*************
Innocent Sexual Advance
“The single most important act any organism does in life is procreation.”
The first and very obvious difficulty that must be dealt with, before another word is written, is the question; “Can the word innocent actually be associated with anything sexual in nature; for isn’t ‘carnal knowledge’ considered the end of innocence?” But the issue here really isn’t ‘sexual knowledge’, rather the word ‘innocent’ and what it could mean or represent ‘in context’. Innocence itself does not mean lack of knowledge, for that is ignorance, and in a legal scenario, mere lack of knowledge will not render a person innocent, but potentially culpable as negligent, for example in a road accident case. On the other hand, knowledge may not make a person guilty as a criminal, of an act that they intentionally committed, for example a murder in self-defence. The ‘innocent’ that we are dealing with today is thus a legal creature, that could encompass both knowledge, and lack thereof, of the acts committed and their meaning. This particular creature can therefore exist alongside sexual knowledge.
But what does this phrase, ‘Innocent Sexual Advance’, really mean and encompass? And also, why does it need to be advanced? These questions have some very complex answers, but even before we get to those answers, a lot of seemingly unrelated issues need to be addressed in priority. Now these issues need to be addressed first, for without setting the perspective right, it is a distinct possibility that proper appreciation of the discussion to follow might not happen. This is the case because a lot of misconceptions have been drummed into both public and intellectual minds, over the last many decades, extending across more than a century. So please bear with this writer for the moment, as we dissect these so called red-herrings.
Nature – Justice, Crime, and Natural Commonsense
There is a reason why I have used the phrase ‘Natural Commonsense’ above, and not ‘Natural Law’. There is no such thing as ‘Natural Law’, for there is no ‘Justice’, or ‘Crime’, in nature, the later duo being exclusively the creations of an ‘intellectual’ society, born out of its very specific needs. What instead happens in nature is; organisms apply commonsense to survive, the ‘Natural Commonsense’. Let us consider some examples.
There is no ‘Murder’ in nature, for organisms kill organisms everyday for food, territory, mating rights, defence, or out of sheer aggression. There is no ‘Natural Law’ to punish these perpetrators, but rather ‘Natural Commonsense’ amongst the weaker beings, to know when to back off, hide, run, or move to a new territory. There is no ‘Robbery’, ‘Trespass’, ‘Larceny’, ‘Loitering’, and so on, for the stronger animals goes wherever they want to, and take whatever they want. There is no law to punish them, but only commonsense of the weaker animals to avoid, move on, or run. There is no such thing as ‘choice for mammalian females’, for the males determine amongst themselves, always violently, as to who gets to mate with the girl, irrespective of whom the girl likes. There is no law that can provide redress to either the losing male, or the chosen female, although ‘Natural Commonsense’ might prompt either or both of them, to move to another territory if they so wish. There is no ‘Rape’, ‘Sexual Assault’, or ‘Molestation’ in nature, for stronger mammalian males have been known to have forced themselves on females, even hurting them if they resist. There is no ‘Natural Law’ that punishes them, although ‘Natural Commonsense’ might make the females co-operate, or shift territory if they are so desperate. And if anyone finds that offensive, then consider how there is no such thing as ‘paedophilia’ in nature, for in nature, if an organism is sexually mature, then they are on the market. In fact, even in many human cultures which are not yet fully enlightened intellectually, young kids (generally girls) are still being married off to anyone, from another young kid to a much grown up individual.
The examples will go on and on, but the conclusion would be simple; ‘Law’ and ‘Justice’ are creatures of human intellect, designed to assist the smooth running of our complicated societies. Unlike animals, weaker humans can’t just run away from the society, but rather need it even more to protect their interests, and hence the need for ‘justice’, ‘law’, and above all, ‘criminalizing certain behavioural patterns’ and then ‘sanctioning’ them. There was never any ‘Natural Law’, even though intellectuals might be tempted to use that phrase.
Democratic Law:
It is really a shame that most people living in the advanced democracies today, like the US, India, Australia, UK, etc, don’t really appreciate the stark contrast between what we today classify as ‘Democratic Law’, as opposed to the universally decried different versions of ‘Authoritarian Rule’ of yore. They don’t understand why certain features exist in their laws today that need to be upheld above everything else. The general public in these modern societies doesn’t have the memories of those darker times, to compare their current experience with. People don’t really understand what they lose when they actually compromise a democratic legal principle, misguided by those who should have actually been their trusted allies; the media. Let us consider an example of the ‘due-process’, before we get to the ones most important for the topic of this piece. Now the next two paragraphs might seem out of place in this piece, but nevertheless they are necessary to build up the real context of the situation. This is what I call, ‘keeping big picture in mind all the time’, something most people, including intellectuals, are not used to anymore.
Post ‘September 11’ attacks on the ‘WTC’, media went into an overdrive with fear mongering, presenting a dire picture to the people in western societies like the US, Australia, and UK. Day after day, year after year, exaggerating stories, or creating them out of thin yarn, the western media created an ‘Anti-Muslim’ atmosphere, so much that when acts like ‘The Patriot Act’ in the US, and some varied ‘Anti-Terrorism’ legislation in other nations were introduced, the ones that justified the denial of ‘due-process’ to ‘suspects’ in the name of ‘national security’, the masses just thought such laws will protect them against dangerous outside threats, and likely, only affect the ‘hateable Muslims’. What however they didn’t understand was; these laws didn’t say they are only applicable to outsiders, Muslims, or will not set the ground work for similar transgressions in other legal areas. If people can be guided to support the subversion of ‘democratic legal principles’ in one sphere, they can always be motivated to do so in another. Before long, those who control and actually run every society, the resource rich, would effectively take democratic societies back towards a more authoritarian rule. A conspiracy theory, is it? Wait till we get to the topic of concern here, the ‘innocent sexual advance’, and what is under threat next. For now, let us just remind ourselves of the actual real world situation that we have today.
Today, our governments are elected by us, from amongst political parties and candidates, who are lavishly supported by the big resourceful businessmen, who when elected, bring out laws that assist those same big resourceful business people to grow further. Their interests lie in having absolute control over people, and they can do so today, for everything we write or say is recorded and snooped upon; ‘la mass surveillance’. Gone are the days when high profile leaders like Martin Luther King were subjects of covert FBI operations, to discredit or control them. Today anyone, whose thoughts and opinions could be a threat to future planning, could easily be discredited and nullified even before they hit a minimum threshold of supporters. Today the weapons technology has already advance so much that even a race as strong as the Spartans will not be able to stand against a single adequately equipped opponent. Imagine the power that would stand against the so called ‘99%’, should it opt for a revolution in some future years to come. In fact, ‘99%’ is not going to opt for another revolution anytime soon in centuries to come. The ‘99%’ of the ‘99%’ are cowards and intellectually inefficient, and half of them are always against the other half. It’s only the ‘1%’ out of the ‘99%’, who actually have the ability to guide the rest of the ‘99%’ towards a meaningful direction. In today’s world, with means at the disposal of the authorities, those ‘1%’ of the ‘99%’ will never even get an audience with the rest of the ‘99%’. On top of it; any further tweaking of the ‘democratic legal principles’, will render futile any hopes of a legal respite for those marked for extinction.
Now coming to some relevant ‘democratic legal principles’ for today, let us consider a simple statement; “A hundred rapists might escape, but not even a single innocent man should get punished for a rape he didn’t commit.” For those who feel offended by this simple restatement of a very basic democratic legal principle, let me remind them; the most heinous crime that could be committed against any person irrespective of their sex is ‘murder’, for then the victim ceases to exist, and those left behind are much worse off. Today what feminists are proposing; ‘believe every woman’; not only is that against all human life experience, and commonsense, but it directly attacks the above noted, and many other ‘democratic legal principles’, that are enshrined in democratic law, ones that reverse what we used to classify as features of cruel regimes.
No human being is saintly; neither man, nor woman. They all are capable of lying for the pettiest of reasons, and have committed the most heinous of crimes. This we know from human experience. Moreover, commonsense too tells us that not only people lie, but when they do so, they do it to show that they were absolutely honest, or mostly so, while the other party was a demon. But if one is to believe the accuser as soon as they accuse, that means they are already holding the accused guilty even before it is established if they actually committed a crime. This is what some of the harshest regimes in human history used to do; guilty as charged unless proved otherwise. ‘Innocent until proven guilty’ reversed exactly that scenario.
The next principles that get attacked here in one single shot are the ‘onus of proof’, and the ‘standard of proof’. If what a woman says is truth, then it is up to the accused man to prove that she is lying. Rather than accuser establishing guilt beyond doubt, the accused needs to establish innocence on the balance of probabilities. The reason certain ‘standards and onuses’ of proof were set in place was that it was always easier to establish guilt on the balance of probabilities for the prosecution, generally the ruling authority with vast resources. Similarly, it was easier for the accused person to raise a reasonable doubt in the story of the all powerful prosecution, rather than proving their innocence on the balance of probabilities. Life seldom gives people at the receiving end of ‘high stakes power’, an ability to establish innocence on the balance of probabilities, let alone beyond doubt.
Today under threat are ‘democratic legal principles’ of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the ‘onus of proof’, ‘the standard of proof’, and ‘personal dignity’, and that too for crimes like ‘molestation’ (I’ll explain my disdain below), leave alone much serious offences of ‘sexual assault’ and ‘rape’. Today media is busy building frenzy, trying to create an atmosphere for another publically supported subversion of ‘democratic legal principles’. What do you think is going to happen tomorrow? What about the most heinous crime of murder, or perhaps grievous bodily harm, and so on? How much power is going to be handed back to the authorities in ‘Democratic Legal Systems’? Will these systems still be identifiable as ‘Democratic Legal Systems’, beyond the fact that the societies might still be ‘paper democracies’, albeit ‘authoritarian democracies’ on ground? Above all; is it really worth the agenda that is being pursued over here?
