Author Archives: theantifeminist

Rage, Rage Against The Dying Of The Light

For a number of years I’ve become pretty dejected at the current state of affairs and trajectory of our sad little ‘movement’. There is obviously no hope of generating even a modicum of resistance to the ongoing and relentless Sexual Holocaust.

This dejection got to the point where I didn’t even bother with this site anymore, or even read the few other sites worth following, such as Eivind Berge (before he became Eivind Sperge) or Men-Factor. Hell, I even stopped paying any interest in cuties as I passed them in the street.

For some reason, the news coming out of France over the last few weeks has really lit my fire again. I can’t put into words the incandescent rage at the femihags and against this society that I feel when I read of the treatment of author Gabriel Matzneff, who openly admitted having consensual and loving sex with 14 year olds decades ago, when in France such a thing was about as ‘criminal’ as forgetting to put back your library books on time. Now he’s getting charged with rape of a minor, on the basis of a law introduced just last year, because some fat aging 47 year old hag, bitter at the fact that she has zero sexual power over any male, compared to the time when she was a young teen and could seduce any man in France, has ‘re-framed’ her experience as abuse. She says she didn’t consent, she says she was scarred for life (despite having a wonderfully successful life, but hell she can’t pull an alpha bad boy any more), therefore this intelligent old man, has to be anally raped in prison for the rest of his life.

No doubt they will be coming for Michael Houellebecq next. The fact that he has written sympathetically about ‘paedophiles’ in his world famous novels will be enough, even if he didn’t ‘abuse’ any willing 14 year old girls decades ago.

France can burn, and it will, and it is. What an abysmal country. It literally is burning every week (although the media don’t show the yellow vest protests anymore, preferring to focus on a couple of hundred paid chanters in Tehran). It is sliding into Islamization (and likely a brutal civil war that will result in the bloody and painful deaths of millions), or rather Femislamization, combining the worst aspects of both feminism and Islam anti-sex laws (just as in countries such as Turkey), as I predicted ten years ago will happen eveywhere, and actually encouraged by autistic Male Sexualists such as Grauer and Eivind Berge.

Am I really the only one out of 3 billion men on Earth who is burning with rage at this? Well there is one other person. Eivind Berge of course. But he’s clearly profoundly autistic and his rage seems more of the autistic kind of grammer nazis and spelling bees. He once went into an aspie fit on this site for my claiming that sex offenders get raped in prison. Of course, men can’t be raped, only physically assaulted with penises, and Eivind never got assaulted with a penis during his time in a Norwegian holiday camp. How dare I abuse the English language in such a manner. The female sex offender charade is all that matters.

I’m currently in Spain, a country that was as close to paradise as can get only a few years ago. It’s incredible that one hag, a femiservative later kicked out of office for corruption, could wield so much power over men’s cocks, that she could raise the age of consent single-handedly from 13 to 16, above even the recommendations of the United Nations and her own cabinet colleagues.

Of course it was illegal for British people to have sex with anyone under 16 outside of the UK for a number of years before Spain raised its age of consent laws. This was due to Jacqui Smith, another fat, repulsive hag, who also was kicked out of office because of corruption on her part. Now her long suffering husband has finally escaped her clutches and can go back to fapping to porn in peace.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7878737/Former-Labour-Home-secretary-Jacqui-Smith-splits-husband.html

I must make it clear, I have never once in my life had sexual contact with a person under the age of 16. Sadly, now I never will be able to. Before Jacqui, it would have been quite easy, and fully legal, but any opportunities that arose, I walked away, simply because I – being able to predict the future – could see that society would be changing fast, even places like Spain and Germany, and France, and the girl consenting fully under the current law would at the very least be claiming to have been abused when an older hag.

Still, it’s painful now in Spain passing pretty teenage girls (and Spanish girls have never seemed prettier to me), and seeing their faces light up and immediately start brushing their hair and smiling when they notice me glancing at them, and wishing that I would talk to them. And I’m 50 years old now.

And yet, they will come for us eventually. When Eivind Berge started his blog, he was unable to see that Norway, a country with one of the best education systems in the world and a relatively tolerant and relaxed attitude to even controversial free speech, would eventually descend into the same hysteria as places like the UK.

