for idiots

   - Home
   - Liberalism
   - For half-wits
   - Woman's secret
   - Applied science
   - Paradigm shift


"To be violated is perhaps a need in a woman, a secret erotic need".

Anais Nin, Diary II


Catharine MacKinnon (1987). Feminism Unmodified: Discourses on Life and Law. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press 1987 p. 54:

"I think that sexual desire in women, at least in this culture, is socially constructed as that by which we come to want our own self-annihilation. That is, our subordination is eroticized in and as female; in fact, we get off on it to a degree, if nowhere near as much as men do. This is our stake in this system that is not in our interest, our stake in this system that is killing us."
What a mother-lode of insight. A uniquely feminist interpretation of the longing to be violated.


Is your car choosy? Does a car choose from among the people that drives it? No, a car is simply there, not making any kind of choice whatsoever. Yet people pursue it, and want to drive it. A car left on a parking lot with the keys in the ignition will not be alone for long. It will find a driver, whether it is the one that it is currently committed to, or whether it gets hit on by a stranger. Provide for your car, fill it with petrol, spend money on it, and it will allow you to drive it.

It's exactly the same with women. Like cars, women don't do much choosing. Their role is simply, to turn up. They are content, simply, to be provided for. And since most men are adequate providers, what men have to do is focus on their timing. Catch 'em on the rebound. Women are not choosy. They're the opposite. They are randomness in still life. It is the arbitrariness of their commitments that removes them from the market to impact on the laws of supply and demand. This is responsible for the false illusion that women are choosy.

Reference: Hooking Up, Hanging Out, and Hoping for Mr. Right - College Women on Dating and Mating Today, from the Independent Women's Forum


Chortle, the UK Comedy Guide, quotes agony aunt Virignia Ironside:

"I've been laughed into bed by more hideous men than I care to think about - and when in the morning, I've looked at their horrible little heads on the pillow and wondered what on earth I'd been thinking, they've only got to crack another joke and I've suddenly remembered."
Is it really so important for men to have a sense of humour (soh)? Or is an soh a diversion, an exercise in denial? What is it that women really want from men?

The following was taken from my post to the Evolutionary Psychology discussion group:

First of all, money. Is it important for a man to be... ahem.... "financially secure"? Yes and no. Yes, in the same sense that it is important for a man to have testicles - the personal adds rarely spell out testicles as a requirement (though some women seem to place a greater priority on "financial security"). No, in the sense that some women's choices seem to be so arbitrary, obviously being "wealthy" is not so important as being "normal" (which implies being financially "normal", as well).

Women tend to anticipate too much from attractive men, and this can make them feel afraid and intimidated. You know how they try to blow it off - "attractive men are boring, yadda yadda". That short, fat, balding, middle-aged, divorced dumplings tend to get the gal would seem to be more a function not of the value of humour, but on the fact that short, fat, balding, middle-aged, divorced dumplings are not so intimidating. That "humour" (of the femo-culturally sanctioned variety) should happen to accompany ugliness can be attributed to the fact that you've got to have a sense of humour if you have so little going for you. And, well, when you have so little going for you, you try harder. So, combine "good sense of humour" with desperate enthusiasm, and voila! An instant hot babe is waiting for you just around the corner. It's the numbers game.

Besides which, if we remember my post (msge #24428) where I compared an available woman to a car on the parking lot with the key in the ignition, good-humoured, persistent men that arbitrarily approach every car will eventually find the one with the key in the ignition. Brooding, mysterious, silent types, while drawing the excrutiatingly longing gazes of women who wonder why all the cutest guys are gay, are more likely to go home with other brooding, mysterious silent types (thereby perpetuating women's favourite myths).

Ok, ok, I say all this tongue-in-cheek. But there is more than an element of truth to it.

If English-speaking westerners seem to be fixated with the holy grail of the soh, there are other cultures where the brooding silent type has its appeal. I've observed that continental women are somewhat more inclined to be drawn to sophistication, looks, savoir-faire and charm rather than whether or not a man is wealthy or oozes the jollity and bonhomie of a leprechaun. I've observed many women from strange lands who are more inclined to be drawn to westerners, irrespective of whether or not they are brooding silent types or good-natured leprechauns, perhaps on the assumption that western wallets invariably accompany testicles.

And to further confound issues, I've noticed many women you'd think can do better, choosing men with all the charisma of a bag of cement, probably for the reason that a bag of cement won't stray very far.

I think that for the most part, culture is everything, as far as women's choices go. That's my not-so-humble opinion.


