Billionaires Are Shriveled-Up Perverts and It's Time To Start Saying It
Sexuality & Capitalism 101
Content Warning: sexual assault, deviant sexual practices.
A friend of mine was once an event planner for the global elite. I'm not talking about professors and heart surgeons—I'm talking about oil money, tech baron money, and despot money. Often, these parties were of a sexual nature. Orgies. They were orgies. He said that the most surprising aspect of his line of work was... you're not going to want to read this during lunch... the amount of feces left behind. Liquid shit, solid shit, smeared shit. Vomit shit, biofilm shit. Shit on doorknobs, shit on mirrors, shit on wainscoting. Shit footprints, twisted in such a way as to suggest their owner slipped and fell in the stuff. Manure, poop, crap, excrement, dung. I’ve seen a few photos of $60,000-per-night hotel rooms in such shape that I would not stay there if the room rent were paid to me. However disgusting a state you think these rooms were left in, it’s worse.
I thought he was exaggerating the disgusting nature of these events, so I reached out to another person who works in high-price event-planning, and he confirmed that it's true. This is, notably, correlated to social class. In terms of bodily fluids, a middle-class orgy produces the usual suspects that hotel housekeeping are used to encountering with rubber gloves, but an upper-class one demands the kind of specialist cleanup reserved for active biohazards. Sometimes, the odor gets so deep into the walls, entire floors are out of commission for weeks.
Why do rich people's orgies produce so much feces? We're not talking about the rare anal sex accident; we're talking about a thirty-pound haul. Are the wealthy disproportionately into scat? That might be, but since these are networking events in addition to their primary purpose, I suspect the percentage of people intentionally involving feces is low. In any case, the reason upper-class sex parties produce so much of it is well-known, and it's drug abuse. Cocaine, used at excessive doses for a long period of time, can cause fecal incontinence. The people who give these events their odor—I am told it is quite distinctive—may not even be aware, at the time, of their doing so. Stuff might slide out while they are sliding in.
It turns out that the very rich really are very different. I don't mean to shame people for suffering a disability, drug-induced fecal incontinence included, but most of us would be unable to continue an act we associate with love and tenderness while being surrounded by seventy-five shitting strangers. The stench alone would disgust us; it would end things immediately. The global corporate elite are not daunted by it; perhaps, it entices them. They have no capacity for love or tenderness—they see these as a weakness—and prefer a predatory sort of sexuality that can be inflicted (for those who enjoy it) anywhere. They also have no sense of shame. Dookies drop by the dozen but the doing keeps getting done.
It is almost impossible to overstate the role of one molecule—cocaine, atomic mass 303.36—in shaping politics and economics from the Reagan Era onward. Sure, cocaine can cause fecal incontinence, cardiac arrest, and strokes. The white powder's most common effect, though, the one you see right away and everywhere, is to turn people into the worst possible version of themselves; the high is a step into the mind of a malignant narcissist, and frequent users find themselves there full-time. No one can understand the 1980s "yuppie" era without knowledge of the precise way in which abuse of this drug destroys the body, the brain, and the person owning them. Neoliberalism and austerity were not delivered unto us by Satan—they were born in drug-addled, manic minds as the extreme selfishness of the hard-core snowbirds became aspirational and economic elitism, disparaged in the midcentury, became sexy again. It would have been better for the world if none of this had ever happened; forty years later, we live in an economy run by those who, literally, shit beds.
It hardly counts as news anymore when a powerful or wealthy man is found to be a serial sexual abuser. Harvey Weinstein. Bill Cosby. Roman Polanski. Donald Trump. Jeffrey Epstein. What did surprise a lot of people—and continues to do so—is how pervasive these hideous behaviors are. Epstein did not stop at raping young women himself; he procured them for every Davos attendee whose phone number he could get. It is well known that rich people are disproportionately attracted to the very young—the past is all the rich have; there is no other reason but the past for the state to protect bourgeois "property rights"; they and especially the men will do anything to feel young—but even of those who visited Epstein's island and did not commit sex crimes, it can be said that all were complicit. They knew. Everybody knew. Permissiveness in the face of hedonistic malignancy is one of those "culture fit" tests the very rich use. If you believe there are rules that apply to everyone, you're a middle-class striver. If you have moral values and openly dislike those who fall short of them, you belong in a convent. You have to be extremely permissive to be invited into the circles that actually run things. Does this require you be a kid-fucker yourself? Probably not. But you have to be willing to count kid-fuckers as your friends because, at the level of society we're talking about, perverts are everywhere and they are celebrated. Not until 2017 would they admit that Roman Polanski's anal rape of a 13-year-old girl was wrong.