The real problem, the agenda, and an uncomfortable truth:
Feminists have been trying to balance the power dispersal between the two sexes for more than a century now, even to the extent of never questioning if such an exercise is truly necessary, possible, or even a sensible course. These latter questions aside for the moment, let’s first consider a problem society has been aware of all along; one of the biggest hurdles women have faced in most career lines thus far has been the ‘Bed Hurdle’ along the ladder of success, and sometimes even in the path of having a career itself. Many a talented women never enjoyed a stable or prolonged career because some other less talented woman was ready to pay the price that they weren’t; that of sleeping with the ‘proverbial’ enemy. This happened when all these women were well and truly aware of the norms of the society at the time. Every person on the street knew exactly in which industries women were exploited the most in lieu of career and success. Speaking anything else would be a blatant lie in the face of human life experience.
Today however, it is the same women who made the deal back in the day, who are waging a war against the tide of bad male behaviour. But can lofty intentions justify blatant lies, or absolve them of their own wrong doing? Would any of this been necessary if they had done the right thing in the first place, and like those virtuous women who refused to lower their morality, held on to their moral ground? They are no victims, but rather opportunists trying to turn into saints. But the worst is the cost democratic societies risk paying should this ‘wild bush fire’ of a blame game be left to rage untamed, and wipe out entire communities built around the bush lands.
Now before we dismantle and investigate the real agenda, detail how it is not only detrimental to democratic legal principles but is also against the essence of ‘laissez fair’, and natural behaviour, it is imperative to point out the ugly truth that perhaps no one would fathom easily; “The so called ‘Sexual harassment at workplace’ will never ever end.” This statement is not based on any presumption that women will not be able to even out the stakes in socio-economic ladder at every juncture, but rather takes into account the fact that they will, sooner rather than later. This statement is based on the fact that ‘sex’ is actually as important an organic act for women, as it is to men, so much that when women would be in similar positions as men have been thus far, they too would abuse their positions to gain sexual favours from men seeking success. If anyone thinks this won’t be the case (it probably already is), then they probably haven’t experienced human life and appreciated its history properly, yet. And if anyone thinks that ‘sexual harassment’ could and should be wiped out irrespective of the sex instigating it, then wait till you read the arguments against any such blanket ban; the arguments that would emerge from the very freedoms that proponents of such a blanket ban would like to preserve.
Let us talk about the current agenda now. It includes, at a philosophical level, providing a safe working space to women, and fair opportunity to succeed. At a much deeper level however it aims to bring about a change that would otherwise still take decades to happen, in normal course; that of dividing power and power structures equally between the two sexes. But then, at a much more sinister level, and possibly quite contrary to the real intentions of the most well meaning feminists, it is all about taming society even further via unhealthy legal changes, as described above. Every time a great social cause is born and then brought to culmination, it is not just the needy and deserving whose interests get upheld, but it is also the unscrupulous and devious who get special service. It is the unavoidable hazard of every great cause. However, when the unavoidable hazard is not only disastrous, but the cause itself can be expected to have some real bad side-effects, then perhaps the cause needs another plan of action. Now of course if the ugly truth stated above is true, then there really is no need for a new plan, which of course raises the question; “Will, or should, such an unhealthy scenario continue to persist in our work spaces?” And this question is arising even before we have touched upon the so far elusive concept of ‘Innocent Sexual Advance’. Perhaps we need to address a few more red-herrings here.
‘Women as property’, or really, a ‘Moral Right’ – Current Situation
We need to revisit sexual reproduction and related sexual activity in nature, across various mammalian species, to comprehend the damage that current feminist endeavours will eventually cause. But even before that, we need to address a more basic question of ‘presentation’ or ‘dressing up’ over here; something that is really behind the psychological interpretation of sexual advances. Now I don’t like the instigating terminology employed by the feminists since their earliest days, that of labelling male attitude towards women as if they were their ‘property’. Ask yourselves; “When a man cheats on his wife (or partner), do they feel hurt because they believe their man was their property, or because they felt that their moral rights have been violated?” The phrase coined by feminists was designed to hard sell their agenda, although the fact was, and to this day is; both sexes when in a committed relationship, believe they have certain moral rights (and sexual rights too) over their counterparts. If men were more aggressive and assertive in expressing and exercising their rights, then that’s because men have always been the more physically assertive sex, thanks to ‘Testosterone’, the hormone of, among other things, territoriality, that their bodies produce. It wasn’t because they considered women their property. But irrespective of whether feminists agree with my assertion, and irrespective of which term we employ, the real point here is; the difference in attitudes towards sexual advances between men and women exists because the women’s thinking still hasn’t moved on from those times when their men were more assertive of their moral and sexual rights over their bodies. How?
If women were to kiss, fondle, caress, or even grab at an unwilling man, the man won’t think he has been sexually assaulted. In fact, a man might not even think too much if a woman was to rape him, or make him establish a sexual relationship just for perks and success. Yet, if a man was to kiss an unwilling woman, or grope at her, all hell would break lose, what to talk about rape. Why this difference in reaction if not because men still consider it freedom and achievement if they were to sleep with many women, while women still consider that their bodies are somehow out of bounds for men they are not in a relationship with? Are women really mentally free of that ‘external moral bondage’? Now we are not going to talk about the resulting moral and social morass that would emerge if women were to become as free as men, just yet. We need to cover a few more confronting issues before that. But before moving on, let us address another notion that stems from this very ‘women as property’, or ‘moral right’, line of thinking.
Feminists have always projected sex as an act where a woman’s body is used by a man. Now if we just step back for a moment and consider the act impartially, we will not miss the fact that a woman’s body is no more involved in the act than what a man’s body is. A woman’s body is not touched anymore than what a man’s body gets touched in the act. As far as the dynamics of the act are concerned, they are a direct result of the way the two bodies are designed in nature. Yet if anyone thinks that the woman’s body is being used as a vessel, then it is because they are still considering woman’s body as someone’s property, rather than as a ‘standalone individual piece’, and man’s body as a deployed device, rather than as ‘another individual piece in interaction’.
Feminists versus Nature:
Nature is not only cruel, but it is also very sexist. The females in nature, or at least the mammalian females, are always the weaker sex, the sex that cares for the young, the sex that can be forced to eat last, and the sex that really has very limited sexual rights. Feminists, no doubt, have never accepted nature as the truth. They have always insisted that women and men are same; the ‘nature’ perhaps is merely a myth for all we know. Not only is it a lie that men and women have different physical features, physical proportions, and physiological features, but also, the hormones produced in the two sexes don’t really give them different characteristics. Testosterone may, once when testicles have descended in males, change their appearance, voice, and make them aggressive, Oestrogen might make women’s bodies grown differently, hormonal imbalances of menopause might affect female moods extremely, the extra sex chromosomes in genetically defective babies might make them extremely aggressive, volatile, or unpredictable; it however does not mean that men and women are different because of differing hormones. At least not from feministic standpoint! Further, it doesn’t matter how male and female athletes, all of whom have been training extremely hard and leaving no stone unturned for decades now, their world records never have hit parity. Females, according to feminists, are the same as the males. Now you can believe nature all you want to, but do so at your own peril!
It hasn’t just been the case of questioning entire male developed knowledge, as that from the standpoint of ‘the other’, but feminism has been all about questioning everything, including commonsense, human life experience, and nature. Step back and look towards the nature, at all other mammalian species, and see how the two sexes in them interact. How do males in different species approach females, to see if they are sexually interested in mating; does it involve touching, caressing, or the rest? Then consider how when humans, who for all purposes were animals, would have behaved sexually, even after organizing into societies. Did this behaviour not pass on from generation to generation, to this day and age, as a natural act that initiates a bond between the two sexes?
What feminists question today, has been the way human sexes have interacted ever since their evolution into sexually reproducing organisms. Not only that, but generations have come and gone, all learning the same basic techniques of sexual interaction from previous generations, to this day and age. Now suddenly feminists want to develop a totally new yardstick of proper interaction, which not only threatens the already strained bond that exists between the two sexes today, but which by their own reasoning, cannot be universally applicable (we’ll get to that). With this new yardstick they want to judge, and then crucify those judged, for actions that were committed at a time when the entire society around those individuals was used to those actions as normal means of interaction between sexes in particular contexts.
If a man in power position touched an aspiring female to see if she was willing to sleep with him for career or success, then it might not have been an act that the woman’s father, husband, brother, son or partner may have liked, but it was a perfectly normal physical contact to see if the female involved was interested. It was not a sexual assault, even if it were an ‘unwanted sexual advance’. It was a man’s weak moment, but then it is not only men who have weak moments. The only difference is; so far both sexes have been keeping each other’s weak moments a secret, for they were never worthy of being blown out of proportions and causing embarrassment to the concerned individuals. But now suddenly, feminists have started pushing an agenda for which they want women to blurt out things that were not even worthy of another thought beyond the instant they transpired (we’ll get to a reverse example later). Now of course, to make it clear; for those women who bit the bullet back in the day, and got their career, or success, it was something that they had tacitly consented to for their own benefit other than sexual gratification. Perhaps it is time to consider ‘innocent sexual advance’, and see how feminist yardstick can’t be universally applicable.
Innocent Sexual Advance:
In an old English case of a school boy, the English court held that pushing, pulling, and horseplay in the playground, that happens in normal life scenarios, is not an event of assault, and the perpetrator cannot thus be held liable. Can such an innocent contact exist in ‘sexual’ context too? The better question is; has such an innocent contact always existed?
We have already discussed how sexual contact happens across sexually reproducing species, and how humans too, after developing into societies, have continued to use similar actions to approach the opposite sex till today. So if we consider nature, and then commonsense, and note how such a contact actually keeps an unspoken bond between the two sexes alive, then merely by the force of natural reasoning and commonsense, such an ‘innocent sexual advance’ should continue to exist. If a man or a woman makes a physical contact with a member of the other sex, to see if their sexual interest will be reciprocated, and perhaps a consummated bond, howsoever short, may transpire, then that contact has to be considered ‘innocent’, for it is a natural act that satisfies the most vital species need; the need to procreate and keep the specie alive. Sex is the single most important act of any organism’s life, for it doesn’t matter how successfully a group of animals hunts, feeds, defends, and survives, if they don’t reproduce, their species dies with them.
Now of course, feminists have this issue with physical contact; they want everything to be spelled out in language. But let us revisit one of feminists own theories, that every individual is different, and then think from a commonsense point of view; will every man, and above all, every woman, want them to be asked sexual questions (more on this below), or would many prefer the things to flow in a more natural unspoken manner? What feminists want cannot be applied universally, by their own yardsticks, then how could it be a solution? Besides, do we really need a solution, when there really isn’t any problem in the first place? Is being sexually interested in opposite sex, and approaching the opposite sex to see if these feelings are reciprocated, really a problem for humanity now? Furthermore, as already discussed above, the problem with sexual contact is not in the contact itself, but rather how it is perceived by the two sexes. In such a scenario, it is important to reinforce this idea, that all sexual contacts are not an event of assault.
Whenever a man or a woman make a sexual advance towards a person of the opposite sex for the first time, unaware if their sexual interest is reciprocated or not, that sexual advance happens to be an ‘Innocent Sexual Advance’, born out of, and guided by the natural requirements of species to procreate. This of course rules out as ‘non innocent’, any contact that happens after the person has been made aware of the other person’s lack of interest in establishing a sexual relationship with them, even if that communication had been made to a verbal question, and not a physical contact.
Now unrelated to this very particular topic, but still very relevant in the context of sexual activity, is the grey area of ‘consent’. Feminist approach, which has unfortunately been accepted by many courts today, somehow presumes that men really don’t have any sexual rights, and that all sexual rights in a sexual act rest with the woman; ‘A woman can say no at anytime.’ But can this be really legally, naturally, and from commonsense point of view, be correct? The approach once again is based on the flawed ‘women as property’ mentality, that somehow considers that only women are involved in the sexual act, or perhaps more involved than men in the sexual act. The truth however, as commonsense will tell us, is that both sexes are equally involved in the act. Law gives us rights, but law also makes it clear that our rights are balanced by the corresponding rights of the other. Women do have a right to ‘consent’, but that right, once the act initiates, get’s balanced by the right of the man involved, to complete the act. Think it from nature’s point of view, and how hormones impact our minds and behaviour. Then consider all the feminist theory about individual characteristics and differences; while hormones may affect different individuals differently, different individuals may also exhibit different levels of self control. Once the ‘sexual act’ is initiated, the hormones that rush over and take control, of both male and female bodies, those hormones may make them susceptible to lack of control to varying degrees. A woman’s right to consent ends when the ‘foreplay’ begins. After that the man has every right to finish what has been started. If a woman didn’t want to have sex with that man, then she shouldn’t have been there in that situation in the first place, for every woman in society is always aware of where certain situations lead to. No artificial yardstick of self control, derived by feminists, can be universally applied to all men, because all men are different, and unique.
The approach about ‘Innocent Sexual Advance’ noted above, however, if legally accepted, does raise quite a few concerning questions; especially about workplace sexual harassment, and the general public behaviour and morality.
As already noted, sexual harassment at workplace will never end, but rather even women will come to become abusive protagonists ultimately. This is true because human need for sex will always override their better judgment. In fact, all the feminists have been trying to achieve at the end of their quest, the ultimate yardstick of freedom et al, is; ‘sexual freedom for women’. What they really want is; that rather than men approaching women, women should even get to decide which of the men around them can actually approach them. It’s a clear case of one-sided thinking; that only women have rights, conveniently overlooking that the same yardstick works the other way around too, and in all its ways. But if that is true; then isn’t the best option that any form of sexual harassment, irrespective of the abusive sex, be banned? The important question arising out of this one is not that ‘can it be’ but rather, ‘should it be’.
