Feminism, Clinton, Porn and Trump

Stop Blaming Only Boys For ‘Pornland’:

I've never read 50 Shades of Gray ... only read enough about it to suspect that I don't need to. I believe that somewhere between Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, 50 Shades, and this article we see the fullness of the fruits of feminism.

My jaded view of feminism has something like the following points:

1. Anything men can do, women can do better. 
2. A woman needs a man like a submarine needs a screen door 
3. Women should not be some sort of "stand by your man and bake cookies" sort. 
4. Pretty much everything in western civilization was created to subjugate and rape women. 
5. Women want and deserve IT ALL, right F**king **NOW**!!! 

Slick Willie was pretty much the pinnacle of feminist power -- women got to decide which guys get to abuse which women and which don't. "Sisters" that failed to understand that Slick was privileged were slut shamed and maligned with self righteous indignity by the "sisterhood" of feminism. It you want to be a "sistah" in feminism, you better learn to dance to the tune that the sistah leaders call. Power was achieved -- it may not quite be the power that most women had imagined, but somehow, earthly power never really is.

Being a sistah means that you know which dominant female is boss, and you bow accordingly. This varies slightly from the male code which says Slick Willie, BO, whatever -- You think you got it? Drop your SS detail and let's see who is the real boss. But I digress -- I realize that is a really poor attitude from the "The Party" (TP-D) perspective -- males are supposed to bow just like women to the superior powers of TP, lest they need to be gunned down in the street like dogs. I may need just a tiny bit more training yet.

This article seems to have discovered that there is a snake in the garden of left wing perfection. Yet again, the problem seems to be those damned males, the young ones in this case. They seem to think that just because there aren't any morals and they get to watch free porn in any quantities they want, that young women ought to provide the same services as female porn-stars. While the article doesn't mention it, I can't imagine that Slick getting BJ's in the oval office with impunity, and now Trump admitting that if you are rich and famous enough, women let you pretty much have carte blanche would have any effects on the impressionable youth.

Does anyone REALLY think this is "new"?

While things like responsibility, love, provision, and steadfastness often won’t naturally set a woman’s heart aflutter, social standing and respect do play a role. We, as a society, are quite capable of respecting such traits, and in the past, this is precisely what we did. Men were honored and respected for being good husbands and fathers and young men for possessing traits that would one day make them such, until feminists declared war on such things. 

Instead, we have taught our youth their only responsibility is to follow their own hearts, that love is a flighty emotion that comes and goes like the wind, that provision is redundant because women are 100 percent self-sufficient in every way, and that steadfastness is imprisonment. We set these as the standards for judging boys and then wonder why the most popular young men fail to pursue these things.

I find this article a bit wistful. Even back in the days of the Bible, the king never had any problem gathering a LARGE harem -- say something like 1K wives and concubines in Solomon's case. Rich men throughout history have very rarely lacked a fairly nubile female or two around them. Lacking power, I suspect Slick Willie would have moderate appeal at best -- likewise Trump without money.

The difference now of course is that any concept of  sexual "morality" is a tired joke. Copulate with whomever and whatever you desire -- with 58 genders on Facebook, you have to be something of a satyr to even arrive at what gender you desire through "scientific testing means" -- and let's face it, in these scientific times, how else can you know "truth"?

So, for the "normal teenaged male", what possible reason might he have to curb his desire for sexual gratification? As the article points out, many of the girls are tripping over themselves to give the high status males what they want so they can receive "attention" -- and why not? certainly you aren't going to drag some "moral" out of the cellar to try to convince them otherwise!

I remember back in football, when the wide receivers, QB's and such got all the girls. Some poor lineman would see some lass and be all smitten and talk with a wide-out who might say "oh, I had her already -- nothing special". After the movie "Predator" came out, I came to think of those guys as the "Pre -date-ers" ... they "pre-date" the most desirable girls. These days, the lineman get the added "advantage" of one of the pre-daters sharing some naked pictures of your object of desire. Ah, "progress". It is reminiscent of the old medieval "right of the first night".

This female-driven dynamic is clearly at work in the high school porn culture as well. The article complains about boys trading pictures around like some kind of social currency and amassing collections, but if this is an accurate observation, then it is precisely the boys with the biggest collections of currency that the girls are finding attractive and providing with sexual access.

I find "barbaric" to be too judgemental in the following. "Natural", "fallen", "sinful" would all be better -- King David saw a beautiful woman, desired her, had her, and murdered for her. This is NOT anything approaching "new". Remove religion and morality, and "nature" takes it's course ...

Sexually barbaric women, however, gravitate towards hypergamy: the tendency to continually trade up to the highest-status man available. In other words, women are attracted to things like social standing, power, and wealth—yet another non-surprise. Accordingly, barbaric men prefer polygamous promiscuity while barbaric women prefer serially monogamous promiscuity. But when serial monogamy has worked out so badly for men, one can hardly blame them for refusing to go along with it any longer. If promiscuity is okay, why not have it his way instead of hers?

Which brings us to today. The current assumption by TP is that Trump can be defeated by the same poison that Slick Willie used to defeat morals and the right. "MoveOn.org" was founded on the idea that Clinton was a GREAT president, and WHATEVER accusation of sexual misconduct might be brought or proven against him, the country DID NOT CARE and we ought "Move ON"! 

Naturally, today, the call is the opposite -- ANY sexual charge raised against Trump ought to be totally disqualifying! The "power" of feminism is that they get to decide who gets sexual "favors", or even sexual carte blanche, and who does not. THAT is the "big win" for which women gave up the sanctity of marriage, reverence for motherhood, etc 

If a woman happens to be abused by a powerful man of TP, well, then learn to enjoy it -- just like men that fail to kneel to TP need to learn to enjoy whatever TP decides is their lot. "Equality" has been achieved -- proper political position is the way to power for ALL, male and female, and improper political position is the way to subjugation and abuse -- but it is like Dr Strangelove. Talk about "progress", they would have to have put an intermission in the movie if Slim Pickens was to list all the things that are "without respect today" .... 

'via Blog this'