Feminism and Sexual Solipsism

[SirJamesIII]

A common thread amongst feminist thought is of course the objectification of women. While I agree that the systemic sexualization of the female body has unnecessarily affected the self-esteem and consequently the lifestyles of many women, I tend to disagree that the sexualization of women is a result of appealing to aggressive male sexual behavior. Since most marketing is targeted towards women due to the fact that women control most consumer spending, the supply of hyper-sexualized ads is mostly determined by the consumer behavior of women. From personal experience, I rarely see sex being used to sell beer (at least not anymore), cars, or electronics, while sex is used liberally for marketing in the garment industry. While the common stereotype is that men are easily manipulated by sex, from a marketing point of view, it is women who are most vulnerable to sex in marketing. A PSS study showed that women's response to sexually charged ads depended on the perceived worth of the product being advertised. The cheaper the product, the more distasteful the woman will find the ad. Sex is quite a useful tool in this light because sex is desirable to a woman if it is rare and special. Sex in ads can convince women that a certain product is special and therefore desirable. Of course this can't be the case for all sex in marketing. A woman still has to be able discern, which products are valuable and which are not. Less valuable products may still attempt to use sex to appeal to women, but if the product does not accurately represent her contrived ideal forms of sex (namely being rare and special), then she will not be persuaded by the ad. 

 

I don't think these observations entail a "ha I told you so" moment towards feminists since I do think the sexualization of women today is detrimental to the state of women in society. But it does run contrary to the mainstream neo-feminist agenda. It is not only men who are responsible for degrading women, but also women themselves. This is no surprise because in traditional courtship settings, it is common for women to try to decrease the value of other women to make themselves more appealing in the sexual market. The sexualized world of female consumerism has institutionalized this behavior. Women can assess the value of each other by seeing who has all the trendy products and who does not. To me, this is practically cannibalistic behavior since the average man doesn't actually care much for these things. But the trend is that men's tastes are actually drifting in that direction, at least among young men who are slowly becoming feminized. Would I face social pressure if I dated a girl who wore skirts below the knees and never wore heels as opposed to a girl who wears American Apparel? Of course I would. 

 

The return on investment from female beautification with regards to being found desirable by men is horrendous. The beauty/garment industry only has contributed to hostility among women competing against each other in the sexual market. "Slut-shaming" has created a way for women who are insecure about the lack of return from beautifying themselves to black-list women who attempt to figure out the sexual preferences of males directly. Or "slut-shaming" may be used by women who dominate the sexual market to fend off competitors. From what I can see, there is definitely a "beauty bubble" where there is a severe misallocation of sexual goods and services. Essentially plenty of people who should be in relationships and having sex are not because there has been too much investment in certain sectors, which result in overvaluing certain goods. Women purchase these goods with the expectation that they will be rewarded but they are not because there is mismatch between the value of these goods and the preferences of men. The state of black women in society is a shining example of this. I remember walking in Harlem and stopping by a beauty store on Malcom X Blvd just because I was curious. Never mind the fact that there are dozens of stores dedicated the beautification of black women in the area, if you just take a minute too look around, you will be in awe of the variety. Black women have had incredibly bad luck in the sexual market. No one wants to marry them anymore. Black men have been distanced from black women. There has been a vicious cycle between phasing out the black man's role in the family through welfare and black women trying make themselves appealing to black men when the economic incentives imply that it is better for black men to stay away from marriage. 

 

Regardless if superficial tastes are shifting among men, acknowledging what men find sexually/romantically preferable is taboo. Those who participate in the MGTOW movement (men going their own way) are doing so because of economic incentives as well as the cultural aversion to prioritizing male sexual preferences. The MSM sees this as being a defect among men. Women are crying that all the "good" men have disappeared. But women have been conditioned by consumer culture to view men as products that have to prove their worthiness to women. To hell with the preferences of the man. All he wants is sex and it doesn't matter what shape or form it comes in. The entire rape-culture conversation is predicated on the fact that women's preferences about personal space are not being acknowledged by men. I'd maintain that women's sexual preferences are put onto a very high pedestal in society today. Women acknowledging the sexual preferences of men rarely happens. And it isn't just that a man can't find a decent handjob anymore. Men are just as vulnerable to unwanted sexual advances as women are. It just doesn't happen as often because women who initiate sexual acts are looked down upon. I have experienced many cases of women grabbing my ass (sometimes with both hands) and inebriated women trying to make out with me when I'm around my friends. I would never get any sympathy for complaining about this, although I tend not to make a big deal out of these situations anyway because I was never taught to project fear onto unwanted sexual advances since they do not always imply direct physical danger (and some people tell me that I do not respect myself for this reason). Women have not even come remotely close to acknowledging my sexual/romantic preferences. 

 

The story still being pitched to us is that we have to pay closer attention to women's sexual preferences. The Dworkinites point to porn addiction among men as a rise of men viewing women as sexual objects. Men have turned to porn because they haven't had their sexual preferences appreciated enough and they are frustrated with participating in a rigged sexual market that will probably end in financial ruin. Feminists complain that men don't see the woman behind the vagina meanwhile it is socially acceptable for woman to use dildos and vibrators to replace a man's sexual services. Men who use fleshlights are losers and hate women because they don't want to go out and get a real pussy. The arrival of cam girls and tumblr porn is proof that men desire a woman behind a vagina. Cam girls spend a lot of their time having normal every day conversations with their incredibly lonely viewers. People have turned to tumblr for porn so people can post their own amateur material and interact with other tumblr users who do the same. Tumblr has an appeal precisely because it brings personality to the table. 

 

Feminism has turned many women into sexual-solipsists. They even have smartphone apps, like lulu, which contribute to this anti-social behavior. They don't understand that each individual man wants to be treated differently than other individual men. The time and effort women put into attracting men does not ever get allocated towards figuring out what the individual man finds attractive. They all assume that he just wants "sex" because we're all hungry potential rapists.

 

So women dawn their "slut-costumes" (they aren't asking for sex of course. just like we can reasonably expect that someone wearing police uniform is just wearing a costume and not actually a police man) and they march onto the sexual battlefield. They get drunk so they feel less vulnerable and they pray that by the end of the night, the man who takes advantage of them is a "good guy." This is the current method that women use to attract men my age. I'm definitely not a victim blamer, and I certainly don't think these girls are "asking for it." But the issue is that they actually think this is responsible behavior. They think that this is how you attract a man. This is how you attract a sexual predator. Of course if the man who does take advantage of them is not a "good guy" then the woman can plausibly deny that she intended to have sex and could consent because she was drunk. Most of the time it doesn't get that severe, but they often blame beer goggles (That's also an excuse used by women when they cheat). Some women choose to attract men like this not just because they don't want to be vulnerable to cultural criticism, but more importantly, because they don't have to be vulnerable to criticism. But the costs of escaping this vulnerability are dangerously high. The whole feminism movement itself has to acknowledge the costs of playing the victim, especially since a lot of this victimization is entirely fabricated or misunderstood. 

[Holo Cene]

 But women have been conditioned by consumer culture to view men as products that have to prove their worthiness to women.

 

Males have been proving worthiness since the dawn of genders. Consumer culture might be manipulating it but it isn't conditioning it. 

 

Just one line that I think could be thought out more.

[SirJamesIII]

Males have been proving worthiness since the dawn of genders. Consumer culture might be manipulating it but it isn't conditioning it. 

 

Just one line that I think could be thought out more.

 

Of course. Key word is product. In an ideal feminist (although not actually feminist) world, women can shop for men like they shop for clothing. Apps like Lulu are proof of this sentiment. 

[Holo Cene]

Of course. Key word is product. In an ideal feminist (although not actually feminist) world, woman can shop for men like they shop for clothing. Apps like Lulu are proof of this sentiment. 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you but it can become a self fulfilling property. We can easily become enmeshed in a dialectic where we think we already know the truth, perhaps because of emotional biases caused by our histories. This of course is the danger in any philosophy and one that must be challenged at all turns. It might lead to emotional reactions, as opposed to logical solutions based on rational analysis and thought. 

 

Women are not these heartless beasts who objectify men, They are just as caught in the web as men are. She was once a child who through intimidation and violence and fear learned to follow the herd. I think this gets a little lost in the mix.

[King David]

I was walking past a woman (actually an attractive gal) in a busy pub one evening while out for libations, when she suddenly grabbed my package before I could flinch.  She smiled at me and then looked to her male friend and said, "he has a nice one".   I kind of objected, but in the moment it didn't really bother me. I know your question to me should be where I hang out; this was actually at a metropolitan professional work crowd joint.   Quite shocking I know.  Of course thinking about it that if I, or any guy were behaving  as ridiculous as that in a (decently) respectable public establishment towards random women, he would not have too many friends there to say the least. At the very least he would get thrown out, probably charged, and maybe even laid.KD

[SirJamesIII]

Women are not these heartless beasts who objectify men, They are just as caught in the web as men are. She was once a child who through intimidation and violence and fear learned to follow the herd. I think this gets a little lost in the mix.

 

I'm not describing a world all women want. I certainly hope that the majority of women don't want a world like that. I'm just saying there is a particular group of women (and some men) who are trying to create a world where there is no penalty for women who indulge in the heartless objectification of men.  

 

Personally I've only been objectified on rare occasions and it's not really an issue. I think sexual objectification gets blown up a bit. What has been more damaging to me personally, is the solipsistic attitudes women have about male sexuality. Women will prefer to stay blissfully ignorant, than to find out what men actually like. 

[Holo Cene]

I'm not describing a world all women want. I certainly hope that the majority of women don't want a world like that. I'm just saying there is a particular group of women (and some men) who are trying to create a world where there is no penalty for women who indulge in the heartless objectification of men.  

 

Indeed. It is a very sad situation.

[SirJamesIII]

Indeed. It is a very sad situation.

What is especially sad is that while we lament the condition of men in the post-feminist era, this does not bode well for women either. I think the state of black women currently is an omen for the future of all women to come. I think the MRM should focus more on how feminism hurts women. 

[PatrickC]

Fascinating read SirJames and very interesting thoughts.

 

What is especially sad is that while we lament the condition of men in the post-feminist era, this does not bode well for women either. I think the state of black women currently is an omen for the future of all women to come. I think the MRM should focus more on how feminism hurts women. 

 

Yes, I think it's probably going to be only men that can actually save them from this plight. Feminism is I suspect the most dysfunctional end of womens desires, in which men have been letting women get away with it for so long.

[Lians]

That was a very interesting post, SirJames. With the recent development of sex positive (sex+) feminism, sexual solipsism is starting to hit an all-time high. Not surprisingly, the rise in female insecurity is proportional to the increasing number of messages promoting sexual freedom. Sex positive feminism tries to curb this trend by, wait for it, blaming women's insecurities on men. It was feminists who first started promoting female sexual liberation and we can all see the results of that. They can't even acknowledge their own failure. You're bound to fail when you try to solve social problems by inventing a massive scapegoat. The intellectual myopia of feminists is really quite astounding.

 

Feminism is I suspect the most dysfunctional end of womens desires, in which men have been letting women get away with it for so long.

 

I suspect patriarchy was a conceptual construct invented for the sole purpose of psychological projection. Feminists reject what they consider to be negative aspects of their personalities by blaming the almighty patriarchy. Not competitive enough? Why that's men's fault. Feeling insecure about your body? Patriarchy!

[PatrickC]

The intellectual myopia of feminists is really quite astounding.

 

In many ways that's why I'm beginning to think feminists are not really the problem so much these days. They are just an effect of womens better natures allowed to go unchecked. And as you suggest, they cannot even construct a consistent or logical argument. I take the view like Stef did (Forest of blowjobs), in that both men and women are to blame and perhaps more so men. Insofar as men allowed women free reign with their preferences at the expense of their own.

[Holo Cene]

What is especially sad is that while we lament the condition of men in the post-feminist era, this does not bode well for women either. I think the state of black women currently is an omen for the future of all women to come. I think the MRM should focus more on how feminism hurts women. 

 

I think black women only exist as they do because of the welfare state. From what I have been told a similar fate has befallen British women in some sectors because of the reliance on government welfare. I think without the welfare women pretty much have to readjust the paradigm, simply because women's standards will have a monumental shift, because a) A lot more will be in the market for stable male providers, and b) The increase demand for providers will shift male tactics in courting. The point I made earlier about conditioning versus manipulating applies here, as the government wants to avoid the rebirth of the family and thus fuck with female preferences in mating choices. How they do this once welfare becomes an economic impossibility will definitely be something to see.

[SirJamesIII]

I suspect patriarchy was a conceptual construct invented for the sole purpose of psychological projection. Feminists reject what they consider to be negative aspects of their personalities by blaming the almighty patriarchy. Not competitive enough? Why that's men's fault. Feeling insecure about your body? Patriarchy!

From what I've learned reading feminist literature in college, there wasn't even a consensus among feminists in the 70s on whether patriarchy actually existed. Gayle Rubin, for instance, explained that patriarchy couldn't possibly be an explanation for all the hegemonic forces reigning over kinship relations. It was simply too narrow of a view. Rubin uses the term "sex/gender system" instead of patriarchy and that is what I use as well. Rubin even went out of her way to justify forms of pedophilia. This was definitely way before rape culture became all the rage. Feminists are far from what they used to be.

 

I'm curious on why you think sex-positive feminists have caused more insecurity among women. I'd think that to be the case of anti-porn feminists. Sex-positive feminists seem more focused on taking away definitions of female sexuality as opposed to imposing them. But I may just be referring to academic sex-positive feminists. From what little knowledge I have, sex-positive feminist bloggers focus more on how "patriarchy" controls female sexuality even when some earlier sex-positive feminists deny patriarchy outright.   

[fractional slacker]

What do you think of this? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fh0U08G-kWs&feature=c4-overview&list=UUs84giQmEVI8NXXg78Fvk2g

[King David]

In many ways that's why I'm beginning to think feminists are not really the problem so much these days. They are just an effect of womens better natures allowed to go unchecked. And as you suggest, they cannot even construct a consistent or logical argument. I take the view like Stef did (Forest of blowjobs), in that both men and women are to blame and perhaps more so men. Insofar as men allowed women free reign with their preferences at the expense of their own.

 

I hadn't had time to watch the program yet, but this view to me seems controversial.  This would imply that men have influence over women preferences, which I'm not so sure can be claimed in general.  It seems to me that women's peers are the ones who enable, promote, or deny her preferences.  At any rate, the current culture we are experiencing was mostly endorsed by baby boomer white knights, modern women, feminists, or whatever other subcategory of statist you care to identify.  As you gentlemen would know, it is not myself that would allow women free reign with their preferences at the expense of my own.

 

KD

[Lians]

From what I've learned reading feminist literature in college, there wasn't even a consensus among feminists in the 70s on whether patriarchy actually existed. Gayle Rubin, for instance, explained that patriarchy couldn't possibly be an explanation for all the hegemonic forces reigning over kinship relations. It was simply too narrow of a view. Rubin uses the term "sex/gender system" instead of patriarchy and that is what I use as well. Rubin even went out of her way to justify forms of pedophilia. This was definitely way before rape culture became all the rage. Feminists are far from what they used to be.

 

I wasn't implying conscious intent. Hell is a religious concept that allows people to psychologically split from their "negative" feelings. That doesn't mean a bunch of priests came together to purposely invent the concept.

 

I'm curious on why you think sex-positive feminists have caused more insecurity among women. I'd think that to be the case of anti-porn feminists. Sex-positive feminists seem more focused on taking away definitions of female sexuality as opposed to imposing them. But I may just be referring to academic sex-positive feminists. From what little knowledge I have, sex-positive feminist bloggers focus more on how "patriarchy" controls female sexuality even when some earlier sex-positive feminists deny patriarchy outright.   

 

This is a very good question. I'm not familiar with academic sex-positive feminism and I don't really care about it. Popular sex-positive feminists like Laci Green have a lot more influence over your average woman.

 

If you agree that female objectification and insecurities don't have anything to do with the evils of the patriarchy, then you already know that any attempt to scapegoat is not going to fix the underlying issue. It's going to make it worse. Let me give you an example.

 

Praying to God won't heal your toothache. It will, in fact, make the toothache worse because you're not going to look for alternatives. It's the illusion of having a solution that is dangerous. Now, praying is not directly harmful to your dental health, but if you try to rinse your mouth with acid, you're going to make things much worse. You're truly screwed if the illusion of an answer and a harmful methodology come in one package. I'd argue that this is exactly what's going on with sex-positive feminism.

 

The issue of insecurity is a matter of self-knowledge. If you have control over the supposed cause, you put in the work to make the gap between expectation and reality smaller. For example, you diet and exercise to lose weight. If you can't do that, the issue is a matter of self-knowledge. Additionally, trying to exercise control over something outside your circle of influence is irrational. Again, the problem is rooted in lack of self-knowledge. By blaming female insecurities on men, the media or whatever, sex+ feminists create an illusion of an answer.

 

Here's where it gets worse. Men also become more and more resentful because they're blamed for something they didn't cause. I don't know about you but I've never been asked by a woman about what I find beautiful. I never got to define any standards of beauty yet I'm blamed for their existence. How does your average man feel about that? How is he going to react? This, I think, is the root of the widespread male obsession with physical beauty. The pick-up artist culture arose to exploit female vanity and sexual freedom. Now women have to deal with men's passive-aggressive vengeance on top of being fed lies by their "sisterhood." This is the kind of corruption you bring about when you reject philosophy and choose to hold onto irrational beliefs.

 

I'd have a lot more sympathy for feminists if they weren't secular. There's a reason why I used religious metaphors to support my arguments. Feminists use the same arguments when they argue against religion. In addition to being intellectually myopic, they're also hypocritical.

[PatrickC]

I hadn't had time to watch the program yet, but this view to me seems controversial.  This would imply that men have influence over women preferences, which I'm not so sure can be claimed in general.  It seems to me that women's peers are the ones who enable, promote, or deny her preferences.  At any rate, the current culture we are experiencing was mostly endorsed by baby boomer white knights, modern women, feminists, or whatever other subcategory of statist you care to identify.  As you gentlemen would know, it is not myself that would allow women free reign with their preferences at the expense of my own.

 

Yes you're probably right KD, this might well be my most controversial point. But it's not without a great degree of thought mind. Relationships between men and women had been much more symbiotic in the past. Each gender was aware of the others needs and aware they couldn't let their own go rampant. The industrial age probably changed all that as people worked less hours and more efficiently. More resources were gathered and technology gave us more free time.

 

Men's seemingly innate desire to please women allowed them to ease up on previously established roles, because they were less critical for survival. Hence the birth of the nuclear family, which was probably the best development made, particularly for children. Except in the advent of two wars and a rising statism which easily gave into female demands. Not least because their demands were often easier to assuage than mens, until we had the birth of the welfare state and NHS. All of which were led by women's demands and partly by broken men from two world wars.

 

This was the beginning of the end of course as Holo pointed out earlier. The welfare state has now made men largely redundant from a symbiotic stance, except of course women still need men to get pregnant with. All the naturally honed desire men have for risk taking and resource gathering has become less and less rewarding, as women demand more and more from them.

 

Of course I'm generalising here to some degree. I certainly understand that you KD are far from allowing women this free reign of course.

[SirJamesIII]

Have you guys heard about this incident with this Nash Grier kid? It's pretty much what I was talking about in action. However, it isn't about men not having their preferences acknowledged, but that they shouldn't be allowed to have any all together.

 

http://www.dailydot.com/lifestyle/nash-grier-vine-youtube-sexist-video-backlash/

 

There are some mirrors of the original video. Admittedly, the kid is a bit immature and his expectations probably aren't going to guide him in the right direction. But that's shit culture's fault. 

[Guest Exceptionalist]

  Of course thinking about it that if I, or any guy were behaving  as ridiculous as that in a (decently) respectable public establishment towards random women, he would not have too many friends there to say the least. At the very least he would get thrown out, probably charged, and maybe even laid.KD

 

What do ya mean by decently respectable public establishment? Don't you just tossing adjectives arround that are to your liking? I'd suggest to stand up for yourself If nobody else does. I am inclined to not let a woman get off the hook for something that would be considered appaling or inacceptable if you as a man did it to a woman. This doublestandard is inherently sexist, cuz the sex is the determining factor for something to be considered right or wrong.

[King David]

What do ya mean by decently respectable public establishment? Don't you just tossing adjectives arround that are to your liking? I'd suggest to stand up for yourself If nobody else does. I am inclined to not let a woman get off the hook for something that would be considered appaling or inacceptable if you as a man did it to a woman. This doublestandard is inherently sexist, cuz the sex is the determining factor for something to be considered right or wrong.

 

This is a fair statement in theory, in practice however if there is booze, women, and men involved, I would second guess my impulse to attack a woman's behavior.  "Decently respectable establishment" means this was not at a bawdy house, or ecstasy rave party.  This was a downtown white collar booze distributor.  Socially respectable in almost all regards.

 

First off, this happened well before I had any misgivings about female worship, second off, the grab did not hurt me so I simply tried my best to ignore her and carried on my way.  I am not interested in drawing attention to myself, especially not that kind of attention.

 

KD