I recently had a conversation with another blogger. He called female sexual psychology maladaptive, and said women would be happier with male sexuality. I was asked why I wish to let women’s nature be as it is. What I said was essentially that I don’t see anything wrong with sexual pickiness of women, and don’t think it’s fair to discuss this as a flaw that needs to be fixed. Same way men don’t like to be demonized and pathologized for having a higher sex drive, women shouldn’t feel ashamed of being sexually picky, or wanting something more out of the guy than his cock.
The argument of my conversation partner was essentially this: Why would I want to preserve female pickiness, if it created false rape accusations and a high age of consent?
First of all, I don’t think pickiness leads to those things. Sexuality is sexuality, and morals are morals. To suggest otherwise makes us no better than fundamentalist Christians, whose understanding of sexual “morals” is questionable to me. High age of consent is likely a result of parents, trying to control the outcomes of their daughter’s mating, and thus ensure better reproductive success for themselves. And false rape accusations, while they are related to women’s pickiness, wouldn’t be very powerful without an army of manginas to back it up.
Second, the question itself reveals something very collectivist. “Why do you wish to preserve female pickiness?” I am asked. But shouldn’t the question be “Why should we ever tamper with female nature in the first place?”. The former version of the question reveals that changing the nature is seen as default, as if the morality of what should be done has already been decided, without even asking the owner of said nature. The owner of the nature (in this case, me), is asked to defend her innate desires, and prove they are moral and good for society.
Here’s a clip from a famous Russian movie called A Dog’s Heart. Unfortunately there are no subtitles, but I will translate (not too well, but bear with me).
-I offer you to buy a few magazines, to help the children of Germany. They cost 50 each.
-No, I won’t take them.
-But why are you refusing?
-I don’t want them.
-You don’t feel any sympathy for children of Germany??
-Aha, you just feel greedy about your 50 roubles?
-I don’t want them.
Like the woman in the clip, many people do not accept a simple “I don’t want it” as a valid justification for having the values you have and making the personal decisions you make. They feel you must justify them by either making them useful to other people, or by aligning them to theirs. They insist their values are better than yours. You accept their values without sharing them, but they can’t do the same for you.
Example 1: A woman driven by the feminine imperative tells a man his uncommitted sexual lifestyle is shameful and unmanly, because he refuses to marry and support a woman. She demands he justifies his desires and choices by proving they are good for women.
Example 2: A PUA who tells a woman that her desire for commitment is selfish and based on jealousy. He asks her to justify her desires by proving they are good for PUAs.
Example 3: A beta tells women hypergamy is unnatural and they should control and squash it, because it’s awful and amoral. He asks women to justify their desires based on what it good for men like him.
Essentially, they accuse you of being selfish because you refuse to give them what they want, or to live according to what will make their life most comfortable.
Those who demand that these things must be justified haven’t truly gotten it. Values need no justification. They are values, they ARE the justification for things we do, not the other way around.
When doing this, these people try to convince you to be like them by telling you you will feel happier if you changed your values. That might sometimes be true, and not everyone who tells you your values should be changed is a hidden selfish prick. But sometimes they are. Sometimes they don’t even realize they are, and sincerely think they are arguing selflessly (possible because they evolved to argue that way, without knowing the ultimate purpose). I will provide some examples, which will, hopefully, show exactly WHY the things they say are as offensive as they are. Imagine there is a cure for any value or trait a human might have.
Example 1: A feminist telling a celibate man he should stop wanting sex, if lack of sex is hurting him so much. Offering to cure his sick objectifying desire to have sex.
Example 2: A PUA telling a woman she will feel better if she got rid of her desire for commitment, saying she will be happier if her sexuality was like men’s. Offering to cure her sick possessive desire to monopolize a partner.
Example 3: A rapist telling a woman she would feel much better if she didn’t mind rape so much. Offering to cure her reaction to rape, so that she would learn to love rape.1
Example 4: A homophobe telling a gay person they’d be happier as straight, and offer a cure.
It is true that many human desires hurt humans, when they don’t get what they desire. But most of us are not into Buddhism and don’t wish to get rid of our desires. And people don’t usually want to start loving what is naturally repelling to them. Some people do try to get rid of their desires, but I can’t think of a worse way to convince someone to do it, than to argue out of your best interest.
(1. If I was raped and very traumatized, I would want to get a cure that will make me untraumatized. But no way in hell do I want a cure that will make me love rape. Or love being pumped and dumped, for that matter)