From Ross Douthat's meditation on the motives of the Santa Barbara murderer.
This tension between sexual expectations and social reality is a potential problem for both sexes, but for a variety of reasons — social, cultural and biological — it’s more likely to produce toxic reactions in the male of the species....Should sex-positive feminism be equated with Hefnerism? Pre-Clinton Era feminism had indulged quite deeply in the critique of sex, but that got submerged in what may have been a realistic accommodation to the desire most people have for sexual relationships. The feminists who critiqued sex back in the 80s and early 90s thought that sex-positive feminists were enemies of feminism. (Here, read "Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism" (1990) if you don't believe me.) These "sex-negative" feminists hated the Playboy philosophy, so it's... interesting to dump the sex-positive feminists in with Hugh Hefner.
Contemporary feminism is very good — better than my fellow conservatives often acknowledge — at critiquing these pathologies. But feminism, too, is often a prisoner of Hefnerism, in the sense that it tends to prescribe more and more “sex positivity,” insisting that the only problem with contemporary sexual culture is that it’s imperfectly egalitarian, insufficiently celebratory of female agency and desire.
This means that the feminist prescription doesn’t supply what men slipping down into the darkness of misogyny most immediately need: not lectures on how they need to respect women as sexual beings, but reasons, despite their lack of sexual experience, to first respect themselves as men.
A commenter over at Douthat's column says: "Good God, how did you manage to turn liberal attitudes towards sex into the motivations of a murdering lunatic? That is truly an act of ideological desperation."
But what ideology is Douthat pushing? I think he's saying that in our society a lot of people are going to miss out on the ideal of plentiful sex and we need some positive ways to think about that so we don't suffer excessively. It's not so much that an occasional crazed person commits murder as it is that millions of others feel bad that they are not living what seems to be the good life. In that view, whether or not it's good to be "sex positive," we need a way to find good in the absence of sex. What would the "celibacy positive" vision look like?
I assume there are many intelligent, happy individuals in America who are celibate and could express themselves in a positive way, but you have to invade your own privacy to tell others why you're not having sex, and it's a difficult writing assignment, with critics waiting to explain that you're only bullshitting defensiveness of your own failure and repression.
Posts
70 comments:
What would the "celibacy positive" vision look like?
I'm afraid it would look very much like my present situation: Between girlfriends and horny as hell.
Some ideas for the media and scientists:
1. Robots/dolls for sex (see realdoll, fleshlight etc)
2. Replace sex with fitness, so that being fit and healthy seen as more desirable than lots of sexual partners
3. Being celibate promotes fewer people, smaller carbon footprints, and is better for the environment.
4. Promote the "disregard females, acquire wealth" mentality, so that getting rich is the worthier goal, per Joseph DeCreux meme.
Having a problem with slut shaming and hefnerism. seems to be a link there. If you have any judgement of a woman bearing boobs or more then you, sir or madame, are an evil person.
TLDR right now, but I think a keystone is that it's not just about sex, it's about being loved, being accepted as a human. It's not the "blue balls" that torments the "incel"s (involutary celibates), it's their rejection by society at large and by specific women as unworthy of love. Porn can't fix that.
This is a general problem. Roger's high self-esteem, but low self-confidence, and a perception of human life (e.g. women) as commodities, earned him a low standing among normal people. Feminism... At least its generational variant (i.e. progressivism), has undermined proper character development, promoted immoderation, and generally nurtured dreams of instant gratification without accountability or responsibility (i.e. dissociation of risk).
This means that the feminist prescription doesn’t supply what men … need: not lectures on how they need to respect women as sexual beings, but reasons, despite their lack of sexual experience, to first respect themselves as men.
On a serious note, the above makes a lot of sense to me.
If I live long enough, I hope to be happy about the loss of desire. Finally, a life free from that constant tug. An existence with my friends and family, my books, my various pursuits without the impediment of that consistent sweet distraction. Will it yield contentment – or its opposite? I hope and I wonder, which I guess is all we can do until the end.
