Previous post
Throughout my adult life, I have never understood the rabid desire of some women to kill their unborn children. It’s beyond so-called rights — the demand is ghoulish. Yet here we are, one year past Dobbs and women rage in fear that they will not be able to destroy the life within them.
Protests broke out in American cities with both men and women rallying for this barbaric “right.” Never mind that Dobbs merely moved abortion laws back to the individual states, where they belonged in the first place. Abortion gave women “hope,” as one elderly woman said. Now, hope would be gone, apparently.
You would think that these angry protestors are being deprived of some life-saving drug. But in their world, pregnancy is an illness which must be dispatched through abortion. After all, as the activists claim, it’s “health care.”
However, what desperate proponents fail to understand — or, more likely, refuse — is that their desire for abortion results from a failed social view. Abortion is not liberating; instead it’s the consequence of a hookup culture in which men call the shots.
Paula Rinehart, a therapist and social worker, writes about this delusion in The Federalist:
It’s a terrible social contract. In order to be with a man you must conform to his sexual desires and pretend to like it. If you complain, there are plenty of other women who will take your place. Sex doesn’t have to lead to marriage or even an exclusive relationship. A woman can fritter away her best years of fertility waiting for a guy to man up to a real commitment. If she gets pregnant, that’s her problem.
Rinehart isn’t the only one who points out how the breakdown in sexual morés has served men more than women. Last year, The Free Press — not a conservative mouthpiece — published a jaw-dropping confessional by a woman named Louise Perry, who wrote:
Sexual symmetry between men and women was, is, and always will be a lie.
Perry also wrote a book called The Case Against the Sexual Revolution, which, upon reading, Bridget Phetasy of Spectator World declared:
I regret my promiscuity. The lie I told myself for decades was: I’m not in pain — I’m empowered.
Yet young women continue to believe that they can have sex without consequences. And why shouldn’t they? Many young adults grew up without a religious moral code that forbids promiscuity.
And then there’s whatever the entertainment media puts out for consumption — every rendezvous seems to result in couples falling in bed with each other. Restraint? Abstinence? Pfft! What are you — some sort of religious nut?
Of course with any encounter there’s always the chance of pregnancy, which is hardly the stuff of glamour. So the same women who bought the line that they could be free of sexual consequences — just like men — demand abortions. Their false liberty is more important than the life of an unborn child.
Social media denizens, especially among the under 30-crowd, marvel at comedian Pete Davidson. Davidson is no Adonis, but he has managed to bed multiple famous women (he has “BDE” — Big D*** Energy, according to one of his past paramours). You’d think that a homely guy who uses women would be anathema, but instead they want to sleep with him.
Lauren Francesca/YouTube/CC BY 3.0.
Which leads me to the recent Tucker Carlson interview with Andrew Tate.
Tate, for those who are unaware, is a 36-year-old former kickboxer turned social media influencer. Last December, Romanian police arrested him on charges of human trafficking, rape, and forming a criminal gang to sexually exploit women. He remains under house arrest, having lost his latest appeal.
Born in the US, later living in the UK, Tate moved to Romania because he said it would be easier to avoid rape charges. “I’m not a rapist, but I like the idea of just being able to do what I want. I like being free,” Tate said in a video.
However, many on the far right admire Tate because he presents himself as hypermasculine. And so, Tucker Carlson spent over two hours interviewing him, lobbing softball questions. A woman who calls herself an “Ambassador for Christ” gushed when Tate said this:
My favorite part of ep. 9 🔥
Andrew Tate X Tucker Carlson pic.twitter.com/P2op9EnsDn
— 𝐍𝐢𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐥𝐥𝐞 (@npeeksxo) July 12, 2023
Oh really. Carlson is a smart man — you’d think he’d dig into some past Tate comments like this:
I don’t think one woman is capable of completing a man’s life. I think you need a wife, and you need hoes. You need multiple women so they can f*** off and do women s*** … Women are the true currency of ballers. F*** money, it’s women.
Tate also said in a podcast last year:
If you are a high-enough status individual, then you get to get away with more.
Nice job, Carlson, whitewashing an accused sex trafficker. Now interview Tim Ballard, the anti-human trafficking activist who inspired the film The Sound of Freedom.
Andrew Tate is another terrible man whom no one should admire. And the type that every sensible woman should avoid.
In her Federalist article, Paula Rinehart notes that in pre-Christian Rome, sexuality was merely a means to an end, particularly for men. They could have sex with whatever slaves they wanted. Prostitution was also the norm for the benefit of men. Rinehart writes:
The familiar expression was that a Roman man had a woman to bear children, and a man for pleasure.
