Posted on 05/21/2003 6:01:00 AM PDT by gdogdaily
The television program "Sex in the City" has provoked a great deal of controversy and coverage over the last few years but I would now like to add my own to the media morass. I speak from the position of a man who is in the front lines of the gender war. Let me begin by saying that the only truth in regards to the program's contents is that it is a complete lie. To begin with, the show's producers are both admittedly gay males and it is my belief that this program is far more indicative of gay male sexuality than it ever will be of female sexuality. The sad fact that so many females are able to relate to it is more a testament to self-absorption than it is an actual reflection of life for older women.
The characters on the HBO comedy are unlike any women in their thirties that I've ever met. While it's true that several of the ones I've known reflexively recite propaganda that would be in harmony with the program's themes such as how happy they are not to be married and how they are "not yet ready" to have children and also that they are glad to have been free to experience the diversity (read chaos here) of their single years. My own view is that they doth protest too much. Usually I'll hear their vows of happiness as a reaction to my asking for a saltshaker or the time.
These thirty-something year-old women are beginning to comprehend something that has been hidden by the politically correct curtain that hangs across our continent. The comprehension is that their audience is a very fickle one and that those who once adored them are no longer willing to make sacrifices for women who have very few reproductive years left. Some are absolutely incredulous that their market value may be diminishing but they've forgotten that there are very few real life princesses in their thirties. What is forgivable in youth is abominable in middle age. The days of the coquette are finite and we have less flattering names for women who engage in spoiled behaviors as they age. The difference between older and younger women has never been greater than it is today and "Sex in the City" spins an evil lie to obscure this truth.
Males have always, and will always, prefer younger and more fertile females to older ones and the pursuit of fertility is a noble (not shallow) reason for why we select the women that we do. Today, an astronomical number of women waste twenty years or more of their fleeting fertility before realizing that lost time cannot be regained. They then hope that the females younger than them are as short-sighted as they are. Predictably, based on the illusions our culture has fostered, they probably will be.
Last year's publication of Sylvia Ann Hewlett's book, Creating a Life: Professional Women and the Quest for Children, informed us of the inherent confusion in many single females who have been duped by pop culture and the media into believing that fertility begins to decline at age 40. Alas, the real age for females is 27. The fact that there is a zero point for female reproduction that no medical technology can alter also comes as a great surprise to them. The solution is an obvious one and it is for women to negotiate from a position of strength and find a marriage partner when they are atop the mountain rather than on the tortuous, weary descent to its base. This recommendation is so obvious it shouldn't even warrant an essay but the harridans who terrorize anyone who interferes with the fantasy lives of uncommitted females have made the issuance of such advice a radical act of war.
Across the board most of what is labeled as advice for females are fabrications based on the denial of human nature. Women are told that males use younger women for sex. We do not. We marry younger women. It is older women we use for sex. The sooner we acknowledge these unpleasant facts the better it is for all concerned. It is the lie about humanity's internal motivations that are the root of the strife between men and women in our culture today. The female acquisition of high status males as mates is based on their degree of sexual power and this sexual power declines as they age. Danielle Crittenden's book What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman documents this outcome beautifully. This change is power causes feelings of bitterness towards men and also towards other women. My initial response to this was "You were the Generals and you lost the battle so blame yourselves" but such a response is illustrative that I, nor most males, had a great deal of attractive power at age 20. We are decidedly low status when in college and I, myself, was no exception. For women it is a different rule of existence altogether.
The 20-year-old female is like the German Panzer of 1941 as it rolls triumphantly through the Russian steppes. Everyone and everything bows before its tread. She is pursued by every known heterosexual demographic of male and it must, from this over-stimulation along with youth and inexperience, make it highly difficult to make a rational decision about the future. What is essential for her to realize is that time affects the flesh of everyone and that she is no exception. All physical states are temporary. By the time she reaches 35 that same elite German Panzer has turned into a wasted carcass on the Kursk battlefield. It can be seen belching black smoke into the Russian night from 10 miles away (or perhaps therapeutically buying 400 dollar shoes at a New York boutique). History is prelude and younger women presently pay no attention to the mistakes of their elders. Possibly they imagine that the plot will change for them even though it has never changed before and never will. If younger females were aware of the storm that is coming they could readily secure a high status male while were at the top of the hierarchy yet all too many are taught in school that hierarchies do not even exist. Besides, the allures of a meaningless existence are too great for most to resist.
The embrace of empty affairs only grinds their bones and their prospects to dust even if it provides momentary gratification (and I'm not sure it even does that). The most deleterious result of all is that the modern female's rampant promiscuity is the principal causation for the male's decreasing desire to marry them. Women who are promiscuous have little to offer males outside of 15 minutes of enjoyment and, the 15 minutes is not worth the risks to one's health. A feminist anthropologist argued that there may be a biological basis behind female promiscuity as sleeping with numerous men allows women to find numerous men to support her offspring. Is she right? No! This belief is wholly misguided. It only allows for numerous men to never trust her with a dollar fifty. Sleeping with a gaggle of men would have ensured little support from the community as a woman who is communal is beyond individual interest. This anthropologist ignores the ironclad evolutionary maxim "Mommy's baby, daddy's maybe" and this is the driving force behind much of the male's reproductive behaviors. This pithy saying encompasses male's innate concerns about finding a reliable, non-promiscuous, spouse. After all, a woman is always confident of her maternity whereas a man can never be 100% sure that he is the father of his own offspring. Hence the most pleasant words for any father to hear are "the baby looks just like you." Marriage for the majority of our species' history provided a clear benefit to both parties. A man would be granted sexual relations with a woman and also be provided with progeny in the form of his children. A woman would be given a protector and a provider to ensure that she and her children were taken care of as she aged. Female promiscuity has destroyed the bonds that tie men to women. The progress of the "progressive" forces of the sexual revolution have caused the sexes to now be genuinely suspicious of one another and, for a great many members of male the population, compels us to not "tie the knot" at all.
It is to a man's great detriment to spend any time or money on a woman who "throws it around." As I have a character in my book, NAPALM is the Scent of Justice, argue:
"Any man will drive down the road in a car with 300,000 miles on it but only an insane fool would purchase one." Insane indeed but our society encourages us to do it anyway even though it is against all of our evolutionary interests. Societal stigma is the only way to combat this problem and it won't be coming from a generation weaned on "Elimidate" and MTV. The show "The Bachelorette" supplies a convincing argument for how television really is divorced from reality. Women may well be genuinely attracted to Lotharios but males instinctively recoil from female players as it is a guarantor of false paternity. "The Bachelorette" featured one female with 25 men to choose from and when we 25 men are with a female we think "gangbang" before "marriage." Women get cues from other women and a man who is often seen in the company of various females becomes a hot prospect. Rather than get cues from other men we get nauseous from their group presence. The sexes are different and let's embrace viva la difference once again.
James Joyce's stupendous work, Ulysses, postulates that "love" is the word known to all men (let's say humanity here for the sake of universality). Love is our goal and our priority. In this pursuit sex alone is a false god. Sex is always a means and never an end. Those people that do not learn this truth are among some of the most maladjusted in our society. Purposeless sex is the greatest barrier to the love we can experience. The female aping of the male's bad habits is an allure to no one. Those females who promote themselves as commodities for sexual thrills, who become alcoholics, smoke cigars or talk like street hustlers are by definition not worthy of romantic pursuit. Part of the male love for woman comes from a desire to protect and if the person you wish to protect does not take their existence seriously or repeatedly tells you "that they don't need your protection" then exerting yourself in their defense is a lost cause.
The modern woman, through the mechanism of the sexual revolution, has been indoctrinated to believe that the mindless pursuit of copulation is the road to enlightenment. It is practically impossible for those females born to a poor family structure, immersion in pop culture and indoctrination by the modern leftist professorate to resist the asinine logic of living life in the present at all times. Many of today's women have been charmed by social engineers who are, in reality, pipers of death. The realization that they've been had often occurs when they are past reproductive age and it is too late to do anything about their situation. The use of denial as a shield has been tried repeatedly.
The most hilarious of arguments foisted onto the backs of our citizens is that somehow work is a replacement for children. Can you imagine how the first person who made this argument was received? He or she provoked smirks and queer looks but that's ancient history as today such a belief is a societal convention. Women have been thoroughly deceived on this point. Ann Coulter had an excellent quote about this in her book Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right that men have jobs and that women have careers. A career has mythical powers associated with the word. A career is satisfaction beyond pay and it is, 95% of the time, a myth. People work to get paid. I, nor nobody else I know, would get up at 5:15 am everyday if we weren't getting paid to do so. I know a girl who quit an 80,000 dollar a year job and went back to school to become a teacher because she wasn't "feeling good about going to work everyday." I told her she had 80,000 reasons to feel good going to work everyday.
My arguments here are not belied by the fact that I am a thoroughly modern man (indeed as are most of the men I associate with) who has no desire to turn back the clock to a time when women had no choices. I believe in equal pay for equal work and hiring based on merit alone without demographic issues as a consideration. Certainly women who want to work themselves to death should be allowed to do so (it's good for the economy) but why don't we be honest with them about the risks. I mean how high functioning does a person have to be to understand that spending time with your first degree biological relations is superior to spending days with the neo-strangers at work you couldn't care less about. The majority of jobs consist of producing goods that are valuable to others and not to your self. So what? You get paid for what you do and should be grateful for it. My friends in sales get little satisfaction internally from what they do but live well and prosper anyway. I am confounded by anyone choosing associates over their own blood but everyone else should be as well.
As a male there is practically nothing that I can do about all of this as I will forever be part of the "demand" side of the equation. Our dilemma in dating modern women is very much like walking into a voting booth and reading only one name on the ballot with the word "yes" next to it and no room for the response of "no." My recommendation is to mar the ballot with a crimson "Nyet" and walk out of the booth. "Sex in the City" is a perfect example of the sexual revolutionist's fantasies and it is also indicative of how today we avoid virtue at all costs. It is a time capsule showcasing a city but the city is not New York. It is the razed and pulverized Stalingrad of 1943.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Bernard at bchapafl@hotmail.com .
than one girl at forty-twooooo!
</Lilting Irish brogue>
Bull. It isn't presumptuous any more than it's presumptuous to pontificate as to why so many women in America still like Bill Clinton (and would probably vote for him again if they could) in the face of all the evidence showing him to be a sociopath.
Or to quote The Simpsons, "We're watching Nookie in New York, that show about 4 single women who sit around talking like gay men."
They like him because he's a "good-looking bad-boy" type who has power. They like S&TC because they can relate to the characters, not because they've been "tricked" etc....
To begin with, the show's producers are both admittedly gay males and it is my belief that this program is far more indicative of gay male sexuality than it ever will be of female sexuality.
To begin with, the show's producers are both admittedly gay males and it is my belief that this program is far more indicative of gay male sexuality than it ever will be of female sexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.