Thursday, February 14, 2008

Feminist Sluts

I’ve long been troubled by what I call the Demi Moore brand of feminism. This school of thought basically argues that what defines feminism is a woman’s ability to exercise choice. So if a woman chooses to be a slut, she can still be perceived as empowered as long as being and benefiting from being a slut is her choice and under her control.

I got into an argument over this issue some time ago with a woman on the Internet. I can’t remember which particular slut she was defending but her basic argument was the same – that the woman had chosen to express her sexuality in a particular way and that it was the reality of being able to choose that made her powerful and praise-worthy.

I admit that I don’t get it. Was a time that being considered feminist was antithetical to anything remotely slutty. Traditional feminists have historically condemned anything associated with the sexual exploitation of women, to include pornography, prostitution, and adult/child sexual relationships. They argued that such relationships were based on a power differential that disempowered and invalidated women. I had always thought that the message of traditional feminism was that women could be all that they could be, and not feel that they had to allow themselves to be defined or limited by their sexuality.

So you can understand my surprise over the popularity of “The Girls Next Door”. Three sluts move in with a rich old man who has made a fortune over the sexploitation of women – and they end up hailed as modern-day feminists exercising their right to choose.

Honestly, I thought they were just three common sluts.

But in nouveau-feminism, being a slut no longer means that one has relinquished one’s power to a man. On the contrary, like G.I. Jane, one can build up one’s muscles, endure all kinds of hardships, and end up having the financial last laugh. This business of having the financial last laugh is key. That’s the evidence of choice, of true empowerment.

And so it is that I am trying to wrap my mind around a new feminism that is able to embrace figures like Paris Hilton [an independent business woman!], Demi Moore [Ashton is her boy toy!], and Madonna [she sang on a cross!] as feminist heroes. What do they have in common? They worked hard for the money and are fully in control of it.

I suspect that this might all have started with Camille Paglia. I think she got us all confused, what with her strident self-promotion as an antifeminist feminist and antiliberal liberal. When she first burst on the scene, Miz. Paglia accused the women’s movement of betraying women and alienating men. In a 1995 Playboy interview, Miz. Paglia compared stripping to “a sacred dance of pagan origins”. She said that the money men stuff into G-strings is actually a “ritual offering.” That modern professional women hate strippers because sluts could outweigh all of their hard-won accomplishments just by flashing their tits and ass. She felt that “women should be free to choose”. “I want a revamped feminism”, Paglia once famously declared, “Putting the vamp back means the lady must be a tramp.”

Well Paglia’s dream has come true. We now have a new generation of independently wealthy feminist sluts who have become the models to which many girls now aspire. Is this really all that we can be?

4 comments:

Debz said...

Great article. So glad other people see this too. Thank you!

Brody said...

Girls everywhere and all you emasculated “men” who are trying so hard to be politically correct at the expense of your masculinity, listen up.

Men and women are equals. This does not mean that they are equal in every single thing they do. For example, men are, on average, physically stronger than women. It is much easier for a semi attractive (even a 6/10) woman to go out and get laid. The same cannot be said about men. Men have to work at it, have some skill (game) and thereby get a woman to sleep with them. It is a LOT harder for an equally attractive man to get women than it is the other way around. This is one of reasons behind why we, as a society, naturally celebrate men who are successful in bedding multiple women; while at the same time shame women who bed multiple men.

Let us briefly visit the topic of virginity from both perspectives. Virginity in a man is not a desirable state or label when it comes to an attribute that the opposite sex wants. This is because he has obviously not been preselected by other women. However, female virginity is not looked at negatively in the least by men. If she looks decent, no man cares if the girl is a virgin or not. In fact, a female virgin is often wanted more.

