Just lose the fucking weight

I came across a video called Unpacking 3 myths about fat people, earlier and I suffered through the whole eight minutes of it. It’s an interview of a fat activist and an author, Aubrey Gordon. Her latest book is called You just need to lose weight and 19 other myths about fat people, which was published in 2022. It has over three hundred reviews on Amazon and seems like it has been well received. Her Twitter is also filled with praise from her fans and there are well over 100k of them.

The reason I am about to demolish her worldview is that I am a former fat fuck. I was a fat kid, fat teenager and a fat young man. Until one day I got so fat that I didn’t like who I had become. I did what many fat guys do when they realise they haven’t seen their dicks for a while – I took on running. Mind you, I went to the gym in my early twenties but at some point I stopped and then I started gaining weight. I remember eating a lot of pizza and I had no clue about proper nutrition. I couldn’t cook and I never thought I needed to. One of the worst things about gaining all that weight was that I didn’t see it until it was out of control. I had stretch marks like a heavily pregnant woman which permanently scarred my skin. It just happened, one slice of pizza at a time. It didn’t help that I was into my skinny jeans at the time which, in retrospect, made me look like a half empty toothpaste.

Over time, I got good at running. The problem with running and most forms of cardio is that your body gets good at it and gets used to it. This means that more running doesn’t mean more or faster fat loss. The more you run the bigger your appetite as well which means you consume more calories than you burn. At some point I stopped running and got fat again. Ms Gordon would take it as evidence that losing weight permanently is a myth and is not worth the trouble. David Goggings would disagree, motherfucker!

In my mid-twenties, after taking a long and hard look at my love handles and man-boobs, I took on running again. It soon became my passion, and I became really good at it. For a former fat kid that never got picked in the PE class – that is. Running excited me. I enjoyed discovering the depths of the local park and chasing the length of the canal finding out how far I could go each time. Every time I laced my running shoes, I was competing with myself. Eventually I signed up to do 10ks, half marathons and marathons. My body changed, but even when I could easily run 10 miles without stopping for rest, I still carried more body fat than I wished. This is why you often see chubsters using cardio machines in the gym and never changing their physiques. They get really good at using the cross-trainer, but number on the scale stops going down after a while.

In my mid-twenties, I became serious about gym. Bro science worked for me for a while, but eventually I discovered new ways of training and challenging my body and mind. I found role models and created goals for myself. Chasing them kept me focused and made me get up early in the morning to run, only to go back in the evening and lift weights. I wasn’t some hardcore motherfucker, but everyone in the gym admired my determination and praised my results. At my fattest, I was 120kg. Because of my drive and focus, I dropped 40kg and it took blood, sweat, tears and most of all – time. It wasn’t easy, but if it was easy, everyone would do it and stupid books defending obesity wouldn’t see the light of day.

The reason I’m sharing this short life story of being fat is because according to Aubrey Gordon, being fat either currently or in the past is what qualifies someone to talk about weight loss. She is, of course, obese herself. To add to my qualification, I also worked as a Personal Trainer for a while helping people get in shape.

She has no doubt attempted to lose weight a couple of times in her life and failed. Now she feels she is certified to talk about the short comings of the weight loss industry. All because she failed to accomplish a weight loss goal. Now she publishes books to discourage other women from accomplishing theirs. The reason I say women is, as you’ll see, she has something against white men as many of the left leaning activists do. On top of that, fat acceptance movement has never included men.

I had a quick look at all the myths in her book, but here I will only focus on those she chose to discus in her interview. I also searched her name on Spotify and listened to a podcast she was a guest of. The hosts were two fat women who seek acceptance from the world. One of them works in healthcare and the other is a therapist and I have no idea how they manage to help people without first helping themselves. They were so excited to talk to another fat activist and fantasize about made up concepts such as “thin privilege”, “diet culture” and other real myths. They claim they are happy with their bodies, but you could tell they weren’t. Nobody is happy because they are fat. They are only happy despite of being fat.

The first myth they tackle in the video is that obesity is the leading cause of death in America. This is just another way of saying that being fat doesn’t lead to developing health issues – which is what many fat activists say, while adding that many fat people they know are extremely healthy or don’t have any health issues. Look Aubrey, I know you have a lot on your plate, and you will never read this, but I will address you directly anyway – being obese is like going a hundred miles per hour on the wrong side of the road (only at a snail pace). You haven’t bumped into any issues yet, but the longer you stay on this path the more likely you are to crush. I’ve noticed that people aren’t very good with anecdotes and metaphors, so I’ll make it clear – just because you haven’t developed high blood pressure or diabetes so far, doesn’t mean you won’t in the (near) future.

A quick Google search provided me with leading causes of death in the US. Most of them are caused by lifestyle choices which are bad diet, physical inactivity and obesity. You can’t outrun them when you’re fat. They will catch up with you sooner or later.

Fat people run into many other issues while presumably being healthy. My wife has many fat friends and they have all attempted to lose weight because none of them are happy with their bodies. That’s the mental health aspect of it. I can think of one friend in particular who is not huge, but she has gained some weight in the last couple of years. She can’t have a twenty-minute walk from her house to the town centre without getting extremely out of breath. This is not a sign of good health and most fit people don’t struggle with this type of activity.

Here is a direct quote from the video and Gordon’s interpretation of the statistics.

“We’ve been assuming that if fat people lose weight, those fat people will then go on to live longer lives, and we don’t actually know that.  So when a fat person dies, it’s much more likely that our death certificate will say died of obesity. In the same way that when someone over 80 dies, it’s much more likely that their death certificate will say that they died of natural causes.”

She had spent countless hours researching for her book only so she could respond to every statistic with feelings. Dear Aubrey, this “assumption” you speak of is based on reality. The reality that thin people DO live longer. You don’t really see many obese eighty-year-olds, do you? When you’re obese, you die early. Interestingly enough, many bodybuilders also die early if they’re extremely big. We can assume then that the older we get, the harder it is for our body to cope with excess weight – whether it’s muscle or fat. Saying that too much body fat isn’t detrimental to our health is dishonest mumbo jumbo of a fat chick who failed at life and lacks self-discipline. Yes, if a fat person dies of heart disease at fifty, it is due to being fat because heart disease is the result of lifestyle choices that lead to being fat in the first place. If an eighty-year-old dies of heart disease, it is considered natural causes because the older we get, the harder it is for our bodies to keep up – especially if we lead a sedentary lifestyle and our diet is not optimal. There is nothing sinister about it, Ms Gordon. At eighty, your body starts breaking down and a heart attack is a natural cause while if a thirty-three-year-old bodybuilder on steroids dies of heart attack it is due to steroid use. If you have a heart attack at a young age, perhaps it is all the cheeseburgers.

To use another anecdote – if a slim eighty-five year old and an obese thirty three year old men are chased by a polar bear and it catches up to them both and eats them both, they both died because they couldn’t run for their lives. I know – no human could ever outrun a bear, so for the sake of the argument, let’s pretend they could. In the case of the old man, we would say he couldn’t run because he was too old. The fat man couldn’t outrun the bear because he was fat.

The myth of BMI

This one is way too easy. I can’t believe she came up with nearly twenty myths and presumably picked her best to promote her book.

The idea that BMI is an objective measure of health. It is worth noting that the BMI was never designed for use for individual healthcare. It was used as a statistical tool by a statistician and actually someone who was best known for being an astronomer. He developed the BMI entirely on the basis of data that he gathered from French and Scottish men in the 1800s. So it was developed entirely by and for white men to establish the idea of an average man.

She is said to be one of the greatest thinkers of her generation, according to one review of her book and yet she doesn’t realise how much of her “thinking” is influenced by ideology she has subscribed to. She clearly has a problem with white men. Her Twitter bio has her pronouns, so this should tell us a lot about her.

First of all, you don’t need to look at your BMI chart to know if you’re fat. If you’re fat, you know it. You know it, your friends know it and your dress size knows it. BMI will usually confirm it. I agree with her to an extent – BMI is mostly useless because, like I said, if you’re fat you don’t need a chart to tell you that you’re fat. The BMI is also useless if you’re a bodybuilder. The chart will have you think that a bodybuilder is obese because he is much heavier than he should be for his height.

The problem with her thinking is that she claims that it continues being used to determine if someone is fat or not. If you’re fat, your doctor might use BMI chart to tell you where you are and what you should aim for if you want to avoid developing problems. I have worked as a Personal Trainer, and we don’t rely on BMI to guide clients and help them achieve their goals. It seems like BMI is largely used by medical professionals who, by the way, have very basic knowledge of nutrition and fitness. Fitness professionals and nutritionists understand the value of various techniques to achieve fat loss or changing body composition and Gordon must have come across this information when researching her book and she completely ignored it because it wasn’t convenient for her life mission. Overall, BMI can be a useful tool for a fitness or medical professional to help guide their clients or patients towards a healthy weight range. Having a number to aim for can help some people in their weight loss journey. BMI is better than nothing if you’re not a fitness professional and want to help your patient who is eating themselves to an early grave.

She also tries to sneak racism into the conversation by making the claim that BMI is just some white guy’s invention for white men. She fails to mention that 1800s were a completely different time and Europe was mostly white. Even if the creator of BMI wanted to include other ethnicities, he would have had a hard time doing it. It wasn’t impossible, but like I said, it was a different time and looking at that period with the filter of today’s moral standards serves nobody.

Before I move on to the last myth, I have to say that it puzzles me how she thinks she is qualified to talk about weight loss. She is just a fat woman who decided to be a fat activist because she wasn’t happy with “the beauty standards” and how fat women are viewed in society. She has zero nutritional or fitness background. She hasn’t spent years or decades helping people reach their fitness goals through nutrition and exercise. No, she just sat down in Starbucks, connected to Wi-Fi and googled things while munching on her cinnamon bun. She avoided data and research which doubted or outright debunked her theories and proceeded to writing her book. There is simply no way of diving deep into the health and fitness world and not coming across books, podcasts, articles or scientific papers and studies proving her wrong. She must have tried very hard to focus on finding things that proved what she already thought to be true. After all, she is an activist, and one thing activists have in common is that they aren’t doing research to find out if they are right. They do it to cherry pick evidence to support their claims so they can shout their opinions from the social media rooftops.

Why would anyone want to listen to a fat person about whether or not losing weight is possible or not? It’s like hiring a driving instructor who has never driven a car, but just watched all Fast and Furious movies. The audiobook version of her book is over seven hours long. Why would you want to waste that time listening to an obese person about fat loss, diet and exercise? Only to confirm your biases, of course. This time would be better spent listening to people with years of experience in the field. Boots on the ground and theory to support their claims. Not some fat chick who is angry that the plane seats don’t fit her oversized bottom. It’s like asking your alcoholic friend to give you advice how to stop drinking only for him to tell you that drinking is good for you, and you shouldn’t stop and that everyone who quits rebounds sooner rather than later.

The third and final myth covered in this short video is the myth of calories in, calories out. Again, why would you want to listen to what a fat girl has to say about nutrition? It makes no sense. She has absolutely no problem saying that only people who’ve been fat should be allowed to talk about fat loss. But here she is debunking nutrition facts as if she is qualified to do so. Consuming more calories than an average person doesn’t make you gain knowledge about them.

The problem with the fitness industry is that there is a lot of conflicting and contradicting information out there. Most fitness professionals agree that if you consume less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. Then there are some who claim this is not entirely true. If someone doesn’t know anything about working out and eating well, building muscle and burning fat, the fitness advice can be a total mine field. It’s not surprising that Aubrey managed to find evidence for her theory since the industry is littered with all kinds of claims.

In presenting this myth, she goes on to say that eventually, your body adjusts to the restricted calorie intake and you either gain weight again or you stop losing it. Again, why would you listen to a fat person talking about fat loss? As mentioned above, the inability for regular people to keep the extra pounds off is not evidence for a fault in the calorie counting method. Rather it shows that regular people need to educate themselves on the correct approach to getting fit or hire a coach. The truth is, most people know very little about what works and what doesn’t, what is sustainable and realistic and what isn’t. Most people who want to lose weight either kill themselves in the gym for the first couple of weeks and then give up when they can’t keep up with their self-designed workout regime. Or they eat salads for a week and then go back to their old eating habits because eating leaves is not sustainable and they can’t do it. They often think this is the only way and since they can’t do it, they fail and become a number on the scale for Aburey Gordon to write about in her book to pretend she knows anything about calories and diet.

The truth is that if you’re obese, restricting your calories will be the first thing you do when you want to lose weight. If you’re extremely obese, there isn’t much exercise you’ll be able to handle so you also won’t be burning many calories. Calories in VS calories out helps an obese person a hundred per cent. Things change as they become more fit. As body composition changes, so does the calorie intake required. What worked a year ago might not work anymore. In Gordon’s eyes, this is the evidence that calorie counting is a myth. In reality, calories are composed of fat, carbohydrates and protein. Restricting calories without considering these nutrients may not work long term and that is why people who don’t know what they are doing end up putting the weight back on. Taking average people with no knowledge about nutrition and fitness and using them as evidence that long term fat loss is impossible is doing a disservice to everyone who wants to look and feel better through diet and exercise.

Aubrey Gordon is just a fat activist, and she is not qualified to talk about nutrition. Counting calories can absolutely help an obese person lose a significant amount of fat. Eventually, they need to readjust their strategy and account for the change in their body composition. They may want to hire a professional to help them get past the plateau. Reading books such us this will not get them anywhere and the author should be ashamed of herself for promoting bad and dangerous advice.

In summary, I don’t know how this woman can sleep at night. She is making money out of people’s insecurities without helping them. She’s talking about diet, weight loss, calories and fitness like she knows anything about them. I’ve spent over a decade of my life training, educating myself and eventually training others and I still wouldn’t dream of writing a book on the subject. I’d feel like an impostor. I’ve been both obese and fit and I’ve put the weight back on multiple times because I’ve lacked discipline and motivation and these factors play a massive role in getting fit but she wouldn’t know anything about it. For her, it’s all about fat acceptance and virtue signalling. Meanwhile, we all know that if she could take a magic pill and lose all that fat, she would. The reason she doesn’t and the reason most fat people fail is because this shit is hard. If you’re currently working on your physique, keep it going and don’t listen to people like her. Educated yourself, hire a trainer if you can afford one. In not, there is plenty of free information on You Tube and Spotify. You can also leave a comment or send me a DM and I’ll get back to you.

Veganism is a luxury of the modern day

Over twenty years ago, my teacher explained to us how our ancestors got smarter over time. He painted a picture that has stuck with me all this time. He told a fictional story of one of our ancestors trying to cross a river. When he was trying to find the safest place to cross, he stumbled upon a fallen tree. Breaking and smashing everything in its way, it fell in a manner that connected both sides of the river. Our ancestor used it every time he had to cross. His kids and their kids used it too. Eventually, over a long period of time, using trees, logs and branches, the idea of a “bridge” formed in the minds of our ancestors, and they began building bridges. The idea itself might have taken generations to form in the collective consciousness of our ancestors. The first bridges were primitive and poorly made, of course. Nothing like what we have today, but the invention of the bridge made our ancestors smarter if only to hold that one information, that one memory of successfully crossing the river using a fallen tree. What was knowledge back then, if not just a collection of useful information memorised, and tasks performed repeatedly until a better way was invented? With no language to pass on information, the bridge is just a metaphor for evolved intelligence and ability to solve problems. It doesn’t mean that everyone was born with the knowledge of how to build a bridge, but they were born with the ability to understand the concept of it and an ability to solve problems and challenges of their day. Our ancestors controlled and shaped their environment to their advantage. It’s an interesting process that took thousands of generations.

From a bridge created by nature to manmade structures we have today – it might not have happened the way my teacher imagined, but one thing is certain: at some point, our distant ancestors connected the dots and created bridges where there were no fallen logs. Over time, their creativity, imagination, evolved intelligence and passed on knowledge allowed them to build more sophisticated bridges, perhaps they even figured out how to connect multiple logs together. However it happened, it happened because the idea of a bridge must have originated somewhere at some point in time – and it’s quite fascinating.

To me, it makes perfect sense that over a very long time, perhaps thousands of years since our fictional ancestor first formed a thought and understood the use of a log and utilised it, the log evolved into the bridge. This is, after all, how all technology evolves. Let’s take the smartphone as an example. It too was once a log. Smartphones wouldn’t exist if the first mobile phone hadn’t been invented just a few decades ago. And that one wouldn’t have been invented if, a hundred years earlier, the landline phone hadn’t been invented. How about all the physical materials that make up the smartphone? How about the battery and all the tech I have no idea about? Steve Jobs didn’t create the Iphone on his own. He already had “the log” and he just made it into a bridge.

Many people think that evolution means adapting to the environment only physically. This is true for most species. Their survival depends on their physical fitness and health. Humans, however, have always been weak. If you actually think about us humans, our body in its current state is not very well adapted to the environments we find ourselves in. We’re ust very good at protecting ourselves from different climates and weather conditions. Over the last few thousand years, we’ve done everything to protect ourselves from our environment which, in our naked form, makes us fragile. Perhaps maintaining a strong and resilient body as well as creating a bigger and smarter brain is too costly for evolution. Since our brain has been our only weapon against predators and protection against nature, the evolution of our physical traits came to a halt. Evolution “realised” that for humans, focusing on the brain was the best bet, but it meant sacrificing physicality and fitness. Of course, there are strong and fast humans out there, but they can’t compete with other animals. The way we protect ourselves from a lion is not by outrunning it or wrestling with it, but by outsmarting it even if it means using weapons we have built.  Physically, we became weaker, and our brain took over. It evolved. We became more creative and smarter while other animals adapted to their environment in suitable ways. This wasn’t a quick process. In fact, for millions of years, the brains of our ancestors remained the same. This theory is supported by the tools they were using. These early human ancestors used the same primitive tools for a very, very long time which suggests they didn’t become smarter in that period. But then something unexpected happened – they learned to control fire and it sparked a brand-new flame in the human mind.

It didn’t happen overnight, but eventually these fire controlling mammals, for one reason or another, started cooking. It probably started by accident, or they perhaps had come across a “cooked” antelope or something that had been caught in a fire and they ate it because they were hungry, and they liked it. Just like with the bridge – it happened somehow. We know it did because we must have started cooking at some point. The latest evidence points to 780 000 years ago as the time when our ancestors began to cook meat.

According to scientists, cooking really sped up the evolution of human brain. Before that, we ate raw meat. Well, before we became good hunters, we actually relied on the leftovers from prey caught by lions and other predators. Even though our jaws and physiology were adapted to it, chewing raw meat took forever. Cooking made consuming meat easy and convenient, which allowed humans to pursue other things, be creative and inventive which expanded our minds and opened them to new possibilities. Our tools became more sophisticated, precise and deadly, and we climbed up the food chain using not our claws and muscles, but our brain. With more time on our hands, the world became our library and spending time in it made us smarter over time. Imagine exposing yourself to new ideas, reading books and attending lectures and otherwise injecting your own brain with information and what happens to you – you become smarter, you understand more, your mind opens up and becomes more creative. Now imagine exposing multiple multigenerational brains to the same process and you’ll see how our collective intelligence, creativity and inventiveness evolve.

If you compare it to one of our close relatives, the gorilla, eats around 18 kilograms of leaves a day. It takes him roughly three quarters of a day. That’s a lot of time spent eating. The rest is spent sleeping, mating, grooming and occasionally fighting. There is simply no time to try to invent things and expanding their minds. Once they catch their prey, meat eating animals spend a significant amount of time chewing and devouring their victim, which is often still alive. They also have to defend their prize from other hungry animals. Most hunting attempts, however, end with disappointment for even the most vicious hunters. Lions, crocodiles, cheetahs spend most of their waking time failing at hunting. This makes them hungry almost all the time. They don’t have the convenience of going to the supermarket or ordering burgers on Uber Eats.

If humans spent equally as much time as gorillas eating greens, we would not have become as intelligent as we are today. There would simply be no time to invent, create, imagine and think. Our early ancestors were not on top of the food chain. They were prey. They still relied on bone marrow and leftover meat from animals caught by the big cats. They probably ate fruits, as well, but it wasn’t enough for them, and they risked their lives for that bone marrow and raw meat of an animal that just died hours before.

Growing a smarter brain by having the most optimal and time efficient diet was not the only reason why humans chose meat over plants. I say “chose”, but there was not much choosing in a time when we were driven by survival instincts. We craved meat just like lions craved it. Another reason why humans couldn’t just sit back and eat tons of leaves was that they moved a lot. Imagine if you had to get 2000 calories just from eating leaves. I imagine it would take the better part of your day – just like for gorillas. As we know, humans have conquered the planet, so they travelled a lot. This required them to rely on the most nutrient dense foods possible – meat and fruits. Meat was the food humans thrived on, plants was what they survived on.

Some people argue that it was the other way around – that humans ate meat just to survive as if there was an abundance of meat. But it makes no sense. Humans ate meat because they evolved to eat it, to find it delicious and nutritious. They risked their lives to get their hands on it. Hunting, running and chasing required a lot of energy and cost a lot of calories and many hunts were unsuccessful. It would have made no sense for them to waste all that energy if they could just eat fruits all day. Instead, they were willing to take the risk and “waste” their calories to get a possible reward and feast on a protein and fat rich meal. They were driven by the same instinct as we are when we are hungry and are presented with an apple or salad and food high in calories such as bread, chocolate or a burger (if you’re not a vegan). When we are hungry or even starving, we have to fight extra hard to not consume things we know are not good for us, such as chocolate or fast food – foods we are drawn to when hunger kicks in because foods high in calories (especially from fat) were what our ancestors craved all the time because they were hungry all the time. They passed this preference to us not knowing we would one day have so much food that we would be dying not of starvation, but from overeating.

With better tools, hunting skills and the control of fire they were able to climb the food chain, travel and almost never go hungry in the process. Our ancestors drove many animals to extinction simply by hunting and eating them Some species went extinct because humans left them nothing to eat. This was another reason to stay on the move and explore the continents. Again, none of this would have been possible if they had just been sitting under the tree all day eating leaves. Everywhere they went, they could hunt. There was no guarantee they would find oranges, apples or bananas.

Everything we see around us today – this laptop I’m writing this on, smartphone you’re reading it on, medicine, internet, cars, astronomy and so on are all here because over a long period of time, humans became smarter and smarter. While other animals became stronger and faster, we became more intelligent. We became more intelligent because we had the time. Meat was the most optimal food for our ancestors and they thrived on it. Cooking it meant they consumed the necessary nutrients without wasting too much time eating. They survived on plants when they had to. Cooking changed everything. It gave them time to hope, dream, fantasize, imagine and create. They invented tools. They wondered about the stars. They invented gods and created art. Most importantly, without all this chewing, they spoke. Speaking meant they could exchange ideas, beliefs and dreams with one another. None of this would have been possible if they had spent all their time eating greens (or raw meat for that matter too). Cooking sped up the process of human evolution. Perhaps even pushed us in a whole different direction.

The reason I decided to explore this subject is that some vegans and vegetarians alike argue that we should only eat animals we kill (or could kill) ourselves. In other words, if we wouldn’t have the balls or skills to kill an animal and eat it, we should not eat meat.

What these people don’t realise is that if everyone spent their whole day everyday hunting, nothing else would get done. Even in the modern hunter-gatherer tribes, not everyone hunts. What is interesting about these tribes is that they all eat meat. The best hunters are celebrated and hold a high status within the tribe. They are humans, just like us, but they don’t have Twitter so they never heard of a plant based burger. Not to mention that humans have been farming for thousands of years now, our small communities grew into massive cities and whatever hunting instinct we once had is now long gone. Going to work has replaced hunting and going to work to provide that meat is all we have known for generations. You can’t just expect humans to go hunting again just because you “woke up” to the idea of animal cruelty and suffering.

Sustaining the modern society requires everyone to do different jobs. Even vegans don’t pick their own strawberries or fly to Brazil to stock up on avocados. Somebody does this for them. That somebody is Tesco. Before we had supermarkets and farming, we had trading. A good fisherman traded his fish for the meat from a good hunter. The guy who made good speres, traded them for some eggs from a guy who had chickens. This exchange meant that not everyone had to be a good hunter as long as they provided a service others found useful. Today, we go to work to make money so that we can pay someone (supermarket) to give us chicken breast so that we don’t have to do the dirty work. Our job might be providing a service the people working in the supermarket need. The builders built the store. Imagine if they had to hunt and kill their own meals instead?

Being plant based is a luxury of the modern day where everything is easy and convenient, and you don’t have to get your own food. If everyone had to go and get their own food, I would argue that there would be very few vegans, if any. Eventually growing or picking your own fruits would not be sustainable. On top of that, many vegans today rely heavily on processed food and “vegan burgers” and supplements. Without them, they’d be hungry all the time. You simply can’t (and wouldn’t) be a vegan if there weren’t plant based processed foods that are high in calories.

