The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia.
The practice is rooted in gender inequality, attempts to control women's sexuality, and ideas about purity, modesty and beauty. It is usually initiated and carried out by women, who see it as a source of honour, and who fear that failing to have their daughters and granddaughters cut will expose the girls to social exclusion.
In case you need it pointed out to you, the above is about Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This horrid blight on Islam, which should be far more damning to the faith than terrorism, is far too prevalent to be written off as just an anomaly. UNICEF estimated in 2016 that 200 million women living today in 30 countries have undergone the procedure. But why?
The above quote offers an explanation, but surely the judgement of mothers who would do this to their daughters must be questioned. The society that this abomination is occurring in is far too patriarchal to be blaming women for it. The men must want this, but why would they? I would posit that these men want to rape their wives. They do not want them to enjoy the act of sex and more important, they want their wives to always dread the thought of sex. I've heard it say that these men simply want to make sure their wives are not seeking to having sex with other men. I disagree. This is merely their rationalization of wanting to mutilate their wives. I believe that what sexually excites them is the act of rape, and that they want to rape their wives forever. The high birth rate among this population attests to this. These men are getting off on the suffering of their women.
When I have voiced this opinion within earshot of a liberal, I would often be accused of being an Islamophobe. The real culprit, they say, is patriarchy. I disagree. Blaming patriarchy for FGM is like blaming guns for murder. Furthermore, I believe that patriarchal describes the human species like the fact that we are bipedal, and denying it is like advocating we should crawl around on all fours.
I know. Totally not a PC thing to say. I've spent the past 50+ years of my life being told of the evils of patriarchy, but I have also spent that entire time being told that there is no difference between the genders, and that any difference we do see is just cultural. Say what you will about Muslims cutting up their daughters, our society now sterilizes prepubescent boys with hormone therapy
all because they are confused about what gender they are. In other words, gender is meaningless unless you think you are the wrong one.
I started my political life with a fairly liberal leaning, but over the years I've become conservative, mostly because of the failure of liberalism. There is no doubt that women have not been respected in our culture, and I once believed patriarchy was the cause. Not anymore. I now see that it is feminism that hates women, because it tells women that they can't be respected unless they become men. There is absolutely no effort from them for us to respect what women are, and what they offer. This is what has forced me to re-evaluate patriarchy. Considering feminism has failed, utterly, in bringing about the respect women deserve, it has become clear to me that patriarchy is the answer, yet it is going to take a lot of explaining before I can get to that, and much of it involves a frank discussion about sex. I hope you, the reader, are up for it.
Before continuing, I want to make it clear that I do not blame Islam for FGM. I actually have a lot of respect for Islam, and know personally many honorable observants of that faith. Just as I don't blame Christianity for the Spanish Inquisition, I don't blame Islam for FGM. Both faiths have serious stains upon them. The only difference is that Christianity has been able to shake its horrid past. Islam still has a way to go with terrorism and FGM.
A frank discussion on sex must first begin with the simple fact that we don't really discuss anything about it right now. Seems like an absurd statement on the face of it, considering how pervasive sex is in our culture, but it's true, and I can prove it.
A long time ago I heard someone complain that our schools really don't teach sex, they teach biology. "Imagine," this person stated, "if driver's education was done the same way sex education was done. If so, there would be a lot of instruction on the various components of the car, and what they did, but when it came to operating the car, nothing was taught, and if anything, all that was taught was how to slam on the breaks." Now imagine allowing any of these kids behind the wheel of a car. Would you really be surprised by all of the accidents that would ensue?
In the nearly five decades since I had "Sex Ed" in school, nothing's changed, at least not substantively in an operational sense. There's been a lot of normative awareness training. As in, it's now normal to be gay and/or believe you are the wrong gender. But all this does is prove the point I am trying to make. We'll make all kinds of changes to give the appearance that we are doing something, but not in a way that makes a difference in how we behave sexually to each other.
I've heard this saying a few times in my life that goes "If rape is inevitable, why not enjoy it." Every time I have heard it, it has struck me as so wrong, and yet, so right. Then some Republican congressman got caught on tape awhile back saying it, and it created a great deal of negative blow back, but none of it sounded very persuasive to me. The weakest and loudest complaints came from the feminists.
The reason their argument was weak was because it was contradictory. Their entire mantra is that a woman is raped when she doesn't grant consent, but doesn't that mean that the woman decides whether she is raped, not the man? And if she decides, does that not mean that she is responsible for her own rape? Simple reasoning requires that who decides something is the one responsible for it. And yet, doesn't the very definition of rape should mean that the man is responsible, and only him?
I saw this contradiction from the beginning, but I couldn't square it. I couldn't come to an explanation of rape where the man did the deciding and so was solely responsible. To complicate things was my experience with women who fantasized about being raped. This was even far more contradictory, because how can you rape the willing?
I have known, personally, so many women who have told me about fantasizing about being raped, and have read so much more, that this isn't some outlier fantasy. It's so prevalent it's hard not to believe that most women have had these fantasies. And yet, I have also known and read about women who when they have found themselves being raped, it was nothing like their fantasy. It was a horrible experience, and often down right terrifying. It left them so traumatized it was like the PTSD experienced by our soldiers coming back from war.
How is this? How can the fantasy be so far out of whack from reality for so many?
And it's not just women who have a problem with rape. I recognized my problem a long time ago, which was later put so eloquently to words by Bono:
Don't believe in forced entry;
don't believe in rape;
but every time she passes by,
wild thoughts escape.
So how is it that so many women fantasize about being raped, and so many men fantasize about raping women, yet we all know this is wrong? What I have known for some time is that if you can't come to a solution to a problem, then you haven't properly defined the problem. Or as I like to say, there is no problem that is so simple to solve that a poor definition can't make it intractable.
As an example, take the problem with millions, if not billions of dollars spent on campaigns that produce a sickening level of political commercials. We all know this is a problem, but we can't agree on a solution. The reason we can't find a solution is that we can't define the problem. Many have this knee-jerk belief that the cause is the money paid by special interests.
I disagree. I believe that campaign commercials should have no effect on any election. I know I'm not persuaded by them. I pay attention to the issues and what candidates have proposed to solve them. There is no need for someone to deliver the information to me. I go and get it, because it's the only way I can trust it.
This all means that I don't believe the problem is the commercials, or the money given to pay for them. It's us. We are the problem. The gullible populace that these commercials work on are the problem. They shouldn't have an impact because we all must get
the information we need to make an informed decision, and not let what is given
us influence it. Once we do, the money will dry up all on its own. Who would give legitimate donations for a campaign that would not have any impact?
Of course, I'm not talking about outright bribery, but all of the campaign finance reform
in the world won't stop that.
So the problem is us, and we need to deal with us. All of the fanciful notions that by just passing the right laws will solve this is just a pipe dream. We are the problem, and believing that the problem is what the government is not doing is just another of the many ways we live in denial of our responsibilities.
The same is true for rape. Our society is the problem, and until we are able to deal with the real issues involved, there will be no way to deal with the contradictions that this issue presents itself.
To start with, let's look back in history to see how we got to where we are. Rape has always existed, but has it always been the same? You can just throw out lack of consent as defining when a rape occurs. For thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, women weren't given the option to consent. They were the property of their fathers until their fathers gave them to their husbands. By definition, the feminist view is that all women were raped until recently.
I refuse to accept this notion. I cannot believe that we evolved as a society where all women suffered PTSD from the trauma of rape. Don't get me wrong. I do believe that our patriarchal society has never valued women as it should have, but I don't believe that women believed there was something wrong with not having any say with who they would be having sex with.
In fact, I believe that not having any say is what women have evolved to enjoy. It's Darwinian, and I see it everywhere to this day. No matter how much liberals say that women want kind, caring, beta-male types as sexual partners, the truth contradicting this is patently obvious. As sexual partners, women want men that take control. They don't want to have to call men for dates. They want the men to call them. They don't want a man who asks for permission to kiss them, or seeks their consent for sex. They want men to take them.
And that's the distinction. They don't want to be raped, they want to be taken. There is no gray area between them, but in our society, it would be understandable if you thought there was a lot of it. Yet there has to be a clear and objectively-defined difference, or women are indeed responsible for their own rape.
Of course, if you're a feminist, there is no distinction. There can't be. When a rape has occurred must be determined by women. The reality of women's desires be damned. But I'm not surprised. Feminists have been running away from the feminine for decades. Take for example the job of stewardess becoming a flight attendant. Having women thought of as having a woman's job is something feminists just can't handle. At least they didn't insist that stewardesses be called stewards. I say this because of the prevalence of serious
actresses wanting to be referred to as actors, not actresses. No, feminists can't tolerate women being thought of as women, let alone allow women to experience sex as women really want to.
By any objective measure, women are doing better in our society than men. From college graduation, to suicide, to prison incarceration, there is no statistic that you can point to that says differently. Feminists know this, so they have to make up completely bogus statistics like the gender pay gap. It's bogus because there already is a law (since 1962) that states that you can't pay women less than men for doing the same job.
This so called gap
occurs, because women are smarter than men. They choose careers that focus more on human relationships than on money. There is no greater hypocrisy in our society than how liberals claim everyone should be more focused on people than profits, and then decry when women do just that. With of course the greatest example of this is choosing motherhood over a career. It's gotten so bad that the UN now considers marriage to be the equivalent of slavery, which prompted this tweet from someone I can't recall:
Feminism: The idea that women are free when they serve their employer, but slaves when they serve their husbands and children.
Isn't it sad how a movement that claims to be for women is so objectively against them that they refuse to allow them to be them? Absolutely everything that feminists have to say about women is based on lies like women are better off aborting their children, or misinterpretations of truths like the so called pay gap. The mere idea that feminists would have anything constructive to say in this discussion of rape is absurd.
What is really going to strike you as absurd is what I need to discuss next. I know many of you (not all, of course) reading what I have written so far would quibble here and there, but you're probably onboard with the general thrust of what I am saying, but this next part will definitely cause most of you reading this to think I am off my rocker. I only ask that you hold off passing judgment until you finish reading this entire page.
I have been struggling most of my life with my desires to rape women. Even before I knew what intercourse was, I have been wanting to rape them. One of my earliest memories in life was in preschool watching the teacher spank a girl and how much I wanted to be the one spanking her. I knew it was wrong to want to spank her, but I couldn't understand why I did want to. In fact, it wasn't until my late 30's before I could come to some peace with my desires to rape, and that was when I finally accepted that all sex was evil, not just rape. I finally understood that just because something felt good that didn't make it good.
There are many other examples of something that feels good, but isn't. Take alcohol. It makes me feel good, but can anyone really claim that I am doing something good when I drink it?
I was born in the early 60's (hence my memories of children still being spanked in school), so it was easy for me to accept the prevalent dogma made popular in that era that sex was good, and it was only made evil by organized religion so that they could control the masses. But what if this dogma was wrong? What if sex really is evil, and religion was created specifically to control our carnal desires? A true intellectual would always re-evaluate anything they had come to believe, and not just leave it alone because it makes them feel good. That's all I am asking of you as you continue to read.