It seems to me that the real sin here is not in fact lust but envy: Not the excessive desire for the good of sexual pleasure, but the hostility to other people who have, or have more of, that good, and the desire to punish them for having it, or deprive them of it, even if it doesn't get you any of it for yourself.
Hefner advocated a kind of analog of capitalism, where men were free to compete for access to sex and needed to learn to do so more successfully. The recent incident reflects more a kind of radical egalitarianism, which resents anyone who succeeds at that competition.
The feminists who critiqued sex back in the 80s and early 90s thought that sex-positive feminists we enemies of feminism.
@Althouse, I know you meant to type "were enemies of feminism," but is there any chance that this is a Freudian slip? Meade knows, but he ain't tellin'!
Narcissistic Internet Psycho says:
My celibacy is my armor against New Babylon. I choose to be celibate not because I fear sex but because I do not wish to waste time, energy and emotion on women who are below my Vision. There are so many women out there that want sex, they are just untrustworthy as proven by their choices. The Special Women need to realize that the super smart men like me are the key to their fulfillment, otherwise they are just receptacles for society's biological trash. Myself, I deserve more than a receptacle, I deserve a woman that can appreciate my qualities and be thankful to me for them everyday. I thought you were that someone, and not just a receptacle; I hope I am wrong. I long to give my celibacy to you and share my fantasies with you, together: many of them are quite tender. Indeed, I have written many of my fantasies in my Book: I do hope you will read it someday, before anything Happens. I don't want anything Bad to Happen where you will have to live afterward with the immense, unrelenting guilt. I don't think you want that, either.
I read the comments of women on blogs and I imagine what they must look like naked.
Most porn performers act out every known sexual wish, kink, desire, or fantasy within their first year in the industry. They don't go on to lead especially productive or happy lives. When you read the lives of such Victorian and Edwardian writers as Ruskin, Shaw, Yeats et alia you find an enormous number of tormented libidos. Yet they certainly led accomplished lives. Could it be that sexual expression and sexual repression have nothing to do with overall life satisfaction or achievement and that there are other, better metrics?
Let's begin with agreement that Douthat is not generally regarded as a conservative any more than is Brooks.
Blaming poor old Hef for the murderous rage of that crazy is just the desperate product of a columnist searching searching! for his column.
I can't imagine a happy and contented celibate. Birds gotta fly; fish gotta swim.
- Krumhorn
I would like to see America evolve to a sexual ethos where every Victoria Secret model feels intense social pressure to slather sensual pleasure on my man root before she turns twenty five. All other forms of sexual expression are, at best, tacky and should be suppressed.
I guess some Republican has to tell the world what the law is. It would have been smarter to stay quiet perhaps. Lots of different agendas going on here.
Back when I was a young, single gentleman I thought that Hefner's message was that if one was sufficiently wealthy, suave, and sophisticated (at least to the point of knowing what instrument Miles Davis played) then women would throw themselves at one.
(Yes, I know that Miles Davis played several instruments besides his Martin trumpet.)
"But what ideology is Douthat pushing?"
He doesn't say, directly. But, he does allude to "reasons ... to first respect themselves as men."
A person who does not have regular sex may well be called upon to defend himself regularly.
But so does the atheist, the kid who won't tolerate standing for a pledge of allegiance, the person who does not believe in insurance, electric refrigerators, monogamy, recycling, climate change, bottled water or regular lawn mowing.
So what do the men do now. They cannot demand a redistribution the smoking hot babes supply? The males problem seems to be one of supply and demand of women who want a permanent man.
But the woman supply supply has been shrinking, in large part because bold lesbian culture today dominates in schools where the new supply of marriage age female students lives. And those empower careerists careerists don't share well.
Hence the lesbian's newest mantra has become Rape, Rape, Rape about all men everywhere, which only seeks to erect fences around the new supplies.
The movie Don Jon unintentionally(?) takes a stab at this.
