Forgive Him for He Knows Not What He Says: A Letter to B. Rhatican

By The Radical, Mr. SR...C, and The Watcher

The following letter is a response to an opinion piece published in our Alma mater's newspaper, The Collegian. You can find the original article here.

Dear Brendan,

Although I applaud you for the courage to voice such a controversial opinion despite its lack of warrants, the massive holes in your logic, and your obvious resentment for the beautiful nature of the modern woman, there is too much wrong with what you're saying for me to agree with you, despite all my dick-dragging, heteronormative woman-bashing.

“He clearly knows nothing about fashion because fashion does not dictate looking like a slut, period. He is mad he cannot get a wife. How about he stops complaining and finds a wife. He probably wants the girls that look “slutty”. That's why he mad. Dude is lame.”

You begin by directly requesting that women, in general, “wear more clothes.” Your only warrant for this is that “it is becoming increasingly difficult for [you] to look at [a woman] as a woman.” It's strange that you would request women to alter their behavior based on your inability to cope mentally with...what I'm willing to assume is life, but, in this instance and letter, women act as a synecdoche for what appears to be your discomfort with your own personal sexuality. Don't worry, even if you are suffering a lack of sexual activity that isn't streaming online, the concept of sexuality can still be applied to you, in theory.

To say that women have stripped themselves of what makes them beautiful is not a statement reflecting upon women, it hardly even rests in the conservative nostalgia that you poorly attempt to couch your opinion in. What you have clearly indicated is that you are unable to perceive anything beyond what you can see and you have no desire to get to know a woman once you have your mental images recorded for your midday “alone time.” Really, what you are saying is that you are incapable of knowing anything about a woman. Ever. Once you have any leeway to impose sexual thoughts upon her body, YOU make her into an object, regardless of her dress. Tighter clothes just make it easier. What you have is a personal cognitive problem, probably related to your poor impulse control and obsessive compulsive sexual thoughts.

You attempt to petrify the idea of womanhood as this notion of “authenticity” based on her virginity and chastity. So, your mother had a kid, how is her womanhood holding up? I'm willing to bet she lost her virginity to birth you. How much of her beauty went as she released you into the world?

Offended? Too close to home? See, you speak of women, but you don't know what you are actually saying. You must be talking about a certain kind of girl...the one always beyond your reach. Don't hate her because she is beautiful. Hiding what you long for under layers of fabric doesn't make it any more attainable, nor does it add anything to her personality, nor does it speak about her personal choices sexually, nor does it make her any more chaste of virginal. Your view is a mask for your lack of respect for women because you find them sexually attractive and the suggested additional clothing is simply a veil of ignorance for you that masks people's personal choices. Is this how you cover up your personal downfalls, looser jeans? No need to answer. We already know you write opinion letters and hide behind your own audacity for this.

“Yes, go in, please. I would get too personal with him, question his bitchassness. Any dude that blames girls for going for a “bad boy” in an article that is about female “slutty” clothing is mad at some bitch. What does a girl dressing like a sliz have to do with her liking “bad boys?” Doesn't seem connected. She attracts all boys. Clearly, this kid is still attracted, but just says he lacks respect which is warranted [in some contexts, but not the one he identifies and certainly not how he identifies it], but a spade is a spade.”

Your final full paragraph is a testament to your personal failures and inabilities. Let's respond in order. You have no control over your sexual desires. You only perceive women as an object to acquire and feel the need to “flirt” as a means to an end. You know that no woman would want to spend the rest of her life with you, that you she'd get to know in time, so you feel the need to marry first and disappoint later. This is called entrapment. You have a fetish for chastity and don't know how to communicate this in the bedroom. And you will never get to know a woman's character because you yourself are a very shallow puddle, not because of what she wears.

“He should just go to places where women behave in the manner that he likes. Such as nursing homes, Amish farms, the Middle East or old bible belt churches. You can't go to a club or frat party or lodge and have these expectations. He is setting himself up to not find the type of woman he is searching for.”

There are definitely real men out there, but you, sir, are not one of them. You are play acting the role of a man by merely projecting hyper-masculine, artificially-nostalgic, idiotic views about chastity and virginity as the essence of one's value and character that I would bet money you do not hold about men. Chivalry is dead because of guys like you that bastardized what it means to be chivalrous. And bitches that take that shit for granted, but bitches and women are two completely different topics.

“I also love how dudes are like this. Dude is full of it. If you think a chick looks like a slut and have an issue with it...don't date her. End of story.”

The Birds: Sexual Compatibility is Essential, Hence all the Flocking Together

By The Radical

Given the focused subject matters of The Birds and the Bees' blog, it only makes sense that we continually attempt to remain knowledgeable and decently read on the subject, so I found myself reading things online and came across Hot Alpha Female's (HAF) blog. Particularly, her post titled “The Irrelevance of Sexual Compatibility.” Let me state plainly, I disagree.

Having said that, I completely agree with her statement that “[t]he core things that are required to create the solid foundation of a relationship are shared values, open lines of communication, unconditional acceptance, honesty, courage, emotional maturity, and the need and desire for both people to put their relationship first.” While the amalgamation of these things are a solid foundation for a relationship, they are hardly cumulative into sexual compatibility.

To avoid a crucial mistake that allows HAF to make many of her arguments there is a need to define “sexual compatibility” as an independent concept to be discussed. Busby et al. (2010) define “sexual chemistry” as “ a 'mysterious, physical, emotional, and sexual state' that when present in a relationship creates something 'unique and explosive'” (pg 767). I will take this a step further granting this definition with finer applications of context to define the concept at hand. This undefinable “something” has certain conditions necessary for it to be present in a relationship. When these conditions are met, then sexual chemistry becomes sexual compatibility. The crux of this distinction is “compatibility.”

Compatibility is the rhetorical crux of this distinction. The primary distinguishing feature in practice is everything sexual beyond missionary position in a private room with the lights off. I do mean everything sexual. Outside of sex at its simplest, compatibility becomes a factor beyond the sexual chemistry of two people. It might fit like lock and key, but it has to unlock the door.

Where compatibility really matters is that space in time when you decide to move beyond the most basic of sexual practices. HAF indicates that the lack of sexual compatibility is actually a symptom of a breakdown of the aforementioned key components of a relationship's foundation. HAF goes on to say that “ a healthy relationship will have a healthy sex life.” This line is the clear indication of the assumption of a correlation in which a couple's sex life is the dependent variable attached to the facets of their relationship's “foundation”. Foolishness.

HAF soon expresses what she feels to be the root cause of sexual incompatibility: “the woman withholding the true expression of her femininity – and the absence of a strong masculine energy to draw it out.” This masculine and feminine dynamic becomes the base cause of relationship breakdown, which pushes sexual incompatibility to the furthest background as a symptom of other symptoms. If this doesn't make sense to you, that's okay because it doesn’t make sense to me either.

So the expression of the two partners' (in a heterosexual relationship) masculine and feminine energies is what makes for good sex? In her section titled “Understanding a woman 101,” HAF provides a fuller description of how the masculine and feminine energies interact: “You project. She Absorbs.” The feminine energy which erupts as sexual energy is controlled by the masculine energy. This is a dominant and submissive relationship in which the male partner acts as the catalyst that unlocks the “little sex kitten” in the woman, thus making sexual compatibility a matter of constant male dominance and reciprocated female submission, suggesting further that the male's dominance must be over the woman “emotionally, mentally, and intellectually” since these are the areas which HAF emphasizes as the crucial components for sexual compatibility. Although I agree that every relationship has characteristics of a dominant and submissive relationship, HAF is off base in her interpretation of how these characteristics are engaged within a relationship.

Think I have misconstrued HAF's interpretation by clearly highlighting the the aspects of dominance and submission? Read again HAF's statement that “[i]f you can continually re-establish, nourish, and protect her safety on all levels she will have no reason to withhold [sex].” HAF shows here that there is the need for the dominant masculine energy to engulf the feminine energy such that a persistent safety net secures the woman's emotional availability for sex. Even her sexual desires are muted in the face of the overwhelmingly dominant masculine energy,

“When a woman feels comfort, safety, protection, excitement, and happiness about herself in relation to a man and the relationship she will DO ANYTHING to keep that man happy. Her preferences of what she likes and does not like will go out the window.”

To state plainly HAF's meaning as read, control her emotionally and you control her pussy. Not an original theory really since Bobby and Ike suggested the same thing many years ago (and were quite successful for it).

Alright, enough with the dry literary analysis. Let's get to the point proper. Sexual compatibility is crucial in any relationship, not as an afterthought, not as a third tier symptom of borderline spousal abuse, and certainly not as a product of these obscure, ephemeral masculine and feminine energies. Two parties enter into a relationship in which they meet in a variety of areas, one of which being the shared desires for sex at a similar pace and in a similar style. The hyper-aggressive dominatrix will not do well with the hyper-masculine male with no desire to submit in the bedroom. Neither desire what is called “vanilla” sex, but neither of them play the role to submit to the other. This makes for an awkward bedroom excursion in which a fight just might break out.

Fellas, when your next random hook-up punches you in the face pre-orgasm, you will or will not like it. If this is what she needs to get off, no matter how many times you can recite to her her favorite foods, movies, and books, your fulfillment of her “emotional needs” still won't get her rocks off unless you enjoy or at least continuously allow her blunt faceshots. And here is where compatibility matters. Is she going to condemn herself to the duration of a relationship without an orgasm? Shit, I wouldnt. Then again how many girls have slept with me and I've just never done it for them? Ladies feel free to comment and let me know.

Sexual compatibility is slightly different from sexual chemistry in that it is what goes beyond the levels that HAF focuses on in her article. The sexual chemistry that one can feel during a first date across a dinner table is completely different than the sexual compatibility that one may or may not feel when you find yourself at their house later that evening walking into their bedroom finely decorated with hardcore, tentacle Hentai posters as they exhaustively describe the school girl costume they would like you to wear during sex. If gooey demonic appendages entering your orifices in the most aggressive of ways isn't your thing, then what about the pleasant dinner conversation has suddenly made it so?

Exactly.