Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘tabula rasa’

Blasphemy

Posted in Perception, Philosophy, Tyranny, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , on June 13, 2011| 48 Comments »

Mass movements can rise and spread without belief in a God, but never without belief in a devil.  Usually the strength of a mass movement is proportionate to the vividness and tangibility of its devil.  –  Eric Hoffer

It’s fairly common these days to hear people marveling at the fact that neofeminists and religious fundamentalists agree on the prohibition of prostitution and porn, but actually it’s not remotely surprising.  What causes these people’s confusion is that they have bought into the artificial and long-outmoded political framework of “right” and “left”, which was a poor fit to real political landscapes when it was first used in reference to the French Assembly more than 200 years ago and has become completely worthless since the rise of industrial welfare states in the 20th century.  Because pre-industrial societies changed only slowly, the labels “liberal” and “conservative” actually meant something in the 1700s.  But modern telecommunications created a cosmopolitan bazaar of ideas and industrialization made it possible to implement those ideas with astonishing speed, so trying to fit modern politics into an 18th-century dualism is as absurd and futile as attempting to describe modern technology using only the scientific terminology of that period.

Adherents of political dualism classify feminism as “leftist” or “liberal” because it seeks to replace much of the existing social order, but by this same standard we would have to classify Islamic militants as “liberals”…which I hardly think most people would.  Dualists think of religion as inherently “conservative” (even when it wants to turn a society upside-down) because religion has been around for a while; it’s an “old” (therefore “conservative”) way of doing things.  But as I pointed out in my column of April 26th, it’s a mistake to think of neofeminism as anything other than a religion:

Though [secular] religions concern themselves with physical reality and avoid talk of the soul, the Divine or other such esoteric concepts, they are yet religions because they insist on rigid adherence to a morality and interpretation of reality (i.e. an approved set of both “truth” and facts) derived entirely from knowledge revealed in sacred scriptures by the founders of the religion.  The dogma of…neofeminism…must be accepted unquestioningly by adherents; dissidence is suppressed and any scientifically-sound facts which contradict the teachings are denied…the Scandinavian countries infected with institutionalized neofeminism are every bit as irrational and ideologically-driven as the staunchest theocracy.

Neofeminist tenets such as “social construction of gender” and the mystical interconnectedness of all women fly in the face of biology, psychology, physics and common sense, and as I said yesterday the idea that “humans are an exception to every single rule of mammalian biology is religion, not science; it’s no different from the fundamentalist denial of evolution.”  Attempting to comprehend ardent feminism in general and neofeminism in particular as what it claims to be, a political philosophy, will leave a rational person scratching his head over the plenitude of contradictions.  But when one understands it for what it actually is, a religion, it all falls into place.  Now, this is all theoretical for me; though (like most girls my age) I went through a feminist stage in my teens, the kind of dogmatic feminism which qualifies as a religion has never really penetrated the Deep South, and even if it had I was far too critical a thinker to ever embrace its evident absurdities.  But a couple of weeks ago I got an email from a friend of mine who had just read the March 25th column, and I found her “insider” viewpoint to be well worth sharing (with her kind permission):

I grew up with a lot of exposure to feminism.  My stepmother is an ardent feminist with a big collection of feminist books, some of which I read…Second Wave feminism did explicitly preach that all women are interconnected in a giant sisterhood, and that this sisterhood is the only thing that can defeat the patriarchy.  Women born since 1970, raised in bigger cities or suburbs, and college educated, were often taught in their late teens, if not sooner, that womanhood is a single entity.  As ludicrous as it sounds to a sensible adult, I did find the idea appealing when I was 13 and I didn’t know any better.  This appeals to the normal human desire for group membership, which is especially strong during the teen years, so many girls embraced the idea enthusiastically.  Hence this idea of a super-group of all women soon became one of the defining characteristics of feminism.

Camille Paglia said in an interview:  “Next, one of my major criticisms of Naomi [Wolf] is that she has drifted from any kind of ethnic affiliation.  I have constantly said this about her, Susan Faludi, or Gloria Steinem:  that these women are not identifiably anything.  Feminism has become their entire metaphysical, religious, and cultural world view.”  For women raised in liberal, mostly secular families, where there is no clear identification with one’s ethnicity or one’s family’s historical faith, feminism has become their substitute for religion.  They react to any women who behaves in any way that is considered non- or anti-feminist the way religious fanatics react to apostates.

I got my first hint that there was something wrong with feminism from one of the essays in Sisterhood is Powerful [edited by Robin Morgan] called “The Tired Old Question of Male Children”, in which a lesbian advocated figuring out how to reproduce by parthenogenesis and then routinely aborting all male babies to create an all-female human race.  At 13, I knew, there is something wrong with people who would even allow that to be included in their anthology, even if they don’t agree with it.  But it wasn’t until a couple of years later that I really started questioning feminism…Many girls who are raised with these ideas never question them, and then they get these ideas massively reinforced by what they’re taught in college…

I think she’s bang on.  Though the neofeminist leaders must be held accountable for their crimes against society in general and women in particular, the rank and file who parrot their dogma are no more culpable than fundamentalist Christian women who believe that the Bible is literal fact or conservative Muslim women who never question why they must hide their faces and figures under concealing garments.  They have been taught not to think, and they learned their lessons well.  So the predictable reaction of such an indoctrinated feminist to prostitution or porn is the same as that of her conventionally-religious sisters:  she condemns it as sinful, and attacks any defense of it as blasphemy against the catechism which has been drummed into her.

Read Full Post »

Public Service Announcement

Posted in Current Events, Miscellaneous, Perception, tagged , , , , , , , , , on June 12, 2011| 126 Comments »

When a man talks dirty to a woman, it’s sexual harassment.  When a woman talks dirty to a man, it’s $3.95 a minute.  –  Anonymous

Dear Men,

Please stop sending us pictures of your penises; most of us are honestly not interested, and the few who are will ask if they really want them.  No matter what you may think, or what your friends or feminists or dumb magazine articles or stupid TV shows told you, our sexuality really isn’t just like yours with the genders reversed, and most of us find unsolicited “dick pics” rude, insulting, and either unintentionally hilarious or kind of threatening.  If you’re somebody famous and really want to expose yourself (no pun intended) to the possibility of blackmail, please just save us both a lot of trouble and send the money instead of the icky cell-phone photo; it’ll allow you to keep your career intact and spare us both a lot of unwanted media attention.

