When a man travels outside a sexually repressed culture and stays out for a good while, one of the first things that crosses his mind is the libertine nature of many other cultures. In stark contrast to the United States, people abroad are often literally fucking like rabbits. Sex is readily available to an attractive, well-dressed man in Latin America, which is totally the opposite of Anglo culture in which women commodify themselves then sell out to the highest bidder or have the one night stand with a thug.
Is the fact sex flows like water outside the borders of The Matrix merely an illusion brought on by hypergamy? It is a product of r/K selection? Or is the welcome “culture shock” the product of having been stewed and basted in a culture that has long had problems with sexual repression, and has recently made moves aimed at making heterosexual sex itself taboo in a form of Neo-Puritanism?
After all, sex has been around a long time, and women have been feverishly trying to control sex for economic and social status advantages in Anglo culture from the beginning. The government now appears to be in the process of legislating and propagandizing to completely take pleasures of the flesh away from Beta males.
Neo-Puritanism is on the rise in Anglo America among Marxist social engineers
Lawmakers, along with their prostitutes in the media (i.e. the gatekeepers and agenda setters) are pursuing a multi-pronged approach to make straight sex taboo. There are several ways social engineers are attempting to make heterosexual activity a legal and cultural albatross for men Anglo America and Europe. These are only a few of the ways this agenda is being pursued.
- Constructing a “Human Trafficking” facade which is based on mostly spurious claims of women being forced into prostitution, then passing endless laws to combat this phantom enemy (sound familiar to terrorism?)
- Passing endless rape laws pushing men farther into a corner with regards to normal heterosexual activity, i.e. the “Josie was drunk” ad campaign and affirmative consent laws
- Promoting homosexuality as sacrosanct while prohibition and public shaming still extend to the world’s oldest profession, prostitution; Johns also have their lives and careers ruined around the U.S. by a voyeuristic police force and media
- Promoting the view that sexuality is “dirty” and something to be embarrassed about among the Plebeian classes, as something reserved for the elite and well-heeled men
- Promoting plague terror for over 30 years, especially a “cooties” campaign for adults as the HIV epidemic (contrary to what we were told in the 1980s and 1990s) remains confined to risk groups and the CDC’s own statistics say heterosexuals could have sex for more than a lifetime and never contract the virus (a nearly 1 in 10,000 chance of spreading the virus through vaginal intercourse)
- Passing insane laws which are now making flirting illegal in the UK
- Shaming men who have normal heterosexual urges and pushing HR policies which make both sexes behave androgynously
- Promoting confusion of male and female genders with the transgender bathroom agenda being pushed by the U.S. government, extending into public schools and down to small children (get them while they’re young)
These are only a few of the ways sex is being made confusing and taboo among heterosexuals in America and Europe. But, there are calls among Neo-Puritans for the state to do even more to “protect” (i.e. pedestalize) women against us “evil” penis-wielding men.
As the holder of a penis, Jake is 1/8 human in the eyes of the law because according to the poster’s own narrative Jake can’t consent either
Calls For Regulating Sex
Elizabeth Bernstein, “Women’s Studies” professor recently published a book entitled Regulating Sex: The Politics of Intimacy and Identity which proposes to put the government in everyone’s bedroom. The book calls for government regulation in numerous areas of people’s private lives, from the ability of people to travel abroad to the state controlling “erotic practice” worldwide.
Bernstein and many other feminists are merely putting a new spin on a very old idea, one that has infected Anglo culture from day one in America: the view that sex is inherently sinful and that sexual contact between straight couples was a “necessary evil” intended only to propagate the human race. Since Marxists want negative population growth, they’re falling back on this old idea, ironically one with religious roots, repackaging it, and making it even more virulent than it was before as they try to make straight sex an “unnecessary evil” in modern times.
As usual, the dreams of Neo-Puritans like Bernstein are first implemented on college campuses, which have become nothing more than Marxist social engineering labs in the early 21st century. The Washington Examiner warns us how these laws are making straight sex the new “evil” of our time.
The rules for college students having sex have become absurd. The new Puritans are practically begging for abstinence by making consensual sex so impossible that it is better to forgo. Part of this problem stems from a broad definition of sexual “violence” that includes unwanted comments about someone’s physical appearance (which could be as mundane as someone telling their female friend they “look good” today). These comments constitute sexual “violence” even between two people involved in a committed relationship.
Just as in Britain, men even talking to women is becoming a prosecutable offense.
Affirmative consent is another cultural cancer spreading not only on college campuses, it is also metastasizing into adults’ lives in the state of California where it was recently signed into law. Thanks to endless rules made up by micromanaging lawmakers, a man literally has to ask a girl before he can take off her panties or face the possibility of being convicted a rapist in California.
“Affirmative consent,” [is] a new rule that requires college students to constantly say “yes” to every sexual act — though it’s never really defined just how often they must say this. Some affirmative consent policies even state that the “yes” must be sufficiently “enthusiastic,” otherwise it’s sexual assault.
Under the law, it’s conceivable a man must further ask a girl if he can finger her once the panties are off. “Yes, you may.” Then if he can suck her tit. “Yes, you may.” Then if he can penetrate her. “Yes, you may.” Did she not say it with enough enthusiasm? Be careful. If she’s less than begging for your cock you may be committing a crime. What kind of idiocy is this? What the hell is the United States of America turning into? What kind of Beta, nay, Omega males is the state trying to socially engineer?
Shame on you for having sexual urges! Those are reserved for thugs and six-figure earners (Alpha Fucks, Beta Bucks)
When looking for the root of this strange world of constant propaganda and the social engineering of sexual activity, one must go back a century to psychologist Sigmund Freud. Think Freud was wrong about everything from Penis Envy to psychoanalysis? He wasn’t. His ideas have been implemented for over a century and have led to the empty, nihilistic, materialistic culture of the West we see everywhere around us today.
Freud’s nephew Edward Bernays first laid out the model of social engineering the corporate-government complex now uses to rule society, and especially men, with an iron fist. Although, it’s an iron fist neatly concealed in a velvet glove of emotional manipulation. Bernays words literally changed the world and led to today’s social engineering schemes by sociopathic elites:
The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of.
Using the power of the corporate media that dominated communication in the U.S. for 50 years, people’s minds were indeed molded according to the desires of corporate and government profit and tax farmers. This model has been falling apart since the advent of the Internet.
Almost 20 years ago, Alec Rawls wrote an essay in The Stanford Review called Why Politically Correct Social Engineering Backfires, which predicted social engineering schemes like the marginalization of sex would eventually backfire. So far, they haven’t, even though the process should have been accelerated by the collapse of the centralized mainstream media propaganda model.
Additionally, Rawls knew well the shameless duplicity of the media in shoving sex in everyone’s face 24/7—from the leg-crossers on Fox News to endless sex in every kind of program from soap operas to movies – while at the same time marginalizing heterosexuals using the bullet points presented above.
The media has also been subliminally pushing the message that women must make the sexual advance for it to be valid, as most big screen and little screen scripts follow this model:
In our politically correct world, “uninvited sexual attention” is officially taboo. It is always the woman who asks out, always the woman who initiates a kiss, always the woman who climbs on top. These rules are absolutely universal with only two exceptions. One is the creep, who is crass or repulsive, or simply a loser, and who is immediately scorned by the woman. The other exception is the charming man who turns out to be a rapist or a murderer.
In effect, the media are literally cucking men with their messages, and reprogramming the way people who watch media think about sex without them even knowing it. Establishing the cultural meme that women control sex and men who attempt to control it are violators is the intended purpose of this messaging.
What are you in for? Having consensual sex with a hot girl
Legally Enforced Chastity
If Rawls is correct, policing of instinctual human behavior like sex will build up like pressure inside a boil until men with enough balls to resist being turned into criminals for having normal male sexual desire came along and lance it.
Correctoids think that by imposing their hypersensitivity, they can make the world a more caring place. Unfortunately, social engineering tends to backfire.
One should change the last sentence to “Fortunately, social engineering tends to backfire.” Because if it doesn’t, someday in the not too distant future it may be not only illegal but culturally taboo for a man and woman to have sex with each other. This is the hellish world leftist academics and the legal class have brought us into.
On a more philosophical level, if one reads the prophet of Western decline Oswald Spengler, this weird sexual world we have entered in the 21st century can be seen as manifestation of Faustian man (i.e. Western civilization) trying to turn himself into a machine, divorcing himself from his biology in an attempt to realize perpetual economic growth. It is also the product of Puritanism re-imagined by Marxist social engineers in an already K-selected, sexually repressed culture. The ultimate goal, of course, is a totally sexless society. Or, at least a matriarchal society in which men are little more than worker bees and sex toys of women.
When the day comes, these types – leftist academics and the legal class – need to be the first who are exiled…or otherwise creatively dealt with. Shakespeare’s advice of what to do with lawyers (and let’s not forget lawmakers) certainly comes to mind, if only in a fleeting fantasy.
Read More: Yet Another Survey Shows That LGBT Domestic Violence Rates Are The Same As Heterosexual Couples
Leave a Reply