The lead character beds one hottie after another, but is ever dissatisfied because none of the encounters are as satisfying as his internet porn fantasy life.
But what ideology is Douthat pushing?
Obviously, it's a pro-life ideology.
If you are pro-life, you don't kill babies. You don't kill women. You don't kill people.
Once you accept that sex leads to babies, you understand you have a moral duty to love people when you have sex with them. Love them, and love the babies you create. This duty is not actually onerous. It makes you a nicer and happier person. It makes your sexual relationships loving relationships.
The dark side of sexual liberty is sexual alienation, a (male) belief that the baby is not your baby, and you have no obligations to woman or child. This is a harsh and mean world, and our Supreme Court has made it harsher and meaner.
We should worry less about the random sociopaths, and more about what Roe v. Wade has done to marriage, babies, and relations between men and women.
"What would the "celibacy positive" vision look like?"
Ron Howard.
Do you actually believe any of the things you write?
"Celibacy positive?"
Broaden it to "chastity positive," which includes marital lives lived out generously to one another and in the service of life, and it's Catholicism.
There's Larry Flyntism too, that guys like to look at female genitals.
Feminism doesn't come in.
"The culture’s attitude is Hefnerism, basically, if less baldly chauvinistic than the original Playboy philosophy."
Bullshit. Femi-chauvinistic bullshit at that.
What is going on is a resurgence and attempts at social and legal enforcement of a form of neo-Victorian sexual prudery that is only applied to men's sexuality, while females remain free of those same sexual restraints and whose sexuality is to be celebrated and promoted as healthy and normal.
They call that the "War on women" when men try to do the same thing to women.
This all boils down to women attempting to control the sexuality of men they won't sleep with.
Feminists who do this are female chauvinist Sows and need to be called out on it.
I notice a wren is building a nest in the basket of my backup bicycle in the garage.
The odds of the female liking it are pretty small, I figure.
I think the female gets the final say on male handiwork, picking the nicest nest.
But what ideology is Douthat pushing?
Catholicism. Always, everyday, in every way. In his own way he is a religious fanatic.
"I assume there are many intelligent, happy individuals in America who are celibate and could express themselves in a positive way, but you have to invade your own privacy to tell others why you're not having sex, and it's a difficult writing assignment, with critics waiting to explain that you're only bullshitting defensiveness of your own failure and repression."
I don't like most people enough to want to sleep with them. I haven't in 5 years.
Bash away,...
Not crazy about the culture he describes, either, if that helps,...
Interesting. I just finished reading a little book (INDIA DISHONORED) about sexual violence in India. The author claims that female infanticide and sex selection abortion have produced a large sex deprived male population who are prone to turn to violence to meet their needs. That is probably one reason Western society adopted monogamy.
The Muslim religion is more modern than Christianity since it promotes polygamy and thus provides males with even more plentiful and enjoyable sex. Normally polygamy would exacerbate the shortage of women but praise Allah, he has made provision for his Muslim followers. Allah provided jihad against kaffirs which enables the unattached young men to go out and raid neighboring kaffir communities for women which they are free to force into sex slavery or if they wish they can force the women to marry them. This arrangement is especially advantageous for the Muslim Ummah since it permits men to indulge their sexual fantasies with multiple wives, to chose other women for slaves so they can indulge their lust to dominate, humiliate, and discipline women, and at the same time to conquer new territory for Islam all in one campaign. In Islam there is no need for a man like Elliot Rodger to randomly kill strangers when he could legitimately kill men and enslave women in jihad with Allah's blessing. Unlimited sex and violence, no wonder lefties groove on Islam.
