What's new

The West: the most sexually dysfunctional society on the planet

Me? I don't have any power. If you're asking me what I would like to see done it would be to make divorce harder (a divorce is in many ways easier to get out of than a car leasing agreement) and to reduce the amount of government welfare available to single women with children which makes many see fathers as unnecessary.
The problem is when you voice these opinions you are accused of hating single mothers instead of simply wanting what's best for children. I know many women end up on their own with children because the father is abusive or irresponsible but many are just too quick to end their relationships.
As a whole argument...Very good, sir.

But when it comes to the details, especially about divorces as I had one, we must tread carefully. When I was married, I learned a very valuable thing about human relationship, and it came from a pastor: 'It is better to be alone than to wish you were.' Four months later, I was divorced, and it was by mutual consent. It was also quick. I did not say painless because that would be a lie. It was quick because it was consensual and we had no burdens such as children or complicated finances. The US state of Florida have 'no fault' divorce laws and we were glad for that.

'It is better to be alone than to wish you were.'

It was emotionally bad enough for me to come 'home', and I use that word generously, every day knowing that there would be two options available for both of us: icy reception or heated arguments. The bedroom was hers, and the living room was mine. Using war metaphors, crossing either room was like venturing into enemy territory. Conversations that are not directly related to the relationship were curt and direct, borderline painful. Any question or conversation, from getting basic groceries to asking if it was time to change the car's oil, were conducted under utmost caution. It was not difficult to look at each other during those times, but it was desirable to look away as soon as possible.

So yes: 'It is better to be alone than to wish you were.'

I can only imagine how much more difficult for any woman in an abusive marriage. The reason why there was such a marriage in the first place can be for another debate, but for now, I want her to leave that marriage soonest. I may have fallen out of love and not like the woman I married, but never would I hurt her. Many men are not that way. To these men, psychologically and even physically hurting their wives are the norm. I may not know these women, but I have sympathies for them and do want them to leave those abuse relationships as soon as possible.

What about the children ? It is easy to say that children needs a mother and father. But I have also learned another valuable thing about families and parenting, also from a clergyman, that: 'The greatest thing you can do for your children is to love their mother.' Heaping psychological and even physical abuse on the mother is not 'love' and children who are unfortunate enough to see and live thru that hell -- we can only have pity for them. They will grow up more scarred than what life already have readied for them, and for those whose wounds do not heal, they will become the next generation of women who enters abusive relationships with men who readily creates them.

If we want to empower the state to make it difficult to destroy a marriage, then we should also make it difficult for the state to create one. But the opposite is what we currently have: That the state, by societal demand, is quick to create marriages but slow to destroy them, even when it is painfully obvious that such a quick destruction is necessary.

Lessons learned:
1- 'It is better to be alone than to wish you were.'
2- 'The greatest thing you can do for your children is to love their mother.'
 
Islamists and communists? What an odd comibination.

Every major religion at its core is a big government, big brother.


Communist style of government provides religious priests to become the ultimate power holders. One party system and Politburo

Khalifa concept of government today is same as Stalin's setup in commie Russia.

Oh yeah. One way has God on earth,, the other in the heavens.
 
