Ideas Which Go Against the Grain

Female sexuality is raised high upon an altar like a golden calf. Male sexuality is looked upon as a ratty old kitchen chair with a cracked vinyl seat, under suspicion of mildew. This disparity, this imbalance, this . . . . inequality, accounts for most of women's power over men. By extension, it accounts for a great deal of feminism's leverage in the realm of gender politics.

I leave it to the poets to wax lyrical about the mysteries of the eternal feminine, and to the psychoanalytic priesthood to plumb its shadowy depths. As a political tactician and theorist, it is my cold-blooded task merely to figure out how the world works, and then, how to make it work my way. And more to the point, OUR way.

The higher valuation assigned to female sexuality generates a seller's market for women in the so-called game of love. That is how the world works; women do not queue or cluster in quest of men's favors. No, it is nearly always men who act this way around women.

Deprived of euphemism, the case is this: women have cornered the market on sexual intercourse, and are able to dictate the price and the accompanying politics much as OPEC might set the terms for oil. We needn't care how this came to be so, unless we discover such knowledge to be pragmatically valuable. But we should seriously consider how this state of affairs might be arranged differently through our own applied effort to change it.

Understand, that the higher valuation of female sexuality translates into both female power and loss of male power. Since female supremacy is feminism's driving ambition, it makes sense that the women's movement has undertaken to siphon power away from men using every siphon hose imaginable.

Feminism, being an enterprise conducted in the name of "women", taps into the native pre-existing power of women themselves in order to establish its proper footing in the world. Certain lanes, deeply rutted by age-old usage, serve handily along feminism's route to power. Firstly, feminism identifies with womanhood in the abstract, and with women's interests. Thereafter, it declares a custodial involvement with all points of social contact between the sexes—points where a male-female power dynamic might be present. And one of these points of social contact is, most tellingly, courtship.

The word "courtship" is revealing. Men are the "courtiers", which is to say lackeys or sycophants who wait upon the pleasure of their "lord". In courtship, more often than otherwise, women hold all the cards. Feminists, being women, are well aware of this. But they are also aware that the realm of courtship, while being women's greatest zone of power over men, is likewise a critical link in the chain of power which binds men specifically to the designs of feminist domination.

Let that sink in. This means that while the realm of courtship is objectively a VERY strong link in the chain of feminist power, it is one link whose breakage would uniquely threaten that power. Hence feminism's custodial involvement in this area.

Most women are aware of their superior sexual bargaining power. And many women have been politicized to some degree (more or less) by feminist ideology. This latter group will most certainly carry their politicized outlook into the sexual bargaining arena, and in their minds both feminist ideology and the knowledge of their age-old power will meld together into a troublesome sort of hybrid entity.

That is how feminist power extends itself—by piggybacking upon another power, by fusing with it, and by such means infiltrating into smaller and smaller crevices of life. Feminist ideas are pretty widespread even among women who would never call themselves feminists, and to gauge the extent of feminist indoctrination among the female population would be like measuring the spread of a gaseous substance with a rubber band.

So again, the mating game is a sector where feminist political ambition and traditional female power have effectively "mated". Feminism has made quite an investment here, having secured a tremendous power over men by means of a momentous bio-political conjunction. And the moral corona of the ideology pervades the female noosphere like a unifying field.

It would be wise therefore, to apply political pressure in this area where feminism itself is so able to exert pressure. Take into account that MANY women have undergone some degree of feminist indoctrination, and consequently view their relations with men through feminist-tinted spectacles. Take into account also that women dominate men through the avenue of courtship, and that they are able to do so chiefly because female sexuality is so highly valued. With all of this in view, the path lies clear before us.

Men should cease to value female sexuality beyond a certain fixed rate. Once the cost exceeds this rate, the value should fall to zero—leaving the purveyors in their deserted market stall.

You may ask how this might be brought about, and I can only answer that it would be a "revolution", that it would go against nature to make such a revolution happen, and that it would involve some laborious gritting of teeth. But don't let that scare you. There is nothing wrong with going against nature or gritting your teeth, IF this be done thoughtfully for a worthy cause. Going against nature is a supremely human accomplishment; the power to do so—at least in an ad hoc, localized way—makes us human to begin with. It explains why we are more than simply animals.

Devaluation of female sexuality would alter the balance of power between the sexes. There would come a point where a man, any man, could make the personal choice to cast loose from women altogether—in all but the peripheral aspects of his life. And this personal choice would need to be freely available to all men irrespectively, and most of all freely granted BY all men TO all men.

