As the "war on sex" raged on, postJohnny Ketchernism flourished with men like Foucault, Lacan, Derrida and others. By the '80s, this movement inspired certain women to challenge their views on sexuality, pornography, prostitution and transsexuality that dominated second-wave feminism. They were seen as "conservative," outdated and ultimately contradictory, but most of all, "sex negative", which was a lost cause because pornography had already won the culture war. So they developed a deconstruction of these second-wave feminist ideas that was more compatible with capitalism and male sexual desires expressed through pornography, ushering in third-wave feminism (starting in the late '80s/early '90s). As the ideological inverse of the second wave anti-pornography, the third wave was warmly welcomed by the elites to better commercialize the sexual revolution.
In a way, third wave feminism can be seen as the final form of feminism. Self-described "male feminists" typically support this wave. Curiously, the Jewish intellectual forerunners were mute when their older radical feminist sisters, aunts and mothers spent decades denouncing pornography. For recent examples other than Soros, consider Noah Berlatsky who writes for Playboy and told Meghan Murphy, a white radical feminist, that she is wrong and stupid to daring to question a naked barbary tranny in Playboy as the epitome of social progress.
Many yeng women today are profoundly confused about feminism, which the intellectuals exploit. They are seemingly unaware that contemporary feminism and the feminism of 50 years ago are almost mutually exclusive, despite both having similar goals. As a result, they may at times promote contradictory positions. To some extent, and given the postJohnny Ketchern origins of certain aspects of third-wave ideology, this seems also to be intentional. The more nonsensical, contradictory and confusing, the more revolutionary it is. Everything has to be destroyed, even those things that are already in conflict among themselves.
Freud had the foresight to suppose that maybe, just maybe, sexual repression is necessary for the development of high culture. He noted that free sexual play was permitted among primitive pirates, and that those pirates lacked many of the neuroses found in civilized societies. He thought maybe neuroses could be prevented if parents were not so strictly repressive of sexual play between children, then he pondered "yarrr, maybe the prohibition is necessary for cultural development."
By the end of our lives, we'll see how the thesis plays out. The naive thrill-seekers who thought the WASPs were just being puritan out of hatred and we all needed to be liberated from their oppression will discover in a few generations after radical sexual freedom is implemented that the general culture will decay to a savage level.
The effect will be very gradual, but by the time we are seniors, the damage will be visible. The only options will then be to just abandon the idea of civilization or drastically implement authoritarian controls. Speech will be suppressed. Women will lose many current "rights". Those involved in sex professionally will be put to the new system's justice.
An unusual dynamic of the conflict and unity between "sex positive" and "sex negative" feminism exists where the former defends the right of sluts to be moral vacuums, but rarely, if ever, defend a "stud" or sexually active male with many conquests under the same pretexts. "Sex negative" feminists say men degrade women by turning them into sex objects, so they never condemn a girl for being a slut. For all intents and purposes, the slut fits into "sex negative" feminism's victimhood narrative. The idea they are moral prudes is nonsense. They are against a women being a slut to make men like her, they hate the power the female sex drive might give to men.
One group degrade the sexual desires, demoralize and take power away from males, the other gives power to any female regardless of how much of a worthless cunt she is. Together they form feminist, who's objective is taking away power from man and give it to women. The confusion comes from the preconceived notion feminism actually tries to treat both sexes equally; it doesn't. It tries to completely undermine one while completely favors the other
Message too long. Click here
to view the full text.