Love, Women

P.S. – Pictures of your bare chests or flexed arms probably aren’t a good idea either.

I honestly think that the neofeminist propaganda that men and women are psychologically identical except for “social construction of gender” is (from a human relations perspective) probably the most dangerous lie of the past half-century.  All reasonable people used to recognize that men and women are different; everybody understood that, though there was some overlap in certain areas, the sexes were in most aspects as unalike as Mars and Venus.  We don’t look the same, act the same, sound the same or think the same, and when it comes to sex that goes double.  And honestly, why should it be otherwise when it isn’t anywhere else in the animal kingdom?  The notion that humans are an exception to every single rule of mammalian biology is religion, not science; it’s no different from the fundamentalist denial of evolution, and based in the same insecure need to believe that we as humans are even more special than we already are.

This subject comes up often in this column, and with good reason; it’s male-female differences which make prostitution not only possible but sociologically necessary, and the denial of those differences which gave rise to and sustains anti-whore legislation.  The idea that women are just small men with our reproductive organs on the inside rather than the outside is behind the neofeminist agenda of trying to force women to give up all that makes us women and live and work like castrated men, but a different version of it lurks in the minds of many modern men as well.  An awfully large number of guys have bought into this dogma and so truly believe that a woman’s response to male nudity, sexual behavior, dirty talk, etc is going to be EXACTLY THE SAME as a man’s response to female nudity, sexual behavior, etc.  Guys who believe this just can’t fathom that a dude posing in his underwear, socks and shoes is NOT equivalent to a woman doing so in panties, hose and pumps, and they can’t comprehend that for most women unexpected and unsolicited male nudity is threatening rather than seductive.  They just don’t “get” that even if one ignores the whole pursuer/pursued duality, most women simply aren’t all that visual (not to the extent that most men are, anyhow).  But once the doctrine of sexual equivalency has infected a male mind it is nearly impossible to dislodge by any means short of a lobotomy or a major career-destroying scandal, which is why we keep seeing this same ridiculous script being played out in the media over and over and over again.

Last summer, we were subjected to the news that New York Jets football player Brett Favre thought that sending a woman pictures of his cock (on multiple occasions) was a good way to break through her objections to his repeated advances.  The woman, Jenn Sterger, made the mistake of trusting others with the pictures and voicemails while soliciting advice on what to do about the repeated offenses, and one of those sold the material to Deadspin for $12,000, thus exposing Sterger to negative publicity she didn’t want any more than Favre did.  Then in February, we heard about New York congressman Chris Lee sending bare-chested flexing pictures to all sorts of people he was trying to entice into sex, with predictable results.  And now, demonstrating the apparent inability of high-profile New Yorkers to learn from their mistakes, we have yet another entry in the penis picture parade:

[U.S. Representative] Anthony Weiner [a Democrat from New York] insisted he’s staying in office…even as a string of embarrassing new revelations and photos emerged that apparently reveal a hidden, lascivious online life.  At first, Weiner vehemently denied that a photo of an underwear-clad erection, sent via Twitter to a 21-year-old woman, had come from him, insisting he’d been hacked.  But…blogger Andrew Breitbart and his website Big Government rolled out a series of new pictures Monday, including a shirtless shot that appears to depict Weiner flexing and photographing himself.  Breitbart also claimed to have X-rated pictures of Weiner, and other outlets, including Radar Online and ABC News, reported having more damaging information from women Weiner had purportedly communicated with.

“I am deeply ashamed of my terrible actions,” a tearful Weiner told reporters at a remarkable press conference in New York.  “I came here to accept the full responsibility for what I’ve done,” he said, apologizing to his wife of one year, Huma Abedin, and reporters and others he lied to about the initial reports.  He even said he was sorry to Breitbart, who had commandeered the podium for his own impromptu press event before Weiner spoke.  “I’m here to watch myself be vindicated,” said Breitbart, who had faced criticism for his role in the scandal.

“Terrible actions”?  Hardly.  Stupid, embarrassing actions most definitely (especially after the other two high-profile scandals involving nearly-identical behavior in the same state), but hardly “terrible”.  Of course Weiner has already made the obligatory promise to “seek help”, but there is no therapy for poor judgment (which despite what moralists and feminists might claim is his real problem).  I have a rather high opinion of my male readers; I think y’all are a pretty superior bunch and would never do anything as colossally clueless as these celebrated New Yorkers keep doing.  But just in case there are a couple of you out there who get really, really horny and are trying to figure out how best to win a woman’s attention, please learn from Messrs. Favre, Lee and Weiner; you really need to resist the urge to foist unwanted pictures of your sexual anatomy on women you don’t actually know…or even ones you do know, for that matter.

Read Full Post »

Neither Cold nor Hot

Posted in Current Events, Miscellaneous, Perception, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 6, 2011| 116 Comments »

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. –  Revelation 3:16

Many of my readers are probably at least somewhat familiar with the website Jezebel, which describes itself as “Celebrity, Sex, Fashion for Women”; it’s part of the Gawker family of news & commentary sites.  Jezebel’s political bent is more or less third-wave feminist, and though it’s very pro-porn and seems inhospitable to neofeminist anti-prostitution propaganda, its staff also appears vaguely uncomfortable with sex workers; I think of them as something like a gaggle of debutantes volunteering at the local homeless shelter because they think it’s the right thing to do, but unable to really disguise their disgust for the “icky people”.  There are occasional columns about strippers and whores, and once in a while one will see reader comments about sex worker rights, but that’s it; no sex worker rights news, articles condemning persecution of prostitutes, reprinting of any of the many articles debunking prohibitionist rhetoric, nothing like that.  Back at the end of January they even participated in spreading the “Super Bowl sex trafficking” hysteria, obediently repeating the lies promoted by Christian groups who would oppose most of what Jezebel seems to stand for.

I’ve never commented on any of the stories myself; the general tone of the replies is so party-line whitebread “feminist” that I don’t really feel I’d be welcome.  But while writing my December 8th column I read this article about Sugardaddyforme.com in which the author, Sadie Stein, starts a profile on the site for research purposes and discovers to her apparent surprise that the other members are “surprisingly human” (presumably she thought they were all robots, apes and spirits).  So I decided to take a chance by sending her an email, suggesting she start a profile on one of the escort boards so she could discover the same thing about sex workers and their clients.  As I’m sure you’ve already guessed, I got no response whatsoever.  After that, I sort of gave up on using Jezebel as anything but a source of stories which might inspire columns.

Then last Monday (March 28th), I was scanning the site as usual and saw this article attacking Satoshi Kanazawa, which was obviously directly inspired by his column of the night before talking about me!  Though the author, Anna North (who also wrote the aforementioned Super Bowl trafficking story) was clearly familiar with Kanazawa already, the suggestion that she could be “essentially” the same as one of those nasty whores seems to have set her off.  Interestingly, she has nothing bad to say about me (though she does misquote my description of a neofeminist by calling it my definition of a “contemporary feminist”, which as my readers know is not at all the same thing).  Considering that Kanazawa and I aren’t all that far apart on the subject I thought it was interesting that she was so vicious to him but gave me a free pass, presumably because of my sex.  Unfortunately, she also gives a free pass to the neofeminists by weakly describing them as feminists who “insist on lockstep orthodoxy”.  This kind of weak-kneed faux “sisterhood”, refraining from criticizing other women merely because they are women (even if one strongly disagrees with their beliefs), is exactly what caused the collapse of second-wave feminism in the first place; mainstream feminists should have had the sense to ostracize the man-hating, anti-sex crowd back in the 1970s, but instead they passively watched while monsters perverted the movement into a crusade for their own warped agenda.

Another example of Jezebel’s discomfort with the sex trade can be seen in this story (also from March 28th) about hookers’ business cards; apparently some New York politician who’s been living under a rock his entire life just discovered that some low-end escorts pay guys to hand out business cards for them and therefore wants to ban the practice.  Though the author, Irin Carmon, doesn’t seem too fazed by the idea of prostitution and also appears to have a healthy degree of skepticism about the politician’s attempt to paint his effort as “for the children”, take a look at her headline: “Pimps Use Alessandra Ambrosio’s Image To Sell Actual Sex”.  Actually, the (often Hispanic) males who hand out these cards are the hookers’ employees, not their bosses, and they’re usually teenage boys rather than grown men.  But Miss Carmon has clearly bought into the myth that any non-customer male who has anything to do with a whore MUST be a pimp, and her use of the term conjures up a lot of negative stereotypes a real friend of sex workers would not choose to evoke.

And then there’s this one from the day before the other two, which references this New York Times scare piece on the dreaded scourge of teen “sexting”.  Though the author, Morning Gloria, does seem to find the lugubrious tone of the Times article absurd, she yet agrees with its principle that photos of the human body are dirty, bad, wrong and “sexist”, and that something needs to be “done” about girls taking them.  Does she remember that girls of our generation (and at least 60 others before it) were slut-shamed quite effectively without any pictures at all by use of the grapevine (remember the word “reputation”, ladies)?  Hell, no!  Does she point out that the suffering of the girl in the story was caused not by the picture but by the other kids’ stupid parent-taught attitudes about it?  Of course not!  She instead feels compelled to turn the incident into a feminist parable:

And, while we’re at it, why don’t we get to the root of the problem and examine why, exactly, teenage girls only feel valuable insomuch as they’re seen as “sexy?”  How are we talking to our daughters?  When are we complimenting them?  Are we socializing them to be pretty pretty princesses or productive, thoughtful contributors to society?  As long as the greatest compliment that a girl can be paid is “you’re beautiful” and not “you’re smart,” shit like this is going to keep happening, no matter what kooky consequences we cook up for the bullies who attempt to use young women’s sexuality to shame them.

Maybe if the ladies at Jezebel would actually read about evolutionary psychology instead of simply mocking it, they’d understand why normal women (not just teenage girls) want to be seen as sexy, and why “you’re smart” will never have the same impact as “you’re beautiful”.  I was repeatedly and enthusiastically told I was fucking brilliant by nearly every adult I knew from the time I was about five years old, and you know what?  I still consider “you’re beautiful” to be a greater compliment, despite “socialization” to the contrary.  “You can process information well” is a fact, not a judgment; it’s no more a compliment than “you’re of average height” or “you have brown hair”.  There’s no feeling in it, while “you’re beautiful” is almost pure feeling.  If feminists would get over their fear of their own femininity they’d understand that, and Jezebel would be a much less annoying website.

Read Full Post »

Savaging

Posted in Perception, Philosophy, Tyranny, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on March 27, 2011| 133 Comments »

When the sex war is won prostitutes should be shot as collaborators for their terrible betrayal of all women. –  Julie Burchill

Domestic sows are often subject to a perverse and horrifying behavioral abnormality called “savaging”, or cannibalistic infanticide; in plainer language, they eat their own young.  The behavior is thought to be caused by fear, stress or unsanitary conditions, but it is also noted that sows which have done it once are prone to do it again.  Though humans are not subject to this behavior in a literal sense, there are a number of women who tend to viciously attack others as part of a broader rejection of their own femininity; I call them neofeminists.  And like disturbed sows, neofeminists reserve their most vicious attacks for those one would least expect them to target, in this case other women.