Now don’t get me wrong, men LOVE sluts. We will never turn down an opportunity to sleep with a good looking slut. Partly because she’s good in bed, partly because it’s sex. But any decently intelligent, self-respecting man will know that it is a terrible idea to emotionally involve himself (i.e. date) a slutty girl. That would be a very dumb move. Why would any man want to get emotionally involved with a girl who’s had 15+ sexual partners? We would just be setting ourselves up for failure. There are many nice worthy girls out there who don’t have daddy issues and haven’t slept with an entire fraternity house. But, by all means, fvck the brains out of sluts in the meanwhile.

Most guys can detect when a girl is a slut by the first few dates and by what he hears about the girl from other people and from the girl herlself. We put this information together and figure out if she is dating material or not. If not, I like most guys, will still go in for the prize but have no intention of following through with dating the dirty little tart.

To put it simply, a lock that can be opened by many keys is a useless lock and of little worth. But a key that can open many locks is a master key and is valuable.

Sarah said...

ummmm, no. You can't teach people not to rape. Plus rape is against the law and is not acceptable, But their will always be rapists, Just like their will always be thieves. You don't put a sign in front of your house saying "don't tell me to lock my doors, teach people not to steal." No, you lock your doors and protect your house. Same here, protect yourself and quit living in this fantasy where rape, murder, and thief are things that won't exist.

Rick said...

Back in the “good old days”, people got married. If they didn’t get married, they by and large didn’t have sex either. This applied equally to men and women. Infamous womanizers in those days were not looked upon kindly by society at large. For a bunch of them to get together to exchange tips and tricks for bedding women faster would hardly have been publicly tolerated. “Players” of the time, like the eponymous Giacomo Casanova, largely made their trade by seducing unsuspecting damsels with promises of marriage and then absconding into the night before their fathers found out. It was a dangerous Game back then.

Then came feminism and women’s “liberation” – these women, for some reason, felt that the old rules were not so much for their own protection as for the sick enjoyment of evil patriarchs who got off on oppressing women by making them submit to possessive patriarchal desires. A discussion of those claims will not be included in this article, because, frankly, I like to spend my time discussing things that make sense. In any case, these women wanted the freedom to have sex with anyone and everyone with impunity, and the evil patriarchs, being the sadistic bastards they are, gave the women exactly what they wanted.

Now, it was okay for a woman to be as big a slut as she liked, and consequently, it was also okay for a man to sleep with one without any designs for marriage. This opened the field for unapologetically professional players. Those men who found the lifestyle of a serial conqueror alluring could now practice their craft with impunity, and “liberated” women were available in ample supply to give them all the practice they wanted.

Now, “The Game” was truly born. Regular Joes could avail themselves of the practically inexhaustible slut supply of their home cities without having to run from shotgun-wielding fathers while doing their day jobs on the side. Players’ reputations could spread, and they could find each other and network, and no one had anything to say to that. The “seduction community” was formed.

Wherever information gathers, innovation will flourish and scientific progress will accelerate. So, too, in the seduction community – it didn’t take long before its pooled talents had distilled the process of getting into a girl’s pants into very pure and very effective forms. Armed with unprecedented tactical knowledge, players of a new breed never before seen flowed forth into the streets, bars, nightclubs and grocery stores.

Before the new breed of trained players, women were rendered powerless. The sluts and the shy girls alike fell before the might of the industrially optimized players – right onto their beds with their Birkenstocks in the air.

Women are slowly starting to wake up to the fact that it’s getting difficult to secure commitment from men any more. Not all of them are ready to face the fact that giving the milk away for free isn’t the greatest way to sell the cow, and even those who face facts can do little about the abundance of free milk available to any man willing to learn Game.

What women really ought to do if they want to make men commit again is push for the reversal of their original “liberation”, but I’m not holding my breath for that one. What they are doing instead is further shooting their own gender in the foot with dating advice that’ll guarantee a lonely cat-filled future.

The feminists made their bed, and now their daughters lie in it with men who won’t remember their faces a month and ten more girls later.

Oh, and if any of the women I refer to as “sluts” here take offense, it’s wholly unjustified, because – haven’t you heard? – “slut” is now an empowering, positive term!