Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Enlightenment
Are accusatons of sexual harassment more related how male primates are wired?
The sexual behavior of men (and women) is about how we are wired. But the recent spate of harassment accusations stems from the effort to implement the ideology of campus feminism into the larger society.
|
Well, now you did it!
Yes, that certainly seems to be what is happening, but why does mass hysteria of the sort practiced on college campuses so easily find a home in the real world?
I once read about a certain type of fish that performed a dance with its partner just before the female released eggs and the male released sperm.
Obviously, the dance was important to the timing of each partner's release and proper timing was key to successful reproduction.
When placed in isolation, the fish would repeatedly perform the same dance with whatever object was placed in the container.
This gets us to **** shaming.
Way back in the 1970s, feminists tried to masculinize women so that they would be, in their eyes, equal to men.
Why they wanted the reduction in rank is another question altogether, but they set their sights on that.
One of the key features of maledom, at least the feminist stereotype of it, is being an irresponsible and sexually unaccountable ****.
For women to be sexually liberated, the way men were, they had to be free to behave as men did without anyone calling attention to the fact that these were women doing things that women used to have too much self-respect to do.
Also out the window was ages-old **** shaming.
**** shaming has been with us from the beginning because less that perfect women needed a weapon to use against their prettier female rivals.
It wouldn't necessarily keep males from jumping the hot chick's bones, but it would definitely keep the best male prospects from investing themselves in her, and that's all the bowsers really wanted anyway.
High status males would remain available and since no female wanted to be labeled the village/cave ****, if the malicious gossip did its job, sex available to males would dry up forcing more males the ugly chick's way.
It was an effective system.
Then we got rid of it.
The problem is no one told nature that we were going to change the rules on our end.
Well, we don't actually get to do that.
Nature decides what we will be at conception, and we will be this until we die.
People don't change in their own lifetimes.
So today, instead of **** shaming what are now called sexually liberated females, the ugly chicks and their mothers (the matriarchy) have settled on an alternative strategy of making casual sex for unattached males far too risky,
i.e., they could be accused of a sex crime.
This has the exact same effect as **** shaming, it just requires the fingers and gossip be aimed at the male participant instead of the female.
Meanwhile, the sexual misconduct mass-accusers are essentially latter-day good girls reclaiming their virtue, perhaps for no other reason than its in them to do so.
Besides, to do otherwise is to risk the scorn of the matriarchy, and none of us want that.
Remember, according to the girls-only rules, the last one to announce "Yeah, he tried that **** with me too!" is the ho.
And before someone comes on here and says "Men this!" and "Men that!"
Men have always been men.
We are simple sexual opportunists.
The reason we are such is because, for us, that's what works.
Nature made us this way.
Women have greater needs and they face a far more complicated path to successful reproduction.
Competing with other women for the most desirable men is deadly serious business for the sex that has relatively few opportunities to reproduce.
Feminists of the 1970s really ****ed up by not taking this and other factors into consideration.
Now, we are like a fish in an aquarium dancing with a plastic tree because our environment changed but we didn't, and doing what it is in us to do, we are growing evermore frustrated and unhappy.