May 27, 2010

Men Who Deserve to Perish

The following was triggered off by a discussion about cinematography and the fact that more and more mainstream films that do not feature homosexuality AS SUCH, include "gay sex" scenes. I don't even own a TV set, hardly ever go to the cinema and buy a DVD only if it's become cheap enough, so I am usually years behind, but I have never found that a disadvantage. However, I find this instant of another offputting "in-our-face" strategy of the "gay" lobby still worth a comment. Homosexuals are a small minority (although they are working hard on changing that) yet the heterosexual majority is FORCED to acknowledge their sexuality, once it's featured in mainstream films. This is not new but still topical:
DANIEL CRAIG is urging movie bosses to revolutionise the JAMES BOND franchise by including a gay scene involving the superspy in the follow-up to CASINO ROYALE. The heart-throb actor has also reportedly told studio chiefs he is prepared to film a full frontal nude scene to please both his male and female admirers. He says, "Why not? I think in this day and age, fans would have accepted it. "I mean, look at (British TV series) DOCTOR WHO - that has had gay scenes in it and no one blinks an eye."
So the perversion and corruption has already gone far enough for a (presumably) straight man to want to appeal to his female AND MALE "admirers" (in a sexual sense). Now come, all you straight people and tell me that the thought that a nude display of your body might "please admirers" of the same sex does NOT make you puke your guts out! The time that such a display of my own body might have done that is not all THAT long ago not to be sure that I, for one, WOULD have puked my guts out. As an aside: The fact alone, that a not ugly but otherwise insipid blonde weasel like Daniel Craig could acquire "heartthrob" status and be considred "rugged" speaks for itself. He is neither breathtakingly handsome like Roger Moore nor breathtakingly male like Sean Connery. And he has just an average physique as well, if that. How anybody who ever saw the pectorals and other assorted muscles of a Lloyd Bridges can find the remotest pleasure (whether aesthetically or sexually) in a nonentity like Daniel Craig is beyond me. Notabene that men in the past weren't afraid either to show that they had chest hair, different from the girlie- or neutered men of today.

In this context it ought to be mentioned that in America a population-wide decline in men’s testosterone levels during the last 20 years can be noted, that is not related to normal aging or to health or lifestyle factors known to influence testosterone levels. In plain English: They don't have an explanation for that phenomenon. This decline is consistent with other long-term trends in male reproductive health, such as decreases in sperm quality, increases in testicular cancer or cryptorchidism. The societal neutering of men has gone a long way already. No doubt, watching Daniel Craig in the buff will lower the average American male's testosterone level by another 10 percent.

Good luck to you, American men! No doubt, deriving pleasure from the fact that you are really, really good boys and in all thinkable situations impeccably politically correct will, one day soon, give you more pleasure than the act of procreation. You have gone a long way already towards the brave new world of an Andrea Dworkin, whose vision was that men are reduced to sperm banks on two legs, whose only useful occupation would be the occasional contribution to the gene pool. Men who are too scared to preserve their own sexuality deserve to perish.



Similar entries were posted at TMDSC and The Evil Style Queen.

13 comments:

bruce-church said...

Gay parts and themes in movies are not mainstream in the US. Brokeback Mountain was the first attempt at that a couple years ago, and only Hollywood liked it.

Gay characters is the rage in the UK. In 2008 Dr. Who had a gay scene. A year ago the author of Harry Potter said one of her characters was gay. Now they want 007 to have a gay scene.

I've seen a half dozen shows of Dr. Who--the oldest episodes where Dr. Who is over dressed in 3-piece suits, and his long-legged female "assistants," or whatever their role was, were dressed in short-shorts. Despite that, Dr. Who never gave the woman a second look. I guess Dr. Who was cast as gay from the very first episode.

The director in the news item you refer to says that Dr. Who had a gay scene and yet "no one batted an eye"--as though the audiences for these two shows are the same. Dr. Who is for the geeky college scene crowd, along with Red Dwarf. Dr. Who was never shown by the networks in the US. I suppose it's on the Sci-Fi cable channel along with Mystery Theater.

Despite sharing a common language, hardly any UK shows are shown on the big US TV networks, and I hardly see anything British when surfing the 500 cable and satellite channels.