In summary, many vegan activists think that us humans make a conscious choice to consume meat every day. While it might be true on the surface, the reason we eat meat is much deeper. We’ve evolved to seek and crave foods that are rich in fat and protein. For 99.99% of our time of this planet, meat has been the only source of these nutrients. In other words, we eat meat because our ancestors did. These ancient cravings are now satisfied by processed food, but we pay the price with our health. The (most likely accidental) invention of cooking allowed human brain to evolve more intelligence and awareness. Less time spent eating meant more time exploring, thinking, experimenting, building, creating and feeling. Some people argue that humans had to be smart already to hunt animals in the first place, so the brain couldn’t have evolved after the invention of cooking. Most animals who eat meat hunt and have always done so. Our ancestors most likely did so instinctively when they couldn’t always rely on other predators’ prey. So, while they did hunt before they could cook, it doesn’t mean they were any more intelligent than today’s chimpanzees. They were driven by instincts, craving and hunger – not intelligence.

Another argument against the theory I have presented here is that human brain doesn’t evolve from nutrition. This may be true, but that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that optimal nutrition from food that doesn’t have to be consumed all day freed our mind to do its wonders. While there is plenty of neuroscience that I have no idea about involved, the point is that the brain, or mind if you will, evolved over a long period of time, just like the human hand or eye – to perform certain jobs. Our hand has evolved to grasp objects and our brain evolved to solve problems. Our hand changed because it was exposed to primitive tools and natural objects and our mind changed because it was exposed to challenges, problems, relationships and conflicts. The mind could only be exposed to these things if our ancestors hadn’t been preoccupied with being hungry or eating all the time.

The scientific discoveries, modern culture, technological progress and inventions we all benefit from wouldn’t be possible if everyone only ate what they killed themselves. If people had to hunt and kill their own food, they would not have time for anything else. Vegans making this argument seem to forget that they don’t grow their own fruits and vegetables for the same reason. Convenience of getting everything from the supermarket is one of the reasons we can enjoy the lifestyles we enjoy today.

The truth is that farming is the only way to feed the human race. Hunting is unsustainable. Hunting worked for small communities we lived in before the agricultural revolution. As soon as the global population grew and we started driving many species to extinction, farming was the only way to feed the world. You simply cannot expect 9 billion people to quit their jobs and hunt. The world would collapse, and people would starve. Even vegans would suffer because being plant based is only possible because of meat eaters who have built this world.

The bottom line is this: Veganism is the luxury of the modern day, built on the backs of our meat-eating ancestors.

She’s a 10, but she can’t cook

I came across a short clip this morning in which a woman said she would never learn to cook for her man. The guy who was interviewing her, Bradley Martin, looked at her with disbelief and slight disapproval. The clip is, of course, part of a longer conversation, so I assume they were talking about dating in general. I don’t know who this woman is and what she does for a living, but I am not here to talk about that conversation.

When I opened the comment section on that video, I witnessed outrage. Woman after woman was triggered by the fact that any man would expect the woman to cook. They said that cooking was a basic survival skill, and everyone should know how to cook. “Cooking has no gender”, they often added. These comments received both likes and backlash.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard such arguments being made, so I want to point out what these women get wrong about it. First, I think it’s important to understand where they are coming from. They think that the man’s desire for a woman to cook comes from the place of misogyny, sexism and outdated gender roles. I am sure that is true in some cases, but not in most.

What these women fail to realise, blinded by their anger and disappointment, fuelled by feminism and their own insecurities about their cooking skills is that there is a difference between a man cooking for himself and a woman cooking for him.

To illustrate what I mean, let me use my own marriage as an example. Before I met my wife, I lived on chicken and rice. Sometimes, I’d mix it up and replace chicken with tuna. My diet revolved around what was convenient and easy. To this day, we joke that my speciality was chicken and rice in tomato sauce. It wasn’t the most amazing diet, but it did the job. I didn’t have to cook every day and I had enough food for a few days. Microwave was my best friend. Each day I met my nutritional requirements and my body and athleticism reflected that.

A while after we started dating, she made me homemade meals. She didn’t have much. All her money went to pay rent. At one point, she literally only had around £10 a week to buy food and essentials. She still used some of it to make extra food for me. We moved in together shortly after that because living like this was not sustainable. More to the point, however, she made effort and took time to make me feel good about that relationship. She even said that when she likes someone, she cooks for them. It made me feel special and appreciated, and I appreciated her and made her feel special in the ways that I could. She introduced me to the world of different flavours, teased my taste buds and exposed to the variety of meals I never knew existed.

This is what women who get outraged about a man expecting a woman to cook don’t understand. Men can cook, but we do it out of necessity, so we cook what is easy, quick and convenient. Something we can put in the microwave the next day. It doesn’t always taste good, but it doesn’t have to as long as it does the job.

I realise that there are men who love to cook and are amazing at it, but there are also men who survive on chicken and rice, or Tesco meal deals all month long. When a woman cooks for her man, as proven by my wife, she makes a proper meal for him to enjoy. For him, it’s like going to a restaurant where the main purpose of a meal is for it to taste good. Many women, my wife included, love cooking for people they love and knowing they enjoy it fills them with joy and happiness. It’s a win-win for both.

I can already hear the objections. “If men want proper meals, they should learn to make them, then!”. Here is the problem. Men don’t want to learn to make proper meals if they don’t have to. If chicken and rice and an occasional take away are doing the job, they don’t see a point in complicating things for themselves by introducing all these different and time-consuming ways of preparing food. Men don’t prioritise learning how to cook, especially if they are single and especially if, I’ll repeat it again, they can make simple meals and order a takeaway whenever they fancy something different.

That said, when men say they want a woman who can cook, they don’t mean she belongs in the kitchen. What they’re saying instead is that they want a woman who has a skill that they don’t have and don’t value in themselves, but value in their partner. It can work in the opposite direction, too. Women might want a partner who can change a tire or drill a hole in the wall and hang a picture frame – skills not many women think of learning. I realise there are exceptions.

When it comes to dating, men and women compliment each other. Men bring something to the relationship, even if it’s just a toolbox and a drill and women bring something, even if it’s just cooking skills. There is nothing sexist about it and there is nothing wrong with wanting something in a partner that we don’t poses ourselves. It would be pretty weird if a man stomped his foot and said that he refuses to ever put a nail in the wall because he doesn’t think we should assign gender to any household task.

So next time an angry feminist tells you that it is not a woman’s job to cook for a man, tell her that, yes, it’s not her job to cook, but it would be nice if she did. And ask her that if she doesn’t want to cook, then what else does she bring to the table?

Are we born without gender?

Rhuan was a nine-year-old Brazilian boy with the whole life ahead of him. His mother took him and left his dad when the boy was four. She entered a relationship with a woman, and they formed a lesbian couple. In 2019, the couple mutilated the boy’s body by cutting off his penis and sewing on homemade female parts because the boy, according to them, “wanted to be a girl”. The boy’s mother wasn’t satisfied, and they butchered his little body by attempting to gouge out his eyes and stabbing him multiple times. Until he no longer moved, no longer cried and screamed, no longer wondered why his mommy would do this, why the only person he had in the world would do this. The mother confessed that they did it because he reminded her of his father too much. His innocence, his childhood, his first love, his chance in life all taken away from him, chopped into pieces by the person who gave him life.

This heart-breaking story is an extreme case and no doubt both women are utter and complete monsters who deserve to rot in prison. It happened in a developing country so we can blame it on many factors other than ideologies. However, this horrible crime exposes what lack of education and information can sometimes lead to. It does lead to children being taught in school that it is possible for men to give birth in the name of education. Toddlers are put in front of performing drag queens in the name of entertainment. Kids who are confused about their gender are given “gender reassignment” treatment in the name of progress. A treatment which is often irreversible. The conversation about gender is silenced if it doesn’t affirm the view that men can become women and women can become men. I believe that by muting voices like mine, we are making a big mistake and doing an enormous harm to children, and we strip them off their childhood and take away their future. I will argue that we are not born without gender and that male and female is what mother nature expects of us and we should not disappoint her.

Do you remember when the world was dominated by two genders? There was male and there was female – man and woman, groom and the bride. There was mother and there was father. Things aren’t that simple anymore. Turns out, our gender, as some activists will have you believe, is assigned to us at birth and it’s up to us, later in life, to decide if we identify with the gender given to us or not. If we do, it makes us “cis gender”. If we don’t, we are trans-gender. The activists are convinced that the odds are fifty-fifty.

For as long as I can remember I’ve always been aware of men who thought they were women. I remember, as a kid, even believing they were born in the wrong bodies. Somehow it made sense. Perhaps this is what I heard on TV. We are talking about 20 – 25 years ago in white, Catholic Poland, as well. You’d never see a transsexual, as they were called back in the day, in the real life. They only appeared in American movies from time to time. And the only image I remember from those days is of them existing on the outskirts of society.

Fast forward to 2023 and the words transvestite and transsexual have been deleted from our language and are considered offensive. You’re not only rude if you use one of these words, but also if you “misgender” someone, “deadname” them or fail to acknowledge that men can become women and vice versa. In some cases, being guilty of any of the above has led to social media bans or even home visits by the police. Some trans people even claim that if you don’t refer to yourself as cis-gender, you’re a transphobe.

In 2021, Canadian father was jailed for failing to refer to his daughter by her preferred pronouns. His teenage daughter identified as a man and had her mother’s full support and encouragement. Heartbroken dad not only lost his family, but was ordered to use his child preferred pronouns. Think about it: the court attempted to force someone to speak what he didn’t believe to be true. It’s one thing to censor certain speech, it’s quite another to force speech on someone. When he refused, he was jailed. I’ve heard of many cases like this and it is always the father who fights for his child’s innocence while the mother with the support of the state is fully on board with the child’s transition.

I am sure the majority of trans-people just want to be left alone and live their lives in peace. It is, however, the activists (who aren’t necessarily trans themselves) who push for certain narratives. They’ve even managed to attach their movement to gay and lesbian activism, while claiming that switching genders and being attracted to the same sex doesn’t make anyone gay. It’s all very confusing, indeed.

I don’t want to talk about the many flaws and inconsistencies of the trans movement. I will, instead, focus on something I haven’t seen many people talk about. The idea, as promoted by activists, that we are all born without gender and only later establish our gender identity. The terms “cis-gender” invented for people who identify with their biological sex, and “gender assigned at birth” illustrate this idea perfectly. We’ve never heard these before. They just appeared when the trans movement gained some momentum and attached itself to the left ideology and feminism and now it is considered insensitive to not use these terms when talking about trans issues. It is now considered offensive if you as a straight person, for example, don’t refer to yourself as cis because that means you consider trans to be the abnormal rather than part of the human experience. If you don’t say that your child’s gender was assigned at birth, you’re saying we are born with it, thus rejecting trans ideology. You’re suggesting that being “normal” is the default setting for humans and they don’t like it.

We are – as much as many people hate to admit – just a species of animals. We just happen to be the only ones who are aware of our existence. We can think, predict, hope, dream and regret. We can override our instincts, drives and nature by simply saying no to them. We are much like other animals though. We seek pleasure and avoid pain. That’s how we survive. If an alien scientist came down to study the life on our planet, he would study humans the same way we study frogs or mice. He’d observe our behaviour, feeding habits and mating strategies. He’d make predictions and notice sex differences between males and females. He’d note how bizarre the male competition for females is and how sophisticated the competition between females is. He’d perhaps visit a nightclub and witness human males and human females trying to attract each other in strange but predictable ways. Men would do it by displaying their status or faking it and women by exposing their feminine bodies and hiding their imperfections. The alien scientist would conclude that humans are not much different from the rest of the species. He’d write his alien book arguing that humans have taken over the planet, shaped it to their advantage and even though they are on the weaker side, they’ve managed to make other animals fear them. They’re smart and clever, but they are still largely dependent on their innate instincts and drives for survival. They think they have free will, but their nature and survival instinct keep that free will in check at all times. They’ve recently started to rebel against their nature because they find it doesn’t fit their current lifestyle. 99.99% of them don’t understand their own biology, psychology and evolution and dare to question it with signs and hashtags. They don’t realise that their vary nature has been shaped for millions of years when their world was much different than what it became in the last hundred or so years. They feel burdened by their nature. They want to be free from it but can’t. Some even claim that the diet that has served them well for thousands of generations is, all of sudden, making them ill.

He would also learn about evolution. He would study and understand the process that has led thousands of animal species to where they are now, including humans. He would name the process, sexual selection.

Sexual selection is a simple concept, but one I was unaware of until I started reading about human nature and evolution. Natural selection and survival of the fittest is what we all know from school, but I don’t remember being taught about the sexual selection, which is the driving force of evolution. Perhaps because it wasn’t always the leading theory in evolution. Natural selection told us that animals evolve traits and characteristics which help them adapt to their environment and survive in it. Traits that help them catch prey and avoid being eaten. Those who were best adapted were also popular with the opposite sex and passed on these survival traits to the next generation.