And if such be the desired scenario, men would need to cut each other some slack where women are concerned. Simply stated, men would need to stop competing with other men in the customary arena where female flesh is the prize. If female sexuality is no longer to be valued beyond a fixed rate, then sex pure and simple—the "sex" part of sexuality—must unfailingly follow suit. And the competition among men should cease not only as regards the prize itself, but more significantly as regards success or failure in obtaining the prize. Again, this comports with any genuine devaluation of female sexuality. The question "are ya getting any?", along with the adolescent mindset it signals, would be out of place in this altered scheme of things.

Women would be the courtiers, the ones who queue and cluster. Deny women their fundamental age-old power, and feminism would find itself reeling in shock as though from a serious blood loss. The best way for men to free themselves from the boa-constrictor grip of feminism is to free themselves from the power of women. This is true because feminism gets most of its power from a parasitical proxy arrangement; feminism's inherent power, merely as ideology, is small. Logic, argumentation and moral suasion by themselves could never adequately account for what feminism has accomplished.

So, if heterosexual men wish to free themselves from the gender-political power of women, it would be of the first importance that they desist in ALL social pressure, upon each other, to seek the company of women in the first place. In plain terms, I mean that if you diss your brotherman for any rarity of sexual activity in his life, then you oughtn't be entitled to any respected place in the Commonwealth of Maledom. It's that simple.

In order to depress the value of female sexuality, and elevate the value of male sexuality, the available pool of nubile heterosexual males would need to shrink to the point where demand exceeds supply. This could be brought about very simply if men play hard to get, which can be accomplished in a number of ways.

I have suggested one of those ways already: peer support among men themselves. For most men, it will be hard enough merely to dial down their libidos without the legendary social pressure from other males adding to their grief. So, to ease the pressure is to ease the grief.

It seems plausible that the craving for female flesh has at least some sociological component, and very likely more than we suspect. Men are caught between two forces: the magnetic bio-pull from the female side, and the social push from the male side. In the future, if all goes well, the push from the male side will cease to exist or at least grow considerably weaker.

Once more, men must play hard to get. They must learn to exercise the very same option which has historically been the province of women, namely, the power to say NO.

Saying no lies coiled at the very heart of playing hard to get. Saying no signifies a withdrawal which generates a vacuum along its line of retreat, and this vacuum by its draft draws the other into a pursuit by default. To pursue rather than invite pursuit assigns (again by default) a superior bargaining power to the pursued. Every little no constitutes a little victory; a bigger no constitutes a bigger victory. Every such victory augments bargaining power, both individually and collectively, and this elevates value. By playing hard to get, you create scarcity, which drives the price up. Gold is scarce, therefore it is valuable. If they seek gold—in other words, if they seek what is genuinely valuable—they may dig for it. Or in the vernacular, they may learn to "dig it". Remember, you are the standard-bearer of value. You are the alchemist who decides what "gold" really means, so make your transvaluations wisely.

"No" and "hard to get" lie upon a spectrum. A continuum. It is not to be anticipated that every man would push his case to the same extremity. To each his zone of comfort; to each his latitude of style.

No could mean absolute celibacy—that's playing hard to get, all right! Or it could mean any degree of limitation on sexual activity short of abstaining altogether. It could mean prickly stipulations on what you will or will not tolerate in the behavior of women—making yourself harder to get by saying no to certain things which displease you or inconvenience you. It is even possible to negate a woman's no by pulling a double-negative whammy: She says "no", and you bounce back quicker than Jack Robinson with "okay, fine!" This opposes female expectation with counter-expectation, thus driving up the price of sexual intercourse from the male side—which means that the male side is driving the market.

I shall clarify once more what I made clear above, since it can hardly be clarified too much: Sexual activity, among hetero-normative males, would become purely optional. Celibacy, virginity, or relative inactivity of any degree, would constitute no bar to full acceptance in this sector of male society.

And more to that, it would be a complete non-issue. In theory, the skirt-chasing Don Juan and the zen anchorite ought to be quite at ease with one another, and scarcely at a loss for things to talk about since, after all, the world is a big place and offers an abundance of subject matter everywhere you look.

The changes I am discussing here would amount to a tectonic realignment of unquestionably world-historic magnitude. An inversion of the Victorian pedestal. As suggested earlier, a revolution. The possibilities remain to be inventoried, but they are considerable.

The value of male sexuality will rise when demand (from the female side) exceeds supply (from the male side). Whether this happens because heterosexual men in critical numbers have embraced celibacy, or simply because they have applied pruning shears to their relations with women, the outcome will be as if X-percent of such men—most likely a single-digit figure—are out of the game. Women who venture to the well will find the water level fallen, and they will find themselves hauling harder upon the bucket.

There is a force that dwells within the minds of men—both individually and collectively. It is a force which feminism, true to form, has harnessed to advantage just as it has harnessed many other established situations that long predate its own appearance in the world. You have heard many versions of it, such as the proverbial saying that "it takes a woman's love to make a man", that "behind every great man stands a woman", or any other expression of the primal idea that a man is incomplete without a woman in his life. It is imperative that we learn to classify this idea as culturally inoperative. Such understanding would clear the debris along our line of travel, so that we can get to places we thought were out of reach.

The ancient superstition that female presence is a sine qua non drives men to seek female company as much for the appearance of doing so as from any imperative need to do so. As the song goes: "gotta be seen making that love scene!" It is a universal life pattern, a paradigm. And being such a key thing in the realm of counter-feminist conversation, it deserves a special name. I have decided to call it the pussy paradigm—a somewhat vulgar expression to be sure, but it has the common touch!

So, this pussy paradigm belongs in the category of things which predate feminism's arrival in the world. And when the feminists got here, they saw in a flash where their advantage lay, and they closed in, and they threw a harness around it. The compulsion to seek female company being anciently wired in the male psyche and socially reinforced among men, feminism found cables enough for splicing, and the pussy paradigm was quickly pressed into service as a fifth column inside the final sanctum of male space—the space inside a man's head. Yes, if men feel compelled for any reason to seek female company, then to that degree they are in the power of women. And being in the power of women, they are but a tiny step removed from being in feminism's power as well—the feminists have seen to that.

The heart of feminism is female supremacism, and the heart of female supremacism is the pussy paradigm. Remember this if you remember nothing else.

And what might be the opposite of the pussy paradigm? Or more to the point, what might we propose to take its place in our unrelenting effort to break the power of feminism over men's lives? I have outlined this already, in suggesting that men must stop pressing each other to seek female company. To do so must be optional, and this straightway recommends a name for the thing we are proposing. If the pussy paradigm is demoted as a cultural force, and optionality becomes an option in every way, then what else should we call it but the optionality paradigm?

That sounds good to me. Let's call it the optionality paradigm.

The future, in theory, should see a migration of the optionality paradigm toward the center of the map within hetero-normative male culture, along with a corresponding displacement of the pussy paradigm toward the perimeter. This would exactly reverse the present disposition of forces. The optionality paradigm would, at that point, become the ruling paradigm.

This would not be, as some kneejerk reactionaries might deem it, a return to a more repressive sexual climate. On the contrary, it would extend freedom in a way hitherto unimagined, since it would no longer privilege either celibacy OR sexual license. Partisans from both ends of the spectrum would, however, be under obligations to ponder the zen koan of co-existence, which, once unriddled, would spark a quantum jump to a different level of consciousness. They would need to set their will to the task, which might involve a bit of drudgery. No so-called paradise is promised, since we ought to know by now what to expect from ideologues who promise a paradise.

Are the ideas sketched in this article unduly harsh upon women as a group? Maybe so, maybe not, and maybe it is moot. That is not my direct concern, although I question that women could hope to emerge from the present morass unencumbered with novel baggage. My direct concern is to break the power of feminism to ruin men's lives, and I honestly don't think this will happen unless certain influences are brought to bear upon women generally. Feminism has melded itself almost seamlessly into the category of womanhood, even if no inherent right or natural law would justify such usurpation. Feminism has accomplished its designs through a blend of mental infiltration and distribution of largesse, in a manner at once brazen and subtle, and the majority of women are quite oblivious to the game which has been played upon them. They require awakening, or barring that, a nudge along the right path.

One more point bears consideration. We should project our scenario into the post-feminist future and ask how it might play out in that environment. Having once established the optionality paradigm and tasted its beneficial empowerments, ought we then to see it as only a means to an end? What advantage could it bring us, to let the pussy paradigm creep back into the center of male culture and reassert its ancient authority in our lives? Not much, I would reckon. I think it might even nullify our work if such a thing should happen.

In conclusion, I ought say something about my purpose in writing the present article.

Two key words in my particular lexicon are prescription and prediction. What I have described here is more prediction than prescription. The scenario I've sketched is already evolving. It is recognizably emerging, by power of certain trajectories, from the chrysalis of history. (I would instance the so-called marriage strike as a prime example of such a trajectory.) Here, I am setting a prescriptive edge upon the body of prediction, to make it formulaic, to hasten its fruition by replicating a useful template across many brains and generating a coalescence from this. Just enough to turn those future developments into a TOOL that we can, if it comes to that, employ with conscious discretion.

My endeavor in writing has been to flesh it out somewhat. To write about it is to give it a form, to make the inchoate choate, to fashion an anchor of words that can hold things usefully in place so we can discuss them, if need be, with a view toward implementation and concrete action. The time to draft contingency plans is now. Put these ideas in your thinking cap and ponder their utility.