Thanks to TrevorGoodchild on Gab, I was made aware of this long but very good post on the female perspective of the modern radioactive wasteland that is the current era in terms of social interactions.
One of the most insightful passages was this:
Feeling alienated from your body, disliking the male attention your body invites, secretly feeling a kind of thrill when your beauty benefits you, enjoying the power you hold over men: these are feelings girls commonly experience as they transition to womanhood.
In a healthy society, young girls eventually come to terms with these complex and somewhat contradictory feelings. This is not the case today. Today, young women are rewarded most for acting on their most pathological impulses. Platforms such as Instagram and OnlyFans incentivize some young women to profit from the male gaze to the detriment of their future well-being. On the other hand, for young women who feel alienated by their sexual desirability (or lack thereof), there exist a plethora of alternative online communities like FTM or pro-eating disorder spaces that offer young women refuge from the male gaze, while offering them emotional support and subcultural status.
What is not at all encouraged is coming to terms with the complex feelings womanhood induces within young girls, coming to terms with that mix of terror and thrill. This process is entirely disrupted by modern social norms. Why? Because sexual norms today skirt around one obvious, horrifying fact: women like being sex objects. That eighteen year old on OnlyFans? She’s not motivated by entrepreneurial drive, economic desperation, patriarchal socialization, or any such external factor we may want to point to. No, she simply likes the idea of being a hot commodity, of being so sexy that men would pay to see her. She likes being a whore. Acknowledging women’s innate desire to be sexualized, to be objectified, is sacrilegious; it is a truth conveniently avoided by both feminists and traditionalists alike. Instead, they posit that women’s behaviour is entirely downstream of that of men’s, that if men didn’t desire women so much, that if they stopped watching porn, stopped “objectifying women,” stopped having sex outside of marriage, that all sexual degeneracy would disappear. And so, male sexuality is criminalized, and female sexuality is conveniently ignored. And while this set of social norms preserves a rosy, hapless image of women, it harms young girls through its complete lack of social regulation of feminine sexual impulses. If you do not restrict female sexual impulses, what you get is a race to the bottom, with young girls intensely competing with each other for sexual attention. A lack of common sense limitations leads to a rise in things like unnecessary plastic surgeries, the proliferation of photoshop, hypersexual online personas. The digital landscape is flooded with images of inhumanly beautiful women. Intense sexual competition has adverse effects on other young girls by either encouraging them to adopt such behaviours, or by alienating them from womanhood entirely.
“Male fantasies, male fantasies, is everything run by male fantasies? Up on a pedestal or down on your knees, it’s all a male fantasy: that you’re strong enough to take what they dish out, or else too weak to do anything about it. Even pretending you aren’t catering to male fantasies is a male fantasy: pretending you’re unseen, pretending you have a life of your own, that you can wash your feet and comb your hair unconscious of the ever-present watcher peering through the keyhole, peering through the keyhole in your own head, if nowhere else. You are a woman with a man inside watching a woman. You are your own voyeur”
.—Margaret Atwood, The Robber Bride
Ultimately, what growing up means for girls, is coming to terms with the male gaze. The male gaze, contrary to the popular feminist conception of it, is not a product of patriarchal society. Rather, the voyeur in your own head is a native facet of feminine psychology. The voyeur in your head is awareness of your desirability, the power it holds, the danger it can bring; this awareness is crucial for women to have as they navigate the world around them.
And the most insightful sentence in that extract was this:
She likes being a whore.
That one sentence, in the context it was written, is, as the writer correctly identifies, the biggest taboo of the modern world. That admission can never be made in public without the person saying it being essentially cancelled as some kind of woman-hating, (internalised if you are female like the writer, of course) patriarchal pig/slave (depending on if you’re a man/woman) and so on.
Now, those men among us who had a past that involved being intimate with a rather high number of women, in a secularised context absent pretty much all religion of any kind, will know that pretty much every woman has that impulse somewhere in her make up. I’m sure there are exceptions, but they are generally not what one would refer to as “normal” women. Some may be the result of rape, sexual abuse, and so on. Some may be neuro-atypical and so on, as always, nothing is always all the same, there are always exceptions, but by and large, the average woman, has in her a “I want to feel like a whore” button. Some are more aware of it than others, of course, and some are unaware of it until a man flicks that button a few times expertly, but as I say, in most cases it’s there. It is, in essence, a normal biological aspect of femaleness, just like it is a biological aspect of maleness to like feeling like a conquering hero (or anti-hero, whatever, the conquering and winning part is what makes us feel alive).
Did you see that Sci-Fi film with Arnie called Total Recall (it’s badly based on a PKD story) but anyway when they are presenting him with a fictional fantasy holiday and they ask him what romantic partner he would like for his fantasy induced “holiday” and they say “be honest” he gives up and indeed says: “Slutty”.
Using the word all/every in the same context as above, i.e. a generalisation, it is simply a fact that every man wants a whore in bed and a lady outside of their bedroom (well, ok, home in general, maybe public toilets, secluded spots in parks, back of cars… you know what I mean!).
The ideal woman for most men is a complete slut in bed, open to all the sexual excitement and fantasies he might have, but… loyal most of all and forever to just him.
And the ideal man for pretty much every woman, is a man that is manly enough to make her want to behave like a complete whore in bed. But who has eyes only for her.
The ideal relationship for both sexes is one where the other partner inspires almost unbridled sexuality and sensuality for you, while at the same time confining it within the limits of your relationship.
Yes, I am aware that there are large (and growing) areas of the population where wife-swapping, cuckolding, orgies, multiple sex partners and other fetishes actually take place, but those relationships where those aspects of sex become a regular reality instead of remain limited to a private fantasy, invariably end in tears and tragedy. There are no successful “polyamorous” relationships or long term “throuples”. Every one of those perversions of the natural order of one man and one woman is not conducive to the maximum happiness for both. Some might be artificially sustainable, such as the practice of having multiple wives. Historically there are instances where powerful men or certain societies permitted men to have multiple wives, and such societies still exist and one could say “function” after a fashion, but the reality is that neither the man nor the women in those situation had reached their maximum potential for true, deep, lasting serenity, and that is for a very simple reason:
Maximum serenity is achieved when you have real, deep, intimate connection to another human being and that can only be achieved at its deepest and most pervasive level in an intimate relationship between a man and a woman.
Oh, you might touch aspects of it in certain fetishised moments of a relationship that is not classical of that kind. Certainly I have experienced in my pre-catholic days a certain level of sexual gratification/understanding with some women, that even though was at times simply limited to that singular or infrequent encounter due to the temporary nature of the “relationship” achieved a certain level of “understanding” or feeling of mutual acceptance without any judgement or however you want to label it, that it does achieve a sense of closeness, an aspect, if you will, of “love” or at least a facet of it. But one might make the same statement of perhaps a pair of serial killers finding a moment of “spark” as they hunch over their latest victim to cannibalise it. Yes, yes, you might have felt something that you might think is “deep” and insofar as your experience of life might go (you know as a serial killer, or serial slut (of either sex)) it may well have been the “highlight” to date of your connection with another human being, and because sex is so powerful, if you just had your third and most mind-blowing orgasm in a row while trussed up in some S&M position in your full gimp outfit and a livecam to your only fans only “enhancing” the thrill for you, you might think you have reached the pinnacle of human intimacy. But you have not. You may have touched bottom on a deep dive into some fetishism, specific degenerate thing or even wide-spread generic degeneracy, but true, deep, pervasive intimacy, you have not reached sir, or madam. And trust me, I speak from a rather extensive degenerate past and experience on the matter.
The level of human intimacy that truly calms and fills you with a genuine and pervasive experience of love, is only generated between one man and one woman. Instinctively we all know that from birth. As the ancient Greeks and others knew, there are various forms of love, and we can define different relationships on the basis of it, but the one that covers all of them the most is simply the one that is of a man and woman who choose a life together to make children and raise them. Anything else is a shadow at best if not a cruel parody that brings only misery (gay “marriages” and the accompanying child trafficking that results from gay “adoptions”).
Your relationship with a woman you are particularly compatible with sexually might feel fulfilling, and indeed such relationships usually last quite long if there is at least a baseline of other factors to support it, but amazing sex on its own will not do it, yet, in the modern era, the focus is on that first and foremost.
If you have daughters and are raising them and you are unaware of these facts, or worse, you try to ignore them pretending they are not realities, your daughters are headed for the rocks in the metaphoric navigation of life.
