How should we interpret the boycott of the Playboy TV show?

[Rollo Tomassi]

From a pragmatic, power retention point of view, it makes sense that women would expect men to submit to what best fits their reality and sublimate their sexual imperatives to accommodate a female sexual imperative. This can be effected by reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.

Appeals to religion or morality are simply convenient tools of this punishment to enforce a female-centric reality. It's hard to argue against religion or puritanism in a "gender appropriate" debate - it's unassailable. God / Polite Society dictates that women are to be respected, protected and valued as an unquestioned default position, and even when her actions do not match her words or convictions she's to be given the benefit of the doubt.

All tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative - and have done so for thousands of years. That may seem like a bold statement, but think of any example of a vice or a virtue and you can link it back to a latent purpose for it being considered such that serves a female reality. Pornography and prostitution are only considered vices by society at large because they conflict with a broader female-primary reality. Encouraging virtues like temperance and honesty, still serve a female specific reality in that men believe they will be considered higher value mating potential than men who do not possess these virtues - and they help to keep men rooted in one set of social rules while they are free to operate under another set.

 

[samspade]

All tenets of conventional morality exist to serve a feminine imperative - and have done so for thousands of years. That may seem like a bold statement, but think of any example of a vice or a virtue and you can link it back to a latent purpose for it being considered such that serves a female reality.

Most of what you're saying makes sense to me. But a lot of the female morality archetypes - the chaste virgin to marry, the unbridled tramp to enjoy in a brothel - didn't they serve a male "reality"? Namely that there are "good" girls and "bad" ones.

From a pragmatic, power retention point of view, it makes sense that women would expect men to submit to what best fits their reality and sublimate their sexual imperatives to accommodate a female sexual imperative. This can be effected by reward and punishment. Reward in that a man is allowed sexual access for compliance to her imperatives, and punishment via shame and ridicule for noncompliance or even being critical of it.

Based on the tenets of this site and elsewhere, this can never hold up. Well it can if enough men comply, but likewise enough men must rebel. We can kiss the family as we know it goodbye. Moreover this is why we see editorials from women calling for the banning of paternity tests - if I'm connecting the dots correctly.

 

[Rollo Tomassi]

Based on the tenets of this site and elsewhere, this can never hold up. Well it can if enough men comply, but likewise enough men must rebel. We can kiss the family as we know it goodbye. Moreover this is why we see editorials from women calling for the banning of paternity tests - if I'm connecting the dots correctly.

This is an interesting observation. As feminism progressively 'empowered' a more overt feminine reality, so too were methods adapted to circumvent this by men (i.e. Game). Since the sexual revolution, men have been forced into 3 camps; those who embrace and function within the feminine imperative (male feminists), those who reject and remove themselves from it either temporarily or permanently (what Jay Hymowitz calls "man-boys" or "Kidults"), or those who learn the mechanics of the female imperative and subvert it to their own purpose (PUAs, DJs, Game).

These camps, and men's increasing refusal or abdication to play in an overt, female-centric reality, is the reason for more and more litigation intended to get men to either comply or be legally bound to the responsibilities of living in a female reality. For centuries women have relied on passively engineered social conventions that were accepted into our cultural consciousness that carried shame or some attached social stigma for a man who wouldn't comply with them. Since the beginning of the sexual revolution however, these social conventions have become increasingly less effective as women perceive them as vestiges of a male patriarchy. Men see women eschewing these "traditional" conventions, but are themselves still expected to abide by them while respecting women for NOT abiding by them. So over the course of 2 decades men become less controlled by the old social structure, and unwilling to participate in a female-centric reality. What to do?

Now, as men are becoming increasingly aware of the raw deal they've gotten, and with the advent of global interconnectivity with other men, the female-centric response is to legally force men into that reality. Thus the laws enacted which pertain to a specific gender become more and more gratuitous for women and more draconian for men. If men will not respect a feminine imperative by social means, then it will be necessary to petition the state to enforce their reality upon men.

 

[acw]

This would all be fine and dandy except for a few important facts.

1. The figure in the following article states that 66% of women view porn on a consistent basis. Now....i know that figure is probably a little high...but i doubt its much lower than 40%. Oh yeah...they want YOU TO THINK they would never entertain such vile, primitive, Soliloquies but the truth is many women love the concept of being ravaged in the BR and even playing submissive for a stint to unleash the beast in them (as long as their image of being faithful wifes, gfs, etc is not tarnished).

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/article2355510.ece

2. Reverse publicity. A lawyer friend of mine once told me that all publicity is good. Don't know if i agree with him, but the Porno industry is well heeled enough to defend itself....even the giant bourgeoisie conglomerate of "Feminist-as INC."

3. Dont' take these idiots too seriously. Those who judge others for their peccadilloes tend to have skeletons in their own closets that eventually are discovered to their detriment and doom.

AC