IS THERE ANYTHING DUMBER THAN “SLUTWALK IN SEATTLE?” JEREMY EGERER….SEE NOTE PLEASE
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/09/thoughts_on_the_seattle_slutwalk.html
IN NEW YORK IT COULD BE A VERY EFFECTIVE CAMPAIGN GIMMICK FOR SPITZER….RSK
If there exists a more undeniable testament to the mindlessness of some modern women than the Seattle Slutwalk, I would honestly like to know what it is. The belief that after laws have been passed against rape, that after hefty penalties exist for its punishment, that after unjust laws give women a very publicly known advantage in rape’s prosecution — in other words, that the very guns of the state have been turned against even questionably alleged rapists — that women can somehow, by debasing themselves and chanting slogans, curb such sinister acts is so ridiculously absurd that I wonder whether a comedian could have invented it.
But I do not believe that the endeavor’s primary flaw exists in woman’s inability to recognize that marches against criminals do not stop crime. Rather, I believe that it exists in her poor understanding of man’s mind — that she marches perhaps in anger, but not in efficacy, being completely knowledgeable of rape’s end, but entirely unwilling to acknowledge the means. Or, to put this in a more simple way, she knows the crime but does not know the criminal. And if we are to correct her willful blindness, or at least arm ourselves against both its calamities and her poisonous invectives, we must first acquaint ourselves not with women, but with men.
To all sensible and experienced people, concerning relations between men and women, there exist two main yet sometimes compromised categories of males: true romantics and whoremongers. The first kind, the romantics, are those who believe in love and marriage, who are chaste and loyal, who exhibit chivalry and protect the innocent, who value their partners not simply as sexual outlets, but as vital to their spiritual well-being. But the second category, oftentimes feigning in the short-term the characteristics of the romantic, can be proven to abide by rules entirely anathema: men who view women as disposable, whose romantic sentiments have been jaded by constant pursuit and excessive sexual gain, who wallow in porn and violate daughters, to whom prostitutes are worthy neither of condemnation nor of pity, but instead of payment.
No young boy, unless deranged or introduced to pornography or perversity by the already experienced, begins with anything other than a curious and heartfelt romance. And if we have an unnatural and undesirably large population of the whoremonger amongst us, it can only be because we allow and promote the behaviors and ideas which debase the innocent. Where sexuality is guarded by biblical standards, men may not remain entirely in innocence, but are certainly closer to it; where men become desensitized to sex, they become desensitized to women.
Knowing, then, that the world of men is divided between the above two categories of saints and devils, it is only sensible to admit that the Slutwalk, as it cannot be attempting to discipline the former, must attempt to influence the latter (at least, we must assume this intent of the most “sensible” portions of Slutwalkers). And even amongst the latter, there exist two kinds of rapists: those who do not take “no” for an answer, and those who surprise women in alleys, and thus entirely forego the question. The man who disrespects women will not stop because a slut tells him no, because he assumes that her chastity is unimportant to her; the man who actively attempts to rape women can never be subject to the opinions of any women. To put this another way, the Slutwalker’s efforts are not only wasted, but, in her embracement of sluttiness, and thus her desensitization of romantics, fundamentally self-defeating.
And if we consider that amongst the less rational women, the rally is an attempt to bolster support amongst the chivalrous, it must be asked exactly how good men are likely to respond. Although a good man defends victims from unjust assault, good men are not often to be found amongst the wildest college fraternities, amongst the twerking masses at barbarian-infested clubs, within the rooms of easy women during late-night encounters with greasy and insufferable gorillas. And if she expects that by degrading herself, both in name and dress, somehow she will increase the incentive for good men to rally to her defense, her ignorance of good minds will lead to nothing less than disappointment — for good men are looking not to protect prostitutes, but to bring them out of prostitution. They seek protection neither of depravity nor strippers, but of innocence and damsels; and at the very center of their beings, in their defense of womankind, they pursue a kind of universal romance — for what man believes about women, he expresses with a woman. And universal romance cannot exist with sluts; by granting herself to the masses, the slut violates the very principle upon which true romance and thus romantic heroism stands — that of untarnished fidelity.
I could only wish that woman’s ignorance would be more a testament to her inexperience, and not her stupidity, to her innocence, and not her depravity, but her suicidal embrace of the word “slut,” her vicious opposition to the honorable romantic, and the overwhelming demand that women continue purposely and constantly placing themselves in harm’s way, are testimonies to the latter. To believe that spoken language is the only means of communication, that having drinks with a man after rubbing against him all night at a club, and then going to his room, is not indicative of sexual willingness, is (at best) something which suggests woman’s desire to flirt with danger, and to be sexually desirable, but to tease and then refuse — not as an unjustly assailed damsel, but as a fraudulent prostitute.
I do not pretend to side with rapists — or with adulterers, or fornicators, or pornographers, or any kind of sexually inordinate person — but no does not begin with speech. We oftentimes hear people say that our actions betray our beliefs, and that like faith without works is dead, so speech without behaviors is tantamount to lies. How women could not believe this — no, how women could expect for others to not believe this, yet only pertaining to relations with women, is proof not of their hatred of rape, but of female dishonesty. It says that every other category of person — every nation, every religion, every creed, and every party — must necessarily communicate their devotion and their true intents, their desires and their aversions, by their behaviors, but that the behaviors of women are not to be trusted; that what a man indicates, he means, but that a woman can never be understood; that men may reason with one another, but that women are capricious beyond intelligibility.
How ridiculous a doctrine — which trades a badge of reason for the brazen stamp of whoredom, and “advances” women by making them like animals incapable of prudence, chastity, or even a communication which can only be described as human. What kind of woman is this? One worthy more of protection or of discipline? And what kind of man defends her stupidity? A good man? Or a man so dominated and domesticated by women that, having lost all form of manliness, he cannot reason, cannot protect, cannot do right without even the applause of self-described sluts?
These questions I leave to your own consideration. I know my own answers.
Jeremy Egerer is a convert to biblical conservatism from radical liberalism and the editor of the philosophical website www.americanclarity.com. American Clarity welcomes friend requests on Facebook.
Comments are closed.