If a man and a woman working at the same place were to fall in love and then decide to date, hoping to eventually settle down together and start a family, would it be justified to fire and blacklist them? Would you consider it too abusive and too intrusive into people’s private lives? Would you rather like to live in a society where you cannot marry a person you love simply because you work at the same place? Do you want such a future? If the answer is ‘no’, then consider this; “Doesn’t a relationship between two lovers not involve sex, or consummation?” And then consider this; “What if a person was only interested in a non-binding sexual relationship, which might, or might not, lead to a life-long, settled relationship?” Would it not be artificial, discriminatory, and intrusive to say that one can be interested in love that leads to sex, but not in pure sex that may or may not lead to love? At the end of it all, both forms of interests really serve sexual needs of the people involved, and you want to create an artificial barrier in the way of natural sexual rights of individuals only interested in sex, while allowing a free run to those who want to pursue the same potential mates but with a rose in their hand. Can you really justify discrimination against one individual’s natural sexual rights, to give preferential treatment to another’s? But it is not just about ‘natural rights in competition’, for there is something going on at an even more basic level.
‘Laissez Fair’, or Capitalism, means you are free to create your own destiny, just like in nature, where you are free to mark your own territory. The essence of ‘territory’ is; it comes with everything included in it. Mammalian males mark their territories, then fight and defend them, because these territories come with rights to resources and mating rights. Humans are still animals in their basic needs; they still need food and water, safety, and procreation. When a man or a woman works hard to get to a position, where they can not only create and milk opportunities for themselves, but also create opportunities that can be shared with others who have no right whatsoever to those opportunities, then they also create a right to determine as to whom they would share those opportunities with. This freedom is the essence of both democracy, and ‘Laissez Fair’. So if such resourceful men and women want to share their ‘self created’ opportunities with only those members of the opposite sex, who are willing to sleep with them, where is any moral wrong in that? One is getting what one has no right to, and that too with a right to refuse this offer, should they consider their sexual right to be superior than their desire to avail the offered opportunity? The only problem I see is that feminists don’t think women are capable of such behaviour as men, something contrary to commonsense.
But of course, the real problem here with having ‘innocent sexual advance’ as a legal creature, and not banning all forms of ‘sexual behaviour’ (as opposed to ‘sexual harassment’, thus including love relationships too), is the moral chaos that could potentially engulf the streets. Would every man and woman then touch every person of the opposite sex at least once to see if they are interested in having a sexual relationship? Would sexual contact then become the norm of the everyday human life? These questions however arise not because we needed to create a new legal creature, but rather because feminists were stupid enough not to consider the consequences of the path they have started on, and have rather learnt nothing from their past mistakes, or more aptly, blunders. The result of their current mindless quest would be far more destructive, than adjusting to a new society where contact between men and women would be seen in a new light (in fact, better light, as discussed below). Let us just discuss a few new red-herrings, and a few results that arise out of current mess, to get a better picture.
Mixing ‘two worlds’:
Before I say anything else, it is important to make one thing very clear; “I want to see women working with equal force in most of the industries.” Now the operative words are, ‘in most of’, and not ‘in all of’, because I believe certain industries could, and should be left only for men, while certain others should be left only for women. I make this statement, because as a ‘Familist’ I know, every family would want both their sons and daughters, and grandsons and granddaughters, to have an equal opportunity to succeed, and furthermore, unlike ‘Feminists’, I both respect and appreciate the differences that exist between the two sexes by nature. For example, I would rather leave ‘Child Care’ in the absolute control of women, while something like ‘plumbing’ or ‘mining labour’ can be left only for men. I would rather have women doctors, women scientists and researchers because in space-age, we need both sexes to guide humanity forward, together. I would rather have equal number of jobs for both men and women in every shared industry, with an equal number of concurrent promotions.
There are always proper ways (and reasons), and improper ways (and reasons) of doing something. Feminists have always managed to deploy only the improper reasons and ways, to achieve their ends, and there is a reason why this has been the case. Feminists are partially blind; they don’t see one sex (more on this below). They have never looked at half the picture, and they have never considered the real picture. Above all, for every issue they have dealt with, their approach has always been destructive.
When feminists started their work, they started with the premise that men keep women out of men’s world, and that men are unnecessarily and unabashedly violent towards women. What feminists didn’t stop to consider was; there was always a women’s world, which was much more peaceful, easier, and tranquil than the men’s world which was out of bounds for women. The so called men’s world, back then, had no air-conditioned offices, but were rather open fields, harsh factories, and deep mines, where work would start with sun-rise and end with sun-set, work that required heavy manual labour even when it was to be done by very simple but heavy machines, and that work was supervised by people who treated them worst than prisoners. If men kept their women out of this world, it was only because they loved them, and didn’t want them to suffer like them. Early feminists, who belonged to the privileged class in those days, only saw women troubled by their husbands, but didn’t realize, those women were much more harassed by the privileged class whose households they worked for, including perhaps the feminists themselves, who gave them work for pay, presumably.
Feminists wanted to empower women, but was there really empowerment in working in a mine where a manager who had no relationship with the woman, would be more abusive towards her than her own husband at home. Coming to husbands abusing wives; was every man a wife beater? Coming to homes; can a ship really have two captains? Feminists gave the ship of ‘family’ two captains, and now ship after ship is capsizing. There were a few wife-beaters, but to fix that issue feminists created a situation where no man and woman can make a stable family. Female empowerment might not have given them a comfortable life, but it certainly has given every man and woman a broken home. Feminists might object to the notion of men maintaining discipline in most of the homes (there were always female dominated households too), but their solution itself involved someone maintaining discipline by force; ‘Courts by force of law’, an outside force that is, instead of the naturally stronger sex. At the end of the day, in a family, someone has to make a decision and someone has to accept it. Not only the involvement of external factors into the internal workings of marriage dismantled the institution of family, worst part is; the rapid development of female personalities into ones that confronted male personalities at every chance meant that more and more members of the two sexes became disenchanted with the opposite sex. The rise in ‘homosexuality’ is a direct result of the unprofessional work done by the feminists. And now after all this destruction, and all these years, the feminists are themselves coming back to the same conclusions and solutions as the much maligned ‘male chauvinists’ had many centuries before them. Here are two examples to consider.
When ‘Feminism’ picked up heat, women wanted to break free of the shackles of linen; the freedom to show skin, and be considered sexy and beautiful, the freedom from ‘the veil of male dictated morality’. Today the same ‘Feminists’ want the world to know that women are not sex symbols, and that shows like ‘Miss America’, where women are judged for their physical beauty are wrong, and that women shouldn’t have to show their flesh to be considered beautiful. How is this different from a ‘Muslim Cleric’ saying that women are not sex symbols, and should cover up? It is the same wine in a different bottle, served by a different sex, but the outcome would still be the same; women will cover up. And then this madness about men even touching women without so called ‘permission’, what is going to be the end result of this; that men and women should maintain proper distance? Is that different from saying men should remain amongst men, and women amongst women? Old wine new bottle! Whatever changes feminists brought about from the male dominated world, they are leading those changes around in a circle, and back towards where they started. And let me make this clear; from where we started, that was not a good place, and certainly not where our future should end up at. We not only need freedom, but we need to understand what freedom really involves, how it really works, or should work, and how it is to be nurtured, for and towards, a better future.
Let’s be honest and accept this; “Women wanted to be a part of men’s world, because women wanted to be with men”. Similarly, men want to have women by their side, they always have, and they always will. This necessarily means the interaction between the two sexes, at every level including the most important ‘sexual’ level, will increase, will become intense, and will become much more complicated. If we are worried about how the two sexes are going to behave publically in the future to come, then that future was always coming, right from the day the women first marched out of their world, and into men’s world. Change is never welcome, but a change for the better always persists into future. Women working alongside men, that wasn’t a change welcome to most men, and yet it was a good change, and luckily is permanent, and should remain so. Similarly, men and women expressing sexual interest in each other free of the bondage of taboo and old world morality, is a change not easily palpable for most of the conservatives today, but it is a change that would give true sexual freedom to both sexes, and is certainly better than the alternative which current madness will bring about. Let us discuss these downsides of the feminist alternative now.
Driving a wedge between sexes:
Men and women are not only different in physiology, but also different in likes and dislikes. Feminists have always claimed that men have imposed beauty standards on women, but the truth is; all standards develop naturally as a result of human interactions. If there is a woman that looks extremely attractive to men, then she will have more suitors than other women. Those other women will then first notice everything different about that woman, and then, in order to satisfy their natural need of a mate, they will try to alter their own selves to get some much needed male attention. This is how beauty standards emerge, and this is why it is important to understand nature, human chemistry, human interactions, and both sexes’ desires. If you think that only women’s desires could, or should, be considered in exclusion to male desires, then you simply don’t understand how sexes interact, and how nature plays its’ part. You cannot promote one sex without considering the needs and desires of the other sex; the mistake feminists have always made, which is why their reasons and ways are always improper.
The problem with feminists is; they are so cocooned in their thinking that they have even started to confuse female desires with female needs, and have always regarded male needs as male desires, or rather not even considered them, for men, according to them, already had everything. Take the case of ‘sexual’ matters. Women would want to have absolute control in the matters of sex and sexual advances. This is women’s desire. But do they really need this much control? And if women need this much control because they are physically involved in sex, then men too need equal control for they are equally involved in it? Notice the impracticality? Men need to have a say in the matters of sex, especially about when a female’s ‘consent’ becomes irrevocable, so that they have a certainty as to when they are not being criminals. This is men’s need, not their desire. Now consider, with regards to sexual activities, all those women who have, or are, having extra-marital sexual affairs, or in many strict societies, having sex without, as well as outside marriage; if men were to start a campaign and start naming and shaming those women for what they are doing, would that really be a constructive or welcome outcome?
When feminists turned women into confronting wives, the homes broke down. When feminists turned women into headstrong individuals not ready to consider men’s desires, their approachability diminished. The more women became demanding, the lesser men started to appear. Majority of people, both men and women, are shy at opening up to the other sex, and some even so woefully inept, they start disliking the attitude of the opposite sex. When such individuals, who find it easier to develop meaningful relationships with members of their own sex, who find members of their own sex better in terms of behaviour and attitudes, when such individuals end up associating sexual pleasure with members of the same sex, they end up homosexuals. This is what blind rise of feminism has done to western societies. It has broken the bonds between the weakest members of the two sexes, and pushed them towards homosexuality. And with current agenda, they are going to drive this wedge even further up the ladder.
What the feminists are proposing right now; “the verbal sexual advance, or no sexual contact at all”; what this would ultimately result in is, widening the gulf of communication between the two sexes at the very basic level, and then breaking the natural bond of sexual interest and interaction at a more deeper psychological level. There will be a lot more members of the two sexes who wouldn’t adapt well to the ‘verbal model’, and will be pushed towards homosexuality. In fact, while at this, even the ‘verbal sexual advance’ will ultimately come to be considered as ‘sexual harassment’, should we to continue down this path. Now would that take us forward into the future, or back towards some distant past?
The ‘Society of Ants’:
The salient feature of a colony of ants is; there is a queen and drones, who enjoy sexual and other pleasures, and then there are workers that work their entire lives to sustain the colony, and if the need be, defend the queen. Humans however are not ants. But they will become ants, or ant like, if we are going to continue down this slide. Stable relations in western nations are already becoming a part of history books. A few more years down the line, and especially if feminist’s sexual model becomes the norm, even sex life would become a seasonal affair for most human beings. While the rich and resourceful will enjoy everything, including sex, the rest would only really be living to work, and make the resourceful more rich. Does that sound a bit ant like? But we know that is not the real question over here. The real question is; “Will such a thing really ever happen?” Well, perhaps the reality won’t be as bad as an ant colony, but it certainly won’t be nice and pretty.
Losing the cause of democracy:
The biggest problem with feminist model has always been the fact that it requires the weakening of men, not physically, but legally, and as a side effect, psychologically. And yet, feminists have never really provided an adequate substitute to the society, to replenish what the society loses at every stage. Now we are not going to discuss the issues regarding ‘democratic legal principles’ all over again, for much has already been written above. But what we really need to consider is the cost that comes when a society’s men become weaker.
Women are, by nature, designed to think for themselves and their children first. They are selfish by nature. Men on the other hand suffer from ‘Testosterone’. Yes, this hormone that makes them territorial also imbues them with features like false bravado, and a notion of rising up and dying for higher social cause. The reason ‘Feminism’ has been a success for women so far is not because women were fighting for a higher cause, but because women were fighting for a personal cause; a bit of selfishness imbued in there perhaps, which is why feminists never stopped to consider the consequences for society or men (the others).
A world war might not happen in a world where women have an equal say as men, but that doesn’t mean that such a world would truly be a better world. To make space for women, men’s natural instincts need a curbing through legislation; an unnatural process to curtail natural flair. The more and more legislation subdues men, more subservient becomes a society. First of all, the entire population becomes less aggressive, for it gets used to living in a much more controlled society, but this is more pertinent in the case of men, who are directly impacted by the ever increasing legal containment. Secondly, women think differently from men, their preferences are different, and their reactions to social causes that need sustained suffering over a long period of time, are different. If a cause is not something that gives every woman something at a personal level, they probably won’t be interested in it. For example; women in US are more interested in ‘equal pay for equal work’, but there is no similar impetus for ‘better pay for every work’. Women somehow are less concerned about men getting paid less, if they are themselves getting paid less than men. Women joining work force has never really strengthened worker movements. Now of course those movements are weakening because of many external factors, like migrants, corruption at leadership levels, hidden agendas, and so on. But the fact is; women haven’t given strength to those movements, even if they have swelled the numbers of the workforce.
Feminist approach or ‘Innocent Sexual Advance’:
Finally, after a long drawn out discussion, it is time to balance what the two approaches have to offer. While feminist approach is going to be another destructive solution going forward into the future, time has come to recognize a new legal creature, which in reality has existed even before humanity became intellectually enlightened over and above the level of a basic animal. This approach might sound radical at the moment, but is more balanced, and certainly constructive rather than being destructive, when compared to the feminist approach. Future will see a lot more free interaction between men and women, and there is no good way, or for that matter even recommended way, of stopping or breaking the sexual connection between the two sexes. Humanity will be served better if it removes certain old world ‘moral bondages’ that will not assist future families, or their cause. Restraint will not produce ‘great societies’, but disciplined freedom will. Let this discipline come as a consequence of natural balance that would develop on its own in a free society. Do not try to impose artificial discipline, for that would be not just counter-productive, but rather destructive.
Fatal Urge Carefree Kiss,
Amanpreet Singh Rai
*************
