Tuesday, November 28, 2017

sex, feminism and liberalism, part one

There’s an extremely good post over at Oz Conservative, Accepting our monstrosity?

Canadian writer Stephen Marche, clearly a whiny male feminist, is aghast at the reality of male sexuality. Nothing unusual about that. Anything pertaining to reality always surprises liberals. But rather than merely mocking and laughing Mark carefully unpicks Marche’s babblings and in the process makes some very good points. And he demonstrates that Marche, in his own way, has uncovered some unpleasant truths. Being a liberal Marche naturally cannot deal with these truths or accept any of the conclusions they might lead to.

Marche is very upset over the brutality of male sexuality. Being a good male feminist he is ashamed of being male. Men are so beastly!

Mark quite rightly makes the point that

“there is an element in sex of men as the active and aggressive part and women as the responsive and receptive part.”

This is true, and of course it’s obvious to anyone with experience of the real world.

But the thing that really really upsets liberals, the thing they really will not face, is that on the whole women want sex to be this way. They like it. The big problem for liberals is female sexuality. Female sexuality just doesn’t work the way liberals want it to work. Amazingly enough most women are nauseated by the idea of having sex with whiny male feminists. They want to have sex with virile masculine men. No matter how virulently and enthusiastically they espouse feminist principles, no matter how bitter and angry they might be towards men, when it comes to the nitty gritty it is to a very large extent those beastly brutal masculine men who get women sexually aroused.

Women might like nice guys, but that doesn’t mean they want to sleep with those nice guys. Women might in an intellectual sense strongly disapprove of bad boys but they still get sexually excited by them and they still sleep with them.

None of this is surprising. Our survival as a species depended on having effective mating strategies. Women being attracted to the strongest most aggressive members of the tribe was a very effective mating strategy. Those were the men who could, if necessary, defend them. Men being attracted to the prettiest and most feminine females was an equally effective mating strategy. They were the females most likely to be fertile and most likely to be capable of successfully raising offspring.

The unpleasant truths (unpleasant for liberals and feminists) are that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for men to be masculine, that masculinity does indeed contain an element of aggressiveness, and that the aggressive element in masculinity is part of male sexuality. The other unpleasant truth is that it’s perfectly normal and perfectly healthy for women to respond sexually to this.

Liberals and feminists have now created a world in which the expression of masculinity has been all but outlawed. What this means in practice is that normal healthy masculinity has been repressed, so women in search of masculinity go looking for any kind of masculinity they can find. They usually find it in the sort of men who are obviously men they should have nothing to do with but the women can’t help themselves. Fundamental biological urges cannot be denied.

part two will follow


  1. “there is an element in sex of men as the active and aggressive part and women as the responsive and receptive part.”

    Well, whodathunkit? :)

    1. There is also the misapplication of words that describe. For instance 'aggressively'. Men are persuers; they are predisposed to take risks. This is all too evident in the mating bizzo where men are expected, socially and personally to 'approach' and seek connection, despite the very strong likelihood of rejection.

      They 'ask', sometimes in a blunt and forward manner. This is not 'aggression'. A chat-up line is almost a requirement, expected and indeed anticipated by women who are as fish for an angler who casts his line.

      The fish may take far less effort than a woman in seeking this line. She will prepare for an hour of more before going out to the fishing pool, dressing in such a way as to attract the (non) aggressive angler, displaying her flashes of coloured scales or 'bra and panties' as they are often called, painting her face to look more like a fair meal and more like a trout than a minnow, doing her hair in bizarre forms, choosing the most revealing and provocative mannerisms as she sits in the pub or cocktail bar pool, crossing her legs and revealing her intimate parts, and looking over the anglers seated nearby.

      Most anglers are a long way from aggressive, mainly chaps who sit and wait patiently, casting their lines continually to any passing or lurking trout, chatting amiably with their friends and perhaps smoking a pipe.

      All so often the chap goes home with an empty basket but having spent a few hours of pleasurable activity, practicing his casting skills.

      This is a far cry from 'aggression'.

    2. There is also the misapplication of words that describe. For instance 'aggressively'.

      Yes, quite right, and a very good point.

      One of the reasons liberals usually win and we usually lose is that they really do know how to take control of the language. They make a point of doing so, while far too often we simply accept the definitions imposed on us by liberals.

      They consciously and deliberately misuse words to make perfectly normal behaviour sound pathological and to make sick perverted behaviour sound normal.