Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Heart of Darkness. Part I

A digression.

It's well known the JFK was a man who honoured his wedding vows in their breach. He was a notorious philanderer and the the passage of time seems to have exposed the majority of his lovers. Very few people, with the exception of hard core Democrats, think of him as the saintly knight of Camelot, and therefore Mimi Alford's biography, where she recounts her sexual liaisons with him, seems not to have changed people's opinion of him too much.

I quite surprised that none of the man-o-sphere has taken much interest in her story. With the exception of Sibling of Daedelus, who really isn't part of the manosphere, Ms Alford's story has flown under the radar, which is a shame, since the the book is a powerful exposition of the power of hypergamy, animal instinct and the dangers of "five minutes of alpha".

Were I American, I would be a Republican with all the anti-Democrat sentiments that it would engender. But I am a realist, and though the Kennedy administration was rotten to the core it possessed style in spades.  In front of me is a copy of Life's "In Camelot", and even now the administration possess a degree of glamour that with the passage of time has grown. Compared with the frumpiness of subsequent administrations, the Kennedy's were "Hot". I think people need to remember this when they read her biography. As a young nineteen year old virgin, unexpectedly summoned to work in the White House as an intern, Ms Alford (then Ms Beardsley) was keenly aware of the glamorous universe she was about to enter.  The center of that universe was JFK.

Ms Alford, has recounted her first experience with JFK on his wife's bed. What's interesting about the story is two things. Firstly, just how little effort JFK took in "seducing" her. He simply walked her to the bedroom under the pretext of a "house tour", walked her over to the bed, and started having sex with her; so powerful was his socio-sexual status. The entire "seduction" must have taken only seconds. People may think that it was his presidential status that conferred this power, but its hard to imagine Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter getting away with the same.

Secondly, in her description of the event, she describes an almost involuntary magnetic attraction and sense of powerlessness as he starts to have sex with her. The feminist harpies of the media have tried to reframe the event as a rape, but Ms Alford has been adamant that JFK would have stopped if she said no: The thing is that she didn't want to say no. Media depictions of the event tend to portray Ms Alford in a passive light during the incident, but in her book she's not so passive:
Then he reached up between my legs and started to pull off my underwear. I couldn't believe what was happening. But more: I could not believe what I did next. I finished unbuttoning my shirt dress and let if fall off my shoulders. [Ed] He pulled down his pants and then he was above me.
He paused briefly when he felt some physical resistance.
"Haven't you done this before?" he asked.
"No," I said.
"Are you okay?" he asked.
"Yes," I said, and he resumed, but more gently.
"Are you okay?" he kept saying.
I nodded, propped up on my elbows.
Once things got going she was an active participant with the power to say no at any time. She was actively unbuttoning her shirt dress. Remember this was a nineteen year old virgin from a WASP'y family on the "Social Register" with a good upbringing; not some trailer trash. The whole story serves to illustrate the fact that a woman's sexual response to a suitable mate is unconscious; she goes into sexual autopilot. Such is the power of alpha.

The talk shows have apparently been full of stodgy wives who have reported that she should have said no the President, and I agree, but there for the grace of God go I. I imagine if I were nineteen, alone in a bedroom with Keira Knightley or Megan Fox and they started unzipping my trousers, I would have a very hard time saying no.  She was taken by surprise, her defences were down; it just happened.  I really can't blame her at all for what transpired and her failure of moral virtue. I think Kennedy was a bastard for doing what he did, especially when he found out she was a virgin. But he was so narcissistic that he didn't care, not that Ms Alford minded, it seemed to thrill her that the most powerful man in the world desired her. It intoxicated her.

No, where I find moral fault in Ms Alford is in what transpired later. After the shock of what had happened had worn off Ms Alford was not sure what to do. Her answer came some days later when she received a phone call inviting her  back for a swim with the president (i.e meaning sex). She correctly identified this a juncture in her life. She had a choice.  Had she refused she would have returned to a life of normalcy, missing out being part of "Camelot" with all its associated glamour, something she did not want to do. She wanted to be part of the "in crowd" and the price of that was spreading her legs. It was a price she was prepared to pay. By all accounts, with few exceptions she had a satisfying sexual time with the President. A time she does not appear to regret.

