A lot has been made about the dangers of porn and prostitution but very little attention has been given to the constant titillation that men are forced to endure in Western culture, which I believe is the more damaging of the three.
Although they are easy to find, both porn and prostitution are also not hard to avoid. The law already restricts their access to adults and you have to actively seek them out, so I don't have a problem with the legal use of either by consenting adults, though I am sure that many conservatives do. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative who is concerned about liberty and personal responsibility.
The problem with Western culture's acceptance and encouragement of unrestricted titillation, primarily through “fashion,” is that no one can get away from it, not even children. We are expected to accept it always and everywhere, and author Acharya Prashant even asks this profoundly ignorant question,
“what kind of person are you, man or woman, if anything is able to disturb or provoke you so easily?”
On Earth, we call that kind of person a human being. Please allow me to paraphrase his comment in order to make clear his accusation,
“why you are not a perfect transcendent being of light floating above the trivialities that affect mere animals?”
Women's “fashion” revolves around stimulating sexual desire, which is one of the most powerful drives in nature. Nobody is immune to it, not even the Dalai Lama, and certainly not the minor whose understanding and experience is non-existent. Furthermore, few ask, “what kind of person is so easily disturbed by catcalling or micro-aggressions?” because this draws attention to the possible malicious intent behind the exaggerated fragility conveniently embraced by the exalted gender, which invites cancellation of the questioner by the feminist mob. In the West, a woman's minor inconveniences are taken seriously while her most egregious transgressions are often overlooked.
Women have won the legal right to wear virtually anything they want in public – even nothing in many situations – while feminists have all but eliminated male-only spaces so that men must now face constant titillation in every sphere of life: at home (which is fine), at social events, the gym, the pub, sport events, in public, online, and even in the workplace. Influencer Natalie Reynolds, for example, is said to have “challenged norms” by going to the gym wearing only body paint on her butt, and fitness guru Joey Swoll has made videos calling out women who go to the gym specifically to thirst-trap men with the intention of publicly accusing them of being perverts. In what used to be a man's space we now see women, in outfits indistinguishable from body paint, spend their entire session taking selfies on gym equipment, never even trying to break a sweat. Unless you are blind, you cannot avoid constant exposure to women presenting themselves in the most provocative way they can muster, and often with malicious intent.
It is a myth that men think constantly about sex. I have had the privilege of being a member of a number of men's groups over the years and the topic of sex came up only upon occasion and in minor ways. Men left to their own devices will design cars, build houses, motorcycles and bridges, study the universe, engage in politics, plan outrageous adventures, invent airplanes, and write books and symphonies. In fact men have invented, designed and built virtually everything that makes our world fun and functional. Clearly men have wide ranging interests, and the energy for a great deal more than sex.
Sex is more of a woman's obsession than a man's, and the goal is to keep sex at the top of every man's mind, as Tolstoy suggested over a hundred years ago – I'll touch on that in a moment. Consider fashion, porn, prostitution, every female pop-star and actress, and the multi-billion-dollar beauty product industry. These are all focused on titillation. Furthermore, look at any female-driven protest and you'll probably see them taking off their clothes:
Climate crisis? “Look at my breasts.”
Cruelty to animals? “Hey, these are my breasts.”
Don't like Trump? “My breasts will topple him.”
Anorexia? “Breasts to the rescue!”
What about Islam? “My breasts will solve this too.”
Let's not leave out Ukraine, "surely I can make war about my breasts!"
And if it's too cold to protest naked, a woman's first thought becomes, “I'll knit a pussyhat.” Who would even think of that? Have you ever seen a “dickhead” protest? Of course not. Women have even painted with period blood, but to my knowledge no man has ever claimed to create “art” with his sperm. In almost everything women do, sex is front and center.
Nothing else even comes close.
