Tag Archives: promiscuity

Sexuality, Matured

In many ways I may be childlike, but I am not a child. I may be smaller than I was, but my body has filled out with more curves. I may still retain an air of innocence and naivety, but I am not the stupid and silly child I once was. I’ve grown up, I’ve filled out and I’ve learned a lot in life despite my still young years.

When I was young I couldn’t understand the facts of this life. In many aspects the ways of the world still allude me and I am sheltered from them. Over time I have learned the ways a lady should act. As a girl the media taught me many things, but they were all wrong. Hanging out with the crowd I have been for the past few years has changed my mannerisms and calmed me a great deal.

I am no longer so naive as to the things men really like and want. I know the things to say and do to please a man, but it doesn’t mean I will. Something has subtly been changing in me over the years. Deep inside I feel my sexuality as a power. But sex is not to be casual. I have never and will never give it casually- not for fun, not for money, not for any reason. It is something special to me and I will only ever give it as an expression of love to whom I choose. Any man who will ever have me in this life will be something special and irreplaceable to me.

When I was younger being sterile might have bothered me but now I have come to see it as a gift. I can live my life with the one I choose and never have to worry. My body is my own and it’s going to stay that way. And oh it feels so nice. I will never have to worry in life or tie myself down in such a way. I will never be treated like I’m worth less than the ground any man walks on. I will never have to worry about giving children to a man who I may not even be with five years later or putting myself in a bad position. It will never happen. The power is in my hands and I like it that way.

I have come to grow into my sexuality and it is something so wonderful. I honor my commitments. I’ve never slept around. I intend to make marriage work for a lifetime and I feel such a freedom inside with my sexuality. Not the kind of freedom that comes from promiscuity but the kind of freedom of knowing that my body is mine and is a gift that a man must earn from me. I don’t need it so badly and in fact at times I’d much prefer to go without it, but I’ll give it to him in return for all he does for me in this life.

I love deeply, I feel deeply. I’m his and you know I’ll work hard to please him. I’ll dress in pretty things and work out every morning to maintain this 26 inch waist. I’m still soft-spoken and tender-hearted. The corporate world would always clash with my femininity. But for my man, I’d never want him soft. Whether he wears a suit and tie or blue jeans; whether he works in an office or gets his hands dirty- it matters not.

I don’t want some man who knows how to express his emotions and shows his softer side. If he ever picked up a vacuum cleaner to try to impress me I’d think that he’d surely lost his mind. Read me all the poems you can think of and sing me all the love songs you want but it will avail you nothing. It’s so cute that you want to cook for me honey, but it sparks nothing to life inside of me. I want him rough, I want him confident. Intimidate me, scare me, drive me mad, love and protect me. I want to be yours forever.

“Can’t Hold Us Down”

The Christina Aguilera video below is the stuff I grew up on. Of course, I never had a mother or mother-figure to tell me what exactly was wrong with this video and that those “double standards” actually served a purpose. I remember me and my husband talking once and we were talking about how neither of us had ever even heard the word “illegitimate” growing up. We never even knew what it meant. The only thing I ever heard from my mother growing up was the importance of birth control and that I needed college and a good career and not to have babies until I had finished college and was “ready” or “in a serious relationship” or something. I was never quite clear on when exactly it was OK to have sex or when babies should ideally come along (or if they were ever even supposed to).

This song actually strikes right at the heart of patriarchy, but none of us girls belting out the lyrics to the song could have possibly known that when we were growing up or understand the significance of it. It’s very confusing when you’re told on the one hand to express yourself sexually and do what you want yet on the other hand when the consequences of sex (i.e., babies) inevitably follow all of a sudden you’ve done something wrong and nobody can quite understand “how this could have happened” and how things became so messed up. On the one hand young women and girls are sexualized by the media and taught free sex is OK yet on the other hand she’s done something wrong by actually following what the media teaches (and nobody ever teaches her how she should act as the media, the Hollywood stars and her peers are her primary- and sometimes only- teachers). That should probably be termed the real double standard; the double standard in expectations as if actions have no consequences in life. Older women would rather be hostile to the younger women rather than teach them the right way to behave and be loved and happy in life and the men generally stay silent on the issue.

After being taken care of and provided for by a man for so long it was a bit unnerving to see this video after so many years and see how both the men and the women were up in each other’s faces and looked as if they might even physically attack each other at any moment. Also interesting (and I’m sure completely insignificant) is that the video appears to be set in a dirty poverty-stricken ghetto neighborhood. A woman is even carrying around a young child at the end of the video. (The significance of that, I’m sure, is anyone’s guess. Maybe her baby will grow up to be a good feminist man who follows orders).

“Sisterhood” of course is promoted in the song and video. The women appear to be just as immature as the boy-men in the video whom they are criticizing. The in-your-face sexual perversion in the video is crude and uncomfortable. The video is a wonderful display of the lawlessness, perversion, poverty and antagonism between the sexes that feminism and sexual promiscuity creates. If he attacks you, attack him back girl…We got your back…

No, the males shown in the video and described by the song are not men- and they never will be so long as the girls are sexually free.

The Wrongs of the Men’s Movement

“On the one hand there are real harms against men perpetuated by feminism and on the other there are real responsibilities that men owe towards women and children. The real harm done by feminism is used as an excuse to reject the real responsibilities of men towards women. The appropriate response to feminist injustices is men asserting their rightful authority; the MRA does the exact opposite in response, he instead rejects his responsibilities (Jesse Powell).”

I am not an MRA nor could I ever be. I don’t think anybody’s going to deny that there are genuinely good men out there who have been done wrong or who have been screwed over. But the MRA response is to whine and cry and plead that he’s such a victim,that society should just have more sympathy for him and that if things were just more “fair” and “equal” that somehow it would remedy all of his problems.

The original feminist war was on women. Feminists and MRAs were on the same side until feminists started seeing all the damage the movement had caused to women and started backing out. They created policies to remedy the situation by anti-male and anti-family legislation to balance out the harm being done to women. In turn men’s groups responded with legislation to harm women to try to balance out what the feminists were doing.

When a MRA is screwed over by his wife cheating on him, leaving him, taking the kids, etc. he responds by saying that society should just be more fair to him. He employs the MRA equivalent of the feminist mutilated beggar argument. The MRA hates women and encourages other men not to marry and deny responsibility, to ‘get back’ at the woman by screwing the ‘bitch’ over and he encourages other men who follow him to do the same thing. Don’t marry men, don’t marry! Don’t be the breadwinners because she’ll just screw you in the end! Nowhere does it cross his mind to assert his authority and demand that men be the heads of their homes anymore. Nowhere does it cross his mind to accept responsibility.

We have a problem with out of wedlock births in this country and increasingly in most of the Western world. MRAs are on top of it. Deny your responsibilities men, deny your responsibilities. Deny that you got the girl pregnant, run from marriage -run real fast boys-and encourage mandatory paternity testing (at some undesignated time after the child is born, of course) because all women are just a bunch of sluts looking to commit paternity fraud to get a chunk of your paycheck for the next 18 years! Make identifying the father, instead of marrying him, mandatory for the welfare! (One would think if they wanted to get out of child support obligations they would just be screwing themselves over with this policy, but never mind that). Nowhere does it cross his mind to enforce the double standard and enforce patriarchal restraints on the women or enforce the Legitimacy Principle- that men can only be responsible for legitimate children and a wife that is faithful.

The MRA hates women. He wants to literally see them dead. The average MRA wants to see women dead on the battlefield to deal with what men have always had to suffer through and he wants an MRA version of affirmative action that would ensure women are forced into dangerous jobs and die in those jobs in equal numbers to men. Never mind that women suffer the throes of pregnancy and childbirth just to bring these pathetic excuses for men into this world and always have. Caring for a woman and being chivalrous to her never crosses his mind as the appropriate thing to do.

What could MRAs do? If their movement wasn’t just a hate movement to get out of responsibility the MRA would have several options.

First, they would enforce the double standard upon women. Women would either bear legitimate children or receive no assistance and no financial support from the father. Men would marry the mother while she was pregnant or they would receive no rights and their children would not carry their name. A man would be sure of a woman’s character and have the intention of marrying her or he would not enter into a romantic relationship with her and he would not sleep with her. If he just wanted sex he could pursue the time honored male tradition of buying a prostitute. A woman’s virtue and good name would be of utmost importance (going back to a man only getting involved with a woman of honorable status) so she would reserve her body for her future husband and would not bear children outside of that union.

“Here, from John Dollard’s Caste and Class in a Southern Town, is an example of such manipulative regulation “from the outside”– males persuading females that they are really regulating themselves:

One of the rituals of the university dances is that of a fraternity of young blades entitled the Key-Ice. During the intermission the lights are turned out and these men march in carrying flaming brands. At the end of the procession four acolytes attend a long cake of ice. Wheeled in on a cart it glimmers in the torches’ flare. Then the leader, mounted on a table in the center of the big gymnasium, lifts a glass cup of water and begins a toast that runs: “To Woman, lovely woman of the Southland, as pure and as chaste as this sparkling water, as cold as this gleaming ice, we lift this cup, and we pledge our hearts and our lives to the protection of her virtue and chastity.’

For ‘protection’ Peggy Morgan would (correctly) read enforcing [1]”

To solve the divorce problem men could demand that divorce be harder to attain and demand that there be major fault involved for a divorce to be granted. To solve the problem men wouldn’t sit there begging and playing the ‘poor me’ guilt trip trying to get all of society to feel sorry for them. They would take their responsibilities in their families and assert their rightful authority. They would financially support their wives and take care of them. If we had patriarchy their wives would not leave or go anywhere because of the authority the man asserts and the responsibility he has for them. The woman would be without her social status and without her support if she was not married to him and she would be without her children as he would have the authority over them.

‘A man and wife are one person in law; the wife loses all her rights as a single woman, and her existence is entirely absorbed in that of her husband. He is civilly responsible for her acts; she lives under his protection or cover, and her condition is called coverture.

A woman’s body belongs to her husband, she is in his custody, and he can enforce his right by a writ of habeas corpus.

The legal custody of children belongs to the father. During the life-time of a sane father, the mother has no rights over her children, except a limited power over infants, and the father may take them from her and dispose of them as he thinks fit [2].’

Real men would not whine and complain that women are not taking on an ‘equal share’ of what should rightfully be the man’s sole responsibility. But, no, MRAs cannot accept anything that would actually hold them responsible for traditional male responsibilities. They whine and they cry on and on and they never do anything productive. They cause more feminist backlash which only increases their problem even more and the ones that are ultimately hurt are the millions of innocent men, women and children that get caught in the crossfire of these ongoing gender wars. The innocent men, women and children who didn’t start these wars and have never done wrong. They are the ones who end up suffering.

The MRA will bite back at any woman who claims to have been raped or abused. He will say she’s lying. She’s just trying to separate him from his children or get the upper hand because she wants his money or has her own ax to grind. Now every time a woman is abused or even claims she is abused she has no choice but to turn to feminism. They’ll help her they promise. They’ll make sure she’s believed and justice is served! The lies continue, the wars continue, the fighting continues and never ends. It never occurs to the MRA to take charge of things. He instead want to play without ever having to pay.

He could have chosen from the beginning to assert his authority. The women would have been protected by the mans responsibility and he would have been protected by being in charge of the woman’s actions. His family might have stayed together, his wife and kids might have never been impoverished. Hs children might have had a stable home to live in. But the MRA man can’t put his foot down and lay out the rules within his family. Instead he presses for laws that would just make everything a little more fair and would relieve him of responsibility. He instead runs a hate campaign against women and conducts a marriage strike. He refuses to be a man and complains that women won’t be faithful, that they won’t be women.

The MRA story is a tragic one indeed. It started with feminist harm of women, which led to lies and harm of men which led to lies and harm against all while society collapsed around all this hate and fighting. There will probably never be a happy ever after to this story and it’s a real shame. Because if the MRA hadn’t fled from responsibility in the first place this never would have happened.

1. “The Garbage Generation” by Daniel Amneus
2. Ibid.

The Case Against Illegitimacy

“In regard to the only issue that I consider properly before the Court, I agree with the State’s argument that the Equal Protection Clause is not violated when Illinois gives full recognition only to those father-child relationships that arise in the context of family units bound together by legal obligations arising from marriage or from adoption proceedings. Quite apart from the religious or quasi-religious connotations that marriage has – and has historically enjoyed – for a large proportion of this Nation’s citizens, it is in law an essentially contractual relationship, the parties to which have legally enforceable rights and duties, with respect both to each other and to any children born to them. Stanley and the mother of these children never entered such a relationship. The record is silent as to whether they ever privately exchanged such promises as would have bound them in marriage under the common law. See Cartwright v. McGown, 121 Ill. 388, 398, 12 N. E. 737, 739 (1887). In [405 U.S. 645, 664] any event, Illinois has not recognized common-law marriages since 1905. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 89, 4. Stanley did not seek the burdens when he could have freely assumed them.

Where there is a valid contract of marriage, the law of Illinois presumes that the husband is the father of any child born to the wife during the marriage; as the father, he has legally enforceable rights and duties with respect to that child. When a child is born to an unmarried woman, Illinois recognizes the readily identifiable mother, but makes no presumption as to the identity of the biological father. It does, however, provide two ways, one voluntary and one involuntary, in which that father may be identified. First, he may marry the mother and acknowledge the child as his own; this has the legal effect of legitimating the child and gaining for the father full recognition as a parent. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 3, 12-8. Second, a man may be found to be the biological father of the child pursuant to a paternity suit initiated by the mother; in this case, the child remains illegitimate, but the adjudicated father is made liable for the support of the child until the latter attains age 18 or is legally adopted by another. Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 106 3/4, 52…

The Illinois Supreme Court correctly held that the State may constitutionally distinguish between unwed fathers and unwed mothers. Here, Illinois’ different treatment of the two is part of that State’s statutory scheme for protecting the welfare of illegitimate children. In almost all cases, the unwed mother is readily identifiable, generally from hospital records, and alternatively by physicians or others attending the child’s birth. Unwed fathers, as a class, are not traditionally quite so easy to identify and locate. Many of them either deny all responsibility or exhibit no interest in the child or its welfare; and, of course, many unwed fathers are simply not aware of their parenthood.

Furthermore, I believe that a State is fully justified in concluding, on the basis of common human experience, that the biological role of the mother in carrying and nursing an infant creates stronger bonds between her and the child than the bonds resulting from the male’s often casual encounter. This view is reinforced by the observable fact that most unwed mothers exhibit a concern for their offspring either permanently or at least until [405 U.S. 645, 666] they are safely placed for adoption, while unwed fathers rarely burden either the mother or the child with their attentions or loyalties. Centuries of human experience buttress this view of the realities of human conditions and suggest that unwed mothers of illegitimate children are generally more dependable protectors of their children than are unwed fathers. While these, like most generalizations, are not without exceptions, they nevertheless provide a sufficient basis to sustain a statutory classification whose objective is not to penalize unwed parents but to further the welfare of illegitimate children in fulfillment of the State’s obligations as parens patriae. 4

Stanley depicts himself as a somewhat unusual unwed father, namely, as one who has always acknowledged and never doubted his fatherhood of these children. He alleges that he loved, cared for, and supported these children from the time of their birth until the death of their mother. He contends that he consequently must be treated the same as a married father of legitimate children. Even assuming the truth of Stanley’s allegations, I am unable to construe the Equal Protection Clause as requiring Illinois to tailor its statutory definition of “parents” so meticulously as to include such unusual unwed fathers, while at the same time excluding those unwed, and generally unidentified, biological fathers who in no way share Stanley’s professed desires. [405 U.S. 645, 667]

As Mr. Justice Frankfurter once observed, “Invalidating legislation is serious business . . . .” Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457, 474 (1957) (dissenting opinion). The [405 U.S. 645, 668] Court today pursues that serious business by expanding its legitimate jurisdiction beyond what I read in 28 U.S.C. 1257 as the permissible limits contemplated by Congress. In doing so, it invalidates a provision of critical importance to Illinois carefully drawn statutory system governing family relationships and the welfare of the minor children of the State. And in so invalidating that provision, it ascribes to that statutory system a presumption that is simply not there and embarks on a novel concept of the natural law for unwed fathers that could well have strange boundaries as yet undiscernible…”[i]

“By excluding unmarried mothers and divorced mothers (for the most part) from eligibility, the framers of the mothers’ pension laws made it quite clear that their primary concern was to support traditional families when those families suffer financial difficulties from the loss of the husband’s income. They were also concerned to take no action that would encourage illegitimacy or divorce. In addition to the criteria excluding certain categories of recipients, there were behavioral criteria as well…Only much later, with the welfare legislation of the Great Society were moral criteria abandoned in administering AFDC programs- the direct successor of mothers’ pensions. The subsequent explosion of the illegitimacy rate is a persuasive argument that the concerns of mothers’ pension proponents were justified.”[ii]

————————

Because of the feminist movement and the sexual revolution (which was a product of the feminist movement), we now have a welfare system and a legal system that rewards illegitimacy and punishes marriage. The result is a society that is wrecked. Our legal system is corrupt, our schools are dangerous, children are failing school and turning to crime, and the happiness of women is at the lowest point in our history. In this article I consider one of the main reasons that I believe all these problems are occurring. The main problem, I believe, is the breakdown of our families.

The word “family” is indeed very diverse if we consider all of the cultures throughout history. Every society has had its own customs regarding marriage. Some societies were matrilineal with the fathers (if paternity was ever even acknowledged at all) being occasional visitors with no necessary obligation to support the children and having no claim to them. The most successful and civilized societies have generally been strictly patriarchal, with men having the responsibility to support, protect and lead their families and, of course, the resulting rights that come along with it. Many societies have had homosexual marriages and polygamy/polyandry and a whole host of other living arrangements. In the view of feminists, all of these living arrangements can exist simultaneously. Indeed, their entire movement was about changing our laws and customs to reflect any family arrangement one can think of. All stigma concerning illegitimacy and unwed mothers had to go because, of course, it was “discrimination” and an attack on personal freedoms. The stigma of illegitimacy was one of the first things that had to go in the eyes of feminists because, of course, women must be sexually free and marriage was the enslavement of both men and women in their view. As Germaine Greer stated in 1970:

“Even though there are more problems attendant upon bringing up an illegitimate child, and even friendly cohabitation can meet with outrage and prosecution from more orthodox citizens, marrying to avoid these inconveniences is a meaningless evasion.”[iii]

Yet, after a few decades we see the results of these policies and no true analysis of the cultural and legal climate today can reasonably conclude that all has changed for the better. The prime leaders of the women’s liberation movement claimed that women would be better off if they were sexually free and postponed marriage to pursue their careers first. They championed easier divorces and abolition of all the laws that protected wives, mothers, widows and all women in general on the grounds that it was making women second class citizens. In their eyes, if women could leave their families to pursue careers and enjoy equality with men by being sexually promiscuous all would be better. The prominent feminist leaders of the time believed that housework and the care of young children was holding women back. If only society would do away with the “terrible” protective legislation and treat women like men then, they claimed, would women truly be free. Quoting Germaine Greer once again:

“Men argue that alimony laws can cripple them, and this is obviously true, but they have only themselves to blame for the fact that alimony is necessary, largely because of the pattern of granting custody of the children to the mother. The alimonized wife bringing up the children without father is no more free than she ever was…If independence is a necessary concomitant of freedom, women must not marry.”[iv]

The feminists have now secured almost every single legal and cultural change they sought, and men’s groups jumped on board to exploit it all to their advantage. Yet, in looking around today at the situation young women, older women, wives and mothers find themselves in it does not look good. I have yet to see a case where the feminist way has actually made women free. Quite the contrary.- feminism has given away a woman’s bargaining power in every area of life. In the old days, many babies were not conceived in marriage but most were at least born into it because of the social and legal pressures on BOTH parties. If a marriage did not take place after a pregnancy occurred the unwed mother would not be entitled to benefits and the unwed father would have no claim to the child. Now that illegitimacy is accepted both culturally and legally, women have lost their power to demand commitment and support from men. Today’s men know they do not have to marry a girl once she becomes pregnant for all the rights and pleasures that were once reserved solely for married men who took on traditional responsibilities for a wife and children are now freely given to them.