To allay your concerns about where I am heading with this, I am not going to propose that you stop having sex. I haven't stopped, nor have I stopped drinking alcohol. But like alcohol, I am asking you to look at the reality of sex so that it can stop doing the harm that our If it feels good, it is good
mentality has wrought.
Just taking myself as an example, I do not consider myself evil, but the kind of erotic stories I like to read online would be considered quite evil. Not just rape, but all forms of illicit sex, like spanking and incest. These thoughts may turn me on, but I have no interest in actually raping women, nor having sex with my daughters. And while I have never had any serious desire for incest, I used to have strong desires to rape women. It once took a whole lot of self-control for me to be alone with a woman, but not anymore. And all it took was an honest look at my sexual desires, and a rejection of If it feels good, then it is good.
I'm sure you are now going through your mind trying to come up with good
sex. How about two 16 year old virgins who love each other and are only engaged in heaving petting? I can assure you, the racing heart beats and sweaty palms they are experiencing is derived from the illicit nature of what they are doing, and not any love they feel for each other. I love my mother and daughters, but I have zero desire to have sex with them. Love has absolutely nothing to do with what lovers feel for each other, and this contradiction must be addressed.
The final and most obvious proof that sex is evil is our natural revulsion towards pedophiles. If we truly believe that sex can be good, why aren't we seeking ways for adults to engage in sex with kids? Other than the most depraved individuals amongst us, we know kids shouldn't be having sex any more than we know kids shouldn't be getting drunk.
You're probably asking yourself that if I think sex is evil, why do I still do it? Well, I also think all wars are evil, but I'm no pacifist. War may always be evil, but sometimes it is the right thing to do. I believe that far more innocent lives have been lost when we haven't gone to war than when we have. I don't want to get into my entire speech on the difference between good vs evil and right vs wrong, just that just because something is evil doesn't mean you shouldn't do it, and that just because it makes you feel good that doesn't make it good. Sometimes the right thing to do is to do evil, and sometimes the wrong thing to do is to do good (pacifism), because all it does is get you more evil.
So if sex is evil, how does it get you any good? Mainly, sex can serve a useful function to bind people together, much like any hazing ritual develops a sense of brotherhood for fraternities. Think about it. How would hazing work if it didn't involve performing evil acts on the initiate. Hazing may be outlawed on all college campuses, but fraternities haven't been made better for it. It is undeniable that performing painful and/or humiliating acts bond people. Sex is no different. What should be a deeply personal and intimate experience binds people together.
This gets us to where sex is not the right thing to do, such as between people that should already be closely bonded, like close family members. Incest, whether between a parent and child, or brother and sister, doesn't serve a useful purpose. And I want to emphasize what I just wrote. If you are engaging in incest, I am not saying you are categorically harming yourself and your family member. All I am saying is that sex can never add anything meaningful in these relationships, so the only outcome that could result in a change will be a change for the worse. You may indeed be more bonded with your family member after the sex started, but that speaks more to the dysfunctional nature of your relationship prior to the sex than it does to any good
you got out of it.
I could go on with more examples that demonstrate that sex is evil, but if I haven't convinced you yet, I'm not sure you would be open to believe it anyway. And if you're an Atheist, you don't believe in the existence of good and evil as it is. You believe that we are nothing more than complex chemical reactions, so if it feels good to all involved, then it is good, because our perception of reality is just that, only a perception. There is no reality.
I differ. I judge the effectiveness of a person's religion (and yes, Atheism is a religion) on how well it helps you see good as good, and evil as evil. The more it allows you to see good as evil, and evil as good, determines how pathetic your religion is. And any religion that denies the existence of good or evil is the most pathetic of them all.
I threw out that previous diatribe to shake you up and get you thinking about the real problems in our society. And these problems are going to require us to see things for how they really are, and not how we want them to be. Such as, we don't have a problem with some people raping other people. We have a problem with men raping women, and all of the cultural denial of this being hard-coded into our society with gender neutral government policies is not going to change that.
Bottom line, and getting back to what I proposed at the beginning, how do you define when a woman is raped? And don't give me the absence of consent, because that's her choice, and it turns the lie of If rape is inevitable, why not enjoy it
into a reality.
And there is a deep incongruity in this lack of consent
definition. If liberal dogma is true that gender is just some perceived construct, and not reality, why is it only men that have to get it from women? I know there are examples of women raping men, and men raping men, and women raping women, but I don't see how gender neutral definitions address the far more significant issue of men raping women. Getting society to lump everyone into the same pot, and then solving the problem of rape seems foolish.
Then there is the next major hurdle to cross, which is, is rape an issue that's solvable? I know liberal dogma is that criminals are the way they are due to the white privilege that's so pervasive in this dastardly, patriarchal society. So are rapists accorded the same consideration, or are they just born that way?
I ask this because blaming and punishing men, particularly white men, seems to be the only thing liberals have going. So what exactly is their motivation to solve this?
Assuming they aren't born that way, and that this is solvable, and most importantly, that it is something that we want to solve, what is society doing that helps create rapists? I'm not asking about what causes rapists to be rapists. Ultimately, that is their choice. They are their own cause.
Yet I don't believe people wake up one day and chose to be evil. In almost all cases they chose to walk down a path they didn't know would distort their view of reality, and lead them to ultimately choose to be evil. It is our duty and responsibility to mark those paths to let them know what lays in that direction. Organized religion attempted to do that, but it lost its way by losing its relevance. It did so by declaring you must do as you are told instead of explaining why you should, even to the point that asking why became blasphemy. The same could be said of where liberal orthodoxy is today.
You're probably getting tired of me constantly taking digs at liberalism, but I have to. I don't know how anyone can claim that organized religion once used sexual taboos to control their congregants without seeing that liberalism is doing the exact same thing today. I am expected to be ashamed of wanting to sexually dominate a woman as well as women are expected to be ashamed to submit to a man. No, for liberals, women must not submit to sex. They must consent to it, which is a very different thing.
Submission is passive. Consent is active. Submission is about giving up control, and consent is about maintaining it. Personally, I believe the exact opposite of them. The submissive has a great deal of power over her dominant, but it takes an honest look at our sexuality to see it.
To really understand the difference, let's look at what happens when a man initiates a sexual encounter with a woman (Pardon my micro-aggression for not using gender normative terms). When a woman consents, she is taking an active role in the encounter and thus shared responsibility for it. Sounds good, and in any other personal or professional encounter I would agree, but not a sexual one. The question begs, what is she consenting to? I am not a woman, so I can't speak from personal experience, but from what I have been told, and from what I have observed, women have a hard time putting the brakes on things escalating beyond what they are comfortable with in these encounters. She consented, or put another way, has put her stamp of approval on the encounter, but she did so without a clear definition of what the encounter will be. These encounters are just primed for miscommunication, which in these days lead to accusations of rape after the fact.
You think this is just hyperbole? I hate to break it to you, but feminists have seen this flaw in the concept of consent, and are now demanding that a man must get consent from each specific escalation in the sexual encounter or a rape has occurred. So much for seduction in the utopian world liberals are leading us down to. And I do mean down.
On the other hand, a woman who submits to a man hasn't consented to anything. The encounter remains firmly the responsibility of the man. When the encounter enters an area she doesn't want to go, she simply comes to her senses
as women have been doing from the dawn of mankind. If he isn't getting what he wants, well, that's all on him. She didn't agree to a thing. He can claim she is playing hard to get, but as long as women are allowed to be women, playing hard to get will always be their prerogative. More importantly, she has nothing to apologize for, because she didn't agree to anything.
So I ask you, between the woman who consented and the woman who submitted, who really remained in control?
The harsh reality is that the concept of consensual sex needs to go. Don't get me wrong, I'm not some liberal who thinks all that is right must be mandated, and all that is wrong must be illegal. If you want to insist on giving consent, and have a lawyer present whenever you are alone with a man, then go right ahead. Giving up on consent doesn't mean giving a green light to rape. I would even go one step further. If a man has sex with a woman, and she says she was raped, then that's good enough for me to legally convict him.
The biggest problem with consent, and using the lack of it to define whether a woman is raped, is that it implies that if she grants it, then she isn't raped. How tragic. There is a huge gulf between some over-eager young man who doesn't get "No means no," and some of the monsters that roam this Earth. They would spit on any woman's consent. Traumatizing a woman is what gives them their thrill (as described earlier about FGM), and there isn't a damn thing she's going to do to change that. What I object to most about "If rape is inevitable, why not enjoy it" is that it presumes the rapist wants her to enjoy it. That is most certainly not always the case.
If you're a feminist, you might be assuming by what I just wrote that I don't take "No means no" very serious. I do; it's the feminists that don't. "No means no" is just one of their many deceits. They say it, but what they really mean is "No yes means no," and there is a world of difference between them. But let me be clear. Any man that forces himself on a woman, regardless of whether consent would change it from rape to consensual, must be held accountable. This is no different than wife-beaters must be held accountable, regardless of whether the wife wants to press charges or not. Just as ignorance of the law is no excuse in court, miscommunication about whether a woman has submitted to a man is all on him, and I have no sympathy for any man who feels he was "falsely" accused. The only evidence needed is to confirm that intercourse took place.
I know this all may seem confusing and contradictory, but it's not. It's as clear as the difference between night and day. To begin with, no woman wants to be raped. Well... I don't want to say that. There are women that want to be hung from chains with needles ran through their nipples (men too for that matter), so I won't say categorically that no woman wants to be raped. As I said before, what almost all women want is to be taken, they just didn't have this word to describe what they wanted, so they used rape.
And what it means to be taken is also very easy to understand. Women want everything involving a sexual encounter to be on the man. They want 0% responsibility. This goes completely against current feminist doctrine, but it shouldn't. The original feminists of the early 20th century weren't struggling for consensual sex. They were fighting for respect, and the right to vote. The only reason sex got thrown in was due to a technological advancement, which was The Pill.
Women could now take control of their sexuality, but is that what they actually wanted? There certainly was no need for it. Women understandably want control over their personal and professional lives, and if it wasn't for the pill, sexuality would have remained something separate, as it should be.
If a woman doesn't need a man, like a fish doesn't need a bicycle, then sure, the pill was a great advancement for female equality, but otherwise, not so much. All it gave was cowardly men an option to shirk their responsibilities... and blame women when they got pregnant.
The big question is why? Why do women want to be taken? Why do women want zero percent responsibility? Why do they want everything involving sex to be on the man? It's simple, really. Women don't just have a biological need to have children. They also have a biological need for their children to have a father. Their desire for men to be responsible for everything is also a desire for them to be responsible for the ultimate outcome of sex.
Of course, we can't discuss this. Per Liberal Orthodoxy, Dom/sub relationships are great if it's all about having kinky sex, but the idea that it might be a biological imperative that props up "The Patriarchy?" ... OMG! Can't have that! There is no way we can discuss that the more responsibility women take in their sexual relationships, the easier it is for the guy to just walk away afterwards. Per their thinking, there's nothing wrong with going after what's in a father's wallet if what they do results in a child, but anything that keeps a father in the child's life? Nope. Can't have that. Liberal Orthodoxy demands that fathers are not essential.
Just their money is.
While I may have defined what I consider ought to be the legal definition of rape, it still puts whether she was raped in her hands, so it's not a good functional or reality-based definition that we can use to solve our problems. It works if all you are interested is punishing rapist, but it is a lousy definition if you are looking to prevent them in the first place.
To get a definition that we need we must have one where the man is deciding that he is committing rape. My preference is: A rape occurs when a man does not dominate the woman he is having sex with. This will take a bit to explain. First of all, Domination & submission is a matched set. You can't just dominate someone. Without submission all you have is force, and force on its own is clearly rape.
You're probably thinking that my definition could then be reworded as a rape occurs when a woman fails to submit, but all that demonstrates is that you fail to understand the distinction between submission and consent. Submission is not a choice, at least not in the classic sense of the word, but consent is. Think of seduction. If a man seduces a woman, he is actively doing something. If a woman is seduced, did she actively make a choice? No. If she is doing any choosing, then she is consenting, not submitting.
Submission is about giving the choice to the dominant, but not choosing to do so. It is the dominant that does all of the choosing, so it is the dominant's responsibility to determine that domination has or has not occurred, not the submissive. I know this is difficult to understand, but if I tell you to do something that you would already choose to do, and you do it, did you submit? Of course not. To be a dominant you have to make choices that the submissive would not make on her own. This is the essence of taking a woman. You take the choices from her, and do all of the choosing for her.
Repeat. You are choosing for her, not you. When your choices are about you, you are not taking her, you are raping her, because you are not taking responsibility.
Submission itself is not hard to see, but it's difficult to describe. Such as, a woman can cooperate with you without submitting, and yet fight you tooth and nail and still does. In the former she has made a choice, and in the latter, she hasn’t. In fact, the best sex for both the dominant and submissive occurs when she does fight back. While submission may be passive, the best kind isn't when she's taking it passively.
Come on. Admit it. Consensual sex is so boring. When it's new, it's exciting, but nothing can stay new. Why do you suppose the couples that have the most sexual satisfaction are religiously orthodox? It's been found so in survey after survey. I have read some explanations why, with some that seemed compelling, like keeping a clear distinction between the male and female roles in the relationship. My assumption is that they still consider sex to be illicit, and as long as it remains that way, it will never get boring.
I'm not asking you to become a born-again Christian, but there are lessons to learn that will lead you to a better sex life than what is considered politically correct today. There is a very important negative lesson as well. It's not like the religiously orthodox have sex figured out any better than the rest of us. Such as I view priests and nuns in the same way as pacifists. They all deal with evil the same way, by avoiding it, which means they don't deal with it at all. They also all depend on others to do the evil they won't, although priests and nuns don't expect everyone else to live as they do.
Avoiding evil leads to all kinds of problems, like pedophile priests. I know they aren't any more representative than in the community at large, but I would expect them to be much better. Evil must be confronted and dealt with. Avoiding it allows it to fester and grow.
A positive lesson to learn from the religiously orthodox community is that you don't see much S&M in it. Submission is a relative thing. As long as you see yourself as good, it doesn't take much in the way of pain or humiliation to achieve a profound sense of submission, and in turn, a profound sense of domination for the partner.
When you don't see yourself as good, or you believe that whatever feels good is good, you end up with submissives chained to the ceiling, and needles ran through their nipples in order to get the sexual satisfaction both the dominant and submissive need. I know you think that whatever the religiously orthodox may be doing is boring or unimaginative, but I am not asking you to have the same sex. I'm just asking you to learn from it. Approach sex the way they do, but take it in another direction.
But before you do, let's throw something else out, which is the commonly used euphemism for sex of "making love." Love is what you should have before sex. You shouldn't be looking for it there. Because of its bonding capability, I can understand why many can think that way, but it's the primary way people come to think that sex is good, so it has to go. Besides, in today's "hook up" culture, where people are only interested in mutual masturbation sessions, we need a view of sex that is in line with the times. Too many people who want sex aren't interested in even bonding, let alone love, which is the tightest bond of them all.
With a clear-eyed view of sex, we can then approach it in a way that is to everyone's mutual benefit. All we need to do is to do what comes naturally. Women want to be "good" girls, and men want to take "good" girls. And yes, I know what I mean when I refer to men and girls. This has nothing to do with pedophilia, and everything to do with domination and submission. Your concern is well founded when we use it in relationships other than sexual ones, but by seeing sex as evil, it's easy to separate out our sexual relationships from our personal and professional relationships. If we see sex as good, then we can't, and we have to evaluate all of them the same way.
This may seem like I'm proposing that we make it OK to disrespect women, but it's the exact opposite. Wouldn't you say that the cornerstone of all respectful relationships is honesty? By being honest about our sexuality, it empowers women to be confident in their other relationships. By seeing sex as evil, women are free to seek the respect they deserve in their personal and professional relationships without compromising their desires.
While I am proposing a view that will achieve a woman's best sexual satisfaction, I am most certainly not proposing that women become sluts, or sexually aggressive in anyway. When I was a teenager, I was turned on by girls that flirted with me, but as I developed the confidence of a man, I didn't like it at all. Quite frankly, flirting females now turn me off. I need a sense of domination to turn me on, and I can't dominate a woman that so clearly wants it.
Let me be clear about this, because understanding this is about understanding what Dom/sub relationships are about. Women who want to have sex with me are not women I'm interested in. What turns me on is a woman who wants to do as she is told. Repeat, who wants to do as she is told. If she doesn't want to do as I tell her, then I am not interested in having sex with her.
This may all come across as confusing to the rational mind, but there is nothing rational about sex. Men want women that don't act like they want it, just as women, who want zero responsibility in any sexual encounter, don't want to be seen as wanting it. Desire is seen as consent, and women don't want to consent. They want to be taken.
Acting like a slut may increase the frequency a woman has sex, but it won't increase the quality. Her greatest satisfaction will occur when she is taken, and not when she gives it away.
As further evidence of the contrary nature of sex is what is a woman’s most erogenous zone. Contrary to popular opinion, it's not some elusive spot that requires precise and gentle manipulation with your finger (or better yet, your tongue). It is in fact a very large area that requires a firm and forceful application with a paddle. I say this because most women have no defense against it. To make good use of any other erogenous zone a woman has to already be turned on to some degree. Not so for a spanking. Done right, there is no better way to get a woman turned on, because what is really a woman's most erogenous zone is her mind. Nothing can so thoroughly drive her into a state of submission like a spanking, which is what really turns her on.
This gets us into an area of rape that must be addressed, which is how a woman can be taken against her will. As I said before, most rapes don't go as women have fantasized, but some do, and when it really is unwanted, they can be the most traumatic. A man that knows what he is doing, and is interested in sexually stimulating a woman, can do it even if she truly has no interest. What a spanking does to a woman offers some evidence of this. And if you think "If rape is inevitable, why not enjoy it" is problematic, what about "If an orgasm is inevitable, why not enjoy it?" Does the presence of an orgasm mean she enjoyed it? The mentality of "If it feels good, then it is good" also means that she did enjoy it, but have we fallen so far as to believe that? Are you now ready to reject that mentality?
If a guy walks up to me and beats the crap out of me, I am going to be heavily traumatized, but at least my body won't have betrayed me. The trauma that comes from the betrayal that many women experience is something our society is making harder and harder to deal with. It has to, because our society has conflicting agendas, which are gender norming, and "if it feels good, it is good." How is a woman supposed to address her trauma when her supposed support structure is telling her she is no different than a man? With the exception of only the rarest of cases, if a man has an orgasm, he enjoyed it. Has feminism lost its way so much that we are going to expect the same from women?
Telling her we will throw the man in jail (if caught), because he didn't get her consent, isn't going to scratch the surface of dealing with her body's betrayal. And it seems that's all feminism has to offer. The idea of telling her she is profoundly different than a man is not on the table for discussion.
And what about the rapists? How does this gender norming address them? Tell a man often enough that he is evil because of what he feels, and what he can inherently sense in women, eventually he will become evil. And once he is, what he needs for his sexual gratification will dive to the point that only inflicting the most painful and traumatic acts will satisfy him. This isn't hard to see happening if you accept that sex is evil. Without having a good purpose, all evil acts are acts of corruption.
So what should we do? I don't see any role for the government in this. Some see government as a blessing (liberals), and some see it as malevolent (conservatives). Me? I just see it as incompetent. Our schools can't adequately teach our children to read and write properly, yet the government feels it needs to spend millions advocating (forcing?) gender neutral toys for our kids. Liberals applaud it, but conservatives are appalled. Neither realizes that nothing will come of this. Human nature will out. Government has spent trillions over the decades on this war on poverty, but are there fewer people who feel they are poor? Hardly.
I fully believe Obama when he said that "we are the ones we have been waiting for." I just don't believe it in any sense that he does. We are not the government. They are, and it is we that need to address this. Only when we believe that all sex is evil, and reject "If it feels good, it is good," can we begin to address what is happening in our society. We then must continue by throwing out any notion of consensual sex. Consent is not needed, and no woman who claims she was raped should be asked if she gave it or not.
While it is perfectly acceptable to have the government and its criminal justice system acknowledge only the woman's word on whether she was raped, we are not the government. If we are to achieve our full potential, we must recognize that the government is only our baseline. To rise above it, we must accept the principles of True Justice, and one of the highest of these principles is that a person is held accountable to only the decisions that he or she makes. The decisions of others must have no bearing. This means that we must seek a society where it is the man that has decided he has raped the woman, and this is not hard. The vast majority of rapes occur where he wants to rape her, and not dominate her. The rest are really nothing more than a misunderstanding. Not only have women not understood that they wanted to be taken, not raped, most men don't know that their real desire is to take, not rape.
Sure. We could continue with our reactionary response to rape. As I have alluded to earlier, I firmly believe that feminists need men to rape women in order to advance what they want, which is most definitely not in the best interest of women. This is proven by their only proactive response, which is to emasculate men. Toxic Masculinity
is their only concern. What really causes men to become rapists, and women to be irrevocably damaged - either literally through FGM, or emotionally by their bodies betrayal - just doesn't enter the picture.
I know most of you that just read the previous text think it's foolish to believe that this problem isn't hard to solve, but I disagree. This disagreement comes from what I wrote earlier about how the easiest problems to solve become intractable by poor definitions, and there is nothing more poorly defined than our relationships between men and women.
Many believe the problem is our patriarchal society, and so needs to go. Nonsense. The problem with rape isn't our patriarchal society, just as the problem of murder isn't guns. Like guns, patriarchal impulses can be misused, but that doesn't make either wrong. They both are just tools that can be used for good or evil.
Patriarchy isn't about who rules. It's about who is responsible. I can understand liberal confusion on this point. Their best example of leadership, President Barack Obama, couldn't take responsibility of anything unless he could take credit for it; never blame. He was a ruler, not a leader, so if that is your idea of leadership, it's not surprising that you fear patriarchy. Just as liberals can only see murder when they see a gun, they can only see a woman's oppression when they see the patriarchy.
Patriarchy done right is about leadership, but the concept of leadership completely escapes liberals. They believe that if you can get 51% of the people to vote for you, you can shove down the throats of everyone else such things as the ironically named "Affordable Care Act." Yet as I describe elsewhere, the power of a leader is from the bottom up, and not the top down. All attempts at ruling are incompatible with leadership.
As I stated in the beginning, patriarchy defines the human race, and opposing it is like defying a rising tide. Liberals are all about insisting that men who feel they are women should be respected and nurtured as women, but what about men who feel like men? What exactly does that mean to a liberal? How exactly is our gender meaningless unless we believe we are the wrong one?
Most men need to be patriarchs. It's what civilizes us. Men need to be responsible for a family in order to be responsible members of our society. We men are very dynamic creatures. If we have no productive role as men in our society, we will be destructive to our society. We're not just going to crawl under a rock.
Again, I'm not talking about men ruling over women. My wife has a magnet on our refrigerator with the image of a women saying to her husband "If I agreed with you, then we'll both be wrong." So I can assure you, I do not rule my wife. At the same time, I consider myself solely responsible for our family. This isn't something that we agreed on. I don't need her agreement. I used to get all mad at my wife when her illogical thought processes caused conflict in our relationship, and it wasn't until I stopped blaming her, and accepted responsibility for our problems that things straightened out between us. Respecting patriarchy is my decision. Not hers.
I don't think I can't state this strongly enough. Men are responsible for the patriarchy, not women. Any man who gets angry, or blames a woman who doesn't submit to him, spits on patriarchy. Any true supporter of the patriarchy would know that it is in a woman's best interest to submit, but if the woman doesn't see that, it is 100% the man's fault. Period.
So, does patriarchy benefit men more than women? Yes, but not in the way those who attack it think it does.
As a corollary, take my objections to reparations for the descendants of slaves. It presumes that blacks were denied the wealth they created for whites back when they were slaves, but this presumption is false. As I stated elsewhere, whites were not benefited by slavery. The South was made poorer because of slavery, not richer. It's hard to accept that the suffering of blacks was to no one's advantage, but that is the reality. Since there was no additional wealth created by slavery, reparations are then only about revenge, not justice. If you want to believe that we all were harmed by slavery, then you have to give up on the idea of reparations.
The same negative assumptions about patriarchy are presumed. Many believe that patriarchy is only about subjugating women for the benefit of men, but no man has ever benefited from holding women down. Men are benefited most when they support their women to be the best that they can be. When they disrespect and belittle the women in their lives, it is they, the men, that are harmed the most, because they are throwing away the benefits that only a woman can bring to their lives.
While men need women to submit to them, more than women need to submit to men, that doesn't mean women are better off by not submitting. Women can achieve so much more in their lives with a man that is responsible from them. That's assuming both respect patriarchy as they should.
Dictionary.com defines synergy as:
Synergy [sin-er-jee] – noun
the interaction of elements that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual elements, contributions, etc.
The key element in this definition is to achieve something that is greater than the sum of the parts, ie 1 + 1 = 3, but this only happens when the two ones are different. The more alike the ones are, the more 1 + 1 = 2.
No two people are the same, so a certain amount of synergy always occurs when they come together. The question is should synergy be something that we endeavor to develop, and if so, how best to do it? It won't happen when we insist we are all the same.
This brings me back to the beginning of this page where I stated that rejecting patriarchy was like rejecting that we are bipedal and insisting that we crawl on all fours. Patriarchy is essential to maximize synergy. It not only recognizes that men and women are different, embracing it maximizes those differences.
Bringing everything together, women do not want to be raped. They want to be taken. Also, men do not want to rape. They want to sexually dominate a woman. While one problem cannot be solved without solving the other, they are not the same. Women who can't deal with their desires, often become doormats in all aspects of their life. Men who can't deal with their desires become rapists. These problems are about as different as different can get. This also means that they are not equal, but yet equally deserving of respect if we actually care about preventing them from occurring.
This same attitude needs to be taken with our relationships, as nothing has wrought more harm on our society than equality in marriage. There is no doubt that women want, and deserve, equal respect in their marriage, but like believing that they want to be raped, they just didn't understand that what they really wanted was something else. They want equal respect, not equality.
The facts are, equality in marriage is nonsense. It's a complete fiction. To prove my point, ask yourself, how does a modern couple that claims neither is in charge resolves a difference so a decision can be made?
The answer I am looking for is intimidation. Both of them engage in acts of intimidation that come in the form of physical, psychological, sexual, and/or emotional threats until one of them decides that the issue is more important to the other, and it's just not worth continuing.
This means that all conflicts are resolved by emotion, which generally means women win. Sure, occasionally the man will win, but in all cases both will lose with the irreparable harm that comes from this profound lack of respect.
So all equal
marriages are just a fantasy, and couples maintain this fantasy by avoiding certain subjects, and immediately caving on issues that intimidation has already established a victor. In other words, they use dishonesty. With this view of a modern relationship, it makes sense why it is so difficult to find a mate. You need to look hard for someone with no substantive differences from you, yet unless this is a homosexual relationship, can there be anything more different than a man and a woman?
I personally think that there is a fundamental flaw in any system to determine how a husband and wife should relate to one another where the ideal mate is someone who is exactly like the other person. And the most important reason is that it squanders all of the benefits of synergy.
No one gets married with the intent of disrespecting their spouse, or taking advantage of them. Yet that is where all, repeat, all equal relationships end up. On the other hand, a relationship where the wife submits to the man has no need of intimidation on either party. This is the only environment where real trust can develop, because it is the only path that is honest.
Again, what women really want is respect, and only by being honest is that even possible.
So let's get up from all fours, and walk on our two legs as we are intended by embracing patriarchy. And once we do, then a lot of good can come from it. Men will be allowed to be men, and women will be allowed to be women. Not forced to be, just allowed to be.
As the French are wont to say, "Viva la différence!"
I had finished this page at the beginning of 2020, figuring I had said all that needs to be said, but a few well-founded critiques came my way that I didn't know how to respond. They all could be summed up as I am some sort of Neanderthal who is desperate to maintain my male privilege. Couldn't these nay-sayers see how women are harmed by these attacks on the patriarchy? Didn't I make that clear, and if not, what else could I say? I was really struggling with this until the sad, sad story of Sarah Fuller occurred. I know. Everyone is telling you what a great thing this was, and initially I did as well, but it degenerated terribly.
For those that haven't been following college sports, Sarah Fuller is a female soccer player for Vanderbilt. When all of the male kickers for the football team couldn't play due to COVID-19 protocols, they went and asked her to step in. I follow college football very closely, and so heard about her filling in before she did it. At first I thought this was great. She wouldn't have to tackle or be tackled, as only a POS scum of a man would tackle a woman, so why not?
Up until she made the kick, everything was going fine until afterwards when the accolades came her way. Here was this Trailblazing Woman
setting an example for girls all over the country. Even my favorite time-killer activity, Tik-Tok, was inundated with young girls who felt that some glass-ceiling had been shattered, and now the door is open to join the boys on the football team. Really?
Let's be clear here. What the feminists are implicitly stating is that a girl can never really excel just playing other girls. Real achievement is only going to occur when they can play on the boys teams. After all, boys who believe they are girls have been beating real girls for some time now.
And why is it so important for boys who believe they are girls be allowed to compete with biological girls? A person can have all kinds of actual physical ailments that will prevent them competing, so why must this one be accommodated? Particularly since science doesn't recognize it. There is nothing that can be pointed to to say this really exists, other than what the person claims. And aren't we all supposed to be following the science now, right?
How terrible it is to be a girl in these times. They are not allowed to compete with just girls, and they are being told they haven't really achieved anything until they can compete with the boys. And with the executive order on transgender rights
signed by President Asterisk on his first day in office, things are not looking good for girls in the future. With his order, this great progressive president has effectively canceled women, because huge advantages come with any man proclaiming to be a woman.
Not just being able to go from a bench-warmer as a boy to a champion as a girl in sports, but companies can now indulge their prejudices by hiring men who claim to be women and say they are hiring women, much like what how Harvard was able to claim they were hiring a Native-American when they hired Elizabeth Warren. Worse, there is at least some limit to what a person can claim about their race. Not so about transgender identity. Since there is no test of any kind for that, the executive order has to implicitly state that claims of transgender identity must be held without question.
As for a woman proclaiming to be a man, there is absolutely no advantage. None. Zip. Nada. Not only is it that trans men cannot compete physically with biological men, there is no one that is syaing I sure would like to hire a woman for this position, but I'm being forced to hire a man!
I believe the real reason for putting biological boys on girls' teams can be seen by the extreme anger you get from the left on the subject of gender. They believe that this is perfectly natural, and even consider it harmful to treat a baby based on their birth gender. Believing you are not the gender you appear to be cannot be seen as a disorder as it used to be, so these girls
must be allowed to compete with other girls, with extreme cancel-culture tactics to all that disagree.
And as for actual girls competing on boys' teams, are we really going there? Do we want boys tackling girls? Do we really want boys thinking that there are some circumstances where it is OK to physically beat girls? It is amazing how F'd up these times are that our society can spin on a dime from domestic abuse must never be tolerated, to anything goes on a sports field. And yet somehow it is only going to stay on the sports field? Seriously?
The idea that what I have been presenting on this page has just been about making things better for men is ridiculous. I want men to respect women, and that ain't happening when men are expected to treat women as one of the guys. How about a clear and unambiguous policy that boys/men should never under any circumstances physically beat girls/women. Is this even possible in these times?
Now I'm not saying that men and women should never compete, and in fact think that certain kinds of competitions are quite appropriate. A great example is the Netflix movie Queens Gambit.
The men that were not taking this young, female chess player seriously needed to have their asses handed to them. While fictional, the story rings true because feminists didn't get involved to help
her. Left to her own drive and determination, she earned the respect of the men. That final scene in the Russian park were all these old men were congratulating her for beating their grand master was priceless. This is how real men behave. The idea that men want to oppress women is more caricature than reality.
And if you still think my promoting Patriarchy is about men ruling over women, then you need to reread what I have to say about the difference between Leaders vs Masters. All men that want to boss women around are pathetic, and is antithetical to what real patriarchy should mean. As I said before, Patriarchy is about who is responsible, and not who is in charge. Degrading women is just another form of irresponsibility that squanders the valuable contributions that women offer our society as women.
As such, Patriarchy is the only viable path that respects women, as it is the only path that still recognizes that there are only two genders, and that each deserves equal respect. The progressive left only recognizes gender to the point of destroying it. For them, there is only a broad spectrum of gender identities, which really means they believe there is no gender at all.
I don't believe that Feminists want to harm women. I'm sure they believe they are doing the right thing. So why do feminists shaft women when they are supposed to be helping them? It's because their souls are corrupted by the previous decisions they have made, which renders them incapable of making sound decisions, and that's the topic on my next page Cherish Your Soul.