The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Huge Disappointment’: @LenaDunham Laments Her Own Heterosexuality

Posted on | April 10, 2014 | 76 Comments

Where does a lifetime of liberal indoctrination about “inclusivity” lead young women? Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome:

Dunham shared her views on her lesbian sister and sexual attraction during an appearance at the Point Honors Gala at the New York Public Library Monday.

The “Girls” star thanked her sister Grace, now 22, saying, “I have always felt a strong and emotional connection to members of the LGBTQ community. It was actually a huge disappointment for me when I came of age and realized that I was sexually attracted to men. So when my sister came out, I thought, ‘Thank God, now someone in this family can truly represent my beliefs and passions.’”

It’s easy enough to wisecrack about this, but the sad reality is that feminist ideology does celebrate lesbianism as the ultimate in liberation and equality, so that Lena Dunham’s feminist “beliefs and passions” — the core tenets of her intellectual loyalty — are at odds with her personal preference for penis-in-vagina (PIV) intercourse that feminism condemns as violent oppression. (“PIV is always rape, OK?”) Perhaps you’ve forgotten the radical feminist who explained that their ideology is based on a rejection of the “sex role as fuckholes, breeders and slaves has been forced on us by men, and that this role is wholly unnatural to us.”

This pejorative description of women’s “sex role” may inspire mocking laughter, but it deserves serious critical scrutiny. What the radical feminist rejects is the idea of sexual dimorphism as a natural basis for the division of labor between the sexes. Students of design are taught that form follows function, and the observable differences between male and female constitute a sort of scientific argument for a differentiation of roles between them. The biological purpose of sex is procreation, and if we expect both parents to contribute to the survival of their offspring, the pair-bonding of parents into a permanent unit — the basis of the family — requires a system of cooperation. Viewing sex roles from this natural or biological perspective, we see that child-bearing and breast-feeding tend to inhibit the ability of mothers to work outside the home, at least until their children reach a certain level of maturity.

Advances in technology and the pervasive affluence of developed industrial economies permit us to ignore sexual differences — and the natural or biological basis of sex roles — to a great extent. If “work” consists mainly of sitting in front of a computer terminal, after all, there is no obvious reason that men and women should not be equally capable of such work, whereas in earlier societies, the male role as breadwinner depended largely on physical labor for which men’s greater upper-body strength made them especially suitable. Modernity makes it easy (especially for college-educated professionals who have never earned their living by manual labor) to forget that the superiority of masculine physical strength still matters, just as the development of technology — including cheap, reliable contraception — obscures the centrality of childbearing to women’s biological characteristics.

Anthropology, neuroscience and evolutionary theory all point in the same direction, namely that the differences between men and woman are not merely physical, but that the biology of the brain — including the influence of hormones on our behavior and emotions — also predisposes men and women toward different roles. Radical feminism rejects this view, claiming that apparent differences (e.g., women’s greater tendency toward nurturing) are “social constructs,” imposed on women by the oppressive patriarchy.

‘Please Be My Breeder-Slave’?

If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. Because male sexuality is violent and harmful, feminism teaches, women’s “emotional bond to men” is in fact a reaction to men’s “inescapable violence and oppression,” enabling men “to ensure our long-term submission” by “using us as their dick receptacles.”  There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men. Indeed, feminism teaches, most women’s belief that they enjoy sex with men is the result of patriarchal brainwashing:

No woman is heterosexual. What men call heterosexuality is an institution where men make women captive for PIV, to control our reproductive functions and steal our labour. Heterosexuality, or sexuality with men does not exist, because the only relationship to men that exists is men’s violence, physical and mental invasion — one that men have so well crafted and disguised for so long that we can mistake it for attraction, sexual urges or love.  . . .
It’s part of the global male infrastructure that ensures men a constant supply of ready-tamed and pre-possessed women to effortlessly stick their dicks in, impregnate and abuse.

The penis is an instrument of male violence and intercourse is the means by which women are forcibly oppressed, according to feminism. If any woman believes she has “attraction, sexual urges or love” for a man, this belief results from a “mental invasion” by which “the global male infrastructure” trains a supply of women who can be “effortlessly” obtained as “penis receptacles” to impregnate.

