Wednesday, September 18, 2019

How Men Can Own All Reproductive Rights

I cannot claim to understand the cacophony and clamor over reproductive rights.

If the past 30 years has taught me anything it's that women really, really, REALLY want to have the option to abort their babies.  Being libertarian and a misanthrope, I'm not going to stand in their way.  Furthermore, though I am pro-choice, I cannot think of a better albatross to throw around the neck of a more deserving group of people than women who are proud to abort their children.  It's a horrific decision.  It indicates poor planning on their part.  And the consequences include something that borders on murdering a human life.  If they desperately want that right, then by all means let them have it.

However, the vehemence by which women defend their rights to abortion, birth control, even getting to the point they demand government paid tampons, indicates to me that there's a psychological, cult like obsession with "reproductive rights."

I take the foolish, idealistic notion of doing what maintains the freedom of the individual, balanced with what's in the best interest of the children.  And to show you how literal I am, that means aborting children whose mothers are so bad they forgot to take a birth control pill, or are the types of mothers to abort their babies.  Life is not precious in my opinion, especially if it will be tortured by a single mom who really, truthfully doesn't want you, or is so irresponsible that they will abort you in the third trimester.  A non-existent life is better than a life replete with being brought up by an incompetent single mom.  So by all means, abort away.

But it goes beyond that.

Modern day women, feminists, and even our rank and file women are more than willing to draw blood to protect their precious "reproductive rights," unrightly spilling it over to demand other people pay for their birth control, abortions, and unfortunate children who make it past the finish line.

I have a much more efficient, simple, and fair solution:

Mandatory vasectomies for all men.

I've wrestled with this for many years in my life because I was told a vasectomy was 40% permanent.  Meaning that only 60% of vasectomies could be reversed, and thus you REALLY REALLY REALLY had to know that you did not want to have children if you went forward with this.

But logic and common sense made me question this.  And though not a doctor, I wondered, "can't you simply just take a syringe and extract some semen to artificially impregnate somebody if you wanted to, even though you had a vasectomy?"

Turns out you can.

There are 3-4 ways to extract sperm from a man who has undergone a vasectomy.  They are not all successful at first, but after 8 tries studies have found a 100% rate of successfully extracting sperm.  And though there will be exceptions where an individual or two cannot ever get sperm extracted post-vasectomy, the numbers brought about an interesting epiphany.

If every guy got a vasectomy,
And the only way to get sperm was with one of these 3-4 unconventional methods,

we'd all be able to still have children, but.....
men would completely own and monopolize reproductive rights.

For some reason, that simple statement right now is sending shock waves down the spinal chords of many women today.  Perhaps all of them.  And I really to this day don't know why.  Women wanted reproductive control and rights and men gave it to them.  So why should the prospect of men universally getting vasectomies "screeeeeee" women?  Furthermore, shouldn't the consequences of sex (that would be "the childrenzzzz") be of ultimate importance?  I cannot help but see how giving men equal authority to women (since women have the nuclear abortion option) as to whether a child is birthed or not would make so many people upset.

But it does, and so let me enumerate the reasons why.

First, there is this feminist (more or less) based cult that obsesses about reproductive rights.  Any sane man long ago would have said, "OK, you got the same rights, now let's move on and make a great society."  But most within the leftists/feminist political world are so pathetic they don't want to move on.  They CAN'T move on.  Because all they have is complaining and playing the victim.

Putting reproductive rights in the hands of men denies them of all the steam in their professional victimhood-oppression engine.  It completely negates and neutralizes them because it makes it a non-issue.

You don't want kids?
You want to have consequentless free sex?
You want to determine whether a kid comes into this world or not?

Well, worry no longer sister.  It ain't even getting to that stage.  All men are shooting blanks!  Rest easy sister, you can have all the child-free sex you want.

It would take away their pet cause, their core reason for oppression, and they simply don't want to go and find/concoct another.  And they CERTAINLY don't want to go out and find a real job!

Second, there would be no more baby-daddy black mail.  No more givemedats.  Single mothers, who never had any intention of raising their children or being a good wife, whose SOLE purpose was to get some government cheese by breeding would simply be denied and then (once again, the worst nightmare of a lazy person) be forced to get a real job and support herself.

No more "accidental pregnancies."
No more "oops, I forgot to take my pill."
No more "but I want a baaaaabbbyyyyyy!!!!"

No my fine good sir.  Unless there is a syringe stuck in your balls, currently extracting semen for the EXPRESS purpose of impregnating a woman, there is not "oops."  There is no "accident."  And with that, the multi-hundred-billion-dollar industry of undesired child support goes away.  It's just a question of whether you're a smart enough man to drop $1,200 on some vasectomy insurance.

