experiences with other forms of stimulation.

And who in society has the tightest arsehole?

Exactly.

….Sickos.

Evil people have reasons.

Ancient societies only celebrated a figure like Zeus because all his coitus was fruitful. That’s what made it divine instead of a sin.

Notice nobody dared boff Hera?

And nobody just did oral (or ANY oral) with him, he practiced ‘anal’ on nobody. Those were considered immoral by the king of the pantheon of PAGAN gods, yet how many fake pagans push those things as pagan? How many creepy gay rapists in particular?

The things we’re desensitized to now, post-WW2, would’ve horrified actual pagans.

His responsibility was to reproduce, it had F-all to do with orgasm. The psychiatrists lie.

It wasn’t even about him and neither the ‘sex’ (so sometimes rape) but about being the Patriarch, the Father, the genetic legacy.

Hence the expression “the embrace of a God is always fruitful”.

’embrace’ meant carnal knowledge

and why Aphrodite was considered a virgin goddess, since she had zero children

how could the inspiration of the concept lust act upon herself?

she can’t embrace herself, and everyone else was fruitful

that was her sacrifice, having no children of her own but inspiring others in a time when few humans were around

within Jewish thinking, saving the nations and destroying them are not two sides of the same coin, but one and the same, because what nations are supposed to be cured of is their very identity (their gods, in biblical terms). According to Andrew Heinze, author of Jews and the American Soul, Jews have shaped “American ideas about the mind and soul” with the preoccupation “to purge the evils they associated with Christian civilization.”[14] It really started with Freud. In September 1909, invited to give a series of lectures in New England, Freud jokingly asked his companions, Sandor Ferenczi and Carl Jung: “Don‘t they know we’re bringing them the plague?”[15] An extraordinary statement for a medical doctor pretending to have found a “cure” for neurosis. And a prophetic one: Freudism became a justification for a sexual “liberation” that can be seen in retrospect as a massive sexual abuse of the youth.

Kinsey picked it up.

Sigmund’s grandson Sir Clement Freud, British MP, pedophile, rapist, and suspected murderer of a three-year-old girl
Sigmund’s grandson Sir Clement Freud, British MP, pedophile, rapist, and suspected murderer of a three-year-old girl

That man is possessed.

You cannot convince me otherwise.

By a stunning coincidence, Freud was initiated into the recently founded B’nai B’rith in September 1897, precisely the time of his conversion to the dogma of infantile sexuality. 

..He recruited at least three members and in 1901 was a founding father of a second lodge in Vienna, the Harmony Lodge. The same year, he gave a talk on “Goals and Purposes of the B’nai B’rith Societies.” Freud often presented his work to the B’nai B’rith before publishing it. In this respect, writes Klein, the Viennese B’nai B’rith lodge “was a precursor of the movement of psychoanalysis.” “After his death in 1939, the B’nai B’rith of Vienna continued, relentlessly, the support granted during his lifetime to the famous ‘brother.’”[16]

To what extent were the B’nai B’rith masonic meetings influential in Freud’s swing from the seduction theory to the Oedipus theory? No one can say. However, we can hold as fairly certain that Freud’s membership in the B’nai B’rith was influential in his becoming one of the major intellectual stars and gurus of modernity.

It could easily be argued that, in matters of psychology, every sensible thing that Freud said had been said before him, and that almost everything he said that hadn’t been said before has been proven wrong.

A Jewish plagiarist, why repeat yourself?

So why did Freud become so famous? The long answer is that Freud benefitted from the same kind of communication networking that produced many other Jewish intellectual “geniuses”, and made French novelist André Gide comment in 1914 (in his diary) about “this tendency to constantly emphasize the Jew, … this predisposition to recognizing in him talent, even genius”[19] The shorter answer to the question above is: B’nai B’rith. I will not suggest that the B’nai B’rith supported Freud’s Oedipus theory because they saw its potential for the moral corruption of the West. Nor do I suggest that the B’nai B’rith and Freud conspired to ruin Western civilization with the pestilential idea of infantile sexuality. But I do suggest that, had Freud maintained his earlier conviction in the reality of the abuses suffered by his Jewish patients, he would not have received as much support.

