sexiest woman room

Who remembers RealDolls™? They were a big splash in the news (certainly in the Sydney Morning Herald) about ten years ago. RealDolls are uber-realistic sex dolls. I recall it all started when some model-maker (my old trade) realised that the new epoxies and urethanes that spookily replicated flesh could be used to make something infinitely more realistic than those nasty inflatable dolls. RealDolls weren't cheap of course, with each costing in the vicinity of US$5000. But people paid and RealDoll seems to be thriving with assorted new 'big-eyed' models that, to all intents and purposes, are as close to underage dolls that they can get without being obvious. I don't doubt that the fellow who came up with RealDoll made a lot of money - and probably contrived some bullshit disappear-up-it's-own-arse logic to explain the rightness of it all as well.


Truth is, RealDoll is merely an X-rated version of the Pygmalion myth, best known to people in it's tarted up version, My Fair Lady (from the pen of everyone's favourite Fabian Socialist, George Bernard Shaw). The Pygmalion myth might loosely be described as a fellow's desire to have a partner who can shut the fuck up, you stupid bitch. Don't be alarmed there, it's just me channelling a self-obsessed git. And that's where RealDoll's head is at, so to speak. It frees a person from having to consider their partner, and allows them to be as mad and self-absorbed as can be. With a RealDoll, 'It's all about me'. There's a documentary out there featuring various RealDoll owners and you'll be hard-pressed finding a sorrier line-up of losers anywhere.


Mind you, the astoundingly life-like properties of the new urethanes are no longer anything special. The samples that blew my mind at the pattern-making suppliers back in the early nineties are a given now. The big deal lately is the animation of the simulacra. Japan seems to be leading the way in this regard. If you've ever seen Honda's Asimo robot running up and down stairs you can't help but be impressed. And lately the news carried a report about the life-like 'Repliee Q1' who sat demurely in a chair and answered questions. Wow - imagine her with fuck-able orifices! Hot diggety!


Eventually we'll arrive at Repliee Q10 and finally the shortcomings of the perpetually passive RealDoll will be done away with. Not only will your sex partner be able to shut the fuck up, but will fuck like a monkey too! At last blow-jobs that, a) don't involve you having to do all the work, as with the RealDoll, and b) are free of all the coughing, spluttering, and complaining that comes with a real person. Dig it - it's a cum-spattered E-ticket for an X-rated Disneyland. And all in the comfort of your own home!


To hell with the real world. To hell with Buddha's dukkha and the fear/anxiety that accompanies things being other than I would wish. I refuse to see the world as it is. Instead I posit myself as a god and recreate the world to according to my whims - everything must bow down (or bend over) before me. Thus spake Zarathustra, ha ha.

It was only just recently that I became familiar with Jacques Fresco. And yes, I know that Les Visible pointed us all at him way back when, but what with me using an internet cafe wherein heavy downloads are a frowned upon no-no, I was unable to view the movie links he provided. But a lovely fellow who sits out the back of the cafe with me, gave me Zeitgeist Addendum straight from his hard drive. Finally I catch up.


And there it all was. The beauty of technology as a means of freeing us of want. With limitless energy providing limitless food, shelter, clothing, and transport, whole fields of unproductive un-endeavour would disappear. Without want, we'd see the end of crime and it's concomitant allopathic responses by way of the police, judiciary, and prisons. We'd have no need of the military. With money being unnecessary so would the industries dealing with it - banking, insurance, the stock market, all gone. Advertising too! Hurray! I'll bring the beers.

Sure enough, I'm down with all of the above. But as is my wont, I just had to pick at this thing. It occurred to me that it was less a case of, 'Here are the problems and now what is the answer?' than it was, 'Here is the answer and what problems may we solve with it?' The answer is technology sure enough. And clearly technology can solve many, many problems. And in doing so will, more or less, address the big picture. But it looks to me that the big picture view we have here has been assembled from lots of little pictures. Dig it, it's like a David Hockney photo montage.