Yes, I said perverts. It's time we start using that word again. To be clear, I'm not going to kink-shame anybody. I don't do that. What fully consenting adults do in the privacy of the bedroom isn't my concern. By pervert I refer to those people—about 5 percent of the population—who not only have predatory fantasies, but act on them. These people have no interest in roleplaying nonconsent; they are only satisfied by the real thing. This isn't kink; it's harm. There has to be real suffering and real loss, or they'll get nothing from it. Among the corporate upper class, the proportion who are predatory is much higher than 5 percent—it's estimated to be around 40. This is not something that can be remediated through therapy, either. No amount of reasoning works against pure malevolence. All anyone can do about these people is stop them.
Speaking more broadly, in the impending conflict with the corporate upper class, we're going to have to use every tool in our arsenal. This includes calling them perverts, which a lot of them are.
Because I understand our world's upper class and why it built the socioeconomic system we live under, I roll my eyes when people who regularly defend corporate capitalism nevertheless speak of sexual harassment as a problem that can be solved while preserving the rest of the system. It can't be. Corporate capitalism is deeply nonconsensual. No one consented to the upper class taking all the resources for themselves before we were born; no one consents to having subordinate wage labor as their only option when it comes to gathering income; no one consented to the proliferation of companies where one's career and internal reputation rest entirely on the word of one person.
It's not hard to see why billionaires are so into sexual harassment. Look one up. They're hideous. It's not surprising that people who dedicate their lives to hogging resources end up looking like, well... actual hogs. Even the ones who are normal-weight have bodies that are formless and depressing, evoking the same mood as a cigarette-butt-infested swimming pool outside a cheap hotel. When you look at a billionaire's face, you wonder if evil made him look like that, or if looking like that made him evil. It's obvious why these men continue showing up at their corporate jobs, long after they've amassed fortunes that could feed entire families for millions of years—no one would fuck them if they were broke.
Toxic masculinity is a real plague within our society. It is also corporate capitalism's raison d'etre. Let us return to the abuses so disgusting that even company executives won't defend them—at least, not if the perpetrator is caught—that are called sexual harassment. Why does it happen at all? Most of the predatory, terrible people in this world are still rational enough to recognize that it's a bad idea to procure one's sexual supply at one's place of work. But, for those willing to take the risk, the system makes it so easy for them to do so. An employee's value and internal reputation are determined unilaterally by her management chain; this has external persistence, too, through employment references. Opinions matter and achievements don't; this is no surprise since, in most private-sector environments, nothing can actually be achieved in the first place. Even if a company creates the appearance of protecting workers from bad-apple managers, the truth is that they don't care about individual employees enough to really do so. Give predatory men autocratic power over someone's earning potential and tell them they can use this power for all purposes—it is not illegal, or even punished, when a manager forces underlings to put his own career and reputation ahead of their own—but one, that one being sexual extortion, and it becomes a game of Don't Press the Red Button. We all know that some people can't help themselves.
Do I support removing sexual harassment from workplaces as much as possible? Of course. It is a disgusting behavior that should be condemned and punished. That said, we will not be able to reduce the problem at all unless we move away from the standard business corporation, where a manager's word about an employee is all that matters. You'd have to firebomb this entire coercion-based economic system and form something new, something built on mutual aid and consensus rather than propertarian enclosure and threats.
It should surprise nobody that an economic system—and a fleet of corporate organizations—founded on large-scale industrial nonconsent would, from time to time, produce the viscerally disgusting kind of nonconsent that even the rich, so long as they value their individual reputations, will never defend.
There are a lot of terrible people out there. There are men who consider themselves entitled to have sex with any woman they want, in any way they want, at any time they want—these are the men who will stop at nothing to become billionaires, thus gaining society's support and being able to act on 90 percent of their fantasies. There are men who expect a beautiful wife so others will envy them, but who cannot be bothered to go to the gym, become well-read and interesting, learn what women like in bed, or even get a dog and walk him once in a while. They consider things women like—animal companions, intelligent conversation, foreplay and the female orgasm—to be beneath them. These overgrown goblin men will not lift weights, they will not adopt pets, and they will not learn what or where the clitoris is. On the other hand, they will play zero-sum games in the business world to collect, in large numbers, the paper pictures of dead people by which society measures the right to live. That, for reasons to be discussed shortly, they consider manly and dignified, even though the work itself is dismal.
No amount of sexual satisfaction can heal these men. A lack of sex is not their problem; it never was. The void they will never fill requires simultaneous love and fear at such high levels that, in the real world, they become mutually exclusive—an impossible color that can be imagined but never seen. Over time, the predatory aspect of their sexuality becomes the whole point of it. Harvey Weinstein wasn't "broken by" being obese and repulsive; he convinced himself—and, later, ceased to need such convincing—that he liked to be so, because it made sex so much more humiliating for the women involved. To build himself into something a woman could actually enjoy would have defeated the purpose. These men delight in their own hideousness. The more disgusting they can make themselves, the better.
Think about it. Really think about it. If a man can fuck, is he going to spend 80 hours per week in an office—risking a high chance of becoming one of those men who can't fuck—to subjugate other humans, by the thousands or millions or billions, whom he has nothing against and whom he has probably never met? Or might be have better things to do with his time? The conclusion is obvious. Men become billionaires because they can't fuck.
This is not some new issue. It is not unique to 2023 that our society's top ranks are full of psychosexual perverts. We've discussed the raison d'etre of corporate capitalism—let's make our focus broader and address the U.S. racial caste system. It's well known that low-income, uneducated whites vote against their economic interests due to racism. What is less often noted is that these men know they are doing so. It's counterintuitive. Why would a bad-off white man accept further worsening of his circumstances, just to put a thumb in the eye of a black man he has never met? the answer is exactly what you think it is. You know that myth—it isn't true—about black men's penises being larger? There are men who obsess over big penises and men who obsess over black penises and they are almost never the men who actually have them; there are enough such men that they are a political force. And this is how absurdly fucking inhumane it gets: people face employment discrimination, generational poverty, and police violence now because, for hundreds of years, a bunch of insecure men have assumed their ancestors had bigger dicks. If you were writing fiction and produced this kind of shit, you'd be fired.
The corporate system isn't mostly about race, though. U.S. history tells us that people are capable of being evil and racist even without industrial capitalism. Class is a factor—our upper class has always feared the sexuality and fertility of those beneath them—but so is age. The moribund sadsacks who run the corporate system do so because they fear the young. The sad truth is that they probably don't need to; even if one controls for access to resources, women tend to prefer men their age or slightly older. This is obviously a case of projection—because sixty-year-old CEOs are wont to humiliate their wives by chasing twenty-year-olds, they suspect that young men, unless economically disenfranchised, would replace them too. Like the mythological monster of the massive melanated member, vicenarian virility presents no serious competitive threat, but for these men it doesn't matter, because jealousy and perversion live so deep in these men's brains, there is room for nothing else. Thus, the CEOs create and maintain a system, at considerable time cost to themselves, that holds the young—except for their own progeny, of course—at the absolute bottom. The young, and the flat abdomens and robust erections these corporate executives feel they do not deserve, must be crushed.
The above explains how we can live in a society that is a patriarchy—it is a technical term, and it applies—and still have 90 percent or more of young men be miserable. The world is still run by men, but their foremost concern is destroying other men to sustain disproportionate access to women. When all else fails for them, they'll start a war.
It might seem, so far, that we have under-analyzed the role of women in the workplace. The corporate system tolerates them these days—they are at least as competent as we are, if not more so, and they are cheaper, which employers like—but they are not the people for whom it exists. Women are, individually, just as capable of cruelty as men, but we have not yet seen if they can summon the kind of organized malevolence necessary to create and maintain the kinds of massive private-sector bureaucracies that dominate today's world. Since most modern companies serve no real purpose—they only exist to make numbers in computers go up—it cannot be ignored that their real function is to be male dominance hierarchies. Women are allowed in, especially because so many of them are good at their jobs, but from the viewpoint of those who make the important decisions, they're just kinda there.
I have mentioned that most corporate executives are so hideous, outside and inside the skin, they cannot attract women without first acquiring a draconian hoard of society's wealth and resources. But there are others who are average-looking or better. Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, when they were young, were not unattractive men. That's when you should be really scared. These men didn't become capitalists to offset physical undesirability, but because of a desire—in many cases, a need—to do the sorts of predatory things that society only lets a billionaire get away with. An ugly man who becomes a billionaire might simply want an ordinary life; a decent-looking billionaire likely holds desires that are unspeakable.
It might seem to the reader that I am going out of my way to attack billionaires on private behavior, at the expense of attention to more catastrophic offenses. It is not illegal, after all, to defecate on the floor at a private sex party. Nor is a law broken when a man deliberately or subconsciously becomes obese because he gets a thrill from the narrow margin of consent ("casting couch") implied by his ugliness. Capitalists are perverts, sure, but compared to their overseas wars, their totalitarian exploitation of the working class, and their despoliation of the climate, do their sexual peccadilloes really merit attention? Is it possible that I am being unduly mean to billionaires and their shriveled nozzles? It is. Can you blame me?
There was a poster in 1989 Budapest showing two couples kissing with the tagline, "Tessék Választani"—Let's Choose. The top frame featured two geriatric men; the lip-locked codgers represented the self-serving Party elite. In the bottom frame were a beautiful young couple, representing the bright future for Hungary that the so-called Alliance of Young Democrats, Fidesz, claimed to represent. (What Fidesz became, that's another topic.) This poster wouldn't fly in today's world, and it probably shouldn't—there isn't anything perverse about two older men kissing, and bigotry of all forms—racism, misogyny, antisemitism, homophobia—we, on the Left, should never accept. Still, one cannot deny that such a strident image, in the context of late-1980s Hungary, where people were unfortunately quick to associate homosexuality with perversion, would work very well.
One of the most effective ways—perhaps the most effective way—to attack a social elite is to convince the public that the rulers are perverts. This strategy was employed in 1790s France, and it worked. Most people do not care to understand Marxist theory, but everyone is familiar with the concept of a sexual predator. In the upcoming conflict with the corporate upper class, we will need support from people who do not digest complex argumentation. The easy way to make our case is to convince the world that our global elite consists of self-serving, imponent, unattractive perverts. The good news is that it's actually true.
I would like to be able to end this analysis here. The topic of perverts is not very pleasant, and Jeffrey Epstein, the man himself, was never all that interesting. His story resonates with us because his inability to cover his tracks led to public exposure of what we had all suspected—that every capitalist country in the world exists under the boots of a few thousand men who cannot get hard except by humiliating other humans. The fact must be repeated everywhere, constantly, until the world's confidence in its ruling elite falls so low, they are replaced. Do you want your economic and social prospects to be determined by deranged people compensating for inadequacies in the deepest levels of their souls? Or would you prefer something else?
We, as a society, made mistakes that led to this. The Great Depression exposed the abject failure of the North American upper class, but after World War II we lacked the appetite for another conflict—we had defeated fascism abroad, and the business elite promised to behave better than they had from 1800 to 1929—so we struck the famous postwar consensus. The wealthy experienced relative decline—inequality was reduced—but even they benefited in absolute terms. They even got to sit in the front, on trains and in airplanes. We didn't have to go this way. Given 19th- and early 20th-century corporate behavior, it was a mercy from us that they kept their heads. The result was that we built this mythology of a middle-class society, exceptionalism in the face of the Marxist claim that stable middle classes do not exist in capitalist economies. But this experiment failed; Marx was proven correct. We've gone over what started in the 1980s era of cocaine capitalism, but nothing since then has reversed the trend. I do not advocate violence except when it is absolutely necessary. If the upper class can be overthrown without firing a shot, let's do it that way. But we must utterly destroy the bourgeoisie's ability to function as a social class—forever—at any cost.
We know that the replacement of 1960s cannabis and psilocybin by 1980s cocaine and heroin explains the ruling class's ability to make degenerate greed and economic elitism sexy again, but they had help in this process from people who never touched a single illegal drug. This came, instead, from a fatal weakness that existed at the core of our society, a time bomb of a contradiction, the true absurdity that is capitalist masculinity.
Generations of men have been convinced that it is masculine to "provide", a belief that made sense in the hunter-gatherer days when spearing boars was an ecologically sound method of acquiring dinner. Today, though, most men have no option—all the land is owned by someone—but to subordinate to higher-status men, the ones who hoard resources and rely on state hirelings to protect their so-called "private property rights". False consciousness and propaganda are powerful at infecting the mind and convincing young men that, yes, these behavior patterns actually are masculine—that it gives value to their sexuality to spend 40 hours per week in a nonconsenual but also very boring BDSM scene where they take orders from other men. The mind uses culture as its operating system and can be tricked this way. But the body knows. And that's why our nation has 26-year-olds on Viagra.
We've discussed the disgusting men at the top of corporate capitalism. The typical Silicon Valley executive or founder could have a saint of a wife who fulfills his every decent desire—and a dozen dreams he hadn't yet discovered—but he would still humiliate her with his insatiable need to harm the world. But there are not enough hard-core sicko fucks to power capitalism on its own, and that's where capitalist masculinity comes in—the middle and lower ranks of the system have to be filled with people who believe in it. They must be led to internalize capitalism, so that making money—99 percent of them will have no way to do this but to be subordinate to other men—becomes a sex act.
I've often remarked that it would be a crowning achievement of a generation to unify the anti-corporate left and anti-corporate ("populist") right. It is not actually true that the bulk of the Brexit or Trump supporters were "deplorables"—racists, fascists, misogynists, antisemites—so much as they were ordinary people, steeped in so much "provider" propaganda as to believe capitalism is the only option. They are wrong, but they are not evil. We should be trying to reach them.
To fully analyze internalized capitalism would add at least forty thousand to our word count, so I won't; the process of cultural degradation will only be outlined. Of course, it starts with advertising, as well as the only form of sexual education young boys will get if the conservatives have their way: pornography, often of the extreme kind. Young men are told their penises are too small to give women pleasure—this is, statistically, a rare problem—or that they will be unable to attract women without visible abs—it was gay men, not women, who coined the phrase "six pack", and it was a not-complimentary term for a young man with little else to offer—or that they are less masculine (and therefore less "alpha") than the men having aggressive, often dangerous sex on camera. Young men are already at a disadvantage—it is rare that women take interest in men significantly younger than they are, so these men are competing against a wide age spectrum of men for same-age women almost everybody wants—and capitalism will sell them the most toxic remedies it can get away with. It used peddle similar insecurities to women about breast size and whatever a thigh gap is, but these days—my theory about why it is doing so is still too protean for me to share at this time—it has gone to the other extreme and is telling people they are bigots if they find morbid obesity unattractive. Amid the confusion capitalism creates, a narrative is put forward: Yes, you are probably sexually second-rate. But you can be saved! Become a provider. Render unto your employer the work your boss requests, and society will render unto you a wife. While you're waiting for her, your thirst and $17 will buy you a book in which I tell you to clean your room.
Capitalist masculinity is inherently self-contradictory and therefore self-destructive. It is not manly to sit in a beige office in fear of the opinions of higher-status men; it is pathetic. When people realize this all at once, there is a breaking point—a "masculine crisis" in today's terminology—where society is in danger. Militant socialism could emerge, but so could fascism. Over the past five thousand years, human society has invented exactly one role in which a man can be subordinate and will still be regarded by others as manly: Soldier.
To be clear, none of this analysis should be taken to reflect how I believe things should be. There is a lot that is, to use a word already familiar, toxic in the social constructions of both mainstream genders. I have no wish to tell men that their manliness rests on their ability to "provide" in the context of an increasingly hostile, malevolent employment system—I do not believe it does. Nor do I wish to diminish the value of women's work—they have a similar mix of ambitions and goals as we do, and their work is usually just as good as ours—even though our society does. I am simply a realist—I recognize that people living today have been socialized in a way that is altogether not very good for them, and that almost everybody wants to change aspects of it, but that no one wants to change all of it. There is value in tradition; it tells us things we have learned about ourselves. Some of gender is fully socially constructed—for example, blue being a masculine color and pink, a feminine one—but some of it is not. Most men want to be masculine; most women are attracted to masculine men. There's nothing wrong with the people (including me, to some extent) who deviate from these norms, but if we take note of what most people want, we see two sex-aligned clusters called mainstream genders, and a possibly few smaller ones. Capitalism's construction of masculinity leaves men checkmated. There is no option for most to opt out, to refuse to "provide", but at the same time, the vast majority of available jobs involve mindless busywork, severe surveillance, and constant intentional abuse of one's flight-or-fight systems. No man or woman should have to endure this, and I'm sure this causes libido problems in women too, but for men it requires them to crush their own essence. A man, forced to endure passive-aggressive slights from higher-ranking but failed humans who are constantly reminding him of their ability to turn off his income—and leave him to spend the next six months begging strangers to turn it on again—recognizes that the natural response—violence—is illegal and therefore will bring him nothing good. He must dismantle himself; he must become not-self. But this is not some wholesome integration of a Jungian shadow; what instead results from this embrace of not-self is simply pure loss. Severe, pointless depression.
Contrary to negative stereotypes of them, most of the men called involuntary celibates—incels—are not the deranged, violent misogynists who get the most press, nor do they want to be pickup artists and psychopaths like Andrew Tate. Instead, most of them simply want to reach average social and sexual functionality. They're having a really hard time, and it's not because women are choosier or they are ugly (many of these guys are average or better looking) but because of their severe social insecurities—they cannot gain confidence because they were born into a society that has nothing for them to do, but forces them into subordinate makework where they are tyrannized by precision management or, worse, where their livelihood depends on being liked by their superiors, which is antithetical to every standard of masculinity held by every culture that has ever existed. They cannot attract women because they're not attracted to themselves, and this is not their fault. They've been told they must become something for which society has no place. The rugged workers who don't need to be liked to earn an income—the job was objective and it just needed to be done—have been replaced by machines; as a result, there are masculine men and there are providers, but there are very few masculine providers. I don't think that archetype is coming back, but ask your friendly neighborhood AI.
It will be necessary to scrap capitalist masculinity if we want to save humanity from the corporate system while we still have a chance, but it's also going to be very difficult, because capitalist masculinity is a product that has been refined over decades and uses limbic emotions like fear, anger, and tribal hatred to burrow deep into the psyches of young men as well as young women. The promise is charismatic: a man who invests in society—we'll ignore the inconvenient fact that what this actually means is to invest in a higher status man's career—will be provided with the means to reproduce, including a wife. Men who buy into this ideology are deeply opposed to the notion of a welfare state, let alone a universal basic income, because they believe (a) that there is a natural aggregate imbalance between male and female libido, (b) there is, worse yet, an innate female preference for antisocial ("alpha male", "dark triad") men, so (c) the only way to solve this problem is to make women economically dependent on men, while also depriving antisocial men of resources, and that (d) capitalism, somehow, achieves this. It is based on this theory that the millions of men (and women) who are maltreated by the corporate system continue to support it; they believe that the control of the means of production by a small number of people (who are antisocial psychopaths, but few and far away and, therefore, not sexual competition) is the only thing keeping the phalanx of unemployable but charismatically confident (and, in some versions of the dread, differently colored) cock, encircling the world like that giant ice wall the flat-earthers believe in, from closing in and impaling "their" women. It is not that they want to give more of their hard-earned dollars to rich people; they simply believe that a punitive society is the only solution to the threat. Does it work? Not at all. Psychopathy is the term we affix to pure r- (vs. K-) strategists; such people do not respond, in terms of sexual behavior, to economic incentives.
Young men are made miserable by internalized capitalism, but young women are done just as badly by our system, and they too are often afflicted by internalized capitalism. Consider "Super Bass" by Nicki Minaj, in which a cocaine dealer is praised because he's "always in the air, but he never fly coach". Or consider Sex and the City; when it came out, the show was hated from the right for mostly wrong reasons—it was not as pro-promiscuity as its detractors made it out to be—but today it is loathed from the left for morally correct reasons: the crass materialism and the indulgence of capitalist masculinity ("Mr. Big"). Further, one should consider the clumsily written novel with badly-researched BDSM that nevertheless became an international bestseller, 50 Shades of Grey. Christian Grey is a sexual abuser, but he's also a mass nonsexual abuser—that is, a capitalist billionaire—and, disturbingly, both of these facts contributed to his female appeal, proving women to be just as subject to internalized capitalism as men are. Our society has accepted the meretricious idea that billionaires—as opposed to the heroes and protectors who might liberate humanity from them in the future—are sexy. This is horrid for all sorts of reasons; the notion of male billionaires as sex symbols makes it harder for women who are assaulted by them to hold them accountable—society assumes it was a desirable encounter based on the man's wealth and social status. ("When you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.") All of this must change.
We cannot afford, in the coming global conflict with the corporate upper class, to avoid impolite discussions. We may have to do worse things to billionaires and corporate executives than call them names. These men are not sex symbols; they are bloated sacks of unquenchable and perverse desire who rely on the state to enforce their so-called "property rights" over the means of production because, if it did not, they would be unable to fulfill their rapacious, predatory needs—many of them would be unable to attract women at all. Capitalist masculinity is as ridiculous as the divine right of kings, as ridiculous as jus primae noctis, as ridiculous as blowing tobacco smoke into schoolboys' rectums to improve their muscle tone. We can tear it all down, and bring down the last true division between the Left and the anti-corporate self-isolated right, simply by exposing our society and the people who run it for what they are. All it takes is the truth.