There are two or three British shows on public TV, mostly on Saturday evening when no one is watching. The reason for the disinterest was once stated in the form of a question on a beer commercial here: "Why are foreign films soooooo foreign?"

The sperm count and quality decline in the US is well documented, but US women are still reproducing at the replacement rate, so there's no impending population implosion in the US as there is in Europe and Russia.

With single motherhood becoming very common in the US and UK, I wonder whether a mere 10 percent of men have fathered 40 percent of the babies! The 10 percent are making up for the 90 percent of less fertile men, maybe. I don't know what the single motherhood rate is in Germany and other Euro countries.

Recently it was in the news that chemicals in the womb made men less fertile, meaning its a congenital condition. US law has it that a chemical is assumed to be safe unless proven otherwise, hence, our population is suffering for it. Similarly, a while back the US Congress said that for off-shore drilling, oil company liability is limited to $75 million. Hence, the BP oil leak disaster. What's the use in being safe when $75 million is the most being unsafe could cost? Also, that explains the lack of counter-measures to stop a leak. It might cost more than $75 million to prepare devices to plug a a deep sea leak, so might as well just let it happen and deal with it then.
--------
Why does the gay community love Doctor Who?
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article3688463.ece

The_Editrix said...

Bruce you are right. The way I put it it looked as if it was an entirely American phenomen, and I ought to have cut out the Dr. Who bit out of the quote anyway. Am I right that James Bond is part of the popular culture at your end?

My concern about the lowering of testosterone levels was not the fertility rate, but the mental state of men it reflects.

Here are a couple of figures regarding out-of-wedlock births worldwide.

You say: "With single motherhood becoming very common in the US and UK, I wonder whether a mere 10 percent of men have fathered 40 percent of the babies!" Interesting theory! Again that could be a reflection of the marginalisation of only too many men. Are you familiar with the "gamers" phenomenon? Although I can emphasize with the men who got harmed by feminism, that is a weird (and I think entirely immoral) answer to it.

bruce-church said...

Hi Editrix,

James Bond was popular in my father generation, along with John Wayne, but now that the Cold War is over, Bond is not as popular. His movies need ever more stunts and explosions to make money at the box office (i.e., Bayification):

http://www.google.com/search?q=bayification

Notice how the last Bond movie cost $230 million to make, and it only grossed $169 million in the US. Most big movies can make it all back in the US before worldwide box office/DVD/rental receipts are counted:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/JamesBond.php

For instance, Harry Potter's last move took $250m to make, and grossed $301m in the US (not that I saw it or even care, but my aunt (a German major in college) read the last "Potter" book auf Deutsch):
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/HarryPotter.php

I see Germany has 10pc of its kids belonging to single mothers, the US 40pc, and UK 44pc.

While googling around on the subject, I found some interesting articles--such as paternity tests show that 30pc of men who doubt they are the father are right--they really aren't the father (see link below).

I couldn't find any study saying how many men actually fathered children, but anecdotal evidence says it's a substantial minority up to a fifth of men who "never father children".

I think what's happened is due to "the Pill," talented people have put off having kids, sometimes forever, and they don't have as many when they do. So what happens when average people have three kids on average by the time they are 25, and smart people have one kid on average by age 40? The average IQ goes down, so the US has to import engineers and doctors and professionals from India and other countries! (But we can't let many Euros immigrate w/o their marrying an American because that would be racist, so say the PC police.) The movie Idiocracy (2006) is a comedy, but it's really no joke over here!:

http://www.amazon.com/Idiocracy/dp/B000LWBSDU/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=digital-video&qid=1275026631&sr=1-2

The American populace is going wild genetically and behaviorally, as any public school teacher can tell you. So that Gaming site for picking up women probably really works with Americans in their weakened genetic state. I saw a study a while back saying that men who ask women for sex at bars and the like are successful one out of seven attempts.
-----------
Nearly All Paternity Tests Back Dad's Biological Claim
http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/index.php?p=news1&id=532176

bruce-church said...

Oops! Instead of "I see Germany has 10pc of its kids belonging to single mothers," I meant "Germany has 10pc fewer (30%) of its kids belong to single mothers than the US (40%)."

beakerkin said...

I am bothered by the gratuitousness
of it. It really doesn't improve the plot.

Alligator said...

Bond films were the number one grossing film series in the US. As Bruce pointed out, the last Bond installment didn't do so well.

It isn't necessarily that we are tired of Bond gimmicks. But the genre has become TOO reliant on computer generated special effects and explosions instead of plot lines. Those are great for Star Wars, but become more problematic in other films. I realize I have to suspend belief during a movie, but I still want it to SEEM somewhat believable.

The other Bonds, especially Connery and Moore, had droll senses of humor and always came up with those witty little sayings. Example: Bad guy gets fried. Bond quips "Shocking. Simply shocking."
Example: Villaness gets shot instead of Bond on a dance floor. Bond eases her into a chair and smiles to a curious onlooker, "Do you mind if my friend just sits this one out...she's just dead."
Example: Bond shoots bad guy with spear gun and says, "I think he got the point." Then there were all those barbs and jabs between Bond and Q and little sexual innuendos with Moneypenny. Those exchanges branded and made the Bond trademark.

I just watched the most recent film. It was "just fair" as far as Bond films go. Craig's Bond is just a little too dark, grim and too tortured a soul. Maybe that is what Fleming intended Bond to be, but after growing up on the film genre, I find it a radical and disturbing departure. If they do a blatant nude or homosexual scene with Craig, I'd say it will probably finish the series in the US. Most American Bond fans will look at it and say, "and the point of that was...what?"

bruce-church said...

McDonalds runs gay advert in France:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/04/video-french-mcdonalds-running-gay-themed-ads-for-no-apparent-reason/

The_Editrix said...

French are decadent and immoral and people who murder their king are doomed anyway.

On a more serious note, there we have some more sucking up to the Zeitgeist. I found the boy's contemptuous and snotty smile that put down the straight man, his father, and with which the spot ended, quite telling. My theory would be that there is a homosexual art director who pushed that through and that nobody dared to protest for fear of being called a homophobe.

But then, maybe the French really don't mind with whom they fornicate. The "first couple" in the Élysée would be a case in point.

bruce-church said...

Oh boy! With Obama in the White House, everyone is determined to ignore whatever the nutty professor does, and try to undo it after he's out of office in 2.5 or 6.5 years. The White House has turned into the Palace of Versailles or Sodom, where normal Americans don't belong. Check this out:

Presidential Proclamation--Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month, The White House, May 28, 2010

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/presidential-proclamation-lesbian-gay-bisexual-and-transgender-pride-month

The_Editrix said...

With all his flaws, Obama comes across to me as a genuine family man, good husband and father. So this must be sheer and undiluted opportunism. I don't know yet what I find worse. A pervert or an opportunist.

bruce-church said...

The Broken American Male: and How to Fix Him (2009), by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312541503/beliefnet

bruce-church said...

Why Germany shouldn't count on the US if it gets in trouble again - 24 percent of highly educated women have no kids (down from a high of 31 percent), whereas only 9 percent of women without a high school degree fail to have a kid.

I'm guessing that nine percent of all women can't have kids for medical reasons, so that means 100 percent of women without a high school degree--and that can get pregnant at all, have at least one child each.

And Europeans are shocked, SHOCKED that an American pilot would fly through a mountain valley and clip the wire of cable cab :)

Childlessness is up in the U.S.
Racial gap narrowing as fewer blacks, Hispanics have kids

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37908359/ns/health-womens_health/

excerpts: WASHINGTON - Nearly 1 in 5 American women beyond childbearing years never gave birth as fewer couples, particularly higher-educated whites, view having children as necessary to a good marriage.

While higher-educated women overall are more likely to be childless, that may be slowly changing. In 2008, about 24 percent of women ages 40-44 with a master's, doctoral or professional degree did not have children, a decline from 31 percent in 1994.

In the meantime, childlessness has risen sharply for women with less than a high school diploma — from 9 percent in 1994 to 15 percent in 2008.

fpb said...

Good news. The 23rd Bond movie has been suspended and seems likely never to be finished, due to lack of finance. I thought that Craig was a bad choice and now it turns out that investors don't believe in him either.