But like a Hockney snapshot, what with the gaps in the pictures, the smooth flow of my mental eye stuttered. For mine, what Fresco's picture lacked was a coherency, a unifying overall philosophy. It seemed not to have anything to tie it together. I wondered about Fresco's world. If something were to pop up, some blemish on the perfection of it all, I had the impression that the response would be, 'What technology is there to throw at this?'

Hmm... maybe that'll work. Or maybe not. I'm thinking 'not'.

---

There are only two 'philosophers' (not the right word, but never mind) that I consider to be bullet-proof in their entirety. They are Charles Darwin and the Buddha. Me putting words in Darwin's mouth - food and protection from the elements are not the fundamental human drive. They are merely responses to what is the fundamental drive - the need to pass on one's genes. Or to put this more simply, any entity that exists must (wittingly or unwittingly, it really doesn't matter) seek to continue its existence. This is ipso-facto territory. Any entity that lacks this drive will cease to be an entity. Any entity that exists will have it. That's all there is to it.


The simple truth of existentialism - 'why am I here?' - is that there isn't one. Not beyond, 'a thing is'. The flipside of this is, 'a thing that isn't isn't'. Bloody genius, me. I've just done away with the whole field of existentialism. A fig for Descartes!

But forget such abstractions. Let's just view them as a basis for understanding the far more visceral phrase 'the sex drive'. Believe it or not, this 'drive' is existential in nature, not that that ever occurs to us. What does occur is something like 'Phwooar, look at that arse! You could bounce twenty cent coins off that!' Or is that just me? Anyway, every thirty seconds folks - you, me, the lot of us - a thought like this jolts our brain.

Believe it or not, such thoughts (by way of what drives them) are more fundamental in terms of the human condition than the basic needs of food and shelter. Sure, we need food and shelter to survive but we need to survive because of our 'without-it-we-wouldn't-be-here-to-begin-with' sex drive.

Back to Darwin now. Darwin says that there are various means of dealing with how to get it on with members of the opposite sex. Nature presents more variations on this theme than there are stars in the sky. Mates are chosen because they are: fat and sleek; good at fighting; have shiny feathers; sing well; dance well; build a better home; have superior artistic taste; on and on. Funny how humans barely differ from animals, birds, and fish isn't it? That's one of the beauties of Darwin. He says that anyone who thinks they're special is fooling themselves.


But that's only half the picture. All of the above responses are appeals by those hoping to be selected to those who'll be selecting. Those who select are after quality. For those being selected, quality is neither here nor there. They're after quantity. There's no point condemning this. Like any creature with a sex drive is going to stop with one partner. Honestly. Any creature that gets laid might be shagged out momentarily, but the sex drive doesn't take long to reassert. It only has one message and it says, 'Get Rooting!' Nor should any women out there feel smug. Nature is replete with examples of species which appear to be monogamous but are actually no such thing. Philandering abounds, females included.

So what was my point exactly? The point is that food and shelter cannot be divorced from our fundamental Darwinian sex drive. Even with all things provided for us we will still seek to find better partners and more of them. And we will do this by differentiating ourselves from our neighbours. Whoever has the biggest house, the best clothes, the shiniest car will get laid more often. Getting circular now - this need to one-up our neighbours must exist because we exist. And whatever Jacques Fresco promises us, it won't put a dent in it.

---

What a load of crap! We all know perfectly well that people who have nothing but generosity of spirit can get laid too. What about that huh?


I thank that imagined individual for segueing me into the Buddha. The Buddha acknowledges all that Darwin says, with his dictum 'life is suffering'. And suffering of course is desire. Of course, the Buddha doesn't dwell solely on the desire to get laid like Darwin does. He goes beyond Darwin to view things in terms of the 'self'. So what's the difference?