However, as Christianity spread throughout Europe, old pagan norms gave way to Christian beliefs. God created man and woman in His image, so the body was a temple, not to be defiled. Sexuality was to be enjoyed by married men and women, and the offspring that resulted were precious gifts from God, not disposable tissue.
But now? Rinehart writes: Like desperate pagans, we wind up again sacrificing our children to the gods. All for the lie that sexuality is merely a plaything. And who pays the biggest price? Women, yes, but especially unborn children.
Welcome, Instapundit readers!
Featured image: The Kiss, by Gustav Klimt. Jessica Epstein/flickr/cropped/CC BY 2.0.
Joe R. says: Men don’t want to control shit. Unless shit gets out-of-hand (SGOOH). Real men are born/bred/raised with a constant thought in the back of their head that they might be called-upon, if only by themselves, to get out-of-hand shit (OOHS) back in-hand.
Further, it’s a matter of Societal Agreement, NOT “LAW” (as you cannot coalesce enough parties to even contemplate a law if there isn’t Societal Agreement between existing parties) that keeps us from letting SGOOH, and Societal Agreement that fixes OOHS.
Societal Agreement is “illimitably sustainable conflict” based upon tomorrow, and the tomorrows of tomorrow, because, if it is not, we can always hash out everything today in a more littered un-sustainable conflict RTF now.
Societal Agreement is between any, and EVERY, two people, and requires that the parties convince each other that they are interested enough in their own tomorrow to be at least too pre-occupied to pre-empt the other party’s attainment of tomorrow [loosely paraphrased, J.M. Thomas R., TERMS, 2012].
A woman, who is a party to Societal Agreement [and there are none who are not] cannot convince me that she is interested, at all, in my tomorrow, and my children’s tomorrow, if she chooses to end the life of someone whose tomorrow I am interested in (i.e., her child) especially when this person is the “third man in the fight” (referring to the aforementioned sustainable conflict) and just happens to be there by the woman’s invitation. That is why abortion in instances of rape and incest are treated differently [because you cannot also force a woman to carry someone else’s children].
There is no two ways about this, and there never will be, because there are [at least] two things that haven’t changed since inception, and that is Human Nature and Physics, and those two things will not change during the period of eternity occupied by “people”.
NTSOG says: “Like desperate pagans, we wind up again sacrificing our children to the gods.”
Speaking of pagans there is this degenerate and delusional fool:
https://www.liveaction.org/news/transgender-activist-uterus-ovary-transplant-pregnant-abort/
Truly it was a sad day when psychiatric institutions closed their doors, and the inmates were turned loose on the streets to be their insane natural selves.
370H55V I/me/mine says: Sorry Paula, Louise, and Kim, but men have NEVER called the shots when it comes to sex. There isn’t a woman alive (at least under 40), who can’t find a partner on demand. A man who does that will find himself in prison for 30 years. Every man knows this. No feminist will ever admit it.
Furthermore, they know that it’s only a relatively small number of alpha males who can command female attention. Thus, in a society that hold marriage in contempt (at least opposite-sex marriage), fewer and fewer men are having more and more sex. Hence the growing number of “incels” among the rest. And if that weren’t bad enough, we have criminalized their efforts to obtain it. A young man not among the select will find his school enrollment or his job in jeopardy merely for asking out the wrong girl who feels “unsafe” or “traumatized” by his request.
As for prostitution, it has always been based not only on the principle that men need it more, but that they have the wherewithal to pay for it. Add that to the furious opposition to sexbots (cf. Kathleen Richardson) because the feminists want to keep men in a state of continual frustration, and you have a powder keg ready to explode. We are already seeing a slow burn in the refusal of young men to join the military or become law enforcement officers. Why should they put their lives on the line to defend the feminist state in which all the top positions of power go to those who in earlier times might have been their mates?
GWB says: Many young adults grew up without a religious moral code that forbids promiscuity.
I will disagree in the sense that I think they grew up with a moral code that actively encourages promiscuity.
If you are a high-enough status individual, then you get to get away with more.
That sounds (in isolation) like a very factual statement made by a recent President. Hmmmm.
Interesting, too, that when I hear him speak about masculinity, I hear him essentially redirecting that status. Instead of being rich or powerful, he turns it to hypermasculinity. He’s basically using that as the “high status” to get women and “get away with it.”.
All for the lie that sexuality is merely a plaything.
Yes. But don’t fall for the lie that it is in isolation. It is not just sex*. Progressivism is oriented on hedonism – pleasure without consequence. Sex, drugs, music, art*, speech – all without boundary or consequence. Sex happens to be the one where the strongest urges are, and therefore the greatest fight. All that “free speech” malarkey in the 60s? All nothing more than removing boundaries on what they think is pleasure.
(* They love to use the strong response to the sexual issues to accuse one of prudery. It – because it seems to attack one of the fundamentals of our life – is the strongest accusation they can make, often.)
Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity…
they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.
Romans 1:28-29a, 31
370H55V I/me/mine says: “All that “free speech” malarkey in the 60s? All nothing more than removing boundaries on what they think is pleasure.”
And now that they’ve maxed out on that score, the next project is to curtail the speech of others who might interfere with that pleasure. Thus more malarkey about “unsafe”, “uncomfortable”, “hate speech”, etc.
One of the cardinal principles of contemporary feminism is an infantile belief that life must be nothing but unterrupted bliss, and government must step in ruthlessly to make it so. Hence Michigan HB 4474 and similar obscenities elsewhere. Men need to resist because their lives are literally on the line. Whether or not they will do so remains to be seen.
All this presupposes that women have no sex drive of their own, all is dependent on male initiation. If a man does not initiate a sexual approach, we are to believe, sexual congress is impossible. What a load of road apples!
In 99% of cases no sex happens if the woman does not consent (let those in the remaining 1% swing). Period. She has control over if and when a man gets access to her genitals. A man approaches, she grants access, now she’s the victim. No.
Society as a whole has been programmed to think that promiscuity is normal, and that a ‘normal’ woman will have the same sexual appetites as men and satisfy them in the same way. But even in this environment there are many, many men, even men with honorable intentions (marriage and family), who spend years in relationships with women are relegated to the ‘friend zone’ while the women they cherish futter other men whom they do find sexually attractive.
What do women find sexually attractive? Wealth, power, fame, bad boys, forbidden men. Priests are approached by women to a ridiculous degree. Notoriously unsavory men such as gangsters and rebels never lack for women. Band members, whether the band is good or well known or not, have the pick of groupies. I am always surprised at how many young, attractive females spend their best years maintained by sugar daddies. You get the picture.
Even when marriage and family was the societal norm these patterns of female attraction existed. As for all the complaints of sexually unfaithful men I have noticed something that has apparently gone unremarked: for every man engaging with sex with a woman who is not his wife there is a woman engaging in sex with a man who is not her husband. No, seriously, check it out!
It would be a good thing for the individuals involved and for society as a whole were women to take responsibility for their own choices. Sadly, I don’t see that happening to any large degree any time soon.
Mike McCabe says: I don’t believe Kim Hirsh. Anyone aligning with Seattle has their own dystopia to deal with. Andrew Tate is reacting to the world provided him in which the emotional being is in charge….not Gods plan.
Kim Hirsch says: You judge my motives but can’t even spell my name correctly. Why, bless your heart.
Howard Hirsch says: That’s all right, Kim. They do the same to me.
Kim Hirsch says: Thanks, Howard! Good to hear from you again.
craig says: GWB is correct: the Left’s abandonment of “free speech” is proof that it never was about anything but tearing down Christian civilization and replacing it with hedonism. The new censorship is simply blasphemy laws enforcing the new religion.
Slurs against Andrew Tate miss the point. (Note: I’m not familiar with him.) Nothing he said in the clip above would have been considered in any way controversial prior to 1970. Reworded only slightly, your great-grandmother’s generation would have dispensed the same information to young women as motherly advice.
Alas, we see again how self-labeling “conservatives” attempt to split the difference and codify previous leftist advances which advantage them personally, all the while decrying the next advances (for now). Any talk of undoing the sexual revolution is anathema to all but the so-called “far right”. Women in both parties vote to retain access to all escape hatches — abortion, easy divorce, welfare, etc. — they might conceivably want someday to get out from under obligations, vows, and social expectations. The new religion is about elevating the primacy of women’s feelings above all else.
Paula Rinehart complains that women seeking commitment “must conform”. What she fails to say is that the market for commitment is not the same as the market for sex. Women have set the ‘reserve price’ for commitment too high, demanding bidders must meet a list of ‘sixes’ (six figure income, six feet tall, six pack abs, …). Further, they have voted to make the agreement voidable by the seller with high probability for extreme penalties to the buyer. Then they bring out the shocked Pikachu face to complain that what few bidders remain are overly demanding and transactional.
GWB says: Meanwhile, plenty of women – who do not subscribe to Progressive/feminist beliefs – are finding good men who don’t need to be “transactional” because they actually want and desire a good mate. And both people are benefiting.
craig says: Not so fast. Some good men and women are benefiting in particular individual marriages.