The reason, I suspect, lies in the differing ways in which men and women view our bodies.  For a man, the body is a vehicle; he gets signals from it such as hunger, pain, sexual desire, etc and though he’s forced to respond to those signals he still views them as something outside his ego.  In the sea of organic life a male is someone on a raft:  He is supported by the sea and can perceive it all around him, and it has powerful and often overwhelming effects on him, but he is ALWAYS outside of it and indeed fears being swallowed up by it.  But for women our psyches are inextricably bound up in the body; we are immersed in that sea, swimming in it, surrounded by it on all sides, and the signals from it are not merely messages from somewhere else but thoughts in our own brains.  No man can understand the way women think of food or sex, and pregnancy might as well be science fiction to them.  Starting in the early teens the female body undergoes catastrophic changes (unlike the comparatively gradual and subtle male ones) and every month we are reminded of the fact that Mother Nature is in control and we have little choice but to obey her demands.  This is not merely a physical thing but a mental one; our feelings, perceptions and thoughts are altered by the internal tides and they’re only a pale reflection of the changes produced by pregnancy.

So it should come as no surprise that some female intellectuals reject their own femininity, in extreme cases violently so by embracing male dress, grooming, mannerisms and lifestyles.  It isn’t about “male power” as they claim publicly; it’s about rejecting female powerlessness over our bodies, a state they wrongfully blame on men because the truth, that it’s the doing of the bitch goddess Nature, is too overwhelming.  Men and political systems can be fought, but Nature cannot be, so neofeminists adhere to the ridiculous “social construction of gender” ideology as a way of whistling past the graveyard.  Because they’re so miserable and maladjusted they resent anyone who isn’t, and from this resentment grows envy of men for being free of the tyranny of a female body, and envy of women who have learned to live comfortably with it.  Envy inevitably decays into hate, and the ultimate targets of that hatred are prostitutes because we not only embrace our bodies and use them to enrich ourselves in a way denied to neofeminists, but also because we enable men to procure sex on their own terms rather than having to dance to every ridiculous demand made by some woman with an exaggerated sense of her own irreplaceability.

The neofeminists are fond of pretending that prostitution is an outgrowth of patriarchy, but this is clearly absurd; the highest status of the prostitute is found in the ancient semi-matriarchal cultures, and the lowest in the most patriarchal ones.  Married women in such cultures often resent the freedom and power of the prostitute, and as in the case of the neofeminists such resentment gives rise to hatred.  But it wasn’t until the decay of first-wave feminism that this hatred actually turned into widespread legislative repression, and even then the persecution was represented as a self-evident moral issue.  A century ago there was no need for moral crusaders to lie about whores; the truth of our lives was enough to justify a war on our profession according to the prevailing Christian morality of the time.  But after the sexual revolution relaxed the sexual mores of amateurs, it became much more difficult for anti-whore crusaders to whip up public feeling against us with the mere truth, so lies became necessary.

First came the traditional police lies about prostitution “attracting crime”, which equated escorts with streetwalkers and ignored the fact that it’s criminalization which creates the “crime” of prostitution in the first place.  But when prostitutes started participating in second-wave feminism and sympathy for us began to grow, early neofeminists found it necessary to construct elaborate lies about our degradation, bad childhoods, drug abuse, etc so as to destroy our credibility without openly attacking us (which at the time would’ve been recognized as the flagrant violation of sisterhood it is).  Whores then became victims who, though blameless, couldn’t be taken seriously because we were so screwed up.

This mythology is still the prevailing one, and gave rise to the Swedish Model and the “sex trafficking” cult, but unfortunately for its adherents there are a certain number of outspoken harlots who dare to challenge that view and prove its fallaciousness by simply showing ourselves to be intelligent, reasonable and well-adjusted women who aren’t “victimized” by anybody.  And because the internet has made us far more visible than we used to be, a new and even more vicious lie became necessary.  Neofeminists now claim that though the vast majority of prostitutes are trafficked, coerced victims, those of us who speak out for sex worker rights are a tiny minority who actually participate in the degradation of other women!  Some neofeminists prefer the subtle approach, claiming that though we may indeed be free and happy our “bad example” helps to make the sexual enslavement of “millions” possible, while others (such as those I discussed Friday) prefer the more overt approach typified by the Julie Burchill epigram to this column.  But a few (such as those who seem to have schooled “Bedelia”) have actually dreamed up a conspiracy theory of “Elders of Zion”-like proportions.  These lunatics imagine a vast, powerful “pimp lobby” funded by pornography which actively promotes sex trafficking and “paid rape” (yet somehow lacks the influence to get prostitution decriminalized even in Nevada), and that sex worker advocates such as the leaders of SWOP, well-known writers such as Tracy Quan and Belle de Jour, and even bloggers like myself and a number of my readers are all in the employ of this “pro-prostitution” cabal.

Nobody who hates femininity as much as the neofeminists do can possibly be accepted by rational people as speaking for all women, but few of their followers are rational and the politicians who embrace their rhetoric do so not out of belief, but expediency (neofeminist dogma gives them an excuse for more repressive legislation).  So I welcome neofeminists’ increasingly overt attacks on sex workers; the more vicious they grow, the less the public will accept that they speak for all women, and the zanier their pronouncements about vast pimp conspiracies become the less their arguments will be taken seriously by normal people.  Sooner or later, the only people listening to their nasty grunting and squealing will be the few benighted souls who choose to inhabit the same philosophical sty.

Read Full Post »

Born, Not Made

Posted in Miscellaneous, Perception, tagged , , , , , , , , , on January 17, 2011| 46 Comments »

Men may change their climate, but they cannot change their nature. A man that goes out a fool cannot ride or sail himself into common sense. –  Joseph Addison

The human character is the product of both heredity and environment, but much of the 20th century was spent arguing about which was the stronger.  By the middle of the century most liberal thinkers outside of psychology (and many inside it) insisted that Nurture was stronger than Nature; to believe the opposite required an uncomfortable admission of our animal natures that many humans a century after Darwin still preferred to deny, and the Nurture-over-Nature folk failed to recognize that in denying humans have an innate nature which transcends socialization they were in fact espousing something far more demeaning to the human spirit.  To recognize the pre-eminence of Nature over Nurture is to recognize that humans are animals, but to place Nurture over Nature is to believe we are machines to be programmed as society sees fit.

