Last Crusade 40: Sexual Revolutionaries and Sexual Loyalists
Al Franken has resigned from the Senate. On the one hand, he stole the election, and is a weasel, and the world is a better place without him in any position of power. On the other hand, what he is accused of doing is stealing a kiss from a pretty girl, and snapping a photo where he pretends to grope her. This hardly rises to the same level as the rape allegations leveled against Bill “Slick Willie” Clinton or Harvey Weinstein.
In terms of the Culture War, the current inquisition into sexual misbehavior is a weakness in the enemy position that friendly forces should and could exploit if we are quick, singleminded, and clever, but, by the same token, the enemy counter-offensive will and must push back at the same position, and seek to further entrench the counter-culture.
The friendly position is that the Sexual Revolution has failed. The Revolution held out a false promise; it succeeded based on a false alliance, which is now breaking down; but the Sexual Revolution was an intellectually bankrupt and indefensible position to begin with, based as it was on two patently false assumptions.
Assumption one was the women and men differ in no significant respect, ergo all culturally enforced norms of behavior either must be exactly the same between the two sexes, or must be condemned as oppressive and unequal.
Assumption two was that men are infinitely pliant and pliable. The race can be molded and shaped to serve our convenience, and all our passions and emotions can be controlled by a simple act of willpower.
Hence, if the male desire to protect and pursue and domineer the female is socially inconvenient it can be abolished without any fuss. More to the point, the female desire to be protected, to be pursued, and to be submissive to their mates is not merely inconvenient, it is abhorrent to the cause of female equality. For the sake of feminism, all feminine qualities must be abolished.
The Sexual Revolution promised that there would be no side effects, no unintended consequences, to this abolition of differences between male and female.
To be sure, the whole thing was a falsehood and a sickminded fantasy from the beginning. There was no brave new world of consequence-free sex, where willing but perfectly equal partners of either sex and in any numbers swapped willingly back and forth with abandon, and everyone enjoyed the guilt-free worldwide orgy.
The Sexual Revolution was illogical from the beginning. The assumption that sex is so insignificant that social norms had no business restricting it to married couples is a direct logical contradiction to the assumption that sex is of such utmost significance that social norms can and must be overridden whenever the all-important sexual impulse so demands.
In the first case, the argument of the sexual revolutionary runs that the traditional rules of chastity, the norms of restrained behavior expected from gentlemen and ladies, and most of all the reverence and respect paid to virgins for their virginity and to matrons for their maternity, all of these are dismissed as petty and frantic, the fretful worries of benighted killjoys, puritans, and fussy busybodies.
The first argument hence is that sex is unimportant, merely a natural biological function, so you may not criticize the satyr for his whoring and masturbation. It’s no big deal, man.
In the second case, the argument of the sexual revolutionary runs that the traditional rules of chastity are insignificant to the all-important, nay, the godlike authority of the sexual impulse. The intimacy, the raptures of ecstasy, the sublime pleasure, and indeed the self-expression of sex is asserted to have a higher priority than any mere human institution or any mere social norms.
The second argument hence is that sex is all-important, the highest peak of human life, so you may not criticize the nymph for her harlotry and aborticides. It ain’t nobodies business but her own.
The two arguments contradict each other, and yet, conveniently, reach the exact same conclusion. It is also the conclusion that a pleasure-seeking swine seeks to reach, since it justifies his behavior. More than justifies, these paired arguments actually invert morality: for now the virtue, chastity, is become the vice of self-repression, and the vice, unchastity, is become the virtue of boldness and self-actualization.
Armed with such fake arguments, the nymphs and satyrs can not only excuse their corrupt behavior, they can deride the decent behavior of their critics as immoral. The inversion of morals gives the lowest creature in the swamp of shortsighted self-indulgence the appearance of the moral high ground.
And the way the moral inversion works is this: the lower and more loathsome the nymph or satyr sinks down the moral slippery slope, the higher and higher he rises on the pinnacle of self-righteousness.
A man who steals a kiss is merely ungentlemanly, a cad, who deserves a slap. When the moral scale is inverted, he is merely ennobled to the position of a leader, someone to emulate. In the old times, this was the position of a noble. Whereas a sexual pervert, when the moral scale is inverted, achieves the position of unanswerable moral superiority, and is treated like a saint. And saints outrank nobles.
Pulled by the charging steeds these two false and absurd assumptions, and flourishing the sharp sword of the inversion of morality as a weapon, and waving overhead the banner of false promises, on the warwagon of revolution ran, remorseless as juggernaut.
But the only ones trampled were its practitioners, who were locked in a false alliance.
