Women's Sexual Power
In a previous article I stated that women needed to give up their sexual power, just as men have largely given up their economic and political power. I was asked how women can do that. First, let's examine in more detail, just how women express their sexual power.
Women express their sexuality, physically, in both directly sexual and indirectly sexual ways.
Directly-sexual expressions are many. Generally, women wear tight clothing which shows their sexual body parts. They also wear clothing with little covering at all, showing much skin, which exposes their sexual body parts even more directly. Women wear tight leggings which show the curves of their legs and butts. (I recently noticed a store at the mall that sells nothing but women's tights.) Some leggings and yoga pants are so tight that camel toe can be seen. A few years back LuLuLemon got into trouble because their yoga pants were so tight and stretched so much that they became see-thru. Women's shorts are often so short that butts and pockets hang out of them. (Women often even expose their butts in Olympic competitions, such as diving, swimming, track, gymnastics, and beach volleyball.) Dresses also are often very tight and short ---so short that businesses sometimes must provide "modesty panels" on desks to cover up all of the "unmodest" exposure . Women's tops can also be tight and/or show much skin. Nipple bumps can often be seen through clothing. Most bras are designed so that women can expose their breasts and cleavage. Women often leave several buttons unbuttoned. Some tops are purposely so sheer that they are see-thru. Others are accidently see-thru. (Many female celebrities have discovered that clothing that looked fine in the mirror became see-thru under a photographer's flash.) Obviously, breast and butt implants are directly sexual---also breast padding, spanx and other figure-contouring clothing, and push-up bras. Brazilian hair removal allows women to wear string bikinis to the beach. Even in formal situations women can wear body-contouring clothing that exposes their arms, shoulders, breasts, back, legs, and midrifts.
(Update. To confirm that women are fully aware that their yoga pants and leggings are so tight that their labial bumps are visible and distinguishable, and that they wear such leggings to be sexually titillating, consider this article: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/what-is-labiaplasty-plastic-surgeons-explain-144915757.html It explains that women who are unhappy or self-conscious about the shape or size of their labia are getting labiaplasty surgery to make their labia perfect for the tighter clothing styles. Labiaplasty has been nicknamed "designer vagina," although this is a misnomer since the surgery is performed on the labia and not the vagina, but you get the idea. In 2021, some 19,000 labiaplasties were performed---a 36% jump from 2020. Labiaplasties increased 217% from 2014 to 2017. Women are quite aware that tight leggings reveal their genital bumps---colloquailly known as "camel toe." And women are even going through surgery that costs around $3600 to make their labia as sexually irresistible as possible in their tight leggings, yoga pants, bathing suits and even tight jeans. How can we be so blind, and not admit that camel toe is intentional and blatant sexual harassment against men? Because, you know, that if men started wearing yoga pants, women would immediately have them arrested for indecent exposure. Once again, women can be sexual, but men can't.
Here is another article confirming that women are fully aware that camel toe is visible in their tight leggings. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/womans-super-simple-hack-getting-221628908.html It explains how women can continue to wear their tight spandex leggings but can cover up their camel toe if they are not comfortable showing it---I guess these women are comfortable showing their well-defined butts and legs. The author instructs women in how to cut up a bra pad and place it in their thong underwear to cover up their camel toe. Wait, women are wearing tight spandex leggings AND thong underwear? Geez, it's all about sex, all of the time! Anyway, at the end of the article, the author explicitly states that she does not want to discourage anyone from being "natural," i.e. showing their genital bumps if they so desire. She says, "If you wanna rock the camel toe, PLEASE DO SO!!!" So fellas, if you want to wear tight yoga pants to highlight your moose knuckle, just remember, that you are being "natural" and are not guilty of indecent exposure. Of course, women will come back and argue that a man’s moose knuckle is so much larger than a woman’s camel toe, that it is fair to outlaw tight pants on men, while still allowing women to highlight their camel toe. Then men can reply that women have large sexual bulges on their chests---many of which are larger than men’s genital bulges. Yet apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for women to highlight their breasts with tight tops and can even expose much of their breasts. It is completely hypocritical for women to be so sexual while men can get into trouble for any sexuality at all.)
In comparison, men wear loose clothing that rarely exposes more than their heads, necks, and hands. Men's outfits are virtually burqas. Men don't wear yoga pants. Men's clothing is so loose that men are allowed to have pockets, and they don't have to worry about visible panty lines. Men rarely present themselves as sexual objects, although, on occasion, you might see a man take off his shirt and show his six-pack abs. And about the only time a man is allowed to show a genital bump is on the ballet stage---an activity that is largely for female audiences.
Some women's cosmetics are directly sexual. Blush is imitation sexual flush. Both men and women get sexual flush---blood rushes to the surface and their skin turns pink during sex. So why do only women imitate this with their constant rosy cheeks? And lipstick is an imitation of aroused vaginal lips. Women color their mouth lips from light pink to blood red in order to imitate blood-engorged vaginal lips. They also inject their mouth lips with poison to make them fuller, i.e., more engorged. They also use glossy lipsticks that make their mouth lips look wet. Why would they do this? Slobbering is not sexy. But wet vaginal lips are quite sexual.
