Wreckoning

It is a cliché of political philosophy that the less self-restraint citizens are able to exercise, the more they must be constrained from without. The practical necessity of such a trade-off can be seen in such extraordinary upheavals as the French and Russian Revolutions. First, old and habitual patterns and norms are thrown aside in the name of freedom. When the ensuing chaos becomes intolerable, some group with the requisite ambition, self-assurance, and ruthlessness succeeds in forcibly imposing its own order on the weakened society. This is what gradually happened in the case of the sexual revolution also, with the role of Jacobins / Bolsheviks being assumed by the feminists. 

Looking about them for some legal and moral basis for enforcing this novel claim, they hit upon the age-old prohibition against rayp. Feminists understand rayp, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fidelity, but of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against rayp to enforce not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims. Their ideal is not the man whose self-control permits a woman to exercise her own, but the man who is subservient to a woman’s good pleasure—the man who behaves, not like a gentleman, but like a dildo.

...

the situation changes when millions of spoiled, impressionable young women have been convinced men are “harassing” them and that the proper response is to appeal to force of law and the police powers of the state. Men are being denied due process, ruined professionally, and threatened with particularly harsh punishments for any retaliation against the women accusing them of a newly-invented and deliberately ill-defined crime. They may, for prudential reasons, outwardly conform to the new rules. But it is unlikely that the traditional reluctance in foro interno to use force against women can long survive the present pattern of female behavior. Women would do well to ponder this.

Moral rule number one, we all know, is that all sex between consenting adults is licit. She just isn’t sure whether she had really wanted this. In fact, the more she thinks about it, the more certain she feels that she hadn’t. But if she hadn’t wanted it, then it was against her will, wasn’t it? And if it was against her will, that means . . . she’s been raypd? 

I sympathize with the young woman, in view of a miseducation which might have been consciously designed to leave her unprepared for the situation she got herself into. But as to the question of whether she was raypd, the answer must be a clear no. 

...

Two generations of women have been led to believe that doing as they please should lead to happiness and involve no risk. Hence the moral sophistry of “I didn’t like it; ergo I didn’t want it; ergo it was against my will.” 

...

Now, every duty does imply a right: if we have a duty to provide for our children or defend our country we necessarily possess the right to do so as well. Formerly, insofar as sexual rights were recognized, they were understood to have this character of resting upon duties. Thus, a woman did indeed have the right to refuse the sexual advances of any man not her husband. But this was only because she was not understood to have any moral right to accept a proposal of fornication or adultery – even in the absence of legal sanctions therefore. 

The reason rayp was regarded as a particularly odious form of assault is that it violated this superpersonal moral principle by which a woman subordinated her momentary private desires to the well-being of those closest to her. Modesty had to be respected, or else protected, if it was to perform its essential social function of guarding the integrity of families.

The actual outbreak of the sexual revolution occurred when significant numbers of young women began acting on the new utopian plan. This seems to have occurred on many college campuses in the nineteen-sixties. Women who took birth-control pills and committed fornication with any man who caught their fancy claimed they were liberating themselves from the slavery of marriage. The men, urged by their youthful hormones, frequently went along with this, but were not as happy about it as they are sometimes represented. Columnist Paul Craig Roberts recalls: I was a young professor when it all started and watched a campus turn into a brothel. The male students were perplexed, even the left-wing ones who had been taught to regard female chastity as oppression. I still remember the resident Marxist who, high on peyote, came to me to complain that “nice girls are ruining themselves.”  

This should not be surprising. Most men prefer a virgin bride; this is a genuine aspect of male erotic desire favoring monogamy, and hence in constant tension with the impulse to seek sexual variety.

...

while both sexes were supposed to practice monogamy, it was considered especially important for women to do so. Why is this? 

In the first place, they tend to be better at it. This is not due to any moral superiority of the female, as many men are pleased to believe, but to their lower levels of testosterone and their slower sexual cycle: ovulation at the rate of one gamete per month. 

Secondly, if women are all monogamous, the men will perforce be monogamous anyway: it is arithmetically impossible for polygamy to be the norm for men throughout a society because of the human sex ratio at birth. 

Thirdly, the private nature of the sexual act and the nine month human gestation period mean that, while there is not normally doubt as to who the mother of a particular baby is, there may well be doubt regarding the father. Female fidelity is necessary to assure the husband that his wife’s children are also his. 

Fourthly, women are, next to children, the main beneficiaries of marriage. Most men work their lives away at jobs they do not much care for in order to support wife and family. For women, marriage coincides with economic rationality; for a man, going to a prostitute is a better deal.

Accordingly, chastity before marriage and fidelity within it are the very least a woman owes her husband. Indeed, on the traditional view, she owes him a great deal more. She is to make a home for him, return gratitude and loyalty for his support of her, and accept his position as head of the family. 

The female has far greater control over mating. 

The universal law of nature is that males display and females choose. Male peacocks spread their tails, females choose. Male rams butt horns, females choose. Among humans, boys try to impress girls--and the girls choose. Nature dictates that in the mating dance, the male must wait to be chosen.

...

An average man would seem to be good enough for the average woman by definition. If women were to mate with all the men “worthy” of them they would have little time for anything else. To repeat, hypergamy is distinct from monogamy. It is an irrational instinct, and the female sexual utopia is a consequence of that instinct.

The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own utopia, not that of men. Female utopians came forward publicly with plans a few years after Kinsey and Playboy. Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl appeared in 1962, and she took over Cosmopolitan magazine three years later. Notoriously hostile to motherhood, she explicitly encouraged women to use men – including married men – for pleasure.

Among humans, twelve million sperm per hour in men vs. four hundred eggs over the course of a lifetime in women. Higher gamete production is, indeed, the biological definition of “male”; when biologists discover an exotic new species, they determine which sex is which by comparing their rate of gamete production.

...

Even slight differences between genetic fitness in men can be perceived by women, who are naturally attuned to making such comparisons, and they translate into big differences in male reproductive success. This is especially true in a polygamous society, but the same effects occur in a more muted way under a system of monogamy, with males perceived as fit tending to marry earlier with – on average – more fertile females.

Most of what follows derives directly or indirectly from these simple facts.

Note to the Reader:

No women were harmed in the writing of this book.

PREFACE

This is a book about the decline of virtue in women. 

...

Here are a few of the things I attempt to explain in the essays ahead: 

1. There is no more sex available to men in general today than there was before the sexual revolution; i.e., men in general did not gain at the expense of women from the sexual revolution. 

2. Sex today, whether on college campuses or in the larger society, is not a “free for all.” 

3. Men do not “prey upon” women. 

4. Women are not naturally monogamous. 

5. Women do not naturally look for “worthy” men to marry; i.e., there is no moral component to female sexuality. 

6. Our current problems would not be solved if only men would “man up” and accept their traditional responsibilities. 

...

 I do not consider myself a “men’s rights activist.” ...  If I must be labeled, a better choice of words might be “women’s duties activist.”

[ The Occidental Quarterly, vol. 6, no. 2 (Summer 2006): 9–37]

Let me tell you a story.

I’ve seen things you gullible chumps wouldn’t believe. Married women’s loins on fire off the rumpled sheets of my bed. A feminine Russian woman, her buttocks turned in my direction, sweetly asking me if I’d “like to do her in the ass” as her cell phone rings with the plaintive wail of her husband seeking her whereabouts. I’ve watched nipples harden in the dark near the cathedral gate, and behind the rectory doors. I’ve lain with the most virtuous women you could imagine -- caring women who “have to know so many things” and who give dollars to homeless bums and who tear up during sad scenes in the movies -- who freely allowed my member to violate them in every conceivable way in their husband’s and boyfriend’s beds, their writhing bodies, ecstatic moans, and gushing furrows testament to the lustful abandon with which they unshackled themselves of that other conservative virtue, fidelity. I once counseled the most darling woman -- a young woman so exquisitely gentle and winsome I’d dare any man not to fall instantly for her -- to stop her flowing tears for our doomed affair and, there on the sidewalk in midday, to return to her husband at her apartment which was two blocks down the street; the husband who, through years of his toil and love, put a roof over her underemployed head in one of the ritzier neighborhoods of the city. I have made love -- God’s highest expression of devotion to His creation -- with women in the company of small woodland creatures, scandalized roommates, and children who were, as best we dared, out of earshot of our erotic rustlings. I have witnessed women, caught in the snare of irrefutable evidence damning their supposed virtue, lie with the effortlessness of a soulless sociopath. In the moment of release, when we come closest to touching the Hand of God, I have been instructed by a wondrously virtuous woman to “rayp her” and to “do it like you mean it”. Her screams of howling joy -- pain or pleasure I could not tell -- to this day echo in my memories. And, most enlightening of all, I have seen wives and girlfriends, their hearts once filled with seemingly endless and nourishing love, cruelly turn on their daft former lovers with a vengeance unmatched by even a wronged God. Such as the time a sizzlingly sexy brunette whose mouth I was gracing with the metaphorical appendage of God’s divine love answered a phone call, mid-oral delight, from her ex-fiancee to thank him for purchasing a $5,000 Tempur-Pedic mattress delivered to her apartment two weeks earlier. Her thank you’s sounded surprisingly sincere for a woman whose free hand was simultaneously cradling the fleshy pod holding the life-giving seed of another man.

Men move the discussion forward. Women swap recipes and beauty tips.

I spend a lot of time with women. Either seducing them, fucking them, fucking with them, listening to them, scratching the napes of their necks, or examining them like a disassembled timepiece. The purpose of such mingling goes deeper than enjoying the pleasure of their company. Books, mentors, a willingness to discard delusion and lies, and a keen eye will aid a man in his divine quest to acquire as much sex and love as he can handle from beautiful women, but no impetus to personal growth is as effective as direct interaction with the subject. Whether sex is or is not the goal, being around women sharply flattens the learning curve.

...

Don’t lose contact with the world of men. Their vigorous, purposeful company is a refreshing tonic to the pedestrian prattle, contrived machinations, and histrionic solipsism of women.

The best way to do well with women over the long haul is to think like them, understand them, and put yourself in their shoes. The man who can empathize with a woman’s frustrations will know better how to make her happy. All the great seducers of history co-opted to some degree the psychology and the courting tactics of women. They used women’s pyschological weapons against them.

To seduce women, you must seduce yourself first. You are the guy who will be everything she needs. How will you know what she needs? Get inside her head. Become her.