Thursday, February 9, 2017

Sexual frustration and resentment in the West and its connection to Islam’s violence toward women




Ely Harman says “There are some specific causal reasons to suppose that Muslims, and particularly recent immigrants from Muslim countries, are especially violent, criminal, and prone to rape and sexual assault.”

He lists three - tribalism, strict sexual morality and polygamy. On the last he says :

“A man in most muslim countries can marry up to 4 women. Of course, men who do, are typically older, richer, and higher status. This leaves a lot of younger, poorer, more impulsive men essentially shut out of the marriage market, frustrated, desperate, angry, and with a lack of legitimate options. Extreme measures are necessary to protect Muslim women from rape in Muslim countries. Turn one of these guys loose in a western country where they can mingle with bikini clad girls in a shopping mall and her male relatives aren't even around; forget about it... rape is practically a foregone conclusion.”

But isn’t that what’s happening in our culture ? Perhaps unprecedented in all human history we have men opting out of relationships with women, look at the Men Going There Own Way moments and others. Why ?

And elsewhere Roger Devlin notes that we more or less already an effective polyamourys society :

"What happens when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate for wives, but many women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a very few exceptionally attractive men. These men, who have always found it easy to get a mate, now get multiple mates. 
A characteristic feature of decadent societies is the recrudescence of primitive, precivilized cultural forms. That is what is happening to us. Sexual liberation really means the Darwinian mating pattern of the baboon pack reappears among humans. 
Once monogamy is abolished, no restriction is placed on a woman’s choices. Hence, all women choose the same few men.”

The french writer Michel Houellebecq in his novel ‘Whatever’ explicates how neoliberalism and capitalism has shaped our culture’s attitude toward sex :

“It's a fact...that in societies like ours sex truly represents a second system of differentiation, completely independent of money; and as a system of differentiation it functions just as mercilessly. The effects of these two systems are, furthermore, strictly equivalent. Just like unrestrained economic liberalism, and for similar reasons, sexual liberalism produces phenomena of absolute pauperization . Some men make love every day; others five or six times in their life, or never. Some make love with dozens of women; others with none. It's what's known as 'the law of the market'...Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society.” 

“In an economic system where unfair dismissal is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their place. In a sexual system where adultery is prohibited, every person more or less manages to find their bed mate. In a totally liberal economic system certain people accumulate considerable fortunes; others stagnate in unemployment and misery. In a totally liberal sexual system certain people have a varied and exciting erotic life; others are reduced to masturbation and solitude. Economic liberalism is an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and levels of society. Sexual liberalism is likewise an extension of the domain of the struggle, its extension to all ages and all classes of society. On the economic plane Raphael Tisserand belongs in the victor’s camp; on the sexual plane in that of the vanquished [...] Businesses fight over certain young professionals; women fight over certain young men; men fight over certain young women; the trouble and strife are considerable.” 

Arthur Brittan in The Privatized World traces this to :

“The death of the “oppressive” bourgeois family at the hands of the emancipation movements of the ’60s has given rise to unstable stepfamilies, no-fault divorce, teenage mothers, single-parent homes, abandoned children, homosexual “families,” unisex ideology, new sexual categories, and an increasingly isolated and frustrated individual delivered over almost entirely to his own caprices.”

Roger Devlin, again, explains some of this by way of hypergamy – The instinct that moves the females (of many species I would add) chose the males for their capacity to obtain resources; thus she can change mates at any time. Hypergamy is materialism plus opportunism plus selfishness. In the case of our species, women want to get married into a higher caste system or social group. He says :

“Our current informal polygamy is in fact a product of [women’s] choices far more than men’s, viewed economically, the function of monogamy is not to improve the condition of women at all, but rather to ensure that relatively poor men are able to father children.

The female tendency to seek provider-mates evolved long before the dawn of history,
What actually happens when a woman starts earning $100,000 a year,... she perceives men as providers (and hence potential mates) only if they are earning even more. 

When the feminist project is carried out, the majority of men do not get less-materialistic wives; they simply do not get wives at all.

There is still a boy for every girl in the world, but there is not a higher-status boy for every menopausal career girl who foolishly sacrificed her nubile years to achieving wealth and status for herself. These women, in other words, are victims of their own success; their lives are what they have made them.

The father, in his role as provider, had a duty to manage his family’s property for the long-term benefit of the family as a whole (including, of course, his wife). A man’s right to control the allotment of the wealth he himself produced was essentially tied to that obligation. Feminists, as usual, perceive only the man’s rights and not the responsibilities from which they derived.”




Woman are able to be as promiscuous as they wish as now they need not rely on men for livelihood,  they have the welfare State instead. Social anthropologist Robert Briffault’s  The Mothers theorizes the consequences of this  :
The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.
There are three important corollaries to Briffault’s Law:

Past benefit provided by the male does not provide for continued or future association.
Any agreement where the male provides a current benefit in return for a promise of future association is null and void as soon as the male has provided the benefit.
A promise of future benefit has limited influence on current/future association, with the influence inversely proportionate to the length of time until the benefit will be given and directly proportionate to the degree to which the female trusts the male.


Try this article from six years ago:Young women are becoming more promiscuous, with more sexual partners than men, researchers have found.

By the age of 21 they have had sex with an average of nine lovers – two more than their male partner.
And a quarter have slept with more than ten partners in the five years since losing their virginity – compared with a fifth of young men.

But wait, studies have shown teens are actually having LESS sex ! And this is increased permissiveness and greater opportunity. So whats happening ? Well, obviously porn. But also what's called The Pareto Principle (also known as the 80/20 Rule) .You see it in offices usually - 80% of the women are trying to get with 20% of the guys. 

 From the NYXs Tierney Lab blog, Roy Baumeister, evo psych god, in 2007:

This of course, now that marriage has broken down and promiscuous sex is destigmatized, there is no longer a mechanism to socialize and assure access to sex for most men. This leaves a huge portion of men outside in the cold, bitter, angry, sexually frustrated, their minds addled and warped by pornography, and with a great deal of pent up rage.

 In her article, “Where Have All the Good Men Gone?,” Kay Hymowitz writes ,

“...one key question won’t go away: Where have the good men gone? Their male peers often come across as aging frat boys, maladroit geeks or grubby slackers.”

She relates that on some college campuses the vast majority of guys are home alone in there dorm.

Hymowitz is right. Women now surpass men in college degrees by almost three-to-two. Consequently, there are more college-educated women in the workforce than men and young 20-something women out-earn their male peers. To quote famed feminist Gloria Steinem, “women are becoming the men they want to marry.”

There’s good reasons for this, Devlin once again :
a woman does not have to think about a man’s qualifications to be a father to her children if a pill or a routine medical procedure can remove that possibility. There is no reason to consider carefully the alternative between career and marriage if motherhood can be safely postponed until the age of forty ...What we have here is not a clear gain in the amount of choice, but a shift from one sense of the word to another—from serious, reflective commitment to merely doing as one desires at any given time. 

it makes the experience of love one of repeated failure. Those who reject both committed marriage and committed celibacy drift into and out of a series of what are called “relationships,” either abandoning or being abandoned. The lesson inevitably taught by such experiences is that love does not last, that people are not reliable, that in the end one has only oneself to fall back on, that prudence dictates always looking out for number one. And this in turn destroys the generosity, loyalty, and trust which are indispensable for family life and the perpetuation of our kind.

We are, indeed, protected from certain risks, but have correspondingly little to gain; we have fewer worries but no great aspirations. The price we pay for eliminating the dangers of intimacy is the elimination of its seriousness.

In place of family formation, we find a “dating scene” without any clear goal, in which men and women are both consumed with the effort to get the other party to close options while keeping their own open.

Parenthood is what really forces young men and women to grow up. Young men whose idea of the good life was getting drunk, getting laid, and passing out suddenly start focusing on career planning and building capital. They find it bracing to have a genuinely important task to perform, and are perhaps surprised to find themselves equal to it.

The Free Northerner acknowledges that Suzanne Venker has been saying this for years  Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families — it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.
It’s all so unfortunate — for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

And over at the  Whiskey’s Place :

“If you incentivize douchebaggery, you get douches. If you incentivize decency, you get decency. If being a decent fellow gets you a broken heart and being a douche gets you blown by young co-eds, any rational man is going to be douche.
So, we have more douches who fail to do anything useful for civilization because who cares? when being an ass is enough to get you sex. We have fewer decent guys willing to pick up the burden of civilization because all it gets you is heartache and loneliness.

they choose SEXY EVERY TIME just about. Leaving really, zero incentive for men to “man up” as she puts it. There are other factors at play, including a re-jiggering of the economy to put most jobs done by men by outsourced or H1-B visa holder cheaper replacements, the growth of female-dominated (and White male unfriendly) government, fashion, advertising, media, and corporate jobs. But the heart of the reason most White men in their twenties remain slackers is that women choose sexy men over responsible men. And only a very few men (usually less than 10% of the population) can be sexy.”






But what can you expect in our pornified culture where short term gain and hedonism rules ?

Bruce Charlton suggests the only solution is religion: 
“My feeling is that the debate about how to maximise happiness will always drift towards short termism and selfishness, which represents the low risk strategy for life.

The only groups of people who pursue a long-termist and dutiful but positive approach to sex are devoutly religious people such as (especially) Mormons – who are motivated in this by transcendental goals – i.e. they are seeking salvation (for themselves and others) rather than to maximize happiness.

Also, discussions of sex need to be grounded in discussions of reproduction. When, as now, the two subjects are *completely* dissociated (e.g. the people who have the most sex generally have the fewest children), then society must be in deep trouble – as of course we are.”

Finally, Bruce Charlton claims ONLY the religious can resist be a sex addict, in his essay HERE :

“Now, the religious are the only people who explicitly recognize sex for what it is - a vastly powerful force, a potentially overwhelming addiction, the major source of personal energy; thus something that must (if it is not to take-over) be shaped and clarified.

Hence the sex addicted majority regard the sexually-constrained religious minority as being sex-obsessed!

After all, if you are not religious, then what is there to worry about if sex does take-over everything, and if everybody (of all ages) does live 24/7 in a sexualized environment?

Indeed, the non-religious are grateful for their sex addiction - sex is what gets them up in the morning, dressed, and makes them go to work, and do work, and then leave work to socialize; sex makes them take interesting holidays and talk about them; sex keeps them smart and active and sociable.

If it wasn't for sex, most people would utterly lack effective motivation and would probably do nothing - they would have nothing to live-for...

 Not many people now live outside of this bubble of sex addiction; and the contrast is not between the sexually active and the celibate (most celibates are part of the world organized around sexual motivations); but between the world of sexual addiction and the family.

That is the polarity: sex-addiction versus the family

Thus the family has become the primary religious unit, and the primary anti-radical force.

The hippies were correct: a life organized around sex is the primary counter-cultural force, the force most profoundly and most powerfully destructive of society.

Hence destruction of the family has become the primary focus of nihilistic secular Leftism - at first covertly, but now explicitly. 





No comments:

Post a Comment