‘LGB’ culture in the West, from its beginning in the 1950s, was strongly transgressive, after the ideals of men like Harry Hay, one of the founders. He was a card-carrying Communist Party member who finally realised that Communists hated homosexuals even more than mainstream society did; so his solution to destroying the culture he lived in was to use homosexuality as a battering-ram.
Peter Tatchell, a ‘gay rights’ activist, first noted for the deliberate exposure of other people’s private lives said, in a 1996 polemic:
‘Those who advocate gay rights alone, without any deeper commitment to the transformation of sexua1ity, are concerned only with removing homophobic discrimination. They want to reform society, not fundamentally change it. Their insistence on nothing more than equal rights for queers, and their typical view of lesbians and gay men as a distinct class of people who are destined to remain forever a sexual minority separate from the straight majority, have the effect of reinforcing the divisions between hetero and homo. It encourages the false essentialist idea that gay and straight are two preordained, irreconcilable sexual orientations characteristic of two totally different types of people. Such attitudes preserve society as it is’
The underlying intention of Western LGB could not be more clearly stated. Those struggling for ‘gay rights alone’ are to be condemned because they only ‘want to reform society, not fundamentally change it.’ To ‘preserve society as it is’ becomes an epithet. But from whence does the idea that ‘fundamental change’ is either a desirable or an achievable thing come, or that society should not be preserved as it is? How do we improve, fundamentally, a free, democratic society in which the rights of the individual are respected? Certes, modification and improvement may be desirable, but ‘fundamental change?’ How so and in what direction? What is the nature of Tatchell’s ‘fundamental change’?
(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.
Today is not the first time that feminism has threatened to destroy civilisation. It’s very interesting to note, if you study the mythologies of the ancient Levant on which Christianity is based, how the Goddess, symbolic of women, became identified with Satan. The serpent and the dragon (just a bigger version) were always creatures of the Goddess. The day aspect of the Goddess in Sumerian mythology was called Inanna (later Ishtar) whose uncle, Enki, was her closest ally. Enki frequently appeared as a snake. Later, still in the eastern Levant, the Akkadian god Marduk kills the Goddess in the form of Tiamat, a huge dragon. (This gives us all the Medusa, St George and so on stories.) Satan, of course, in the Garden of Eden, is the Serpent — the Goddess’ closest ally. This identification of serpent/dragon/goddess/woman pervades our culture.
Why does it do so? Feminism, of course, argues that this was a plot to suppress women by demonising them. But that’s not the only possible explanation. Could it be because women have tried to dominate society in the past and the stories are a warning against ever allowing that to happen again? Because our forefathers knew what happened when women emasculated society.
The Portman and Tavistock, the UK’s main gender clinic, recently reported a more than 4500% increase in referrals over 8 years. FOUR THOUSAND, FIVE HUNDRED PER CENT in EIGHT years. The total referrals in the last year accounted for were some 2500, up from 97 eight years ago. Of these latest figures, 1800 were young females. Nearly 2000 were under 18, last year alone. That beats any stats on this, anywhere and to make it even more shocking, whereas the historic prevalence amongst females has always been less than 1/3 that for males, in the recent referrals this is reversed, with more than 2/3 being female. But what has this to do with Feminism?
In classic theory, gender transition is provoked by Gender Dysphoria (GD), a sense of more or less intense discomfort at being obliged to socially present as the gender one’s birth sex might suggest. It occurs in males and females and in two completely distinct forms in each: homosexual and non-homosexual. This might not always seem to be the most sympathetic way to triage the forms, especially in cultures which remain deeply uncomfortable with sex, such as the Anglo-Saxon ones, but it works.
Transtrender is a word that will become familiar to everyone in the West.
How things have changed; from a position, 15 years ago, when very few people knew what even transsexual meant and far less had actually thought about it, we have seen an explosion, first of ‘transgender’ and now, ‘transtrender’.
Suddenly we are faced, we are told, with thousands upon thousands of ‘trans’ people appearing all over society. While it is true that there is an uptick in genuine referrals to gender clinics, transtrenders rarely seek to actually transition; they seek instead the social status of a ‘trans’ label.
Because that is really all transtrender is: a label, a cultural fad, an Identity Politics membership card. It is no more real than Emo, New Romantics or Punk. But it might be a bellwether for much deeper social ills.
Prostitution is, they say, ‘the oldest profession in the world’ and, as far as the historical record goes, it’s at least close to being so. The first mention of prostitution that we know of was 5,500 years ago, in the city of Uruk, in Sumer in Mesopotamia, where priestesses in the Temple of Inanna performed this service.
The religious connection with prostitution, of course, is one that has long since been lost — though we might discuss it in another piece; yet of course, the practice continues. Until recently, in fact, the major push to suppress prostitution was itself religious, coming from, in particular the Protestant Christian traditions and notably the Anglican one, which has always been a pillar of sex-negativity and repression.
Of recent decades, however, the attempt to prevent women from engaging in prostitution has come from other women. Indeed, it has become a bastion of modern feminism. But this throws up a thorny moral question: do we or do we not have the right to do as we will with our own bodies?
Women always think in terms of power. When they decorate a home they are showing their power within their space. When they outlaw masculinity and masculine behaviour, they are exercising power.
Men think in terms of targets and things. That is why a man gets irritated when his wife interferes with his prized model collection. It’s also why men ‘objectify’ women. Men objectify everything, there is no need to feel it’s special treatment.
Men, innately, seek to achieve targets and to acquire things as measures of status with which they can persuade women to give up what they want, which is sex. Women see their power over that sex as the means by which they can control the individual man they might be partnered with, but also the broader society.
My dear sister, it is some years since last I heard from you now. I am worried, my dear. There you are, far away, outside the loving matriarchy, where you would be safe and never oppressed. I don’t even know if you receive my messages, but again, as I do every year at this time, I write to you, womyn to womyn.
Today, things are very different from what you had become used to in the years BM (Before Matriarchy). You were used to the not-womyn roaming freely and oppressing womyn at every turn. You were used to them having the vote and a political voice. But the problem was that allowing them a political voice also allowed them to exercise their masculinity and through that their violence. Society could not progress as long as we allowed not-womyn to influence it.
To combat this, it became necessary to strip the not-womyn of executive power and to replace them with womyn. This was always the purpose of the Feminist movement, following the words of the Great Prophet Karl Marx (PBUH) and his Holy Priestess Gloria Steinem.
It’s clear that there is a deal of brouhaha about the extent to which transsexualism is impacting on the lesbian and gay, and to a lesser extent bisexual, lifestyle and political hegemony in the West. This is contributing to an increasingly bitter spat about young transitioners — people transitioning gender before they reach their majority.
There is no doubt that political activists are operating on this body of young people, some with laudable motives, others not so; but why is the lesbian and gay community so exercised?
For many years now, the New Gay Man’s promoters, speaking through activists from Jim Fouratt to Peter Tatchell, have claimed that HomoSexual TransSexuals (HSTS) are a form of ‘failed gay man’. But is this true or even a reasonable position to take?
In a recent Twitter conversation a correspondent proposed an alteration to the conventional understanding that placed homosexual men as a subset of HSTS. In other words, she suggested that, far from transitioned HSTS being ‘failures’, all homosexuals are in fact also transsexual but for various reasons some repress or deny this.
It might seem surprising, but I had never considered this inversion, or the implications of it, but the more I thought about it, the more sense it made.