Being this is Lent, and I'm Catholic, I can't but see the similarities with the tempting of Christ by the Devil on the mount and Ms Alford's own temptation. Some men are tempted by power, some by money and others by the pleasures of the flesh; she was tempted by the Camelot glamour and of being the object of the presidents desire. On deeper reflection is a an appeal to her pride and it was a temptation she failed. For as the Master said, "What does it profit a man if he gains the world but loses his soul?"  In taking the path that she did, a part of her soul died and the consequences were to be felt for the years to come. I still don't think she realises how dead she is.

15 comments:

Simon Grey said...

"I think Kennedy was a bastard for doing what he did, especially when he found out she was a virgin."

Agreed. Both men and women are expected by God to maintain their sexual purity. And even though he didn't rape her, Kennedy was a scumbag for putting her in a position to commit sin.

"She wanted to be part of the "in crowd" and the price of that was spreading her legs. It was a price she was prepared to pay."

Also agreed. I think it's important to remember that, ultimately, sin comes from the heart. And, obviously, she very much wanted to be around glamorous people, even if it meant committing fornication.

I think this account illustrates an important point about sex: it takes two, and the blame for whatever consequences arise is on both parties. Some feminists will put all the blame on men for this sort of thing (especially when the sex is later regretted by the woman) and some MRAs will blame women for being heartless robots that use their body to screw a man out of his money and children. Ultimately, though, both the man and the woman are equally responsible for their decisions, regardless of whether it was made in the heat of the moment or with malice aforethought.

rivelinoinspain said...

"its hard to imagine Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter getting away with the same."

good point.

i wrote about mimi on my blog too.

http://rivelinoinspain.wordpress.com/2012/02/11/i-dont-consider-it-was-rape/

Anonymous said...

Just one brief additional point: If I'm not mistaken, she went to Wheaten near Chicago, an evangelical (but also very intellectual) college where she must have been heavily instructed on the sinfulness of pre-marital sex. In other words, it's reasonable to believe that she was a fairly devout Christian at the time. I have to wonder though - would most good, devout Christian girls from Wheaton be able to resist the allure of a JFK? Probably not, which shows how hard the Christian life can really be.

Black Death said...

Many US presidents have been womanizers - I suspect it comes easily to the powerful, ultra-alpha males who aspire to that office. But Kennedy and Clinton were undoubtedly the worst of the lot. Both of these guys pretended to be Christians - Kennedy, a Catholic, and Clinton, a Southern Baptist. But I suspect both were really atheists or agnostics - the "religion" was just window dressing for gullible voters. I can barely remember Kennedy, but I lived in Arkansas while Clinton was governor - he seemed like sleaze personified to me, and I never liked or trusted him.

Anyway, the Kennedy clan's success at foisting the Camelot myth on a credulous American public would not have been possible without the active support of the corrupt, sycophantic MSM. Nowadays it's recognized how partisan most of these clowns are, but, fifty years ago, there was little alternative to them and people actually believed the lies they told. The Kennedy administration was, as you say, one of the most stylish in American history, but it was rotten to the core and completely incompetent.

Kathy Farrelly said...

"I felt for the first time the thrill of being desired."

This shy and nerdy nineteen year old girl craved attention. She was easy pickings.

" I imagine if I were nineteen, alone in a bedroom with Keira Knightley or Megan Fox and they started unzipping my trousers, I would have a very hard time saying no"
That's much different SP.. Sex was not on her mind.. She was just in awe of him. I am damn sure she would never even have had an orgasm.

I tried to put myself in her position .. Think about what I would do.. I cannot say for sure of course, but I just don't think that I would have done what she did.

I was a virgin when I first married, at 19, and I am sure that it had to do with the way that I was brought up. My mother had frank talks with me about sex and religion..

We really do not know what we will do when confronted with such a situation.
I always thought that I would do the right thing, and yet, I had sex with my second husband before we married.. (We married a year after we had met and just after the annulment came through from my first marriage)

I was not coerced in any way either.

Just really loved him and wanted him. And, it had been a helluva long time between drinks.. I was weak.

But I did think that I was better than that.

Pride comes before a fall.

I learnt a very important lesson there.

Banquo said...

Well, I am probably less sanguine than you, SP, by temperament. But my disgust is mostly reserved for the fact that she is writing a book about this fifty years later. Does she have any children? Did she think about them before trumpeting to the world how cheaply bought and sold their mother is? If not, she still has a family which she further disgraces.

What a sick country.

The Social Pathologist said...

Anon @6.56

She describes herself as spiritual, not religious. Which practically means that the rationalisation hamster has full control, with decisions ultimately made on what "feels" right.

Her book is very interesting in that it talks about the "cult of virginity" that was prevalent amongst her peers. She was quite perceptive in noting that it was more a social convention than a religious commitment.

To those of us who wonder why traditional society failed, this little off the cuff comment is quite profound and should be disconcerting for traditionalists. Whilst pre-sixties society gave the appearance of being traditional it was based more on social convention than religious motive force. Without that religious motive force, the social convention when challenged, simply folded because there was no religious underpinning.

@Black Death.

She also raises this issue in her book. The media were co-conspirators. They actively helped him (JFK) in fostering the image.

@Rivelino

Thanks for the link love. What I found really interesting here is just how overwhelmed she was by his charisma. I always think about those hapless men who wine and dine their partners without getting anywhere. Yet here, the pres simply walks her over to a bed and has sex with her, with her actively getting undressed for him. No prior love, affection etc. If you can press the right buttons, female sexuality goes on autopilot, much to the surprise of the the woman herself.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Simon

As in my comment to Rivelino, what surprising here is her submission to him totally without prior prep work. I think that this is an important thing to realise about sexuality, that once a certain line is crossed it's awfully difficult to extract oneself from the situation. The guilt may be more in getting into the situation rather that what happens in the situation.

The same apply's to a man. Let's say that a woman consents to a man having sex with her, then just before he is about to orgasm she withdraws consent. We run on the assumption that a man is fully rational at that point and can stop. My contention that his rationality is severely impaired at this point, and that he really can't be accused of rape if he fails to stop since the biological imperative has nearly overwhelmed his senses.

What I think we as a society have failed at is developing a proper understanding of our animal natures and how in situations such as combat or stress men don't behave with the same deliberation as lawyers do in their safe socratic courtrooms.

The Social Pathologist said...

@Banquo.

I think she was thinking about her children and her reputation. Had she been silent people may have made rubbish up about her without her having a chance to clear her name.

I also think that she is still quite happy that she got to sheath the presidential sword and wants the world to know about it now. No where in the book do I get the impression that she regrets their relationship. (except when it comes to the breakdown of her future marriage). I think many women will think that there is something special about her for being able to sleep with the president. Amongst female circles I don't think it will cause much disgrace.

@Kathy

It really depends on the person. From the moral point of view, she was just an average girl. I think most girls( who were in awe of Camelot) would have done the same.

I was weak.

We all are.

Sandor said...

"In taking the path that she did, a part of her soul died and the consequences were to be felt for the years to come. I still don't think she realises how dead she is."

I didn't read the book - what makes you think that this is true?

"No where in the book do I get the impression that she regrets their relationship. (except when it comes to the breakdown of her future marriage)".

Does she feel strongly that presidential sex was a significant contributor?

The Social Pathologist said...

I didn't read the book - what makes you think that this is true?

She is an elementary particle. She loves her husband for what he provides, not for who he is. Her idea of marriage seems to be "hedonic".

Does she feel strongly that presidential sex was a significant contributor?

Yes.

dicipres said...

Just saw your blog and I'm looking forward to read more of it.

It looks thought provoking and knowledgeable.

BTW, your like to roissy is outdated

Anonymous said...

Anon at 6:56 -- without disagreeing with the general point, the Wheaton that Beardsley / Alford attended was the one in Norton, Massachusetts, not the one in Wheaton, Illinois. The one in Massachusetts isn't an evangelical school today and I don't think it was in the early 1960s either. Which matches with her observation that "nice girls don't" was a social convention rather than a religious commitment.

Thursday said...

Anonymous:

Wrong Wheaton.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wheaton_College_(Massachusetts)

Anonymous said...

Story would have been way cooler if it was Nixon.