Five years ago I wrote a piece called In Defense of Pornography which I still stand by and think was a decent piece, but I’ve been thinking again about porno in general and have an interesting angle that I want to share, which is, if you have a thing for a certain porn star and you jack off to her get jackhammered nine ways from Sunday, aren’t you technically a cuckhold?
So hear me out on this before you decide to stop reading, but I don’t think there is a big difference. One could argue that you’re a voyeur and just happened a long a hot chick getting fucked and since you’re nowhere in a position to fuck her by yourself, nor would you want to share a chick with another guy, so you watch and just have yourself a merry little wank. That is fair enough and maybe that was true back in the early days of men watching porn, but nowadays, when men are lining up at conventions to meet and greet their favorite onscreen fuck toy and buy replica cunts from Fleshlight, along with buying DVD after DVD of said chick getting fucked constantly by all different types of men, while you stroke your tiny dick, which seems very cuckholdy of “men.”
Now if you’re an adolescent, you can be forgiven for such behavior, because 1. You’re a teenager and not every girl in school is putting out. 2. Sometimes you just need to let one out. 3. You’re young with zero odds of fucking your favorite porn star until you’re 18 in this industry. Any man past their early 20’s, cushion room for you late bloomers, should be ashamed if you collect pornstar stuff like a scrawny Japanese kid collects anime. I’m not saying you have to get into porn to fuck your favorite porn star or even marry them, but I think at some point it is time to hang it up and say, enough is enough, I am going to get gash instead of porn. I watched porn online as a teen, clicking the yes button to being 18 when I wasn’t or typing shaved pussy into Google and looking that way. As I got to the age of 18, I pretty much stopped looking much outside of the occasional view when I am drunk as fuck and going out would be a bad idea, over staying in and having a wank and I don’t regret it one bit. I understand porn stars have to make money obviously, so I’m not saying you couldn’t buy the odd PPV showing of In Diana Jones or Shaving Ryan’s Privates, two classic comedy titles of cinema, but you have to admit there isn’t a big world of difference between being a cuckhold and being a major consumer of pornography. I mean, both are very passive acts, which isn’t masculine. Either one encourage reproductive success, even if you don’t want kids, the libido still wants to. Everything about too much porn seems to concur with my assessment.
When it comes to the real world, one could argue that an alpha male doesn’t exist and everyone is enjoying someone else’s sloppy seconds and I highly disagree for three major reasons. 1. Woman who have had more male partners without reproductive success, boost your male virility up if you’re the one to impregnate them. 2. Not being the one to bear the reproductive cost of another man’s reproductive success is the complete opposite of cuckoldry. So even if she has a boyfriend or husband, you’re not wife swapping or sharing in essence, you’re the cucker, because you’re the one going for reproductive success in the arena. 3. It’s not like you’re going in 10 seconds after another man was already there.
So at least from my perspective, I personally think, too much porn does indeed a cuckhold make and men should look towards toning down their annual consumption, because in my mind, this
might as well be this.
Alabama is currently in the news this week for pushing a law that severely restricts abortions. Now, philosophically, we can argue all day about abortion and when it constitutes a life, which is has to at some point, given that fact it is born. That said, Alabama is setting a dangerous precedence for men, more so than woman. The whole argument on abortion is that woman have sovereignty over their bodies, which was laid down by the Supreme Court back in the 70’s with ROE v WADE. The concept of the supreme court saying “Yes, people have carte blanche” over their bodies is not frivolous and needs to be respected as case law and not being overturned by the states, especially in a decade when the drug war looks like it could start to end.
If woman don’t have control over their bodies, what about us men? It’s even more than just control over our bodies, it is the fact that the government is now, yet again, trying to gain access to what we do and don’t do inside our own homes with the miscarriage aspect of the law. If a woman is unaware of being pregnant and she lifted a television, resulting in said miscarriage, she is responsible for murder. The absurdity of being restricted in your own home by the government is not an idea worth considering, rather, it should be seen the bullshit overreach of inept human beings with more free time on their hands than brains. Most politicians aren’t exactly the most brilliant of people, I mean, just look at the groups that vote them into power for criss sakes! Why? Because idiots like people “like them” and human hubris makes uneducated yokels think they’re experts on subjects more than they actually are, or as it is scientifically referred to, the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Now I want to make sure I am one record here as saying that I think an amendment needs to be added to the bill of rights, stating explicitly that humans have the right to their own bodies and congress shall pass no law restricting one to make personal choices over our own body. This would be great, as it would instantly nullify the drug war, give woman control over their bodies as well as men, allow for government to never be able to say, I can’t stick it in a chicks ass or even more importantly, just the right to be free in my own domain and make the choices I am allowed to make inside my own castle, because regardless of if you’re prochoice or not or pro woman or not, your property is ultimately yours and this law gives the government over reach in regards to everything, including our guns and what good is a castle doctrine if another “king” can have say over my throne?
Introduction
I just finished reading Robert Bloch’s Psycho, which the movie from the 1960’s is based upon. This book itself is based upon the Ed Gein murders, which was a much used source of inspiration for many other movies, books and tv shows throughout the 60’s and 80’s, not to mention The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. I first saw the original Psycho movie in the 1990’s and loved it. Sure, it had its problems, but it was fun. The remake came out in 1998, which I hated, even at twelve years old. Although I am not pictured in it, because I was taking the photo, when I went to Universal Studios Florida as a child, we got a pic of the house from the film. I also went to Bates Elementary School in Salem, Massachusetts. Which, one of my principals looked a lot like Anthony Perkins. So to say I haven’t loved this film for years would be an understatement.
The book was originally written in 1959, and took only one year for it come come to the big screen, which would be in 1960. The impact of this movie would be felt for generations to come, as it gave birth to the slasher genre and without it, we wouldn’t have all the fantastic 80’s movies, like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm St without it. While the movie is still more spoken about than the novel is, I am going to review this anyways. So without further ado, here is Robert Bloch’s novel, Psycho!
Synopsis
A young woman steals $40,000 dollars from her boss and set out to find a new life, when she stops at the Bates’ Motel. Little does she know what is going on in such a secluded place out here on the new highway and the ramifications of her actions result in a unexpected twist!
Characters
The characters are developed slightly better than the movie, but still not enough to care about in this novel, which is a shame too, because the additional information of the characters in the novel make the movie a lot more interesting.
Dialogue
Fine as is. As I always point out, dialogue is hard to screw up.
Prose
Nothing horrible, but it has some flaws like misplaced expository aspects within, but otherwise, just fine.
Subtext/Themes
If anything about this book needs to be said, it is how this is really more relevant than ever before, given the Millennial male is a typical momma’s boy.
Conclusion
The novel isn’t bad, but it lacks the suspense of the movie. Robert was better than a lot of writers in his time frame, but this book isn’t the best example of this. Psycho is just mediocre compared to what people think about the movie and it is hard to imagine this book being so lucky as to create a movie so soon, when a lot of other books have taken longer to grace the silver screen. The twist is given away by chapter 10 or 11 and it is a downhill ride from there that ever even had an ascent. It could of ended a whole 4 chapters earlier than it did and might of salvaged itself, but it didn’t and it only made reading this to the end even more tedious, which is a shame, given it is such a short book. All of the movie’s iconic moments are there, accept non of Hitchcock’s suspense is there to make it worthwhile, nor is the line “We all go a little mad sometimes”. The tension doesn’t exist, the writing is only ok, but it is still a decent read.
3 out of 5.
INTRODUCTION
The Exorcist is one of those iconic movies that no matter when you were born, you probably heard about it. The movie was so intense for the time period that it is claimed it sent people reeling from the cinema in droves, which is believable, given no audience prior to had seen such atrocious scenes laid out before them. Night of the Living Dead was one such film of its timeframe in 1968, but by 1973, the film landscape had changed so vastly that Night of the Living Dead just seemed tame in comparison. Still to this day, few movies with more balls have been made. Can you imagine forced pedo-sapphic incest happening on screen today? Nope and this is why this film is still considered legendary. Having first seen this film in the 90’s, I thought it was tame. I honestly hate anything religious, especially religious horror, because the idea of possession is so mentally absurd, that I can’t suspend my disbelief to believe it is happening. Unlike Freddy, which we know isn’t believed by idiots, we can easily suspend disbelief. Regardless, I decided all these years later to give the book a go and this is my thoughts on Blatty’s iconic novel.
SYNOPSIS
A young Hollywood actress’ daughter becomes “possessed” by a “demon” and you guessed it, an exorcism happens.
CHARACTERS
The only thing less developed then the 12 year old lead in this book is the supporting cast. Most are just there with nothing overly interesting about them. Karras and Lt. Kinderman are the only interesting characters in this novel as with the movies.
PROSE
It’s alright, but it isn’t better than most New York Times bestselling books out there. Blatty had his moments, but it isn’t overly painful to read like Game of Thrones is, either.
SUBTEXT/THEMES
Thematically the book deals with mental illness, religion, belief and other “fun” concepts, but subtext is pretty non-existent, minus one Youtuber who pointed out that the movie had great subtext for sexual abuse. Sadly, while I agree with it, the point of view and how this book is written, along with how the movie goes, pretty much refutes that. Blattly himself even said he didn’t intend for it that way. So, sadly, possession in both the movie and book are quit literal.
CONCULSION
Hardly the worse book I’ve ever read, but it seems more like a parody of the movie. I mean, Regan is a dork, red head kid and the iconic scenes of the movie don’t register the same in the book, they seem weird and don’t fit. Calling the kids rags, is laughable and a horrible nickname. Everything people love about the movie, in this book, seems more mocking in tone, which was clearly not the intent. Mind you this book is 40 years old, along with the movie, but the movie, while I loathe it, holds up better. If you really want to give it a go, feel free to, but otherwise, much like how the book was received prior to a lucky chance appearance by Blattly on a talk show in the 1970’s which catapulted it to fame, I think it is better ignored.
3 out of 5
Best in Your Girl 