The internet is filled with instructional articles and videos of women teaching one another how to enhance their sex appeal in order to arouse lust in a man, and probably many others teaching her how to sue him or get him fired afterwards. Even Linked-In featured such an article but almost nobody is writing about the entrapment that often ensues.
Entrapment is, in some cases, even facilitated by the government. In Canada, for example, it is legal for a woman to sell sex but illegal for a man to buy. What's to stop a prostitute from extorting a client by saying: “give me another $1000 or I'm going to the police.” She hasn't done anything illegal but by engaging in the same interaction, he has. “Come here sweetie, you won't even taste the poison that I've baked into this pastry.”
Nowadays women brag about having sex with hoards of men, click anyone of these links for more: link 1, link 2, link 3, or link 4. The world record is 919 men in one day, set by Lisa Sparks (Sparxxx) in 2004, and she is celebrated for this feat. Some women are so promiscuous that they feel obliged to argue that their body count doesn't matter: no number can be criticized. The author of one such article, who doesn't know how many men she has bedded, considers her number of sexual partners to be as irrelevant as the number of pizzas she has eaten.
In 1889, Leo Tolstoy published The Kreutzer Sonata in which he described the power that women seek over men through titillation. Here's a series of quotes that will give you a sense of his views:
“The object is […] to seduce man in order to possess him. [...] Their whole life is spent in preparations for coquetry, or in coquetry itself.”“And that, not in the presence of a certain man, but in the presence of any man, provided he is not utterly hideous. […] But no one lives by her own life. They are all dependent upon man. […] To them the attraction of the greatest number of men is the ideal of life. […] They have no feeling stronger than that of the animal need of every female who tries to attract the largest number of males in order to increase the opportunities for choice. […] In the life of young girls it is necessary in order to ensure selection, and in marriage it is necessary in order to rule the husband.”“Fashionable dress to-day […] contribute to fan this sensuality into a strong, consuming flame.”
He goes on to explain that women expend their energies,
“in alluring men and decoying them into liaisons or marriage by the most questionable means conceivable, as an instance of which the present fashions in evening dress may be cited. I am of opinion that this is not right."
If a woman's intention were to mate then at least the whole dance would be an honest process, but it is not. It is fraudulent behavior with an ulterior motive, namely to distract and control men, and rob them of time, energy, money and job opportunities – although occasionally it may just be for the woman's momentary amusement, itself a measure of her disregard for his humanity. As if to prove my point, a recent study showed that a third of women date men they don't even like just to get a free meal. See here, or here.
Most men have been fooled into thinking that they want to be constantly titillated, that it is good for them, and that freedom demands unlimited female choice – even the choice to deceive, steal, manipulate or cause other harm. If this is you, then I suggest you join a men's group in order to experience the refreshing sense of peace and camaraderie that can be had in the absence of female scrutiny, titillation and manipulation.
And it doesn't end there. Almost everywhere you go you will find women strutting around almost naked. If you look more than once, or for too long, not only will women gossip in order to damage your reputation but your girlfriend or wife will notice too, and she will punish you later even though she may have been wearing the very same sort of “nothing” as the woman who caught your eye. She will of course insist that she dresses in nothing because “it makes her feel good,” which is only partly true: it is not the clothes but the power that comes with sexual attention that makes her "feel good." Power over men, including you, and status over the female competition. Not only does she love the attention she gets from other men, and women, but she loves the power to berate her husband for looking at other women who are wearing similar boudoir outfits. What Tolstoy noted well-over a hundred years ago has grown to grotesque proportions.
It is sheer lunacy, and it is inhumane. We have granted every woman the right to engage in her seductive power games with any man, anywhere, any time and in any way she chooses, and our unwillingness to acknowledge her predatory intentions has damaged our culture immensely.
An article entitled “Why Her Brazen Sexy Clothes Are Really Not Your Excuse to Touch” is an unwitting example of female duplicity and is typical of the attitude of the modern “liberated” woman. Even the title is a lie because no law-abiding person in the West views a woman's choice of clothing as an invitation to touch her. The author knows but uses this trope anyway in order to distract the reader from the truth that a woman's sexy clothes are an essential part of her incessant power play.