This idea of course appeals to social engineers because it feeds into their sick belief that society can and should be remade along whatever lines their “elite” leadership demands.  The neofeminists are a perfect example; by pretending that all gender differences are “socially constructed”, they deny that most gendered behavior is innate and thereby clear the way for their plan to masculinize girls and feminize boys so as to artificially create a mechanistic eunuch-culture which can be ruled by one law.  Luckily, these claims have in the past two decades fallen into disrepute; neurological discoveries, an increased understanding of endocrinology and cross-cultural and cross-species studies all show that when it comes to gender Nature is vastly stronger than Nurture.  Except in the ghettos of “women’s studies” and “queer theory” it would be difficult to find any educated person with any knowledge of the subject who still believes that the majority of male or female behaviors derive from social learning rather than hormones and brain architecture.

This does not, of course, disprove that some behaviors we associate with one sex or the other result from socialization rather than birth.  In fact, few educated people would be so dogmatic as to make the claim that ALL gendered behaviors derive from nature.  I predict that the struggle over the next few decades will be to determine which are which; those with a unisex agenda will of course try to prove that as many behaviors as possible are learned, and social conservatives will try to prove the opposite, while serious researchers attempt to remain as scientifically detached as possible so as to learn the truth.  Generally speaking, if a given behavior is linked to known hormonal, neurological or somatic mechanisms and is consistent across many cultures and primate species, it almost certainly derives from Nature, and if it has no known biological mechanism and appears inconsistently across cultures and species it very likely derives from Nurture.

Well, considering that a certain female behavior discussed frequently in this blog appears in every known human culture throughout history and also in chimpanzees, is it possible that it derives from Nature?  In other words, could it be that whores are born rather than made?  In her column of January 14th, Amanda Brooks suggests that this might indeed be the case:

Not every sex worker in the world enters the work because she has always felt a pull towards it. Many have. I know a number of women who have felt the interest from a young age, including myself (and this was before I even had a clear idea of what sex was). Conversations with these women reveal that we all say the same things about our early interest, we all became interested right before entering puberty and common myths about prostitution were not enough to dissuade us from desiring that life-path.  This is a very small sampling and it’s highly unscientific. Given what we know about genes and hard-wired behaviors — it seems more than plausible. Just as homosexual people are born, I am convinced prostitutes are born too.

My inspiration came last year after reading a US-based survey about attitudes toward gay people. The discovery of “gay genes” seems to have really turned the tide in popular thinking and acceptance of homosexuality. It sounds like an argument of convenience for prostitution. But if the range of human sexual orientation is, in fact, genetic; then how come prostitution — an extremely common sexual behavior — supposedly isn’t? What if prostitution isn’t merely a sexual behavior but is actually a sexual orientation? Why has prostitution always been viewed as a deviant behavior? How come people aren’t willing to examine the idea that a prostitute is a perfectly natural occurrence and that it’s society which has formed the deviant behavior around the prostitute?

If being a prostitute is a natural tendency for a percentage of women, then how can laws be made against who they are?

It’s quite an interesting idea, and her column is well worth reading.  The theory is of course the exact opposite of that espoused by neofeminists, who claim that all prostitutes are sexually and psychologically damaged victims who are warped into pursuing prostitution by sexual abuse.  And just as they deny evidence of biological origin of sex-based behaviors, so they deny the possibility that most women choose prostitution freely.  Those who deny any history of sexual abuse are claimed to be “in denial” or suffering from “repressed memories”; the neofeminist “theory” flies in the face of reality and so requires that reality be denied if it is to be believed.  But Amanda’s theory requires no such denial; in fact it is supported by the case-histories of many working girls I have known, who feel no sense of shame or discomfort in our profession whatsoever and indeed were fascinated by the subject from a young age – often before we even knew what sex was.  The theory certainly fits my story, which I related in my columns of July 28th, 29th and 30th.  Could there really be a “hooker gene”?  Only time and research will tell.

Read Full Post »

Dog Bites Man

Posted in Miscellaneous, Perception, tagged , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2011| 29 Comments »

When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often.  But if a man bites a dog, that is news. –  John B. Bogart

Though the source of this quote is in dispute (it has also been attributed to Charles Anderson Dana and Lord Northcliffe), few would dispute its general veracity.  When something ordinary happens (such as politicians waffling on positions or going back on promises, banks inventing new ways to cheat people or the military scapegoating somebody for a business-as-usual practice which unexpectedly turns into a scandal among civilians), it isn’t really news at all by the “dog bites man” test.  Yet as these examples show such things are presented as news every day.  Sometimes they become newsworthy because of the unusual size of the dog or the sheer number of people bitten; sometimes it’s just a slow news day, and very often such stories are the equivalent of the patter, lovely assistant and other misdirection used by a conjurer to draw attention away from what he’s actually doing.  But in some cases “dog bites man” stories become newsworthy because the media have succeeded in convincing enough people that dogs actually don’t bite men, so when it happens in a public place silly people are either surprised or must at least pretend to be.

Two stories of the latter sort came to my attention last Tuesday (January 4th).  Neither of these will come as any great shock to whores, regular readers of this column or people who go through life with their eyes open.  But judging by the fact that both were presented as news, and by the commentary following the articles, one must presume that many people either don’t recognize these as examples of “dog bites man” or else believe that dogs do not in fact generally bite men;  they therefore react by feigning surprise, denying that the story actually describes an incident of canine aggression, or questioning the veracity of the report.

The first story reports on a study which demonstrates what rational people already know:  many if not most women are simply not interested in all-consuming, male-style careers and prefer to “marry up” or take jobs which allow them to enjoy their lives and concentrate on their families rather than forcing them to sell their souls to corporations as so many men do.

…according to Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics…more women are choosing to marry wealthy men than in the 1940s…she suggests men dominate the top positions because women simply do not want careers in business.  “Women’s aspiration to marry up, if they can, to a man who is better-educated and higher-earning persists in most European countries,” she said.  “Women thereby continue to use marriage as an alternative or supplement to their employment careers.”

