In Mala Fide

Eons ago, back when I was just a fringe player in the Roissy- and MRAspheres, commenter MMWW left this remark on one of my early posts:

Here is the irony.

The left is so bothered about the concentration of wealth into too few hands.

But has actively created the concentration of sex into too few males.

And, as most men would agree, they would rather be poor with lots of quality pussy than rich and celibate. Hence, an injustice all around.

Now, via PUBLIUS at The Shotgun, I got hold of this amusing fictional dialogue from libertarian writer Jeff Perren:

You: “Fine. Tell you what. Since quality sex is as vital to human well being as money or medical care, let’s establish a National Bureau of Prostitution, with a branch in every town in America.”

Progressive: “What? That’s ridiculous. Get serious.”

You: “I am serious. There are a lot of lonely, ugly, poor guys (and gals — let’s not be sexist) out there who aren’t getting any. Or, what they do get is below acceptable quality. [If pressed on the standard of 'acceptable' be very vague.] We need to improve their ‘access’ to quality quim.

“So, I propose we establish a tax to pay for prostitutes for them. Better still, since there aren’t enough good looking hookers to go around, let’s require some Hollywood babes to participate. ‘Voluntarily’, of course, unless they want to pay a fine or go to jail.

“Now, this being a government program, the time required will be minimal when the bill is passed, say only once per month. It will rise in a few years to once per week, then once per day. Sooner or later, half their time will be spent in the brothel. But that’s only fair, after all. They happen to be blessed with gifts that nature hasn’t granted everyone. So, they should do this, and if they won’t they should be legally forced.”

Progressive: “But, but, that would be pretty much the same as kidnapping and rape.” [Granted, I'm really exaggerating here, because no Progressive would ever make the connection. If government does it, on his/her view, it can't be equivalent to the crime performed by a private individual. Thus, for example, taxation can never be theft.]

It’s an interesting argument. Let me explain how it falls apart.

Perren’s logic in formulating his argument in favor of sexual socialism doesn’t take into consideration the state of feminism as an integral part of Western leftism. Lots of folks in the Roissysphere and MRAsphere have described feminism in various ways, but I think this sentence sums it up: feminism is about securing total, uncompromising autonomy for women in every sphere of life. This has been tacitly admitted by feminists at various points in time – take these excerpts from the “Sluts Against Rape” manifesto that I trashed back in October:

This piece from the Women’s Direct Action Collective reflects my belief that a woman should be able to dress, act and live her life exactly as she wants and not be persecuted or prosecuted for it.

We are feminists. We call ourselves “Sluts Against Rape” because we believe that a woman should have the right to be sexual in any way she chooses and that she is never at fault for rape.

Another example of this includes the unstated legal contention that “women don’t lie about rape,” a contention that has been debunked repeatedly by the fine folks at The False Rape Society:

First, a little context, which is crucial to what I am about to tell you.  When a female — any female – reports she was raped, how do police discuss it?  They call her “the victim,” and they tell the local newspaper reporter that they believe a rape occurred. This is so even if the alleged victim claims three, four, or five men raped her — and each of the men deny the claim.  This is so even if evidence exists that will clear the suspects, but the police haven’t bothered to examine it yet.  The men are locked away in jail, no questions asked, and bail is set sufficiently high to insure they won’t get out before trial, or before she recants.  The police would never, ever, ever dream of telling a newspaper reporter that they are examinng the claim to determine who is lying, the accused or the accuser.  There is no question who is lying: the accused, of course, because a female has accused him of rape.

Newspapers go with the story just as it was given to them by the police by reporting in this manner: “Police say a 17-year-old woman was raped outside her dorm . . . .” Television reporters often describe the “rape” in the most ominous, scary tones they can conjure up. They will find some young women to intervew who will say how frightening it is that there are men out there like “that.” It is not uncommon for reporters to call the accuser ”the victim.”

When a female accuses a male of rape, the rush to judgment to declare that a rape occurred — by police and the news media – is often made on the basis of no evidence aside from the female’s accusation, which is often far-fetched.  Too often, as we see on this website every day, the female’s report turns out to be a lie.

We see this goal furthered in the portrayal of men in popular culture as weak-willed dolts who couldn’t so much as feed themselves without their wives’/girlfriends’ intervention. We see it in family court cases where the mother is awarded custody almost all of the time and the father is burdened with crippling alimony and child support payments. In our society, the default position is The Woman is Always Right.