Even if I shut down this blog now, despite never having broke even the most ridiculous of femihag laws in my life, I’ve always been aware they will come for me eventually, even if it’s in twenty years time. It’s too late to turn back now.

The femihags have cut off our cocks, we must never allow them to cut out our tongues.

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

https://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/25/Coleman_Poem_Do_not_go_gentle_into_that_good_night.pdf

Why is there still no pro male sexuality movement?

The invention of the pill changed the sexual landscape forever, and fifty years later, society is still coming to terms with it and working out a new sexual moral code. Or more accurately, women have been working out how to continue justifying and protecting their maladaptive needs, and constrain male sexuality, in a new sexual rulebook enforced upon society and men through feminism (and femiservatism).

The pill, as well as other technological ‘advances’ such as abortion on demand, effectively separated sex from reproduction for the first time in tens of thousands of years of human existance. It ought to have, and for a brief time did, largely separate sex from stifling morality. The pill sexually liberated men far more than it did women, and certainly older women (the type of women which tends to have political power). The problem for men is that in the decades since, whilst feminism has exploded in its Second and Third Waves as a response to the new sexual realities, and as a brutal counterrevolution to the sexual revolution, there has been a near complete lack of male reply.

The pill enabled men to have sex with women without consequence. Sexual morality for thousands of years had been based upon the need to compel men (and the community) to support impregnated women. In fact, Western Civilization today is built upon the Christian myth of the virgin Mary and her baby Jesus, a myth we celebrate each year at this time by giving gifts, mirroring the gifts (resources) given to Mary and the fatherless newborn child Jesus. The pill changed all this. It didn’t liberate women, because women’s psychology didn’t change. The philosopher Schopenhauer wrote that after sex, a woman wants to embrace and hold her man, the man just wants to go to sleep (no doubt, to dream of sex with other young fertile women). Men no longer had to be held accountable for the sex act, as a woman was no longer left potentially high and dry, holding a baby. Men thought the sex war had ended, and gleefully left the battlefield with their cocks in their hands. In fact, the war was about to take on an ever greater brutality, with only one side fighting it.

In terms of political movements comparable to feminism, men have thus far come up with the Men’s Rights Movement and MGTOW, and more broadly the Manosphere, and even more broadly I guess, the alt-right.

The men’s rights movement had promising beginnings, with even its very founder – the Victorian thinker Ernest Belfort Bax – being a free love advocate, railing in his extensive writings against such things as feminist definitions of sexual assault, and the raising of the age of consent (their ‘favourite krank’ as he put it). This continued into the modern age when, for the first time, the sexual upheavals of the 60’s and 70’s were analyzed from the point of view of men, by ‘men’s rights’ authors such as David Thomas, Neil Lyndon, and Lionel Tiger, and the online MRM founder Angry Harry. The latter three, certainly, recognized the pill as fundamentally changing the balance of power between the sexes, and all of these early MRAs were positive in their view of male sexuality that had been diminished by the feminist response to the sexual revolution (and all of them recognized intuitively that feminism was responding to the sexual revolution of the 60’s that had liberated men more than women, not creating it as per the standard narrative).

Since then, as we have documented here recently, the MRM has turned into a curious mirror of victimhood feminism, not merely in the sense of being a male version of feminism, but actually validating feminist sexual morality and demanding ‘a piece of the pie’ in terms of shared and equal victimhood in a regrettably free sexual marketplace.

The MGTOW appears on the surface more promising. At least MGTOWs, who reject women completely, aren’t likely to suffer the fate of the MRM in being infected and taken over by female ‘sympathetic’ parasites such as the ‘Honey Badgers’. Unlike MRAs, MGTOWs do also propose a sexual strategy in response to the changed sexual universe men and women now inhabit. Go your own way and leave women behind. However, there are two major problems with the MGTOW approach. Firstly, it seems more like an admission of defeat on the part of men, rather than a new battle tactic in response to the changed formations of the enemy (feminism). If men can no longer fight on the sexual battlefield, it’s time to leave it. Secondly, MGTOWs tend to be a little short on details of how men, especially young horny men, are actually supposed to lead a sexually fulfilling life in the absence of women and girls. They don’t tend to talk about porn much, and certainly don’t seem to rage against the ever increasing criminalization of porn. Maybe they think we should just castrate ourselves, or think about puppies, or Margaret Thatcher, every time a sexual thought enters our head? The one exception to this rule is sex robots. MGTOWs like to talk about sex robots..A LOT! If you subscribe to any of the leading MGTOWs or even the ones with a dozen subscribers, every other video now is about sex robots and how sexbots will lead to the MGTOW sextopia. And fair play to them, they do appear to recognize that feminists such as Kathleen Richardson are trying desperately hard to ban sex robots (for obvious reasons).

A third issue with MGTOWs is that it all seems to be a little too much like the feminist modus operandi – older, less sexually valuable individuals telling their younger more sexually valuable (and viable) rivals that sex is wicked, that it will lead to harm, that we’re only telling you this to protect you etc. Not that I believe that MGTOWs are hypocrites or actively trying to stop young people having sex out of bitterness and rivalry, as femihags are doing, but let’s just say it’s easy to be an MGTOW when you’re an old unattractive fart like me who women, and especially young hotties, don’t want anymore.

The Manosphere and the ‘alt-right’ have pretty much gone the same way as the MRM – heavily influenced by ‘sympathetic’ and invariably conservative women (the alt-right are currently having this battle with ‘tradhots’ – at least, unlike MRAs who are supposed to actually be a specifically MEN’S movement, the alt-rightists like RooshV recognize the danger of letting women speak for them).

Some readers may remember a time when Ferdinand Bardemu, the webmaster of InMalaFide and one of the founders of the Mansophere, would heavily promote this site on his weekly link dump (and I’m eternally grateful to old Ferd). Then Ferdinand Bardemu turned into Matt Forney, an ultra-traditionalist who wanted a piece of the growing alt-right action, and who recognized that being sympathetic to such taboo issues as the age of consent would be near suicide, as Milo later discovered.

Heartiste/Roissy, another founder of the Mansophere, also bravely and explicitly spoke up on issues such as paedohysteria and the age of consent, and is still bravely doing so, even if tempered a little (30 year old men dating late teens ‘icky’???).

The alt-right was indeed very promising as a possible pro male sexuality movement. After all, it has an openly gay Englishman who boasts of sucking black cocks as its nominal head. It grew as a young conservative male’s alternative to traditional mainstream establishment Conservatism/Republicism – recognizing the bullshit of the Left as regards transgender rights and anti-male sexuality feminism, and seeking some form of middle-ground between the wisdom of traditionalism and the realities of the changed post-pill sexual landscape for men. Finally, a possible men’s movement that sought to create a genuine new male sexual morality unconstrained by outdated female orientated traditionalism whilst sticking two fingers up at feminism and so called ‘progressivism’. Sadly, as you would expect from an American dominated conservative movement, it has descended back into traditionalism and now alt-righters spend most of their time accusing Democrats and left-wingers of being ‘paedophiles’, apparently so brain dead that it came as a genuine surprise when their own sort – such as Roy Moore – inevitably started facing the same accusations.

American politics is now conducted akin to the thinking of World War One generals. A Republican will consider that if the last man in the USA not imprisoned for paedophilia or sex crimes is a Republican supporter, then that will mean that the Republicans have won.

And finally, a brief word on PUAs. PUAs again promised to bring something new to the table. A new sexual strategy in the new sexual landscape was finally being promoted by men for men. Further, a lot of the leading PUAs, such as our old friend Krauser PUA, were political and anti-feminist. In the end, it brought nothing. PUAs didn’t want to actively fight feminists because all this ‘red pill’ shit would ‘lower their frame’ and threaten to reduce their 1 in 100 lay ratios to something as beta as 1 in 125. Never mind that one day very soon talking to women in the street will be illegal, and it in fact might be in the UK by the end of next year). Most of these PUAs are so clueless and unaware of anything but their relentless pursuit of HB6 pussy that they will actually be non-plussed when they run up to a woman from behind with the ‘Yad stop’ and have their scripted negging routine rudely interrupted by the hand of a copper on their shoulder. Further, when PUAs are aware and politicized, they are inevitably traditionalist, and somehow perform mental gymnastics to accommodate this ultra-traditionalism with a life devoted to trying to pump and dump conservative teenage virgins in Eastern Europe.

