Do we need to apologize for our sexuality?

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??

-I do.

-Aha, you just feel greedy about your 50 roubles?

-No

-Then why??

-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)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Do we need to apologize for our sexuality?

  1. Eivind Berge says:

    Another example of offensive value imposition would be a feminist telling an underage boy he is a “victim” for having sex with an older woman. Or the dimwit manginas at AVfM who have drunk the feminist Kool-Aid saying the same thing. This example is also unfortunately backed by the coercive powers of the state and abuse industry to imprison the woman and brainwash the boy, so it is as bad as it gets.

    • emmatheemo says:

      It’s closely releated to the examples I mentioned. Except with a slight difference:

      1)My examples are offensive because someone thinks you CAN think for yourself, and should change your nature for good of other people/to make them feel right

      2)Your example is offensive because someone thinks you CAN’T think for yourself and they know better what your naure is.

      It’s like if they couldn’t nag you into changing yourself, they will pretend your nature is how they wish it to be already.

  2. Chin Up, Chest High! says:

    Hey great article. We are so screwed up about sexuality generally. We are made to feel like sluts for wanting it (slut shaming is applied to men also through comments like “you’re only after one thing” and “sex – it’s all you men ever think about” etc) and made to feel weird or abnormal for not wanting it. Can’t win, any of us!

    I wouldn’t agree that women would be happier with a male approach to sexuality; I think we just need to understand each other a little better. I think we need to meet in the middle somewhere. In some cases, women are too picky and men are not picky enough. Online dating, it annoys me when women say things like “under 5’10” or balding – dont even bother to contact me”. It is not as though we can spontaneously grow another few inches or regenerate our hair to make them happy. Imagine the outrage if a good portion of male profiles said they wouldn’t be interested in any woman whose breasts were smaller than a C cup? That’s picky to the point of being shallow judging a man’s suitability as a partner on his stature.

  3. Eric says:

    Emma:
    To be honest, I don’t see much evidence that women are all that ‘picky’ especially if you mean that they look for good qualities in a man. How many times have we heard that men are ‘useless for anything but donating sperm?’

    I would find most women a lot more appealing if they actually DID have some standards in mate selection.

    I agree though that women should not try to emulate male sexuality (they are already doing this to a considerable extent). Maybe what the other blogger meant was that wished that women would show some of the same traits that men have: the ability to empathize, the ability to commit; actually being able to relate to someone else as a human being &c.

  4. Becky says:

    Women want more out of a man than his cock?

  5. Eric says:

    Becky & X:
    I doubt that they even want that much out of a man. Most women only see sex as a necessary evil and something they have to tolerate as the price of a relationship. Most women want men for three reasons: ego gratification; a source of funding; and (if she wants kids) as sperm donors. Beyond that, men are completely expendable.

  6. “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.”

    @Emma

    Yes, I think feminists are no better than fundamentalist Christians, and it’s no co-incidence that feminism fills the gap created by secularism, and why there is little or no need for feminism in Islamic societies.

    It appears that your reply is trying to make ME sound like a fundamentalist Christian who cannot divorce morals from sexuality when in fact I’m calling out women, and yourself, for doing exactly that. As you admitted in your previous post, women (just like men) are animals, and will likely project morality onto their basic and primary need to reproduce. In particular, you mentioned that men should be made to conform to a moral value system in which they are not allowed to ‘abandon’ their female partner when they ‘grow a little old’.

    Now evidently, a high age of consent protects a woman from being abandoned by her lover for a young nubile teenager, so it seems strange that you dismiss the idea that women collectively could be responsibile for paedohysteria and a high age of consent. By the way, have you done any research into the feminist ‘child protection lobbies’ that have pushed for higher ages of consent and draconian punishments? I certainly have, I’ve been doing it for many years now. For example, the NSPCC is probably the largest ‘child protection’ lobbying group in Europe, with an income of over 100 million Euros. It devotes its time almost exclusively to promoting paedohysteria and introducing new legislation surrounding the age of consent. Just one example of this are the laws that have been introduced in all European countries recently defining willing sex with a female below a certain age (13 in the UK, 14 in Germany) as ‘rape’ – this was based entirely on an inititive by the NSPCC.

    I have researched the background of the entire research staff of the NSPCC and the vast majority of them are hardcore feminists.

    http://theantifeminist.com/the-nspcc-as-an-evil-feminist-organization/

    The NSPCC actually pays a ‘Marianne Hester’ for the role of ‘professor of child sexual abuse and exploitation’. Marianne Hester is a radical feminist who has written a book in which she claims that ALL sex is rape.

    The reason why paedohysteria is not widely considered a men’s rights issue is because of the myth that it stems completely from American parents wishing to control their teenage daugthers (in orther words, putting the blame once again on the male and excusing female behaviour). So congratulations on your part for endorsing that. It would be welcome if you could at least admit that female behaviour could be partly responsible for what is happening to men. After all, if tampering with human nature is intrinsically wrong, then you don’t even have to deny that women are responsibile for the war on male sexuality. Women could have an innate need to see every male castrated, and still women would be faultless as regards modifying their behaviour is concerned.

    As I see it, women and men unfortunately have conflicting sexual interests, and this is becoming ever more acute in the 21st century, which is why we have the ever more intense war on male sexuality. You’ve expressed your wish that these conflicts are met in the traditional way – marriage. In a world massively overpopulated, in which men and women will look young at 70 and could live to be 700, I don’t see much future for marriage and the idea that the male sexuality has to be restrained within that institution in order that he can get a few years of guarenteed sex, whilst raising offspring. Especially in several decades time, when sexbots can be downloaded through the internet, and fully immersible holographic tactile porn is available, marriage won’t seem such a good deal for either men or for civilisation in those circumstances – and probably not even for women. Certainly, it will only be enforceable through brutal legislation that will make the outcomes of today’s paedohysteria look like a slap on the wrist. I don’t see how promoting that future is any better than suggesting that women would be happier if certain aspects of their sexual nature were voluntarily changed.

    I would like to close Emma, by pointing out that I have no wish to fall out with Eivind over this issue or our disagreement, as such a falling out, when we comprise almost entirely the small ‘sex positive’ wing of the men’s rights movement, would be a complete disaster. Certainly would be cause for celebration amongst our enemies. However, I do have to state that I object to being repeatedly referred to as a ‘radical’, compared to radical feminists and even to Andrea Dworkin, and also, indeed, to being called a selfish prick, for simply disagreeing with you, and for standing up for men, and for holding women accountable as adults and moral agents for what they are doing to men.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “It appears that your reply is trying to make ME sound like a fundamentalist Christian who cannot divorce morals from sexuality when in fact I’m calling out women, and yourself, for doing exactly that”

      I did no such thing. You said female sexuality needs to be changed, because it leads to immoral things. I said it doesn’t have to, because sexuality and morality are two different things. Do you agree now that we can leave pickiness alone, and maybe use transhumanism to help everyone be a better person instead?

      The post about animals is about an ideal for love ( where normal people want to monopolize their partner and work around their differences). An ideal is an ideal, it’s chosen by people who can read the post and really connect with it. Those who do not connect with it are free to chose another one (or none at all). If you feel shamed by the post, I apologize, but it has nothing to do with you, as you aren’t into relationships anyway. And if you haven’t noticed, it’s women who leave in larger % than men, so the ideal I propose applies to both sexes. So actually, it’s reasonable to expect a man not to leave, because it’s not so likely – my ideal is not demanding or unrealistic.

      I guess what I would find immoral is lying. Pretending that you want a relationship when you just wanted sex. Also, breaking a promise is wrong, I hope I don’t have to argue that too. However, it appears most PUAs don’t hide their intentions about what they want, which makes my ideal even more realistic and ok to have.

      I don’t dismiss the idea that feminists are behind the age of consent. I just don’t think they are the only ones. Why can’t it be both?

    • Emma the Emo says:

      “After all, if tampering with human nature is intrinsically wrong, then you don’t even have to deny that women are responsibile for the war on male sexuality. Women could have an innate need to see every male castrated, and still women would be faultless as regards modifying their behaviour is concerned.”

      Completely disagree with that logic. Tampering with human nature against someone’s will is very morally wrong. But everyone is still responsible for everything they do. They can choose to change their nature if they wish though.

      Are you a libertarian? If not, do you understand the difference between pursuing happiness at the expense of others, and simply pursuing happiness? One thing would be to vote yourself a candidate that will strip other people of money and give it to you. Another would be to honestly trade your brains and abilities for money, a lot of money. No, you can’t argue that the woman in your example is blameless because she just happens to be born with an intrinsic need for castrating men. Her freedom ends where other people’s freedom begins. That means her freedom to pursue a committed relationship with willing men is both morally and legally right, but to pursue castrating men against their will is both morally and legally wrong.

    • Emma the Emo says:

      ” Certainly, it will only be enforceable through brutal legislation that will make the outcomes of today’s paedohysteria look like a slap on the wrist. I don’t see how promoting that future is any better than suggesting that women would be happier if certain aspects of their sexual nature were voluntarily changed.”

      First of all, marriage as the solution is not my wish. It was just another suggestion of how things could be done. I knew it went against your personal value system, and it seemed like the best option to illustrate my point to you.

      Second, why use force when you could use transhumanist technology? I don’t see it as far-fetched. While men like casual sex more than women, they like relationships too, and like women (or even more so), want to sexually monopolize their partners. It is you who wouldn’t mind everyone having sex with everyone, but I don’t think even the men would be optimally happy in your world. Men, paradoxically, are both the sluttier gender and the more romantic gender. So I can imagine couples getting married and taking the relationship-stability technology as cure. For love. Men hearing about “hypergamy” and wanting to cure it in their wives by making sure they are always easy for them, and hard for everyone else (do you hear this expression often? I do). And what about all those various religions? Their members are numerous. But yes, some sexually unrestricted women would cure themselves the opposite way, because of apex fallacy and to avoid pain of being pumped and dumped.

      Third, you are right, the marriage solution is no better than women collectively becoming unrestricted and non-picky. Both are insulting and take only one point of view in consideration (see previous paragraph for more points of view).

    • Emma the Emo says:

      I didn’t call you selfish because you disagreed, stood up for men or held women accountable. I would call anyone selfish if they put what makes them personally happy on a pedestal, and spit on harmless desires of others, that differ. Read examples in my post to illustrate what I mean. Also, remember my libertarian example, perhaps it will show you the difference between wanting relationship with willing men, and wanting it against their will. You cannot attack the former. You have no moral reason to, at all! If you attack it, you might as well attack men’s freedom to pursue sex with lots of beautiful young women. It’s the same thing. If a woman did something like this, I would react the same way. Because I’m not a hypocrite.

      Now, don’t worry about Eivind and you becoming enemies over this. My affairs are my affairs, and his are his. WE are not even enemies (I hope?) Honestly, if you were an enemy, I wouldn’t exert so much effort on this issue. Because I want to see my enemies fail, get caught in the net of their own inconsistencies, stuff like that.

    • Eric says:

      Antifeminist:
      ‘High age of consent is likely the outcome of parents wanting to control outcomes of their daughters’ mating to insure better reproductive success.’

      I have to disagree here. In ancient societies when the AOC was 12, parents often arranged marriages with high-status men as the younger women had a higher sexual market value for unmarried men of high status. IOW, it was to parents’ benefit to have a lower AOC. What you said may be true in later times, when the State assumed greater control over children’s issues, and so had a vested interest in postponing marriage by artificial laws.

  7. Pingback: 3 Steps to Dating Younger Women | Anti-Feminist Theory of Men's Rights, Male Sexuality, Feminism

  8. Emma the Emo says:

    Thought to myself.

    If we can say “Women’s choosy sexuality leads to false rape accusations and high age of consent laws. Thus, it’s best if women weren’t choosy”, we can also say “Men’s strong sex drives and lack of pickiness lead to rape. Thus it’s best if men didn’t have high sex drives and were more picky”

    Am I the only one who sees this for what it is?!

  9. ParaPhilip says:

    Do I need to apologize for being a creepy teleiophile?

    Nah.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s