The theory of sexual selection tells us that, while strength, speed or camouflage are good for survival, animals evolve them to attract mates, not solely to live another day. Furthermore, animals evolve many traits and characteristics which have nothing to do with survival and sometimes even put animals at a disadvantage. The peacock’s tail is the most brought up example in the literature. Peacocks grow big and colourful tails because peahens find them attractive. They signal good health and good genes. A big tail is a luxury and it tells the female that this peacock “can afford” to have such an amazing tail because he is healthy, free of parasites and has managed to avoid being eaten so far. It’s like a man driving an expensive car. He is showing his abundance of resources and he increases his status relative to other men. Many women are drawn to a resourceful man because of his ability to provide for their children. Peahens are drawn to an impressive tail of a peacock because they want their sons to be popular with the ladies too. What she will pass on to her daughters is the preference for a big tail. This then keeps the evolution and growth of the peacock’s tail over generations, and it is influenced by the female preference. Males across species spend every waking hour showing off to females and fighting off rivals. This is why males grow big and strong – not to fight off a predator  – but to compete for sexual access to females with other males.

Humans are no different. Men compete with other men for the attention of women. Women compete in their own ways for the attention of high-quality men. Men compete by showing off their resources or lying about them, while women compete by enhancing their looks, exposing parts of the body which signal youthfulness, fertility and health. There are many other ways we try to attract members of the opposite sex and ways in which we compete for them, but I won’t get into them.

Just as other animals, we are born with traits and characteristics passed on to us for countless generations and our job is to use them to attract a partner. It is my personal belief that with billions of people on the planet, our evolution will now significantly slow down because everyone is having children, not just the “fittest” members of both sexes. On the ruthless mating market in the animal kingdom, if you don’t poses superior genes, you’re out of the market and your genes die with you. It is different with humans because all genes are being passed on, not just those that would have been sexually selected in the past.

Sexual selection is still taking place and men and women are enslaved by it when choosing their partner, but it is much more complex than in the savannah. Women still pick men who meet their standards and it’s usually a man who is taller than them (although they often prefer a man taller than other men), fit and has a good job. They prefer a man who is funny and confident and dominant. These are some of the traits our ancestral mothers have always found attractive in men, and these are the traits that have been passed on to their sons and the preference for these traits to their daughters. As I said above, as our population grew larger and larger, women couldn’t marry the best and genetically gifted men but the best out of, let’s say, their social circles. Of course, historically speaking, women couldn’t always marry men they wanted, but they would still pass on their preferences to their daughters. On the other hand, for most of the human existence females had children with top quality males, meaning most males never passed on their inferior genes. I can only speculate that this didn’t change much after the invention of agriculture, when the richest men were the ones who had the most kids and most men, especially young men, died on the field of battle or simply didn’t have anything to offer to a woman compared to a king or a landowner.

Since all our traits, behaviours and characteristics exist to help us on the mating market, it makes no sense that nature would allow men to become women. Nature needs us to be men and women. If it didn’t, it would make it possible to become one or the other. It needs us in our roles – masculine and feminine. It’s gives women mating preferences and it equips men with traits based on those preferences. It even makes our preferences compliment each other. Men are attracted to younger women and women are attracted to older men. Women like taller men. Men like shorter women. Women want someone funny. Men want someone who laughs at their jokes. Nature has made it simple for us to meet a partner and yet it is so difficult and complicated at the same time.

The bottom line is this. We are not born without gender. If someone struggles to accept their identity, it is clearly a mental health issue and should be treated as such. Now, I’m not saying adults shouldn’t be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, but we should at least be able to discuss this subject freely without the fear of cancellation and censorship. The ability to have this conversation would allow parents of “trans kids” to make better choices for their children. By hearing my side of the argument, we can allow these children to develop properly and make their own choices when they are of age to fully understand their consequences. By making people understand that it is impossible to become the opposite sex, they might think twice before putting kids through the irreversible changes and surgeries before they can fully consent to them. By making them understand that you cannot become a boy or a girl, that gender is not assigned at birth but something that is determined at conception, we can save many kids from their parents’ ignorance and ideology poised minds.

Should straight men have to date trans-women

Walking home with my two-year-old son earlier, I stumbled upon this billboard on one of the bus stops. As someone who is allergic to wokeness, I couldn’t help myself but recall the good old days when this garbage only appeared in Marvel movies and on Netflix. It is now everywhere, apparently, including bus stops. You can’t even commute without being reminded about the curse of being a straight white man.

Hinge, the dating site, as it seems, has decided to invade my local town centre with their attempt of raising awareness to the issues trans-women face in the online dating world. Oh the discrimination! Oh the injustice!

After feeding the toddler and putting him for a nap, I googled it to see what it was all about. Mainly because the words that stood out to me before the billboard disappeared and was replaced with an ad of McDonald’s latest vegan burger (another thing I wouldn’t be getting my hands on, thanks very much), were “If you match with someone who identifies as straight and is hesitant or scared […]”. IDENTIFIES? It sounds like whoever wrote this, and as it turns out it was a trans-woman, tries to imply that someone’s sexual orientation is not really set in stone and can be bent and changed as if they weren’t born with it. It sounds a lot like this person thinks being straight is a choice and it is a discriminatory one, too. None of them ever say that being gay is a choice, do they? Somehow we have arrived in a world where it is believed that being straight is bad. Even though we have arrived here precisely because of straight people. LGBTQXYZ+ 0, nature 1.

My Google search landed me in Hinge’s help centre, where I found the entire post. The author says that, if you’re a trans-woman and you match with a straight guy who might be scared or hesitant, you have to remain strategic. STRATEGIC? What does that even mean? Do you mean hiding your cock? Just folding it and gradually sneaking it out hoping he wouldn’t make a big deal out of it? What is the strategy here? You can play hard to get for a while, but eventually, guys get tired of endless hand jobs, especially if the grip is a little too strong and forearms too vascular. Eventually, we want to get to the main meal and we sure as hell hope it’s not a sausage.

The post goes on to say that “as a trans-woman”, you don’t owe anybody an explanation of your gender, sexuality and body. After a few more self-righteous sentences, this person – to emphasise their point – ends on the word “period”, which is another thing they don’t get.

Don’t get me wrong, if you like to put on women’s clothes and pretend you’re a lady, go for it. If you go as far as changing your pronouns and your name and the way you present yourself, more power to you. But don’t expect others to change the way they live, the way they view relationships to make you feel comfortable. You may feel strongly about your decision to transition, but don’t think it doesn’t come without consequences. One of these consequences is that your love life will never be normal. If you’re a trans-woman and you’re attracted to straight, masculine men, chances are, you will not find happiness and you better off getting a cat. The closest thing to a pussy you’ll ever have.

I’m sorry if you’re offended, but I’m offended too. I’m offended on the behalf of men who use dating sites and discover that it is a total minefield out there. When they’re not getting rejected, they get tricked by OnlyFans girls trying to get subscribers or other attention whores fishing for Instagram followers. Now they have to deal with trans people and be nice about it. It seems like nobody stops to consider how men feel about this situation. It’s all about you, isn’t it? The world must revolve around you. It must accept you and your new identity. Men must date you or they are bigots. I’d rather be a bigot than compare cocks with my girlfriend, to be honest.

We need to consider men. A man, often referred to as a partner or the other half, deserves to know what he is getting himself into. Straight men don’t want to date trans people. They might match with you if you hide your Adam’s apple, but as soon as you reveal the truth or they realise it, they will want nothing to do with you. Whether it’s your deep voice, firm handshake or the bulge in your crotch when you’re happy to see him that gives you away, it doesn’t matter. He will run for the hills. You may have all the surgeries done and everything, but no matter how hot of a costume you’ve put on, no straight man will want a relationship with you. It’s kind of like seeing that vegan burger and thinking it looks nice and really convincing, but then realising it’s not a real burger and it will never be the same as the real burger. A real burger is less processed. A vegan burger has to be created because it doesn’t exist in nature. It’s fake and not good for you. Am I still talking about burgers?

If you don’t want to be “constantly coming out” to every potential romantic partner, you have to take a long and hard look at your dating approach. You have to realise that it IS a big deal. I will say it again – looking like a woman is not enough. Nobody gets into a relationship with someone just because they LOOK like the gender they are attracted to. Attraction has so many layers and goes way deeper and way beyond your mascara. Attraction is biological. We are attracted to the opposite sex for the purpose of having children. I know, I know – it’s controversial to say that people mate in order to have kids, but it’s true. We can CHOOSE not to have kids but the mechanism and instincts that motivate us to pursue a mate and sex are still there whether you like it or not. Nature was even so clever (knowing how lazy we are) that she/her even invented orgasm to convince us to have sex with a desirable partner. Of course, we have now outsmarted Mother Nature herself by inventing all kinds of anticonception so we can keep having sex without consequences.

In Evolutionary Psychology this is known as proximate and ultimate explanations. When a man is attracted to a woman, the proximate explanation is that he finds her feminine traits attractive. She has desirable characteristics such as attractive waist to hip ratio, curves in the right places and beautiful, symmetrical and feminine face. When asked about it, he says she’s just hot. The ultimate explanation explains why he finds these characteristics “hot” and it is to do with health, youthfulness and fertility. An attractive adult female body will show signs of good fitness, youthfulness and fertility and these will be enhanced by makeup and clothing by many women. Ultimate explanation, then, tells us that by finding these traits desirable, the man is selecting for a partner to have healthy children with. These are not conscious choices and happen behind the scenes of man’s consciousness. The concept of proximate and ultimate explanation is fascinating because we can investigate any human behaviour using this method.

Using this method, we can assume that sexual attraction is guided by an ancient process that is invisible to us. We get into relationships without consciously thinking about having kids (and like I said earlier, we can override this “need” as many people do), just like we don’t consciously think about providing our body with energy and nutrients when we get hungry. If you’re still with me on this, a trans-woman can change her entire body to appear more feminine, but in the eyes of a straight man, she will always have something missing and will be undesirable. The most she will ever be is “looking very convincing” or “looking good for someone who was born male”. His eyes might like what they’re seeing but as soon as the image is interpreted by the brain, it rejects it because the brain operates in the ultimate explanation which is – be attracted to the opposite sex. Eyes might be attracted to looks but the real attraction happens in the brain. Trans activists hate to be reduced to their genitals, but even though we can’t see what’s between your legs, straight men are attracted (with their eyes) to someone who appears to be a woman BECAUSE she likely has the correct parts and is able to bear children. In other words, men are attracted to feminine traits because they tell them that the person they like is a woman. To make it even simpler – men are attracted to women because they are women. We can say that a straight man is attracted to outside features because they advertise the sex of the other person. If the man is mistaken, he is quickly repulsed by the same trait he just found desirable.

When my wife and I were in early stages of our relationship, she received a Snapchat from a guy who she had talked to around the time we first started seeing each other. We decided to send this guy a snap of my ass pretending it was hers. The guy got aroused and excited. Does that mean he was gay? Absolutely not… I mean, perhaps. What it means is that he found it attractive because he thought it belonged to a female… you know… with a vagina.

This reminds me of something me and my friends laugh about to this day, and it may help illustrate how we can’t just rely on our eyes for attraction.

We were taking a break from playing football all morning. We were about sixteen years old and very interested in the opposite sex. One of my friends wore glasses. I guess he was pretty blind without them. A small group approached the football ground on the other end. His glasses were off. As the group appeared in the distance, he straightened his back and let out a sound of excitement. To get a better look, he put his glasses on and immediately let out a sigh of disappointment. He discovered what we all knew – it was a group of boys. It all happened so quickly but we laugh about it to this day. It’s been twenty years.

It shows that we may be deceived by our eyes. It also shows that, in the context of trans-women, our eyes can be deceived, but upon finding out the truth or taking a closer look, our brain takes over and tells us that this person should not be pursued. The brain acts like my friend’s glasses and tells us that even though the person might appear feminine, they are not a woman.

The author of the Hinge post argues that trans people shouldn’t have to explain themselves to straight people. That they should just enter the dating market and be accepted as they are and that their identity is not a big deal. I mean, you literally used to be a man. You didn’t just change your opinion on the movie Avatar, you chopped off your dick. It’s a pretty big deal. You’d want to know if someone you’re dating used to be married or in prison, right? It’s a big deal. Trust me, I’m a man – your target audience. You try to normalise the idea of trans people not having to explain who they are and how they’ve become who they are. I want to normalise the idea, very controversial, I know, that straight men shouldn’t have to explain why they don’t want to date trans women. I’ve just used two thousand words which could just be narrowed down to – no, straight men don’t have to date trans women and they don’t owe you an explanation.

Think about it.

Think about why you’re hiding the truth from somebody in the first place and ask yourself if it’s even worth getting romantically involved with a person who’d end it if they knew the truth. Your personality might be truly amazing – it’s never going to be enough to override that you are not a real woman. I shouldn’t have to explain it. Without being horrible, straight men feel repulsed and embarrassed at the very idea of performing any sexual act with another man. Yes, it includes trans-women. I’d say these negative emotions and physical disgust act as a defence mechanism against making bad sexual choices that will never lead to procreation. And before you say anything – it’s not the same as putting on a condom. Our brain hasn’t caught up to the invention of condoms so the only information it’s processing in it’s ancient, ancestral software is – “about to put penis in female”.

Sex and food are so powerful that we have created whole subcultures around them. We celebrate sex and worship orgasm by inventing different position to do it in, creating porn and living out our kinks and fantasies. What simply is a matter of survival, we have made into a buffet of flavours and pleasures. Sex and food are both about survival – survival of the genes and of the individual. You can’t feed someone with a plastic apple even if it looks a lot like a real apple. Similarly, you can’t make a man feel attracted to or even aroused by another man even if he looks a lot like a woman. It’s nature’s way.

Normalise men dating women and not having to apologise for it.

Show me the evidence!

Have you ever expressed an opinion or had an argument with someone on social media? Have you ever dared to use your knowledge to debunk somebody’s fragile worldview? I certainly have. Eventually, there comes a point in any of these online discussions when the person on the other side demands proof of your claims.

If you base your views in reality, it’s really hard to argue online. I advise against it all together, but sometimes even I can’t help myself when someone makes outrageous claims. It’s difficult because you start to notice that people are fucking stupid. The source of their stupidity is often ignorance, but still they defend their uneducated opinions like their life depends on it. It often does, metaphorically speaking. People often get attached to their opinions and views so much that they become WHO they are and not just what they believe. If you question their beliefs, you question their egos. That’s why they are almost never willing to change their mind even when presented with clear evidence that they’re wrong. Losing an argument, letting go of an opinion is like losing some part of themselves. That’s why they show signs of discomfort and often get aggressive when their beliefs are doubted by someone. It’s their ego that’s being dismantled not their opinion. We’re all guilty of it, including me. The smartest people in this world hold some kind of beliefs they are not ready to let go of simply because of their attachment to them and because they allowed these beliefs to define who they are. I’ve seen some otherwise intelligent people get swallowed and consumed by one ideology or the other. Many of them are aware of the hypnotizing power of ideologies and “the madness of crowds”, but even they can’t resist this downward pull from the brain hungry zombies. This happens on both left and right and the person can only see their own gullibility and naiveness in hindsight when one day they look back with embarrassment at how easily they were seduced by the slogans.

More often than not, people subscribe to certain beliefs simply because they are held hostage by their ideology. If you’re on the Left, you very likely are a feminist who believes in climate change, that there are more than two genders, that capitalism is evil, and abortion is a human right. If you’re on the Right, you oppose all of these ideas, often relying on religion as your moral compass. You believe in free speech and the right to own a gun, while the left challenges those rights. Both sides clash on the field of battle – Twitter – and are ready to defend their beliefs, which aren’t really their beliefs at all. They are beliefs that are part of the package of the group they have signed up to. Before they know it, they protect ideas they know very little about but feel so deeply connected to that they feel they must defend the honour of their group. They become the righteous warriors who slay dragons and fight evil forces of this world. They are determined to crash the enemy and are fuelled by the support, admiration, likes and retweets from their peers.

I was like this at one point. I remember when I joined a Twitter conversation about abortion. My mostly Right-Wing views (to arms of which I was pushed by the teachings of modern feminism) put me on the autopilot and I assumed the attacking position seeing the other side as my sworn enemies. The enemies in this case were pro-choice activists. At that point I saw the subject of abortion with a black and white filter. I was arguing like I knew the subject deeply even though I had never thought about it much or read anything about it. In other words, before “joining” the Right, I wasn’t that bothered about abortion. When I saw the tweets from pro-choice activists, I had to show them how wrong they were. I had to make sure they knew abortion was never alright. My keyboard was on fire, notifications about how much outrage I caused fed my self-righteous thirst for victory and I didn’t care how many snowflakes I triggered. Every person who disagreed with me, I managed to convince myself, proved me right. I was fighting for the right cause. I was the good guy.

Today, there is more grey area in my views on abortion. In my adopted views there was no room for exceptions. Later, I realised what my true beliefs were, and they’ve remained so to this day. I realise now that I don’t really care about it that much. In my opinion, pro choice people aren’t defending women’s reproductive rights but their rights to not take responsibility for their actions. Pro life activists aren’t fighting for unborn children but for the power of their ideology over others. Understand that I am talking about activists. Not everyone who has an opinion on the matter is an activist. I still think abortion is wrong in most cases, and if people aren’t willing to take responsibility for the consequences of sex, they should either use various forms of anticonception and accept the consequences of them or not have sex at all. I mean, the pill might fuck up your hormones, but at least you’re not killing babies, right? I wish both sides of the debate would be honest in their motivations and admit what they really care about – power and control on the right and being irresponsible and unaccountable on the left.

To sum this section up, if you ever find yourself feeling passionate about a belief system, ask yourself if you truly believe it or if it’s something that’s been forced upon you by your group. You don’t want anyone to be able to predict any of your views based on one or two of your opinions. For example, I am an atheist. Many atheists, especially those in public eye, are hard leftists. They are pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-COVID mandates during the pandemic and many more. If you predicted that I too held these views simply because I don’t believe in God, you’d be wrong. It shows that atheism hasn’t influenced my other views and values. Similarly, if you’re a feminist, you really don’t want me to accurately predict your stance on climate change, gun control and Trump – as these are all completely unrelated to feminism. If your views on the above match those of other feminists then congratulations – your mind has been corrupted by ideology.

Let’s talk about evidence now. As I’ve briefly described above, people have different reasons for believing what they believe and defending those beliefs. As mentioned at the beginning, some people will demand proof of your claims if what you’ve said to them shakes their worldview. They want to see the science. If you can’t produce it, they claim victory even if their own views are formed in their gut and not in a lab. The problem with this type of people is that they aren’t willing to do any heavy lifting (or reading in this case). They want you to give them a quick graph or a short article that proves you right. They don’t realise that the answers lie in thousands of book pages one’s had to go through to come to the conclusions one has come to. There is no single graph or a slide show that can spoon feed these people with information. These people don’t think, they react. Because they themselves often pull their views out of their ass, they think you do too, so you won’t be able to produce any evidence to prove what you’re saying is backed by science.

Let’s say I believed there was a high probability of the existence of intelligent life out there in the Universe. Someone – a deeply religious person perhaps, who believes God created life exclusively on Earth and no more than six thousand years ago, and the rest of the Universe is only for us to ponder and admire – would stand there and say, “Oh yeah, Mulder? Prove it!”. There is of course no way to prove it. But with basic understanding of what conditions need to be met for a planet to host alien life, and knowledge of evolution are, in my opinion, enough to look into the night sky and make an assumption. My “evidence” in this case would consist of at least one book on evolution and one on astronomy. It’s more than you can put in a tweet, and more than most people can handle.

In other words, there is no single proof for anything. Can I prove that God doesn’t exist? No, but I can tell you all about the human nature, our superstitious tendencies and thousands of gods that have been worshipped and forgotten throughout history, to show you that all gods are most likely invention of man to explain the unknown and cope with mortality. It doesn’t prove that God doesn’t exist, but it shows that he probably doesn’t. I used to mock religious people, but as I got older, I’ve come to understand the value of religion and that, as long as it stays out of my bedroom or doesn’t fly planes into sky scrapers, it’s mostly harmless and it actually makes people happy. I used to attend a church service every Sunday for six months only to expose these people to the truth, but what I saw was probably the happiest bunch I have ever seen.

People will want proof, but they will not change their mind, because their belief system wasn’t built with evidence. It was handed to them by the group. The only proof they ever needed was how it made them feel. Unfortunately, you can’t convince feelings with reason. Feelings can often override reason, though. The bottom line is this – don’t argue online, form your own opinions, question the beliefs of your ingroup and educate yourself of what matters to you. Read books, listen to podcasts and live a life of meaning. Social media algorithms are out there to trigger you. That’s how they steal your time and attention. Don’t let them. You’re not changing anyone’s mind and you’re not making your life better. I was once arguing with someone on Instagram, eventually I clicked on their profile. It turned out to be a 17-year-old girl. I was twice her age. Twice her experiences and accumulated knowledge. There was no way I was opening her mind. You never know who the other person is, but it’s pretty dumb to argue with kids online. You’re on different levels and as an adult, you have the responsibility to be wiser and to set an example. We often forget that the avatar we see is another human being and allow ourselves to get carried away. We make assumptions about the person’s character and their morality. Social media brings the worst out of us and these online debates expose that. Don’t get triggered. Move on. You’ll be happier for it.

Why women can’t get away with sleeping around

Social Media algorithms are interesting. After seeing a handful of “red pill” clips and videos on both You Tube and Instagram, this content is almost all they recommend to me. The videos range from podcast episodes to street interviews, and they typically revolve around male-female dynamics and dating. The topic that is discussed the most often is whether a high number of sexual partners is a red flag.

The conversation usually gets heated when it is considered a red flag in women but not in men. It is almost impossible to have a civilised conversation in the comment sections of these videos. So, I have decided to explore this double standard myself. I will give you an answer to why women can’t get away with promiscuity in today’s society and why it’s not the same for men. I will also give you my opinion on the whole thing and whether there is a way we can all get along.

To explain the double standard, I will rely on psychology, dating preferences, our evolved nature and behaviour and social norms and pressures. I will use a couple of examples to argue my points. They will range from scientific studies, celebrity dating to my personal experience and observations over the years I spent on an adult dating site where people meet for sex. It’s a long read, but I feel like it’s needed in order to explore the subject fully.

The modern world is full of double standards. Some of them hurt men and some of them hurt women. These double standards punish one gender for certain behaviours while rewarding or remaining indifferent towards the other. Men can’t still live at home after a certain age without being judged and women, as it turns out, can’t sleep around without consequences. Some might say it shouldn’t be that way, but we don’t live in a world of should and shouldn’t. We live in an unfair world of what is and isn’t.

A man wants to be her woman’s first and a woman wants to be her man’s last

This saying attempts to romanticise a woman’s approach to a long-term relationship (LTR) and to demonise men’s search for innocence and purity. It also highlights how both sexes feel about past sexual partners. Men, on average, prefer to settle down with a woman who doesn’t have a reputation of a “hoe” and women, on average again, are not that bothered about the man’s past. The double standard exists partly because women don’t care enough to pressure men to be more selective and keep it in their pants. While women as a whole and as individuals may not necessarily prefer men who have had many sexual partners, they definitely don’t discriminate against them as much as men do against women with similar experiences.

The Dicaprio Paradox

This difference becomes even more pronounced when the man is a celebrity and known for his promiscuity. Women still pursue this man hoping he will see their value and change his ways and pops the question. Leonardo DiCaprio is a perfect example. Everyone knows he likes to date models in their early 20s. His relationships don’t last very long, and he has had many girlfriends or casual partners since his rise to fame. His reputation does not stop models and young women from getting into relationships with him. Every new girlfriend surely must know she is not becoming Mrs. DiCaprio, so why even bother? The answer partially lies in what I said earlier – every woman thinks she is special and can change any man.

The other side of the coin is the fact that women want men other women want. It is an undeniable fact and one that women will not admit to, and many are probably not aware of. This is well observed, and it doesn’t take a Hollywood celebrity to witness it as it happens in the realm of mortals too. On average, women aren’t concerned about man’s promiscuity because it signals that many women are attracted to him and that he can provide for and satisfy them in more ways than one. Having been with multiple women also signals confidence which means competence, both of which are traits women find attractive.

It is different for men, who know how difficult it is to get in a woman’s pants, so they don’t respect a woman who has made it  easy for multiple men. A man who surrounds himself with attractive women, even if they are just friends, is also more interesting to women than a man with no female friends. A woman with many male friends is less attractive to men. This is possibly because men are aware of each other’s intentions and don’t want to get involved with a woman who keeps around guys who are sexually interested in her. Yes – men are jealous, territorial and competitive just like males of other mammals. Not much can be done by complaining about it.

The difference between male and female dating preferences and promiscuity comes out perfectly when men and women are rich and famous. Above, we focused on Leonardo DiCaprio’s preference for short term flings with young and attractive women who know they will be disposed of before they expire on their next birthday. Ricky Gervais even joked that by the time a 4-hour movie ends, DiCaprio’s date will be too old for him.