Muh superior IQ, just don’t remove the verbal section we added and never ever control for class and education!

In 1913, the B’nai B’rith created the Anti-Defamation League to save the life and the reputation of Leo Frank, the wealthy young president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, who was convicted of the rape and murder of Mary Phagan, a thirteen-year-old girl working in his pencil factory. The evidence for Frank’s guilt was overwhelming, but tremendous financial resources were deployed for his legal defense—including false testimonies—and an intense publicity was orchestrated in the news media, with the New York Times devoting enormous coverage to the case. I quote from Ron Unz’s article:

“For almost two years, the nearly limitless funds deployed by Frank’s supporters covered the costs of thirteen separate appeals on the state and federal levels, including to the U.S. Supreme Court, while the national media was used to endlessly vilify Georgia’s system of justice in the harshest possible terms. Naturally, this soon generated a local reaction, and during this period outraged Georgians began denouncing the wealthy Jews who were spending such enormous sums to subvert the local criminal justice system. … All appeals were ultimately rejected and Frank’s execution date for the rape and murder of the young girl finally drew near. But just days before he was scheduled to leave office, Georgia’s outgoing governor commuted Frank’s sentence, provoking an enormous storm of popular protest, especially since he was the legal partner of Frank’s chief defense lawyer, an obvious conflict of interest. … A few weeks later, a group of Georgia citizens stormed Frank’s prison farm, abducting and hanging him, with Frank becoming the first and only Jew lynched in American history.”

Lynch mobs don’t form for nothing.

If the courts are corrupt, mob justice prevails.

Thanks to the mobilization of the Jewish power elite—“as one man”—, Leo Frank has been turned from a convicted pedophile and child murderer into a martyr of anti-Semitism. We don’t know what Freud thought of the case, but there is an obvious resonance between his “assault on truth” and the B’nai B’rith’s. If young Mary Phagan had visited a Freudian psychoanalyst before her atrocious death, and complained of her boss’ sexual overtures, she probably would have been told about her own “penis envy”; had she protested, she would have been told that her protest proved her sexual repression—exactly as happened to Freud’s patient Dora, Ida Bauer by her real name, an eighteen-year-old girl suffering from hysterical symptoms.[20]

“She really wanted it” – Jewish creeps from Freud to Weinstein.

“She secretly wanted it” – Jewish psychoanalysis and rapists everywhere.

I’ve never met a woman who’d part with her clitoris for any sum of money, but I’ve met plenty of men who expressed envy of them and their nerve density, who’d happily trade their penis. Especially if they know about the possibility of multiple orgasms… the mind boggles at such a castrating obsession.

There’s also the repulsive womb envy of men literally so effeminate they want to birth their own children as its sole parent in pods like a pozzed transsexual. They want to birth their own child outside the mother (spiting the child its birthright to a mother, evil) but are too chickenshit to go through the agony personally.

Why oh WHY can’t they find any woman who wants to breed with them? A mystery, truly.

 But the fact that Freud’s Jewish disciples all discovered the same impulse, and that Freudism became so widely accepted by Jews, suggests that Freud’s generalization was not without merit. It only suffered from the tendency of Jewish intellectuals to project Jewish issues on all humankind. The child’s repressed wish to kill his father is not universally human, but may be characteristically Jewish. For the Jewish father is the guardian of Jewishness and the representative of the Jewish god. And every Jew aspires in the depth of his soul to free himself from Yahweh, the archetypal abusive and castrating Father.

Literally.

Partial castrati.

And so the secret wish to murder the Jewish father is also a secret wish for the death of the Jewish god.

You had ten rules to follow.

Ten rules and you fucked it up.