(Feminists have put forth the ridiculous argument that cosmetics imitate bruising and actually being bloodied from being beaten. They argue that men are sexually attracted to women who wear blood-red lipstick because men are sexually aroused by violence against women. This ridiculous argument shows the extremes of feminist hatred toward men. This argument is easily shot down. Most lipsticks are pink. Few are actually blood red. And many lipstick colors contain a lot of tan and brown which are what one would expect if lipsticks were imitating engorged vaginal lips, instead of actual bloodied lips. Even blood-red lipstick can fit the aroused vaginal lips theory as an extreme exaggeration, meant to draw attention. Given all that women do to exude sex, it is absurd to argue that women's sexual attractiveness comes from looking like they have been beaten. Even feminists do not really believe their theory. You know that if feminists really believed that men were sexually attracted to violence against women, feminists would be protesting and shutting down every cosmetics counter in the world yesterday. But feminists know that women's power comes from sex, so feminists encourage women to use sex to empower themselves.)
Another directly sexual thing that women do is wear high heels. These put a swivel in the hips and a curve in the calves. (Feminists' ridiculous argument about high heels is that women wear them to make themselves look vulnerable---they cannot run and men can easily attack them. This is supposedly sexy to men. This, again, is absurd. How do shoes that make women look 6 inches taller make them look more vulnerable? Besides, stiletto heels are effective weapons.)
To prove that these things are sexual, consider this. We generally do not allow 5-year-old girls to do these things, because they are too sexual. But if they are sexual on a 5-year-old girl, then they are also sexual on a 25-year-old woman. Granted, sexuality is more acceptable and appropriate for a 25-year-old woman, but these things are still very sexual.
Women often complain about men sexually objectifying women, but women sexually objectify themselves. It is their power. I recently saw a woman get upset at a man who was staring at her on the bus. She wore a lot of makeup, boobs were hanging out, and she was wearing skin-tight pants. I thought "Damn, woman, you're about as subtle as a plane crash and yet you complain about his lack of subtlety?"
Women also do a lot of things that I would argue are indirectly sexual---women drawing attention to themselves. Here are some examples:
Eye makeup makes the eyes pop.
And I've commented before on the strange things that women do to their eyebrows.
Fingernails and toenails are painted bright colors.
Women spend hours at the salon making their hair attractive and the right color. Gray hair is not allowed.
Most people who whiten their teeth are female. (A survey of members of the American Academy of Cosmetic Dentistry found 70% of patients receiving whitening treatments in office were female.) [1] If you doubt that this is sexual, consider the 1960's UltraBrite toothpaste commercial jingle: "UltraBrite gives your mouth...sex appeal."
Women wear clothing that is brightly colored.
Women wear clothing only a few times before the clothes are out of style and must be thrown away.
Women wear loud shoes---I mean both audibly loud as well as visually loud. Women's shoes tend to make a lot of noise so that women can attract attention as they walk by.
Makeup covers flaws in the skin.
Excess body hair is removed.
Vocal frying is an exaggerated (affected?) style of speaking, used to draw attention, usually by young women.
Shiny and colorful jewelry draws attention. (Some have argued that rings are directly sexual, with the putting on of a ring imitating intercourse.)
Perfumes also draw attention. (Musks and pheromones may also be directly sexual.)
Surgery and creams get rid of wrinkles that are caused by hours in the tanning bed. Women, disgustingly, even use circumcised foreskins in these beauty creams.
Women can use their sexual power in almost any situation---anything from everyday casual wear, to work attire, to on the red carpet, to sexy costumes on Halloween.
I have already said that men do little that is directly sexual in their appearance. But, I suppose women will argue that men do a lot that is indirectly sexual---things like expensive suits, expensive watches, hot sports cars, etc. Well...maybe. Maybe not. These things are so indirect that to call them sexual may be quite a jump. Granted, women are sexually attracted to wealth, so I will concede that these things may be sexual in certain circumstances. But, I still must conclude that women's appearance is much more blatantly sexual, directly and indirectly, than men's appearance.
(To see that women are attracted to wealth, consider the phrase "most eligible bachelor." This is a strange phrase since, by definition, all bachelors have exactly the same eligibility. If one examines how the phrase is used, one will see that "most eligible" is a euphemism for "wealthiest" of the bachelors who may also have the secondary characteristics of youth and handsomeness thrown in. Of course, women cannot admit how venal they are, so they need to hide it by saying "most eligible" instead of "wealthiest" bachelor. The games women play.)
It is known that women disproportionately experience sexual harassment and sexual assault between the ages of 18 and 24, when women are most sexual in appearance.
Women often hide their sexuality behind good health. For example, magazines like Shape, Self, and Health pretend to be about health, but are really about showing women how to sexually objectify themselves. But women cannot admit that they are being sexual, thus it is all about "health." (More games.)
Women do a lot of things, directly sexual and indirectly sexual, to make themselves sexually attractive. How can feminists twist this into a theory that men are sexually attracted to violence against women?
Perhaps women sexually objectify themselves because they do not so much lust after men, but instead, lust being lusted by men. Marta Meana, the author of a study examining this put it this way: "women's desire is not relational, it's narcissistic." [2] This desire to be desired may also contribute to many women's enjoyment of rape fantasies. He must really want her if he is willing to risk jail for her. [3] Women want to be pursued by desireable men, perhaps even to the point of wishing that the men ignore her rejections of him. Some women play hard-to-get, thereby demanding that a man ignore her rejections of him in order to prove his desire for her. But a woman playing hard-to-get, and a woman honestly rejecting a man look exactly the same. If a man ignores her rejections of him, and he happens to be undesireable to her, he will be accused of sexual harassment. (Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have admitted that persistence was critical in their getting married. Clinton rejected Bill's first two marriage proposals. [4] Obama said that he had to wear down Michelle in order to get her to marry him. [5]) Men are put in impossible situations. Ignoring a woman's rejection of him could lead to a man finding his true love or being charged with sexual harassment. But accepting rejection could result in a man losing his true love or avoiding sexual harassment charges. The lady or the tiger.
As any biologist will confirm, females control mating. Females have more to lose if they make a bad choice. So, they are choosier and require more conditions. Women make the rules and they make them in their favor. There is no way men would have built the current human mating system. Men must do all initiating, men must pay for everything, men must get on one knee and beg, men must offer an expensive ring, and men must pay alimony after the divorce. There may be a biological impetus for this, but this system is completely unacceptable in an egalitarian society. As feminists often claim, biology is not destiny. Yet, feminists have done everything to ensure that women continue to control mating.
Initiators of transactions are always in an inferior position. For example, if Fred sees Joe's car and approaches Joe to buy it, Joe knows Fred wants the car and Joe can negotiate the price with this in mind. Romantically and sexually, men have traditionally been the initiators, a position that has always put women in a superior position. Women have refused, for the most part, to give up this superiority. Men must still do the initiating. (And then women have the rule that the initiator must pay for the date. A recent study by Janet Lever gives some interesting information on this subject. [6] For example, of the women who say they always offer to pay on dates, one-third resent it when the man accepts the offer, or when he expects her to contribute. Yet, more games.)
Cowardice is another reason women refuse to initiate. They do not like to be rejected. This encourages women to sexually objectify themselves in order to get men to initiate. By having a very sexual appearance, women can be more sure that men will handle all of the risk associated with dating and sexual initiation. Even married women or women who have no interest in sexual relationships may like the attention that they get by being sexual in their appearance. But a woman's sexual appearance is presented to all men who can see her, including men she would never have anything to do with. But these men do not know that she is not being sexual for them. So when they approach her, her teasing often results in her accusing them of sexual harassment. This situation also results in men becoming callous. To handle all of the rejection they must experience concerning sexual initiation, men must become cold and unfeeling. It is more difficult for them if they consider a rejecting woman a full human being and these men learn to look at women as objects. Much damage is done to both men and women because of women's sexual appearance and women's cowardice in initiating.
So what do we do with this big difference in outward sexuality between men and women? Is it acceptable, or is it a relic from the sexist past that needs to be eliminated? Is it an expression of women's dominant sexual power over men that needs to be eliminated, just as we are eliminating men's former economic and political dominance over women?
Women and feminism (which is supposedly for equality between the sexes) have done little to eliminate women's sexual dominance over men. Quite the contrary, feminist (and non-feminist women) have done everything they can to increase women's sexual power over men. Here is how Michael Aaron says it, "But true equality is not about the absence of power, but rather the sharing of power. Third-wave feminism, ... isn’t really aiming for shared power, but rather a monopoly on power—sexual power, to be specific." [7] Over the last 40 years women's sexual appearance, both direct and indirect, has gotten more blatant with tighter clothing, more skin exposure, better cosmetics, better drugs, and better cosmetic surgery.
Feminists have long said that heterosexual sex is men raping women. And the law and society are, bit by bit, agreeing. Feminists are trying to destroy heterosexual sex. Heterosexual sex is becoming illegal, at least, for men. Consider this quote from two Harvard law professors: "Indeed, the concept of sexual misconduct has grown to include most voluntary and willing sexual conduct." [8] Also, consider this quote from feminist Laura Kipnis: "The rules and the codes [on campuses] have been rewritten behind closed doors such that almost all sex can be charged as something criminal." [9] And think of all the things that have been taken away from men sexually over the last 40 years. Many behaviors that we expected men to exhibit 40 years ago are now criminal, or at least, punishable to some degree. Male sexuality is, more and more, becoming illegal. Criminalizing all male sexual behavior is the ultimate example of women abusing their sexual power, as well as their new-found political power.
Here are a few examples of how things have changed over the last 40 years:
Men can't compliment women on their appearance now.
Men can't tell sexual jokes anymore. Sexual jokes cheapen women's sexual power. This is not allowed. (Oddly, there are no restrictions in telling economic or political jokes. We are allowed to cheapen men's traditional powers.) Women taking offense to sexual jokes is an abuse of power. And this should be offensive to men.
Catcalling is a no-no. Again, this cheapens women's sexual power.
Many things that men considered "flirting" 40 years ago are now called "sexual harassment."
A man can't initiate dating a woman from their place of employment without risking losing his job and being sued.
If a man has sex with a woman who has had alcohol, he risks rape charges.
Affirmative consent says that men must ask permission and get a definite "yes" for every sexual move now or risk rape charges. (This is completely clumsy and unromantic. No man will do it every time, leaving men open to rape charges.)
Following or investigating a love interest is now stalking.
Any relationship that has gone sour can result in charges against the man.
Over the last 40 years, sexual violations have become more emotional than physical, and therefore, harder to define. For example, sexual harassment involves whether a "reasonable woman" would be offended. This is quite nebulous. Men cannot know this ahead of time.
After decades of feminist propaganda the instances of sexual assault have become confusing for women as well. Many women see sexual assault in situations that are not sexual assault. [10]
Instead of a "rape culture," there appears to be a "false-accusation-of-rape culture." "Take Back The Night" events have long been a forum for women to get together to commune in their victimizations, with many of the stories shown to be false. Many feminist activists have apparently falsely accused men of sexual assault as a political statement. Catherine Comins, a dean at Vassar, implied that being falsely accused of rape could be good for a man, that it could aid his "self-exploration." Many college women have posted lists of innocent male students as potential rapists. Feminists demand that we automatically believe women's accusations, yet they do not encourage women to report to the police, where the accusations may be scrutinized.
To see just how ridiculous feminist law has become, the settlement in the Frostburg State University case stated that it is a violation of Title IX for a university to use reason, common sense, and the reasonable person standard in determining sexual harassment violations. Apparently, these are not enough to satisfy the preponderance of evidence standard. [11]
The old FBI definition of rape was "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will." Obviously, only women could be raped. But in 2013, the FBI changed the definition to "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." This new definition ended the need for "force," but it still defined rape in a way that, for the most part, only women can be raped and by men. The new definition also brought in "consent." It is rare for a woman to give explicit consent before sex, and it is rare for a man to ask for it, leaving men open to rape charges.
This last point brings up the matter of "consent." Consent is different in sexual violations than in other crimes, and the difference is critical. No one ever wants to be robbed, or mugged, or burgled, or murdered, so "consent" is not an issue in these crimes. [12] But people often want to have sex---maybe billions of people each day. So "consent" is the deciding factor in whether a sexual act is rapture or rape. But people generally do not give or ask for explicit consent before sex. It is considered unromantic and clumsy. A woman may consider a man a wimp or a klutz if he asks for permission before each sexual act. So how have humans solved this "consent" dilemma? Traditionally, it has been the man's job to initiate sex. This implied his consent. And traditionally, if the woman did not resist, this implied her consent. But if a woman did not want to have sex, it was her job to make it clear that she did not give consent. This is how it has worked for millennia, possibly millions of years. Although not perfect, this has worked pretty well. But now, feminists have thrown the "affirmative consent" monkey wrench into the machine. Apparently asking women to make their lack of consent clear was asking too much of women. Now affirmative consent takes this responsibility away from women and puts it all on men. Men must now make sure that they have explicit consent before each sexual act. But as I have said, most men and most women find it irritating when men ask for explicit consent for every sexual act. This puts men in a very precarious position---risk irritating their sexual partners by constantly asking for explicit consent, or risk rape charges by assuming consent.
All of this has resulted in an increase in women's sexual power over men. All of this has occurred while women have demanded and, in large part, gained equality in men's traditional economic and political powers. Women have not simultaneously given up their sexual power, but instead, have increased it. Feminists have turned most all male sexual behaviors into sexual offenses.
Proof of this was shown in a recent poll by YouGov. [23] It found that the following percentages of women considered it always or usually sexual harassment when men performed these activities with women who were not romantic partners: wolf-whistling -- 60%, commenting on a woman's attractiveness -- 29%, placing his hand on a woman's lower back -- 50%, telling sexual jokes -- 80%, looking at a woman's breasts -- 55%, dancing close -- 75%, winking -- 20%, and finally asking a woman out for a drink -- 8%. Feminists are turning all male sexual behavior into crimes. (Can someone please explain how over half of women think a man looking at her breasts is sexual harassment, but yet it is okay for a woman to get breast implants, expose her breasts, or wear padding or push-up bras?)
Not only this, but the legal system has made several changes to turn "innocent until proven guilty" on its head in sexual cases. Of course, it is understood that prosecuting sexual assault cases is very difficult, since the cases often have little evidence other than he said/she said. However, this is no excuse for abandoning a time-honored legal principle and replacing it with "the accused is guilty until proven innocent."
There are many examples of legal and societal changes in prosecuting sexual crimes that make it more difficult for men to defend themselves. These are often special to sexual crimes. They include:
Accusers are not named or photographed by the media.
Accusers' sexual histories are off-limits.
Generally, the accused has a right to face his accusers. But, accusers in sexual crimes may record their court testimony, or be hidden behind screens.
Men serving prison sentences for sexual crimes may be required to stay in prison after they have served their time.
Men convicted of sexual crimes must register as sexual predators for the rest of their lives. They are also often restricted as to where they can live.
A woman's request is enough to issue a protection order. There is no due process.
It has been a long-standing rule that a defendant's previous crimes are inadmissible in current trials. However, this rule was changed in 1994 to allow prior sexual assault crimes in sexual assault cases.
Many states are introducing legislation putting restrictions on non-disclosure agreements, but only in sexual assault and sexual harassment cases.
Feminists demand that accusers must be believed.
Flawed research has led advocates to claim that false reports of sexual assault are very rare.
False accusers are rarely prosecuted, and the crime is usually only a misdemeanor.
Accusers may appeal innocent verdicts, resulting in double jeopardy of the accused.
Contradictory information or confusion on the part of an accuser is seen, not as evidence of a false accusation, but as proof that she must have experienced a traumatic sexual assault. "Neurobiology of trauma" is being used by feminists to explain away accusers' inconsistencies and inabilities to remember clearly. But, like the feminist nonsense that was "recovered memories" in the 80s and 90s, there is no scientific evidence for "neurobiology of trauma." Instead, there is much evidence against it. [13]
Biased studies grossly exaggerate the number of sexual assaults on campuses.
The Clery Act is also designed to exaggerate the number of reported sexual assaults on campuses. [14] But when the Clery numbers are much smaller than advocates expect, this is seen as evidence of lying by the schools.
Feminists constantly focus attention on sexual crimes and compare them to murder. Even minor sexual violations are considered as bad as murder. There are no gradations. All infractions require severe punishments, such as expulsion from college, job loss, and criminal prosecution. This is why all victims of sexual infractions are called "survivors." Also some states have eliminated statutes of limitations on sex crimes. Traditionally, the only crime prosecuted without any time limit has been murder. Also, when Floridians voted to allow felons to regain the right to vote, exceptions were made for murderers and felony sexual offenders. Sexual crimes are now considered as bad as murder.
Not only are all sexual infractions punished severely, but there often is little due process for those accused. Guidelines of the Office of Civil Rights of the Department of Education have severely impeded due process for accused college students. For example, one study found that because of the "preponderance of evidence" standard, one-third of innocent men accused of sexual assault would likely be found guilty. [15] It is totally inappropriate to use Title IX to adjudicate criminal sexual assault cases, and it has only been done to make it easier to punish men. Also, several politicians, CEOs, and newsmen have been fired or forced to resign without any due process safeguards.
Some men expelled from schools have filed complaints with the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights and won. Some have sued their colleges and won. The OCR and courts have found that school proceedings often are unfair.
Consider how far afield we have come with the following specific example of an incredible justification in a rape case at Occidental College: a counselor for the alleged victim told her that her alleged rapist "fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and 'from a good family.' " [16]
The duplicity involved with women's sexual power can be extreme. Here are examples:
Male teachers having sex with female students have always been severely punished. Female teachers having sex with male students have only recently been punished at all. A recent New Jersey study found that male teachers having sex with students went to jail more often and received 50% longer sentences than female teachers having sex with students. [17]
While feminism is criminalizing all of men's sexual behavior and blaming it for all rape and sexual assault of women, women can wear whatever they want and drink as much as they want. Criticizing women's dress or drinking is blaming the victim. This is not allowed. Sexual assault is seemingly all men's fault. We are not allowed to consider women's contributing behavior.
If a man flashes a woman, he is arrested and sent to jail. If a woman flashes a man, it is his lucky day.
Rape, sexual assault, and sexual mutilation of women are horrible. But rape, sexual assault, and sexual mutilation of men are funny---the late night TV shows, among other venues, are full of jokes about men being sexually violated.
"Female genital mutilation" is illegal around the world. The term is even quite horrifying. A practice which is comparable in men, circumcision, has a much less horrifying name and is legal most everywhere. Some women even promote it by falsely claiming that this barbarism reduces the spread of HIV/AIDS to women. Even worse, baby boys' amputated foreskins are being used to make women's cosmetics.
Johns are arrested and punished for prostitution. But prostitutes are given aid so that they can find other employment. Prostitution lessens women's sexual power, so it is illegal, at least, for men. (However, if you think about it, dating is a form of prostitution---men buying women dinners and shows and jewelry in order to receive sex. But this form of prostitution benefits women and their sexual power, so it is acceptable. And if you doubt that prostitution is the oldest profession, consider an experiment with monkeys at Yale who learned to trade coins for food. During the experiment, two monkeys quickly discovered that the coins could also be exchanged for sex, whereupon the "whore" monkey then exchanged the sexually acquired coins for food. [18])
Men can never expose their sexual parts. Women can show camel toe and expose their breasts and butts. Men don't wear yoga pants because they would probably be arrested if they did.
Men's porn is bad. Again, it diminishes women's sexual power, so men's porn must be eliminated. But women's bodice rippers and romance novels (women's porn) are just fine. Even more, women's magazines, which basically teach women how to become sexual objects, are also just fine. Anything that aids women's sexual power is acceptable.
The pictures on the covers of men's magazines like Playboy and the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue are often interchangeable with the pictures on the covers of women's magazines like Cosmo, Glamour, Self, Hers, Oxygen and Health---all show very sexual pictures of women. But magazine stands often hide or put boards over the covers of men's magazines but never cover up the women's magazines. Why? The pictures are very similar. The hypocrisy is blatant.
The punishment of male sexuality can go to ridiculous lengths. A male student at Columbia was reported to the Gender Police for calling himself handsome. [19]
This duplicity leads to a couple of conclusions. Male sexuality is bad, while women's sexuality is good. Women's sexuality for the benefit of men is illegal, disgusting, and bad, but women's sexuality for the benefit of women and their sexual power is legal, praised, honored, and worshipped.
Perhaps the biggest duplicity involved here is holding all men completely responsible for all sexual assault. Feminists have labeled our society the "rape culture," which contends that male behavior by all men leads to the sexual abuse of women. Feminists put no responsibility on women and their behavior. In a society as complicated as ours, this is absurd. Of course, women and their behavior contribute to the problem. But we are not allowed to admit this or examine it. And feminist solutions do not take contributing female behavior into account. These solutions are necessarily doomed to fail.
There is growing evidence that women can also be guilty of sexual assault. A compilation of data by Lara Stemple [20] found that "1.6 million women and 1.7 million men were raped or made to penetrate in 2011 data." She also found that "among those reporting rape/sexual assault by a female perpetrator, 57.6% of male victims and 41.4% of female victims reported that the incident involved an attack, meaning the offender hit, knocked down, or otherwise attacked the victim." Her research also noted "a 2012 study found of people who self-reported forcing someone to have sex, 43.6% were female" and "two studies found that over half of lesbians reported being sexually assaulted by their partners." A study by Bryana French [21] found that of 284 high school and college men, 43% had suffered sexual coercion, and 95% of these men said the perpetrators were female.
Data like this show that aspects of feminist ideology are false that state that the vast majority of sexual assaults are men assaulting women, and that these assaults are the result of the patriarchy, the rape culture, and the domination of women by men. These feminist misconceptions have wrongly justified the use of Title IX to attack sexual assault in colleges, and no doubt, have led to the criminalization of all male sexuality. This must stop.
Generally, men like it when women are sexual. But apparently, women do not like men to be sexual. Is the double standard here just one of a difference of desires and is that acceptable? No, this double standard exposes an abusive matriarchy. Women are allowed to be sexual in order to get power over men, and to receive benefits from men---gifts and courtesies like open doors, protection, dinners, shows, diamond rings, and marriage proposals. But men are not allowed to be sexual until the woman has received enough benefits, and she then gives him permission to be sexual.
It seems women are more likely to be attracted to men who show their wealth instead of their sexuality. Women attract men with sex, while men attract women with wealth. But while women protect their sexual power by severely restricting men's sexuality, oddly, there are no restrictions on women showing their wealth. This shows that women are in charge, since their desires are the norms. Women's desires and women's total unreasonableness in protecting their sexual power are now the law and society's standard.
The law and societal norms should not have such duplicity built into them. In a democracy (and even in a feminist utopia) everyone should be treated exactly the same. No exceptions. In the past, double standards built into the law resulted in discrimination, e.g., when blacks were considered three-fifths of a person. Men are now the victims of discrimination because women have built duplicity into society and into our laws.
And women have refused to give up their sexual power.
If you doubt that feminists are fine with women exploiting their sexual power, consider the new pop music feminism. Singers like Ariana Grande, Beyonce, Taylor Swift, Lady Gaga, and Rihanna simultaneously promote feminism and their sexual power. And feminists love it.
All of this leads to the conclusion that the definition of feminism is a Big Lie. Feminism is not about "equality of the sexes." As the word "feminism" implies, it is really about women, women, women. Feminism is about empowering women, promoting women, helping women, protecting women, idolizing women. It is often also about criticizing men, denouncing men, criminalizing men, dehumanizing men, hating men.
I think we can all agree that sex is overvalued in our society. Sex is used and abused constantly. Examples abound. I suspect that the song "Love Makes the World Go Around" is really a euphemistic way to say that sex drives our world. Sex is used by advertisers to sell widgets. Sex sells newspapers, puts people in theater seats, and results in clicks on the internet. Women often use nudity in making political statements.
Correspondingly, sexual violations are also overvalued in our society. Again, examples abound. The opening of "Law and Order: SVU" states that "In the criminal justice system, sexually-based offenses are considered especially heinous." It wasn't that long ago that men were executed for sexual violations. And today, feminists still compare all sexual violations, even minor ones, to murder. Feminists demand that all sexual assault victims be labeled "survivors," as if the vast majority of sexual assault victims are also murdered. (The percentage of sexual assault victims who are murdered is about 0.06%. [22])
How have men responded to women's increasing sexual power? Many have decided that dealing with women is just too frustrating and dangerous, and therefore, have shunned any dealings with women. The MGTOW (Men Going Their Own Way) is an example. This is saying a lot. Nature and society put incredible pressure on men to have sex and be involved with women. To resist that pressure and to abstain from any relations with women must require incredible motivation. But more and more men are doing it. Along the same line, many studies show millenials are having less sex. Is it because sex has become too risky for men? Another example is business men who are afraid to mentor or deal with female co-workers for fear of sexual harassment charges. I would imagine that these business, millenial, and MGTOW men are sensitive, aware men. This means that many of the men who are now dealing with women are the insensitive, callous ones who are left over. I suspect both groups of men are rebelling, consciously or not, against women's sexual domination over them. The sensitive men's rebellion exhibits itself in avoiding women. But the insensitive, callous men's rebellion is more likely to show up in rudeness and sexual crimes. I bet most women are not happy about either situation. I assume that this is leading to unhappiness in both men and women.
But one group is happy. I'm sure feminist leaders are happy about all of this. This is a dream come true for them. They just won the lottery. They have made a sizeable number of men miserable. And many men are victimizing women which feminists can continue to complain about. Feminist leaders are in heaven.
Some very powerful men have used their economic power over women. Men like Roger Ailes, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, and Bill O'Reilly have used their economic and status power over women to sexually abuse them. They have been severely punished for this. They have been severely shamed. But, what about women? Obviously, women have had a great deal of sexual power over these four men (as well as most all men) for the men to behave the way they did. Most people only see one side of this situation. They see the news stories about these men and just conclude that these men are horrible and sexually abused women. But it is not that simple. How many women used their sexual power over these four men to benefit themselves? (For example, how many women willingly used sex to gain acting jobs from Weinstein?) Of course, we never hear about them. These women are never punished or shamed. How many women knew about these men’s' indiscretions and remained silent to keep their jobs, and thereby allowed the men to abuse more women? How many of the abused women blackmailed these men into large monetary settlements for the women’s' silence, which, again, allowed the men to abuse more women? (Weinstein paid many women large sums of money with the stipulation that the women would remain silent.) There is a lot of hypocrisy here. Women are guilty of abusing their sexual power even in situations like this. But they are never punished or shamed or criticized for it.
(As women have gained more economic and political power, they have also used those powers to sexually abuse others. These women have been punished, though often to a lesser degree than men who abuse their economic or political power. This shows that the sexism here is not so much that women are always protected by our society. If they behave like men, they risk punishment. But our society does seem to always protect women's sexual power. Women can use it without fear of consequence.)
But what about men who do not have great economic power? How does Joe Schmo stack up against women's sexual power? How often must he pay for drinks or dinners or trips for women who are just using him? How many women use sex to marry rich men they don't love? How many saleswomen use their sexuality to make more sales? How many women use their sexuality to gain an advantage in employment? Or better grades? Or get men to fix their cars? Or get men to help them move? (Or something that has happened to me several times, women cashiers who bat their eyelashes at me so that they can try to shortchange me.) I bet men have no idea of all of the ways that women use their sexual power against them. But, again, women are never punished or shamed or criticized for it.
It is all a set up. Because women use their sexuality to get men to perform all of the initiating and all of the obvious actions, men are blamed if anything goes wrong. It seemingly is always men's fault. It is no surprise that the frustration level in men can be high.
The degree to which women abuse their sexual power is completely outrageous and offensive. I do not believe most people see this. So to help you see, I would like you to imagine a role reversal. Let's pretend that men's economic power is the dominant power and women's sexual power is much smaller in comparison. Let's see what men's economic power would look like if men abused it in the ways women abuse sexual power. (I will exaggerate slightly to help make the point, but only slightly.) Let's say that men have all of the money. Some men are richer than other men, but all men are comfortable. All women are homeless and hungry. In order to get food, clothing, and shelter from men, women must perform sexual acts. Women who are not good at sex are lucky to receive a bowl of mush and cardboard to sleep on. But skilled sexual acts can get a woman filet mignon, fancy clothes, and bedding in a wealthy man's mansion. If women want food, clothing, and shelter, they must initiate. If they initiate in a manner that is offensive to men, or if they are just undesirable, they may face harassment charges. Men constantly tease hungry and cold women by carrying around the most expensive food dishes and women's clothing that the men can afford, as well as pictures of their domiciles. Women constantly engage these men, trying to get the goods, but the men rarely give in to the begging without receiving sexual acts. Some women who are unable to eat, dress, and live well resent being treated this way and insult the men as they walk by. They catcall the men with taunts like "nice wine rack," "check out that butt steak," "the bedroom drapes match the carpet," and "shake that booty." Some women attack the men, steal the food and clothing and sneak into men's houses. A few men are even murdered. Men are traumatized and called "survivors." There is great societal pressure against this stealing, and these women are punished severely. Men do everything they can to increase their financial power. Women are not allowed to make money. Food dishes and clothing become more enticing, and digital photography increases demand for better housing. Men apply perfumes that smell like cinnamon rolls, ginger chicken, and baked halibut with pesto. Also, technology develops sex toys that many men find preferable to women. Men can live without women. This greatly increases men's economic power over women. Food, clothing, and lodging require more exotic sexual acts from women. Masculinists stoke the perception of the great victimization of men. Holding men responsible for anything is blaming the victim. All of the behavior of all women is blamed for the economic crimes. More and more of women's behavior is penalized. Confused or inconsistent testimony by male "survivors" is considered proof that the men were abused. Women who bother co-workers for food at work are guilty of harassment. Women are punished for telling food jokes. Women are prosecuted for robbery if the men they gain food, clothing, or lodging from have had any alcohol. Affirmative consent laws are introduced and women have to get explicit permission before each bite of food. False accusations of robbery are common. At the risk of losing their funding, colleges are forced to institute kangaroo courts that cut due process for women accused of robbery. The Clery Act requires colleges to report all incidents of robbery. Of course, this imaginary scenario of men abusing their economic power is absurd and outrageous. Of course, the reality of women abusing their sexual power is just as absurd and outrageous, but it is real.
Do you have empathy for these women who are abused by men and their dominant financial power in this imaginary scenario? If you do, and you still do NOT have similar empathy for real men abused by women and their real dominant sexual power, then you have some sexism issues to resolve.
Can anything be done to mitigate this situation? Can we do anything to reduce women's sexual power? After all, much of women's sexual power has a biological basis. But, again, biology is not destiny. For example, MGTOW men have fought their biology in order to avoid women. It can be done. Much of civilization has resulted from people fighting their biology.
Here are a few suggestions.
Of course, first of all, we need to stop this nonsense that male sexuality is criminal and/or horrible. If men did one-hundredth to female sexuality what women and feminists have done to male sexuality, women would be raising hell. But because men are chivalrous and women have whined and complained about every little slight and injected men with a ton of unwarranted guilt, we have this situation now where all of male sexuality is horrendous and potentially criminal and men are not complaining or fighting back. We are to the point where a woman, at any time, could accuse any man of sexual crimes---even a third-party woman could do this. It is ridiculous and has to stop.
Women need to tone down their sexual appearance. Men need to demand this. Women do not need to wear burqas, but they do need to wear looser clothing that covers. And cut way down on the makeup. Save the sexual outfits for when you're on the kitchen floor with your husband. The rest of us don't need to see it.
As I said earlier, women are cowards when it comes to sexual initiation. They cannot handle rejection. As a result they put out a very sexual appearance to get men to handle all of that and to keep women in a superior position. Women need to initiate a lot more. They need to initiate half of the time. Men need to demand this. (Perhaps women could initiate January thru June, and men could take July through December.) This would have many benefits. Women initiating would reduce their need to put out a sexual appearance. Men would not handle all rejection, which would lead to them objectifying women less. Since women are the far choosier gender, it makes sense that they do the initiating. Otherwise men will keep initiating with and bothering countless uninterested women, while women initiators are far more likely to meet with success. And women could show men how women would like men to initiate. Also, women experiencing rejection would encourage them to be nicer when they reject men. This would be quite egalitarian and I think it would work much better than the present system. I also suspect much of the unfair punishment of male sexuality will stop when some initiating women begin to be punished for similar offenses.
Men and women need to fight feminists' very unreasonable demands. Men are raised to be chivalrous, to give to and protect women. Women are raised to expect this. This has to stop. We need real equality, not feminists' rather selective "equality." Feminists have brainwashed us all to believe that feminism is about equality between men and women. This is nonsense. Feminism is about women's superiority over men. And misandry.
This is a start on what we can do to stop women's sexual domination over men. Let's start now. Please.
[1] http://www.aacd.com/proxy/files/Publications%20and%20Resources/Whitening%20Survey_Aug12(1).pdf
[2] www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/magazine/25desire-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
[3] www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18321031
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2786861/Hillary-Clinton-makes-awkward-joke-worn-charismatic-attractive-men-like-Obama-husband.html
[5] 9/1/14 PBS NewsHour, at minute 4:20
[6] http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/2158244015613107
[7] http://quillette.com/2017/04/18/laura-kipnis-rape-culture-disappearance-sex/
[8] http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-College-Sex-Bureaucracy/2…gr9cFpjWGtPZ3d2bHF4RFB2VGNiVW1iRHNTcXJVRi1jM0UxcVotY2tGVHVVWQ
[9] http://reason.com/reasontv/2017/05/09/laura-kipnis-unwanted-advances-title-ix
[10] www.ncherm.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/An-Open-Letter-from-The-NCHERM-Group.pdf
[11] https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/investigations/more/03132328-a.pdf
[12] Lawyers will argue that consent can enter into crimes like robbery or being mugged. For example, someone can take (borrow) my bicycle if I give him permission, or I can be legally mugged if it happens in the boxing ring with my consent. These rare and technical examples of consent seem far different to me from the very common, if implied, consent found in sex.
[13] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/09/the-bad-science-behind-campus-response-to-sexual-assault/539211/
[14] https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/06/11/sexual_assaults_broken_system_of_justice_134162.html
[15] https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2017/07/28/betsy-devos-right-sexual-assault-cases-due-process-kc-johnson-stuart-taylor-column/493320001/
[16] http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/
[17] http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/a_look_at_teacher-student_sex.html
[18] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/monkey-business.html?_r=0
[19] https://thetab.com/us/columbia/2016/10/01/i-was-reported-for-gender-misconduct-for-calling-myself-handsome-in-class-2611
[20] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/308844135
[21] https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/men-a0035915.pdf
[22] The Department of Justice reports that between 1976 and 1994, 78.5% of murders had known circumstances and 4,807 of these involved sexual assaults. (https://bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/SOO.PDF) This implies that there were approximately 6124 murders during sexual crimes during this period. Assuming 500,000 sexual assaults per year or 9,500,000 assaults over 19 years, gives a percentage of .064% (6124 out of 9,5000,000) of sexual assault victims were also murdered.
[23] https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k4rl5ynp42/econTabReport.pdf
