When autoeroticism with an infant is sanctioned by a society of deviants

Many are the strictures placed on what can be said and what can’t be said in matters sexual. The anatomy of breastfeeding, naturally, is no longer discussed, for a little digging – a wee-bit of knowledge – would reveal that only biological females can breastfeed successfully, by which I mean, sustain the infant so that it grows and develops on a diet of breast milk. Having breastfed my own daughter successfully until she voluntarily rejected that dependence (at 9 months), I know.

What I remember of the breastfeeding experience is a mother-baby cocoon, with baby occasionally taking a break to smile, play with mom’s hair, burp. While breastfeeding is a much better formula for mother-child bonding than baby formula—gender-appropriators forget that baby nurses to survive, sate hunger and grow.

Thus, a member of the sexually exotic community who claims to no longer be woman cannot sustain an infant through breastfeeding because “he” doesn’t produce breast milk, having had the mammary glands removed. What then is the purpose of such showy displays of “chest-feeding”?

If it is not for the purpose of sustenance, then unsuccessful breastfeeding by a transgendered individual becomes merely an experience, even a production, in furtherance of that individual’s ego-bound gender- and sexual fulfillment.

And worse: I suggest that, in breastfeeding, sexually exotic individuals are often engaged in indecent exposure or some form of sexually charged exhibitionism, if in public.

In my day, we breastfed in private and were modest about it. No one feels comfortable around a woman – much less a “man” – who insists that her mammary glands are not sexual object, foisting them on bashful company.

Is this man-woman, then, engaged in the “natural” act of breastfeeding, or is this something far more sinister like a sexual experience with an infant? Is this not tantamount to titillating oneself, using the baby to get-off?

Since the individual described in the article and discussed in my July 2022 podcast, “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?”, is not sustaining the infant – I suggest he is not a successful breast-feeder, as the well is dry.

And given that, by self-admission, the person’s main project is his/her gender identity, I venture that this character is deriving unacknowledged sexual pleasure from fixing a child on to his secondary sexual organs.

The baby here is a prop. The breast feeding is near-sexual. And a society of deviants is sanctioning such autoeroticism, or self-pleasure, with an infant — an infant who has no agency.

WATCH “Hard Truth,” “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?”

©2023 ILANA MERCER
WND, July 21

*Image as a screen picture, via Guardian

The post Bearded Trans Men Chest-Feeding: Paternal Or Sexual? appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

This beer baboonery is not Dylan Mulvaney’s doing; it’s not the fault of this poor waif; this sad, pathetic chimera of a creature ~ilana

Anheuser-Busch’s purpose is, very plainly, to unseat and insult the American moral majority ~ilana

A skinny transsexual called Jacqueline Jane waxes fat on TikTok about her designer vagina. Designer anything, she contends, is always better than the humdrum, off-the-rack item. Therefore, her new “coochie,” JJ’s term, is an improved version of an ordinary woman’s lady parts.

It is here that one needs a cultural companion guide to JJ’s unthinking “case” for the superiority of her newly fashioned snatch over that of a natural woman.

That America is “experiencing” historically unmatched levels of stupidity should not come as news. Risen to prominence around us is a sub-intelligent underclass of people, sexually straight and bent, whose behavior is grotesque. It is more patent in the female of the species, or in caricatures of it.

We don’t need to be told of the stupidity that saturates our surrounds and floods our senses. Nevertheless, America’s teens, we’re informed “are dumber than they’ve been in 100 years.”  “[T]he May-June 2023 issue of Intelligence,” reports Robert Spencer, “finds that young people are experiencing the most significant decline in intellectual abilities: ‘the greatest differences in annual scores were observed for 18- to 22-year-olds.’” Yet another “study by researchers at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine reveals a significant decline in American IQ scores over the past couple of decades.”

An indispensable adjunct of American-style systemic stupidity is PRIDE; we’re loud-and-proud about being handsomely equipped to fail. At least the discredited, unthinking, clownish “scientific community” is not worried about a statistically significant drop in aggregate American intelligence.

From their own sinkholes of stupidity, the bearers of this terrible news assure us that it’s all good. Lower IQs don’t necessarily mean lesser mentation, just a different kind of mental equipment. Fatherly magazine is positively fatherly about America’s dropping IQ scores: “It might not be a bad thing.” Yay.

Jacqueline Jane, our trans TikToker, isn’t American. She does show flickers of cerebral life in some of her video clips. As a pathological exhibitionist, however, JJ is likely compelled to cater to her American audience. Of her nearly 1 million “Likes,” most likely originate in the US—an internet search reveals that, at 109.54 million, the United States is the country with the largest TikTok audience in the world. (We celebrate our national stupidity and blame China for pervasive American decadence, decades in the making.)

The market might of the American consumer is required in order to enforce extravagant sexual sensibilities and sensitivities state-side and abroad. We now have it on good authority that a sizeable market share in measurable moronity is ours.

It was the whiney Libs of TikTok that channeled Jacqueline Jane’s supercilious, catty riffs about her orifice’s superiority. Contra the Libs, this mine-is-better-than-yours tit for twat is possible because, to an already propagandized, miseducated, low-IQ population; the zeitgeist now offers only agitprop as a resource on the subject of sex.

Consider: When women like me were Jacqueline Jane’s age, one could read staple facts in the weekly, normie, woman’s magazine, pertaining to features that made a woman’s anatomy potentially more fantastical than Ali Baba’s cave.

The G-Spot, muscles that help both expel a baby—but also mediate pleasure exclusive to the female anatomy. In the absence of sexually correct scientific literature, or an accessible shared truth, sexual stupidity will prevail. The suppression of once-popular and scientifically correct reading material about female anatomy and sexuality facilitates Jacqueline Jane’s nonsense about her junk. Hers is ignorance enabled idiocy.

Our current IT Girl is one Dylan Mulvaney—the transsexual face of the Bud Light beer brand, who inadvertently mocks the beverage’s former consumers and womanhood all at once.

This beer baboonery is not Mulvaney’s doing. Ultimately, it’s not this poor waif, this pathetic chimera of a creature, who is at fault here. Rather, it’s a society’s rotten movers-and-shakers, embedded in institutions political, cultural and commercial—Anheuser-Busch, in this case—who have invited and encouraged desperately needy souls like Mulvaney to perform vulgarities on the national stage.

The purpose of the self-anointed cognoscenti is, very plainly, to unseat and insult the American moral majority.

For the World Athletics Council it’s a bullseye. Your columnist is an avid admirer of track-and-field. I’d sooner watch the relatively unknown new Usain Bolt, named Bouwahjgie Nkrumie, sprint 100 meters under 10 seconds, than spend five minutes spying the larded ball players in their dog muzzles, space helmets and shoulder pads.

The WAC represents athletes with true grit—who don’t get billions of dollars in contracts and other compensation, who run hundreds of miles without complaint; sprint fastest, swim stronger, and jump highest and furthest. And the WAC has banned trans athletes from female competitions. (The libertarian solution is to hold special games for trans athletes, where like competes against biological like.) Good news for my sports heroes.

QUESTION: What do you call a man who enjoys beating a woman in sports?

ANSWER: A BAD SPORT.

* Image credit as screen picture *Dylan Mulvaney’s facial feminization
*Adult reading. Salty language

©2023 ILANA MERCER
The Unz Review, April 12
The New American April 12
WND.COM, April 20

The post On Trans-continental Stupidity & The Tit-For-Twat Sex Debate appeared first on ILANA MERCER.

Bearded trans men chest-feeding: paternal or sexual?

Many are the strictures placed on what can be said and what can’t be said in matters sexual. The anatomy of breastfeeding, naturally, is no longer discussed, for a little digging – a wee-bit of knowledge – would reveal that only biological females can breastfeed successfully, by which I mean, sustain the infant so that it grows and develops on a diet of breast milk. Having breastfed my own daughter successfully until she rejected me (at 9 months), I know.

In any event, a member of the sexually exotic community who claims no longer to be woman cannot sustain an infant through breastfeeding because “he” doesn’t produce breast milk, having had the mammary glands removed. What then is the purpose of such showy displays of “chest-feeding”?

If it is not for the purpose of sustenance, then unsuccessful breastfeeding by a transgendered individual becomes merely an experience, even a production, in furtherance of that individual’s ego-bound gender- and sexual fulfillment.

And worse: I suggest that, in breastfeeding, sexually exotic individuals are often engaged in indecent exposure or some form of sexually charged exhibitionism, if in public. In my day, we breastfed in private and were modest about it. No one feels comfortable around a woman – much less a “man” – who insists that his or her mammary glands are not sexual object too, foisting them on bashful company.

Is this man-woman, then, engaged in the “natural” act of breastfeeding, or is this something far more sinister like a sexual experience? Is this not tantamount to titillating oneself, using the baby to get-off?

Since the deviant described in the article and discussed in the podcast “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?” is not sustaining the infant – is not a successful breast-feeder, as the well is dry – and since, by self-admission, the person’s main project is his/her gender identity, I suggest this character is deriving unacknowledged sexual pleasure from fixing a child on to his secondary sexual organs.

The baby here is a prop. The breast feeding is near-sexual. And a society of deviants is sanctioning onanism with an infant: A grown man here is likely using an infant to pleasure himself. An infant has no agency, hence onanism.

A reader at the Unz Review asserted that women, too, get aroused during legitimate breastfeeding. Ridiculous. And, if so, disgusting distaff! Put a lid on it. Curb yourself, will you?

What I remember of the breastfeeding experience is a mother-baby cocoon, with baby occasionally taking a break (these gender-appropriators forget that a baby nurses to survive, sate hunger, grow) to smile, play with my hair, burp. This is a much better formula for mother-child bonding than baby formula.

Wrote another: “That is one of the sweetest descriptions of the mother and child bonding experience I’ve ever read. Nothing prurient at all. Just love. The hair part got me.”

WATCH “Hard Truth,” “Bearded Men Breast Feeding In Public: Paternal Or Kinky?”

SUBSCRIBE here to support our truth telling and get notice of new “Hard Truth” content

©2022 ILANA MERCER
Unz Review, July 7
The New American, July 10

The post A Society Of Deviants Sanctions Onanism With An Infant appeared first on ILANA MERCER.