Thursday, 27 May 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 yet 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."
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 an 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 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.

Posted with a slightly different angle at The Evil Style Queen and Roncesvalles.