Men and women cannot possibly understand each other. It is written into the most basic laws of phenomenology and the nature of knowing. The whole reason that gender roles exist at all is because of this most fundamental of principles.

To cut a long story short, it means that men and women are predestined never ever to be able to apprehend each others worlds. Men have "privileged" knowledge as to what it means to be a man, and women have "privileged" knowledge as to what it means to be a woman. For one person to understand all the dimensions of what it is like to be their opposite sex, they have to become the opposite sex, to live an entire life as their opposite sex. In other words, to truly understand the opposite sex is a non-starter. It just cannot happen. We can infer things about the opposite sex, but that is all.

The things that we can infer about the opposite sex can be explored under the notion of violation.

The urge to violate is one expression of Man's creative drive to explore, to identify new truths, new ways of doing things. The longing to be violated, on the other hand, is one expression of Woman's yearning for liberation from her world of shoulds and should-nots, to break free from the bonds of old truths, old rules and constraints.

Masculinity exists at the dynamic interface between the cultural known and the unknown. Man's priority is the exploration of the unknown. Men are the innovators and the doers. On the other hand, femininity provides the momentum that gives culture, with all its traditions, language and assumptions, continuity over time. Woman's priority is to sustain the known. Women are the assumers and the thought-police.

Men desire. Women long to be desired.

The urge to violate is active, and the longing to be violated is passive. And so male and female sexuality are "logically" consistent with male and female cultural priorities.

The word "violation" implies change or transformation of some sort. The theory that I explore touches this, and raises interesting questions about the validity of 40 years of liberal indulgence dispensing with millenia of religious, world-wide restrictions on human sexuality. That is to say, if men and women cannot possibly understand each other, what are the dangers inherent in a sexual freedom that makes no attempt to account for the different ways in which men and women can know about their worlds? It comes down to the basic question, what is violation?

Can Margaret Mead's utopian vision of sexual freedom without consequences ever be realized? For so long as violation is central to the sex act, can there be any such thing as trivial sex, sex without consequence?

So let us dispense with theory. Let us enter the Labyrinth, to descend into the murky depths of women's secrets, wherein we can infer the role of Woman with respect to cultural evolution and cultural decay.


The choices that modern women make are based in two conflicting priorities:

  1. The desire to be provided for;
  2. The longing to be violated.
One is evolutionary (of sorts) for at least, it fosters competition among men within the contexts of their careers, compelling men to strive and to compete.

The second priority can only ever be devolutionary, for the only competition it fosters among men is the single, simple principle:

No initiate, no pussy

This wonderful, egalitarian principle might guarantee snatch to even the worst among men, but it is devolutionary. For ultimately it compels all men to descend to the humiliating level of Performing Seal. The gender that has it so easy, the gender that is provided for, the gender forever shielded from character-forming experience, is now judge, jury and executioner, passing judgement on a gender it knows nothing about. The pampered gender's priorities are "entertain me"; "take care of me"; "give me a good time"; "make me laugh". It has become a given that men must accept these terms as laid down by women, and men have become blind to the simple fact that in a previous world, the world before feminism, women also used to live up to certain standards. The gender that has it so easy has become the gender that gets off scott free. Man as Performing Seal is not exercising his right to decline when Woman does not measure up.


In accordance with the principles of violation, men are the only gender predisposed to desire to rape. Women are the only gender predisposed to desire to be raped. This is Woman's biggest secret and Man's greatest ignorance. To understand this is to understand everything there is to know about human sexuality.

The bottom line is, women don't care to rape. They might rape as an expression of feminist "empowerment" and misandrist hatred of men, justified on the basis of centuries of purported oppression of women by men. They might rape as a product of feminist indoctrination, hype and myth-making. They might gather together in herds, carousing at male strip shows, pretending that they are "rapists", convincing themselves that they're having "fun". But there is nothing that leaves a woman colder than the thought of having to get up off her ass to make a man feel as though he is desired. It is Woman's prerogative to be desired, and being violated is its most thrilling manifestation. A man driven insane by uncontrollable lust to the point of rape is a turn-on for many a woman, an affirmation of her feminine beauty and vulnerability, and the basis for her fantasies. The thrill of being violated is the liberation Woman seeks from her world of shoulds and should-nots. It is Woman that has to be desired, and Man that has to desire.

Is your wife "bored"? Has the spark left your marriage? Are you no longer able to please her? Now you have the key. A good thrashing done in the right spirit - one that enables her to transcend her dreary existence with her provider, one that shunts her into a surreal, frightening experience, at the edge between here and infinity - will most certainly rekindle those dying embers. This is that mysterious "something" that she is looking for, that she can't put into words, and you are wasting your time analyzing beyond this. Simply allow yourself to get in touch with your masculine side. Don't resist that primal urge to transform yourself into the brute that she will respect. For it is only this that might save your relationship. And she can respect nothing less.

Don't take her to the movies, or a candle-lit dinner. How unoriginal. Look to the words of America's sweetheart, Lizzy Borden, and give yourself and your missus a real treat. You owe it to her:

"Yeah. She's really going to get hit. She likes it. It's good. Sometimes, it makes you more horny when you're getting hit. It makes you more, like, more tingly down in your genital area. You should try it. You should hit your wife a little bit."
This is Woman's secret that she keeps from herself, from women and from men. It is the secret that dares not breath its name. And it is my secret that I know women better than they know themselves.


No-one ever likes being beaten to a pulp. But, like parachuting, rock-climbing, etc, the thrill is in the potential for something to happen. It's the experience at the edge, and in the case of rape, at the boundary between the cultural known and the forbidden. Fear is an important component of this thrill "at the edge". Moreover, it is fear of the unknown, fear of that which lies beyond the cultural known. This fear gives the moment a surreal quality, like a form of revelation, like a first thrill or a heightened experience.

Rape can take many forms, and the majority of women would naturally dread the type of rape that culminates in actual physical harm.

However.... on the Frontline documentary American Porn, Lizzy Borden explained that her friend the actress went into one particular rape scene without knowing what was about to happen to her. She went on to explain that this violence is what excited her friend, making her skin tingle, and get all excited.

Which leads to another clue. The more violated the woman in her sexual history, the more extreme is the edge at which she gets her thrill.

And what is "too much" violation? Can a prostitute be violated? Are we to accept the feminist popularization that the rape of a whore is equal to the rape of a virgin, or a nun?

Of course a prostitute can experience violation - when a client refuses to pay.


Andrea Dworkin thinks all sex is rape. She's right. But what she doesn't understand is that that's how women like it, and they wouldn't have it any other way. Women profit by it. They get their thrills from it.

What Ms Dworkin doesn't get is that women that encourage violation beyond the point of shared intimacy should take responsibility for their own choices. What she doesn't get is that when women indulge in their secret longings and submit themselves to violation, or when women seek monetary reward by allowing themselves to be violated, they have no-one to blame but themselves.

About the only thing that Andrea Dworkin proves in her agenda that all sex is rape is that she fails resolutely to understand the female condition.


The most important implication of systems theory is that men and women learn about the opposite sex from their interactions with them. There are no "truths" about the opposite sex that are locked inside the cranium, independently of experience.

Women learn what men are like first from their fathers, and later, from the types of men to whom they give air-time. When a woman is in the habit of giving air-time to dopes, well, we might infer that she is going to evolve a particular view of what men are like.

Also, Man's provider role is the unspoken given that every man is assumed to have. It is the prerequisite, without which there can be no further ado. Gold-diggers have very open, warm and giving hearts when it comes to the types of men that they choose, so long as they are rich. The love and devotion felt by a gold-digger is in direct proportion to her man's wealth. No doubt, some gold-diggers will finish up with men from the lower end of the refinement stakes.

Another reason that women finish up with dopes is related to the modern climate of sexual "freedom", where women often choose from among the menagerie of unremarkable men that hit on them.

But the most interesting reason - the one that reveals fundamental clues about the nature of human sexuality - is Woman's longing to be violated. For the longing to be violated requires a violator.

The nature of female sexuality provides clues as to why women make the choices they make in men - why women choose wealthy men or powerful men or spiritual men or celebrities or thugs or gang leaders or dopes. Women are capable of choosing from a broad spectrum of male types, and this becomes easy to understand from the perspective of their sexuality. Because, in essence theirs is the longing to be desired, a longing often realized in the unconstrained passions from even the worst among men.

An ugly brute is capable of desire and thus, of satisfying some women's needs. On the other hand an ugly woman, by definition, is incapable of eliciting desire and sex will not play a major part in her life. Some women are capable of being aroused by the ugliest of men. To most men this would seem inconceivable - how could a man possibly be aroused by the sight of an ugly woman? And in this, we see that men and women really do inhabit vastly different worlds.

Does it really make sense to infer that an attractive woman, who can have most anyone that she desires, can be aroused by ugly, vulgar men - the uglier the better? Yes, it can. This is explicable by understanding female sexuality from the perspective of the longing to be violated and its connection with the cultural forbidden. An attractive woman being violated by a vulgar brute will have her narcissistic sense of beauty and vulnerability accentuated and heightened, and thus will be more aroused by the violation that is occuring to her.

Knowing these things enables us to infer a great many things about women's psychology. Their fears, their indecisions, their passivity and, of course, their dumb choices.

Knowing these things enables us to turn our backs on those women predisposed to making such choices, and divesting feminists of the basis for their power. We now provide the basis on which women must also measure up to our own standards, by holding women accountable to the choices they make. And we can understand the basis of their stupid choices by understanding their sexuality. Knowledge is power.


Thrill is an essential component in every person's life. What is it that thrills women?

Men love the idea of thrilling, risky activities, such as parachute-jumping, driving fast cars, etc. We know that these things leave most women cold. Does this mean that women have no sense of thrill, or excitement? Do women live in some kind of emotionless, thrill-less vacuum? Of course not. Women derive their thrill from the one thing that defines their purpose (being desired). It is the thrill embodied in the longing to be violated.

We know this because we now have a dry, boring but brilliant theory that makes perfect sense. We know that:

  1. Gender roles are habits, ipso facto;
  2. Gender roles are chosen, ipso facto;
  3. Men and women like the roles to which they have been assigned.


In Hinz (1975), Nin was asked the question, 'Do you still believe that "to be violated is perhaps a need in woman, a secret erotic need," as you wrote in Diary II?' Nin replied:

This may be part of the primitive programming of woman, which psychology has analyzed in various ways: one, as a test of the man's strength; the other as a way of eluding the burden of sexual guilt. If someone with a will stronger than hers 'rapes' a woman, she is not responsible for the sexual act. These dreams may disappear when woman is freed of guilt for her sexual desires.

Hinz, Evelyn. A Woman Speaks: The Lectures, Seminars, and Interviews of Anais Nin. Chicago: Swallow Press, 1975. 45


Weininger (1906) wrote on the implications of female promiscuity taken to its limits. He explored the connection between prostitution and criminality (he used the word 'prostitute' in a general sense, to identify women that are promiscuous or of 'loose' morals). The following excerpt summarizes his perspective:

Very deep-seated differences are linked with what I have been describing. The mother-woman craves for respectability in the man, not because she grasps its value as an idea, but because it is the supporter of the life of the world. She herself works, and is not idle like the prostitute; she is filled with care for the future, and so requires from the man a corresponding practical responsibility, and will not seduce him to pleasure. The prostitute, on the other hand, is most attracted by a careless, idle, dissipated man. A man that has lost self- restraint repels the mother-woman, is attractive to the prostitute. There are women who are dissatisfied with a son that is idle at school; there are others who encourage him. The diligent boy pleases the mother-woman, the idle and careless boy wins approval from the prostitute type. This distinction reaches high up amongst the respectable classes of society, but a salient example of it is seen in the fact that the 'bullies' loved by women of the streets are usually criminals. The souteneur is always a criminal, a thief, a fraudulent person, or sometimes even a murderer.

I am almost on the point of saying that, however little woman is to be regarded as immoral (she is only non-moral), prostitution stands in some deep relation with crime, whilst motherhood is equally bound with the opposite tendency. We must avoid regarding the prostitute as the female analogue of the criminal; women, as I have already pointed out, are not criminals; they are too low in the moral scale for that designation. None the less, there is a constant connection between the prostitute type and crime. The great courtesan is comparable with that great criminal, the conqueror, and readily enters into actual relations with him; the petty courtesan entertains the thief and the pickpocket. The mother type is in fact the guardian of the life of the world, the prostitute type is its enemy. But just as the mother is in harmony, not with the soul but with the body, so the prostitute is no diabolic destroyer of the idea, but only a corrupter of empirical phenomena. Physical life and physical death, both of which are in intimate connection with the sexual act, are displayed by the woman in her two capacities of mother and prostitute. (1906: 233-234)

Weininger, O. (1906) Sex and Character. Translated from the 6th German edition. London: William Heinemann. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons.


Why are women drawn to men behind bars? - The Guardian, January 13, 2003


Alysabeth's Feminist Stripper Site

More clues for the Super Sluth wanting to find out more about about Woman's Secret


A woman is unlikely to ever pay for sex because being desired is central to her sexuality. A woman paying for sex does not make sense because it is an affirmation that she is not desirable. Being desired is her turn-on. A woman paying for sex stands in direct contradiction to the feminine desirability that demands payment. It cannot be any other way. Being paid for sex is the only monetary transaction that is capable of arousing a woman, whether or not she is a gold-digger, for there can be no stronger message that a man finds her attractive. And feeling sexy, vulnerable and attractive is a woman's thrill.


