Friday, July 19, 2013
The new breed explained
NC asks (in response to my declaration that the system needs changing):
"How should the system change?"
That is not a hard question at all, NC!
It is shockingly simple from where I am standing :-)
We can't stay as we are...that is clear enough.
We can't go back to 1950s model either. That model belonged to an age of innocence which we no longer have. Although in general, it was quite a good deal for women, it was largely rejected by women themselves.
Either women got it really wrong (should have stuck to what works, dear) or there were too many flaws in that system anyway, so it had to go.
Either way, a NEW system is required.
My recommendation is that since we have the benefit of hindsight and can see which bits worked and which bits didn't, we are in the rather privileged position of picking and choosing the traits we would like to project forth, and the ones we would like to drop.
Much like agricultural breeders. Animal breeders weed out unfavourable characteristics in favour of good ones.
Yes, I am venturing into the ugly territory of 'social eugenics' so to speak.
You gentlemen, I am sure will confirm that there are some attractive traits to the modern woman.
Let's be fair.
Many of you would soon grow tired of the perpetual child who cannot do anything for herself unless there is a man holding her hand.
That, gentlemen, was the woman from the 1950s, in general.
Vulnerable is one thing. I am sure you chaps dig that, in a woman :-)
I get that.
But helplessness is another. And I am sure knowing that the little lady wouldn't be able to handle anything unless you were there to guide her is quite the burden!
Many modern women don't have this problem. That has got to be quite a relief to you men.
The problem however, is that women are now so 'empowered' that they are hardly recognisable as 'women' anymore.
This is a question of degree, though.
It can be corrected once women take on more of the mantle of vulnerability that we were keen to shed in the days of 'bra burning'.
Another issue is that of 'the full package'.
Um...how shall I put this delicately, Lord help us, lol.
I think women have never really unleashed 'the full package' ever, in history.
We could be the first era to achieve this.
Bellita once mentioned the notion of women having 3 phases of life (in direct comparison to those of men, namely the page, the knave and the prince) i.e. the maiden, the mother and the crone.
In all previous ages, men had to live with the biological fact that a woman could not possibly be all three at once. If you were lucky, she could be two at once.
This is one aspect where Mother Nature would not allow multi-tasking', lol.
Once a woman was past the 'maiden' stage, that was it. In many non-Western societies, the difference between a 'mother' and a 'maiden' is sometimes alarmingly stark.
She is totally unrecognisable - physicaly, psychologically, mentally...
But these societies remain stable because men are given free reign to replace the 'lost maiden' with a new one, whilst retaining the services of the mother and the crone.
Polygamy for the win, I hear you guys say...
But in the West, there is at least an attempt of women to retain wifely allure, which is not totally blighted by maternal (matronly?) demeanour and appearance.
But I hear you scream: But this is exactly what is missing! As soon as she pops out her 2.2 kids, it's goodbye sexy!
Well, one of the by-products of 'wayward womanhood' if I may coin a potentially unpopular phrase, is that more and more women are revealing themselves to be capable of a 'crone' stage mimicking the maiden stage quite well...at least better than previous generations of women managed it.
Of course, the results are not always totally successful or indeed desirable, but this is because these women are trying too hard, and in the wrong 'frame'.
I would hazard a guess that a woman is much more attractive to the man she has been yoked to for years, rather than a new man who is himself perhaps unimpressed with women in general.
Here is a suggestion: wouldn't it be great if thse cougars who were trying to catch the toyboys reserved their cougardom for the men they have vowed to honour, love and obey forever?
See where I am going?
The 1950s woman had no such extensive experience of observing cougar wildlife at play, as much as we do today's SMP.
Yes, we can learn from the cougars.
Some of us are not too fussy where our education comes from :-)
The cougar of today could teach the frumpy wife of the 50s a lesson or two in 'sexiness'.
Whilst the latter was probably more of a 'lady' than the former, the two combined would be quite a formidable 'package' of femininity, no?
What about the young 'uns?
What could change about them?
One of you gentlemen complained recently here that all women bring to the table is sex and kids, and 'no, thanks Ma'am, I don't need neither'.
I responded dismissively that sex and kids were already quite the gift, why can't you see this, Sir.
But I missed an important starting point for a whole new debate :-)
Women are providing one or the other at any given time, ain't it the problem :-)
Before commitment, you men get all sex and no kids.
After commitment you get all kids and no sex :-)
Would you prefer neither pre-Commitment and both post-Commitment, maybe?
I think it would be nice (but is it pie in the sky?) if you blokes got 'the full package', but that requires a degree of defying Nature, by women.
In any case, it takes a great deal of hard work on the part of women, who naturally, have a lot of demand on their bodies in ways that you gentlemen will never experience :-)
And there is a third aspect to this 'full package' thing. I ain't finished yet :-)
Studies upon studies say women are not having enough babies...
Women are having lots of babies alright. They are just not legitimate babies, half the time, um... literally.
Hence the dissatisfaction.
The evidence is that um, sex is in short supply, at least for married men.
And yet, the hook-up culture is ubiquitous.
The point is that legitimate sex is in short supply.
It is not enough to simply provide a commodity.
The commodity must be 'kosher'.
If not, its value is nil.
It must be the 'full package', otherwise it might as well be an empty package.
A right 'jack-in-the-box'.
So that's how the system should change, NC.
We should look at the evidence before us and act accordingly, weeding out the highlighted unwanted traits and inserting new and desirable traits into the female collective DNA.
The result would be a womanhood that for once in history, delivers the 'full package'.
The means are there, but is the spirit?
That is the question...