Oh for the good old days when the demarcation between whores and amateur sluts on one side and good girls on the other was so stark. You could tell at a glance those who could provide a good time and those who would be worth considering for a meaningful relationship with perhaps a reasonable chance of its culmination in a wife and a mother for your children. The sluts and whores dressed accordingly and decent girls would not be seen dead in similar clothing. The scrubbers used language that would not be out of place on a whaling ship while well brought up and self-respecting girls would be shocked and humiliated hearing such language, possibly even swooning. To top it off, "nice" girls now have exponentially more tramp stamps than any tramp of yore.
It's astonishing to contemplate just how far we've "progressed". Now that women are "empowered", there's no telling the difference between the two classes of women - possibly because no difference exists except that promiscuous women were once sluts but today are "sexually liberated". One can only sympathise with the sluts of the past for the injustice fate has dealt them. Their only real misdemeanor was being born ahead of their time
FREE THE NIPPLE, A SUBSIDIARY OF THE SLUT WALK.
How many women actually want the nipple freed? Hmmmm, probably a tiny minority. After all, whenever a woman is suddenly caught naked in the glare of an unfamiliar man's eyes, she instinctively tries to cover up her most precious assets: her genitals - and her breasts. Presumably, this instinct would require a lot of overriding before a woman felt completely at ease gadding about bare- breasted.
But punting the free-the-nipple brigade's argument right out of the football ground is embarrassingly easy. For starters, the female breast is not the exact equivalent of the male breast. Otherwise, women would enjoy fondling male breast as much as vice versa. Additionally, when men decide it's about time for a little auto-eroticism, their chest is never thought of as a good area for foreplay, whereas women do, suggesting female breasts are a highly erogenous zone. They do indeed seem to enjoy the right man fondling them just as much as the man doing the fondling.
However, for the fools who have never thought it through, and this must include all free-the-nipplers, here is where you arrive when the argument is taken to its logical conclusion, a place called ad absurdum. As soon as the female breast is declared non-sexual, which is what's aimed for when equating it to the male version, open season on the tempting protrusions is pretty much declared at the same time. Who ever heard of a man claiming sexual or indecent assault when touched, pressed or even grabbed - in the case of man-boobs - on the chest? Being deprived of a feel of the mammary gland being a slappable offence,would be assuredly something the ladies wouldn't like. What's that you say? You most assuredly wouldn't? Well, I'm sorry Sweetpeas, but you can't have it both ways. That would be a double standard, something the shrieking about by feminists has left many a man hearing-impaired. And naturally, double standards can only be supported by feminists not accepting the obvious differences between men and women apart from those woefully insignificant physical differences.
But to get back to reality, what is it about the female breast that so tempts and befuddles men? Although men know enough to be aware that the claim by the free-the-nipple brigade that it is simply a better padded version of the male breast is utter nonsense, they are unable to say, when put on the spot, why they like to see and fondle ample and well-formed breasts. Women as well would be hard put to answer this age-old question but naturally they do know that they work for them, and are probably the most powerful weapons in their honey-pot arsenal. The millions spent on breast enhancement tends to eloquently argue this case.
Even a classic breast is around 60% fat. Given that it's difficult to imagine a man wanting to fondle fat on any other part of a woman's body, why is it that men are so hopelessly disarmed, stupefied and attracted like a pyromaniac to a box of matches by what are essentially bags of fat? Men are so bedazzled by the breast that if stumbling upon a woman breast feeding, the are embarrassed and somewhat surprised to be reminded of the primary reason for the existence of the female breast. Subconsciously, they've assumed it was primarily for their own delectation. Reason exists for believing it largely is - nature's sweetening of the procreation deal. If the purpose of women's breasts was solely to be fleshy milk bottles for their young, why do they not shrink and retract like the breasts of lady gorillas when not needed by a baby gorilla? This seems much more sensible than having to wear a brassier for the greater portion of a woman's life. Perhaps this is just Mother Nature conceding lady gorillas will never be dexterous enough to fashion a brassier.
MODESTY A SILLY OLD IDEA
Aly Raisman (who care's how good an athlete she is?), pictured on Sports Illustrated, is waging a one woman campaign for yet another have-it-both-ways privilege for women. She yearns for a world in which women can appear as slutty they like and still be respected. There it is, inked on her body. For those who can't read around curves, it says "women do not have to be modest to be respected". Sorry Aly, but one doesn't have to be a professor of formal Logic to be able to see that that is a debatable statement. If a gorgeous, buxom woman were to waltz down the main street of a city on a Saturday night with her tits hanging out, would she be being entirely reasonable in taking offence at disrespectful comments - from both men and women? A bridge too far perhaps?
However, a deeper question is overlaid here and that is the reason for women's need to be immodest. Aly's answer to that is that women have some kind of god-given right to show off their bodies. Why should women be ashamed of their bodies? Well if that is so, why, in warm climes at least, were clothes ever bothered with. A certain kind of bodily shame would appear to be part of human nature. (That bitch and the apple incident.) And as far as a god-given right to act the slut and not pay the piper, why, given that Homo Sapiens have been around for at least 200,000 years, was it only discovered less than fifty years ago?
Here's the real reason: pussy power with the safety catch off. While women's perpetual harping on the need for "equality" drives many of us to fondly remember Jimmy Cagney's famous movie scene in which he jammed half a grapefruit into his nagging co-star's face, this power, the nuclear missile in the war between the sexes, is conveniently forgotten.
It's a power grievously misused. It goes without saying that sex is probably the trickiest problem humans and their tribes and societies have ever had to deal with. In the societal microcosm, the tribe, it was recognised as needing tight control because the emotions it could unleash could be destructive enough to destroy the tribe itself. With the advent of civilizaton, in the larger social organisations that grew out of tribes, the destructive power of sex if mishandled was seen to be no less potent, thus monogamous marriage was elevated to the sacred and the family was recognised as the building block of society therefore of equal value to both the individual and society.
Great wisdom was shown in this organisation which was as beneficial as it was fair in that allowed as far as possible everyone to win a prize so to speak. It would have been just as easy to opt for polygamy which may have contributed equal value to a society but would have exacerbated the misery of those who were already the losers of society - the men at the bottom of the heap who would be condemned to a life of loneliness and sexual frustration but perhaps picking up a few crumbs and left-overs here and there while the winners, rich and powerful men, scooped up a surfeit of women. And who knows that this eventually wouldn't lead to social upheaval such as may yet befall China whose one-child policy has led to sexual imbalance which has resulted in millions of men who will never be able to marry or have children. Firstly, of course, enough women do not exist to go round and these men are poor and so noncompetitive in the love-game. Poor plus sexually frustrated - that could be dangerous time-bomb.
Little does anybody consider that the so-called sexual revolution has caused a similar result. Instead of the generally accepted picture of everybody going at it like rabbits, the reality is vastly different.That women are hypergamous, that is, attracted to men of superior cast (or,in a pinch, simply equal, but rarely lower) is proven beyond a doubt by their willingness to share a man in polygamous societies as long as power, wealth and status trickle down to them. So in a monogamous society, although becoming increasingly meaningless as marriage has itself becomes so meaningless as to be now offered to homosexuals, very similar dynamics operate. But instead of harems,what we see are "liberated" women being screwed senseless - just exercising their right to be sluts - by men who would otherwise have harems in polygamous societies. Men who lack wealth, power, good looks, confidence, or gregariousness or the poor sap at the end of the line lacking the lot, who might as well hand in his testicles - the so-called "beta males" - are in a very similar position to the lonely Chinese men, with one major difference: they may not be entirely enthusiastic about marriage considering the legal traps placed by feminists but they would like to at least dip their wicks once in a while.
But more than likely, they'll just have to wait, wait until the party girls's looks are beginning to fade, when her eggs are approaching their shelf-lives, when all the "good men" and "bad boys" appear to be taken and when they might consider settling down with an unexciting but devoted beta boy. When she does, perhaps after one or two failed marriages with highly desirable males, it's more than likely she has had exponentially more sexual experience than beta boy who will no doubt have some pretty hard acts to follow. How will he be measured? Slightly above failing grade if lucky and in a moment of bitterness she'll probably tell him so.
However, to retrace our steps a little, why do women, even if they do not consider themselves real sluts, need to act and dress like sluts. Well, as they say, if you've got it, flaunt it. And indeed it seems most women with something to flaunt have a streak of exhibitionism. It's possible that female porn-stars are merely pushing the exhibitionist envelope to tearing point. Apparently they are hugely gratified by the thought of legions of men being excited by their sexual athletics.
But is this inherent exhibitionism the only cause of acting the slut - the ubiquitous yoga pants, impossibly tight skirts, short shorts, enlarged breasts bursting to be free and what's the deal with beachwear providing only a shred of material to hide the anus? Are sun-tanned buns all that necessary? One suspects not. It's all about power. About the power to attract, be wanted and to taunt.