Acknowledging a girls’ natural inclinations due to her biological sex is required, as is required your duty as father to teach her how to avoid the pitfalls of her own biology. Just as you do with a boy you would raise. But as a man, raising a boy is easier, because firstly, we are simpler, secondly we are men, so we know what it’s like to be one, and thirdly, boys are generally responsive to plain logic and direct line of thinking. The pitfalls for both boys and girls are mostly handled by the same skill: The ability to regulate your own emotions. Difficult as it is for all human beings, the skill is generally a lot easier to achieve for boys. and once again, the reasons are mainly biological.
Female brain structure is physically different in some important aspects from male brain structure. Their hormones affect them and their thinking, mood, mind and brain to degrees that men can only imagine, but rarely experience outside of perhaps drug induced stupors.
Helping a young girl navigate not only the outside world, but her own biology and emotion-inducing hormones, is a far more delicate and complicated matter.
You do need to be aware of her biology and not demonise aspects of her that are natural things, but you also need to teach her to regulate these things in a way that leads to healthy and positive outcomes for her and steers her away from negative outcomes. And you also need to appreciate that for a girl or woman, the ability to control her emotions in a positive fashion tends to be far more restrictive. Historically every functioning society has known this, placing heavy and strict restrictions on female sexuality. And of course the feminists will tell you it was all to oppress women and so on, but the reality is that (as the article mentioned also points out clearly) women, left to their own devices tend to make horrifically bad decisions and civilisations tend to collapse in short order when this is the case.
An innocuous example might suffice.
In teaching self-discipline to my children, the approach with the boy, who is only 4, is very much simpler and direct. He’s been told eating too much sweets or say chocolate, or whatever is not good for him and we want the best for him and as a result he simply asks if he can have this or that and when he is told no, at most he asks why. Provided a clear explanation he accepts the decision most times. His little sister seeing him do this is more disposed to following suit… I say more disposed… not how much more… It’s a tiny amount. She will argue and try to pull a fast one a lot more than he does. My eldest daughter on the other hand is a complete choc-aholic. I was the same and even in my thirties and later I could eat three full chocolate slabs and think nothing of it. When I was swimming competitively as a teenager and living alone in the UK I survived on cheese and chocolate and random meals I microwaved. I was never fat, because I always moved and I have lucky genetics. She is very similar in this regard, but when I explained it is not healthy and she should not devour whatever chocolate is in the house (something she did like a thief in the night several times) and I finally put my foot down hard, far more on the sneaky way she had done it than the thing itself, the next time we went shopping and it was just me and her and I said should we get some chocolate, she said no. Surprised I asked how come. Her explanation was enlightening:
“Because I can’t really control myself if I know we have it in the house. So if it’s not there, at least I can’t go and eat it.”
The boy would simply be ok with not touching it until he’s told it’s ok to do so, or limit himself to one or two pieces a day or week or whatever we decided, but the girl realised her own will-power or discipline was not enough and so took steps to safeguard against her own known weakness.
That subtle but extremely important difference plays out throughout most of a woman’s life.
And returning to sex, because it is such a powerful force, if a girls’ (also natural) defences against being bedded are bypassed by some slight of hand/emotional manipulation/general social pressure, and then repeatedly so, her ability to bond deeply with another human being becomes scarred over by each encounter, making it progressively harder to make it a possibility.
Being aware of these things as a father is of paramount importance, and I am astonished at the level of absolute incompetence we see today in the parenting skills in general but especially of how pathetic so many men are at being fathers for their daughters.
I see comments from apparently fathers that ask things like: “What can I do? I mean the sex stuff is everywhere and my daughters dress like whores, but it can’t be helped, and where will they find a good man?”
Well buddy, short a miracle, they won’t because they never had one in the first place where they should have: Their home! You weakling, metrosexual, pathetic excuse for a father.
Seriously, the more I look at Clown World with a bird’s eye view, the more I realise that I was absolutely right ten years ago, some 3 years before I even got baptised, when I said that two things would be pivotal: Christianity (which I have since come to view as being limited to actual Catholicism i.e. 1958 Sedevacantism) and city states, because once the SHTF it will be communities that stick together that will resit and survive whatever evil wind comes their way.
I hope more and more people will see these truths soon, and that is happening, even if I know the numbers will never approach what my blue-sky tinted heart would wish.