It is therefore identical with the so-called “Jewish self-hatred” that Theodor Lessing saw as affecting every Jew without exception: “There is not a single man of Jewish blood in whom cannot be detected at least the beginning of Jewish self-hatred.”[22]

gamma meltdown

the whiny self-pity and projection of blame to anyone who listens

By choosing a Greek myth as a metaphor for his theory, Freud was projecting on Gentiles a Jewish problem. Had he recognized the Jewish overtone of the complex,

he did?

he might have called it the “Isaac complex,” since Isaac is the son that Abraham was willing to slaughter.

The expression “Isaac complex” has actually been used by French heterodox psychoanalystJean-Pierre Fresco

…Kafka describes the devastating effect on his personality of a father whose means of education were “abuse, threats, irony, spiteful laughter, and—oddly enough—self-pity.

NPD.

Maybe some BPD, a lot of Jewish men are borderline symptomatic. The identity issues, compulsive lying and adultery are characteristic.

…After the death of Gregor appears his sister Grete, his double in the other sex, the homosexualized son….

Trannies.

Also introduces kafkatrapping. If you accept or deny you are oppressed/repressed/abused, you were because of that! Gaslight.

The paternal prohibition of emancipation through marriage is linked to an incestuous domination that becomes clear when Georg submissively proposes to the father to exchange beds.

Marrying evil women is bad goyim, love your father who hates you…. forever….

They also claim sex is about power, so by putting white men off marriage and becoming Patriarchs, who gains in power? Who loses?

Rape isn’t about power either, sadists literally enjoy pain and humiliation.

You can’t fake humiliation.

….this uncomprehensible and omnipotent slanderer-accuser-judge is “the palimpsest of an archaic Abrahamic father unconsciously introjected as an archaic and sadistic superego, and turned into an inner persecutor.”

Whiny Jews make for shitty literature.

The victim mentality is absurd.

Who’d read that?

…..while his Jewish literary critics consider him quintessentially Jewish. “By common consent,” said Harold Bloom, “Kafka is not only the strongest modern Jewish writer, but the Jewish writer.”[24](Hence Israel’s decade-long legal battle to secure his autograph manuscripts as national treasure.) Who is right, of Kafka and his critics? Does his genius come from his being Jewish, or from his having a psychopathic father? Obviously, it is impossible to distinguish the two factors, because the psychopathic father happens to be Jewish; he is, in Fresco’s terms, the typical “Abrahamic father.” But are not all Jewish fathers Abrahamic in the measure of their Jewishness? Is not the Jewish god a psychopathic father—and the psychopathic father a Jewish god?

This might be why God punishes you, this bullshit.

Divine punishment happens because you broke the rules, you know them.

Thou shalt not adulterate, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not worship idols like money…

There’s a psychopathic inability to learn from ‘mistakes’, typical of the low IQ.

The key lock, poor analogy is pure psychopath. They see all humans as objects to be broken.

Their emotional circumcision is showing.

Had Freud preserved his original insight into the psychological damage of sexual abuse on children, he might have eventually reflected on the impact of neonatal circumcision. But he has been rather discreet on the subject—though he didn’t have his own sons circumcised.

He actually loved them?

In New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis, he speculated that “during the human family’s primeval period, castration used to be carried out by a jealous and cruel father upon growing boys,” and that “circumcision, which so frequently plays a part in puberty rites among primitive people, is a clearly recognizable relic of it.”[25] Freud went further in Moses and Monotheism:

“Circumcision is a symbolical substitute of castration,

not symbolic, surgical and the modern kind takes far more than ancient, which might’ve (probably) just been a small notch into the foreskin, removing nothing (and explaining survival rates)

a punishment which the primeval father dealt his sons long ago out of the awfulness of his power, and whosoever accepted this symbol showed by so doing that he was ready to submit to his father’s will, although it was at the cost of a painful sacrifice.”[26]

and the trauma of a pain only recently studied

Interestingly, Freud originally got that idea from Sandor Ferenczi, who had written in an article that greatly impressed Freud, that circumcision is “a means of inspiring terror, a symbol of castration by the father.”[27]