Feminism and the sexual revolution has really messed women and girls up real bad. They are pressured into sex by their boyfriends and then forever regret it. Because of feminists the common law rights that once protected young women from male pressure to engage in sex are gone. Traditional laws protected women and sent a clear message to the male that he was responsible. For instance, traditional statutory rape laws punished the man (as he was the only party who would walk free from basically all of the consequences of the sexual act) but protected the young woman. But, of course, this was “sex discrimination” and feminists did not stop until every jurisdiction gender-neutralized these laws.

Another problem we have as a result of widespread illegitimacy is the welfare culture that is turning us into a socialist state where everyone eventually becomes equally poor and equally bad off. For a young woman whose life at home is bad she knows an option available to her is to have a child and collect the resulting welfare that is freely given to her. One can hardly blame a woman for wanting to get out on her own and have a family. I myself understand as I had a child very young. The only difference is that I married the father and now many years later am still married to him and living a very stable life where our children can be raised. But the majority of young women today do not get these options. Generally when a young woman becomes pregnant today the father denies all responsibility or the two simply cohabit for a time and collect welfare as our tax laws penalize marriage and the welfare benefits are greater when couples cohabit and unwed fathers can claim rights at any time they want to regardless of whether they marry the mother or not.

 
It is the old saying of “if you subsidize something you will get more of it. “With a tax system that rewards marriage and strict laws against illegitimacy a young woman could marry the father of her child without losing anything. Moreover, taking away the free pass that unwed fathers get today would lead many to consider heavily the decision to marry the mother and take responsibility for her and the child.

 

 

Now unwed fathers do not have a complete “free pass” as they still are responsible for some child support, but very few actually pay their dues. Men evading responsibility is not a new thing but the feminist movement has stripped women’s bargaining power greatly in this area. The maternal preference that protected mothers of young children in custody disputes no longer exists. A man wishing to evade responsibility today has many options at his disposal that his male ancestors did not. Joint custody laws allow him to completely be off the hook for child support as our laws now assume both parents will then equally assume responsibility for both the care and support of the child (another feminist fantasy that simply has not panned out in reality). Men’s groups were the most adamant about joint custody laws in the late 70s and 80s, often disguising their intentions so as not to arouse opposition from the public, but feminists championed them too as it would “free” women from the responsibility of caring for children all the time so they could pursue their careers and gain equal economic power to men. Also, the threat of a custody battle (where the outcome can never be known as there are no clear guidelines and both parents have an equal shot at custody and even support thanks to the feminist movement) causes many women to decide it is best to just support the child alone.

 
To restore stability to society and protect the sanctity of the family, the current legal and cultural climate must be changed. Illegitimate births must be de-legitimized once again. Promiscuity and divorce is not freedom. Cohabitation is not freedom. A woman will be used and tossed aside. She will waste her youth on a career and cohabiting with several lovers only to find in the end that she is not on equal terms with men and while his desirability may increase with time, hers will not. If a society is to be civilized and prosperous, stigma and penalties must be attached to sexual promiscuity and illegitimacy.

 

 

Notes:

[i] STANLEY v. ILLINOIS, 405 U.S. 645 (1972) 405 U.S. 645

[ii] Roberton, B.C., “Force Labor: What’s Wrong With Balancing Work and Family,” p. 19;28. Spence, 2002.
[iii] Greer, G., “The Female Eunuch,” p. 359. HarperCollins, 1970, 1971.
[iv] ibid., p. 358-359

 

 

© 2013 What’s Wrong With Equal Rights. Reproduction in whole or in part is strictly prohibited.