The West: the most sexually dysfunctional society on the planet

The blame probably should (yet again) go first to the Papacy with its unhealthy repression of everything sexual, which itself originates in a most unfortunate misunderstanding of the Christian dogma of the primordial sin by Saint Augustine of Hippo who, at least, never insisted that this interpretation was the correct one (traditional Christianity does not believe that per se sex is bad, but only that it has to be appropriately channeled and sublimated). Alas, his misguided views on this topic were further picked up in a long series of sex-centered teachings, practices and dogmas (celibacy for priests, condemnation of "the flesh", "Immaculate Conceptions", etc.) and as a result, these sexuality-repressing teachings triggered a formidable backlash which began in the Renaissance and is still felt today.
The next group to make things worse were the Freemasons, the various revolutionary movements in Europe and, of course, the openly secular/atheistic ideologues such as Marx, Nietzsche, Freud and many others. I won't go into the pathetic history of feminism, hippie flower-power, abortion "rights" and all the rest of the nonsense we were fed, nor will I discuss the role of pornography or the so called 'gay' rights. My thesis is this: in terms of sexuality the West is now terminally cluster-f**cked. I won't even bother proving that thesis. Look for yourself at the divorce rates, teen pregnancy rates, homosexuality, pedophilia, rapes, marital violence, gross sexism and macho violence or, better, try to find something healthy in anything sex-related in the West. It ain't there. So I will say it again: in terms of sexuality the West is now terminally cluster-f**cked.
The latest example of that complete absence of any kind of healthy understanding of sex is the "Putin hits in Xi's wife" non-event scandal. Here is the video of the 'act', see for yourself:

You can plainly see for yourself what happened: it was cold, Putin thought that Xi's wife might be uncomfortable in the chilly weather and he offered her his shawl. Notice also her reaction: she accepted it very gracefully, put in on just long enough to thank him (you can see her smile and bow), then took it off and was handed another coat.

This is how the western media saw that: (excerpts from here)
“'Putin' On the Moves: Vlad Cozies Up to China's First Lady,” screamed NBC.
Putin Hits on China's First Lady,” asserted US magazine Foreign Policy. “Russia’s Don Juan-in-chief just got a little too friendly with Xi Jinping's wife.
The first unspoken rule of diplomacy might be "Don't hit on the president's wife," but Russia's newly single president Vladimir Putin seems to have missed the memo,” it continued. Very interestingly, RT also offered this photo as a reminder of the fact that it was not the first time Putin did something like that:


Was Putin also 'hitting' on Merkel?
RT added: This is not the first time Vladimir Putin’s manners have landed him in a mini-storm. A similar gesture last year, when Putin offered a shawl to German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the G-20 summit in St. Petersburg, provoked many of the same kind of comments.

In the typical westerner's mind, this goes something like that: we know that Russian men spend their lives drinking and beating up their woman, that they are sexist macho pigs, all potential rapists (look at how they behaved in at the end of WWII in Germany!), so if one of them shows what could be misconstrued as courtesy or attentive care, he must be 'hitting' on the woman, already ready to jump, beat and rape her". This is the kind of notion that the western corporate media has been trying to implant in the minds of the poor folks who watch the Idiot-box.
Before I tell you how I, as a Russian, interpret what has happened, let me share with you what a Chinese friend of mine has written about this in a private email to me:
You have probably seen the (non) news about Putin handing Xi's wife a shawl. Western media has made a big deal out of it and I thought some Russian viewers might misunderstand.

Peng (Mrs. Xi) was not trying to intentionally spur Putin's kind gesture, but Chinese culture is very sensitive to simple things including these types of social gestures because in Chinese culture such behavior denotes respect, place in society, and awareness of manners. To take another man's coat is simply disrespectful to your husband in Chinese culture. Peng was caught in the unfortunate position of having to accept Putin's hospitality yet avoid offending her husband's "face" publicly. This is very important in Chinese society, perhaps not to myself in particular, but to most of us especially the traditional minded (whom we mostly are... believe me). Of course, as a foreigner Putin is not expected to be aware of these nuances and his "rudeness" can be forgiven and accepted as kindness. Actually Chinese manners dictate that when a foreigner exhibits lack of knowledge of your customs, you are supposed to accommodate them, but Peng's reaction is understandable given her position. This wasn't made better by Western MSM claims of Putin "flirting" with Peng -- which is completely ridiculous of course.