Third, ask yourself where most women are employed today.

The truth is a disproportionate plurality is simply employed taking care of other women's children they couldn't take care of themselves.  This is a huge, MULTI-TRILLION dollar industry per year that includes the education system, child care, day care, pre-k, and other government leviathans that have been expressly and purposely made to replace men while employing women.

The millions of barren women employed in these industries would have to forfeit their jobs if there was not a constant supply of unwanted children being birthed by women who "oops" forgot to take the pill.  These women, no doubt feminists, leftists, and democrats, who ALSO have nothing else to live for in life, will scream BLOODY MURDER if you men dare to get vasectomies on a national level and put control of reproduction completely into the hands of men.  Without all these illegitimate children, all social workers would lose their jobs.  All day care operators would lose their licenses.  Every woman who aborted their children and have nothing left to live for, except their professions, would have to give up their professions of taking care of other women's children.  Men, en masse, getting vasectomies would force these women to realize their complete and utter pointlessness and worthlessness, and they simply are not going to have any of that.

They need dysfunctional boys.
They need gangsters.
They need all you boys and men suffering.

Because how else would they legitimize their "Masters in Social Work" or "Masters in Psychology?"

There are very few options real men, real Americans have left to fight against the marxist, oppressionist, and simply hate-filled left.  The most powerful of which I believe is that all men get a vasectomy and then "we'll talk" about having children later.  It puts reproductive rights squarely into the hands of more somber, judicious people (that would be us - men) and it would end the welfare state within a generation.  Shoot, you might even have families where BOTH parents (that would be the "mother" and the "father") actually wanted to have children and all the societal ills of socialist feminism and single-mommy-hood would go away.

Of course, you boys understand WHY modern day women, with all their indoctrination and brainwashing are going to fight tooth and nail if you dare to all get vasectomies.

But then I ask....

Well, isn't "choice" the ultimate principle and value within the women's movement?

Seriously, you men want to strike back at this socialist, feminist, anti-male nonsense?  Talk to your urologist and seriously think about getting a vasectomy.  You're statistically not giving anything up.  But you sure are depriving feminists of the vital hill of "children" they so cowardly hide behind.

Check out Aaron's other cool sites:

How Not to Become a Millennial

Tuesday, September 17, 2019

The Older Brother Podcast #59 - The "Post Office" Episode

Cappy's health scare - stress-induced ulcer or STAGE 4 CANCER???  Tune in next week!
"Meh" about death.
Atham tells us about Mexcian wrestling.
Men who fill the void with women.
How men can control all reproductive rights.


in THIS EPISODE of The Older BRother Podcast!
Direct MP3 here.
YouTube here.

Sponsored by Academic Composition!

Oh, and By The Way She Ran Pepsi

It's almost as if there aren't companies to run as much as there is to fawn about vagina all the time.

Saturday, September 14, 2019

The Clarey Podcast #308 - The "Enjoy the Show" Episode

Black teens beating up dopey white minneapolitans downtown.
"Enjoy the Show" - Girl successfully murders new born.
How DARK can Chad get???
Glass Steagal
Millennials believing in astrology.


in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!
Direct MP3 here.
Youtube here.

Sponsored by...

Tuesday, September 10, 2019

The Older Brother Podcast #58 - The "Cat Wine" Episode

Door County - the Pinnacle Achievement of White People.
Walter Matthau Sexually Harassed Sophia Loren...and SHE LIKED IT!
When students beat up their TEEEAAACHEERRRSSSS!!!!
Joe Biden reaps what he grew.
Fitbit causes a Health Scare in Cappy.
Cat Wine - "Purrrrrlot" GET IT?????
Jacob Scheier - The Poster Child for Millennial Parasites


Direct MP3 here.

Sponsored by

Monday, September 09, 2019

Behind the Post: Marcie Bianco

You may have noticed that outlandish articles about outlandish things are being produced at a machine gun rate by both the mainstream and click-bait media.  It really is just a shock-and-awe, post the most outlandish shit, bring in the clicks and eyeballs type of brown journalism, so much so you can't call it journalism.  You can only call it what it truly is - tabloid.

But unless the article is in a magazine on the rack in the check out line at the grocery store, people think these articles are legit, especially if they have "NBC" or "CNN" on the URL.  Most are easily duped if the website just looks professional.

But instead of getting pissed off at this constant barrage of rage-instilling BS brown pieces, I like to look at who wrote them as I think that has more genuine journalistic worth than the slop they're writing.

Today's article/person is Marcie Bianco.

Marcie wrote a piece at NBC that Miley Ray Cyrus and Liam Hemsworth divorce was a blow to "patriarchy."  