Similar thing happens with famous musicians or athletes. It’s well known they have attractive women lining up to sleep with them. From rockstars to rappers and NBA players, young women are desperate to use their looks as bait to lure these high performers into bed. They know that nothing will become of it, so they do it for attention, status, and let’s not forget some do it in hopes of getting pregnant or to spread false accusations of assault hoping for a quick payday – all of which are female strategies to gain status and access to men’s resources. Sometimes, when they don’t get what they want from a celebrity (relationship or commitment), they may accuse him of sexual assault as a form of revenge. Revenge for being rejected. There are of course genuine accusations, but we’d have to live in a fairy land to think that false accusations are not the norm. There are genuine victims of influential men, but this is not the focus of this discussion.

Nothing comes even close to it when roles are reversed. Female celebrities don’t have men lined up to sleep with them. They don’t use their power, fame and influence to pick average guys from their Instagram followers to have sex with them. Even the most outrageous, rude and dirty minded female artists you can think of do not have a harem of men at their disposal. We can sit here all day and argue whether it is because of social pressures, men being intimidated by female celebrities or because fucking a new fan every week is not what most famous women want to do. My guess is that Rihanna doesn’t want to go on a date with a guy just because he is twenty-five and has a big dick. You’re welcome to tell me I’m wrong.

Strategies to compete for quality mates

We could speculate that the double standard in question would largely disappear if women (who pull the strings on the mating market) put more value on men’s selectiveness and sexual purity. Men’s dating strategy would change to reflect female preferences and they’d stop searching for meaningless one-night stands and they would focus on offering women what they want. There is only one question: Do women really want every player and bad boy to disappear and be replaced by Mr. Nice Guy?

Chad and Tyrone – the 10% of men who sleep with 80% of women

The key that opens many locks is a master key; the lock that can be opened by many keys is broken

When women hear it, they usually get offended, but is there some wisdom in this phrase?

Women are the gatekeepers to sex, meaning they control access to sex. Without their consent, men aren’t getting any. It is also true that pretty much any woman could have sex with a stranger or a friend within the next 30 minutes if she wanted to. All she has to do is respond to a couple of DMs on Instagram or Tinder.

It’s not the same for men, who are the gatekeepers to commitment and marriage. It is men who have to choose to get married. Men are the prize in a relationship. Sex is what men want, therefore women control access to it, it is their resource as we established earlier. They use it to get what they want from any man. I’m not saying they’re exchanging sex for favours. They’re exchanging the possibility of sex by flirting with a man to get what they want. Men don’t need much to think a woman might want to sleep with them. That’s why it’s easy for women to manipulate men. This form of manipulation can happen in the workplace, nightclub or even a shop and interactions don’t have to last longer than a few seconds. I hate to break it to women, but if you so much as flick your hair or touch a man’s shoulder while asking him if you could get ahead of him in a queue, he will think you want him, and he will do anything for you. What is even more curious about it is that by expressing your interest in him, he automatically finds you more attractive. Women are aware of the power of their body language and use it all the time, sometimes subconsciously and whether they are single or not.

Commitment is what women want, therefore it’s what men bargain with. They can’t use it as a weapon as cleverly as women use sex, but, if they are high-value men, they can withhold commitment and only give it to special women, making all potential partners work extra hard for their attention. Consider a serial womaniser Leonardo DiCaprio again. He uses the possibility of commitment to lure attractive young women into his wealthy kingdom. His commitment is what young women compete for, so they use flirting, body language and sex to win the competition. Even if they want to be with him for the lifestyle he provides, this lifestyle and wealth are worthless without his commitment, so it’s the commitment that is more valuable than money and fame.

90% of single men would have to try very hard to have sex with a newly met woman in the next month, let alone in the next half an hour. 10%, so called Chads and Tyrones of the world (tall, dark and handsome), will have sex more often but they still have to work harder than most, if not all, average looking women. One study showed that when a man approached random women on the street and asked them if they would have sex with him, 0% said yes. When the same experiment was performed on random men, this time with a woman asking the question, a significant percentage of these guys were ready to go. The remaining few who refused either apologised to her or asked for a rain check. It’s interesting that many men felt the need to apologise for rejecting the woman or felt guilty about refusing her offer.

This research suggests that, given the chance, men are naturally more willing to sleep with a stranger than women are. What it also tells us is that there probably isn’t that many women who sleep around, but those that do don’t have to work for it. The number of men who sleep around is also very low, but they still have to work for it by showing confidence, charisma, sense of humour and being able to “woo” multiple women – a hard task, indeed. Out of the men who don’t sleep around, majority of them probably would if given options but they can’t compete with the 10% of Chads and Tyrones who are wanted and desired by 90% of women.

In other words, men have to be funny, confident, charming, well dressed, tall and handsome to have sex. All women have to do is ask.

The adult dating site – who benefits from women’s promiscuity?

The short answer is men. Given a choice, men prefer easy access to low-cost sex with a variety of partners. If we go back to the mating strategy study on college campuses we can see it in broad daylight. Where women had to compete for a small number of quality men, they were willing to have more casual sex because men, on average, are more likely to enjoy casual sex. It was, therefore, men who benefited from this arrangement. Women had to, whether willingly or subconsciously, sacrifice their values or beliefs about sex if they wanted to secure a quality partner. We can conclude, then, that it is men who benefit from female promiscuity.

A common argument to this that women can enjoy sex as much as men do. Yes, they can, but do they enjoy it with strangers as much as men do? They can, if they are prepared to forget about their standards and sleep with anybody and everybody. But are they? The reason men get away with being sluts is that opportunities for sex don’t just come knocking on their door. Even if a man slept with every woman who was interested in sleeping with him, it would still add up to just a handful of women over a long period of time. It is a given that a man would take almost every chance to have sex, but like I said, he’ll be lucky to find more than one woman a month. What if a woman said she was willing to fuck any guy who asks for it? She’d have hundreds of DMs on her Instagram including from guys who live a hundred miles away. Fucking everything that moves does not mean the same for men and for women.

I’ve spent a number of years on an adult dating site. It’s not something to brag about, but my experience definitely illustrates the fact that, on average, men will enjoy sex with complete strangers more than women – even on a dating site where casual sex is the goal of everyone on it. The site also proves that even if a man is willing to have sex with any woman, he will still struggle to get any meets.

Sites like this always suffer from a surplus of men, therefore it is women who set the rules of dating. They get to be pickier and, just like in the real world, 80% of men struggle to get any responses to their messages while 80% of women sleep with 20% of men who are tall, gym fit and have big dicks. Women on this particular site get to be very demanding because they know they can have any guy, so they only want the best of the best. The paradox is that, because of the often extremely low standards of men, even the obese and unattractive women think they get to have demands and deserve Chad or Tyrone. They get hundreds of messages which boost their egos and their self-perception. Now, they think they are in high demand and more attractive than they really are, when, in reality, men just send hundreds of messages a day, hoping for a single reply. They will swallow their pride later.  I’ve been there myself and from talking to women, I know this to be the experience of most men.

Women on the site write extensively about themselves, what they look for in their casual partner and they require that he writes equally as much about himself in his bio. This happens because women don’t understand how men think, and men just want to keep their profiles short and to the point. Men, of course, don’t understand women, that’s why they fail to give them what they want, which in this case is a profile that gives women all the details they need to decide if they want to sleep with them. I’ve seen women who don’t want to hear from men who are below 6ft, 8inches, who aren’t professionals, don’t live alone, don’t drive, don’t have any previous meet verifications from other members. The list of preferences and requirements goes on. Many women on the site don’t even want to meet a man who is a “Tory”.

Men, on the other hand, don’t care what job she does or if she drives. Men don’t care if her profile is blank and, quite frankly, too many verifications are a turn off. This reflects another study on casual and long-term dating, which tells us that women’s preferences and standards remain largely the same when looking for a casual partner as when looking for a long-term relationship. The same study shows us that men lower their standards significantly when looking for casual sex. For women to have sex like men they would have to behave like men, have low standards like men and sleep with whoever is on offer. To put it simply, if men received a hundred sex offers a week, they’d have sex every day. Women do receive hundreds of offers a week and they reject the majority of them.  The picture that’s beginning to paint is that even when all boundaries and judgements are removed, women don’t want to have casual sex the same as men. Instead, they choose to fuck only the type of men they wouldn’t be embarrassed to introduce to their friends and family.

Women are more likely to meet exclusively men of the same age or older while men are more likely to be more flexible while having preference for women in early 20s. Men are more likely to send dick pics even though the majority of women find them repulsive. This happens because men forget that women don’t think like them. Men like to receive nudes and pussy pics because they turn them on, especially if they’ve been taken for them. Women almost never ask for dick pics even if a big dick is their preference. They always want to see a face before any interaction. Women who are obese are more likely to shame men for their preferences by referring to slim and in shape women as bags of bones while men understand (because of being rejected 100s of times) that if they’re fat, they’re not attractive to most women. Most women I’ve seen on the site fantasise about some version of a powerful, mysterious or strong man taking control of them. It goes without saying that this type of man has to have sexual experience, so even though women complain about the double standard, they still prefer a man who knows what he is doing while men don’t really care that much.

Women on the site almost always require a coffee or a drink first to see if things can be taken further, and they almost exclusively look for one friend with benefits as opposed to multiple one offs. Women are also more likely to require men to put more effort into their first messages instead of just saying “hi”. This entitlement to be “woo-ed” in a single message comes from another gender misunderstanding. For men, most of their messages go unread because women are flooded with hundreds of messages a day. Sure, women are bored of seeing the same old “hi, how are you?”, but they fail to understand that whether men put effort in their messages or not, most of the time they get unread or rejected. Men have to spend a lot more time and effort to meet somebody, so sending a quick message without personalising it too much is the best, time-efficient way of achieving that goal. It does create a conflict between the sexes because nobody gets what they want. Women want a personalised message from every man, not realising that men’s experience and high rejection rate discourage treating women as individuals. On a sex site, men don’t care what women write about themselves as long as they have some pictures. Sometimes even they aren’t needed for a man to jump into Uber if it guarantees sex. Reading through detailed paragraphs only to personalise a message is a waste of time for men. More and more women hide special words, such as “princess”, “lollipop” or “cupcake” in their profiles requiring men to use them in the titles of their messages as proof they’ve read their profile. So a man is supposed to read through paragraphs of her preferences and likes, then compose an original message that’s longer than a couple of lines, fun, but not creepy and then get rejected anyway. Much better to just say “hi” to ten different profiles and hope for the best. This female entitlement to being treated special creates male laziness which in turn creates bitterness on both sides. Or perhaps it is the male laziness that creates female entitlement which then creates bitterness?   

As you can see, even on a sex site, where women are sexually liberated, and promiscuity is celebrated they still operate in their default settings and search for quality over quantity.  Men, on the other hand, do exactly what you’d expect of them. They pretend they too want a friend with benefits while actively pursuing multiple women hoping to have as many one offs as possible.  Women’s likes and dislikes are set in stone, while men’s are more flexible depending on who they’re talking to. That’s why women’s profiles are filled with preferences that exclude the majority of men and men’s profiles tend to be short and inviting so they don’t miss out on any woman who might be interested in them.

This mating behaviour of both genders, on a site where sex is the goal of every interaction, where all social pressures and taboos have been removed begs the following questions: Is the double standard a social construct or is it reinforced by our respective natures? Why does there appear to be a self-imposed double standard where women will only have sex with men who’ve previously had sex with someone else? Why do they seek a promiscuous partner while wanting exclusivity and a friend with benefits arrangement?

What needs to happen for a man to enjoy sex with a stranger? Apart from hygiene and at least minimal level of attraction, not much. A man will enjoy sex if it lasts ten minutes or two minutes. He will enjoy it if the girl just lays there not knowing what to do or if she fucks him like a porn star. It is no secret, however, that if a woman offers herself to a man, he better make her cum. It is fair to say then, that sex is hard work for men. It doesn’t take much for a man to have an orgasm. Every man will respond to the same tricks. Not all women are the same, though. What works on one, will be a waste of time with another. There is a research that suggests that women are less likely to cum in a casual hook-up than they are in a committed relationship. Some even go as far as saying the chance of an orgasm in a one-night stand is as low as 10%. It makes sense, if you think about it. A partner that knows what turns you on, when to go faster and when to slow down, when to be gentle and when to be rough, where to kiss and where to bite is way more likely to give her pleasure than someone who might have fucked a lot of women, but has no idea how to please a single one.

