Recently, while on vacation to Latin America, I spent the final evening with my girl in the room watching the Anthony Hopkins film Silence of The Lambs, which tells a captivating story of a serial killer, a naïve young female FBI recruit, and an incarcerated genius serial killer who she enlists in helping solve the case. This was such a memorable movie from my youth, that despite so much time passing, I could remember certain scenes vividly, and even several minor characters.
The Silence of the Lambs
What I had forgotten is how the serial killer that the protagonist is trying to catch, Buffalo Bill, is portrayed as a transvestite, to show the audience how sick, twisted, and terrifying he was. Thomas Harris, the author, based his novel on real events, and spent time studying serial killers with criminal profilers and the FBI through the 1970s. The Buffalo Bill character was based on a composite of 3 serial killers, Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, and Gary Heidnik. Ed Gein was a killer in the 1950s who made objects out of dead human bodies, and created a “woman suit” out of skin. There is a scene, primarily to scare and disturb the audience, where Buffalo Bill puts on makeup and a nipple ring while dancing to eerie music.
The inclusion of transvestite behavior was made specifically to convey that this was a sick individual, and the audience understood this as a clear sign of mental illness (a sharp contrast to today, where the same behavior is seen as “brave and stunning”). Incidentally, I can’t help but notice the irony in the film’s title—if it wasn’t for the silence of the masses in the wake of all the social justice changes, would we be where we were today? The vast majority of people from 20 years ago saw trannys as mentally ill—a minority of SJWs has changed mass opinion on the issue.
The film was made during a pivotal period, and there was a good bit of social justice programming evident. The FBI trained the actors and crew for months, and allowed shooting on their Quantico, VA campus, because they were interested in getting more women to join the bureau, and saw the film as a good marketing device. The director, Jonathan Demme, stated, “This is about one woman, trying to save the life of another woman, and having to confront the dreaded patriarchy, in this patriarchal world, and the worst of the male gender is going to be put in Clarice’s way.”
Indeed, I remember a scene where the young, naïve Agent Starling, played by Jodi Foster, is sent to a funeral to coordinate with the local police. The local guys do not take her seriously at all. So some broad goes to school for four years and now she’s supposed to know more about policing than us? I can’t even imagine the scene taking place today, because the premise of an all male space is so fictional in 2016. It is often said that art imitates life. The director was simply portraying the changing times we were in, and things were about to be turned upside down.
The transvestite scene reminds me of an old episode of the BBC sci-fi series Dr. Who. I remember watching an episode that began with a British Bobby (policeman) creeping down the street. He pulled out a handgun, and ominous music started playing. It didn’t make any sense to me, but at that time regular patrolmen didn’t carry handguns, and so the sight of a policeman with a gun was a clear indication to the audience that this was not a real cop, but instead the bad guy—a criminal, or imposter.
However, fast forward to 2016, and everyone commonly accepts a militarized police force as normal and typical. As we have accepted black-uniformed military police, we also accept trannies as not just normal, but courageous and valuable members of society.
Historical Female Marriage Age was 20-22
Another big change first visible in the 1990s was a fundamental change in the institution of marriage. I recently heard a story on NPR (Single By Choice: Why Fewer American Women Are Married Than Ever Before) in which the interviewee complains that women do more domestic chores than men, and explains why women are postponing marriage into their late 20s or 30s. According to the story, only 20% of Americans 18-29 are married as opposed to 60% in 1960. That’s right. One third as many twenty-somethings are married today as compared to the Baby Boomer generation.
For as long as the Census Bureau has been recording marriage data in the USA, the average age for a first marriage for women was between 20 and 22. However, in 1990, for the first time the marriage age broke out of this range. The average age for marriages has steadily climbed every decade since, and is now estimated at over 27 years. Remember, as recently as 1980, marriage ages were still within the historical range of 20-22.
As sociologists noted, marriage ages were stable at 20-22 for over a hundred years, and this was a significant change with huge ramifications. Just for comparison, a 6 year decrease would mean average marriage ages suddenly plummeted to 15. Indeed, historically women often married in their early teen or preteen years, and this is outside of the scope of this article, but just imagine how different society would be if the average age of marriage today was 15 for women?
The 90s Dark Triad: The Pill, Abortion, And No Fault Divorce
What happened to affect this change? Well a few things. Beginning in 1960, the birth control pill was approved for use in the US. Fast forward 20 years later, when girls born in 1960 were reaching historical marriage age, and many of them chose to delay marriage and ride the cock carousel, courtesy of this new pill that could hide their promiscuity from their friends, family, and other men. Indeed, we see a sharp increase in the marriage age in 1980, which further accelerates over the next decade.
In 1969, California’s Family Law Act was signed into law by Governor Ronald Reagan. The first no-fault divorce law in the nation, it helped usher in a period of skyrocketing divorce rates and general promiscuity. Women could now leave their husbands “because feelings” and could even be financially rewarded for their infidelity, especially if they had children with the man.
Finally, in 1973, abortion became fully legal with the Roe v Wade ruling. Now, I have no personal objection to birth control, in an ideal, patriarchal society. I believe life begins at birth, not gestation, and am not on a crusade to save the fetal tissue of strangers. However, the results of having unfettered access to birth control have contributed, in large part, to the crazy sexual dynamic we have today, and in this lens can be seen as a failure.
Sexual promiscuity has also impaired the female ability to pair bond with their mates skyrocketing starting in, you guessed it, the 1990s. Jay Teachman released a scientific study on Premarital Sex, Premarital Cohabitation, and the Risk of Subsequent. Marital Dissolution Among Women, providing scientific evidence of a correlation between the number of sexual partners a woman has and her ability to successfully pair bond with her mate. Teachman concludes:
Women who cohabit prior to marriage or who have premarital sex have an increased likelihood of marital disruption. The most salient finding from this analysis is that women whose intimate premarital relationships are limited to their husbands—either premarital sex alone or premarital cohabitation—do not experience an increased risk of divorce. It is only women who have more than one intimate premarital relationship who have an elevated risk of marital disruption.
Teachman further concludes that the number of partners is the major factor to consider. The risk for marrying a non-virgin is extremely dangerous; marrying a woman with more than four sexual partners is playing Russian Roulette. Keep in mind this study was performed in 1995, and as this article shows, the 90s were an era of relative stability and cohesiveness as compared to today. I shudder to think of what a similar survey today would show.
While many men may say “Fine, I don’t care about marriage anyway” and I would agree—I am perfectly happy being a bachelor, with more time, money, and freedom than any of my married friends, but this is not a recipe for a stable society. Without stable families, the next generation will be far more corrupt than we can even imagine, and will be raised by the government educators. Currently over 40% of all children are born out of wedlock in America, and if one looks only at millennials, bastard births are the norm. Men must acknowledge that we face an uphill battle to restore a sane family structure and sexual relations.
There are fundamental barriers put in place for men today that are difficult to control. The groundwork was laid in the 1960s and 1970s to change society and sexual relations in America. By 1990, the changes were in motion, and it is very difficult to reverse the trend. Much as a woman’s beauty peaks at or before age 20, men must accept that American women peaked in the 1960s, and are currently declining.
While men can find foreign women, who are more feminine and traditional, once must realize that if a man attempts to raise a family in the toxic American society, the culture, laws, and social norms are unavoidable. While I encourage all men to do whatever they can to thwart degeneracy, political correctness, and feminism, we must pick our battles. The graph on marriage ages depicts a rapid and significant change that will be extremely difficult to slow, much less reverse.
Realize that the deck is stacked against you. The law, your church, your job, and even your friends, are not looking out for your best interests. Men must find like minded individuals with whom we can forge new friendships and built a better future. And the reaction from feminists to this will be harsh and brutal.
Read More: The Decimation of Western Women is Complete