A psychopath’s envy of their same-sex child, envy of their youth.

and cult indicator of obedience, obvi

Given the Jewish undercurrent in Freud’s intellectual biography, it is reasonable to assume that his inability to deal with the issue of Jewish neonatal circumcision is connected to his refusal to face the devastating reality of child abuse. Isn’t the first abuse suffered by every Jewish male from the part of his parents and kins, circumcision on the eighth day? It physically impresses on every Jew, and on all Jews collectively, the traumatic domination of Yahweh and his Covenant.

implying removing body parts (male prepuce) was indicated in Genesis, which it was not

false equivalence

The psychological impact of neonatal circumcision, performed without anesthesia and causing unbearable pain, has been studied by Professor Ronald Goldman, author of Circumcision, the Hidden Trauma. His research shows a disturbance in the mother-child bonding process after the ritual.

Notice these women never want their own prepuce removed as adults? Nor their precious daughters.

No wonder Jews are such famed misogynists.

[28] Testimonies from “Mothers Who Observed Circumcision” show that the mothers’ guilt is also part of the equation. Here is one, from Elizabeth Pickard-Ginsburg:

“I don’t feel I can recover from it. […] We had this beautiful baby boy and seven beautiful days and this beautiful rhythm starting, and it was like something had been shattered! … When he was first born there was a tie with my young one, my newborn. And when the circumcision happened, in order to allow it I had to cut off the bond. I had to cut off my natural instincts, and in doing so I cut off a lot of feelings towards Jesse. I cut it off to repress the pain and to repress the natural instinct to stop the circumcision.”

That isn’t holy, that’s Moloch. A woman-hating fake deity would want to break up the family bonding.

It’s like all the politicians suspiciously into ‘golf’ at courses with tunnels. Duh?

The unnatural incestuous wish that Freud and his Jewish male disciples discovered in their repressed unconscious could perhaps be explained as a result of the inhibition in mother-child bonding caused by the trauma of neonatal circumcision.

R-type blame shift.

A trauma caused at this age has little chance to ever be brought back into consciousness and be healed.

But infant pain is considered a great occult tool by Satanists, even to grant wishes (second is orgy rape). It’s also a portal for possession of the infant by sinful spirits.

Hey, I didn’t make their rules. I’m the messenger.

It’s like rapists going for easy prey in drunk women (alcohol is the most common rape drug) because the wolf will go for the hobbling sheep first.

More research is perhaps needed on the possible link between Jewish circumcision and the fact, according to the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia, that “the Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell.”[29]
 Research done by sociologist Leo Srole in 1962 showed that the rate of neuroses and character disorders among Jews was about three times as high as among Catholics and Protestants.[30]

In The Future of an Illusion, Sigmund Freud describes “religion”—meaning essentially Christianity—as a “universal obsessional neurosis” which has for believers the merit that “their acceptance of the universal neurosis spares them the task of constructing a personal one.”[31]

If you hadn’t figured it out yet. Nihilism is Jewish.

Living isn’t something most people hate, Freud.

With a similar approach, Judaism can be described as a “collective sociopathy.” This does not mean that “the Jews” are sociopaths, but rather that, in proportion to the degree of their identification as Jews, they are victims of a sociopathic mindset patterned from the Tanakh, “marked in their flesh” (impressed traumatically in their subconscious) by circumcision, and fuel by their elites with the paranoia of anti-Semitism. The difference between collective sociopathy and individual sociopathy is the same as between collective neurosis and individual neurosis according to Freud: participation in a collective sociopathic mentality allows members of the community to channel sociopathic tendencies toward the outside of the community, and to maintain inside a high degree of sociability.

We’re their punching bag. That’s why they move to white areas.

White people are the Jewish scapegoat.

Pedo set free for ADHD

I wish I were joking.

A Paedophile Has Been Spared Jail Because ‘Prison Would Be Difficult For Him’

Sometimes the headlines write themselves.

Why become a judge if sentencing is so hard?

Is the judge one?