If a woman has five one-night stands, she might not have an orgasm once because none of the guys know what to do with her. Some of these guys might be completely inexperienced or too drunk to last long enough. They can be too nervous or too excited to satisfy her. After such encounters, where men enjoy themselves, she feels used and she regrets her decisions. Some might argue that she can guide every man and tell him what she likes so she actually enjoys every hook up. I don’t buy that. From my experience on the site, women don’t want to be reading instructions to men who are on top of them. They want the man to man-handle them and throw them around and this takes a man who is confident and knows what he is doing. No matter what someone might say, no woman wants a man who constantly asks if what he is doing “feels ok”.

Because women are more likely to have disappointing sex, even with men they find attractive, who tick many of their boxes, they are, in my opinion, less likely than men to enjoy sex with complete strangers. They might brush it off, put on a brave face and pretend it doesn’t matter, but it does, and they know it. The website exposes it. Women on it want quality over quantity because they do not want to have a string of disappointing and soul-destroying encounters. Another reason for that is security. Meeting a new man every week is a risk. It’s much safer to have one or two trusted partners and meet them regularly.

Having multiple partners comes with another risk – sexually transmitted diseases. I’ve heard on a podcast, where an expert in the field was interviewed, that women are more likely to get STDs than men. Potentially because female sexual organs are located inside where it’s easier for all this bacteria to thrive.  This is a risk to women, but it could also explain why men are repulsed by a woman who has slept with a lot of men. Evolutionary speaking, our ancestral males valued purity as it ensured paternity, but also because, without sophisticated modern medicine and testing, it helped them exclude females with an STD. Over thousands of generations, males have passed on this preference to their sons so that in the modern-day men have to make a conscious choice to look the other way if a woman they’re interested in is known for her promiscuity. The same evolutionary explanation applies to women valuing quality over quantity. Thousands of generations of females evolved a behaviour to avoid sexually transmitted diseases and other dangers that came from sleeping with a different man every week (partner jealousy and aggression). Males evolved disgust to override their sexual desires and females evolved caution to avoid STDs and physical harm, as well as getting pregnant with a male who is not willing to protect and provide for her and her child. Various forms of anticonception remove many of these risk, but our evolved mechanisms can’t just be turned off. It’s the same as for wild animals that are born and kept in captivity. Their evolved instincts are still there and if released into the wild, those instincts come back online.

Another theory why there is a double standard and that most of slut-shaming is done by other women is quite interesting as well. I believe I read it in The Evolution of Desire, by David M. Buss. He states that women slut shame other women because promiscuous women not only are more likely to take all the good men by making no commitment sex available to them, but also make boyfriends and husbands cheat and leave. Again, sex is women’s weapon. Men can’t use sex in any way other than rape, but this is a whole other subject.  Not all women use their weapon and that is why promiscuous women are a threat to them. They want good men, but even good men will often choose easy access to sex with a variety of partners than a committed relationship. Married men will too be more tempted if there is an opportunity and low chances of getting caught.

What interests me is that male and female sexual behaviour exposes what both really want, and it seems to be natural. In my opinion, society always follows biology and tries (subconsciously) to reinforce it. What I mean by that is that we behave according to our evolved nature and society reinforces that behaviour by rewarding certain aspects of it and punishing other ones. Rewards and punishments come in form of social status. Nobody is in control of it. Our ranking just goes up or down depending on decisions we make. In context of promiscuity, men’s status goes up, although it doesn’t do so indefinitely (although men who have the options to be promiscuous usually are higher in the hierarchy already), while women’s goes down. It happens naturally and both men and women play the game by these rules, whether they like it or not.

The grey matters

It’s not all black and white. Quite a few men online say they don’t care about their woman’s past. I believe we can split these guys into four categories:

  1. Those who genuinely don’t care
  2. Those who care but it’s not a deal breaker for them
  3. Those who care and it is a deal breaker
  4. Those who care but are lying.

The red pill community gets this one thing wrong. They convince themselves that most men are in group three. They believe that most men, as soon as they find out about a woman’s past promiscuity, they call it a day. I think there is nothing further from the truth. I think most men are split between categories two and four.

Group two is the dominant group. These men would prefer if the woman they’re dating didn’t have that past, but they don’t judge them. They wouldn’t choose another woman based on this criteria alone. They don’t think about their partner’s past all the time or with rage and jealousy or they completely overlook it because of their partner’s personality and looks. The red pill gurus would call these men Simps, but that is the majority of men they’re talking about.

Group four lie about their preference for a woman with a low body count because it scores them some brownie points with the ladies. It is simply their dating strategy whereby lying about their preference, they make themselves sexually available to a wider pool of women. In other words, they don’t want to settle down with a promiscuous woman, but they will fake their commitment only to sleep with her. Women can fake orgasms, but men can fake entire relationships. I’ve seen street interviews on social media, where men were asked if body count mattered and those who said that it didn’t received a lot of praise from women in the comment section. Brownie points (and friend zone).

Another grey area is that when a sample of men were asked to choose between a woman who’s slept with, say, at least twenty men and a woman who’s slept with five, but two of them were known to them. They unanimously answered that they would prefer the woman with a higher body count, where they didn’t know any of the men. As a man, I can relate to that. I think it’s within men’s unwritten code that we don’t date our friends’ exes. There is just something wrong about it. I would go as far as say that men are repulsed by the idea of putting their dicks the same place as their friend has had theirs.

Finally, the modern dating scene allows, for the first time in history, for people from different cultures to meet. If you live in a place like London, the options are endless. Men and women come here from all over and they leave their reputations back in their home countries. An Englishman might date a Romanian girl and never find out about her past promiscuity or ex boyfriends.

There is only one problem. Even though a bad reputation doesn’t follow her to the UK and her exes don’t haunt her, the woman’s trauma from the past does. Let me explain. A woman who’s been pumped and dumped too many times, will be, probably rightfully so, more distrusting and judgmental towards men. She will have baggage, in other words. She has been cheated on. Maybe she cheated. She might have had an abortion and can’t stop thinking about. This might cause her to be desperate for a child or to deny fatherhood to her man because she worries he will leave her. One of her exes might have committed suicide and it’s left a permanent mark on her mind.  This is only a few examples of what type of baggage she will be bringing into a man’s life even if he doesn’t know how many boyfriends she’s had before him. This type of baggage can ruing any relationship. It’s almost like dating a man who used to have a gambling addiction and even though he doesn’t gamble anymore, he has accumulated a lot of debt, messed with the wrong guys and he has to pay them back every month for the next ten years. Or it could be like dating a man with a low credit score due to ignoring his multiple credit card bills. He might have a good job now, but his low score might prevent you to buy a new car or get a mortgage.

Men don’t usually bring this kind of trauma into a new relationship. Firstly, because men are used to being rejected but also because after a painful break up, it takes a long time for them to heal, and they often come out as better men at the end of it because they decide to turn their life around. It doesn’t always happen, and some men never move on. Another reason why a string of one-night stands doesn’t break men is that men don’t look at it with shame. Whether it’s right or wrong, men think of the women they have slept with as trophies. There is a reason why “the walk of shame” usually refers to women walking home from a sexual encounter with a guy they’ve just met. Women will, more often than men, feel used after such encounter, especially if it was disappointing. Most men don’t have sex whenever they want but whenever they can.

Past relationships and hook-ups also carry with them another danger. Sexually transmitted diseases.  As mentioned earlier, if females are more likely than males to get infected, it makes sense that, over thousands of generations, males have evolved a preference for females with less sexual partners. When choosing partners, we avoid sick people in general so, from an evolutionary standpoint, there is no reason why people with STDs would be different.

Ensuring paternity is probably the biggest reason why men try to avoid promiscuous women. At least historically and evolutionary speaking. Even in the modern day, when DNA testing is widely available, many men unknowingly raise children which are not biologically theirs. Preferring purity in a partner has been the best way to ensure paternity for men throughout history. I believe this to be an evolved preference or mechanism because being put off by a potential long term partner’s past promiscuity is something men do subconsciously and not by choice. They evolved this over generations to solve the problem in the absence of modern science. In other words, men don’t judge women’s past and think, “I best avoid this type of girl, because I may end up raising another man’s kid”. Rather, just like hunger encourages us to seek food so we don’t have to constantly remind ourselves consciously about eating (we’d starve to death if we had to remember to eat), disgust reminds us to avoid other things, such us poisonous foods, sexual relations with sick people or in this case, women potentially carrying an STD or potentially pregnant with someone else’s child. Men still have the free will to act on or ignore these triggers and in many cases they ignore them. Our brain constantly tries to trick us with strong feelings to motivate us to do things that are beneficial for our survival and wellbeing and the survival of our genes is no different.

There are also studies which suggest that women who have had multiple relationships and one-night stands are less satisfied in their current long-term relationship. In the end, this contributes to higher divorce rates and break ups. There are other factors which play a significant role, in my opinion. Dating apps and social media expose both men and women to endless options which in turn makes them see their partner as just that – an option.

Why do men care and why do women care that men care?

So far, I have explained at length why men might care about body count. My belief is that it is an ancient, biological force driving men to care about it and make them justify it to fit their modern reasoning. A man might explain his preference by saying, “I just prefer a woman with less partners”, or even, “I don’t want to risk catching anything”, but this is just his modern reasoning trying to explain ancient feelings that are hard wired into his brain.

When you look at social media posts, you see plenty of women offended by this. They call men insecure and completely disregard their preference and standards. I believe there are a few reasons for it.

As women approach their thirties they become more aware of the passing time and their youth fading away. Biological clock is ticking and if they haven’t got a long-term partner or children by that time, they start getting worried that they’ve left it too late. More often than not, they think the source of their misery is “lack of good men”, but the reality is good men have always been there, but often invisible to women who just wanted to have fun and live a little before settling down with a “good man”. What they find is that Mr Right was a myth, prince charming never comes, and what remains is left over men and the good men who have their shit together have families now or are happy as they are and don’t want anyone to ruin their peace. They may also prefer slightly younger women.

Like with men, I believe this bitterness is just a manifestation of an evolved fear of the ticking of the biological clock. In this case, women who have slept around through their twenties or had a bunch of failed relationships hate being judged on that because they can’t turn back time. They rationalise their negative feelings by saying it’s unfair that men don’t face the same judgement as they approach their thirties and forties. They are hurt that their one-night stands will haunt them forever and, along with fading youthfulness and looks, reduce their mate value on the dating market while men’s value increases with age and peaks in their thirties. This “inequality” happens because men’s value is judged based on their success, assets, experience and profession. Women’s value is dictated by their fertility which is advertised by youthfulness and attractiveness. These peak in early to mid-twenties. That’s why men find younger women, particularly twenty-two-year-olds, more attractive (there is a study on that) and this is why women usually prefer men slightly older. The heart wants what the heart wants, I guess.

To summarise, women think it’s unfair that men’s value increases and theirs decreases with age and sexual experiences. Not much can be done about it unless women are willing to change what type of guys they like. Almost everything men do is to impress women. If women change what they want, men change what they do.  Across species, it is the females who dictate which males pass on their genes. It is female preferences and standards that make males “show off” their traits. In birds it will be the male who built the nicest nest or a peacock with the most impressive tail. It will be the male frog who calls louder than other males, a male insect that offers the largest meal and so on. Across the animal kingdom, including humans, males show off and risk their lives only to impress females and get laid. It is female preferences that make males sing in the middle of a jungle signalling their location to predators. It is female preferences that make men buy expensive cars or build big shoulders in the gym and it is the male preference that motivates women to hold on to their youthfulness for as long as they can and by any means, from make-up to plastic surgeries.

We all lie and deceive each other to get something from one another. Men lie to get sex. Women lie to get commitment from the man they want. Men lie verbally and tell women what they want to hear and often pretend they are something they’re not. I once heard a story about a guy who was in a nightclub with his friends. His strategy to take a girl home was simple. One of his friend’s job was to pretend he was a football player and played for the local club which was in Championship at the time. A girl next to them got interested and he took her home. Little did she know, he was just a postman.

Women lie differently. They lie about their age, their hair colour, their wrinkles and firmness of their tits and ass. They do it by using beauty products and clothing. I won’t get into the psychological reasons why women wear make-up, but if you’re thinking it’s just to feel pretty, it’s just your ancient brain playing tricks on you to get you to do what it wants. It makes looking good feel nice, so you do what needs to be done to attract mates.

Lying is part of the dating game. If women can lie about their hair colour or natural size of their lips or breasts, then men can pretend they are famous athletes for a night. Preferences are biological and cultural. Their importance varies from individual to individual, but just as most women like guys taller than them, men like women who slept with less partners than them. Not much can be done about it but to embrace our differences, understand them to increase our odds in the dating pool. Realise what the other sex wants and you will find a partner you want, not the partner you can.

One last thought

What if there isn’t a double standard? Women who find offence in the thinking I’ve presented here often say something along the lines of:

“If men can sleep around then so can we!”

“If my partner cares about my body count, he must keep himself to the same standard!”