But you never know; God does act in mysterious ways; and he does have a powerful sense of humour, after all: He made me a hardcore Believer.
This last piece from the article is another important point (emphasis added):
Why are young women today so deranged? Because no one is honest with them and they cannot be honest with themselves. Parents lie to you, teachers lie to you, friends lie to you, everyone lies to you. If anyone dares tell you the truth, they are ostracized.
There is the ultimate betrayal. Parents who lie to their children about reality. Life. Basic stuff. And many do so because they are so retarded and brainwashed themselves they honestly don’t know any better.
But many do it because of the fear of running against the grain. Of indeed, being ostracised.
Luckily for my daughters, I never gave a flying fornication at a rodent’s anus what pretty much the entire rest of humanity thought of me or if I was well-liked or feared or infamous. As a result, no matter how counter-narrative the truth may be, there is never any worry that they will not be told how two plus two is always, without any exception, forever and ever, four.
YES! Finally.
The Dark Herald finally says out loud what all sane people who read The Watchmen have knows for years and years, but that the prevailing narrative of leftydom has been pretending was not the case the entire time.
“The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout ‘SAVE US!’…and I’ll look down and whisper ‘No.” – Rorschach, Watchmen
Twitter decided to go into Goblin mode last week on the question of Rorschach and whether or not he was the real hero of Alan Moore’s Watchmen. I won’t be going into that question here because my colleague Literature Devil did a much better job of answering that at Fandom Pulse.
And by the way, the answer is YES, obviously. He was the only one that didn’t compromise with Ozymandius about his retarded plan to save the world by faking an Alien attack. This short bus idea was based on sci-fi scribbler and pedo Arthur C Clarke’s belief that if Aliens attacked Earth, we’d drop all our differences and unite against it, which anyone who has ever read a history book knows is utter drooling idiocy.
Rorschach was indeed, the only character who had the concept of honour and ethics, and above all, Justice. Pretty much all the fictional heroes I ever liked have that as their prime characteristic.
The old DC Heros RPG game used to have little index cards for each of the known characters of the DC Universe, and in it they had various attributes. Aside the usual Strength, Intelligence and whatever was an attribute that was I think called Primary Motivation (I could be wrong about the descriptor, it was a long time ago), anyway, pretty much the only comic book character I ever read at the time anymore was Jonah Hex, and his Primary Motivation was perfectly stated: Seeking Justice.
The other fictional graphic novel character I relate even more to, Dago, has really the same motivation, coupled with a really unhealthy curiosity and a decided lack of fear/wisdom about the kinds of things he ends up getting involved in because of that combination of traits, which in the case of Sago is a lot more fully developed since the character has been going for over 4 decades I think.
Batman was a poor substitute to me, since he never killed anyone, and that made no sense to me. The Joker tries to kill of (and usually does) bunches of people and Bruce Wayne just gives him a bit of a beating. What? Jonah Hex would have strung him up to the nearest tree and watched him choke out to make sure he was dead. Dago would have run him through with sword and dagger and kicked his gasping into the nearest open sewer.
And Rorschach.
As far as I am aware, only these three comic book supposed anti-heroes, ever really had an honest concept of Justice.
And it is funny to me that Alan Moore, the noted super-woke artist who plagiarised the character, in his attempt at making Rorschach into a crazed and bloodthirsty nut, failed so spectacularly that he didn’t realise that most normal people empathised with him the most.
There is, of course, another thing about Alan Moore, [Correction: it was probably Frank Miller my brother spoke of, since Sin City is his creation, but Moore and Miller know each other and are apparently friends] which my brother pointed out, as we both read most of his graphic novels, and that is that my brother recons (rightly in my opinion) that Moore has a very severe case of what is known as “Captain save-a-whore”. In some of the Sin City stories, the protagonist literally looks like Moore, disgustingly shaggy hair and beard and all, except he can fight; and of course, it’s some tragic whore-saving story.
Of course, I don’t know any details about Moore’s life at all, (or Miller’s and I enjoyed Miller’s works) nor do I care, but given how he looks, I can imagine how he might have gone about getting some intimacy and affection throughout his life. I’m just saying. After all, write what you know, eh?
No related posts.
By G | 20 January 2024 | Posted in Humour, Impostors and Frauds, Social Commentary