Pasadena City College gender studies professor and controversial feminist writer Hugo Schwyzer has allegedly been placed under psychiatric supervision and prohibited from internet access after a well-publicized Twitter meltdown. The 46-year-old Schwyzer, who apparently has been married at least four times and who was known for his public arguments against middle-aged men dating younger women, was revealed to have been having an ongoing series of sexually explicit text conversations with a porn actress who was approx. two decades younger.
Schwyzer appears to be an inveterate player/swordsman who was running a kind of fifth column insurgency from within his faculty position in the gender studies department of a large California community college. His strategic choice of subject matter virtually guaranteed that his classes would be overwhelmingly populated by 18-22 year old females and homosexual males (Schwyzer has recently confessed that he is actually a specialist in medieval history and that his qualifications for teaching a women's studies class consisted of two undergrad courses on the subject). Identifying himself as a reformed "bad boy" and offering advice to men that was largely aligned with feminist sociopolitical goals, Schwyzer received the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval of numerous feminist publications and enjoyed recognition as a friend of the movement.
His public activities of course concealed a ruthlessly Darwinian private agenda: behind the politically correct persona, Schwyzer---by his own admission---was using his "safe choice" imprimatur, status, and professorial credentials to have sex with dozens of undergraduate females. Through his particular flavor of feminist ideology---"Third Wave" or "sex-positive" feminism---he also managed to establish network contacts within the porn industry.
Here is a link to a fascinating interview with the "Porn Professor":
But on some level you were telling an audience what they wanted to hear knowing that women were reading it and not men?
"Exactly. I always wrote for women but wrote in a really backhanded way where it appeared I was writing for men so that it would not appear too presumptuous and instead it would make me look better. And that required presenting myself as the ideal husband, father, and reformed bad boy.
"My point is that I was writing for women because I wanted validation from women. The way to get validation from women was to present an idealized picture of what is possible for men."
Even though you weren’t reaching that standard yourself, did you know any men who were? Or was this entirely a fantasy creation?
"I think there were guys who tried harder than I did. But no."
You don’t know any who succeeded?
"No. I think there may have been a few who’ve come close, but none who succeeded. We can call this fraudulence or hypocrisy. I wasn’t really interested in other men. I taught a course in men and masculinity, and I cited male authors, but the whole way of designing the course was to get women excited about the possibility for male change, that they would then transfer some of that hope onto me. That is what I was doing."
It sort of sounds like talking a good game to get attention from girls. It doesn’t even sound academic.
"For me the motivation was not to get these girls into bed. Sex is only the exclamation point on what you really want. What I am addicted to is affirmation and validation from women."