What is the place of love in sex? This guy didn't seem to have that, and isn't that what he actually wanted? Did Hefner have that? I remember when everyone talked about sex, but then didn't they call themselves the love generation? I'm reading Brautigan's biography by Hjortsberg. There was a lot of sex, but love didn't come with. Love, as in commitment to the other person's well-being, just doesn't come as cheaply as sex, it seems. You can buy sex. Crackheads will give it for five dollars. The other thing you actually can't buy. Sterling tried to buy it, but she sold him for thirty pieces of silver. Whatever. It's an interesting set of questions that you ask. People brag about their sex lives. You can't find anyone bragging about their chastity. But they probably should. If they did, everyone would try it.
I think a "Your personal life is personal, and if it works for you and yours, then who am I to judge, as long as you're not asking me to pay for it?" kind of philosophy would be sort of refreshing.
I think the shooter was just a nutcase. I doubt that the society he lived in had much to do with his angst and his murderous rage.
Further, every time someone tries to blame it on the wider society it feeds into that type of pathological mindset.
"These "sex-negative" feminists hated the Playboy philosophy, so it's... interesting to dump the sex-positive feminists in with Hugh Hefner."
No, they hated men, not sex.
These situations happen
1. Husband or wife deployed overseas
2. Husband or wife intermittently out of town for over a month
3. A divorce is impending.
4. A relationship breaks up badly. Someone wants to avoid joining the hookup culture but can't get interested in someone else yet.
5. A husband or wife dies. Then someone wants to avoid etc.... (same as 4.)
6. A divorce happens. Same as 4.
7. You fall in love but the other doesn't care - yet.
Situations without sex that will not turn out well but sex isn't the only thing missing
8. You don't want to have anything to do with anyone who would like you.
9. You are too busy crying to connect with anyone
10. Other people are really too stupid to appreciate you as they should but luckily there's food.
11. While not having sex, you have had time to realize that there's really nothing wrong with mass murder as you would do it
What he's saying, I think, is that sex has become all too much of a self-affirming obsession in our society. People consider it a form of expression, a barometer of relationship happiness, a test of manhood, a physical manifestation of feminine independence (bizarrely), a confirmation of attractiveness, etc. Our attitudes are more screwed up now than when we were puritans. We were smart to realize that sex isn't gross or shameful, but there's much more to life than sex.
We build it up too much; our expectations are too high. Its outsized importance can lead to frustration, jealousy, sadness and anger. Why stick with your spouse when your spouse gets old and so familiar? Life is too short to not have exciting sex, if only for the stories you get to tell your best friends over drinks.
Feminism is a culture of gender hatred.
No one can explain this culture better than the novel, "Less than Zero". Read it and weep.
Mr Douthat's argument doesn't sound all that different than the ideas around fat-shaming and body acceptance.
Hollywood, media and the fashion industry promotes an "unrealistic" ideal of body shape and this leads to depression, suicide and eating disorders.
How is it crazy to think that the same media that makes it seem like everyone is "getting some" , might lead the involuntarily celibate to be equally unhappy about their lot in life?
"Good God, how did you manage to turn liberal attitudes towards sex into the motivations of a murdering lunatic? That is truly an act of ideological desperation."
Lordy, how someone could conclude that Douthat is saying that is stunning. I think the ideological desperation in on the poster and not Douthat.
It's clear - to me at least - that Douthat is pointing out that for some people - men AND women but especially men - that they live in a sort of sexual Gilded Age where they see everyone else having rich, full sex lives. But not them.
And for men especially, not having such a life is an indicator that you're a, notice the word, loser.
So what happens to them? How do adjust their lives and self worth in such a situation?
It's a fascinating question.
There was an interesting observation by a sociology professor a few years ago who wanted to study how the wide availability of pornography was affecting young males. After all, this is the first generation of males to have easy access to very explicit material.
So he wanted to conduct a study on their attitudes on sex and women, et cetera. He got 200 males who said they viewed pornography as one group.
But he needed a control group to compare the results with. So, he tried to get 200 males who didn't not regularly view pornography.
He couldn't get 200.
So he tried to get 100.
He couldn't get 100.
Or 50. Or 20.
He couldn't get a single male who didn't regularly view pornography to sign up for his study.
How is all of this Gilded Age of sex really affecting people?
Freud: "If there wasn't sex men and women would be at war with one another."
OK, I think it's wrong of Douthat to use this murder spree as a spring board to discuss modern sexuality.
I also think that bringing the Playboy "Philosophy" into the discussion of contemporary sexual attitudes makes as much sense as bringing in "Fanny Hill" or "The Scarlet Letter". (BTW, when I was in college I bought Playboy for the pictures, but I did read the "Philosophy" and some of the interviews. In later years, I even bought the magazine for the Jimmy Carter interview -- one of the notable instances in which Carter was more hapless than Obama. But I digress.)
All that said, a good argument can be made that the sexual revolution is a failure in the same sense that the Communist revolution in Russia was a failure: Although it conquered the country, it did not deliver the benefits that it promised. I suppose that it's easier for a guy to get laid today than it was in the '60's or before. The metric is different for women: They could always get laid if they wanted to, but they couldn't be respected in the morning -- Now they can. Does this make men and women happier than they were?
If you believe, as I do, that happy marriages are the proof of any sexual mores, it's hard to see any evidence that the sexual revolution hasn't reduced the net total of happiness, rather than increased it.
I think he is just saying that sex is not the end all and be all of life that contemporary culture makes it out to be. Liberal attitudes toward sex seems to be that it is just another appetite and that any societal regulation of it through is horrible oppression. But regulating what people actually eat and drink via mores is fine and noble.
We have discussed the PUA and hookup cultures in the recent past, but I wonder if the "liberation" of women sexually is ultimately going to be seen as being very bad for many, many men.
Sex has now been effectively disengaged from marriage for many in this country, and, indeed, in First World countries. Everything seems to be seen from the eyes of women, who see that they can now shop around for sexual partners.
But, what I see probably happening is that we are reverting to our chimp heritage, where some of the males have a lot of mating opportunities, and more have many fewer. The alphas get first shot at breeding, and the rest of the males wait their turn, and, if sufficiently omega, and not crafty enough, may never mate (I am thinking of Forrest Gump waiting so long to get laid).
What marriage did for males was to guarantee almost all males at least some chance at some sex, and a decent chance at fatherhood. And, as a result, he was willing to work long hours at horrible jobs for decades. We are to some extent removing that motivation, and, as a result, we have the "slacker" generation. And, without male effort and buy-in, the innovation and enterprise that made this country what it is today will likely be much reduced.
So, for all the feminists out there who are celebrating their sexual freedom to sleep with whomever they wish, keep in mind that it comes at a, possibly steep, price, that our children and grandchildren might not live in a better world than we did, thanks to the disenfrancisement of so many males from the sexual marketplace.
Douthat has said things that aren't allowed to be said and that few understand nor want to understand. Sex is not an end in itself. It is much much more profound than what the culture is telling us. Douthat is pointing out something to be learned from this tragedy beyond the failings of the mental health "systen." Or perhaps the Administration should institute knife and BMW control laws by administrative fiat. Or the mentally ill should be required to register with the Govt.
Why IS "plentiful sex" an ideal? The old saw in the ad business is "Sex sells" and it does, but to what end? There are obviously persons and companies who are selling sex, and a way to sell whatever product they hawk- But Sex is the bait on the hook, not the hook itself. The problem to me is that sex itself is being sold by people with an agenda to change attitudes in the culture more to their liking -and damn whatever negative result may occur as a side effect. Doesn't anyone think anymore that people should be just left alone to manage their own affairs?
No, that's easy. I have the same dismissive contempt for those who worship their genitalia as for those ("foodies," or what we would call a "gourmand" in another age, or just a piggy) who worship their bellies, or the (oddly largely hypothetical) sensualist who devotes his life to achieving the most ecstatic possible sensation in his anus on taking a dump. God! On a steady diet of Galician walnuts and organic wheat bran the turd slides out in the most satisfyingly smooth yet subtly grainy splort that tickles all the way up the descending colon...!
Er...yeah.
Of course sex feels good. So does eating ice cream, farting, sneezing or taking a piss after having to hold it too long. Anyone who places in the first rank of his life's goals the achievement of maximum sensual pleasure is pretty much just an animal. Doesn't even really need a cerebrum. Or clothes and an education. He should probably move to Borneo and communicate in grunts.
Mind you, making love is an entirely different thing, and a high achievement of the human soul. But you don't need to fuck to make love, obviously, cf. from Heloise and Abelard on down.
And I don't believe those who yammer on about sexual self-discovery are using it as some code phrase for making love -- for coming to communion with another human soul. No, they're just into the sensation. It's not surprising. We live in a glum and dispirited age. God is dead, our national aims ("lower the cost of health insurance!" "Reduce your carbon footprint by doing less and recycling more!") are unimaginative and uninspiring, we don't live for our children and they in turn don't honor us, and a post-modernist belief that everything is relative means there isn't much point seeking Ultimate Truth in philosophy, religion, politics or the law. What's left? Accumulate wealth with no idea what to do with it (like Zuckerberg or Angelina Jolie). Accumulate power with no better object than pleasing your friends and dismaying your enemies (like Obama or Clinton). See how many exciting sensations you can experience putting your thing in various holes, or having various things put in your holes. Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.
I'll say it here as I've said it elsewhere ... the Isla Vista murderer has turned into a Rorschach test ... his heinous act has been blamed on guns, misogyny, white privilege, racism, Christianity (yes, really), and class privilege.
Then there's always blaming "mental illness" and how America Failed him.
What is readily apparent is that he was fully functional, oriented to time and place, knew right from wrong, was able to make good impressions on police and others and that he meticulously planned these murders after toying with authority with previous youtube videos.
Let's call him and his actions for what it was:
Evil.
who cares, it's game 7 of western conference final. winner goes to the stanley cup final
There are some strange equivalences running around here. Part of the discussion is about general social and cultural norms, and part is about an individual's psychology. One doesn't cause the other, in any mechanical sense, and the ways social norms influence an individual's psychological make-up are extremely varied.
If social norms of the good life were more open to a celibate way of life, or even just put less emphasis on scoring sexually, there is no reason to believe that it would change the psychodynamics of a screwball like the UCSB killer. Having a multiplicity of models of the sexual good life doesn't mean that someone with serious hang-ups and neuroses about his or her sexuality and sexual relationships will be less susceptible to violent behavior because their life is not measuring up to their fantasies. There is much more in play here than prevailing sexual norms.
Psychotherapy doesn't work at the level of abstraction Douthat is dealing with. There are many reasons to criticize prevailing cultural notions of sexuality and the good life, but the imagined impact of a different set of norms on the psychological health of a crazed killer isn't a particularly good one.
Are we losing enthusiasm for blogging?
I think the female gets the final say on male handiwork, picking the nicest nest.
I see sparrows go through this ritual every year. Birds have more sense than humans, it seems.
What a monumental waste of time.
Wondering what Ann has been up to the last couple of days. It seems to take hours to get things posted. But, this one was worth the wait. I think one of the best comment threads ever. Thanks.
I think the issue is the shooter was exposed to a population of people that seemed to be having lots of hot sex, but he wasn't invited to participate. That would make anyone a bit insane.
I had a great discussion the other night with a guy who had spent two years in a seminary preparing to be a priest. There they stress that men are beings with creative force and that creative force needs to be expressed. The thing is to find positive ways to express it, and during the times you are celibate (or if you choose celibacy for a lifetime), you must find other creative paths for that energy. Young men are not being taught this very valuable truth to prepare them for an adulthood which is creative and yet respectful of the needs of the women around them.
They already did the heavy lifting:
SO WHAT IN CHRIST'S NAME IS THE WEIGHT NEAR ME FOR?
"I know my redeemer liveth."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/07/whefb_bill_buckley_playboy_and.html
Rosen had the last word.