So MRAs, MGTOWs, Alt-Righters and PUAs have all disappointed and we still await a movement by men and for men that actually puts forward a positive sexual path for all men in an era when sex and reproduction (and hence rationally speaking sex and morality) have and increasingly will be divorced, and that is furthermore prepared to fight for it.

Why the ‘Sexual Abuse’ of Boys is Much More Serious than that of Girls

MHRAs are right when they say that society downplays the sexual abuse of boys as compared to girls. In fact MHRAs don’t go far enough. According to the underlying feminist logic behind sexual abuse and its devastating impact upon the victim, the sexual abuse of boys is MUCH more serious than that of girls.

Social Purity MovementFor most of history, society regarded the ‘sexual abuse’ of young teenage girls as serious because it entailed the ruining of her ‘honour’ – her reputation as virginal and chaste, and hence her value as a future wife. Of course, this historical justification for protecting young girls from sex never made any sense with regard to boys, of whom virility not virginity was prized, and hence the ‘double standard’ that MHRAs vent their fury against so much today became very much rooted in society.

Now in today’s feminist society, we pretend that virginity is no longer something to be valued in a female, and hence we can no longer argue that girls need to be protected from the male ‘predator’ in order to preserve their ‘honour’. Instead, we now claim that it is their minds or psyches that are ‘ruined’ by sex with older men. This is the feminist ‘trauma model’ of sexual abuse, and is nothing more than an attempt at a ‘scientific’ re-formulation of the desire to preserve virginity in girls, even though we have ostensibly abandoned that value. Feminsts want a high age of consent in order to remove sexual competition to themselves and their followers, and they use the ‘trauma model’ of abuse as a thinly disguised way to exploit the hardwired male inclination to protect and White Knight the virginity and chastity of young girls.

The Trauma Model is a near entirely empty concept with zero scientific credibility. It is, in fact, the Trauma Myth, or equally, the Trauma Tautology. Why does underage teen sex lead to trauma? Because underage teen sex is bad! Why is underage teen sex bad? Because underage teen sex leads to trauma!

In fact, a moment’s reflection would lead any sane and rational person to understand that if post-pubescent teenage sex was inherently traumatic, the human race would likely have become extinct within a few generations of arising. Certainly, many thousands of years and generations before the word ‘teen’ became far and away the most searched for porn term online.

But lets pretend that teenage sex is bad, not because it ‘ruins’ the ‘honour’ of the teen ‘victim’, but because it ruins his or her mind, esepcially their psycho-sexual functioning. As we know, in this, MHRAs agree entirely with feminists. All they want is for society to accept that underage sex affects boys in as devastating a fashion as it does girls. But they should go further than this. Because if this is the reason that teenage sex is bad, then teenage sex will affect boys much more adversely than it does girls. This is because it is the male that is expected to take the lead in sexual relationships, from start to finish. Men pursue women and women choose. Men have to display confidence, assertiveness (feminists have made this a legal minefield, of course), humour, risk taking for fear of rejection etc, as well as status which comes from a good career and achieving a high social rank. Women simply choose, and the wealth of their choices is determined largely by their looks.

Even in regards to navigating life and social relationships in general , some of what we might expect to be the marks of a somewhat damaged personality – shyness, introvertedness, nervousness etc – are much more easily forgiven, and even admired or found cute in a female, than they are in a male.

If teenage sex is bad because if devastates a young person’s ability to function sexually with the opposite sex, their confidence with regards to both sex and to social relationships and life in general, then we should expect it to have a far more serious impact upon boys than girls.

Perhaps MHRAs should not campaign to simply abolish the double standard, but to reverse it? Perhaps indeed we should raise the age of consent with regard to boys and lower it with regard to girls? This is the logical outcome of the trauma model of sexual abuse, or rather the ‘Trauma Tautology’.

An alternative would be to see the Truama Tautology for what it is, to campaign for the abolishment of the feminist high age of consent (or at least not to promote the Trauma Tautology and feminist child abuse industry), and to recognise that the disposibility of and contempt for the male is found in the double standard as regards alleged ‘predators’ rather than the ‘victims’ who have had that status forced upon them by feminists. It is the victim label that ‘ruins’ teenage ‘victims’ of willing sex, and it does so even more seriously for boys than for girls, and it is the ‘predator’ label which is leading thousands of men, and even increasingly boys, to face lives of imprisonment, fear, and ostracisation as ‘sex offenders’, the feminist version of the Nazi pink triangle, and perhaps soon, the feminist version of the holocaust.

double-standard

Swedish ‘Sex Purchase Law’ Feminist ‘Beheaded’ in Africa

A Swedish UN ‘humanitarian worker’ – Zaida Catalán – was found beheaded along with her male colleague in darkest Africa last week, presumed murdered by rebel millitants. She was in the war torn Congo at the tax payer’s expense working for the UN to combat ‘sexual violence’ in the region. Her Facebook profile, however, reveals that she found the time to ‘Live la vida local’ with the local black men, as well as paint pictures of naked breasts. According to her Wikipedia she was a Swedish Green party member known for her role in pushing through the infamous ‘sex purchase law’ which criminalizes Swedish men (and only men) for paying for sex. This piece of legislation has been the inspiration for other countries (becoming known as the ‘Nordic Model’) most recently Ireland and likely the UK very soon. Thanks to that law and her role in it, it’s fair to say that Zaida Catalán has huge responsibility for destroying the lives of tens of thousands of men worldwide, denying incels and the disabled the right to experience sexual pleasure, putting untold thousands on the sex offenders register now and in the future, many of them to be raped and beaten whilst in prison.

Zaida Catalán in happier and headier times on the dark continent – ‘living la vida locale’ with the natives.

Whilst thousands of Swedish men have already been arrested or shamed for ‘paying for sex’ thanks to Zaida’s law, it is known that Swedish females make up one of the largest sources per capita of the tens of thousands of white female sex tourists who flock each year to Jamaica (and increasingly Africa) to ‘chase the big bamboo’ and pay for sex – oh sorry, I mean ‘romantic companionship’ – with well endowed poverty stricken uneducated black males.  Not one of these Swedish female sex tourists has ever been arrested.

While there is no suggestion at all that Zaida had headed to Africa for any other reason than to enjoy a freebie sun drenched vacation at the tax payer’s expense whilst advising local feminists on drawing up laws to criminalize catcalling in the street etc., female ‘aid workers’ elsewhere have come under scrutiny recently for abusing their position to molest vulnerable and even underage Third World refugees in places such as the Calais ‘jungle’.

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

Heartiste

Some interesting comments in the Roosh V forum thread devoted to the story, including several that bear the hallmarks of acquaintance with the ideas and anger of this site, but can any readers who are RVF members please log in and educate them in what the ‘sex purchase law’ is?

https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-62020.html

Angry Harry – ‘Men have been brainwashed into believing what is natural is perverted’

I already posted a link to this Angry Harry article a few years ago, but decided to revisit it again because it’s a classic example of the way he brought logic and cool headed reason to subjects that even most ‘red pill’ MRAs and others find hard to do so. Although using the case of a Japanese man caught taking ‘upskirts’ as an example, Harry is really discussing the way in which society pathologizes normal male sexuality through shaming language in order to control it.

http://www.angryharry.com/looking-up-womens-skirts.htm?main

What is wrong with men wanting to look up, or under, women’s skirts?

….

A few days ago, I switched on the TV, only to be horribly confronted by the sight of some 17 year old schoolboy from Japan being assiduously kicked and punched by some female who could have been his mother, his girlfriend, his wife, his sister, his schoolteacher, or even his grandmother – you can never quite tell with the Japanese because they age so well.

I put on my glasses to read the subtitles and, in summary, the schoolboy had been caught pointing his camera up the skirts of women and photographing whatever contents lay therein.

“Pervert. Pervert,” she shouted as she beat him about the head rather savagely.

And, “Pervert. Pervert,” shouted just about everyone else for the next ten minutes.

I’d had enough.

So I switched off the TV and spent the next 30 minutes or so thinking about the pleasures of looking up women’s skirts.

I’m a bit passed it now – well, almost – but I can assure my most excellent readers that it is perfectly normal for heterosexual men to enjoy looking up the skirts of women.

And there’s nothing perverted about it.

Indeed, if you look at the way in which women dress in order to titillate men – especially female singers, dancers, celebrities etc – it seems quite clear that just about everybody on the planet is aware of the fact that men enjoy taking sneaky peeks up women’s skirts.

So, what on earth can be ‘perverted’ about it?

