In the previous entry on female sexuality, Matamoros described a pragmatic approach to recovering the lost honor of women. He wrote:

A movement that argued that the current political culture was pulling women in too many directions and resulting in the destruction of the family, with accompanying policy proposals that would involve a nationalist revitalization of the domestic economy so that one wage earner could support a wife and children in the broad American middle class, that might do it.

What would such a movement say to women?

It would say you were sold a bill of goods.  You were promised liberty and the pursuit of happiness but instead are shackled to the office chair gulping down anti-depressants.  You were promised sexual liberty, but instead your sexuality has been colonized by the marketplace, reducing the most intimate of human affairs to a commodity, and now resulting in the actual marketing of sex to pre-teens, by the Walt Disney Company no less.  You were promised fulfillment, but the reality is a race to the bottom and may the sluttiest win.  It would say that while you were promised  “Sex and the City “glamour and excitement, instead you now have a culture that regards you as a non-entity the moment the first wrinkle appears and the light in your eyes dims ever so slightly.  It would say that the Western ideal of romantic love need not be abandoned.

That could work.  That is an appeal to the interests of women.

But make no mistake about it.  Any such political program would be seen as empowering men at the expense of women.  But, we would argue in response that this is to correct an over-correction, to set the pendulum back where it belongs.  Those who are fully bought into the system—big law partners, big NGO queens, big government officials—would fight tooth, claw and nail.  And the young and the beautiful would probably not have enough imagination, especially given the dreadful level of current education, to see that their circumstances would ever change enough to warrant considering such a program.

Andrea writes:

I think that teaching girls the following two things would go a long way to helping:

 1.  They need to be taught that the promiscuity game is one that females cannot win – the reasons are physiological, emotional, and sociological.

 2.  They need to be taught about male sexuality.  The younger they are the less they understand the effect that they have on men and this understanding does not come quickly and a lot of damage can be done in the interim.  Yes, they notice the glances and it’s (eventually) gratifying but beyond that they have no idea.  Sexuality is latent in females, i.e. the female sexual response almost needs to be trained or comes with experience.  Hence the devastating effect of Shere Hite and others to upend the natural order.  You hit on this point in your bracketed comment that women don’t know about all the middle aged men who they could control.

Laura writes:

At the New Wave Academy for Women, both of these things will be an important part of the curriculum. Face it. We’re all born idiots, at least as far as men are concerned. Who the heck are these strange beings? Where did they come from? We learn the answers to these profound and troubling questions in the school of hard knocks or through the wise counsel of experienced women. There are no other options.

Andrea writes:

I forgot to put in two points about teaching girls about male sexuality. The proper knowledge will lead to the proper female response which is modesty.  And, secondly, we are having to “reinvent the wheel” on this because this used to be common knowledge.  It just goes to show you that each new generation must be taught all this.

Laura writes:

Yes, it’s a Platonic idea: Once you know what is best, you will do the right thing. Women are acting on false ideas about men, about the nature of pleasure and about marriage.

Please follow and like us: