The feminist Elizabeth Cady Stanton once said:
"When women can support themselves, have entry to all the trades and professions, with a house of their own over their heads and a bank account, they will own their bodies and be dictators in the social realm." [Emphasis mine]
Dictators in the social realm indeed. There is one area in the social realm where men know all too well how women wield a dictatorial power that rivals that of any oriental despot--female sexuality. To quote
Novaseeker:
Basically it's fair to say that women defended their own power bases and actually increased their power over them substantially such that they have a near totalitarian power over their own traditional bases of children and sex (abortion rights, VAWA, rape and harassment laws, c/s regimes, family law) while aggressively colonizing the male space. When women speak of equality, therefore, I think what they really mean is (1) equality between men and women in what was previously the male space coupled with (2) absolute power of women in the female space. [Emphasis mine]
How can women wield absolute power in the realm of sexuality? Well, the degree to which female sexuality is celebrated and publicly flaunted in our culture is unprecedented. I cannot but wonder if there is a connection between the fact that (1) a lot of women are increasingly incapable of relating to men in healthy ways and (2) women are increasingly resorting to extreme measures to beautify themselves and flaunt their sexuality in front of men. In short, we may have a craven attempt to heighten the demand for something that is losing its real value.
There are all sorts of studies on the long term affects of being exposed to environmental noise (how it causes mental fatigue, reduces productivity, etc.), but do men think about exposure to the amped-up sexual noise of our culture? There is a name for this sexual noise in our public spaces--
ambient porn. When men think of pornography, they think of Playboy, nude bodies, videos of sex acts. But what about all those stupid billboard ads, flash animations for online dating sites, suggestive scenes on television, etc.? The women need not even be scantily dressed. There are plenty of advertisements directed at men that feature fully clothed women with flirtatious looks and poses. The problem is that men are not aware of how this constant bombardment of stimuli affects them because it is so subtle, hence the term "ambient porn."
Like it or not, men react on a very basic biological level to sexual stimuli, even when they are virtuous enough to not want to follow through on anything illicit. Do we, as men, stop to think about what the constant barrage of female sexuality does to our mental and emotional health, if not our spiritual health? Think, for instance, about the unwanted sexual tension and the mental and emotional stress, anger, and depression that all too often follows. Think about all the compromises that men make with regard to their dignity and self-worth in order to fulfill a strong drive that has been overstimulated (marriage 2.0., woman-firsterism, illicit and immoral sexual acts).
What is particularly galling about discussing this matter is that it will be greeted in three very unhelpful ways:
1) Mockery: A man will be accused of being a "frustrated loser."
2) Apathy: You will be regarded as a prude. After all, it is supposed that men want non-stop titillation by women.
3) Chivalrous male-bashing: There may be some acknowledgment that wanton displays of female sexuality are a problem, but men will be held solely responsible. Men will be regarded as lecherous beasts, while fashion models, porn stars, and other immodest women will be regarded as precious, unfortunate victims who have been exploited.
All of these approaches are blindly myopic and refuse to acknowledge the biological and psychological realities of male sexuality. These approaches have their roots in woman-firsterism, the "blank slate" lies of feminism, and the such like.
On the third point above, I will say that women who knowingly and voluntarily flaunt their wares cannot in any way be called victims. They are no more victims than a drug pusher on some street corner who sells an ounce of crack cocaine to a minor is a victim. These women know what they are doing. On a religious note, if lust is a sin in men, then so is inciting that sinful desire. Jesus said, "It is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to him through whom they come!" (Luke 17:1). The logical end is that there is a place in hell for immodest women if there is one for the male lecher.
But there are some things my male readers ought to agree on, regardless of whether or not they are religious or conservative. I submit to you that a society that amps up the noise of female sexuality while curtailing the means by which men can express their sexuality (whether the curtailment be through law, religion, workplace rules, custom, shame, what have you) is clearly demonstrating a demeaning and hostile stance towards men. I count every porn star, bikini model, and woman who dresses immodestly to seek the attention of males as my enemy. If the dish isn't for sale, it shouldn't be on the menu. For it to be on the menu is a clear case of unethical fraud.
Yet even beyond the widespread flaunting of sexuality is the whole foundation of attitudes that nourishes it and exacerbates the problem for men. It's like the "Mighty Wurlitzer" (a term that people use to describe the agitprop of the mainstream media). What we have is the "Pink Wurlitzer," an incessant droning on and on in our culture that makes female sexuality out to be the valuable prize that cannot be turned down but rather must be sought out at all costs.
One odious idea piped by the Pink Wurlitzer is that men need to seek out intimate relationships with women. Even church leaders are guilty of propounding this ridiculous lie while the Bible contradicts them (1 Corinthians 7:25a, 7:37-38). Attitudes like this only serve to inflame the sexual desperation of men to where they compromise their happiness, integrity, and sanity. As desirable as intimate relationships with women are (Proverbs 18:22), such relationships are not a necessity for a virtuous and fulfilled life. A man thus needs to be on guard against the shaming, peer pressure, and social coercion that shoves him into relationships with women. Such strong-arm tactics don't serve him as much as they serve the agenda of other parties.
Anyway, I could write much more on this, and perhaps I will in the future. In the mean time, any man who is concerned about the anti-male ramifications of unbridled female sexuality needs to spare some time for the following links.
1.
A post on what "ambient porn" is (from a religious perspective).
2.
A reader comment at Boundless.org that discusses how the porn industry preys upon insecure men.
3.
A post on how female sexuality is used against men (from a Roissyphere/Game/MRA perspective). The blogger Snark writes, "Feminists have certainly played their part in boosting the demand for women's bodies - at which point, they about turn and tarnish men for succumbing to their physical desires. The sexual desires of men - provoked by women - are then used to denigrate men, as rapists and oppressors who see women only as sexual objects." I think this may be a collective case of what psychologists call
projective identification. In other words, self-styled victims (such as feminists) provoke people into behaving in ways that reinforce the self-styled victims' persecution complex (see
this post by Dr. Tara Palmatier for more information).
4. A male-friendly, four-part series on managing your sex drive (see these links:
1,
2,
3,
4). You mileage may vary on what you get from this one. But read it nonetheless. If you are out of control, others will be in control.
5.
A post I wrote at Scripturally Single on what the Bible has to say about men needing sex. I quote something interesting from Abraham Maslow on celibacy. It's noteworthy because Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is a concept that is often bandied about among some "Game" advocates.
6.
This post by Social Pathologist on the consergame approach Christian men can take to female sexuality. One reservation I have: He says, "The other interesting thing about it is that love is not chosen, it's an involuntary reaction to the other person, you just can't will yourself to do it." If he means
eros, then yes. But if
agape, then he is flat out wrong, and
it takes more than eros to build the kind of relationship that God wants between husband and wife.
So, my fellow men, when the three Sirens of biology, ambient porn, and the Pink Wurlitzer sing their tune and bid you to do something against your better judgment, will you be brought to your knees or will you "go your own way"? I ask this because every red-blooded male (whether he be a husband, boyfriend, or unattached) is one sex act away from being a supplicating, white-knighting beta. Any solution to this potential problem will probably have to be implemented on an individual, personal basis. I can't force you one way or another on the matter. Rather, I will close with this thought: Sex is good and fun, but it should be your handmaiden, not the Red Queen that controls your life. You may reach a situation where
nothing is better than something. Think on these things.
This is it. My last post for Biblical Manhood. I think for over a year (or two), I knew that I was going to be quitting this thing. I felt that God was leading me to "the next gig" in my life, but I wanted to get my parting shots in before closing down the blog. Now, it's going to be a bit sooner than I originally planned.
