Monday, November 30, 2009

Woman Who Want to Want Purely Selfishly

I'm sure that plenty will be said about this article in the New York Times among various sex and gender dynamics writers. It's a long article describing the coming "clinicalization" of low sex drive among women in the upcoming version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.

My first thought upon reading it, though, is that it is astonishingly free from any mention of men. Sexual desire is treated by the writer — and apparently by the people described in the article — of being something wholly internal. Only on the last page of the six page article is the idea of sex as a partnered activity come up, and then only as a "conundrum" that "cannot be solved."

So this is where we have come to. People, especially women, are so convinced that individual empowerment is the end-all, be-all, that they have placed into isolation one of the few things that by definition requires another person, or at least the desire for another person. For a while, I suppose, these women got by on pumping their dildos mechanically, with no thoughts of love or lust. Now they can't even manage that.

Maybe these women can't feel arousal because they have no idea what it's like to be a natural woman. They can't feel sexual arousal — can't feel anything at all — because they are so sold on the idea of gender equality. The prospect of the natural, exhilerating, and fulfilling act of submitting to a worthy, dominant male has been completely swept off the table by the twin demons of the masculinization of females and the complete betastasis of the males.

The hilarious/sad part isn't that these women exist. It's that someone can write a six page article on the phenomenon without once considering the role of the male. Either he never even thought of it, and he's a brainwashed moron. Or he did think of it but opted not to mention it for fear of enraging the harpies of feminism, in which case he's a weakling and a bitch-boy.

Other than that, life's grand! Anyone see that drive by Vince Young on Sunday?


  1. Extreme gender equality gave us an androgynous sexuality. By definition, you make sex to yourself, an other partner is not involved.
    Of course this is complete crap : the century of women suffrage is nothing compared to the 1.5 millions years of evolution (Homo Erectus).

    Other than that, I have nothing to add to your post, you pointed out every points that came to my mind. The extreme individualism of women. The unconsciously repressed biogical need of an alpha male (in bed) creating psychological troubles. The fact that those males are less and less present in society multiplying the problem.

    Everyday my belief that feminism will self-implode is stronger with news like that.

  2. men have been spending so much time listening to what women say they want...rather than actually looking at the empirical evidence of how they treat such men.

  3. Good summary Master Dogen. I posted about this too and thought it was interesting that Berner mentions patriarchy and also devotes one of the longest paragraphs in the article to gripe about how the DSM covers sexual deviancy.

  4. Oh, it's all the patriarchy's fault, dontcha know?

  5. Master Dogen--

    What are your thoughts about the cultural elasticity of the percentage of alphas?

    Certainly it can't be completely elastic, because some aspects of alphaness, or ways of being alpha, depend on rank social order. Though I think that's more the fame avenue of alphadom.

    On the other hand, just being a guy with playful dominance enhanced by other girls feeling attraction, and some sort of leadership or some sort of small group, group, is enough to attract a lot of girls.

    The concept that society has betaized Anglosphere men in recent decades implies a higher percentage were more alpha before.

  6. Doug,

    That's a good question, and fairly put.

    I agree with your general assertion that "alpha" is a relative term. 11minutes has written more articulately on this phenomenon than I can. (Too busy right now to link it... but it's there in the archives.)

    Absolutely, if every man tomorrow started acting with current-standard impeccable alpha cred, a new cred would evolve for alphaness.

    I think you're right to point up a certain "laziness" in the terminology, whether that's exactly how you would phrase it or not. When I say "betastasis" of modern men in this post, I can't defend a literal increase in the numbers of betas. Betas will always exist, and they will always exist in proportion to the alphas of their day.

    Of course, what I mean by "betastasis" is a general decline in what it takes to "be a man." I must be on thin ice here, I realize. If the definition of "manliness" is continually downgraded in the direction of pussy-tude, then, at least by current standards, men are becoming more "beta." Even though, as you well point out, "beta" and "alpha" are always relative terms that depend on the current, local sexual market.

    By decrying (somewhat sloppily) a "beta-ization" of modern men, I'm trying to say that we lose something in this process. From a purely scientific view, it's just one generation adapting to the rules set by the previous one.

    However, I happen to believe that strong, kick-ass male-ness is a distinct good (in proper moderation), and that our particular society is more in danger of losing said masculinity than it is of overdosing on it (Daily Kos be damned).

    So, in my lazy terms, when I decry "beta-ization" I am decrying two things: (1) the men who think this is a good idea, who are fools from a merely selfish point of view, and (2) the overall decline in how we value the true goodness of the masculine ideal, which I might define as aggressiveness, fearlessness, and virtuous honor.

    Yes, the percentage of alphas is elastic. But if masculine (currently defined) values are a good thing, at least in moderation, then a race to the bottom of wimpiness is a bad thing, even though among the future race of total wimps, there will be some alpha wimps and some beta wimps. What we lose in the process is not worth the candle.

  7. Excellent reply, Master Dogen. Very well put.

    I concur (In line with the devil's dictionary , which lists "intelligent" as "of my opinion").

    Even if all men would start to replace masculine with feminine traits, there would always be a social hierarchy that woman would use to select mates.

    Yet, this does not mean that the trend towards de-masculinisation within contemporary Western culture would be beneficial for anyone with the genetic predisposition (or the determination) to climb up in relative rank.

    The need to adjust your behavior to social rules that go against your nature is especially painful for men prone to question external control and sense any attempt at manipulation.

    Needless to say, there are even worse effects for low status males. By stripping these guys of the little attractive behavior they could have picked up from high ranking role models they are now forced to live in MMORPG-enriched chastity.

    And on top of all that you have all the problems this brought for women: Their instinct drives them to lose any marriage potential by "slutting" away with the few guys living outside social norms who will treat them as pump'n'dump until they are past their fertility prime. 99% of the "relationship problems" and "sexual dysfunctions" of modern day women can be traced back to that.

    The indirect effects on society are the true misery, though. The list is endless:
    Divorce inflaction (and concomitant theft), single mom households almost the new standard of raising kids, STD rates soaring (in women), rapid increase in hate crimes by frustrated males, anorgasmia during intercourse due to excessive masturbation in young males and giving up on women altoghether - thereby losing any incentive to be professionally productive and useful to society.

    We are all sitting in the same boat when it comes to these ones...