Hopefully I've done enough fleshing out above to save us yet more circuitousness and thus allow me to declare that there isn't one. Darwin's addressing of the necessity of 'being' and Buddha's view of the self as desire, are (if you cock your head and squint) the same thing. Our existence predicates the furthering of our existence and this necessarily places the self front-and-centre, first-and-foremost, the thing without which we are nothing.

The Buddha goes very very far in these thoughts. Too far for this discussion. Let's just stick to the Buddha as an answer to Darwin's imperatives. The Buddha has no beef with Darwin. He acknowledges the self but says that to view it as a thing separate to that-which-is-not-the-self is a mistake. Selflessness is not so much a rejection of yourself, ahem, but rather a means of viewing yourself in context.


Side note - Anyone who imagines a selfless person as being some idiot giving all their food to others and starving to death as a result, is being silly. Not only would this break Darwin's dictum but would also be a statement of separation of the self against that-not-the-self which is contrary to everything Buddha is on about. And yes, I can imagine a situation where such things would occur and still be described as 'right', but we shouldn't confuse extreme anomalies with the truth of the whole. In statistics, such extremities on the bell curve are discarded (2.1 standard deviations, blah blah, blah) and quite right too. Anomalies do not speak of a system but of its tolerances, a whole separate subject.

Anyway, with this selflessness as a lens, or a mindset, or a guiding principle perhaps, all of Darwin's dictums can be fulfilled. The world will function just fine. We'll all be fed, clothed, and sheltered and yes, even laid. Whilst it's no perfect 'Just one quick spray and it's gone!' antidote to Darwin's inevitable need to get laid more often, nor is it about anything else.

---

So hopefully you should have that mess of pottage above sitting in your head as a coherent perfect thought. Yes? Excellent. Now you understand the hole in Jacques Fresco's model of providing all that we need. He's got the cart before the horse. I don't know if anyone has ever actually tried to do this but I expect that with enough fiddling, it could be made to work. But not very well and not for very long. Likewise, Fresco's wish to sate our desires is one way of quenching the fires but not a very good one. The truth is desires cannot be sated. Like the TV show said - the nature of monkey is irrepressible. Subsequently any resemblance between Fresco's envisioned world and selflessness is merely a well-meaning coincidence.


Even viewed in solely practical terms the whole thing will be doomed to fail. In spite us of having all things in abundance, if the nature of the self is left unaddressed, those of a monstrous ego (pyschopaths if you prefer) will inevitably sacrifice all on the altar of their own regard. And frankly there seems to be nothing in Fresco's model to stop them.

In the big dreamy picture that is Jacques Fresco's brave new world, something big is lacking. There seems to be no coherent sense of 'This is who we are'. Or in negative terms, there is no 'When all else fails see rule 1'. Me, I reckon a continuum of selflessness provides a sense of 'who we are', a 'rule 1'. It does so as a stripped-down go-cart, a bare-bones lean-machine, a wonder tool good for any eventuality. It cannot be slurred or impeached since it favours none. It's as right as a thing can be.

Even if Fresco's plans were fully realised, it would eventually fail and we'd be back to where we started. On the other hand, if we could explode some kind of gigantic world-affecting Buddha-bomb and fill everyone's head with the truth of selflessness, the world that would result would pretty much resemble Fresco's vision anyway. And have a basis to it that made sense.


Brilliant! This and a thousand other mad dreams of a Buddhist dictator. What are the odds on Fresco's dreams seeing reality? Given that it threatens to replace insanely powerful and greedy institutions, who would rather fight to the death than let it live, it would have to be the bookie's dream. A buck will get you a million. Selflessness on the other hand is a personal trip. You can do it all on your own, and no maglev trains required.

There I was wandering around my own hard drive and I found some porn! It was the only thing I'd ever bothered saving. It was from a VCD I bought in Hong Kong years ago. I bought it because its cover caught my eye. The Chinese characters on the front said, '500 people!' and beneath that was a photo of hundreds of naked couples, each with their own futon, with the futons laid out in rows in some gigantic sound stage. Sure enough it was a Chinese knock-off of a Japanese thing. I expect it cost ten HK dollars which is about a buck fifty.

Buck fifty or no, it's one of the most extraordinary things ever. It's not an orgy or a free-for-all. All of the people are directed. They all do the same thing. They start with kissing. After ten minutes, with the cameras wandering through the ranks, the director gives the nod and everyone goes to the next foreplay position. And so on and so on. Ten minutes of each thing, with everyone in rows, all facing the same way, all simultaneously progressing through the various positions, man on top, woman on top, etc etc, until everyone 'goes' (nb. the Japanese do not so much 'come' as 'go'. Ha! this and a thousand other curiosities). And then it's all over bar the mopping up with the thoughtfully provided tissues. At no time is there any artifice, pretence, or bullshit. The whole thing is shockingly honest.


Okay, so this is porn but it's also something else. For mine, this is up there with Christo and Spencer Tunick. As art it's the equal of any of these, albeit without the famous backdrops. Viewed objectively, it's like some mad anthropological tableau, a real cultural trip. These people are so polite and considerate of each other! And within these ordered acts of nude uniformity is the wildest array of differences imaginable. I still don't know what to make of it. One could write it off as mere porn, sure. But this is so unlike anything you've ever seen before, and such a mindfuck, that it's beyond that. It's something else.

But! Forget about it! I don't really want to discuss this particular video. I merely insert the preceding as a preface to the following. (Or if you want to view it as me cravenly explaining why I have porn on my hard-drive, you may do so, ha ha.) And otherwise, I have no idea if this vid was a big deal in Japan. Perhaps it was run of the mill? Certainly its not-infrequent incidences of female orgasm and ejaculation are. In Japan, that is. In 'Western' porn (which is to say, Jewish porn) there's no such thing. What's perfectly unremarkable in Japan is completely and utterly absent in the West. And it's this line of thought that has fired my brain.

Okay so I've written about this before. Ever monotonous, me. But here I want to go one step further, make some new connections, and otherwise clarify things.

---

But let's leap to Scott Ritter first. Remember him? Way back when, in the weapons inspection phase after Bush the Elder's Gulf War, he was 'it'. He was the good-looking ex-marine who was stomping all over Iraq searching for WMD's. He was certainly all over the media. I saw him dozens of times and you probably did too. He was savvy, sharp, and pithy. He was so good that whenever the media needed an expert on WMD's in Iraq, Ritter was the first, and probably the only, name in their rolodex.

Cue to a couple of years later and we're in the run-up to the idiot son's Gulf War with a media discussion of same exact subject - WMD's in Iraq. On and on, an endless discussion of how Saddam was going to kill us all. Everyone who was anyone, and could string two words together, got on the TV to tell us about Iraqi WMD's. Everyone, except Scott Ritter. And nobody noticed. The only reason I noticed was on account of his name copping a single fleeting mention in a single fleeting newspaper article. It hinted that Ritter was somehow in disagreement with what the US government was telling us.


A minor explosion in the head of yours truly. Scott Ritter! Whatever happened to him? Why wasn't he on the telly? And he disagreed about the WMD's? Huh?! No one disagreed on this! What's going on? Fired with curiosity, I hit the net and discovered that Ritter was saying that there were no WMD's in Iraq at all. Not a sausage. And the media...?

The media, which apparently loves controversy, was utterly uninterested in a fellow who was, a) arguably the expert on the topic under discussion, b) media savvy and camera friendly, with an excellent track record, and c) had a controversial view on the biggest topic going.

I'll keep saying this because it's a big deal - Ritter's complete and utter absence in the media was IMPOSSIBLE.

Well, it was impossible if the media is what they say they are. Allegedly they love controversy. Allegedly they like to get the scoop that no one else gets. Allegedly they love to dig up the truth and win that Pulitzer. Scott Ritter was someone's ticket to all of these things and yet not one single media entity would touch him. Nuts.

The only possible explanation for Ritter's absence is one that pivots on the media as a bloc-media wherein no one may stray from a centrally dictated line. That's the only conclusion possible.

Okay, yawn, everyone gets it. It's all old hat. Well it certainly is on this blog, ha ha. But whatever. I just want to hammer home the principle that if one can figure out what's absent in any given media discussion, far more will be learnt than by attempting to analyse what's present. Or perhaps that should be 'presented'. What's presented is bullshit designed to mislead and confuse. Whatever isn't there has been disappeared because it will lead us to the truth. Or peace. Or health. Or freedom. Or insert-thing-worth-having-here.

---

And everything is like this. Certainly everything in the media. For some reason we differentiate the media from Hollywood, from publishing, from games, from the porn industry. This is foolish. They're all the same thing. They all deal with perceptions. And they're all run by same people. Jewish people, natch. To be honest, if the Jewish people had one single talent, it's their ability to posit an imagined reality. No one here will be surprised when I say that, between reality and the Jewish media's posited reality, the latter trumps the former. Just ask the Iraqis! Otherwise you can call this ability lying if you like - no skin off my nose.

And this genius for creating a self-serving reality isn't confined to us understanding that Jewish people are victim/heroes and Arabs are villains. Nor to Christians being slowly turned into precisely the kind of people that Christ emphatically rejected. Nor to the world being convinced that usury and money-as-debt are as natural and inevitable as the sunrise.

Nothing is left out. Everything is viewed through this Jewish lens. Even sex. Sex is a funny thing. How do we learn about sex? Okay so there's the antiseptic mechanics of it that we're all taught at school. And then... And then... It seems that's there's two ways to learn about sex. One is by doing it. I'm going to call this 'education by Chinese whispers'. It's whispered from person to person. The other means of learning about sex is via the Jewish perception machine. Which is to say, porn. And no mistake, porn definitely serves this purpose. How many kids have watched full-tilt porn before they even have their first sexual experience? Most of them?

Fact is, they don't even really need to watch porn at all. Regular sitcom television is now so pornographic it's mind-boggling. To be honest I rarely watch this sort of stuff. But all one has to do is flick around the channels and this is sufficient to get the idea. Has anyone seen Two And A Half Men? Good god. Is it just me, or is this show entirely devoted to the sex life of two men who have a boy living with them? And last night in surfing through the channels I happen upon David Lucas's glabrous bonce (from the comedy show Little Britain USA) filling half the screen as he mugs wantonly over David Walliams' realistically sculpted prosthetic penis (which fills the other half). Do we seriously think kids don't surf through the channels like this? Of course they do.


Okay, sure, it's the parent's fault. Guilty of insufficient vigilance! But vigilance is easier said than done. Not so long ago, finding depictions of sex anywhere was not easy. Now it's everywhere. It's so omnipresent that we barely think anything of it. It's normalised now. So much so, that was you to sit in someone's loungeroom and point out the perversity of what they're watching, they'd take you for some variety of nutbar wowser.

Anyway the trend is unmistakable. Four decades ago TV depictions of married couples required that they not be in the same bed together. And now, not only are they in bed, but it will be made perfectly clear that they are involved in some graphically unmistakable sex act. In fact, it's perfectly possible that it will comprise the entire pivot around which the episode revolves. Seinfeld anyone? Not forgetting of course that the biggest video of whatever-year-that-was was Paris Hilton sucking cock. How many boys and girls saw that? Most of 'em I expect.

Side note 1 - I spent some time in Milan in Italy and met a lot of wealthy young American kids studying fashion etc. It was fun for a while but eventually I got tired of hearing the word 'awesome', and moreover, of the really intense pornographic nature of most of their conversations. I'm not talking smutty double entendres here. I'm always up for that. This was different. "No man, she actually preferred sucking cock to having sex. She said that! And she bet me (right there in the middle of the party!) that she could make me come without touching me except with her mouth. So I said, 'Man, we're getting this on video...''. All with endless interjections of 'awesome' from the mixed company audience. I was at a loss in these conversations. I'd never come across people who talked like this. And nor was there any shortage of them. Shake my head.

And me, I haven't the slightest doubt that these kids are this way because of their immersion in the Jewish media. Not only are our conversations ever more given to sex, but this sex is ever more extreme in its perversity. But this is just more background to my main point, that being about absences.

---

The absence in amongst this sea of porn is female orgasm. And had I not lived in Japan, watched Japanese porn, and witnessed the ubiquity of female orgasm, I'd have assumed that it was some variety of chimera - 'a thing that is hoped or wished for, but in fact is illusory or impossible to achieve'. As far as Jewish porn is concerned that's female orgasm for you.

Or let's put it this way - women do have orgasms in Jewish porn. Which is to say they scream more loudly when the man comes. But having seen When Harry Met Sally, we all know that it's bullshit. And it is bullshit! Besides, female orgasm results from certain, ahem, physical actions. Me, I have never seen these actions depicted in Jewish porn. Certainly not for long enough for an orgasm to result. So whilst we might vaguely understand that female orgasm is possible, we will never be shown how to bring it about in any useful fashion. (I suspect that if any couple in a Jewish porn movie did manage it, the whole sequence would be left on the cutting room floor.)

Keep in mind that no cultural reference is too obtuse for the porn industry to hang its hat on. 'Splendour in the Grass' was turned into 'Splendour in the Ass'. 'Edward Scissorhands' became 'Edward Penis-hands'. On and on, ad nauseam. Any idiotic thing will do. Except female orgasm.

Straight up and unambiguously now - This absence is IMPOSSIBLE. Which is to say, it's a deliberate act. There is no way known that the porn industry forgot, or is otherwise unaware of, actual female orgasm. It's as simple as that.


Side note 2 - Who remembers the G-spot? I recall a fifteen-minutes-of-fame book written about it in the eighties. And then what? And then nothing. It sank without trace. Not a single ripple interrupted our ever growing exposure to our ever more perverse discussions of fellatio, necrophilia, bestiality etc. In fact I expect that there are people reading this who are scratching their heads, not quite sure what I'm talking about. Well just to make things clearer (ha!), here's the definition of G-spot from my Macintosh's Oxford American Dictionary - 'a sensitive area of the anterior wall of the vagina believed by some to be highly erogenous and capable of ejaculation.' What? "believed by some"? Ha ha ha ha - who wrote this shit? Go to Japan you fuckwit! Check the porn! No need for 'belief' mate, it's all right there spritzing the goddamn camera.

---

Okay. So what does it all mean? Why is Jewish porn (hell, the whole media) completely devoid of non-fake female orgasm? Why is that? Remember - like Scott Ritter's absence in the run up to Iraq, this cannot be an accident. Impossibilities like this can only be deliberate.

It's hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that the existence of female orgasm, along with the means of achieving it, are some mad variety of occult knowledge. The masses (the non-Japanese masses, that is) are to be kept ignorant of it. To what end? Why is this so?

I wonder if there isn't some porn-specific variation of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion out there that explains why the goyim may not know about female orgasm. "Deprived of this knowledge, the goyim will all run melancholy mad and turn to us for solace" or somesuch.

And whether I have a precise answer for this or no (okay, so it's 'no'), it's not like everything above is rendered worthless. The fact that I don't know the 'why' doesn't change the cold hard certainty of 'who', 'what', and 'when'. These alone are enough to tell us what we're in amongst. The dichotomy of reality and its depiction by the world-is-thus Jewish media is cast in stark relief regardless.

Consider the enormity of this. There is no aspect of our existence that the Jewish definers of reality aren't prepared to distort. Nothing. What's in your head belongs to them. From whom we kill, to how we fuck - all of it - it's all theirs.

And sure enough, the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he doesn't exist. Yeah well fuck that. I'm calling it.