Sexism VS Degeneracy

In contemporary discourse there exists only one mainstream conflict of ideological constructs regarding indulgent characterisations of women—of it are two sides: on the defensive, men who favour such depictions; on the offensive, those who oppose them as oppressive agents moulding women into tools for male enjoyment. 

To them, such behaviour exists in spirit of a gradient leading ultimately towards rape. In modern culture, pacifism is the currency of moral value, therefore feminists who take a stance against the commercialisation of female sexuality cannot do so for the sake of femininity itself, instead, they are restricted to argue against the idea that media like pornography suggests the violation of rights. Despite on paper being concerned only with equality, some early components of feminism feature an instinctive aversion towards sultry female characterisations, those also frowned upon by the type of patriarchs who feminists are supposed to be in opposition to.

In their nature, these women are ingrained with an organic instinct to maintain womanhood beyond just the preservation of rights, this in practice existing contradictory to feminism's core ideal, as wholesomeness suppresses an individual right towards promiscuity. The serge of disgust which these women experience when perceiving the trivialisation of sex is identified within their minds to be a response to an extending rape culture, but suppose that subconsciously this instinct's origin exists in defence of not women as individuals, but womanhood's sanctity. Such an instinct cannot be rationalised under liberal values, as it goes against the supposed interest of feminism's ideology. For the love of liberalism, female sexual extroversion and appeal to less romantic male instincts are cut from the same cloth as rape. When serial killer Peter Sutcliffe butchered women during the 70s, feminism's response was to orchestrate “take back the night” marches, supergluing the locks of pornographic film and book shops. The problem here is that the male defensive can always just point out that women in porn, along with any E-thot or cam-girl act by their own volition. With this argument comes a paradigm shift in feminist discourse: men can argue that before women could whore themselves out on an industrial scale, the sexual revolution had first to have taken place. Really, it's only a puritanical patriarchy seeing to restrict a woman’s right to do so. And so, "body positivity" arises in feminist discourse. Kurt Cobain bitching about objectifying women in the 90s is all well and good, but what happens when women/feminists themselves signal that they’re down with such depictions by right of Body positivity.

Formally sexist depictions of women, as well as debauchery along with all the liberation required to facilitate it become ally to free women. At this point, men who would have previously been associated with rapists are one in standard with feminists in celebration of loose archetypes, then  further, distorted depictions of women in art, as these sorts of things are only oppressive to women who hold more wholesome standards, at which point their interests are more aligned with puritanical conservative men if they choose to maintain such standards instead of adapting to feminism's evolution. To their credit, in a way the sentiments and interests which men bear and women go along with do violate, they rape not women but the feminine itself. In defence of the furthest distortions of femininity, men can say: “it’s ok, i’m not sexist [reminiscent of a rapist] I support a young woman’s right to blow dudes on livestreams; Get em riled girls, throw it back queen; be free—but by the default of my simplistic preferences".

Under this rationalisation, men glorifying warped characterisations of femininity consider themselves not objectifiers, but those to subserviently worship women. Since enough girls are more than happy to be every boy's favourite quirky meme-queen, there shouldn’t be any conceivable moral issue at hand. 

Consent and compliance are factors, so no matter what, men can feel safe by written moral code. Given that this argument exists in favour of freedom, there's no logical reason it shouldn’t be endorsed by feminists; but there's always a hidden context, always alternate progressions at play regardless of whether or not someone's rights are concerned. The problem with how men rationalise their interests is that the mentality assumes its favoured characteristics inherent of women, and of all women universally. 

The truth is, as humans in general, women aren't so much predetermined as compliant to trends, moulding relative as to what they understand men to be into. 

Any middle-class hentai induced E-girl would have been either a housewife or a traditional harlot had they been born in the 40s; the same people now dye their hair to look like anime characters with fake ghetto accents. The only reason these specific forms of sex appeal even exist to be embraced is because women know what dumb nu-males like. For instance, consider the shy but deep 90s Becky deemed outside of desirability for wearing a Pearl Jam shirt, or being into anime.

The same Stacy's deemed generic by mid 2000s introverts now adorn themselves with anime themed clothing as developed signifiers current to modern mating signs.

And as for the Becky's, now they have a cultural potential to the E-girl archetype. These days, any impressionable girl next door can be a prostitute, all it takes is a laptop and an absent father.

Even so, men secure a moral right to all of this with the assertion that women themselves perpetuate it. The problem here is that men on the internet primarily project what they like in art, a medium by which feminine forms themselves cannot consent to being warped, melded and smoothed to keep up with male dopamine standards. It's uncanny how often men who practice this rationalisation of praising fucked up depictions of women with a sheen of respect do so in appreciation of not real women but artistic depictions, likely produced by men themselves.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUVWPGH6pis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYArrrgxPfk

In this, what men on the defensive of the male/feminist dialectic are really saying is: “get em riled, girls", but by the standards we preface. This way of thinking may respect women, but not femininity itself, with moral interest focused solely on rights as the aesthetic is left up for grabs. Without any standard in check, the fabric of femininity is swiftly slipped into forms which best serve Mass, all because men are able to deduce that drawing porn doesn't extend from rape, when they operate via a memetic breeding ground which doesn't concern consent anyway when decadent trends dominate those powerful. 

Having the only sentiment in question of degeneracy be solely of a humanitarian interest is convenient for decadence, as it helps contain proper action towards moral strength. As moral strength concerns the transcendental and not the humanitarian, it cannot truly be identified and argued for upon contemporary grounds. Goodness can only justify itself by virtue of liberal rights and not goodness itself—liberal rights being the same thing which its opposition of horny men also argue in favor for. On paper, both sides share the same core value, meaning the debate becomes not a preferential conflict with a quick conclusion, but one of statistics and examples wherein either team tries to out-do the other at being more liberal, meaning inherently wholesome feminist offensives can never promote health and strength for the sake of health and strength—these values must serve as some sort of a doorway towards greater tolerance—of this paradigm, integrity regarding the feminine cannot ensue. In the interest of moral decay and human weakness, this dichotomy provides a safe exercise of conflict concerning women, because either side is rendered equally useless at preventing the facilitation of desecration. Both sides battle against their understanding not of what goodness is, but who can represent liberalism's most efficient doorway; they only argue that sexist depictions of women are offensive to human units who are women, but not people as women—crypto-gay guy Twitter art isn't offensive to women, but to the very concept of femininity itself.

 To those who's minds are of cogs and common law, as long as XX chromosome people themselves are cool with it, womanhood and the very fabric of femininity can go fuck itself as something immaterial. Low IQ males will establish their ideal form in art and women will aim to match it, which they can’t do with natural beauty, but still worship as a standard. They have to answer for the fact that women are adapting to match the needs of sexual retards. And it’s numales who did this to them. It’s their preference for inflated forms over organic which breathes life into this nightmare. And I know what they’d say: If people don’t like it, they don’t have to look at it. The people who do, can. But once these forms are established, they are there for young pubescent boys with I pads to fixate on from first exposure. This consensual art has manufactured a generation of teens imprinted with a libido for generic Japanese woman fodder. Goblins say, If they don’t like it, they don’t have to look at it, but whether people like it is dependent on how many kids are exposed to it by the same shits making that argument. The best feminists can do to hold this nightmare back is call it oppressive to women, the same women who help inflate it, and random horny numales can scoff back. This paradigm's presence is so engrained that in consideration of those against decadence, men on the defensive assume by instinct such sentiments to exist on par with feminism and its fixation on rights, therein condemning it accordingly as feminism. What both sides need to understand is that stuff like pornography isn't sexist, it's degenerate; it doesn’t just objectify women, but sex in general, undermining femininity itself. If anything, femininity must be defended for the sake of what it is, and not its standards as a means towards individual rights. Before this can happen, people are going to need to understand that what people would call the wholesome exists in opposition to the values of ideologically liberal feminists and random horny men. Uptight conservatives from the 40s are if words have any meaning the ones who are sexist, but they don’t hate women; such interests see to fortify what it is to be a woman in a direction stronger and of more dignity. Health's grudge is directed in opposition to weakness and its constructed moral dichotomy between feminist humanitarianism and opposing arguments of sexual libertarianism—both sides need to know their place in the discourse.