We all know by now the connection between ADD/ADHD and how it’s the new dyslexia PC term for low IQ – the spectator had an article on it ages back.

But he clearly has an adult mind and prison is supposed to cause suffering.

Sexual predator snowflakes will eventually be shot, you know they wouldn’t last a month under SHTF conditions.

“should be considered alongside the welfare of that person” No.

He didn’t care about the welfare of other humans, what rights can he expect?

“You are vulnerable in prison” now he knows how normies feel around him

“and in my view it is now doing you harm” that is the purpose of punishment

,”and will now only entrench your anti-social behaviour rather than reform it.” Not how it works.

ASPD is a personality issue, it’s the brain. Nothing reforms it.

Bring back hanging or the prisons will continue to overflow.

Pedo face  + white gangsta prick – checks out.

check the glasses, missing the beard

“after hearing he had ADHD and other prisoners had bullied him into performing sexual favours”

Oh the sweet sweet irony.

So we’re supposed to give a shit the predators don’t wanna be around their own kind?

What right do the rest of us have to be as far away from it – safe – as possible?

“Sweet targeted multiple girls between the ages of 13 and 14 and attempted to groom them, sending them videos of him masturbating and dick pics whilst asking them for sexual favours, but fortunately none of them actually took him up on the offer because they realised that he was just a massive creep.”

How many PUA incitement books had he read? Sending unsolicited dick pics is harassment minimum. There’s no appeal to stupidity on that.

Well, that PUA shit doesn’t actually work. There’s just too many of them now. Pedos and other similar creeps with similar MOs. Gen Z, the current teens, are wise to this Roosh muh alpha bullshit. The kids are smarter than the pedos targeting them.

I’m sure the prison guys would love to see his dick though. He has a willing audience there. His close-set eyes and twink body would be mighty popular on a permanent wing, he can count a lotta notches.

Why no asylum then? Solitary? He needs a shrink, at least. Asylums exist for that purpose.

Queer theory pedophilia

Of particular note is when they call him a ‘homophobe’ for quoting factual political references to pedophilia.
Plus randomly “you do not care about trans people lives”.
Yeah but factually neither do they, having a high rate of HIV and trying to ‘trap’ men, sexual predation.

Morals are not relative and ‘consent’ has nothing to do with good and evil.
That’s a dangerous one, that ‘professor’, never tells you his opinion.

Professor is the new preacher but they are God, they tell you what is good.

Appeal to Foucault, you’re still the one saying it. He even pronounced it wrong.

Boycott Witcher

I assumed everyone already knew about this.

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/09/blind-item-14_12.

htmlhttp://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/08/blind-item-11_10.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/08/blind-item-14_30.html

The Voat page went down so no-go there, sorry.

Because the voat page going down isn’t weird at all. Pizzagate thread.

He’s cold, ice cold. Stone cold psychopath type, people who grew up with him think he’s changed (by fame, leaving old friends – they wouldn’t keep certain sexual exploits a secret so he chucked them beforehand, calculating) or was weirdly polite but nah. That’s like serial killer polite.

Could be boys, girls, both.

Know he used to be into edging, sometimes in a mirror.

Veeeeeeeery into BDSM. Very violent. Marquis de Sade violent.

Wants muscles purely to pin people down, willing or not.

Since it’s Asians, guessing adult ones didn’t look young enough for him anymore.

Source: Well… I have his gamertag.

GSOH though, totally un PC. Like 4chan on crack. Oozes charm (in person, awkward AF in interviews – you can’t mirror a camera) but it’s 100% fake, capricious too. His ultimate role is often joked to be his fake personality. He doesn’t have one, empty. Mannequin man.

Signs were there

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2019/07/blind-items-revealed-5_7.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2018/12/blind-items-revealed-3_25.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2017/11/blind-items-revealed-3-anniversary-month.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2015/08/blind-items-revealed-3_23.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2015/06/blind-items-revealed-3_4.html

https://www.crazydaysandnights.net/2016/11/blind-items-revealed-6_26.html