But in the collective, good men tend to be frozen out. Since women who do not subscribe to progressive/feminist beliefs nonetheless enjoy the leverage attained via leftism, most every man today faces the position of being an at-will employee in his prospective marriage, even to a good woman. The danger to men is found in the old saw that women marry men hoping they will change (but they don’t), while men marry women hoping they won’t change (but they do).
GWB says: Bullcrap. You’ve fallen in among the incels. LOTS of good men and good women find each other (not often in places like bars) and have long, relatively happy marriages. Even if, say, 70% of marriages end in divorce, that means 30% make it work.
And neither women nor men change that much in marriage. Except for their bodies, which age – and sometimes succumb to good cooking.
You’re right about feminism. And more women have adopted some portion of feminism than think so. But it’s not “all” women by any stretch, and not all the good women have gone to the rich, powerful, and studly. Stop believing that carp.
craig says: You misunderstand. Agreed, many good women have gone to good men and not to the rich, powerful, and studly. The point was that the internal dynamic of marriage has changed for all marriages because of the redefinition of meaning as well as the legal system’s incentives. Redefining marriage as serial but not-necessarily-permanent monogamy is no less a fundamental change than redefining it to include homosexual pairings. If 30% make it work, that’s a far cry from “until death us do part”.
370H55V I/me/mine says: 70%? That’s a hell of a risk. You just undermined all your own arguments.
GWB says: It’s a bogus statistic, often used to cry about how awful the state of marriage is in America.
And it really doesn’t undermine my point at all. Because it’s by no means “all”.
BJ says: Stop believing that carp? Sounds pretty fishy. 😉
grayswindir says: Funny thing about Tate, he has women fawning over him, he has no problem attracting women. A lot of nice young men I know can’t even get a date.
” In order to be with a man you must conform to his sexual desires and pretend to like it. If you complain, there are plenty of other women who will take your place. ”
That’s only true for a man like Tate. He does have options, he can have a harem because women choose him, not the other guys, whom they find boring. Most men are lucky to just find one women willing to be with them and stick with them. Young men are having less sex than ever, while women’s sexual activity has declined only slightly– they’re all chasing the same guys. Again, guys like Tate.
Jim says: It’s all about unfettered sex, for women and men. This is the “new way” (actually a reversion to a very, very ancient way, as the author points out). Abortion is about being able to have unfettered sex. Liberals HATE when I use that word to point out what these issues are all about. They know it is the correct word.
Females were viewed as purer and more spiritual than men, for centuries. (Thus no voting or being in elected office….it was to protect women from being sullied by that nasty, ugly, male world crap. Men and women knew that women had to be “maintained above” all that, if society was going to succeed). Now women are even MORE sullied and vulgar than men, much of the time. Thus, society goes down the tubes. Most young women these days are an abomination. Sad.
(I like Tucker Carlson and will have to view his videos with Tate, who I don’t know).
Strelnikov says: Civilization is, and always has been, an effort to control the baser instincts of men. Chivalry, as a system, protected women from those instincts. As civilization continues to break down, women who have formerly raged about their sexual freedom will increasingly be victimized. By men who are free form societal control.
James Nelson says: Yup, another article where a woman does not require women in general to be responsible for their own choices, it is all those bad men. Say what you like about Andrew Tate, his lifestyle and beliefs are a product of women behaving in a way that harms their own interests. Women are the gatekeepers of sexual activity, they choose who to have sex with. Their brains are hard wired to go for high resource and high status men, often men who have no need to commit because there are a hundred women behind her waiting for their chance. Just like men are hard wired to look for youthful fertile appearing women, it is not some societal training or the patriarchy.
It was not men in general who changed society’s rules about sexual behavior, it was women, the feminist movement specifically. Even the “red pill” You Tube channels repeatedly point out that this behavior in young women is to their detriment.
I am so tired of the lack of accountability in women.
GWB says: a woman does not require women in general to be responsible for their own choices
Pretty positive Kim isn’t saying that, at all.
It was not men in general who changed society’s rules about sexual behavior
Malarkey. A large portion of the push for hedonism was making women more available to bad men. And it was men who developed feminism. (Take a look at the history – the concept did not rise unbidden among females.)
Jim says: You are correct that men who wanted unfettered sex were a huge part of the degradation of women. Hugh Hefner was not alone in this effort…..many other men also participated.
GWB says: There sure are a lot of men on here slamming “women” for their part in this. Some even having a hard time acknowledging that there are still good women out there, looking for good men. Maybe back off “women” and discuss specific women. Or you’re never going to make a difference.
25 Comments