Feminism is a study in willful stupidity and the power of an ideology of absolute selfishness to cause blindness to reality.The foundation of feminism is of course, and has to be, that men and women are the same in every way but the physical, ergo, little or no difference exists between them in the way they have been wired sexually. This is how they try to get away with shrieking "double standards" in regard to promiscuous women being called sluts while promiscuous men are admired as stallions and studs. This blatantly ignores how nature has designed the sexes, how they had be designed for human life to be able to progress and not be stalled at a stage reminiscent of a Saturday night in a homosexual bathhouse.
For this reason, nature provided a marvelous balance by appointing women the gatekeepers of the sexual garden and men as the sowers perennially attempting to gain access, or if an evolutionary explanation is preferred, both a woman and a man needed to be sure of the parentage of offspring in order for a man to stick around to help ensure the survival of children. In harder times than ours, ours being about thirty seconds out of a whole day, the survival of offspring and therefore the survival of the human race was precarious. This dissimilarity could not have been effected without secondary differences occurring. For example, men make no bones about wanting sex. It's very much a physical need.
Sex is different for a woman. While men want sex directly, women want to be wanted for sex. To women who haven't been indoctrinated by feminism, sex is more than simply physical. This is perhaps why they have been equipped with a much longer fuse than men. Being slower to arouse than men could be a protection from rushing into anything not offering an optimum return. The men chosen by women to have sex with although probably not conscious of it are men considered to brimming with the best genes, and be potentially good fathers and providers.
Judging by the racket they make during the sex act, women are every bit as capable of enjoying sex as a man, if not more so, but this is only after all her prerequisites have been met. A romantic atmosphere helps. She must be in the mood, feel secure and safe and not have a headache.
Wise people through the ages took note of the reality of these differences, hence the sacred nature of marriage hedged about with taboos against premarital and extramarital sex which drew a sharp line between those who liked to be thought of as "decent" and all others. But of course, this silly old taboo, like most other taboos, their important social rationales lost sight of, have been flushed away, along with the sense to know that a double standard only exists when treating two identical properties differently. Women and men are not identical. Most women under thirty unless disfigured, deformed, deranged or obese could, if it was so desired, have sex with a different man every night. And they sure as hell as wouldn't be paying for it. The converse of this would be a distinct challenge, even for the most successful "alphas".
To return to the most plausible reasons for looking like a slut: the power to attract, to be wanted, and the power to taunt, the latter may be the most unkind. To the large number of men not getting any sex at all, this is being hungry at a banquet but not allowed to eat. "I know what boys want. They want to ..." sang the taunting female voice. Possibly, previous generations thought of this subtle form of cruelty as another reason for insisting on modesty for women. Does it get any worse than cruel? Certainly Muslims seem to think so with their equating the male libido withs a petrol-soaked bush with wind blowing sparks toward it, necessitating Muslim women to have black curtains thrown over them. This demeaning view of men, but possibly accurate for Muslim men turned into what is most feared by their women being kept under wraps, could possibly, just possibly, indicate they are on to something. Inductive reasoning suggests that a type of male probably exists, a rogue psychopath to be sure, who may decide that the constant taunting is too much to take and decides to get even. His victim becomes every woman who has caused his misery.
An inquiring mind could not cultivate a more valuable habit than, when confronted by a complex issue, to ask, what's really going on here? Aldous Huxley, with his Brave New World, littered with the "pneumatic" babes that men compared notes about around the water-cooler was trying to tell us something important, something that should be intuitive. If a "soft" tyranny, the type that most in the West now live under, wanted a way to distract people from their being fitted with comfortable chains, how could they improve on degrading sex to a kind of sport - bread, circus and sex? With the advent of modern contraceptives and the ever stronger urge toward evermore individual freedom by the liberal/left - no need to worry about the outdated requirement of Classical Liberalism for freedom to be balanced by responsibility - as well as the mind-bending methods of propaganda honed to a perfect science, how easy would it be to sell sex as "Soma"?
And with women being the more suggestible of the sexes because of their far stronger herd instinct, the sight, for example, of a woman under thirty without the knees torn out of her jeans being almost as rare as a unicorn sighting, they would be the obvious primary target. You wanted sexual freedom? Knock yourself out. Enjoy! No need to worry about the price. That will come later.
No comments:
Post a Comment