This reasoning feeds into what I said earlier – 10% of men sleep with 80% of women. This means that the majority of women are interested in fraction of men and then proceed to generalise and assume all men are the same. The reality is that the bottom 50% of men in their twenties are invisible to women. Their experience is completely different to that of the top 10 – 20% of men and a hundred times different to the experience of the majority of women. In other words, 10-20% of men are fucking 80% of women. Those women then go on TikTok and complain about being pumped and dumped all the time and that all men want the same while completely ignoring the fact that the majority of male population is completely invisible to them. This fucked up situation leads women to believe that “if men can do it, so can we”. The problem is, most men don’t do it. They are rejected by all women before they even step out of the house because women’s standards are high and often unrealistic. So, if most women’s experience is that guys are assholes who just want sex, then most men’s experience is that women are only interested in assholes. If women keep choosing the top 20% of men (guys who have options), their experience will reflect that. There is nothing wrong in wanting a top quality mate, it is a sexual preference, but we must realise that on this ruthless dating market, where seduction is seasoned with deception, this preference often leads to heartbreak, unanswered text messages, unwanted pregnancies and bitterness in both sexes.

Leave a comment below and let’s talk about it.

Don’t end up alone

I took my pregnant wife into A&E yesterday. She was having very intense back and abdominal pains and sickness, all of which, according to Dr Google, could be symptoms of miscarriage. We were seen by a nurse right away, but I suppose they weren’t as concerned as us because after the initial verbal examination, they took their sweet time and we spent most of the time sitting in the waiting area. Luckily, the baby was OK, so it is not a post about that. It is about what the waiting area made me realise as sick people were wheeled in.

Across from us sat a young girl. She was no older than twenty years old, although my wife reckoned she was as young as seventeen. She had arrived there a little before us, around 10am. Her hair was blonde, but you could tell it wasn’t her natural colour. She had piercings in her nose. She was very skinny. Not like “unhealthy skinny” but just very thin. I guess you don’t see that very often anymore. She was wearing slippers, blue pyjama bottoms and a black winter coat. She was always in and out of her chair, going either to the toilet or to ask the nurses when she would be seen.

Meanwhile, the door of the department kept swinging open, bringing in new patients or just taking someone through to a different area. Men and women in green ambulance uniforms were standing around with not much to do, probably waiting for the emergency call. They talked about local gyms, broken laptops and mini golf – things colleagues talk about at work. I don’t know what I was expecting, but perhaps I thought staff in the emergency unit would always be armed with seriousness. Instead, they joked around, some even flirted with each other, and they made weekend plans. I’m not blaming them. I’m just painting the picture.

Many people came and went, but the blonde girl and us seemed to be the only ones always going back to the waiting area.

Around 12.30pm, the girl made a phone call. She sat in the corner, her slim body folded in a way she would fit her both feet on the chair. She was talking to her friend. She made the point to be loud enough to be heard but not loud enough to make it obvious. There was a lot of swearing and complaining about not having been seen and about “staff just standing around doing nothing”. From her conversation you could gather two things. One, that she was pregnant and it was still early stages. Two, that her boyfriend, Zac, ignored all of her fifty calls and messages. She had messaged him on all of his social media and at some point her calls went straight to his voicemail. Her pyjamas also suggested that whatever had brought her there was urgent and scared her. None of it excuses her bad manners on the phone, but you couldn’t help but feel a little sorry for her.

On the other side of the room, in the corridor was an older man on the stretcher. I’m not very good with ages so I will assume he was in his seventies or eighties. Grandad age. By his side stood his wife. There were plenty of seats next to us, but she stood there next to him. There is not much to say about that couple, but they represent something that a lot of young people will miss out on (and are missing out on already).

I will make a lot of assumptions here, but the manner with which the blonde girl spoke on the phone, swearing and complaining about staff in their close proximity, her piercings and the way she carried herself suggested to me that she brought it all on herself. Her excuse of a boyfriend turned off his phone or blocked her number and didn’t wanna know. I judged that this is the type of guys or boys she goes for. So called fuckboys.

Why is this a problem? It is a problem for young people, especially for women. The female empowerment movement sells young women a lie. A lie that they can have a string of meaningless relationships or hook-ups or that they don’t need men at all. It tells them that they can wait to settle down and as a result they spend their twenties getting pumped and dumped by guys like Zac. By the time they “are ready to settle down”, usually when they approach thirty or thirty-five, they come to a sad realisation – there is no good men left. Never mind that they start blaming all men for there not being any good one. The fact of the matter is that the good ones were invisible to them for a decade of their life and they eventually found someone to settle down with themselves.

I promise I’m getting somewhere with this. The longer you wait to find someone, the more flings, hook-ups and relationships you have before meeting someone for a serious relationship, the less likely you are to make that relationship last. There are many reasons for that and there are studies to prove that. But, just think about it. You’re bringing all that trauma of break ups, being cheated on or having cheated and so on – all that baggage – into a new relationship and expect it to survive this burden? What if all your relationships before were no longer than a year and you don’t know how to survive this post honey moon phase or how to handle an argument in a relationship? You might think that an argument or even regular arguing is a sign of the end. What happens is you never build a bond with anyone and you either end up alone or in a relationship with a guy who doesn’t care about you.

The current message to single women is, “you go girl!”, but in thirty or forty years, you might end up on the stretcher and beside you will be nobody. And if you’re a young girl and aren’t thinking seriously about who you get intimate with and who you let into your life, you will end up with a dickhead of a boyfriend like Zac who will block you if he knocks you up.

The old couple represents what we all should strive for. Our friends will not always be there for us. Our parents will not always be there for us. It’s very trendy nowadays for young women to say they don’t need men in their lives, but one day you will need a partner who will hold your hand, lend his shoulder for you to rest on, bring a bucket for your vomit, unlace your shoes to get you more comfortable and tell you everything will be ok.

If you follow today’s narrative, as a woman, you will end up alone. Men are used to it. We are used to being alone. Are you prepared for it? Choose your partners wisely. Choose who becomes the father of your children or you will one day sit in the emergency unit alone with nobody to call but your friend who has her own shit to deal with.

Under the spell: When your baby has a seizure

Oliver had just woken up from his afternoon nap. We cuddled on the sofa for a while then I offered him scrambled eggs, his favourite meal. Helium balloons from his 2nd birthday were still floating beneath the ceiling.  I put Paddington on to keep him company while I was in the kitchen, preparing the eggs when I heard him.

It sounded like hick ups, only different, consistent. I leaned out of the kitchen to check on him. He was laying on his side. He does that sometimes, I thought. I walked over to tell him to move away from the screen. What happened next is a blur yet the feelings that overwhelmed me still very intense.

Scrapped of expression and emotion, his face looked lifeless. Sparkless eyes stared into nothingness. Pool of saliva had dripped out of his mouth and collected on the sofa around his cheek. Bubbles gathered in the corner of his lips.  His body twitched silently in the rhythm of the sound he’d just made. Desperate, I picked him up and saw his lips had turned purple. His distant eyes looked right through me. Face wiped of all colour. His body limp in my hands. His arms hanging softly by his sides.

‘Oli!’, I cried to the heavens begging to not take my baby away. Paralysed by grief, I feared I was holding him for the last time.

I was shaking. My heart was racing.  Guilt, fear, and sudden awareness of the injustice and cruelty of this cold universe rushed through my mind. I need to snap out of it, I thought, and save my boy.

I thought he was choking, so I bent him over my forearm, felt his belly sink against it, and I started slapping his upper back. His arms stretched towards the floor. I was scared that I wasn’t doing it right. Scared of stopping and losing him forever, but I needed to call the ambulance.

I could barely dial the number. As I heard the voice on the other side, Oliver’s eyes closed. Maybe if I’d put his hearing aids on when he woke up, he would’ve heard my calls. I couldn’t stand the thought he was in there somewhere, scared and alone in silent darkness without his daddy’s voice to guide him.

‘My son is choking!’, I yelled with agony to the calm, almost cold and uncaring voice in the speaker. Her lack of urgency and empathy shocked and offended me.  She told me to stop slapping his back, put him on his side and try to remove saliva from his mouth, but his teeth were clamped with impossible force.

I screamed and cried down the phone. I felt I wasn’t making much sense. She asked me for the address, and this is when I realised I had to calm down and give it to her as clear as possible. Oliver wasn’t responding, his shallow breath reminded me we were running out of time. Help was on its way, she said as I looked at his face wondering if it’d ever light up again.

‘Please hurry!’, I begged as I kneeled next to my boy feeling powerless and exposed. Eggs were burning in the kitchen.

The sound of the ambulance in the distance was getting closer until the blue flashing lights penetrated that black winter afternoon outside the window. He was still unconscious, but still with me. You’re gonna be alright, I said, you’re gonna be alright.

* * *

The A&E was extremely busy. Oliver arrived there in the ambulance with my wife, who I called when the paramedics were examining him. One doctor kept shouting into the waiting area that only one parent per child was allowed, but I didn’t care. Half an hour ago, I thought I was fighting for his life. I wasn’t going anywhere. Oliver would also need his mum because she breastfeeds him and he would find comfort in that surrounded by doctors and nurses wearing masks, gloves and shooting Calpol down his throat. I was also the one who found him and could describe what happened. That’s not the point, however. I was ready to take on anyone who would try to separate us. We needed each other.

It was the shouting doctor who called out our son’s name. Finally, we thought after four hours of waiting, passing Oliver to each other so we could each get some rest.  She was short, slightly overweight and with blonde hair. We followed her into the room where she turned out to be quite pleasant and didn’t mention the “one parent” policy.

She listened to my description of Oliver’s symptoms and took notes. She said that it all sounded like he had had a seizure. She said it was very common in kids and that it happens when body temperature rises suddenly as opposed to gradually. When she said that, I went back to the moment I found him laying on the sofa, in the pool of his own saliva, and I remembered thinking it looked like seizure, but the only seizure I had ever seen was in movies. ‘Why would Oliver even have seizure?’, I asked myself. I dismissed this possibility and assumed he put something in his mouth and choked on it.

Minutes after we sat down in the waiting area, he had another seizure. He shook violently and his eyes rolled and rested in the corner of his eyelids, looking nowhere again. Terrified mothers moved their kids out of the way as we were rushed into a separate room where Oliver was taken care of immediately. Less than a minute later, Oliver was in the same state as when I found him on the sofa, just a few hours before.

Over the next three days, doctors were trying to find out what had caused the seizure. They took swab tests, urine test and the worst of them all, the blood test. They all came back with nothing. We were sent home with some antibiotics, but nobody really knows what happened.

There are parents out there who have lost their children. I know that. My son wasn’t dying, but when I saw him, I thought he was. Even when I thought he was choking and I knew what to do, I knew that there was a chance I would fail. I believe that the pain I felt, is the same pain experienced by anyone who has ever held their dying child in their arms. Nobody who hasn’t been through it will ever know what it feels like, they can only imagine. And I can only imagine what it feels like to go through it and actually lose a child. What I felt cannot be replicated. The same pain cannot be felt when your dog dies or when your team loses the world cup final. It cannot be felt by anybody but the parent who holds their child for the last time or believes it is the last time. Perhaps this post will be found by other parents out there who can relate to these strong emotions or maybe some of them will find comfort in knowing that if a baby has a seizure, it normally goes away within minutes and they don’t even remember it happened. Thank you for reading.

Why do parents do this to their children?

This is something that has been on my mind for a long time – long before I became a father myself. Why do some parents pierce their infants’ and toddlers’ ears? I can’t get over it. As a parent, your job is to do what’s in the best interest of the child. Are piercings really in their best interest? Are they really necessary? Every time I see a little girl with a shiny dot in her ear, I look at the parents and wish I could ask them why they did this. Was it worth it? It’s not like it’s in the best interest of the child. The child didn’t ask for it and even if she expressed any interest in her mom’s piercings, what kind of mother just goes, “yeah, let’s get you one of these, sweetheart!”? I highly doubt any fathers out there decide to take their daughters to Claire’s and get them an ear piece, but how do they just allow it?

Some people might be sitting there thinking, “Oh, it’s just a little prick, what is the big deal?” Well, the thing is, it’s still not in the best interest of the child. It doesn’t make her life any better and it’s pretty clear it just the mom’s weird desire to put shiny things on her daughter while causing her pain in the process. Just let kids be kids and leave their bodies alone.

It’s not even that I am judging somebody’s style of parenting. This has nothing to do with parenting. Style of parenting would be the way the child is being disciplined or whether she is allowed any screen time, not whether the parents put shiny objects in her ears.

I already know the answer to the question, though. It’s probably something along the lines of, “because it’s pretty”, or “cute”. But is this really a good enough reason? I don’t think so.