I believe the best PR fix would be Putin issuing a statement saying something along the lines of, "I was trying to be polite, but the Chinese as we continue to see are very subtle, which I admire them for, and in their culture it is frowned upon for a woman to accept another's coat. She was simply being respectful towards her husband. This is nothing but growing pains in the fast developing Sino-Russian alliance. Xi and I have a superb relationship and it will continue to bring us success in the future." Putin has enough of a media personality and credibility to pull this off. It is unlikely that the Chinese will utter anything publicly until Russia does, because they would not want to seem patronizing to Putin or Russians by explaining often-accepted-as-simple-manners.
I will just add that I think that Peng handled the situation *superbly*. She showed her guest, Putin, no discomfort or offense at all, she gave him a warm smile, bowed and thanked him, kept the shawl on for just a second, then slightly turned (thereby signifying the end of her gratitude expressing) and immediately took the shawl off while her (smart) aides handed her another coat so as to make the removal of the now non-needed shawl natural. If I give Putin's aides a B for not warning him about that, I give the Chinese an A+ about how elegantly they handled the situation.
Now let's turn to the Russki side of the issue.
First, I will readily admit that there are some Russian man who would make a Cro-Magnon look educated, sophisticated, refined and otherwise civilized (all countries probably have those) In contrast, Putin is a highly educated man. Not only that, but he is a former spy. That does not mean that he is a pro at firing guns, copying documents or evading pursuing cars. As he himself explained it in his book, a spy is first and foremost a man who knows how to make himself liked by others. Being charming, reassuring, friendly and soothing is one of the core qualities of a spy. Putin is also an officer and he very much shares into the Russian officer ethos, especially officers from elite institutions or units. In other words, besides personal reasons, Putin has professional reasons to have impeccable manners. Having watch many, many hours of his town hall style meetings with all sorts of people and having him watched interact with all sorts of different cultural and social groups I can say that Putin's manners are absolutely superb, every bit as refined and polished as Lavrov's. And here is the key to what happened:
In Russian culture it is not only normal to take care, be courteous, be protective, attentive and otherwise gallant to woman, it is expected. Russia is still what I call a "sexually differentiated society" in which women and man are not "equals" but which sees them as very different and which strongly believes that real men take care of women. Russian society is also multi-cultural. Just as educated Russians will not offer alcohol to a Muslim guest, they will also know that, for example, you do not physically touch a Muslim woman unless she, for example, is the first one to move her hand forward for a handshake (because this Islamic no-touching rule is not uniformly followed by all Muslim woman). Had Putin known about the fact that handing over a shawl to a Chinese lady is inappropriate he would most definitely not done so and it is absolutely clear by her reaction that lady Peng completely understood this. Neither of them every even considered such a ludicrous and vulgar notion that Putin might be "hitting" on her, a married lady and his host.
But the corporate media of a "Michel Jackson society" (neither child nor adult, neither Black nor White, neither male not female) had to, of course, bring it all down to some vulgar crass move by the Russian "mujik" on the Asian "chick". This says nothing about Russia or China, and everything about the modern corporate media and the sexually pathological ideology it tries to force down the throats of those who are exposing themselves to it.
Honestly, when I look around myself in western Europe or the USA I feel sorry for most of the people I see. How many happy, stable and truly loving marriages do you see nowadays? However, to measure the fantastic degree of sexual frustration of western men, it is enough to look at the huge income of the **** industry and realize that somebody is consuming that **** and that, by definition, those who are reduced to a sex-by-**** sexuality are completely dysfunctional, frustrated and sadly lonely people. The so-called "sexual freedom" resulted in a terminal case of sexual misery and dissatisfaction. While I often get in trouble for saying that homosexuality is a sexual psycho-pathology, I have to say that hetero sex in the West is rarely and only marginally healthier.
This is really sad as the consequences are devastating. "Sexually differentiated" (where each gender is different and has his/her role) couples are becoming increasingly rare (I won't even go into the "gay marriage" folly!), most families are "multiply recomposed", children lack real fathers or mothers, normal and healthy masculine or feminine behavior is frowned upon and even basic courtesy towards a lady is apparently inevitably interpreted as an attempt to obtain sex from her (which is what "hitting" is).
I wonder how long it will take for people in the West to realize this and to revolt against it. It is already happening. I know a few "real" couples (two identifiable genders, male in the father role, female in the mother role, no divorce, no marital infidelity and no domestic violence but true deep love, children who are raised close to their parents and not given up to state schools, etc.) and they are always more or less "off the social grid": they do their own thing away from the rest of society whose values they have rejected, whose ideology they don't believe in, and whose brainwashing appliances (TV, radio, papers) they don't let into their homes. They are also sexually happy, with no need for ****, meds or props. In fact, they know that sex gets *better* with time. But they are still a tiny minority. The vast majority of people out there still follow the prevailing societal model to misery, loneliness and sexual frustration.
I offer the above as my own admittedly subjective point of view about the context for the "Putin hitting on Peng" "non-event scandal" in the hope that somebody might find it interesting. In this case, I wanted draw your attention that the (mis-)interpretation of what happened in China by the corporate media is only a part of a much wider problem and that looking at the general context of male-female relations in the West might allow for a better understanding of what is going on.

