Wednesday, June 24, 2015

Book Review: Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty


A book has appeared that ought to become a primer for all future studies of the subjects of marriage, romantic love, and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. This is Ron Pisaturo’s Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage.

On April 7th, when Masculine Power first appeared on Amazon for sale, I wrote there:

I recommend this book highly for anyone confused by today's "sexual politics."' Pisaturo gets down to the basics of gender and gender identity. Those wishing (literally) to be something else are sure to disagree with Pisaturo's fact-based discussion on the nature of the male and female genders. One's gender is not disposable, it is not a suit of clothes one can discard and adopt another. One can't discard it just because one doesn't "feel right" in it. If one's gender doesn't "feel right," that points up to a more serious and deep-rooted psychological condition and problem than merely wanting to "switch sides." Frankly, most gays and lesbians and LGBTs are play-acting, even when they have "life partners" or get "married." Pisaturo doesn't touch much on the subject, but the whole "gay rights" phenomenon is a product of Marxist deconstruction campaigns. On the other hand, Pisaturo argues compellingly on the rightness of heterosexuality.

It is the Marxist interpretation and treatment of heterosexuality and homosexuality that need to be combated and refuted. It is basically a philosophical task that would challenge both Immanuel Kant and Georg F. Hegel (and their principal political heir, Karl Marx). They have poisoned psychoanalysis and the medical view of the subject of “sexual orientation,” which are Progressive party lines promulgated in academia and even in primary and secondary schools.

Daniel Greenfield as Sultan Knish wrote a fine essay about the war on sex and marriage in his April 15th column, The Deconstruction of Marriage. Among other things he points out that:

There are two ways to destroy a thing. You can either run it at while swinging a hammer with both hands or you can attack its structure until it no longer means anything….

The left hasn't gone all out by outlawing marriage, instead it has deconstructed it, taking apart each of its assumptions, from the economic to the cooperative to the emotional to the social, until it no longer means anything at all. Until there is no way to distinguish marriage from a temporary liaison between members of uncertain sexes for reasons that due to their vagueness cannot be held to have any solemn and meaningful purpose….

The deconstruction of marriage is only a subset of the deconstruction of gender from a state of being to a state of mind. The decline of marriage was preceded by the deconstruction of gender roles and gay marriage is being succeeded by the destruction of gender as anything other than a voluntary identity, a costume that one puts on and takes off….

Destroying gender roles was a prerequisite to destroying gender. Each deconstruction leads naturally to the next deconstruction with no final destination except total deconstruction….

Gay marriage is not a stopping point, just as men in women's clothing using the ladies room is not a stopping point. There is no stopping point at all….

(This is also the way of the Islamization of America to make it Sharia-compliant. It begins with footbaths in restrooms and prayer space at work and not reproducing Mohammad cartoons and including Muslim holidays on desk calendars and serving halal food in restaurants.  With Islam, there is no “stopping point,”  either.  It will end with gorgeous Megyn Kelly wearing a nijab or a burqa on Fox News so as not to offend all the Muslims she interviews (and usually dresses down for rudeness and being proselytizing, simple-minded blabbermouths).

For evidence of how the war on sex is metastasizing in America, see these two links about how primary schools in Virginia and Nebraska are going to teach children there are no sexes or genders, and that they can choose their own “sexual orientation” regardless of their physical attributes, or how the venerable Oxford English Dictionary has caved to gay and LGBT pressure and redefined the term marriage (in 2013), and the chortling of gays over that surrender.

My own take on the definition of marriage is this: From an etymological standpoint, to “marry” two or more entities presumes that the entities are unlike but “marriageable” to form a new entity. Thus marriage means the union of a man and woman; it does not mean the “marriage” of a man and a man or of a woman and a woman, or the “marriage of likes. If the entities weren’t unlike, there would be no purpose in trying to “marry” them and the term would not be applicable. Other terms suggested by the OED for a “civil union” of gays or lesbians come to mind: union, alliance, fusion, amalgamation, combination, affiliation, association, connection, coupling, merger, unification, all listed by the OED as synonyms.

These alternative terms, however, are rejected by gays and the LGBT advocates, because it is the concept of marriage they wish to suborn and corrupt, and to legitimatize their whim-worshipping, emotional, irrational states of “orientation.” They have politicized an otherwise innocuous concept. They want to “normalize” homosexuality while at the same time scuttle the term normal, and to denigrate the concept of heterosexuality as just another mode of sexual existence, so that, as Greenfield stresses, marriage can mean everything and nothing.

Pisaturo isn’t content with simply arguing the fact of male-female differences, which he has done as thoroughly as no other study of the subject that I have read in the past. He delves into the hocus-pocus of modern psychoanalysis and the alleged “scientific” explanations of “normal” vs. “abnormal” sexual “predilections.”

Over all, Pisaturo’s book is an overture to rational studies of heterosexuality, which studies would necessarily reflect on the deviation of homosexuality. It wasn’t so long ago that homosexuals were regarded as “deviants.” Masculine Power and Pisaturo, however, stand in the same historical position as did Robert Boyle (1627-1691) when he published his papers on chemistry and permanently debunked alchemy as a legitimate field of study and experimentation.  Indeed, Pisaturo has culled and discusses the best studies of sex in the psychological fields, but found little else but voodoo-like pronouncements that discount reality, volition and the Law of Identity, and are little else but exercises in subjectivism and nihilism.

Pisaturo reveals that modern studies of sexual orientation are basically governed by two main threads of “thought”: That men and women are somehow, prenatally and biologically programmed to become homosexuals (absent any scientific evidence to support the assertion), and so “can’t help themselves”; or they are “conditioned” by society to suppress their supposed polymorphic disposition to become one or the other gender.

On the social  “conditioning” argument, he quotes Gregory M. Herek from his 1986 article in American Behavioral Scientist (and subsequently reprinted in  1993 in Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian & Gay Male Experiences):

Another set of empirical findings conerns the role of defensiveness in homophobia [an alleged neurotic fear that heterosexuals have of homosexuals, allegedly often due to the heterosexuals fearing that they themselves have homosexual feelings]. In psychodynamic terms, defensiveness involves an unconscious distortion of reality as a strategy for avoiding recognition of some unacceptable part of the self. One mode of defense is externalization of unacceptable characteristics through projection and other strategies…..

The social constructionist position holds that what most people call reality is a consensus worldview that develops through social interaction (see Berger and Luckmann 1966; Gergen 1985; Foucault 1978; Gergen 1985; Plummer 1981)….(pp. 74-75)

Pisaturo writes:

Thus Herek here [and in other places cited by Pisaturo] reveals explicitly what I showed was implicit in the earlier appeal to primitive tribes: Herek is arguing that not merely is it sexual orientation that is socially constructed, and not merely is it all of sexuality that is socially constructed, but all of reality is socially constructed. (p. 75)

Pisaturo writes, in delineating the physiological and psychological roles of men and women:

The man is hard, strong, unbending, decisive, the leader, the champion, the protector, the physically dominant one, the indomitable. The woman is soft, supple, eager, challenging, judgmental….The man asserts his power; the woman clutches it and feeds on it. The man dominates and conquers; the woman judges and surrenders. The man’s actions say: “This is how I face nature alone, and command it, for myself and for you. For my success, you are my highest reward.” The woman’s actions say, “Yes. I approve! I commend my self to you, my champion.” (pp. 21-22)

So, Pisaturo asks, if a man is the initiator of sex and the dominant party between him and a woman, what can one say about men who dominate other men in the sex act?

Such a solitary triumph [of a man and woman separately, as individuals] is not possible if there are two men involved in a sexual act. And, of course, the aroused anatomical parts of two men do not fit together. (This physical fact is one of the ‘elephants in the room’, which I will discuss later, that seem to be taboo in contemporary academic writings in support of homosexuality.) But there is something much worse about sexual intercourse between two men. A man needs to know that he is indomitable. The notion of dominating another man, or being dominated by someone – as the highest form of pleasure and spiritual fulfillment – is a betrayal of every ounce of a man’s being. The matter is not primarily one of physical attraction or repulsion, but of man’s need for self-esteem.  (p. 23)

Pisaturo’s book, though short, is packed with philosophical and ideological dynamite. It is certain to find its defenders and detractors. It is a breath of fresh air in a realm cloyingly saturated with irrationality and political correctness.


Masculine Power, Feminine Beauty: The Volitional, Objective Basis for Heterosexuality in Romantic Love and Marriage, by Ron Pisaturo. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, April 2015. Paperback edition $10, Kindle edition $3.00.

2 comments:

Edward Cline said...

From Hilda, who cannot access the comments here:

What many well-intentioned people who think that it’s a matter of rights don’t comprehend or ignore is:

The role of the Marxist ideology in undermining Western civilization by denying reality.

The Left’s use of Saul Alinsky tactics to coerce medical professionals into removing homosexuality from the DSM.

The lack of scientific evidence in the argument that homosexuality is innate.

The willful dismissal or silence on the rights of children and the potential harm caused by being raised my homosexuals without a role model of their own sex. How is it possible that two women who dislike or hate men can raise a boy in a healthy manner?

And as you quoted, the elephant in the room: Such a solitary triumph [of a man and woman separately, as individuals] is not possible if there are two men involved in a sexual act. And, of course, the aroused anatomical parts of two men do not fit together. (This physical fact is one of the ‘elephants in the room’, which I will discuss later, that seem to be taboo in contemporary academic writings in support of homosexuality.) But there is something much worse about sexual intercourse between two men. A man needs to know that he is indomitable. The notion of dominating another man, or being dominated by someone – as the highest form of pleasure and spiritual fulfillment – is a betrayal of every ounce of a man’s being. The matter is not primarily one of physical attraction or repulsion, but of man’s need for self-esteem.

My hats off to you and to Ron Pisaturo for speaking and writing against the PC poison! I also commend Nick Provenzo who, unlike Capitalism Magazine, allows debate and discussion, and does not bow to PC.

The Good Of The Day said...

This is one topic that has not been covered as thoroughly as Ron has covered it in his book. This review is both accurate and illuminating, and for me, most needed. I appreciate the time the two of you have put into discussing this topic, and putting forth a cogent argument for heterosexual relationships. I have to admit to be a bit saddened by "Libertarian" approach taken by many, whom I'd call fans of Ayn Rand, who was very outspoken about this issue. I've heard some go as far as dismissing her attitude as being just "Old Fashioned." One of the most thoughtful intellectuals ever, being reduced to the whim of her age? Anyway, thank you again for putting forth a sound and consistent argument.