The research…showed that 20 per cent of British women married husbands with a significantly better education than their own in 1949…[but] by the 1990s, the percentage of women deciding to “marry up” had climbed to 38 per cent – with a similar pattern repeated in the rest of Europe, the US and Australia.  The report concluded that equal roles in the family, where husband and wife shared employment, childcare and housework, was “not the ideal sought by most couples…it is thus not surprising that wives generally earn less than their husbands, and that most couples rationally decide that it makes sense for her to take on the larger share of child care, and to use most or all the parental leave allowance.”  Her report also suggests that many women do not want to admit they want to be housewives – even to their partners.  “It has become impossible to say, ‘I wouldn’t mind being a housewife,’ …it is so politically incorrect that a lot of women don’t want to admit it.”

Dr Hakim also accuses feminists of peddling a string of myths and manufacturing “political ammunition for a war that has ended.”  She says:  “Women today have more choices than men, including real choices between a focus on family work and/or paid employment…Despite this, many politicians and feminists appear disappointed with the slow pace of change in women’s attainment of top jobs.  Sex differences are treated as self-evident proof of widespread sex discrimination and sex-role stereotyping rather than the result of personal choices and preferences.  Demands for further change rest on faulty assumptions and dated evidence.  The latest research shows that most of the theories and ideas built up around gender equality in the last few decades are wrong.  Despite feminist claims, the truth is that many men and women have different career aspirations, priorities, and life goals.  Policy makers should therefore not expect the same job outcomes.”

Honestly, why does this surprise anyone who has personally known more than two women?  Despite three decades of neofeminist propaganda, can anyone who isn’t wholly delusional really believe that the vast majority of women want a masculine career?  OK, that’s a rhetorical question; obviously many people outside the Netherlands do indeed believe it, as evidenced by this Jezebel editorial on the study.  A few women in the ensuing commentary point out that homemaking is a valid path  and that true feminism is about giving women the CHOICE of opportunities, not forcing us all to be bootlicking, clock-punching corporate lackeys.  But the rest of them…well, read it yourself.  Given this widespread willingness of women to ignore their own feelings and the observed behavior of their friends in favor of neofeminist dogma, is it any wonder so many of them believe the related propaganda about sex work?

The second story is really only interesting because A) the woman is young, and B) she states what she’s looking for so clearly.  Other than that, she’s no different from any other woman who’s ever supported a gigolo and not much different from immature women who fantasize about gay guys, androgynous young boys or other non-threatening males.  And in her quest for a silly romance-novel fantasy of sexless love, is she really all that different from immature men who pursue a silly porno-movie fantasy of loveless sex?  Either way, it’s still dog bites man.

Read Full Post »

Wolves

Posted in Current Events, Philosophy, Tyranny, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 18, 2010| 34 Comments »

If courtesans and strumpets were to be prosecuted with as much rigour as some silly people would have it, what locks or bars would be sufficient to preserve the honour of our wives and daughters? –  Bernard Mandeville

When I was a lass, we were taught that men only wanted one thing, and that it was the responsibility of women to control access to that thing.  Everyone, male and female, over the age of 12 understood this principle for the first 12,000 years of human civilization, then suddenly less than one human lifetime ago started to deny it.  We could talk about the reasons all day long, and in fact we have at length in this column before.  Dependable birth control, the Sexual Revolution, misguided feminism, the “social construction of gender” lie, the “rape is not sexual” lie, the Cult of the Child’s catechism of trying to keep little girls ignorant of sex until marriage, and the naïve modern belief that Nature is “fair” (born of the complete disconnection of modern urbanites from the natural world they claim to be so concerned about) are among the many causes of this phenomenon, but no matter what weight we give to which factor the result is the same.  The typical modern woman under the age of 40 or 50 is totally, completely clueless about the powerful, primal, dangerous, predatory nature of male sexuality and daily engages in the equivalent of dancing around in front of a pack of hungry Siberian wolves with rare steaks strapped to her naked body while insisting that said wolves are really herbivorous and only believe themselves to be carnivorous due to “social construction of dietary preferences”; and, that if they try to eat her she will simply “kick them in the balls” and thereby render them as harmless as kittens.

OK, I’m exaggerating.  A little.  My analogy breaks down because human men have minds and most of them are both civilized and have the instinctive tendency to protect women.  That does not, however, change the fact that they’re still wolves and they’re always hungry, and the only reason they aren’t ripping those steaks off of your body (and maybe eating you for dessert) is because of their own powers of self-control backed up by fear of the consequences.  It’s not because they’re “enlightened” or “modern”, it’s not because they were given unisex toys when they were kids and it certainly ain’t because they’re afraid of your magical waif fu combat ability.  It’s just that most of them are too civilized, decent and self-controlled to take steaks you don’t want to give.  Oh, they might try to talk you or trick you into giving them up, and I certainly wouldn’t go to sleep in the presence of a strange wolf, but most of them aren’t going to be ripping them from your body without asking.  But where do men’s nigh-superhuman abilities of self-control come from?  They’re learned, of course; over many centuries males have developed a set of behaviors designed to bring vicious young cubs into the pack and instill in them the ability to control their passions.  These patterns of male society may seem harsh to women, but they have to be in order to control male passions and thereby turn young savages into adult gentlemen.

In the last generation, however, we have seen a breakdown in these male institutions due to the well-intentioned but frighteningly ignorant meddling of women.  In the past, men largely stayed out of women’s business and women stayed out of men’s, and society stayed in balance.  But once the neofeminists and their “social construction of gender” fairy tales came into favor, all this changed; male-only institutions were forced to admit women, and women did not like what they saw, largely because they had absolutely no idea what they were looking at.  If one presumes that all gender is “socially constructed” then obviously there is only one “normal” pattern of human behavior and everything else is pathological.  And since the neofeminists obviously can’t consider female behavior abnormal, they automatically presume that male behavior is, and furthermore conclude that if young boys are feminized then everything will be wonderful and we’ll all go skipping down the road to Candyland together.  Except for one thing:  Male behavior isn’t automatically pathological, it’s just male.  And those young wolf cubs who are being forced to wear fleeces and eat grass won’t grow up to be sheep; they’ll grow up to be either very screwed-up wolves or else very angry, maladjusted wolves who hate sheep and don’t have any clue as to how to behave in a wolf-pack.

One example of a male norm which women have undermined is teaching boys to control their feelings; naïve women bleat about how terrible this is, and how men should be encouraged to “show their feelings”.  What kind of insanity is this?  The average man is six inches taller than the average woman and outweighs her by fifty pounds; he has three times her upper-body strength, twice her muscle mass and about 1.5x her bone mass.  If she gets angry and hits him, it stings; if he gets angry and hits her, it can cause major damage.  I’m perfectly happy with men controlling their feelings, thank you very much, and so should you be unless you think being beaten and/or raped on a regular basis is a good thing.  It’s because I trust my husband’s self-control that I feel safe screaming at him when I’m angry; if he felt as free to “show his feelings” as I do he would beat the hell out of me every time I dared to provoke him in that way.

Another male social mechanism almost completely destroyed by female meddling is hazing.  In any male group which faces danger together (such as military, firemen, police etc) there are certain rites of passage to which newcomers are subjected; these can appear quite brutal to female eyes and indeed I myself was horrified by such practices until I took the time to research the psychology behind them so as to attempt to understand rather than arbitrarily imposing my own female sensibilities on a male institution where they did not belong.  Here is what I learned:  Because such groups face danger together, they have to  have absolute faith in one another.  Every man must know that his brothers can be counted on in a crisis, that they will not buckle under the strain.  Hazing is the way in which newcomers are tested; they are exposed to psychological stress, even mild torture, and are expected not to break.  If they pass the test they become part of the brotherhood, and if they fail they wash out.  The process is harsh but absolutely necessary; if a man can’t even take teasing and insults from his comrades, how the hell will he survive being shot at by people who want to kill him?  By equating adult male hazing rituals with mere mean-spirited high-school bullying, well-meaning but ignorant women have removed an important and time-tested weeding process from military and paramilitary organizations.

We’ve talked about the consequences of uncontrolled male sexual passion in this column before, most recently on September 24th and October 2nd.  But what I didn’t really discuss in those columns is the reason why we’re seeing more of this behavior despite the claims of social engineers that modern men are more “enlightened” and “sensitive” than their forefathers.  Certainly the reasons are complex, but I believe one important cause is the pathologization of normal male behavior.  If both society and individual men recognize the intensity of male passion and the need to control it, social mechanisms like ingrained stoicism and hazing evolve to teach men to control their passions and institutions like prostitution and violent sports arise to allow them to expend their energies in socially acceptable ways.  Some men have milder passions, stronger wills, wise wives or all of the above and will never have need of these outlets, while others need them very much (as evidenced by the study I linked on the 24th showing that decriminalized prostitution reduces rape rates).  19th-century social purity laws which insisted that males be publicly held to female sexual standards were ridiculous enough, but at least in those days men were still allowed to act like men in every other way.  Ever since the advent of “social construction of gender”, however,  men are expected to act like women and are viciously punished if they do not.  Every day in the US men are fired or sent to re-education camps for telling dirty jokes or hanging pictures of pin-up girls in their lockers, and five-year-old boys are arrested for stealing kisses from little girls, yet no politician has the balls to stand up and decry any of this as unjust and insane.

Modern boys are being taught that normal male behavior is sick, perverted and wrong, yet at the same time the social constructs which taught them to control their passions have largely been dismantled.  Boys are encouraged to “show their feelings”, then punished when they do so.  This is a recipe for instilling sociopathy on a massive scale, and if the behavior of young men on the internet is any indication the damage is already very widespread.  Perhaps some of my older male readers may consider me to be overstating the problem, but I doubt many of my younger ones feel that way.  And though some of my female readers may not believe me either, that’s because they aren’t whores.  We frequently have to listen to customers talking about their frustration on this subject, and we constantly see the evidence of it in their behavior and sometimes-twisted desires.  Modern American society needs to stop punishing boys for being boys, and to cease its relentless persecution of the women who work to keep the wolves fed so our prissy domesticated sisters needn’t get saliva on their dainty little hands.

Read Full Post »

A Whore in the Bedroom

Posted in Call types, Perception, Philosophy, tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , on September 9, 2010| 158 Comments »

A true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best.  At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.  –  Robert A. Heinlein

Today’s column is for the ladies.  Gentlemen are certainly welcome to read, comment and share the column with the women in your lives (if you dare), but my comments will all be directed toward the ladies and will therefore assume female gender.  I’ve been thinking about doing this one for a while, but a few factors (including some emails I’ve received and day-before-yesterday’s column) have at last inspired me to sit down and actually write it.  If any of my female readers have specific technique questions which I can’t cover herein without being graphic (sorry, guys), I’ll be happy to answer them privately via confidential email.

One night at UNO I was sitting around talking with several other girls, and when one said something about putting out for her boyfriend another replied haughtily, “I would never give a man sex unless I wanted it, too.”

Even back in those pre-professional days I considered that sort of attitude completely asinine, so I asked her, “Do you have a dog?” (knowing full well she did).

“What?” she asked, annoyed at my apparent change of subject.

“It’s a straightforward question,” I replied; “Do you, or do you not, have a dog?”

“You know I do!” she snapped.

“And you walk it every night?”

“Of course!”

“What if you don’t want to?”

“I still have to anyway, or she’ll go on the carpet during the night!”

“What if it’s raining?”

“Then my dad takes her for me!” The dumb bunny had no idea where I was going, but the smiles told me the other girls did.

“In other words, you care more about a dog than you do about a man.”

“How do you get that?”

“When one has a living creature under one’s care, it is one’s responsibility to take care of that creature’s needs, or else to arrange for someone else to do so.  And if you shirk that responsibility, you only have yourself to blame for the inevitable and foreseeable consequences.”

Unfortunately, this girl’s attitude is not at all unusual nowadays; women used to understand that men had sexual needs which it was a wife’s responsibility to provide for.  But as I discussed in my column of July 21st, decades of lies and neofeminist propaganda that men and women are the same and that women should only accept sex when they desire it (and for no other reason) have done tremendous damage to the male-female dynamic; ignorant modern women not only feel that husbands should be satisfied with whatever sexual pickings their wives choose to dole out, however meager or restricted, but also refuse to understand that a starving man will seek food elsewhere if it isn’t available at home.  Every escort hears it over and over again: “My wife doesn’t give me sex any more,” or “after the kids my wife lost interest,” or some other variation on it.  These men have no reason to lie; they want us to understand that they are driven by need, and the sadness in their voices is unmistakable.  The statement that “no woman should have to have sex if she doesn’t want it” ignores the simple fact that in today’s world a woman does not need to marry for support any longer, just as my silly schoolmate did not need to own a dog.  Getting married is a free choice, and carries responsibilities with the privileges.  If you refuse to take care of your dog you should give him to somebody who will, and if you refuse to give sex to your husband you should either divorce him or suggest he satisfy his needs elsewhere with your blessing.  You cannot have your cake and eat it, too; a man is NOT a woman, and if you expect him to respect your choice not to have sex with him, you in turn must respect his choice to get it from somebody else.

Women who actually starve their husbands are in the minority, though; the more typical wife merely offers such repetitive and unpalatable fare that her husband simply loses his appetite for her cooking and yearns to dine elsewhere.  One of my correspondents recently wrote, “I know so many women who say their men are apt to fall asleep in front of the TV or play on the computer all evening; sex seems to be not very high on their list of priorities.”

I replied, “Not to be mean, but what isn’t ‘high on their list of priorities’ is boring, repetitive sex with their dumpy, frowsy wives who sit around in sweatsuits with short hair and only want sex when they’re interested in the way they want it, and everything else is greeted with ‘That’s disgusting!’ or ‘You’re a pervert!’ or ‘I’m not gonna do that!’  Those same men are plenty interested in young-looking, well-kept escorts who have maintained their figures, dress in a feminine manner and will give them the kind of sex they want when they want it.”

When you’re done jumping up and down, screaming at me and calling me a bitch, sit down and listen to what I’m trying to tell you.  I understand that some women’s figures go south after having kids and that it’s difficult to reclaim them, but I’ll bet most husbands understand it as well; that’s not what I’m talking about.  I’ll use my own family as an example; I am the eldest of four sisters who all look much alike and started out with similar figures, though our personalities are all different.  All three of my sisters had two children each; the third sister is most like me in personality and still looks hot at 41, the youngest is athletic and has a very trim figure at 40, and the second is fat and dumpy.  The two younger sisters and I dress attractively and wear our hair in flattering styles; the second wears sweatsuits and “fat clothes” and chopped her hair off boy-short while she was pregnant with her first baby.  Finally, the two younger sisters and I treat our husbands well, while the second won’t lift a finger for hers; though I’m not privy to the details of my sisters’ sex lives, does anyone here have any doubt whose husband is most likely to cheat?  There are no great biological differences between us; it was the psychological differences which caused the one sister to stop trying, and her appearance mirrors her behavior.  Every aspect of her dress and grooming screams “I don’t care whether you find me attractive or not!” to her husband and everyone else with eyes to see.

Just being overweight is not the problem, though many women love to use it as an excuse.  Lots of men like plump women, and I daresay the average man whose wife has put on too much weight would still be happy with her sexually if she made every other effort to attract him.  Don’t believe me?  Turn off the goddamned TV, put down Cosmo and surf the escort sites on the internet for a while; you’ll find quite a few “BBW” (Big Beautiful Woman) escorts, women who are definitely fat but still make the effort to look nice and give men what they need sexually.  Yes, a good figure goes a long way (and for most women is very sustainable with sensible eating and regular exercise), but dress, grooming and attitude go much farther, especially for a woman who has the advantage of already being married to the man she’s trying to attract!

If you want to keep your husband sexually happy the best advice I can give you is, get the word “no” out of your vocabulary!  Any woman over the age of 16 should have noticed that all men are, to put it bluntly, perverts by female standards; as the picture at right reminds us, everything turns men on!  Yes, a lot of what they like is weird or gross or nasty or even funny to most women; so what?  Do you personally have to judge dog food palatable before you give it to your dog?  As long as what your husband wants in bed doesn’t actually hurt you or give you serious doubts about his masculinity, what difference does it make?  You’ve had his semen inside you hundreds of times, so why does it matter if he wants to put it on your butt, tits, stomach, face or hair sometimes?  And trust me, I know better than you how it tastes; if you’re having sex for the flavor, you’re doing it for the wrong reason.  He wants to tie you up?  Let him!  Great Aphrodite, you trust him with your life every day, so why is this different?  Are you afraid you’ll like it?  And why is it too much trouble to wear stockings and a garter belt for him?  We all wore them every day until pantyhose were invented!  You liked playing dress-up when you were seven; reclaim the fun and pretend to be a nurse or hooker or whatever it is he wants.  You might enjoy it!

Even if you’re afraid of something he wants (such as anal sex), would it kill you to at least consider it?  Don’t refuse him out of hand; think about it.  Ask questions and do research on the internet.  Work up to it by slow stages, and ask him to be patient with you; if all else fails, see if you can work out some kind of compromise.  So his fantasy is to have both you and your sister?  I don’t blame you for refusing to do that, but how about compromising by hiring an escort to be the other woman?  Don’t worry, she’s not after your husband!  She’s just there to do her job, which in this case is to allow the two of you to explore a fantasy which would otherwise be impossible.

Even if you already do all this stuff, your husband may still hire prostitutes; the male animal craves variety, and some are unwilling or unable to put that craving aside.  Trust me, sister, this is not something to worry about unless you can’t afford it or it becomes an obsession (too much of anything is bad).  He’s not going to leave you for a whore, and she’s a lot safer than an affair (as I discussed in my column of August 2nd).  So if you do find out your husband has been occasionally indulging in the hobby, do yourself a favor and consider all of your options before having a hissy-fit and doing something you may later regret.

If all of this seems too difficult, you can certainly just keep on the course you’ve set, but if your relationship hits the rocks solely because you couldn’t be bothered to tend the wheel there is nobody to blame but yourself.  In the final analysis you married your husband for a reason, most likely nowadays because you loved him.  If you don’t love him any more, why are you still with him?  And if you do still love him, isn’t making him happy worth a bit of effort?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts