2. CONSCIENCE
CONTROL : GUILT
Boy, you're gonna carry that weight;
Carry that weight a long time....'
-Lennon and McCartney
Carry that Weight'
Abbey Road, 1969.
"I say unto you, That whosoever looketh
on a woman to lust after her hath committed
adultery with her already in his heart"
Jesus: 5:28 Matthew
HITLER: Everyone knows of course that Hitler hated the Jews. And if he didn't hate them then his was a fairly convincing act. He was always referring to them as filth, vermin and bloodsuckers out to destroy host Cultures, like the German culture that they had apparently infected. Apart from the Jews, other favorite topics of his were religion, particularly Christianity and the Catholic Church. He was able to fuse the Jews, Christianity and Communism (which he referred to as Bolshevism) into a single world wide conspiracy. Christianity, he said was an invention of the Jew. It was a rebellion against Natural Law, the cultivation of human failure. Conscience was also an invention of the Jew, he said. Conscience and Morality were false visions, a form of self mortification. It made people weak. Based on this Hitler obviously wasn't a Christian. In fact the Nazi swastika was an old pagan symbol, a deliberate attempt to be an antithesis of Christianity. Now if you could come across evidence where Hitler in fact declared himself a Christian what could one surmise from that? For a start it would be breathtaking hypocrisy. It tells you he's a liar. And that's exactly what he did, in his earlier speeches, before he gained power, he said he was a Christian. In one early speech he reiterated the term...."as a Christian"... four times, referring to himself and that Jesus was his Lord and Savior. In another early speech he said the Nazi movement was a Christian movement. All of it was lies. However Hitler always said, in fact took pride, in stating he was a propagandist. Propaganda is lies. Not only was Hitler an Academy Award worthy propagandist but he was a rabble rouser and hypnotist. My long winded point is that if Hitler, is corrupt, and he was, then the opposite of what he said was wrong should be right. If Conscience and Morality are false visions and cause weakness then in fact they are really true and indicate intelligence and strength. And in my opinion it has been Conscience and not Love which has been the stronger force keeping the family societal system together. Conscience tells males in their hearts what's right and wrong. When they choose the wrong option they feel Guilt. If ever there was enough evidence to say that males are not selfish 'reptilian' psychopaths then its the evidence of Society itself because Guilt control emanating from their Conscience has helped keep Society together. Trouble is most women have learnt how to manipulate male guilt, a form of Conscience Control, by making the male feel guilty. Guilt is an uncomfortable feeling, a form of fear, and many males gladly pay a small sum for that feeling to be converted into one of magnanimity. |
GUILT. It's one of the Big Four.
The Big Four I'm talking about are 1. Guilt; 2. L.M.S. (Lost Male Syndrome); 3. Female Perception Disability (FPD); and 4. Sex Addiction. I deal with the last 3 in later chapters in this booklet. For this chapter I focus on Guilt.
I am reminded of the chorus lyric in the old Beatles song 'Carry that Weight' from their 1969 record album Abbey Road....."Boy, you gotta carry that weight, carry that weight a long time"....
Which is precisely what males have to do for most of their lives and that's "carry that weight". And its not the sort of weight that can be shared around, or re-distributed. Not only that, its a weight that's entirely a man's burden. Females don't have this weight to carry around, even if they wanted too. And they can't do anything to help the male's burden. The best of them can only walk alongside with genuine kindness while some of us struggle along. For the strong in character its a breeze. For the weak its a real struggle and some don't survive, ending up dead or in jail.
As I mentioned in the Intro, this is a prose-poetic rant, designed to stimulate some NEW ideas and perspectives. Trying to understand the sources of "Guilt", let alone drawing the threads together, is probably a mission for fools. Yet I'll take some 'potshots.' Thats what poets do. In this chapter I will recklessly cover terms I call "sex-guilt" and "moral guilt". But there are also some other "threads", which I'll briefly allude to here, which are better described in later chapters.
Let me start with an example. Imagine walking along your suburban street and there sitting in the gutter is a grown man sobbing into his hands. I'd suggest this would be an embarrassing and uncomfortable sight for many people. They'd keep walking. Some would wonder if the grown man was perhaps childlike, even mentally retarded, to be crying like that in public. Not even drunk men (well most don't) cry in public. I suggest that the image and the man would be viewed with scorn.