I know. I know.  It's dumber than a sociology major taking 7 years to graduate, but hear me out.  The point of my article is to get you to the point that you never get even slightly irked at such a stupid article ever again.  She's trying to goad you.  She's purposely being obtuse and dense to get a rise out of you.  And with the controversial position she's taken (one she may not even believe in), you're going to click bait it, post it, and bring her in more clicks.  Do not be tempted.

Instead, look at who this person is.

Marcie Bianco is predominantly a lesbian/feminist activist. 

Which is fine.  Which is cool.  Which is OK.

She is, however, NOT a journalist and her opinions are not that of everyday America, let alone every day women.  She has an agenda, which means the article - no matter how click-baity-tempting it was to click - was not worth the click.  Matter of fact, it's not worth anything.  It's propaganda.

It is here I'm trying to get some people to "Enjoy the Show" and make some lemonade out of the seeming lemons we've received.  And I'm not even going to connect the dots for you.  I'm just going to tell you what to do whether you see a Marcie Bianco or any other shock-piece writer's crap masquerading as legitimate editorial or journalistic commentary.  

Find out how successful and happy that person is.

How many twitter followers does this "journalist/writer" have?
Does s/he work for a firm that actually PAYS their writers or do they writer for free (ask Huffington Post "journalists").
Are their "award winning books" REALLY award winning?  Look up their sales rank and the number of reviews they have.  You'll be SHOCKED how many "best selling authors" have sold jack shit in terms of books.
And look at their resumes/linked in profiles.  Is it all work work work and at welfare-make-work-non-profit-government jobs no less?  Do they have any fun?  Any life?

And then finally...

Ask yourself the question, would you trade lives with them?

Chances are you wouldn't.

The industry of making insulting, enraging, angering, agitating articles simply to be controversial, get a rise, and thus get click-traffic is arguably the worst social scourge we have in society today.  It's no better than fake news, and sadly all of media is guilty of it.  It angers you, raises your blood pressure, makes you depressed, and on both sides of all political aisles.

But before you even let your heart rate jump up 1 beat per minute more than it has to, I ask of you to at least look at who wrote the article.  Chances are you'll see they have no authority, veracity, integrity, or anchoring in the real world, and are just writing a screed to either get a political point across or bring in the sheeple's eyes so they can sell their traffic to advertisers.  And in addition to that, they're usually people you'd have no respect for and thus, wouldn't give a shit what they wrote.

So again, look behind the post and "Enjoy the Show."

Thursday, September 05, 2019

The Clarey Podcast #307 - The "Positive" Episode

Cappy and DT try to find happiness and something positive in the news and are marginally successful:

Fantasy football
The Beastie Boys
Eels are the Lochness Monster?
BBQing by a Vegas in Oz
Not tolerating office politics of anykind


in THIS EPISODE of The Clarey Podcast!
Direct MP3 here.
YouTube here.

Sponsored by:

Could AOC be "Laci Greened?"

Possible, but not likely.

Wednesday, September 04, 2019

A Linear 10

 A fair amount of effort and resources has gone into measuring a woman's beauty using the traditional "1-10" scale.

"She's a 9."
"She's a 6, but can upgrade to a 7 if she gussies herself up."
"I won't date below a 7.5."
"She's about an 8.2."

But the problem with this scale is two fold.

One, it's exponential/hyperbolic.  Meaning, that it's not a straight line measurement proportional to the population, and is instead much like a statistical bell distribution curve.  You can see this in what men consider a "10."

What men consider a 10 is not the "Top 10% of women."  It's usually the top 1%, or even one half of the top 1% as "the perfect 10" has taken on a different and non-numerical meaning in the eyes and lexicon of the American language.  A "10" is "perfect."  "Flawless."  Almost "unimaginable."  But when you see one you know it, because she is so rare she can only be described as "the perfect 10."  Chances are you have only seen maybe 20 "10's" in your life time, but you've likely seen hundreds of thousands of women close enough to assess their beauty.

Two, the human eye and mind does not pay attention to anything it doesn't want to.  And that includes ugly people.

I often recommend to my readers and listeners to walk into a Wal-Mart, a gas station or a grocery store and force themselves to look at EVERYBODY.  Not just what the eye is attracted to, but EVERYBODY.  And what usually happens is incredibly depressing.  You realize that the largest group of people in the US is ugly people.  40% of both men and women are obese, and that says nothing for the utterly average and common looking folk who only manage to make up the background to what your eyes are otherwise focusing on - the pretty people.

What this means is that when it comes to judging beauty, you're not even considering about half of the population to begin with.  And when your mind goes back to what it remembers in order to gauge what is a 6 or a 3 or a 9, it's highly skewed towards the pretty people, meaning relative to the total population you're likely understanding their true score.

