Two major tenets of the postmodern feminist movement are body-type acceptance and anti-slut-shaming rhetoric. In today’s lesson, I aim to expose how this rhetoric is abused by hypocrites to get men (and women!) to cheat themselves, and settle for inferior specimens who are beneath them. First on the chopping block:
One has to understand that Body-Type Acceptance and promiscuity tend to go hand in hand. The higher one’s beauty, moral class, or intelligence standards are, the harder it will be for them to be promiscuous. Because the more rigid one’s standards are, the smaller their dating pool gets. Hence, the most promiscuous people (or, in a clinical sense, those afflicted by sex addiction) tend to suspend judgement of their sexual partners. This usually involves viewing other people as sex objects, rather than sentient beings who are subject to moral scrutiny. You can’t really judge an inanimate object, you can only judge sentient beings. Hence: guns, drugs, money, etc… these things aren’t intrinsically bad, but some people are bad about them. I maintain that if people were objects, they would be immune from judgment, but because people are sentient, they are subject to judgment. But liberals want to have their cake and eat it too, by saying that not only are people not objects, but they are also immune from moral judgement.
When a sex partner is seen as a generic blank, and not a unique individual, it’s easier for them to be treated as sex objects. This is the basis of sexual communism and interchangeability. Conversely, a hopeless romantic would see one particular person as ‘special’, hold them in higher regard than others, and use that as a basis to pursue them romantically.
I was briefly friends with a community of models in Austin. I say ‘briefly friends’, when what I really mean is that I was auditioning them for real friendship by hanging out with them and getting to know them better. Ultimately, they did not meet my standards. Don’t get me wrong, they were all very beautiful people, but most of them failed to meet my ethical and intelligence standards. It was a swingers’ club full of atheists and social liberals, and I eventually deliberately alienated myself from it, so as not to waste my time with this distraction from my quest for a true equal.
One of the social institutions of this community was a male model, who happened to be somewhat wealthy and organizationally powerful, so there was a high degree of alpha white male financial, social, AND beauty privilege associated with this person. Given that he is a male model and a public figure, I could name him, but I won’t. I will only destroy his rhetoric. He championed himself an egalitarian, and would often opine very vocally about body type acceptance, everyone is beautiful, etc… The problem with his little act, was that he was a total hypocrite, and this was quite obvious. His main squeeze was a beautiful model, and yet he still felt entitled to more women, often frequenting strip clubs to pick up fodder for affairs and threesomes.
The situations where this colossal hypocrite would bust out the body-type acceptance rhetoric, was mostly when he was trying to pawn someone off on a lower-ranking member of his hierarchy, or an outsider. His game basically boiled down to: “Even though I bang all the hottest chicks in this club, you should settle for this fat girl I don’t want, because body-type acceptance.” And I think most people will find that the social institutions who run these kinds of games are all crooked and hypocritical like that. They take the best for themselves, and try to get everyone else to hook up with the leftovers and undesirables. The unstated, secret, inner doctrine that these people have, which should be obvious to anyone with half a brain, is that beauty belongs to the wealthy, and those of lower economic class should get stuck wit the ugly girls.
But the champions of body-type acceptance are not all male feminist douchebags. In fact, most of them are females with a rather one-sided view of feminism. Now, let’s just say that a woman told you: ‘I only date men who are at least 6 feet tall.’ This is her standard, and any liberal community would be expected to accept that. Because of all of these biased double-standards about ‘consent’ (It’s legal to extract sexual consent from a man while he’s intoxicated, for example, but not from a woman), it’s not really socially acceptable to question a woman’s standards. On the other hand, if a man said, ‘I only date natural red-heads of proper height to weight ratio’, this would most probably be labelled as ‘typical male superficiality’.
So the idea here, is that women have a right to exert a personal preference when it comes to their romantic standards, but men don’t have this right. We are supposed to take whoever comes along and be grateful. Where this really gets into hypocrisy is that these same people who expect the straight man to take whatever he can get are, at the same time saying, ‘Don’t hate gay men for their biologically determinant tastes.’
Many straight men have the minds of engineers and designers. Symmetry, balance, geometry… these are the things that excite us, in fact, most sport cars, the hallmark of the straight male, are designed to subconsciously appeal to men in a sexual way. So it’s really bullshit to say on one hand, ‘This gay guy’s attraction to the same sex is OK because it’s inherent in his brain chemistry,’ but simultaneously, on the other hand, say, ‘That straight guy is superficial, for only being attracted to models.’
