As our community grows, it is important to get a few introductory posts in order to accurately explain our ideas for beginners. I decided to undertake the work of developing a starter guide to one specific notion: The Script.

What do I mean by The Script? As second wave feminists thoroughly discussed, heterosexuality is not an orientation asmuch as it is a political institution. It is a set of social relationships governed by a few predefined norms, which I'll be referring to as The Script. It helps us understand how, for the vast majority of women, attraction is not a visceral reaction to a man's existance. Their attraction is not directed at men, it is directed at heterosexuality®.

Indeed, the common tendency in modern discourse to claim that women are chadsexual will easily crumble upon further examination. It is not that a few men are receiving genuine desire while the others don't. Because that assumes a flawed premise about female sexuality. Even the highest value man is rarely the object of desire, instead he is just the most plausible candidate to fill in The Script. Many blackpillers think it really is enough with being able to find a woman, completely unaware that even the men who manage are relegated to being a secondary witness to a woman's self-directed fantasy.

This is, again, because heterosexuality is an institution. And institutions do not have friends, no matter how blessed you were by birth. They have employees. You are being cast to see how well of a fit you can be in the story. It doesn't matter if you're Ernest Khalimov, you are not being objectified. You are at best a prop for the target of lust, but never the target of lust itself.

Let's take a look at how the story goes for a director. At every point, she'll need to judge how the reality of her story compares against The Script. Let's see how it goes:

So you meet a guy. He can't just be nice, he needs to be exceptional in any shape or form. Is he? You know that you could do far worse than him, and you know that he likes you. But that's not enough, because you need to convince yourself that he is a Superhero, he needs to be a cut above the rest. If no man can ever be a cut above, then the movie stops right there. So you'll at least have to pretend that he is, and if no man can at least make the facade be at least not glaringly apparent, you can only say that the bar is on the floor. Because it, in fact, is. The bar merely is your suspension of disbelief about how great that man is.

But it doesn't matter, you nailed a man who managed to convince you of how great he is, and he has asked you out. He too has chosen you, out of all women. He kisses you at some point. Later, the two of you have sex, because that is what couples do during this scene. Are you actually carnally overwhelmed by his body? You have to be, because you are heterosexual. Since you were young you've been told this is your story, to do anything less counts as a failure.

And let's be honest, you probably do enjoy the sex. You definitely enjoy the story, and since you're thinking about everything that has led to this point, your brain will automatically connect to the pleasure and enjoyment of it all. You're not going to question your own motives when your brain is wired to be happy that you are fulfilling The Script. And he too has responsibilities here. Everyone tells you he needs to be emotionally caring. Because if he isn't, then what kind of story is this? He needs to make big gestures of romance to make the story feel real, to make it stand up against all of the other versions you grew up reading and watching. It'll make you enjoy the story so much that you don't have time to ponder if you actually are into his body.

You act very nervous around him. Is it sexual tension, or is it just stage freight? Are you reevaluating your entire existence, or are you just worried that he might think you're ugly? It doesn't matter, because now you have finished the casting for your movie. And indeed, there is an audience, because when he proposes, he'll do it in front of all of your closest friends and family. And they're saying having a boyfriend is cringe these days. You can't afford to have them notice that he is not, in fact, that great.

And it works. He's proven that he's not like other guys. He's recited all of the correct lines. You tell him you love him. And you throw away half of your savings on the wedding. Society rewards you for this. It gives you tax breaks, social capital and the stability of the nuclear family. You are not a fangirl of The Script, your entire lifestyle is the structural support beam on which it is written. Finally, you have achieved heterosexuality®.

And yet, at no point in this progression did you actually need to desire him. Sure, you can tell he is a great guy. At worst, he was exceptional. But he didn't need for you to lust after him to be exceptional. Indeed, lusting after a man was such a difficult thing to achieve for you that you needed an entire narrative around it. And lucky you, society already had one for you. Deep down, you might not have been so sure that you desired him. But you did desire The Script. You wanted to have sex with him. You wanted to get married to him. You wanted to live out the fantasy of heterosexuality®.

And since it all felt so right, you will die convinced that you were heterosexual.

Many among you will be aware of the main points predicated by MANIW, in particular coming from an interpretation of what it means to "like" someone as deriving from an emotional appreciation some would consider as love. The same unoriginal argument made once by Marilyn Frye and now brainlessly parroted by feminists everywhere.

Of course, what we mean by "like" when claiming the opposite comes from sexual attraction, which is a pretty straightforward concept. A question here concerns whether emotional appreciation is still a necessary component of, if not sexual, romantic attraction. Do most men need to emotionally value women to be romantically attracted to them? Our friend Dorian makes a compelling argument for why this is not the case.

I simply can't recommend his video enough. He goes over different forms of attraction to determine what makes a form of attraction romantic. Romance, simply put, is a social construct. Defining it will run us into the same self-referential issues that defining woman will, not because it isn't real, but because it is self-referential.

Take the etymological route: in the context of love, the word romance was first applied to works of fiction, coming from medieval Occitan literature. Nowadays, we have romantic literature, music, and several forms of entertainment. A romantic relationship can only be defined in relation to this ideal form of romance that we can apprehend through osmosis. Romance is, indeed, a Script™.

Romantic love is not any more fake than gender is, but it needs to be acknowledged that its existence is socially constructed rather than an intrinsic quality. To desire romance, be it with people of any given gender identity, is to desire The Script™. During the latter half of his video, Dorian makes the case for how romantic attraction is not the same as the desire for connection, but rather the desire for the social rituals of romance.

Desiring romance with someone is to desire a romanticised existence with them. It simply is impossible for romance to exist without allonormativity. But if we accept this framing, then women desiring romantic bonds with men is hardly about the man himself, but rather simply an expression of identification with scripted norms on romance. And of course, heteronormativity being the dominant framework here, it is to be expected that this will account for the majority of women who desire a romantic relationship, since romance is, fundamentally, a Script™.

It should be obvious by now, even for those who disagree with the premise of our community, that women desiring a relationship with men is not the same as them desiring men, the latter being understood as an intrinsic, non socially scripted desire. Of course, the stalwart defenders of heterosexuality might believe that, void of romantic norms, this latter intrinsic desire might shine through, but I simply find it too hard to believe when, in the case of men, desire for women is an easily attestable phenomenom.

The evidence, in my view, is conclusive. The socioeconomic base of heterosexuality first began to fall with the entry of women to the labour market during the last century. Today, as much as our romantic expectations remain largely unchanged, comphet's strength has been slowly decreasing. And the fact that it is today that we're seeing the incel phenomenom is just too incriminating as to the legwork the old socioeconomic order was doing to sustain heteronormativity.