How can we know all this stuff? How might mere males, accused of being "rational" and out of touch with their "feelings", know more about women than women can know themselves? Simple. Men are more rational. So get in touch with your rational side. Nurture it. Know the theory. Know that in being "rational", you are in a position to explore subjects from more than one reference point, and to synthesize disparate observations into a single, coherent principle. Know that the laws of life, as in any other laws of nature, are simple and general. It's knowing how life works. Check my theory for clues.

In additon to their rationality, men are also in a better position to understand women because, as youngsters, they were dependent on their primary nurturer. If a man casts his mind back, he might begin to remember what the condition of dependency was like, and he can make inferences about the dependency that women can never escape from. Women, on the other hand, can never make inferences about masculine independence, because there is rarely any stage in a woman's life where she must confront independence. When she is young, she is dependent on her parents, and when she moves out of home, she is dependent on her partner. A man's world is inherently more alien to a woman than visa versa. This makes sense, because Woman's priority is the cultural known, Man's is the interface between the cultural known and the unknown.

Being dependent is a habit that women choose because they can, and being independent is a habit into which men are thrust because they have no choice.

Contrary to popular feminist ideology, women are far more subjective than men. Why? Because they are allowed to be. The gender that is provided for need never concern itself with anything other than having needs met. And so the gender that is provided for is the narcissistic gender, the gender that need never look beyond its own horizons. What feminists identify as "empathy" and "caring" has nothing to do with understanding others, and everything to do with lacking the sort of experience that is so essential in forming a convincing, self-reassuring view of the world.

So spare a thought for those confined by their feelings. They can never know what you might know, where you've soared, what you've become.


Had Otto Weininger been alive today, had he had the opportunity to participate in some of the discussion groups on semiotics (Peirce), I have no doubts whatsoever that he would have called himself a semiotician. For what is this "characterology" to which he refers, if not semiotics?

Kevin Solway provides an excellent resource on the works of Otto Weininger, even providing some reading material from Weininger's "Sex and Character".


Realize that central to all sexuality in nature is violation. For this is the engine of evolution and change. In civilized society violation is respected in the notion of intimacy and the realization that there is no aspect of sex that is trivial. Know that fear, as manifested in its many forms (resistance, conservatism, religiosity) is an integral part of Woman's response to sex.

Whether or not he realizes it, these are the subtleties that R. Don Steele has to be at least subconsciously in tune with in order to be successfull in the wooing of women.


A woman's longing to be violated requires a formidable, dynamic force if it is to be awakened. Neither chivalrous men who are well-behaved, nor sensitive dishwashers too afraid to try, will ever rouse the beast that sleeps within. No woman can long to be violated by just anyone. The dumbing down of men that is required to accommodate feminist demands is the last thing that women really long for. Sensitive dishwashers have no part to play in women's rape fantasies - though as predictable, safe providers who make minimal demands, they can make excellent marriage partners;


For the less gifted among us who might be inclined to misinterpret my message, this is not the green light for rape. Rape is a significant, life-altering event. Even those women who have become inert to its effects can attribute their numbness to damage inflicted long ago. Rape is never trivial. Its scars are for life. It is not I who condone rape, but feminists. It is the feminists who strove to make banal that which is sacred. It is the feminists who sought to replace the intimacy, trust and integrity essential to family with the superficiality, dishonesty and gullibility essential to the herd. It is the feminists who want to exempt women from having to take responsibility for the choices they make and so subject women to the every-day, banal rape that accompanies liberalism. It is the feminists who make women more vulnerable to rape than ever before, because only the feminists deny Woman's true nature like it's never been denied before.

Now it may warm the cockles of Ms Dworkin's heart to hear that all sex is violation. What she is less inclined to warm to is the notion that women are equal participants in that violation, that one way or another, women want it that way. The mothers wielding the power of primary nurturer and the wives wielding the power of sexuality are not the ineffectual imbeciles that feminists like to portray them as. Pornography and promiscuity are abuses of Woman's power, ever bit as much as they are Man's. Does it strike terror into Ms Dworkin's heart to hear that women have always been every bit as powerful as men? This is not what feminists want to hear. Feminists' disempowerment of women throughout history is the disempowerment of women today, because feminists' trivialisation of Woman's historical role leaves today's smug narcissists with no role at all.

Can the past forty years of liberalism so easily erase thousands of years of world cultures advocating sexual restraint?

No, there is no green light for rape in these here pages. More than anything, we have a red light for the insanity that is liberalism.

Last updated January 2005
Stephen Springette
To contact me, replace contrasp with tramont to counter spm: