The Corruptions of Feminism Part I: The Sexual Double Standard

“Unless she is selling sex, a woman will usually attempt to intertwine it with romance. The sex act will somehow be part of a romantic story, whether that story was fashioned long ago and now lives only in the recesses of her memory, or it is still sharply etched in her immediate perceptions. Nonetheless, feminists sexual revolutionaries told women to forget romance, spread their legs like whores, and enjoy equality with men by experiencing sheer sexual lust unenhanced by the mystery and magic of love.”[i]

Sexuality has long been a key concern of feminists and egalitarians. Most notably, they have long insisted that female sexuality is no different than male sexuality and that a woman should have the exact same right to choose not to marry, and instead engage in casual sex while pursuing a rewarding career that will secure her a (supposedly) much better future than the lifestyles of past generations of women afforded them. What has long been a major proponent of patriarchal societies is the inhibition on female sexuality. The “double standard” in sexuality is to overlook male sexual promiscuity and focus solely on attaching stigma to female sexuality. Stigma against female sexual promiscuity is characterized by labeling a promiscuous female as dirty and undesirable and outcasting her from respectable society; generally by imposing undesirable labels upon her such as “slut” and “whore.” Despite feminists convincing women it is men who are the ones inhibiting women’s sexual “freedom,” most of the pressure on women to not be promiscuous has always came from other women.

“In the view of many women, acquiescence in this double standard which feminists attacked for inhibiting women’s sexual freedom always served women’s interests by helping them resist male pressure to engage in sexual activity they wished to avoid or postpone.”[ii]

Women have a much greater stake in sexual activities on many levels than what men do. Obviously, women are the only ones who can get pregnant from the encounter and a woman only has a limited amount of children that she can have in her lifetime and, of course, her fertility will peak at a much younger age. On this basis alone she must choose carefully about letting a man into her most private space. But, beyond these obvious biological differences that set her apart from males, she need also think about her own future.

“[The] gift of easy sex impairs the long-term interests of both men and women by catering to the male’s adolescent pursuit of sex without responsibility. Because it guaranteed men success in this pursuit, the sexual revolution further undermined the breadwinner ethic by inhibiting development of the mature masculinity which fosters the willingness to assume responsibility for a wife and family”[iii]

Eventually, having a committed husband and father for her children will be a priority for most women. And beyond getting the man to commit to her it will also become imperative to get him to stick around long-term and be dependable. But, so long as sex is easily available to men without the commitments and responsibilities that marriage entails and there is a constant pool of sexually available- at least minimally-attractive- women, securing his devotion for a lifetime will be even harder for her. On this basis, there is a great need among women to ensure sexual rules, and thus the sexual double standard.

“Men and women, by the very nature of their biology, have different, and often opposing, sexual agendas. Eventually most women want children and, with them, committed husband and father. Yet so long as there is no readily understood and accepted way for women to say no to men they like and hope to see again, women lose their power to demand commitment from men. In that sense, as women, we are all equal-in our powerlessness. The woman who holds back from sex, waiting for the right one to come along, will find that no right man does-because he can get what he needs elsewhere-just as the woman who gives herself freely discovers that she holds no firmer grasp over him, either. The sexual revolution, from a male point of view, could be summed up as, ‘You mean I get to do whatever I want-and then leave? Great!'”[iv]

Beyond the general need of a woman to initially secure a faithful husband is to ensure that he remains so. Sexual promiscuity on behalf of females (much more than males) drastically undermines the security of marriages already in existence. As George Gilder observed: “This is what sexual liberation chiefly accomplishes-it liberates young women to pursue married men.”[v] And so long as society approves of divorce and there is no stigma attached to it as there once was, the security of marriages will continue to be drastically compromised by sexual promiscuity.

“The effect on marriage is evident. In Britain, as in America, nearly half of all marriages now embarked on will end in divorce, and in the kind of polite society inhabited by our urban elite, marriage has no more legitimacy and invites no greater public respect than a casual liaison. Official documents have been revised to put “partner” in the place of “spouse,” removing marriage from its privileged position in the official culture. Marriage is no longer the socially accepted norm marking the true conclusion of sexual development, but an individual choice, the business of no one save the couple who embark on it.

Hence no shame now attaches to divorce. Serial polygamy is the norm among successful men, and those who lose out from this state of affairs—the women and children whom they abandon—have been deprived of their most important protection, which was the social penalties suffered by the malefactor. Our society lavishes much sentimental sympathy on imaginary victims, whose feckless behavior is the real cause of their misfortune, but it is utterly indifferent to the real victims, such as illegitimate or abandoned children, whose misfortune results from its own refusal to cast judgment on the wrongdoers”[vi].

The double standard is a woman’s biggest bargaining power for ensuring security within marriage and ensuring that she can get the man she wants to be with to marry and commit to her. When women give away sex easily, it tells men that they do not have to take on responsibility in order to have sex or become fathers. “The freer women are sexually, the less interest men have in marriage…[vii] if it is harder to drag men to the altar today than it used to be, one reason is that they don’t have to stop there on the way to the bedroom.”[viii] Thus it serves the best interests of women to ensure that there is stigma against women who are promiscuous and would engage in sex outside of the confines of marriage. It serves women well to ensure that other women do not give away sex easily to men. “To serve the interests of traditional women, therefore, it is necessary to revive the eroded breadwinner ethic, and the primary tool is man’s sexual need.” [ix]

But, feminists, egalitarians and MRAs alike insist that this ensuring of a sexual double standard in order to “trap” men in marriage is evil manipulation. But that is precisely what it must be in order to ensure stable families and thus a stable and prosperous society. Feminists have always insisted that male and female sexuality are fungible with each other, as this fits well within their agenda of obliterating traditional gender roles and getting –and keeping- an equal amount of women in the workforce, specifically in traditional male jobs and higher paying jobs. It is nothing less than a political agenda on their part to rip apart the very foundations of civilized society. But regulating of male sexuality through the regulating of female sexuality is the process through which civilized societies are created:

“In Sexual Suicide and its revision, Men and Marriage, George Gilder describes with keen insight how woman uses man’s sexual need to bind him to her and their offspring, socializing him to work and provide for them; thereby is created the ‘sexual constitution’ of society.”[x] “The crucial process of civilization is the subordination of male sexual impulses and biology to the long-term horizons of female sexuality”[xi]

Many feminists, and women who have never identified with the feminists, have found out the hard way the consequences of affording men easy sex and doing away with stigma against female sexual promiscuity. Not only do young women find that men will not commit and stick around for the children they father, but many women also find that their husbands can easily abandon them when their physical beauty has peaked and their reproductive years are over.

“Many men have enjoyed the fact of women’s increased sexual availability, they have sloughed off old wives and acquired young “trophies” under the sanction of no-fault divorce, they have encouraged abortions–thus avoiding responsibility for children they have bred–and they will willingly see women sent into combat to face the inevitable rape, injury, and death. In the eyes of such men, women are not uniquely precious individuals but only easily disposable sex objects. Contemporary feminism taught that lesson to men.”[xii]

Thus the sexual revolution has ripped up the fabric of civilized society, undermined the security and dignity of millions of women and even changed the way men view women. Feminists denied- and still deny to this day- female preciousness. Sexually liberated women have destroyed the marriages of other women and in so doing have also ripped up their own security for the future. When stigma disappears and society begins to see women as fungible with men, it is the women who ultimately lose out.

Notes:
[i] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 182, Spence, 1998.
[ii] Ibid., 157.
[iii] Ibid., 149.
[iv] Crittendon, D. “What Our Mothers Didn’t Tell Us: why happiness eludes the modern woman,” p. 35. Touchstone, 1999.
[v] http://womenshistory.about.com/od/quotes/a/antifeminism_quotes.htm
[vi] http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_4_bring_back_stigma.html
[vii] Graglia, F.C., “Domestic Tranquility: a brief against feminism,” p. 198, Spence, 1998.
[viii] ibid., 162.
[ix] Ibid., 157.
[x] Ibid., 148
[xi] Gilder, G. “Men and Marriage.” Pelican, 1993.
[xii] http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar85.htm

© 2012 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.

Advertisements