My personal stance on the issue is that everyone has their personal preference, and that’s fine. I don’t hate gay people for wanting to hook up with their own gender. I don’t hate straight people for finding certain physical traits, that certain members of the opposite sex may or may not have, especially attractive or unattractive. Instead, I acknowledge that these sensibilities are inherent, or the product of life experience. We all have different tastes because we have different genes and different life experience. And that’s fine.
Where I draw the line when it comes to beauty and sexual entitlement, is the person who wants partners who are ‘out of their league’, or too many partners. In my experience, any inequity in a relationship will eventually destroy it. If she has too much baggage and he hasn’t been around, that will eventually cause issues. If she is prettier than him, or has more social capital, that will cause issues. My problem, as a person of high intelligence, has always been finding someone capable of relating to me on my level, and I’ve tried to compromise in that regard before, but the results were disastrous, believe me. Attempts at compromising ethical and beauty standards have also been met with similar failures. And just like any time a male is expected to compromise romantically, I was singularly blamed when that compromise failed.
I firmly believe that people should be looking for their equals, or partners who can match what they themselves bring to the table. So, you have to kind of evaluate yourself in a brutally honest way, and then pursue potential romantic partners on the same level. Of course, natural or intrinsic traits, such as beauty or intelligence, should weigh more in this consideration than temporary or artificial traits, such as legal status or finance, which can change for better or worse in a heartbeat, let me tell you. A relationship based on artificial class will not survive the tough times, and cannot properly be considered real love. A relationship based in genuine attraction and true love, both mental and physical, will survive bankruptcy, and even incarceration, an endurance which I think is beautiful. Others might disagree, but I think they are classist and totalitarian to say that a beautiful woman should only marry a rich man, or that a woman should leave a man who is the victim of oppressive government polices (such as the Drug War).
Personally, I would probably rate myself as a 7 or an 8 on the beauty scale. Not perfect, but no slouch. Passable, in other words. Of course, this is all relative. As a man of slightly below average height, I may not appeal to taller women, and that’s fine, because they don’t really appeal to me either. I happen to be a bit of an androgynous ‘pretty-boy’. Some women like more rugged-looking, conventionally ‘masculine’ men. It really depends on what type she likes. And that’s fine. I have my type, too.
Beauty standards are further complicated by the fact that, everyone likes a pretty girl, but no one likes a pretty boy. Further evidence that beauty privilege is a social phenomena confined to the female. I had this thought as someone complimented me on my youthful appearance today. Most people don’t realize I am 34, and I still get carded to see R rated movies.
I responded to the compliment: ‘It’s a curse. You know, no one ever puts me in charge. No one wants to take orders from someone who looks young, no matter how intelligent or educated. Women my age don’t take me seriously, and the women who do take me seriously are often too young to give me the kind of relationship I want. Other men are often predatory or territorial with me, because they are insecure. If anything, my looks make me a target of exploitation and abuse.’
People often say, ‘High standards might be OK for you, but what about the overweight or not conventionally attractive? Doesn’t your dating philosophy leave them out?’
And I would argue that no, it doesn’t. Because everyone has an equal, or a whole class of people with a similar level of beauty, intelligence, ethics, etc. Sometimes, people are even attracted to eachother even though they don’t ‘match’, and that’s fine, too, as long as the attraction is mutual. Where people run into frustrations is where they want more than they can or should have, when they want a particular person who is fundamentally incompatible, or when they like someone who doesn’t like them back.
I think in terms of monogamous commitment, ‘body-type acceptance’ has a valid place in the sunset years of a marriage. No one looks their best when they are elderly, but you owe it to the relationship to stick it out, anyway. After all, you are aging just as quickly as your partner. But that doesn’t mean I think skinny, good-looking guys should hook up with fat, ugly girls out of desperation and compromise, unless they have a fetish for those kinds of women, and some guys do. I certainly wouldn’t stand in their way, because it’s one fewer attractive male I have to compete with for available females. But I would never pressure anyone to compromise his beauty, intelligence, or ethical standards, even if he happened to be in a bad (but temporary) legal or financial situation.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am sympathetic to the plight of the less conventionally attractive person, the less ethical person, or the less intelligent person, but would I settle for one in the context of an intimate relationship? Absolutely not! I would hire one, frequent one’s business, value one’s opinion or friendship, etc… But I’m not one who is amiable to giving or receiving pity sex. Again, it’s the very idea that romantic relationships should be as equal as possible, because a relationship undertaken on uneven ground is not likely to be a positive one.
Remember that male model I discussed earlier? In addition to body-type acceptance, he was also a preacher of slut acceptance, or ‘don’t shame a woman for her sexuality’ rhetoric. And, while this rhetoric certainly has its place, it can and often is abused. In the case of the male model, he would often use this rhetoric to get people to settle for his leftovers. ‘I fucked this girl in the past, and no longer want her, but you should accept her, even though I was all up in that at one point in time.’ Basically, this man sexually exploited young, naive women, then tried to pawn off his baggage on the rest of the community, when he got bored and felt entitled to a ‘new’ model. He seemed to think of women as cars. You buy them new, drive them for awhile, then pawn them off on some broke college kid in need. That really did seem to be his philosophy on women, and I didn’t much care for it.
These types of sexual exploiters often refer to themselves as ‘sex-positive’ feminists, also known as ‘female chauvinist pigs‘. Sex-positive feminists often like to claim an ideological monopoly on the concept of feminism, which has many interpretations to many people. More traditional feminists tend to be less sex-positive than modern, third-wave feminists. Sex-positive feminists, however, tend to be the least educated, most vocal, most promiscuous, and most socially despotic of all the different varieties of feminist.
Now let me just say this: We all make mistakes when we are young, especially romantically. I am not above this. There is no instruction manual for love, and even if there were, it probably wouldn’t be allowed in public school. Those who don’t have the privilege of older, wiser relatives and true friends to guide them in the matters of the heart, are doomed to figure these kinds of things out via trial and error. And those people are not personally at fault just because no one educated them as a youth. I say this because I am one of those people.
However, statistics don’t lie, even if they often don’t tell the full story. The more sexual partners one has had, the less likely they will have a successful, happy marriage. Now, this is a general rule, but it has many exceptions. A person who is willfully promiscuous, for example, is different from someone who never had that intention, or grew out of it after adolescence. So, someone could have a number of sexual partners in their past, that could be because they themselves had this drive to be promiscuous, OR, it could be that this person NEVER intended to be promiscuous, but, for whatever reason, kept picking or was limited to partners who screwed them over, or were deceptive towards them. I consider myself the latter, and that can be difficult to explain. All I can say is that there is screwing around, and getting screwed around. We should hold the former responsible for their own debauchery, but not victim-blame the latter. After all, there is always the class war to consider, and some men, especially those who are the victim of class warfare, are never allowed near the kind of woman who would actually do right by them, and are instead diverted or limited to promiscuous women, or kept in a cage of involuntary celibacy.
It can be hard to get married or have one’s monogamous intentions taken seriously when one has been sexually exploited by the promiscuous. I myself am the victim of this mentality in my community, that blames me for being the victim of slutty sociopaths in my youth, and the kind of ‘guilt-by-association’ that entails. This is one of many reasons I slowed down a lot, sexually, in mid-life and the wake of a bad divorce, and started more carefully examining my romantic options, a practice which some might say borders on sexual paranoia, or even ‘hypocritically projective slut-shaming’.
But, I maintain that, being a sensitive person, and having been hurt before, judging potential romantic partners for their past is something I have to do, as a defense mechanism from getting hurt again, or making similar bad romantic selections to the ones I have made in the past. The gritty truth is, if you really are a hopeless romantic and a monogamist at heart, you have to be romantically discerning, otherwise, not only will you be hurt, cheated on, jilted, unsatisfied by superficial casual sex relationships, but you may even be typecast as a slut, and restricted from better opportunities on that basis.
And once again, as these statistical realities go both ways down the gender street, no one is going to blame a woman for rejecting a man on the basis of his past willful promiscuity. And yet, when a man employs these same standards against women, the feminists and the liberals cry ‘slut-shamer!’ The reality is, I don’t care if slutty people, male or female, are slutty together. They aren’t my type anyway, so let them go do that with eachother. It’s none of my business. What I don’t like is when more romantically innocent men and women are drawn into these kinds of shenanigans via social dishonesty and subterfuge. Because that was me at one time, I didn’t appreciate being victimized and exploited in this way, and I don’t like seeing it happen to others who share my disposition on the matter.
The truth is, for a man like me, who is sincerely a hopeless romantic and monogamist, because that’s the way my emotions work, I know damn well that there are only certain types of women who are emotionally able to provide me with the kind of relationship I want. So to be socially coerced into settling for less than that, is unacceptable to me, and I maintain that I have every right to exert that personal preference.
In conclusion, I firmly believe that liberal communities use Anti-Slut-Shaming and Body-Type Acceptance rhetoric to rationalize forcing men, often through social subterfuge or coercion, to settle for women who are not their equals. And when the resulting bad relationship inevitably fails, they always blame the man, even if sticking the unlikely pair together was wholly the bad idea of the community. Don’t let this happen to you! It is often the practice of chauvinists to instill in people a sense of insecurity and desperation from being alone too long, or kept apart from the right partner, but my advice is to rise above this, exert some willpower, and hold out for the class of partner you deserve, no more, no less.