Now reverse the scenario and imagine a woman crying alone like that. The image is a far more 'sympathetic' and "acceptable." I"d suggest that many people would stop to enquire. Some would even ask if she was okay, or whether she wanted the Police. No one would conjure up a negative image of this female. No-one would think that she might be a drug using female, who had abandoned her children to State welfare and was upset because she couldn't get credit for a drug fix from a lowlife in the block-of-flats behind her. Who would think that? No-one. Instead the image would be a positive assumption that here was a decent female who has somehow been wronged, and might need "rescuing". A far cry from the embarrassing retarded image emanating from our crying male.
Psychologists have a term called the "White Knight Syndrome", of which there are many variables based on a pattern of "rescuing" behavior. MRAs (Mens Rights Activists) also have a term called "White Knights" which describes any male who comes to the "rescue" of any woman, right or wrong, regardless of the circumstances. Part of this is embedded in the "natural" behavior of males to protect 'women and children". Part of it is linked to a need to be "Chivalrous" (more later). Part is also linked to a perception disability that I think males have in 'reading' females (i.e FPD, Chapter 4) and another part is linked to the Utility of Motherhood (Chapter 9). Of course its not the complete answer but they're all variables in the mix. I guess the point I'm trying to make is that not every 'damsel in distress' is necessarily 'Snow White'.
My theory on the Utility of Motherhood is an interesting one which should provoke some thought (Chapter 9). This is the deep seated power control embedded in the male from the Mother Supreme (the male's Earthly creator). The males don't fully understand the "Utilities" or privileges of motherhood and have a sense that they will always owe their Mothers for the "sacrifice." And part of the price is to put every other female, up there on a pedestal, along with their own mothers (more later).
Many MRAs in trying to combat "guilt" have given up worrying about their public image, whether they're viewed as "sleazy" or "rude". Many have stopped worrying about being "politically correct"; some bordering close to being even sexist and racist to "honestly" express their emotion. A very clumsy and messy start for some...but its a start.
Okay, now let me grasp at the threads of sex and moral guilt.
Guilt stops males from abandoning themselves to Lust. It stops us abandoning a good home with a good wife and children in pursuit of some fresh Pussy. And no, its not the same for a woman even though they will insist to the back teeth that it is. They're lying. The most beautiful thing that a woman will ever see is not the aurora borealis, the grand canyon, a double rainbow, a puppy dog, a male strip troupe, or the perfect wedding dress. It's in fact her first born baby when she sees it.
The most beautiful thing a male will ever see is quite different. It's Pussy. A young woman in a bikini, a sex symbol in a swimsuit, or a smiling young woman in a tight mini dress bending over showing plenty of cleavage, legs and a hint of knickers. This is not new information, is it? Images of this beauty are plastered everywhere and is more visually interesting to a male than an oil landscape by Hans Heysen or Claude Lorrain. And sadly external images of female strangers with voluptuous bounty won't make the male more lustful for his wife. He wants the stranger bounty. My archetype male wants it both ways. He wants to keep his cosy domestic bliss going while getting out and being free and hunting some fresh Pussy. For a male a new female body is like being a pirate in the days of the buccaneer. Ahead is an unexplored exotic island with riches abounding. To put it in shopper's terms how would a female like it if she was never allowed to walk into any other shop for the rest of her life. Her access was entirely the one department downtown store, where all the food and clothes she'd ever practically need were there. And this one department store was like the old Communist-Soviet stores. The shelves were quite sparse and the product lines were the same monotonous labels and designs for decades. What's on the shopping shelf is the same as it was 10 years ago. However everything is very cheap and the food is always fresh. Trouble is on the way to the shop the woman sees so many different shops with interesting windows, clothes, homewares and exotic looking food, but she can never go inside. Well that's the feeling many younger married men feel as they struggle through their 20s and 30s. Giving up their sexual freedom is like giving up a big chunk of their lives. And we've only got one life. It can seem such a waste. For some its like sacrificing the very gift of life itself. And they stick with it because of Guilt.
Women, on the other hand, are not yearning to be free in male terms. Once they have the baby they have their life (more later). Motherhood gives humans the most peace and satisfaction available on Earth. Trouble is its only available for the females (more later). They don't need to explore another missing island. They're all the same. If anything, if they want more with their lives, they'll probably have another baby, or get a part time job to assist with their child centric lifestyle, or start part-time study. No Rush. Women don't have a sex addiction like males so there's no organic demand to go searching for a foreign sex fix. They are quite content with their child centric lifestyle and the male (i.e. husband) at their disposal in their cosy little suburban home. Pity it wasn't as easy as that for the males.
So why do we do it?
Sexual anarchy just wouldn't work. (Fig 1)
Fig 1. THE SABINE WOMEN (1799), Jacques Louis-David (Louvre, Paris).
This picture is also known as 'The Sabine women enforcing peace by running
between the combatants.' The Rape of the Sabine women is an episode in
Roman mythology where Roman men acquired wives by abducting the local
Sabine women and founding Rome. The Sabine men gather their forces to enact a
delayed rescue. However by that time the women have become Mothers. Running
across open space the women try to stop the violence by appealing to their fathers in
one army and their new husbands (and the fathers of their infant children) in the
other army. I think Louis David also uses the Sabine myth to show sexual anarchy
at work, an attitude that accompanies any invading male army throughout history.
Notice the older woman in the background in the centre. She's slowly pulling down her
top to offer her breasts. She is too old to have children, to be one of the Sabine women,
but in this free-for-all war she knows what the men want. All restraints are gone. In war
there are no rules and the male spirit, usually held in check by those legal and moral
restraints can run amok in war if they choose. Women know that the many males want to
recklessly take what is normally forbidden. As the Sabine women hold up their babies
they are also reminding the males about Motherhood, and that any sex privileges the
women enjoy is to give Motherhood the free reign and power it needs. It is to remind
the potential rapists of their own mothers and the respect they are capable of.
Despite fantasies of sexual anarchy, males realise that a commune style sexual free-for-all wouldn't work. And yes its been tried. The biggest drawback of course is that the offspring of the females wouldn't know who their fathers were. The sons of females would have to tolerate their own mothers as somebody else's sexual plaything and jealousy between partners would thwart the rest. Then there's the obvious epidemics of sexual disease. In the dark ages we'd all probably be afflicted with syphillis and/or leprosy. In the modern age there's AIDS, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, which can still kill you and very painful gonorrhea, unsightly herpes, chlamydia and genital papilloma virus et al,. Of course biologists might argue that if our ancestors were sexually communal perhaps immunities would have developed, survival of the fittest etc.. Well, I don't know. All sounds very harsh and primitive. Despite thousands of years, humans never developed any anti-bodies to leprosy. But the idea's a dead rubber. Sexual anarchy would never have taken hold even if the males were that primitive. The mothers would have probably destroyed their defective male offspring, or at least culled their numbers to a manageable level. Do you think the Mothers would tolerate their male offspring forcing either themselves or their sisters and daughters into some form of sex free-for-all or sex slavery, against their will? Or hard physical labour through thuggery and physical threats? Sorry, most would have been knocked on the head at birth. Probably only one in seven allowed to live and for breeding purposes only. I venture that ours would have been a society of Amazons. Luckily for the females the males had enough innate intelligence to accept this tenet, despite their fantasies, and could be generally socialised without a fight. Not only did they have physically stronger bodies for all the hard shit work, it seemed that every now and then a male freak would be born who had a super brain. These freaks could discover and invent all sorts of interesting things. Mathematical things. And for some, even without this mathematical ability, they still "appeared" interesting and said many wonderful sounding things and were able corral other males, and "lead" them. Calm, precise and usually "correct". All in line with the will and desire of the Mother supreme. These, of course are the Alpha Males. The rest are the Drone Males (more later).
The basic classic guilt modelling out of all this is simple. A male cannot have sex until he's married. He cannot fornicate before he's married because it represents sexual anarchy. And although sexual anarchy is harmless enough if restricted to the few, it would be catastrophic if we all indulged. The very fabric of our existence could be placed under threat. All males throughout history have understood the rationality and moral logic of this. Not only this, in centuries past there were massive social penalties imposed if an individual fornicated out of wedlock. It was one of the greatest public shames. In early Christian cultures it came close to heresy, however because the Gospel's forced its adherents to practice forgiveness, the adulterers and fornicators escaped being killed. Instead excommunicated and sent into exile.
Neo-classical guilt:
Today there is still substantial subconscious guilt residue endured by males if they have sex out of wedlock.
Many males would scoff at this, but I challenge them to remember their uncomfortable feelings when one of their pickups, that involved passionate lovemaking the week before, is still making contact and wants to pursue a relationship. She's clinging. This young woman has done nothing wrong. She is obviously desirous enough because the male has had physical sex probably more than once. The woman is polite and friendly over the phone and is probably flattering the male. So the male can't complain about that. Now try dumping the female under these circumstances. It's difficult. Why? Because the male feels guilty.
Mind you if the tables were reversed do you think our female goes through the same guilt pangs? Lets say a slightly older female just wants physical sex with a younger male for a week until her older rich real boyfriend returns from overseas. And when the ditching time came the younger lovestruck male gets the sulks. My bet is that Toy Boy-- who was perhaps hoping for some heart-to-heart on the couch-- is left hanging mid sentence as the door slams with threats to call the Police.
Females seem excluded from the higher potency pain levels of guilt in dealings with the opposite sex compared with males
. This is because the female owns the sex property that's in demand. Even though males think they've picked up and are "gettin it for free", in reality sex is always on the females' terms. And those terms are simple. It could be for straight out money, like a prostitute. Or it could be for a life long "commitment", like a marriage. Or it could be for a short relationship which involves commitment and probably a little cash and plenty of conversation and attention along the way. Or it could just be a classic one nighter, The female wants to soak up lots of male grovelling, free drinks, maybe cigarettes, something to eat and then some great physical sex afterwards. This is probably followed up with a free breakfast and a taxi-fare home and she still has her options open. She could leave it at that or decide she wants more. She knows the male won't have the guts to dump her, at least not straight away. Subconsciously the male thinks he still owes more if she asks for it. This is what I clumsily call neo-classic guilt because getting sex relatively "free" and without any social stigma, or having to get married, is still quite new.
Despite of all these apparent contemporary advantages, even if you're the latest Heidelberg Man, there is still a slight notional sense of guilt if you're a male and you're getting it without having to be married. Culturally ingrained habits, right or wrong, over Millennia die hard. And the Church is still out there reminding the males of this. Fire and Brimstone is still going strong from the pulpits. Modern women can be very cruel to these soft, basically good hearted but sex addicted males, playing them like an adult pretending to be angry or sad with a young child. Toying with the Conscience. Controlling their Guilt.
Finally to finish this essay I'd like to depict a classic example of 'conservative' male Guilt. For this I refer the reader to the 1998 Hollywood blockbuster film Saving Private Ryan, based on the book D-Day, June 6, 1944 by Stephen E. Ambrose.
The film is about a small band of American soldiers led by Captain John Miller who are dispatched behind enemy German lines after the D-Day landing in the Second World War in Europe to find a solitary individual, Private Ryan, and to bring him out of the war. All of Private Ryan's other brothers have been killed in the war and Army command decides to save Private Ryan for his family's sake.
However in saving Private Ryan the small band of soldiers, including Captain Miller, lose their lives. At the end of the film the audience is brought forward into the present, about 50 years later. For the first time Ryan returns, an old man, with his family. He visits the American War Cemetery at Normandy and he finds the grave of Captain Miller. He kneels down before it, alone, and conjures up the vision of Captain Miller in his heart. He thanks him and says he's hoped that he's lived up to being the sort of man worth dying for. At that point Ryan's aged wife walks up behind, understanding nothing and slightly concerned and bemused by the effect the white cross tombstone, planted in the immaculate green lawn, is having on her husband. At that point he turns to her and imploringly asks: "Tell me I've led a good life. Tell me I'm a good man!"
It shows that in the back of many men's minds is the notion that they have to live up to something. If they don't they're not good. And why does Ryan need to ask his wife. Are wives the proper arbiters of these things? The Mother-judge? Probably. At least in Ryan's mind.
The basic classic guilt modelling out of all this is simple. A male cannot have sex until he's married. He cannot fornicate before he's married because it represents sexual anarchy. And although sexual anarchy is harmless enough if restricted to the few, it would be catastrophic if we all indulged. The very fabric of our existence could be placed under threat. All males throughout history have understood the rationality and moral logic of this. Not only this, in centuries past there were massive social penalties imposed if an individual fornicated out of wedlock. It was one of the greatest public shames. In early Christian cultures it came close to heresy, however because the Gospel's forced its adherents to practice forgiveness, the adulterers and fornicators escaped being killed. Instead excommunicated and sent into exile.
Neo-classical guilt:
Today there is still substantial subconscious guilt residue endured by males if they have sex out of wedlock.
Many males would scoff at this, but I challenge them to remember their uncomfortable feelings when one of their pickups, that involved passionate lovemaking the week before, is still making contact and wants to pursue a relationship. She's clinging. This young woman has done nothing wrong. She is obviously desirous enough because the male has had physical sex probably more than once. The woman is polite and friendly over the phone and is probably flattering the male. So the male can't complain about that. Now try dumping the female under these circumstances. It's difficult. Why? Because the male feels guilty.
Mind you if the tables were reversed do you think our female goes through the same guilt pangs? Lets say a slightly older female just wants physical sex with a younger male for a week until her older rich real boyfriend returns from overseas. And when the ditching time came the younger lovestruck male gets the sulks. My bet is that Toy Boy-- who was perhaps hoping for some heart-to-heart on the couch-- is left hanging mid sentence as the door slams with threats to call the Police.
Females seem excluded from the higher potency pain levels of guilt in dealings with the opposite sex compared with males
. This is because the female owns the sex property that's in demand. Even though males think they've picked up and are "gettin it for free", in reality sex is always on the females' terms. And those terms are simple. It could be for straight out money, like a prostitute. Or it could be for a life long "commitment", like a marriage. Or it could be for a short relationship which involves commitment and probably a little cash and plenty of conversation and attention along the way. Or it could just be a classic one nighter, The female wants to soak up lots of male grovelling, free drinks, maybe cigarettes, something to eat and then some great physical sex afterwards. This is probably followed up with a free breakfast and a taxi-fare home and she still has her options open. She could leave it at that or decide she wants more. She knows the male won't have the guts to dump her, at least not straight away. Subconsciously the male thinks he still owes more if she asks for it. This is what I clumsily call neo-classic guilt because getting sex relatively "free" and without any social stigma, or having to get married, is still quite new.
Despite of all these apparent contemporary advantages, even if you're the latest Heidelberg Man, there is still a slight notional sense of guilt if you're a male and you're getting it without having to be married. Culturally ingrained habits, right or wrong, over Millennia die hard. And the Church is still out there reminding the males of this. Fire and Brimstone is still going strong from the pulpits. Modern women can be very cruel to these soft, basically good hearted but sex addicted males, playing them like an adult pretending to be angry or sad with a young child. Toying with the Conscience. Controlling their Guilt.
Finally to finish this essay I'd like to depict a classic example of 'conservative' male Guilt. For this I refer the reader to the 1998 Hollywood blockbuster film Saving Private Ryan, based on the book D-Day, June 6, 1944 by Stephen E. Ambrose.
The film is about a small band of American soldiers led by Captain John Miller who are dispatched behind enemy German lines after the D-Day landing in the Second World War in Europe to find a solitary individual, Private Ryan, and to bring him out of the war. All of Private Ryan's other brothers have been killed in the war and Army command decides to save Private Ryan for his family's sake.
However in saving Private Ryan the small band of soldiers, including Captain Miller, lose their lives. At the end of the film the audience is brought forward into the present, about 50 years later. For the first time Ryan returns, an old man, with his family. He visits the American War Cemetery at Normandy and he finds the grave of Captain Miller. He kneels down before it, alone, and conjures up the vision of Captain Miller in his heart. He thanks him and says he's hoped that he's lived up to being the sort of man worth dying for. At that point Ryan's aged wife walks up behind, understanding nothing and slightly concerned and bemused by the effect the white cross tombstone, planted in the immaculate green lawn, is having on her husband. At that point he turns to her and imploringly asks: "Tell me I've led a good life. Tell me I'm a good man!"
It shows that in the back of many men's minds is the notion that they have to live up to something. If they don't they're not good. And why does Ryan need to ask his wife. Are wives the proper arbiters of these things? The Mother-judge? Probably. At least in Ryan's mind.