Women will be sexualized regardless of what they wear. First, because women are sexual beings. Second, since men are also sexual beings, the male gaze is sexualized. Nature engineered men and women that way. Even when fully clothed, men will imagine what the woman looks like naked. It’s not as if clothes make men forget they find women sexually attractive.
So, no, the burqa won’t work because some men find modest dress sexy. Are people unaware that hijab porn exists? Men seek out women in hijabs because they find it sexy. Hijab porn is a popular fetish. The presence of the hijab is not about diminishing sexual thoughts; such extreme forms of modesty are mechanisms to control women by punishing them for not wearing what men and prudish women tell them to.
Why have feminists historically criticized conservative moods that lengthen dresses and sleeves? As I heard it growing up, men and prudes imposed their patriarchal and religious ideas on women during these periods. Then a woman comes along and shows skin— and now progressive women are suddenly conservatives? Is modest dress oppressive or not? Is a sexy, half-dressed woman oppressive or what? Make up your damn minds!
Let’s be honest, Sydney Sweeney is sexy, and some women are jealous. They’re becoming Muslims out of raging jealousy. I am starting to think the Atwood women have a fetish for the Republic of Gilead style. Sorry, girls, most of you aren’t as hot as Sweeney. Get over it. Get over people with more money than you. Etc. We’re not doing the Harrison Bergeron. We’re not living by your superficial moral codes. Stop whining and improve yourself.
Do you even need to? A lot of men like obese women. There’s room for everybody, right? You know, inclusivity. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, amirite? Stop trying to make everyone see the world through your stupid fucking eyes.
And the hypocrisy. Good Lord. If sexualizing women is such a bad thing, then why the sexualizing curricula in public schools? Children are being subjected to lectures and materials that dwell on sexuality—not merely sex education from a public health standpoint, but on who the proper subjects of sexual attraction are and whether children may not be the sex that natural history tells them they are. (If progressives cannot be trusted with sex education, then sex education should not be in public schools. I hate to say that, but sex education turns out to be a Trojan horse for normalizing sexual perversion.)
Of course, Sweeney is loathed by progressives; she is a person who knows she is a woman and uses her sexuality to her benefit. Normal people don’t complain about her sexuality because they like looking at beautiful women. It is perfectly natural for human beings to find the female form interesting.
Look at the great works of art down through history—even in prehistory. We have recovered from across the globe carved Venus figurines with exaggerated breasts, buttocks, and vulvas dating back tens of thousands of years. Our species has always been interested in the female form as a sexual object. Why wouldn’t they be? Women are the source of life. And sex is an amazing experience. It’s where babies come from.
Therein lies the problem. That ancient attitude upholds and perpetuates the normative system progressives are trying to tear down—to drive down fertility and make way for sexual perversions. The project has been highly successful in both regards. It’s a vicious circle. Across the West, the population death spiral is becoming palpable.
Progressives hate normality. They decry the very concept of abnormality—except when applied to the normal. Progressivism inverts the good, projecting valorized deviance onto nondeviant behavior and thoughts. The goal is to make normality abnormal and abnormality normal. The goal is to flip instinct and perception.
Is that not obvious? Look at the way young progressives destroy their bodies. They go out of their way to present as Frankenstein monsters—monsters that, to their minds, are no longer clearly male or female. But normal people can tell the difference even when the attempt to erase it is hideous.
The left hates beauty while declaring that which has been uglified as “brave and beautiful.” The project is to redefine transcultural and transhistorical standards of beauty—and not just for people, but for art and architecture. How is brutalism in architecture a thing? Because the left loathes classical beauty.
The hypocrisy I noted at the top of this post is not universal. From everything I have said, it is perfectly reasonable for an adult woman to be sexually provocative around adult men—and adult women, for that matter. They’re adults. You cannot be a free adult if you are not allowed to express your sexuality.
That’s the problem with Islam and strict modesty rules. Are women compelled to wear the hijab truly free? Of course not. That form of objectification intends to obscure the female form. It is, moreover, permission to rape when the woman is uncovered.
What is unreasonable is for adult men and women to decry sexuality while sexualizing children. The hypocrisy is therefore entirely on the side of those who complain about the sexualization of adults but insist on sexualizing children. Social media used to deplatform those who note this: progressives are groomers. There is no other conclusion. (Finally, we can say this without consequence. That’s progress of a kind. But for how long?)
A society is upside-down when it is okay to sexualize children but not okay to sexualize adults. This is the rot of queer politics, and it has taken us to a very dark place. It’s why queer praxis ultimately resolves in pedophilia. As Detrick Jensen has shown, the origin of postmodernism lies in sexual perversion. Postmodernism is an anarchist philosophy, the roots of which are found in the soil of pedophilia and other forms of sexual deviance. It’s not that no rules rule, but that postmodernist rules rule.
Remember, for postmodernists, there’s no truth except for the “truths” they construct and impose by commandeering culture and seizing institutional power. Progressives embrace postmodernism. Anarchism is a post-humanist politics. It’s all part of a chain—and anarchists will put us in chains if we let them.
That is the paradox of anarchy. It dresses tyranny in freedom rhetoric. It rebrands tyranny as liberation. But at its dark heart, it is nihilistic and misanthropic. Anarchists want us to hate ourselves. That’s why it draws the disordered and self-loathing to the project. If the misfit can’t be happy, then nobody can.
Anarchists are at war with human nature and the normative social relations that sustain it. Any decent human being rejects this. But we have to do more than reject it. We have to make war over it. It won’t go away unless we make it go away. Progressives already believe they’re at war. And they’re right. We have to exercise self-defense.
freedom and reason 