I Want Success… And Exploit Myself

So I come back to my original question. Who is really responsible for the current trend in overt female sexualization?

The sources were more a convergence and they happened years before the disease showed symptoms due to ?moral momentum?.

The earliest work would be Freud, and the sexualization of creativity and his obsession that everything is from sex. His ideas were incorporated into the Frankfurt school. Hitler kicked them out, and they settled in the US at what would end up soviet spy central, Columbia University.

From their it was a multipronged ideological attack from the left upon Americans who would not work out end results of things and whose trust and desire to do right was abused, used, and betrayed by a bunch of people.

You can trace Franz Boas, who turned out to be a soviet spy. Also you can check out the results of Margaret Meade, who as it turns out, did sham work on the sexuality of women and young girls. Her false work became some of the most cited sociological research by feminist researchers with an agenda other than truth.

However those wouldn?t be enough by themselves. at the same time, a CPUSA writer named Naomi Goldstein, wrote a book under her married name, Betty Freidan.

All through all this there were lots of generated pseudo science stuff pushed out that talked about female sexuality, and default sexuality, and oppression. Much of it not really making sense, unless you believed that we were all blank slates and a product of culture. None of us different because Darwin arbitrarily decided to break the rules of evolution and put a hold on it around the pillars of their ideology.

Given that Kennan warned us in his long letter that the soviets would work through womens groups, that?s what happened. Teachings of another Frankfurt school leader, marcuse, were getting people to loosen up, and telling them ?if it feels good do it?. certain books hit the scene that made a lot of sense to people who had no idea how things worked, or what reasons that things were the way they are. Culture being a kind of plan and western culture being horribly oppressive, etc, yada yada.

You can look and see at this times tons of things hit around the same time, and many of them related in either ideology, purpose, result, etc. its what geared up the culture for the revolution of the 60s that really was not the result of people realizing what the pill would allow.

Others from the franfurt school went to hollyweird, others just wrote articles. Fellow travelers taught students, and every one was loosened up. Our schools way before this were centralized in their curriculum, something you need to generate mass movements, by dewey. Father of American education, our school system was based on Russia?s, and the Hungarian system. Dewey was found to be a spy as well, so it?s questionable all the excuses of his pragmatism, and other points as well. .

The one thing you wont notice is that these ideas started in 35? they were well thought out as to what effect they would have. And then it was well thought out how that would be addressed so as to confuse the issue by floating too many ?facts? which then let people decide based on what they picked. Sound familiar?

Anyway, on the issue of sex. The explanations had to do with oppression of males, and so on. Without natures, they could not/would not analyze things in terms of those natures which might show reasons for things. Given that the ultimate goal of all the points and things was the destruction of culture, and the disconnecting of the body politic from its past. The beneficent idea fomented to the masses that follow was that such would allow everyone to be equal; the idea to the leaders was what it would do to the people, and the values and things that ultimately caused the Hitler Stalin pact to fail. Following Gramsci, the beastie has just kept going.

If one recognizes what our grand dads knew, it would be that we have natures. Whats worse is that grand dad was aware of something that our cultural people are not or they are in denial of. That?s that their conscious is not in as much control as they would think or like it to be. Despite the fact that people are fat against their wishes, cheat against their wishes to their detriment, etc. no we are not in control to the degree we are told or are allowed to believe we are.

How did our ancestors handle this problem? We handle it by living every life like the moth, and damned be the outcomes. They handled it by controlling their environment to insure outcomes VOLUNTARILY. Those oppressive things were most oppressive to those who did not understand why, and were not old enough to know enough to get it, and by those whose actions were opposite of those reasons (predators, sociopaths, etc).

The women were told that the men were the ones that dictated things for women, but if you look, there was nothing that the men could really do to women to get them to comply, but it?s what women could do to women that could get them to comply. Men just complied with what women ultimately wanted since the society was majority pair bonding.

With the tales and ideological spins in place women forgot that they hated competing like cattle. They forgot that the reason for all the prudery was that they didn?t like losing the guy to someone with bigger hooters, or that was a lot younger. Sans plastic surgeons the only way an older woman can level the playing field is to cover the young ones up.

Anyway, our ancestors knew that sex is what one can call an overwhelming selector. It?s a primitive left over that given no control over who or the environment, we will generally end up finding the person we are with appealing enough to do something with (otherwise humans wouldn?t have ever gotten this far on subsistence living till the last 10k years).

Women were too busy thinking of all the promises of the future, rather than study with real focus what the results would be now, and then tomorrow, and then next week.

Culture was how the animal stopped being an animal, and how the animal controlled himself in the environment to winnow out better outcomes than if left to completely random outcomes.

In this way, people from good families married others of good repute and started weeding out sociopaths, mental cases, the incapable, the lazy, etc.

When sex is no longer on the table as the reason we get together, then intelligence, personality, skill, talent, and other higher later things become important. Each of these superior qualities is like a LED. But they sit around a 100 watt incandescent bulb called sex. As long as that bulb is allowed to shine, it drowns out the others from consideration.

So when the women threw off their oppressors, who really didn?t stop them. they took a cover off the bright overwhelming selector. So they exposed a bit more, and foom, men came a running! More ideological reinforcement, and foom, they took off a little more.

It became a race to the bottom. And the not as pretty, not as endowed, not as manipulative, were suddenly left on the outs. You see, the women didn?t have to select one, and so the few got the many. And the women who worked so hard on this stuff, ended up being betrayed by the men, who wanted nothing but bimbos.

What the ladies didn?t do was analyse what was the outcome. With such a situation the thing of primary importance would then shift to youth and basal animal markers. The fact that we all have unique faces, and so many different body types rather than look alike like a herd, shows the effects of no longer selecting by sex, but by potential and outcomes outside of sex. Animals select by sex, and no its not called finding your soulmate.

Pretty much this put the brakes on most development of most women in our culture. Yeah there were a lot that went to college and got careers, but they lost to any bimbette that stripped and could pull a train. So it wasn?t long till ivy league women were turning themselves out into sex toys for a few key men so they can maintain their ranking AMONG women. Since sex was the measure, these guys became the ruler.

Even the leaders now don?t understand all of this. Or at least that?s the image I get. They have no idea how to understand why their ideas didn?t work out. Why these ladies that had the most hope and such, became the largest mass of disease vectors since we roamed the plains (and yes the men following up behind).

Instead of one on one equal relationships in families, they got to be a member of a protracted harem that shares its members with other harems.

Say what?

Well, lets see. If a prince has a harem, there is one that had 16,000 women, he might only be with one member of his harem each week, and never see them again. That would be only 500 women in 10 years.

However, isn?t that what lotharios can do today? Didn?t a famous basketball player claim that he had had over 10,000 partners?

In the era before female liberation, those guys would NEVER get that going. The law then required that they marry them all to get that benefit, and the law wouldn?t let them have more than one.

Now that guy gets to have the harem of 10,000 AND he doesn?t have to pay for it. old system resurrected through mathematical analysis of operations and outcomes.

So it?s easy to see why the guys signed on, they had even less reason to analyse the situation.

The feminists don?t understand women stating that the burka is liberating. They don?t understand how even the Italians had their version of it. take a look at Italian houses and you can still see the old ones with a blank wall and a little window (rapunzel anyone?).

The whole idea is that the ladies actually thought that their choice of mate was a very important thing. While I agree that the burka is oppressive, its no less extreme than the foundation garments we are familiar in the west, plastic surgery, and other things.

After all, why did tattoos and body piercings become popular? Well, after you expose yourself to pretend to be looser than the next girl to get TIME with the person you want to be with, how do you go lower? Well biker chicks and pierced chicks were generally freakier than the rest of the population. So guess where it gravitated to? Then from their it went to totally confusing hookers who now don?t know how to dress, then to pushing the limits of what was taboo subjects.

All to get a little edge over the next girl who doesn?t have the liberated balls to pretend to look like a minor in Babylonian bondage gear and latex accoutrements.

Of course, the youngers mimic their elders, and so they just start off where the big sisters left off.

Now you have young women, who are taught that they can dress any way they like, and go anywhere they want, and they should expect no consequences, and they are left to deal with the world totally alone. Historically speaking the family and friends usually insured the safety of the girl and that she wasn?t going off half cocked with the drummer of a band who was 45, had 6 kids by 3 different women, and lived with his mom.

The restrictions of culture is what makes us more than animals. All one has to do is plot the groups who have less (refined) culture and how they behave. The spectrum spans the thug culture of the barrio or inner city, to the feudal culture of the Japanese samurai. Few would say that the samurai were animals, and few would say that the thugs of some areas are ?refined? cultural products of our age.

Its interesting though. Before socialism and its destroy family, destroy culture, do it all against the will of those who they pretend to do it for. we were really doing some exciting things. We were going places. But then came socialism, the late 1800s, and in less than 100 years we went from. Mary cassatt, John Singer Sergeant, William henri chase. Arts and crafts reached their pinnacle, with bauer, morris, stickley, rossetti, not to mention the famed stained glass work of the era. Ambrose Beirce, Emily Dickensons poems were popular, and the final poetry collections of walt Whitman was published. Mark Twain was popular, as was Rudyard kipling, and sarah james jewett.

I could go on for hours. Care to survey their heroes?

Then move fast forwards. We have piss Christ, Mapplethorpe, soviet realism disguised as other things. Remakes that are perversions of loved things (batman, willy wonka, etc).

If one really wanted to figure out who and what it was that did this, its easy enough. but its also clear that we lost a whole lot and that what they have been touting as better, and a new renaissance, seems more like it put the brake on the one we were having and put a dark age in place.