We generally agree, as humans, that human life is sacrosanct. It is one of the greatest cultural condemnations we can deliver, that ‘human life has no value’. Yet abortion does precisely that: it places the value of human life at zero.
I spent much of my life as a classical liberal who would have agreed that, within the precinct of one’s own body, the right of self-determination is absolute. And in general, I still hold this to be true. Across a swathe of issues from transsexualism to tattooing to more extreme forms of ‘body art’, as long as it harms no other, then the individual does indeed have sovereignty over his or her own body. Yes there is a responsibility towards whatever collective that nurtured the child and made the adult, be that family, city or State; but we repay these in our love for those who raised us, in our love for those we in turn raise and, should that not be enough to persuade the most flinty-hearted, in the taxes and services we render. Within our own bodies and minds, we are sovereign.
(A holiday musing for my male readers, especially the older ones who might be suffering from a common problem.) It’s well known that women live longer, on average, than men do. Partly, of course, this is due to the fact that men tend to have more dangerous jobs, in our modern world. That was not always the case: until little more than a hundred years ago, men’s life expectancy was relatively much longer, because of the high levels of death in childbirth. But most men don’t die in mining accidents or in wars. So what actually kills men? Could it be that not having sex is what kills them?
On the surface, this seems like a ridiculous proposition, but bear with me. I think I might be on to something. Let’s look at the evolutionary case. The function of women is to produce ova, to conceive them, gestate them and then raise the child to adulthood. While the first two are easy, the third is less so and the fourth fraught, not least because a woman has to pass through the dread test of parturition to do it. 1In the early years of the 20th century, however, medical advances (proposed and enabled by men) reduced the Maternal Mortality Rate drastically in the UK; this became the global norm.
The basic unit of human society is not the nuclear family but the extended family or clan. The nuclear family is a modern, Anglo-Saxon invention, which has caused nothing but trouble. The clan is a matriarchal unit that ensures that the largest number of children survive to adulthood. Individuals who are not directly involved in having or rearing babies become burdens on the clan’s resources. This would appear to suggest an evolutionary limitation on maximum age. But on the other hand, this should apply equally to the sexes.
To complicate the issue, women (and whales) menopause. This is the cessation of ovulation around the age of fifty. But at that time, the woman still has millions of viable ova, since they are all actually made during her own embryonic stage; nature values female reproduction so highly that almost the first thing is does is to install it. Many reasons have been suggested that might explain the menopause, including the age of the ova, the ability of the mother to care for her children and so on. But none are conclusive. 2The menopause is proof positive, if one were needed, that humans were evolved to live long lives; adaptations like this do not occur without a reason.
The function of males in mammalian species is to impregnate females. There is no other prescribed one. That suggests, however, that as long as a man is impregnating women, he is valuable.
Male Menopause? Nope
There is no ‘male menopause’. Men are just as sexually capable at seventy as they are at thirty, given the same levels of general health.
Humans are by far the most socially complex of mammals. The structure of human society, based on the clan, might be similar to other primates, say the chimpanzees or bonobos, but don’t be misled into thinking they are the same. Human clans are always matriarchal. They are always led by the alpha females and not the males.
At the same time, human females are constantly sexually receptive, and can be so even after menopause. This is unusual. Other animals are only sexually receptive during the times that the female is in oestrus and capable of being fertilised. Why so? In order to bind male partners to individual females.
Of course, this can only work in conjunction with a set of social rules that oblige the males to access sex only with mate approval. Again, this is normal in the animal world; females select mates on their performance. But human females are sexually receptive all the time, rather than once or twice a year. The human clan works differently from other similar structures in that instead of only the Alpha male having access to sex, most males do, because the Alpha is only allowed to have approved sex with one woman and the others all need to be fertilised.
Access to sex: the real power
Because power over access to sex is so important to the clan and especially to the females inside it, numerous social structures, such as marriage and injunctions against rape were invented. Think about it: why is rape intrinsically worse than being beaten up or stabbed? It’s not. It is the denial of the woman’s privilege of control over access to her body that offends. Marriage is the social sanction, designed by women, that forces men to stop ‘sowing wild oats’ and only penetrate one woman. Marriage is codified female power over men.
This power is why women complain so much about prostitution: they see it as diluting their own agency over their bodies as well as challenging the social institution of marriage. After all, what’s the point of a woman denying sex to her partner, if he can get it elsewhere?
In addition, anti-prostitution campaigners consistently assert that sex work is fundamentally different from other kinds of physical labour. Somehow, having sex — an intrinsically pleasurable act — is worse than hacking away at a coal seam in sweating, dust-filled darkness and dying of pneumoconiosis? Nonsense; this is about power over access to sex.
Within a system where men are monogamously bonded to individual women, however, older men have a problem. While they remain biologically capable of siring children, their assigned partners will stop being fertile at menopause. This could be as early as 45. They are likely, then, to find their wives begin denying sex, as their vaginas lose natural lubricant and become irritable — likely itself a mechanism to encourage shutting off sex. These men cannot, then, seek a younger woman, because the society reserves those for younger men, who will stay with the woman and help her to raise children. The society does not care about individuals, it cares about ensuring its own future.
Competition in having sex
Certainly, some older men will be able to find younger women, but this is only in competition with other men, both of their age and much younger. A man in this position might end up just not having sex. But his entire function is to have sex. He has no other; his conceits and vanities, his achievements and successes, his fame and wealth only exist for one purpose: to enable him to have sex. If it is denied to him, then what?
The society has to sustain older men, just as it has to sustain older women. Even fit, healthy men reach a point in life when they simply can’t contribute as much as a younger male could and, unless there is some specific skill or talent that is valuable to the group, he’s a burden. Nature abhors a burden even more than a vacuum and so we have to ask, could it be that not having sex is a way of clearing out the older men? That, in other words, the female menopause is a way of jettisoning men who no longer have a purpose, since the women they have been bonded to can no longer become pregnant?
It follows that a life without sex is not really a life, for a man, so, is not having sex a way of killing men? So that they are not a burden to the society? Nature’s way of tidying up?
The good news
The good news is that, even if that were the case, then there would still be ways to counter it. While prostitution remains available, and even where it is ‘illegal’ it is still easy to find, men can still have regular sex, even if their wives are denying them. Clearly, we do not accept that men may force women to have sex, but a woman denying it to her husband has no moral recourse if he seeks it elsewhere. And if someone’s willing to sell it, well then.
Pattaya is a pretty good place to begin your new life and knock the years off. You’re only as old as the woman you’re, er, with. And there is more than a cornucopia of delight there. And they’ll never even know, back home.
If you want more kids, even in middle-age, it’s not a problem to arrange. Just take care in choosing a nice girl.
Alternatively, find a nice transwoman who wants to settle down and just be cosy with a man who really loves her. It will be worth the effort; she will wind back your clock fifteen years or more. (And you’ll need it to keep up with her.)
Happy New Year
Whatever you do, if you’ve hit that point in a married man’s life, where sex seems but a forlorn memory, remember: where there’s a will, there’s a way and there is always another path. You’re not condemned to a sexless existence. There are other ways. Happy New Year and make sure you get some. It will make you live longer.
There are three parameters that I think define the level of freedom we actually enjoy. I call them the ‘3 Ps’.
(This was written in the happier days of 2015, when we measured freedom more casually. Today, a mere three years later, in 2018, the real threat to our freedom is the relentless attack on free speech and expression, being pursued by the Left and its feminist, Portmodernist and Identitarian fellow-travellers. Even stating simple facts today is considered a ‘hate crime’ in many jurisdictions, including the UK. Sometimes, frankly, I wish we had the Cold War back. At least then we knew what we stood for. I still do; do you? Another war is coming, of that we can now be absolutely sure. Indeed, it may already have begun.)
Humans are a peculiar species, because it takes so long for our children to reach sexual maturity. This is because of the size of our brains. The overall development of human children is slowed in order for our brains, which are not only big but highly sophisticated, to grow and for us to learn enough to survive. And why do we need to learn? Because human society is massively complex and navigating it takes great skill and knowledge.
Even animals with similar omnivorous diets to ours like chimps, our near relatives, mature much more quickly. And the issue is not one of body mass; a bovine will grow to adulthood, five times the mass of a human, in 30 months. We are special in this regard.
The long time that human children are dependent produces a conundrum for males. On the one hand, the replication of our genes is well served by impregnating as many fertile females as we can. This is in line with behaviours readily observed in other species. On the other hand,
Last night, a group of murderers ploughed a white panel van into crowds of people on London Bridge in England. They then jumped out of the van and began stabbing people. This was a terror attack. Seven innocent victims died before the attackers were shot to death by armed police. At least 48 were injured.
‘Assailants drove a van into pedestrians at high speed on London Bridge on Saturday night before stabbing revellers on nearby streets, killing at least seven people and wounding dozens in what police suspect was a terrorist attack. (Reuters).’
Margaret Thatcher, heroine of the Falklands, the scourge of the miners, the ‘most divisive’ Prime Minister in recent British history, maybe any British history, died in 2013. She was 87.
Legions of trendy-lefty commentators danced in the streets, and people far, far too young to have any recollection whatsoever of what Dame Margaret Hilda Thatcher actually did, filled their Facebook drivel, er, pages, with claptrap about how much they hated her and were glad to see her gone.
Well, I remember her reign, and indeed it was not pleasant. But what is forgotten, perhaps wilfully, by those who celebrated her death, is what life was like before Thatcher. They forget too, that without her, a great part of what the ‘British’ now accept as normal, simply would not exist.
We have absolutely no hope whatsoever of preventing the climatic catastrophe that is coming. Even were we to stabilise greenhouse gas production at today’s levels, the disaster would still happen. Were we to take them back to the levels of a hundred years ago – impossible anyway— it would still make no difference.
All that we might gain is a decade or two more time. However, we can decide whether our Enlightened Culture will survive, to help us rebuild, or be destroyed. But we must act quickly, for time is running out and we have given the enemy too much already.
Last week US President Donald Trump reversed one of the most egregious acts of anti-science perpetrated by the catastrophic Obama administration. The shock-waves are still reverberating. He rolled back the infamous ‘guidance’ to US Title IX, issued last year, which attempted to force Federally-funded programmes to remove protections for women based on their sex.
Events of recent months contributed to a discussion between myself, Rod Fleming, and Karis Burkowski. Karis carried out the role of editor and eventually co-author of our book ‘Why Men Made God’. In reviewing the book for a second edition, we encountered several points of discussion that highlight the difference between enlightened culture and regressive-left Snowflake Culture. I thought our discussion was worth sharing.
Karis Burkowski (KB): The climate catastrophe is inevitable, but can still be somewhat ameliorated. How our cultures rebuild themselves in a post-catastrophe world is a valuable discussion…Self-serving cults, particularly those with medieval attitudes, must not be allowed to gain ascendancy. We must change as a species, like we did post-Toba, and do better next time.
You mentioned that the friends of atheists are Christians. That may be so in Europe, but it is far from true over here. Atheists are still ‘closeted’ in many parts of the US and for good reason…The antithesis of Islam is not Christianity, it is secularism. Both groups would destroy atheists if they could.
There are two distinct types of ‘trans woman’ — transsexuals and autogynephilic transvestites. These are people born male who present as women. Other than that, the two types have no similarity to each other. However, this has been deliberately confused by individuals in one of these types, to advantage themselves at the expense of the other, and also to harm women. This has caused widespread misunderstanding. We need a field guide.