The government, YOUR government that you pay for and are responsible for and whatnot, fucked it up.
THey fucked it up.
Don't you be forgetting Rosen's sacrifice.
William Frank Fucking Buckley Jr. ain't.
The word shouldn't be "Hefnerism," but Epicureanism.
Sex obsession is a facet of materialism. Remove the spiritual and moral, and what's left? Epicurus himself didn't intend for his philosophy to lead to debauchery, but it did. It still does.
I realized at a relatively young age that sex had little or nothing to do with love, at least in the sense of love meaning wanting to care or sacrifice for another.
If I live long enough, I hope to be happy about the loss of desire.
My grandfather told me not to be ashamed.
"When you stop looking, you're dead."
None of you want to admit you're evil. Will do evil things. Have done them already.
Why discuss what you'll lie about?
user: Bruce Hayden
What marriage did for males was to guarantee almost all males at least some chance at some sex, and a decent chance at fatherhood. And, as a result, he was willing to work long hours at horrible jobs for decades. We are to some extent removing that motivation, and, as a result, we have the "slacker" generation.
what you're describing sounds like slavery.
nn: This is a general problem. Roger's high self-esteem, but low self-confidence, and a perception of human life (e.g. women) as commodities, earned him a low standing among normal people. Feminism... At least its generational variant (i.e. progressivism), has undermined proper character development, promoted immoderation, and generally nurtured dreams of instant gratification without accountability or responsibility (i.e. dissociation of risk).
^^^ This. So much this. The perp's mysogony and racism was a *manifestation* of his craziness. He had a fantasy image of himself and he hated anyone (male and female) who destroyed his self-esteem with reality.
So I find it ironic that people are proposing the very same "solutions" that created the problem.
And I have nothing but contempt for the feminists that have hijacked this tragedy to promote their identity politics.
nn: This is a general problem. Roger's high self-esteem, but low self-confidence, and a perception of human life (e.g. women) as commodities, earned him a low standing among normal people. Feminism... At least its generational variant (i.e. progressivism), has undermined proper character development, promoted immoderation, and generally nurtured dreams of instant gratification without accountability or responsibility (i.e. dissociation of risk).
^^^ This. So much this. The perp's mysogony and racism was a *manifestation* of his craziness. He had a fantasy image of himself and he hated anyone (male and female) who destroyed his self-esteem with reality.
So I find it ironic that people are proposing the very same "solutions" that created the problem.
And I have nothing but contempt for the feminists that have hijacked this tragedy to promote their identity politics.
Fen:
The question is what caused his final break with reality. It is not unusual for people to experience cognitive dissonance throughout their lives; but, it is unusual for them to commit mass murder. Normally, they withdraw from society, and become aloof, at best, or hostile, at worst, but not murderous. He may have had a genetic predisposition which engendered the final step.
Should sex-positive feminism be equated with Hefnerism?
Yes, it should. It's a brilliant insight. Both are infantile, degrading towards the opposite sex, and stupidly utopian in their demands that society itself be ordered around their animal appetites. Both are an attack on traditional lifestyles that undergird western civilization.
Both turn followers into parodies of "liberated" people.
Also, do remember that Rogers was an evil sadist seeking sympathy with his words -- the conversation we're having here doesn't really apply to him. Had he been wired a bit differently, he might have survived for a long time killing one person after another, whether or not he got the sexual outlet or other recognition he was seeking. To contemplate his acts in the context of whether or not he found a sexual partner is to buy into his sociopathy and self-pity -- and also to buy into the hoary old discredited arguments by rapists that they just have sexual appetites that need fulfilling. His manifesto is a good reminder that killers lie, and it is a reminder of the folly of basing our criminal law on the alleged "biases" of the offender -- hate crime laws, among other nefarious effects, privilege the offender's perception of society --when it proves useful to activists to do so -- rather than punishing all offenders equally and protecting all victims equally.
Post a Comment