Now, guaranteeing free nookie for romantically underperforming men is consistent with the socialist program of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” However, much like the robots in I, Robot who had secret brains that allowed them to disobey the Three Laws, progressivism has built within it a secret core of feminism that can and does override the primary socialist programming at any time. Anything that infringes on female sovereignty is to be opposed, even if it is consistent with socialist logic. Hence, the thought of progressives accepting the concept of a “National Bureau of Prostitution” redistributing sex from the most privileged to the least is a ludicrous pipe dream.

There is an additional element to this conundrum – the fact that feminism regards sexually undesirable men as worthless. Roissy caught some flak back in October for his post explaining feminism as a “sexual selection strategy,” but I think he came close to the truth:

I propose, as an extension to this theory, that the absurdity of mid-20th to early 21st century feminism and all its adjuncts are better understood as progressively sophisticated emergent sexual selection strategies which act as social obstacles to filter out men who aren’t able to successfully navigate them. In essence, feminism is an advanced biocomputational Turing test; a giant social subcommunication roadblock devised and embraced by women and, at least in principle if not in practice, by alpha males intended to ensure the continuation of the hypergamous weeding out of lesser men who don’t possess the savvy to play by ever-shifting sexual market rules. Feminism is only superficially about female equality; at its core it is a ginanomicon of secrets to which only socially adroit men are privy.

If we accept feminism as an ideological movement aimed at giving women total sovereignty in life, including sexuality, Roissy’s thesis can be taken as a partial explanation. Sovereignty for women includes the ability to choose, without reservations, which men they will bed. We already know that the big beneficiaries in this regard are alpha males. So by extension, the only men who would lose when women gain autonomy (and win when women lose it) are betas. Therefore, it is assumed that all men who oppose feminism are losers in the sexual marketplace. Ilkka Kokkarinen puts it better:

…since feminist policies hurt marginal males, opposing them is an admission of being a marginal male…

Assanova states it more explicitly:

If you think about it, there are two types of men that feminism doesn’t benefit: beta males because they have no checks in place to keep all of the women from fucking alpha males, and inexperienced men that get married without considering the repercussions of divorce and end up getting financially screwed over.

What I can’t understand, is why would any attractive man be against feminism and the rights of women. If you really look at it, if you’re an attractive guy, you only benefit from feminism.

And from another Assanova post:

The only reason I can think of why any man would hate [feminism], is because he’s either been fed a one-sided view, or he is a complete loser.

Finally, Thursday sums it up:

Alpha males have, of course, made out like bandits. They frequently get the benefit of multiple consecutive or concurrent relationships with various women. If they want to settle down, they rarely have much difficulty in finding a long term mate. Of course, if they try to hang on too long, they do risk ending up alone or with some lesser female in the end, but if they are smart they can end up with the benefits of both easy sex and committment.

Last week, I straightened out a commenter who thought that “the only real solution I see to reverse feminism is for sexual alphas to refuse to fuck slags…” by pointing out that men are incapable of unifying when it comes to women. What I didn’t explicitly state, but probably should have, was that feminism has done nothing but benefit alpha males. Why the hell would they oppose a system which is set up to cater to them? The men who have lost out under feminism, the betas, are men who women categorically reject as sexual partners except as a last resort. Since feminism dictates that female sovereignty is more important then anything else, the sexual needs of loser men, infringing on that sovereignty, have zero merit and therefore don’t need to be addressed by government action. To be celibate is to be an untermensch in the New Girl Order.

Recently, FeministX characterized me as “venomous towards feminism“. I responded in the comments:

To clarify, my brain is “venomous towards feminism.” My dick loves feminism and can’t get enough of it. Unfortunately, my dick hasn’t yet figured out how to use a keyboard and mouse.

If my penis ever does learn how to use a keyboard and mouse, In Mala Fide will turn into the most rabidly pro-feminist blog that ISN’T written by a woman. While I’m not anywhere close to the leading alphas of the Roissysphere, my knowledge of seduction has allowed me to live a more hedonistic lifestyle then most men will ever get to experience. My intellectual horizon is greater then my carnal lusts, though, and I realize that the ideology that enables my actions has done untold damage to the fabric of civilization. Unfortunately, we’re so far past the point of no return that nobody remembers what it looked like when we passed it. Perren’s concept of sex redistribution, despite its outward appearance of socialist conformity, has no chance of convincing any progressive worth a damn.

Tags: Assanova, FeministX, I Robot, Ilkka Kokkarinen, Jeff Perren, MMWW, PUBLIUS, Roissy, Roissysphere, Sluts Against Rape, The False Rape Society, The Shotgun, Three Laws, Thursday

This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 at 6:13 am and is filed under Feminism, Men's Rights, Sexuality. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.