Sunday 6 July 2014

Illusions and Structures: How Sexual False Consciousness is Maintained

Sexual false consciousness rampant
Recently, I have been elaborating on the issue of sexual false consciousness in western society. Sexual false consciousness is the widespread male delusion that young, attractive women hand out sex for free. Moreover, not only do they spend every hour of every day handing out free sex, they give it to ageing, blue-collar schlubs in pick-up trucks.

All utter nonsense, of course: and yet such delusions are ubiquitous among blue collar males, who truly believe that 18 year old models are gasping for sex with mechanics and road-sweepers.

Don Draper reflecting sexual reality again...

If we accept that the legacy media is largely responsible for sexual false consciousness, a question presents itself: how is it infiltrated by such an agenda? Why do celebrated TV shows like Mad Men describe sexual experiences completely detached from practical male experience?

The answer is relatively simple. The mass media – and especially the Anglo-American mass media – tend to extol the views and experiences of unrepresentative minorities. This is partly because the people who create and finance TV shows like Mad Men are simply not representative of most people. The same is true of those who create Hollywood films, or BBC costume dramas. Like Anglo politicians, they are overwhelmingly upper-middle or upper class in origin.  They will generally have had very limited contact with anyone outside a small, relatively privileged social circle. In his superb book Hollywood Versus America, Michael Medved cites examples of American TV executives thinking routine office workers earn millions of dollars a year. If someone can believe that, they can also believe road sweepers are having regular sex with supermodels.

Blue collar oafs wallowing in sexual false consciousness...

The British sociologist Anthony Giddens explains the effects of this hermetic self-isolation via the concept of ‘structuration’. In this view, English-speaking countries are characterized by extreme self-segregation between different economic strata, age-groups and ethnicities. This leads to widespread delusions about the nature of society. For example, half the British underclass think that everyone in Britain is like them - that is, unemployed and living in social housing. Similarly, American liberals assume that ‘everyone’ is left-liberal, because they only mix with other left-liberals. In sum, then, Anglo-Saxon countries are characterized by extreme 'structuration'. Because different social groups have little in common and no shared experiences, social subcultures tend to massively exaggerate the status of their own worldview. Given such a bizarre situation, it is little wonder that wealthy media executives tend to over-promote their experiences on the casting-couch.

So when we see Don Draper being approached by models for sex on an hourly basis, we must remember that those who created this scenario are overwhelmingly rich, privileged and socially unrepresentative. It may well be that they are having lots of ‘casting couch’ sex themselves – but that is hardly true of most men. Moreover, their social insularity deludes media executives into thinking that mechanics and road-sweepers are indeed having regular sex with supermodels. Much like ‘everyone’ took drugs in the 60s, or made millions on Wall Street in the 80s, so ‘everyone’ is having sex with elite women in the mad, weird world of the Anglo-American mass media.

Cheers, Don.

Having explained the idiomatic, fantastical content of the ‘mainstream’ media, we must ask: why do the masses accept such blatant lies so readily? Why do frigid, hypergamous women watch Sex and the City (a hyperreal fantasy if ever there was one)? Why do incel computer programmers enjoy watching Don Draper bang his latest playmate? If the media does not reflect reality, why are the masses so readily seduced by it? Perhaps because it is not reality. Like porn, maybe its appeal relates more to vicarious wish-fulfillment than personal identification. As boxing fans emulate the punches of their heroes in the bathroom mirror, TV and film audiences derive voyeuristic pleasure from the priapic escapades of their media idols.

Don Draper considers his options

Knowing this, the media has developed conventions to maintain its hold on the mass mind. American TV executives clearly have an informal agenda to elide the old, the ugly and the poor. For seldom if ever do we see Anglo-American TV shows starring anyone over 50, crippled or possessing a socially critical outlook. Everything conspires to banish reality in favour of an upper-middle class, hyper-sexualized fantasy world full of grinning, youthful automatons. No producer will break ranks to create a show bucking those conventions, since money is king.

However, the broad masses go beyond simple voyeurism in their appreciation and consumption of ‘mainstream’ media. Many of them come to internalize such delusions as ‘reality’. Indeed, people like ourselves who dare to question this ‘reality’ are viewed as embittered eccentrics and dangerous malcontents by guys who, frankly, will never have sex with a model in their whole lives.

Perhaps we need to remember that the 'mainstream' media has been pumping out these ‘libertine’ messages since the mid-60s. Three generations of men have grown up knowing little else. Since infancy, the notion that ‘everyone’ is living in a mansion and having daily sex with models has been drilled into them, without pause. Such ceaseless indoctrination has surely clotted all capacity for critical thought on these issues. Hence the innumerable blue-collar incels  who serious think they can bed models and actresses, or white-collar men who seriously think women view them as something more than walking ATM machines.

Only with the rise of the Internet has sexual false consciousness been offered any challenge since the mid-60s. Little wonder that educated males from generations Y and Z are the first to begin throwing off its brain-rotting yoke.

More swill for the trough...


  1. Rookh wrote, "In his superb book Hollywood Versus America, Michael Medved cites examples of American TV executives thinking routine office workers earn millions of dollars a year. If someone can believe that, they can also believe road sweepers are having regular sex with supermodels."

    This is very true! The TV and movie executives in Hollywood are all living an upper class lifestyle. They only socialize with other like minded people and have no idea what is going on in the real world. Therefore, they produce movies and TV shows that reflect their view of the world.

    I just wish for once, they would make a TV program or a movie that depicted the way things are in real life for most people. In other words, I wish they would make a TV program or movie that showed just how unfriendly and stuck up American women really are. Also, I would like them to show just how hard it is for the average guy in American to meet women and get laid.

    1. *I just wish for once, they would make a TV program or a movie that depicted the way things are in real life for most people.*

      Not so long ago, many directors came from relatively normal backgrounds and their films reflected this. Martin Scorsese is a good example. Taxi Driver describes what life is really like for a blue collar male returning from Vietnam - a seedy room, a dead end job and no sex whatsoever. However, with the decline of social mobility in the 80s, far fewer directors from working or middle class backgrounds are active today. Contemporary TV shows and movies reflect the upper-middle class origins of those that create them. In consequence, ordinary people no longer feature in films or TV shows (or anywhere in the mainstream media, except perhaps sport).

      Charles Murray writes about this widening social divide in his last book.

  2. you keep writing about "aging, blue-collar schlubs in pick-up trucks" & "mechanics and road-sweepers" but you keep using examples from Mad Men.

    Don Draper is a rich, well-dressed, tall, handsome, brilliant, mysterious, in-shape man. his character is everything that girls find attractive.

    you should have used a different tv show.

    1. You make a good point. However, blue collar schlubs still think they have the same chances with women as Don Draper, despite lacking his attractive qualities. This strengthens the case for sexual false consciousness, when you think about it.

    2. "...young attractive women hand out sex for free."

      Actually, they do; but not to working-class males or even guys of the Don Draper type. The working class guys don't get it all, and the Draper types don't get it for free.

      The only guys getting it for free from young hotties are closer to Charles Manson than Don Draper.

    3. Not Thomas Fleming8 July 2014 at 03:35

      This is truly the great secret. The whole purpose of 'False Consciousness' is to block any meeting of the minds and consequently any collaboration among the 'disinherited'.

    4. Sebastian Hawks19 July 2014 at 18:21

      The Don Draper character is a charlatan orphan child of a prostitute who STOLE THE IDENTITY of an upper middle class man to get where he got. A con-man by nature, traits perfect for manipulating people through advertising. If this is what type of psychological personality is what is required to be a player it is foolish for the typical beta male, or nervous nerdy schlemiel to ever thing they can imitate such social manipulativeness to score such sucess. Tom Leykis is a more conventional example, such a smooth talking radio personality like him can get "easy tail" but the idea that an innately socially akwards male can simply listen to his Leykis 101 talking points and "go into a bar" and "score" like Don Draper is selling false hope.

  3. I remember seeing a video on Tori Spelling's psycho-bitch behavior - she was yelling at her boyfriend.

    Tori Spelling is ugly, but, from what I have seen, her narcissistic outburst is not uncommon among anglo-bitches in relationships with men.

    What I would like to see, is a T.V. show, where ALL the women act like psychotic "tempur-tantrum-waiting-to-happen" narcissistic little bitches.

    And you know what I ask myself...

    How many feminists/women would complain that such a show is "degrading to women"?

    I'd place dollars to pennies that NONE would complain about it being "degrading to women".

  4. Rookh:
    I think part of the reason that the legacy media has such a hold on the minds of blue collar/underclass males' minds is because many of those men are convinced (by media propaganda) that they alone and individually are really the only INCEL men. In other words, I think a lot of men---at least here America---believes that everyone else is scoring with young, hot women but himself.

    The media can get away with lying like this because the average man---while he may feel inferior for not having a hot babe---thinks that all the guys he works/goes to school with are scoring right and left, just like on TV; and so believes it's possible for him to do the same someday.

    The Internet has largely smashed this myth because with the proliferation of Manosphere blogs, men can see that their INCEL condition is not isolated by very widespread.

    1. Not Thomas Fleming8 July 2014 at 03:37

      "The media can get away with lying like this because the average man---while he may feel inferior for not having a hot babe---thinks that all the guys he works/goes to school with are scoring right and left, just like on TV; and so believes it's possible for him to do the same someday."

      The economy works along the exact same lines. That is no coincidence.

    2. I agree with Eric, with one minor correction - it has not smashed the myth, but it is starting to smash the myth.

      Even on the internet, there is still a barrage of "you are just angry because you cannot get laid", "you must be ugly", etc etc...

      It is getting smashed every day - but we have not smashed it yet.

  5. The following is a quote from the summery of "The Fate of Empires" by Sir John Glubb:

    "As numerous points of interest have arisen
    in the course of this essay, I close with a brief
    summary, to refresh the reader’s mind.
    (a) We do not learn from history because
    our studies are brief and prejudiced.
    (b) In a surprising manner, 250 years
    emerges as the average length of national
    (c) This average has not varied for 3,000
    years. Does it represent ten generations?
    (d) The stages of the rise and fall of great
    nations seem to be:
    The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
    The Age of Conquests
    The Age of Commerce
    The Age of Affluence
    The Age of Intellect
    The Age of Decadence.
    (e) Decadence is marked by:
    An influx of foreigners
    The Welfare State
    A weakening of religion.
    (f) Decadence is due to:
    Too long a period of wealth and power
    Love of money
    The loss of a sense of duty.
    (g) The life histories of great states are
    amazingly similar, and are due to internal
    (h) Their falls are diverse, because they are
    largely the result of external causes.
    (i) History should be taught as the history
    of the human race, though of course with
    emphasis on the history of the student’s own

  6. While you could dismiss the allegation as utter nonsense, there has been substantial proof that our western culture gives more important to financial gain. This could explain why there are no limits to the things the younger woman would do to attract a financially stable older man. Chemistry Assignments Help

  7. Kinda shocked that, in almost 12-years (now nearing adolescence?) your psychologically insightful site seems to have missed a landmark HollyWeird short scene, 1962 screenplay by a UK/Anglo married couple.

    About a traditional military macho male officer and gentleman Brit 'educating' an intellectually bright but emotionally emasculated U$/Anglo husband made 'Anglowbrow bum'. Mentally out-maneuvered and manipulated by scheming, and or sadistic, self-victimising U$ AngLow bitches; with unstated matriarchal mind-bending mantra "Don't Touch! We Own The Pussies - We Make The Rules".

    Extreme archetypes/role-models of over-compensating weak male characters, nerds, geeks, mommies-boys, and bully-boys, useful scapegoats, sly sisters, domineering dragons/mothers-in-law, strumpets, nagging wives, frustrated 'plain Janes' and frigid spinsters.

    Well known long before, but WAY too much set-in-stone since their medievil ever-divisive Anglo brutal male stereotype psycho serial-killer Henry's Brex$hit-1/Reformation - religion of convenience-not-conviction.

    Ongoing now over 4-centuries deeply entrenching and over-structuring the so called 'Battle Of The Sexes'. Indeed an overall anti-social adversarial conflict-culture of unending self-justyfied small and large hypocritical 'Wars' within and for their so called 'Free Christian Democracy' - in truth a undeMOCKratic gross insult to pro social Christ.

    Lying, cheating, robbing, mass-murdering Worldwide on five continents where they don't belong. Always backed by their dirty-tricks so called 'Justice' system - about as 'Just' as a medievil jousting contest.