The Saker

Look who is talking? If you google you will pak amongst the top consumers of **** online! And what about the lure of 72 virgins. Stop being so damn sanctimonious.
 
Child marriage is considered a major social issue in most Middle Eastern countries - very few actually allow it. Most are just silent about it.
Nothing wrong with marrying cousins, many states in the US allow it too. Not to mention Germans recently talking about legalizing incest.

More than one wife is not 'encouraged', it is just permitted (just like Gay marriage in most of the west - allowed but not encouraged).

And now here comes the worst part of this post: ''They just try and hide their stuffs unlike us.''
No 'middle eastern' country hides the fact that multiple wives and/or cousin marriage is allowed. They are conservative about it, but no country 'tries to hide their stuffs'.

As for the OP, well, there surely are some problems with them but on what basis does one label a society 'the most sexually dysfunctional'? I mean, is there like a sexual dysfunction index or what :lol:? I do agree with the point that Westerners do make a huge deal out of it and are way too open about it, dragging it everywhere (''ooh look someone smiled, definitely wants sex'') but that does not make them 'dysfunctional'.

Also, there definitely are many socially conservative westerners. This blanket generalization, like all blanket generalizations, is incorrect. (funny, I just made a generalization calling generalizations incorrect :cheesy:)

Please don't compare the Islamic societies to the west in terms of hypocrisy. The whole foundation of Islamic countries leads to hypocrisy. Remind me to elaborate on it sometimes.
 
Look who is talking? If you google you will pak amongst the top consumers of **** online! And what about the lure of 72 virgins. Stop being so damn sanctimonious.

False claim. Pakistan is not the 'top consumers of ****'. It is just one of the top countries with ****-related GOOGLE SEARCHES.In countries like the US and India, people just go and open **** websites because that is a very normal thing there.
On the other hand, In Pakistan, it is considered a very socially inappropriate topic which is why rebellious teenagers try to GOOGLE it. Because they don't know of any actual websites and are just curious to see what its about. That's how teenagers are, everywhere in the world.
Also, it is important to see how Google calculates this.
The default SVI shown on Google Trends is the Relative one and is based on relation between Actual Searches and Average Searches over Period.

SVI = Actual Number of Searches / Average Number of Searches over Period
This mean that it measure Increase or Decrease Relatively to the Average over Period. If you change the Time's Period you will see a consequent change in SVI.

It could be that once, due to some reason, Pakistan had an abnormally large amount of searches like this (i.e instead of the average 100, it increased to 200 or so), and that affected the google trends and suddenly we have Fox News making a big deal about it.
I've got facts, so you people can keep your sensationalist garbage with yourselves.

False Claim number 2: 72 virgins. There is absolutely no mention of '72 virgins' anywhere in Islamic ideology or Pakistani culture. NONE. It's a complete lie fabricated by westerners.
The 72 Virgins Are A Lie (And Other Things You Probably Didn't Know About Islam)
Debunking the ‘Suicide for 72 Virgins’ Myth | The Ugly Truth

Please don't compare the Islamic societies to the west in terms of hypocrisy. The whole foundation of Islamic countries leads to hypocrisy. Remind me to elaborate on it sometimes.
Please do back your claim with facts. Please do tell me how many Muslim countries have invaded a country based on false accusations of WMDs, destroyed its army, 'rebuilt' it, then left and funded neighboring terrorists to destroy the neighboring country and is now bombing the same country again (Yes, that's America's adventure in Iraq).
Seriously, any facts would be great. Or do you expect us to just take your word for it?

And stop being so damn sanctimonious.
 
Enlightening article.I hope this will stop people flocking from all over the world to West now.:D

Or it may attract more deviants of the world to the west. For them it is milk and honey. What a shock it will be...:omghaha:
 
Enlightening article.I hope this will stop people flocking from all over the world to West now.:D
I hope so as well. I hope the article's impact is so powerful that immigration to the West will halt immediately. We need to save the rest of the world from the West's sexual immoralities.
 
, try to find something healthy in anything sex-related in the West. It ain't there. So I will say it again: in terms of sexuality the West is now terminally cluster-f**cked.
The latest example of that complete absence of any kind of healthy understanding of sex is the "Putin hits in Xi's wife" non-eve

It anit there just where the heck in Sweden are you a monastery
sweden-girls.jpg
 
Yes, we in the West are sexual degenerates. Please stay away from us, especially the US. In the US, people have sex, even deviant sex, openly in the streets. Trust me, I live here so I know. It is disgusting. You do not want your children to grow up in the US where they would -- not could -- be sexually exploited.

Please...Please...As I am your fellow human beings, I beg ALL you foreigners to stay away from US.

I agree with you ... but you think same goes to US ? they should stay away from other countries ? people must be banned from going to other countries .. no issues than :sarcastic:
 
Its just that we are more open. while countries in the middle east are closed/hide their stuffs alot. You will be surprised to know that things we might still consider 'immoral' like child marriages is legal by law in some/most middle eastern countries.:agree: marrying cousins, more than one wife is encouraged etc. They just try and hide their stuffs unlike us.
You can marry once you are 14 in some states of US, although marrying cousins is more common in the middle east than the west its now considered taboo and is limited to isolated rural villages nor is it encouraged, also marrying more than one wife is not encouraged - the Quran is the only book out of the other Abrahamic books to tell people that you should marry only one person - polygamy is very very very very rare, even though it is allowed. The Prophet had to do it in order to support the widows of his companions who were martyred in battle.
 
You can marry once you are 14 in some states of US, although marrying cousins is more common in the middle east than the west its now considered taboo and is limited to isolated rural villages nor is it encouraged, also marrying more than one wife is not encouraged - the Quran is the only book out of the other Abrahamic books to tell people that you should marry only one person - polygamy is very very very very rare, even though it is allowed. The Prophet had to do it in order to support the widows of his companions who were martyred in battle.

I think only Texas is 14 for girls (with parental permission). Males can get married at 14 (with parent's permission) in three states (Texas, Massachusetts and New Hampshire)

Age of marriage in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: looks like New Hampshire is 13 for girls (with permission). Somehow Massachusetts says 12 with permission..but that must be incorrect since I live here and there would be an uproar. Hmm..it says a court judge must also approve (and only allowed if a pregnancy case...by another minor no doubt)
 
Last edited:
I guess as long as you put women into ninja costumes, stone them to death, commit "honor" killings, dont let them do whatever they want to do, hunt people down for what they do in their bedrooms etc etc and whatever its fine for people like the OP. And meanwhile the same "moral" countries tear each other apart in religious violence and the people from those nations risk everything to get to those "immoral" countries.

Stupidity at its finest :tup:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom