heretical.com
|
Questions of SexA Sex MixSimon Sheppard |
True to the heretical theme, there are a number of sex-related topics that can helpfully be explored. What follows is offered and should be read in a spirit of objectivity, because while some of the propositions are decried, nonetheless they are based on biological fact.
We live at a time in which conditioned emotional responses are prevalent. This is what a taboo is, and the reader is reminded that this is not a Western concept: it was originally a South Pacific word, tapu or tabu or kapu. Imposing a taboo on something does not change the truth of it. Human sexuality is remarkably variable and fixed, prudish views do not help in its understanding. There are a number of academic journals devoted to human sexuality, two of the most renowned being the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy and the Archives of Sexual Behavior, but this is an informal discussion of various aspects. Some emphasis is given to deviant sex which, for good or ill, is a constant presence in human history.
The plain fact is that females are less evolved than males. There is a complex foetal conditioning stage in human males which is completely absent in females. It is this conditioning stage, involving multiple dihydoxytestosterone (DHT) pulses, and occasions when it deviates, which, according to Anne Moir & David Jessel (BrainSex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women) and Glenn Wilson (The Great Sex Divide) and others, accounts for male homosexuality. This process has been confirmed in various situations, such as attempts to use hormones to prevent miscarriages.
An interesting proposal was that male homosexuality is actually the early evolutionary development of a caste system, as found in the social structures of ants. A homosexual couple work, pay taxes and can contribute to society in various other ways, but they are non-reproductive. This can be compared to the sterile worker or soldier castes of ants. (E.O. Wilson, the founder of sociobiology, pointed out that only ants and humans go to war; it turns out that chimpanzees occasionally do too.) The theory is that ants developed their advanced social structures following a much longer evolutionary history. They have been evolving for many millions of years more than humans have.
An implication of this is that there is practically no such thing as female homosexuality. The default state in mammals is to be female. With no conditioning process as there is for males, there is nothing to deviate from. There is social adaptation and there are hormonal conditions, but these latter are rare. One of the most telling of these is Turner’s syndrome. Affected girls are either insensitive to or deficient in testosterone, and they get lost coming home from school and even inside their own home, babysit at every opportunity and dream of marriage and children. The saddest part is that these super-feminine females are often infertile.
This modification process of the male brain putatively accounts for male rationality, which manifests in his achievements in science and the invention of practically every modern amenity. Females have less ability to suppress their instincts and are more animal-like. We are all prisoners of our instincts but this is especially true of the female, who is also given to caprice. The more latitude the female is allowed, the more her capricious nature will be expressed, the more she will project her capricious nature onto the male and the more insecure of his intentions she will become. It can reach the point where any male not exuding a sort of sycophantic “niceness” and deference is regarded as a threat.
In general, non-whites are less neurotic. Just as women can instinctively interpret kindness as weakness, they can perceive absence of neurosis as strength. This gives non-whites an advantage. Yet it is neurosis, or more specifically, the resulting sublimation of sexual drives to pursuits like science and high art, which defines Western civilisation. This is what women, applying their base instincts, are destroying.
The purpose of sex is reproduction. Basic evolution theory has that the sex drive exists to encourage the production of progeny. Every ancestor we have must have successfully mated, otherwise we wouldn’t have been born. A strong sex drive leads to greater gene proliferation, while the male with no sex drive (or the female with no desire for children) tends to fall out of the gene pool.
One could argue, applying a simple and logical rule, that non-reproductive sex is a perversion of the sex drive. That the individuals involved in desire, arousal and consummation must be capable of reproduction. This would count sex with animals, homosexual sex and sex with pre-adolescents as perversions. However there are at least two cases where the rule fails: children’s “sex play” (for which evidence exists that it is both natural and advantageous) and sex between couples when the woman is beyond menopause. So it may be that hard and fast rules governing sexual behaviour are simply not feasible, especially in light of the wide variability of human sexuality. Tendencies to sado-masochism are notable in being equally shared by men and women (7%), and where does this fit in the evolutionary paradigm? Both human testes size and the shape of the penis strongly suggest that in pre-history, women were shared, these features being so developed as to indicate that it was routine. It is difficult to argue against the morphology of our bodies.
In Procedural Analysis it is proposed that the natural domain of the male is the thing, the natural domain of the female is relationships. (This has been formally reported subsequently.) The normal bargain is that the female gives the male sex while the male gives the female a relationship. Each wants a bit of the other, but this is the main thrust. The primary sexual expression of the female is relationships, especially with children, while the primary sexual expression of the male is physical sex.
If there is any doubt about this, one need only look at the major sex substitutes, which for males are pornography, sport (involving competition) and drugs. For the female they are food and relationships with domestic pets, these latter substituting for children.
Many males express female characteristics, having been selected for same by females over many millennia, an obvious example being monogamous males (according to evolution theory and the Game of Opposites, females are monogamous and males are polygamous). This can also explain why, for example, while females generally have superior senses of taste and smell, the best chefs are male. When males express female traits they can do so with masculine force.
So the homosexual expresses female traits: he is, after all, attracted to men. Similarly the paedophile combines the female attraction to children, and desire for relationships with them, with the male focus on physical sex.
Here we adhere to real, not legalistic definitions: the paedophile is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children. (In Roman times apparently, women were legally classed as children.) I think it would be fair to distinguish between those paedophiles who genuinely care for a child and selflessly refrain from doing harm and those who get a sick kick from causing distress. Another recognised category is the “indiscriminately promiscuous personality” who regards anyone and everyone as a potential sex partner.
Girls seem to have an innate understanding of sex. In the words of a Dutch friend, speaking of his schooldays, “The girls were having sex before I even knew what it was.” Certainly the desire to shield their bodies from male view at puberty is innate.
Freud has increasingly been recognised as a charlatan in recent years but not everything he said was specious. In the words of Ebbinghaus, quoted by Eysenck, “What is new in these theories is not true, and what is true is not new.” Sexuality in young girls has no doubt been observed for millennia. Girls can be seen pushing doll’s prams practically the moment they are out of one, and glimpses of overt sexual behaviour can be observed at about two or three. It then seems to be submerged until puberty, at which point the new-found sexuality can be treated like a new toy. The cynic might remark that it continues to be so.
There is currently a climate of “paedo-hysteria” (the term coined by the late psychologist Chris Brand) so this topic is most demanding of rational analysis. It should not need saying, but it evidently does, that sexual attraction to a girl of 14 say, fully physically developed, who in these days has likely been menstruating for two years, is not unnatural. This is basic evolution theory; men are attracted to fertility, and a girl is at her fertile peak just a few months after menarche. Hence standard fare in pornography is women trying to pass themselves off as schoolgirls. Of course actions in response to such desires are subject to social and legal constraints, but a perversion it is not.
In the West, the age of menarche has been falling for decades, and testosterone levels and sperm counts in men have dramatically fallen also. It is said that the latter is reaching critical levels. Notwithstanding the falling age of menarche, the traditional Common Law ages for legal marriage in Britain and much of the US was 14 for boys and 12 for girls.
Some detail may be added on the feminine origins of paedo-hysteria. Of course there are protective instincts toward children: in the Game of Opposites, the female instinct is to nurture the weak while the male instinct is to encourage the strong. An important observation made by Jordan Peterson was of the devouring mother pathology, and in addition, applying the maternal instinct, no punishment is too harsh for the predator she perceives as wanting to eat her baby. Disproportionate emphasis on paedophilia produces multiple benefits for women (Compound Benefit). Firstly, it taints men, especially older men, who are least susceptible to manipulation. Thus males are derogated, diminishing their influence. Secondly, woman’s greatest adversary is age, when she loses the bloom of youth which has hitherto bestowed her with such advantage. Objectively, in terms of fecundity, she cannot compete with a younger model, so attraction to potential rivals is discouraged. These factors account for the expanding definition of ‘paedophilia,’ even to imply that any large age difference in daily discourse is improper.
Ray Blanchard, a psychologist specialising in transgender matters, made an interesting observation. He mentioned using penile tumescence in response to images to measure sexual arousal. By this means, he said, the distinction can be made between “true paedophiles” and men who approach young girls because they lack the self-confidence to approach women.
This raises a number of issues. In contemporary society numerous factors serve to erode male self-confidence. If a man shows interest in a woman she can exploit his desire to indulge herself in mean games, by which she confirms her allure and bolsters her self-esteem and confidence. The man is powerless to retaliate, because his opponent is not the woman but the State, which insulates her from practically all consequences.
Women want to be loved and desired. Less explicit and less fundamental, yet still a factor, is that men want to be desired and respected too. Women tend to obscure their sexual desires, there being sound evolutionary reasons for this. With the State adopting the role of “Big Husband” women have little need of a man’s material support. She feels no obligation to provide the amenities she offers, comforts which she would formerly have exchanged for her keep. She has no need of a man, or so she thinks. She is wrong – both men and women need sex to stay sane, probably especially women. I believe Jung said as much.
Another important element is Affection Beneath (AB). By this mechanism our caretaking and protective instincts are inspired by those less powerful than us. Men seek to protect women (hence “White Knights”), women feel protective toward children and children express AB toward animals and teddy bears. However men feeling protective towards women becomes an absurd anachronism when she has more power than he, particularly by her ability to disregard obligations with impunity. I have proposed that instincts are never annulled, they are only displaced. The upshot of all this is that male interest in younger females is to some unquantified extent a consequence of feminism.
In the Epstein affair, the accusations of paedophilia evidently comprise a limited hangout (an established CIA tactic, with fabricated reports) to distract from the reality that it was a Jewish enterprise. More generally, it is tempting to speculate that the singular emphasis on paedophilia, which is historically anomalous, is really a displacement of deeper and wider societal concerns.
Incidents have been encountered when adults’ reaction to perceived paedophilia has been far more damaging to a child than the actual incident (I think two are described in The Tyranny of Ambiguity). Such a fuss has been made, with dramatic and sometimes violent reprisals against the perpetrator, that the event becomes fixed in the child’s memory, with potential for long-lasting effects. Children are much freer with physical contact and without the extreme adult reaction the incident would not have made a strong impression. The innocent child would not have understood what had happened (or what the adults thought had happened). The incident would have been dismissed amid many other childhood events, similarly forgotten.
Irrational and disproportionate attention to paedophilia, over-emphasising the dangers of sexual predators to children, probably does more to rob children of their innocence than paedophilia itself. Adult-child sexual encounters are not commonplace and there is strong evidence that “child sexual abuse” is not as harmful as popularly supposed (an extensive meta-analysis included 59 separate studies; Rind et al., 1998). Children used to be warned “Don’t go with strange men” which progressed to “Don’t talk to strange men” until now even a smile can be regarded with suspicion.
I shall not address here the major problem in Britain of the sexual exploitation of girls and women by immigrants, predominantly Muslims. The solution to this problem is obvious: mass deportation.
With few exceptions, whatever harm is caused by paedophilia, the child can recover. “Victim culture” is unhealthy in that psychological or emotional distress amplifies with the attention paid to it. However the problems created by the production of mixed-race children are irreversible: individuals can be afflicted with an unstable sense of self, a sort of built-in schizophrenia, even neglecting its detrimental effects on the national body. Yet the media actively encourages miscegenation while making no attempt to dampen hysteria about paedophilia. This is ironic, since the luvvies in the media have treated each others’ sexual proclivities with a knowing wink for decades.
Everyone (in Britain certainly) seems to have forgotten that there was a time when homosexuality and paedophilia were neck and neck in the race for respectability. This was around the 1970s. Subsequently, homosexual advocacy groups withdrew their support of paedophile organisations so as not to jeopardise their own cause. The point is, there are worse things. A very serious form of abuse, sometimes involving interruption of normal hormonal development and/or physical mutilation, both of which are irrevocable, is the promotion of transgender ideology to minors.
As well as discussing paedophilia, Bancroft had interesting things to say about incest: most notably, that its origin is often the mother of the family. There was a story floating around academia not long ago that someone did a genealogical study tracing incest using DNA analysis, revealing its incidence over many generations. The study was never published because the results were so shocking.
Consanguineous mating is common in the natural world (e.g. male kittens will shortly copulate with their mothers) and, unless it is close or sustained, its dangers are likely overstated. Applying the Game of Opposites again, males are endogamous and females are exogamous; thus mass immigration is a feminine policy. In some Pakistani and Jewish populations, consanguinity in the form of cousin marriage and inter-breeding is sustained but its detrimental effects tend to be hidden from public view.
An interesting concept raised in one of the Hitler’s Table Talk excerpts was nympholepsy, a word taken from German. Both Schopenhauer and Richard Dawkins have alluded to intense love being akin to a state of madness and this term may permit a more precise description.
Infatuation involves a flood of hormones but implied here is elevated activity in higher regions of the brain. The object of nympholepsy is normally a young woman or girl-child: it is not necessarily sexual. For a child it will likely involve idealisation, great affection and caretaking instincts. I have no doubt that homosexuals can experience nympholepsy toward boys. The condition warrants further investigation but I envisage difficulty establishing an experimental model.
