“Marital Rape” is an Oxymoron

The following is my response (edited for clarity) to an invitation to post why a woman, such as myself, might be against Feminism. I certainly can’t speak for all women, however, of course, I couldn’t resist:

I have some friends who are feminists and they’re not all bad. They’re just sort of easily swayed and confused. They’re adorable, really. Just please, don’t put them in charge of anything. Might I suggest handicrafts?

For example, it is really fun to get together with a bunch of women and instead of competing with each other, find common ground. There’s always singing, making a quilt, marching, bashing men…

It turns out however that women are so different that there is hardly any actual common ground unless we’re talking identical quintuplets raised together in the same little town all their lives. However nowadays, they’d probably all insinuate that one had more wrinkles than another or that one had perhaps gained a bit of weight or other reflections on moral weakness. Pathetic.

For example, some women think that women have been historically oppressed that is by not being permitted by law to walk around naked when in some societies in the world, there are men walking around naked or nearly so. They fail to realize that biology doesn’t magically respond to diktat. Of course, if you put someone in a room and repeat slogans to him or her constantly, while applying electricity to the genitals, well, anything is possible. Feminism is like one long sustained torture campaign to minimize biology and instead cause a mass psychosis.

While men easily form hierarchies and get stuff done, women tend to “minimize differences” in terms of a “we’re all equal” mentality in order to attempt to tone down the catfighting.

Catfighting is a sign that there are in fact perceived differences!

So, let’s pretend that they don’t exist.

o/~ All women are beautiful.
Whatever they do or don’t do.
Whatever they say or don’t say.
Whatever they buy or don’t buy.
They are all special and wonderful and honest and true and special and beautiful and did I say, beautiful too? ~/o

And it is so true.

After being gone from the U.S. for only six years I noticed that now all retail salespersons call me “Miss”.

Instead of being almost 53, In the world of retail, I am only 15, an ingenue, with peak sexual market value but no experience in the world. (The truth is, I had more experience in the world at 15 than most Western Women in their 50’s.)

Feminists are also confused! They want to be protected for their fair, frail, and delicate natures but yet want to be called “equal” and “empowered”. They demand equal pay for equal work but yet expect more time off and fewer working hours and lower standards and requirements!

In my perfect utopia (LOL), there would be strict gender differentiation on a legal, social, and civic level; however, every 20 years or so citizens would have the option to switch genders regardless of equipment with a few caveats:

1. Men are not allowed to get pregnant. If you want to be a “Man” you’ll require mandatory, monitored implanted birth control unless you can prove that you don’t need it.

2. Women cannot vote or hold elected office. Sorry. I realize that there are plenty of qualified exceptions but fail to see on balance that letting every little girl get on the happy/equal/homogenized bandwagon is best for society.

3. Men are eligible for the draft.

4. Ladies first. Unless there’s some sort of war or emergency where this is not practical, all gentlemen should allow a lady to pass first.

5. There is no longer such a thing as “marital rape”.

And so on.

This silly post, predictably, triggered a transwoman who was apparently traumatized by stories within her family about husbands raping wives to the extent that she is now a walking bundle of misandry. Read that sentence again.

Of all the things to seize on, the only point on my list of rules that caught her attention was that in my little utopia (and if you read any more of my blog you’ll probably pick out the irony in that notion) a married woman would not be empowered to march over to the civic and legal authorities (subsidized by taxpayers and private enterprise) and have her husband arrested for raping her. By “rape” I am referring to sex that is not consented to at the time that it occurs. I am not referring to violent injury which is covered by other laws.

The simple reason for this is that in order to power the survival of any community, young men need to be motivated to exercise their productivity for benefit of that community with the overriding motivation for that exercise (all rhetoric to the contrary) to be the hope that they too might start their own little dynasty which of course starts with a woman willing to merge her reproductivity with his productivity.

Under Feminism however, the overriding motivation of all productivity is to avoid penalty of law because the women are not only unbearably obnoxious but have all sexual rights enforced by the state. This is the stick approach, rather than the carrot.

The transwoman who was triggered by my own ideas of utopia (which of course are not in the least unique to me) rejected her own masculinity by having her body altered in some way in order to become a female staff member at a rape crisis center, whereupon she can now police marriages and all sexual and romantic relationships to ensure that no sex is going on that doesn’t meet her approval. This is her entire modus operandi. I find that particular irony so hilarious I would have been speechless, had she not gone after a male defender of my notion with the “lady” using very specific “rapey” language, which I won’t reproduce here but let’s just say it was threatening and graphic. I’ll reproduce my own responses to her comments here, edited for clarity:

Feminists like to juxtapose themselves against traditionalist or trad/con women whose values were born in the 1950’s, which, of course is a really long time ago, back when dinosaurs roamed the earth. However, when convenient, they’ll jump right into political bed with them, for in fact, their origins are the same—gynocentrism meets B.F. Skinner.

I am opposed to forcible matrimony. Marital rape, however, is an oxymoron. I can see however where you (the transwoman) get your misandric views. One bad man = all men are bad and therefore all men (and women) must have their sexuality policed by the state to make sure that they are doing it right.

Thanks to Feminism, a woman is unable to make a contract with a man bartering her “excess reproductivity” and sexual market value for his “excess productivity” (Karen Straughan’s terms) and call it “marriage.”

Only Female sexual dominance in a relationship is considered “Politically Correct” by the “tolerant” set.

It is a shame but unavoidable that men generally put a higher value on sexual inexperience in a woman with whom they contract. However, that attitude often backfires. Both sexes, in my view, are capable of “The Old Double Standard”, commonly known as “Madonna/Whore” or “Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks” (therationalmale.com) a.k.a. “Hypergamy.” However, in my view, that is an immature attitude emblematic of the extended adolescence encouraged by Skinner’s Behaviorism in school, popular culture, and monotheistic religions. Rather, my interpretation of Carl Jung’s notion of sanity with regard to archetypes is to avoid becoming too obsessively specialized, that is, to balance one’s inner life/unconscious/irrational rather than to become a parody of a human being.

Feminism is great for homosexuals and transgenderism but not so great for heterosexuality, which, in my view, betrays its origins: “Rats-in-a-cage” eugenics by way of extended adolescence and thereby no sense of managing one’s own destiny resulting in eventual extinction, but with a possible intervening stage where the human genome is effectively split: a well-nourished Master race, and an expendable slave race, with tiers of scientifically engineered castes, and thereby no hope for ever reshuffling the deck, a.k.a., “the end of history.”

In terms of cultural survival, and wage preservation, I think that there’s plenty of rationale for at least majority sex role differentiation with room (and there has always been room) for some exceptions and some outliers, depending on how besieged or prosperous the culture. The notion of “equality” however is an intoxicant of the privileged. In nature, there are winners and then there are losers, with the latter being the bulk of us.