The false promise was that consequence-free and guiltless sex was possible to the human race: that we could get the benefit without paying the cost. But, as the saying goes, there ain’t no such thing as a free orgy.
The false alliance was between the satyrs and the nymphs, by which I mean, Hugh Hefner and his world allied themselves with feminists and their world.
The young Hefs wanted free access to many willing (and, as it turns out, unwilling) partners as possible, in order to slake their lust. The young feminists wanted not to be equal to men, but to be the same as men. And the men they selected to be the same as were the young Hefs.
So both entered a sexual free-for-all with no rules and no hold barred. But human nature had not changed. Human nature had been denied, and anyone who spoke honestly about human nature was reviled as a hatred-filled liar, but nonetheless, stubbornly, human nature had not changed.
Men seek mates by pursuing them, and all is fair in love and war. Men want status, power and wealth to win mates. Women seek mates by alluring them, either as a virgin alluring a husband to wed, or as a whore alluring a john to be her sugar daddy. Woman seek to allure men of status, power and wealth. Such is human nature.
In the context of traditional and rational moral prudence, the mating dance gives men opportunity to pursue, but deters opportunity for molestation and assault, or blackmailing a girl onto a casting couch.
In the context of the free-for all ushered in by the Sexual Revolution, blackmailing a starlet on to the casting couch is considered fair game. She consents to couple with powerful man old enough to be her father in return for advancing her career.
A buxom young starlet being exploited by an older, married man is permitted because it is a private matter, and consent is the sole criterion of legitimacy.
In the deliberately colorblind logic of the Sexual Revolutionaries, treating sexual couplings as if they are contractual exchanges is a win for the counterculture, because it demeans romance from something sacred to something commercial and tawdry.
And if it is a beardless youth being sent to the casting couch instead of a buxom young starlet, that is even better, because it tramples even more norms.
But the alliance between the nymphs and the satyrs has turned out to be much more advantageous for the satyrs as for the nymphs. The nymphs found out, to their shock and surprise, that by and large they do not like living like satyrs. Statistics show career women, even in prestigious careers like the legal field, express greater dissatisfaction, and usually quit by age thirty.
You see, career women discover that they cannot attract mates by gaining wealth and power. They do not instinctively crave it as men do. Women generally want to marry mates higher in social rank than themselves. Becoming a highly educated professional women actually lowers her available pool of mates to allure.
Also, the sad fact is that the kind of man attracted to a woman because of her power and wealth is not a good mate. A girl who spends her parent’s money on a college education, or grad school, and pursues a career, is losing the main thing that makes her attractive to mates, her peak years of youth, fertility, and beauty. The higher she climbs on the social ladder, the fewer good mates she will find, and the more bad.
In a world of sexual free-for-all with no rules, the rules of ape sexual behavior prevail. The alpha in the tribe gets many mates, which he uses or hands out to loyal beta male lieutenants in return for loyalty, and the low class males get few mates or none. The women are treated like chattel, and abandoned when no longer useful.
And at the same time, any woman with a low class mate who has an opportunity for a higher one abandons him in an instant.
Our current divorce statistics reflect this: ninety percent of divorces are instigated by females abandoning their families. Because of the freakish unfairness of the sexual revolution inverted morality, the males thus abandoned are typically excluded from child custody, and burdened with the alimony and upkeep: in other words, they pay the price of being a husband, but the wife can ignore her duties as a wife, and act like a widow, seeking new mates with shinier cars.
Such a situation can produce only one result: hatred between satyr and nymph.
The inverted morality of the Revolution honors them for exploiting each other, and tells young nymphs they will be healthy and happy doing precisely the things that attract female mates to males, but which, as it so happens, deters male maters from females.
So the nymphs exploit the satyrs, marrying and divorcing for money, and the satyr exploit the nymphs, marrying and divorcing for sex appeal, and throwing an older nymph away when a younger, prettier, trophy wife is available. The satyrs grope, fondle, blackmail, and rape the nymphs, and the nymphs complain about the rape culture they helped to create and sustain.
But with the current sexual inquisition and housecleaning that is going on, the alliance between nymph and satyr has broken down. The nymphs are tired of being groped, and are no longer willing to support the system of lies needed to support the free-for-all.
There are only two possibilities at this point. When a lie breaks down, one possibility is to embrace the truth. The other possibility is to double down, and sink deeper into the lie, and tell a more outrageous lie to cover the first lie.
Such is the friendly position. The examination of the likely enemy counter-offensive must wait for another day.
About John C Wright
John C. Wright is a practicing philosopher, a retired attorney, newspaperman, and newspaper editor, and a published author of science fiction. Once a Houyhnhnm, he was expelled from the august ranks of purely rational beings when he fell in love; but retains an honorary title.