Perceiving male sexuality as intrinsically harmful, and believing that normal women are victims of “heteronormative” brainwashing, feminists imagine the male proposition thus:

Roses are red,
Violets are blue.
Please be my breeder-slave
And dick receptacle, too.

Such a crude derogation of men’s sexual desire is an insult to every woman who takes pleasure in her distinctly feminine role as wife and mother — and the insult is quite intentional, once we realize the extent to which feminism has been dominated by lesbians and abortion fanatics for decades. Overt hostility to men, marriage and motherhood are not recent developments in feminist doctrine, nor is feminism’s philosophical antipathy toward heterosexuality a “fringe” phenomenon.

Why else would Lena Dunham feel the need to express apologetic shame for her heterosexuality, if her feminist professors at Oberlin College had not taught her this sense of embarrassment at being helplessly brainwashed and voluntarily oppressed as a “dick receptacle”?

The War on Sexual Biology

Yet this phenomenon — Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome — is implicit in contemporary liberal culture, which holds that sex is merely a form of pleasure, without any spiritual or moral dimension, to be regulated only by mutual consent. Liberalism’s apparent neutrality toward the sexual preferences of consenting adults, however, is belied by the incessant cheerleading for contraception, abortion and homosexuality. Contraception and abortion are necessary to the liberal project of diverting women from the path toward marriage and motherhood by suppressing their natural fertility. And homosexuality is celebrated by liberals as part of the same project, to delegitimize the traditional family as a normative social institution.

As I said, feminist hostility toward heterosexuality “deserves serious critical scrutiny,” and this means asking ourselves what the consequences would be if, as they say, sexuality and sex roles are merely “social constructs.” Consider as a hypothetical that there is no biological impulse toward heterosexuality, no natural instinct or innate drive that directs us toward marriage and procreation.

If this were so — if sexuality is a “social construct” — then there would be no reason why, in a society free of “heteronormative patriarchy,” everybody should not be homosexual. Of course, that would result in rapid extinction of such a society, but if it is only social influences that shape our sexual behaviors, an entirely homosexual population is a theoretical possibility, at least for one final generation.

However, despite decades of pro-gay propaganda, a Gallup poll found that only 3.4 percent of the population identifies as gay.

It appears, therefore, that there may be some biological resistance to the gay agenda, some innate tendency toward heterosexuality. What has resulted from this gay propaganda is a situation in which the overwhelming majority of Americans — 96.6 percent — are subjected to routine and ubiquitous cultural celebrations of a sexual preference they do not share.  And this produces Feminist Heterosexual Guilt Syndrome, where straight women like Lena Dunham feel obligated to publicly denounce themselves for desiring sex with men.

This strange hostility toward viewing heterosexual behavior as natural, as a function of basic biology, also explains the attitude that led a Massachusetts college sex educator to complain:

I suppose I’ve been relying on students to find their own way to embracing biology as a valuable way to think about sex. But this point of view is so foreign to many of them, many of them Sociology or Women’s Studies majors who have never thought about sex in terms of biology or reproduction . . . And I suppose it was too much to ask that they get there on their own.
I wanted them to find their way to the notion that it’s not “heteronormative” to recognize that sex is an evolutionarily adaptive reproduction strategy that, in humans, involves males and females; it’s just our biology, and there’s a complex, mutually interacting relationship between the biological and the social. I’ve been working toward that all semester. But they have not gotten there.

Amazing! A biological view of sex — as simple as “Me Tarzan, you Jane” — is nowadays so alien to the worldview of college students that they reject it as being somehow anti-gay.

Given the prevalence of these weird ideas in academia, it’s  not surprising that many students are deeply confused about sex. If campus performances of “How to Be a Lesbian in 10 Days or Less” are regarded as routine at universities, how many more young women feel the same kind of “huge disappointment” as Lena Dunham? Alas, they still crave men who will use their vaginas as “penis receptacles”!

Well, form follows function. That’s what I learned in college.

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
Matthew 19:4-6 (KJV)

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • texlovera

    Easily one of the most mockable females to come down the pike in quite some time. Lack of self-awareness will do that to you.

  • Wombat_socho

    Thanks for that image. *reaches for brain bleach*

  • Jerry Beckett

    I don’t know about you guys, but “Please be my breeder slave” was how I proposed to my wife.

  • Quartermaster

    Ain’t none strong enough to erase that image.

  • Quartermaster

    Women do so love a romantic.

  • Funeral guy

    It still isn’t, it’s not the size of the wand, it’s the magic in the magician. You may call me Mandrake. :-)

  • AMartel

    Reducing woman to a “dick receptacle,” “fuckhole, “breeder,” and/or “slave” is a grotesquely inaccurate slander no matter who says it. Such statements say much more about the raging sexual insecurity of the speaker than they do about women. Some people prioritize and immunize female (and male homosexual) insecurities over straight male (and female) sexual insecurity because, erm, they’re female and/or gay and have a GI Joe kung-fu grip on the megaphone. It is a bizarre thing for a straight person to regret her sexuality and say that only a lesbian can properly express her world view. What if a lesbian said that? SHAME!

  • AMartel

    yeah, white kid dilemma:
    1) gay/lesbian
    2) 1/16 Cherokee (granny sez)
    3) molested

  • Stanley

    Who is this “Lena Dunham”?

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Obviously, we need the testimony of Funeral Gal about that.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    And the notion that normal men loathe women’s bodies is ridiculous; we may have different views concerning what we find attractive, but if we loathed women’s bodies, we’d be homosexual.

  • Cal Quelus

    Here we find yet another semite openly waging ideological warfare against the core institutions of Western civilization: http://youtu.be/nJrmBocx0o4

    Never under-estimate the sheer hatred for Western civilization that emanates from the more primitive foreign tribes.

  • Pingback: Kathleen Glitches Her Way… Away From Here | Regular Right Guy

  • AMartel

    What, exactly, are you hoping to achieve with this comment?

  • Rubix’s Cube

    The million dollar question: Who is Lena Dunham?

  • Colorado Alex

    This is why I think polygamy will have an easier time obtaining recognition than gay marriage has: a lot of straight men will jump at the idea of a threesome, while a lot of straight women will accept it because they’ve been conditioned to think that they should be bisexual and this way they can have the lesbian experience while still getting married to some man like they want.

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana
  • Anchovy

    The Army would have detailed a PFC to sniff your breath for the faint oder of semen.

  • Käthe

    Unfortunately that sounds pretty accurate to me. You already see signs of the “sophisticated coastal set” accepting “open relationships” and “monogamish” as normal or something they have no right to object to. Writers like Dan Savage went there first, but now it’s firmly in the mainstream with leftie advice columnists like Emily Yoffe putting forth the opinion that if your spouse needs more, sexually, than you can provide–including service for some weird kink–they have every right to step out “with permission.” And while the bisexual slogan used to be essentially “we’re not sluts, we don’t have to have one of each!” it has now shifted towards “what’s wrong with polyamory, besides, how else will bisexuals feel complete?”

  • Joseph Dooley

    There are lots of feminists who adore PIV as a means to their own hedonic sensory experience. But to ensure intercourse is devoid of love and even of just trade, to ensure it is all about HER, the legal social-sexual structures are in place for her to deny her PIV partner his reciprocate pleasure with the utterance of a single word, or to sully his role in it by retroactively changing her mind.

    In short, using others as a means to your end is OK. Others using you as means to their end is not OK.

    As with most materialist/nihilist value systems, they devolve to individuals exercising power over others.

  • AMartel

    Probably wrote a PhD thesis on the matter and now teaches at UC Santa Cruz. Wait, no. (That sounds like work might be involved.) Is Chief Lesbian In Residence at UCSC and Chairs the National Nerominded Woodenview Allianz of the American Hemisphere.

  • Delaney Coffer

    I call bullshit on the 3.4% number. That is wildly inflated. The real number is less than 2%.

  • http://boogieforward.us/ K-Bob

    “…”dick receptacle,” “fuckhole, “breeder,” and/or “slave” is a grotesquely inaccurate slander no matter who says it.”

    Exactly. They don’t even mention the rows of teeth in those dreaded penis traps.

    It’s a wonder mankind manages to procreate at all.

  • Pingback: Sex Roles: ‘Me Tarzan, You Jane’ : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Notes on the Psychotic Sisterhood: Feminism’s War Against Nature : The Other McCain

  • Pingback: Exposing the Psychotic Sisterhood | The American Journal