Sure, it would be highly inappropriate to wonder around the streets peeking surreptitiously up the skirts of passing strangers as they walked up stairs or bent over to pick up things – and unpleasant for the women, I imagine. And it makes some sense for such activities to be illegal.

But ‘perverted’?

Nah.

Something is ‘perverted’ when it is rare, extreme, a gross distortion of what is natural.

It cannot be ‘perverted’ if it is so common that it is normal.

Goodness me. We don’t even call a bank robber ‘perverted’ – despite the fact that hardly any of us rob banks.

Why?

Well, I presume that this is because while we do not support what a bank robber does, we mostly understand, and can even empathise with, his motives.

His desires!

After all, we all know that most of us would like some extra, easy cash.

So, there is nothing ‘perverted’ about this desire for more money.

But the really interesting thing is this.

You will surely have noticed that MEN can very often be seen endorsing the view that some kind of sexual activity or desire is ‘perverted’ when, quite clearly, it is not; a voyeur trying to look at all the naked ladies in the locker room through the keyhole, a young boy playing doctors and nurses with his sister or his cousin, a panty sniffer, a foot fetishist – and goodness knows what other sexual antics men are disposed to engage in – mentally or behaviourally.

Very few of these things are extreme, rare or gross deviations from what seems to be natural – ‘natural’, essentially being something to do with the fact that males find females to be hugely attractive.

Or are men supposed to be sexually attracted to only one thing when it comes to women?

A single hole.

Of course, some forms of sexual predilection do seem to be ‘perverted’. Necrophilia, sexual murder/mutilation and, perhaps, sex with animals come to mind.

But the notion that a man is a pervert because he has the urge to touch, lick, fondle, smell or view the bodies of women – or parts thereof – seems to be utterly preposterous.

So, what is going on here?

Why is it that so many men – and, indeed, the tabloids – will label as a ‘pervert’ a man who is caught looking up women’s skirts?

And my own view is that, in much the same way that men have been brainwashed into finding funny even acts of horrible male mutilation (such as found in Bobbitt jokes) so it is that they have also been brainwashed into believing that what is natural for them is ‘perverted’.

Indeed, It is quite amazing to see just how stupefied and filled with (unconscious?) self-loathing men have become.

So my message to all you men out there is this.

If you feel the urge to look up the skirts of women, feel no shame

If you feel the urge to look up the skirts of women, feel no shame; because there is nothing perverted about this.

And whenever you hear other men mindlessly suggesting that such a desire is ‘perverted’, then point out to them that they must be so stupefied with malicious, misandric feminist hogwash that they have now, clearly, become very stupid men indeed.

So stupid, in fact, that not only are they demonising themselves, but they seem to be completely unaware of this.

And you can’t get much more stupid than that!

10 Famous Pornstars Without Makeup (this is what you’re really fapping to)

I remember my old English teacher telling us that modern makeup is the only reason why the relatively recent phenomenon of females marrying outside of their teenage years is possible. Judging from the evidence here, it seems that makeup is the only reason why the billion dollar adult porn industry can exist too.

Allie Haze

allie-haze-without-makeup

Allie Haze without makeup

Anita Toro

anita-toro-without-makeup

Anita Toro without makeup

Bonnie Rotten

bonnie rotten without makeup

bonnie rotten without makeup

Brea Bennett

Brea Bennett without makeup

Brea Bennett without makeup

Bree Olson

Bree Olson without makeup

Bree Olson without makeup

Crista Moore

Crista Moore without makeup

Crista Moore without makeup

Dani Daniels

dani-daniels-without-makeup

Dani Daniels without makeup

Diamond Kitty

Diamond Kitty without makeup

Diamond Kitty without makeup

Eden VonSleeze

eden-vonsleaze-without-makeup

Jessica Mor

jessica-mor-without-makeup

Jessica Mor without makeup

Jynx Maze

jynx-maze-without-makeup

Jynx Maze without makeup

Keira King

keira-king-without-makeup

Keira King without makeup

Tiffany Tyler

 

tiffany-tyler-without-makeup

Tiffany Tyler without makeup

As the great Woody Allen once said – ‘sex is 99% in the mind’. And this is why those who believe that virtual sex will never replace the ‘real thing’ are 100% wrong.