Let's look at the article, quote:
“Imagine a pleasant smell that leads you to a bakery. Then you see some lovely pastries behind a glass showcase. They look so fresh and appealing. You would either try to buy some or feel satisfied with looking.”
In the history of mankind, not one person has ever felt satisfied by looking at alluring aromatic food behind glass. Your attraction to the food is in proportion to your hunger, your desire for comfort, or perhaps your level of hedonism. You either eat the tantalizing food or you go away frustrated, resolving to satisfy that need in some other way. Or perhaps you walk past disinterested, immune to the smell because you just ate. But satisfied by looking? This is where I roll my eyes. She, like our previous author, implies that men should only exist as transcendent beings of light, immune to earthly temptations – like her, she would have you believe – and woe be to he who is so pathetic as to fall victim to the siren call, no matter how hungry he might be. Like all in her camp, she adopts a convenient lack of understanding of human nature.
Imagine a bakery luring in customers only to berate them for asking to buy a pastry? Then upon leaving the store, the customer is humiliated, arrested and forced to pay reparations to the baker, whose lawyer successfully argued that there was no intent to stimulate the customer's appetite: “it just makes my client 'feel good' to bake pastries and put them on public display.” This is a more realistic analogy than the ridiculous suggestion that someone would feel satisfied by looking at a pastry.
This nonsense article goes further in demonstrating the author's perhaps deliberate denial of reality:
“While a woman’s beauty is valuable, many people view women in entirely physical terms.”
This is pure feminist rubbish. Very few people are unable to see the human being behind the physical beauty, but physical beauty is physical. Is there any other way to view the physical? But of course she continues:
“This dehumanization negatively affects women at school, work, and interpersonal relationships.”
Victim, victim everywhere, but not a drop of truth.
She invokes her magical multiplier-transporter to project this fantasy of dehumanization onto every woman in every circumstance of her life. Don't ask how, magic just works like that. And don't you dare ask why a woman would choose to wear clothing that screams, “I am ready, willing and able. Come and take me you marvelous beast of a man” to school or to work. We know why of course, but it's sexist to point out that sexy clothing is deliberately chosen for the power it bestows upon the wearer. Like a magician's wand, titillation has the power to distract which creates the opportunity to deceive. Thieves and con artists know well how to use this technique, and law enforcement agencies have their own version called the “honey trap.”
Further on she writes,
“It is a faux pa [sic] for society to assume a woman wants someone to touch her because of what she likes to wear.”
There is no such assumption in the West even though arousing the desire to touch her is exactly the goal of wearing sexy clothing. The author continues:
“Women do not typically dress for other people. Mostly, we dress for ourselves because we value self-expression and enjoy displaying a keen sense of fashion.”
It is not a “keen sense of fashion” that women love to display, it is their sexuality -- their bodies. They do it for the love of power and status and we all need to stop pretending that it is harmless.
Of course men want to see scantily clad women, and women want to be seen scantily clad. That much we can agree upon. But do you want to go to a BBQ hungry every day, forced to concentrate on your job while the smell of sizzling steak makes your mouth water, and knowing that if you even look in the direction of the BBQ you will be reprimanded, punished or fired? There's inherent stress in that situation and chronic stress affects your job, your health and your relationships, and these in turn harm the business and the wider society. If you are thinking “why can't you just control your hunger, ignore the titillation, and let women do whatever they want?” then the magician has prepared you well for the trick: you are already in denial of your own nature.
The only downside of perpetual titillation for women is that their marriage might suffer. But they can still rely on the friendly family court to give them the lion's share in divorce, and they can count on the support and sympathy of our entire society. This places her squarely in the power position within marriage, and in divorce. No matter what happens she wins, so no biggie. If he strays, she opens door A. If he breaks down and becomes violent, it's door B. If he dies early of stress or commits suicide, door C is available. Behind every door is a prize waiting for her.
This is the situation that women have crafted for themselves in western culture. Women, and only women, are permitted to operate the BBQ anywhere they see fit and eat from it at will. This is in addition to the affirmative action that overrides competence, giving women an unfair advantage both at university and in the workplace.
Men on the other hand are expected to work, obey, and even praise women for their skill at operating the BBQ behind a wall of biased laws enforced by the very men who endure their abuse. Many a man lives with the faint hope of tasting a morsel of beef, or in constant fear that his personal overseer from the exalted gender will destroy his life in divorce. How pathetic Western men have become by allowing our culture to cater so completely to the whims of women no matter how entitled, crass, or power hungry they become. The rise of “Game” and “Alpha” culture – where participants play into the magician's hand by dancing like trained monkeys for a morsel of attention – is a sad response to this.
I honestly never thought that one day I'd argue for modesty, but there it is. Female entitlement is out of hand and it is damaging our culture. As I previously mentioned, I am not against porn or prostitution – these are honest transactions and they can be contained. I am also not against female mating displays, but in the West they are neither contained nor honest. We already have nightclubs, dance parties and discos where both men and women are free to act out their mating instincts, but why does it have to be everywhere, all the time for women? Because it's about the power women crave over men, and they are insatiable.
It is time that we scrutinize female behavior and take action to neutralize its destructive elements. If not, then we may yet fall prey to Aristotle's prophecy that:
“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.”
The West has already given way to a feminist democracy and we are well on our way to global tyranny due in part to our unwillingness to reign in female grandiosity. It is imperative that we turn this ship around for the sake of all men, women and children.
Steve Brulé
Relocate yourself to Tokyo and commute in a busy public transport, men and women packed together. Yet you think more about work rather than sex in your commuting time. Why? All women are decently clad.
ReplyDeleteI've watched a few of your videos and skimmed the titles of all the ones on YouTube, and while I see a lot of content that draws attention to the fruits and history of feminism, I don't see many practical counters to it.
ReplyDeleteI understand that as an academic you may be more suited to observation, criticism, and scholarly research, but too much of the content in this sphere is of the "notice and move on" sort. That is, it creates a furor over an issue but presents no solutions.
My thinking is that the best counters to feminism are those which can't be resisted by feminists without harming some part of the leftist coalition.
For example, a man who wants access to some of the legally mandated privileges of women could identify as female (or rather "female") on university paperwork, and do absolutely nothing else to "become" a woman. This would grant him access to scholarships available only to women, preference in work study job hiring, and access to internships in his field. A feminist could only counter this by attacking trans people or if she's smart attacking him as a false friend, but both of these are easily counter-countered by accusing her of misgendering and either threatening to sue or actually suing.
Another example: to resist the risk of no-fault divorce and alimony, a man could persuade a woman to give him blackmail on her (for example in Germany he could gather video evidence of her being racist, antisemitic, islamophobic, etc, as this would get her convicted for hate crimes) to keep her loyal, impregnate her, keep his name off the child's birth certificate to maximize public benefits extracted while still supporting her financially on the side, and generally behave as if they are neighbors rather than lovers as far as the government is concerned. He could probably if he owns a house have her get public housing benefits to pay towards the mortgage.
Yet another example: in dealing with male feminists, a male anti-feminist could cuckold these men, put their names on his children's birth certificates, and ruin their lives through divorce, child support for another man's kids, and alimony. Plus the law enforcement and family court plantations are so biased against men that he can simply get a video of the afflicted hubby arguing with her to get him convicted of domestic abuse, which will surely ruin his male feminist bonafides and any goodwill he has with feminists in academia.
I have a few other strategies men could employ to counter feminism. I highly recommend you follow Bronze Age Pervert on Twitter, as he was my inspiration for them.