To account and adjust for this, I put together a 1-10 linear scale of women (though I'd be curious if somebody put together one for men).

1's - This is usually for people who have some kind of physical ailment that is not any fault of their own.  That or they are so morbidly obese/tatted up/purposely-marred they obviously have given up, or perhaps never had any interest in finding somebody to date of the opposite sex.  This is not to pick on this group or belittle them, but to merely point out that when you add up people who have a genuine physical ailment or simply don't wish to date, you will come up with roughly 10% of the population.

2's - Absent a physical impairment or no interest in courting, you have people who may have "normal" genetics, but either through obesity, bad hygiene, or simply not caring, they are not physically attractive people.  Andrea Dworkin comes to mind as somebody who does not have a physical impairment, but also had no interest or incentive to pursue physical beauty.

3 to 4's - I combine these two as there is no clear, linear difference between a 3 and a 4 on a spectrum, but these are girls that somewhere have a tacit interest in finding a man, but not enough to seriously put forth effort into becoming physically attractive.  They'll do their nails, hair, make-up, but only insofar as no real work is needed such as dieting or hitting the gym.  Usually their fear of the toil and work it takes to become physically attractive is stronger than their desire to attract a man and it becomes apparent which force wins in the end.

5 - This is what the AVERAGE woman looks like.  This is by statistical reality the largest plurality of the population.  She is neither inspiring, nor "shocking" in that it will turn your head either because she's so pretty or so ugly.  She is truly background and you will not notice her unless (once again) you are forcing yourself to take note of everybody at the grocery store.  These women will likely have an interest in men and perhaps when they were younger would go to some lengths to invest in their physical beauty.  But usually with work, school, kids, family, etc., there isn't enough time to eat healthy or exercise and they just revert to the "average looking mom" nobody really pays attention to.

6 to 7's - These women will not turn your heads, and most will be somewhat overweight, but they are now at least starting to look feminine.  There are no "shockers" and typically this is what you would have thought would pass as a 4 or a 5, but again, this is linear world.  Not geometric world.  These women ARE ABOVE AVERAGE simply in the fact they're not obese, are identifiably feminine, and put some modicum of effort into their beauty and looks.

8's to 9's - These are feminine women who are putting significant effort into their physique, both in terms of diet, exercise and fashion.  They will typically have longer hair, will don feminine attire and they will do their make up, often times increasing themselves from a 7.5 to an 8.5  (which is entirely possible)

But most of us would have considered these women merely "cute 6's" in the old 1-10 scale, when linearly, they are approaching the top echelons of female beauty.  Women who are 8-9's today are simply in shape, look like women, and present themselves so, but there is a horrific epidemic of "Permanent Resting Bitch Face" today that prevents many from being in the top 10%.  You would likely ask these girls out, but you would not be jumping out of your seat to do so.

10's - Normally reserved for that top 1% of the top 1%, the truth is a girl you would have considered "pretty" or "beautiful" in the past is by statistics a "perfect 10" today.  No tattoos.  No weird hair color.  Not fat.  In shape.  Wearing a dress.  Looking feminine.  And for god's sake, she's smiling.  That short-and-otherwise-expected list, my fine red-blooded America male friend, is what constitutes a 10 today.  Yes, within the 10%, there is that elusive "perfect 10," but not all of these women are model quality - just simply pretty girls.

The reason I wanted to go through this exercise was to highlight something that I think unconsciously affects men.  And that is your physical expectations of women is too high.  Normally, I'm not on the side of feminists or pro-women's groups and would not parrot this common critique women have of men.  But mine comes from that of mere statistical, mathematical reality, not pie-in-the-sky hope of what we'd like things to be. If you look at the total population - not just what your eyes focus on - there are simply not enough pretty girls to go around.  Most men would not date anything below a linear 8 (which I can't necessarily disagree with because you have to be physically attractive to your mate), but I am merely point out that today, in the current year, most women are not going to meet your beauty requirements as they would say in the 1950's, positing an interesting question to all men -

If you insist on getting married are there enough pretty girls to go around?  And if there isn't, are you willing to forgo marriage since, well, I don't see that you have much of a choice.

As always, Enjoy the Decline.

Get some additional wisdom by purchasing my book below!

Tuesday, September 03, 2019

The Clarey Test #57 - The "Big Inheritance Store" Episode

"Getting you to the next level."
Life Coaches, thought leaders, story tellers, and journalists.
Chad's new way to get laid.
Sportsball rage.
A Parasite in Toronto


in THIS EPISODE of The Older Brother Podcast!
Direct MP3 here.
YouTube here.

Sponsored by...


Pay Attention Boys

You'll learn.