Women have control over access to sex. At the same time, men invest heavily in the upbringing of their children, something unique amongst the Great Apes and rare in mammals, with only 5% of species exhibiting it. These are the basis of the social contract that has made humans so successful. Life has only one purpose: to ensure its own continuance.
Understanding how this works and the reasons why women control access to sex is relatively simple. Women need to ensure that the maximum number of their children survive to adulthood. This is not the same as the maximum number they could possibly have. A woman, beginning at the menarch, say age 14 and ending at the menopause, say age 45, could potentially have over 30 babies. But this is vanishingly rare, because in such a large family, many would die. Each child who dies is a huge loss to the woman but also to the community around her. Each represents a huge investment in time and resources that cannot easily be replaced. Simple human cultures cannot survive if they do not attend to this. Yet women are permanently receptive and fertile, whenever they are not pregnant. This means they can always get pregnant, if they do not control men’s access to sex. That control is essential to human species survival and we have developed numerous methods to permit it.
‘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.
Something that I have thought about a lot over the last seven years is this: why would a man not want to date a transwomen? I see, practically on a daily basis, the hot stares of men as they scope a ladyboy. Most of the t-girls here are slender, with little in the way of silicone, other than maybe a boob job. Men can’t stop themselves. You can see them sliding their eyes up those long brown legs — and legs are something ladyboys do magnificently, never mind those tight little backsides. They know their good features and they don’t hesitate to show them off — exactly as other women here do.
Most amusing, perhaps, is the Western male, the Anglo-Saxon particularly (Mediterranean types have a different take on life.) So often I have been sitting in a bar watching one of them, or sometimes sitting in the same company. I saw them fascinated, practically salivating, over a girl nearby, and then their reactions as one of their companions leans forward and murmurs something crass like ‘You’ll get more than you expect with that one, mate, she’s a bloke!’
On the tenth anniversary of completing the first draft of The Warm Pink Jelly Express Train, I am republishing this article about it. It describes an affair between a Brazilian transsexual prostitute and a Western straight man.
Poaching is essentially a romanticised memoir; Warm Pink is nothing like that. It is far deeper and more introspective and writing it, along with the later Why Men Made God, was what shaped my current world view.
My ideas about gender in particular were formed by the research and writing of Warm Pink. Although it is a breathlessly-paced romantic adventure, it required me to dig deep into the natures of gender and sexuality, something I had never done before.
In an oral culture — one that is not written down — mythology evolves as it is passed from storyteller to storyteller. The Jesus myth was created in exactly this way, pasted together from earlier sources. This process is called ‘syncretisation.’
There is no fixed record of an oral tradition, by definition. In an oral culture or tradition, myths grow and develop to reflect the lived experiences and cultures of the people telling them. It was only when writing was invented that these traditions could be codified and by that time, they had been evolving for thousands of years. This means that there are many versions of the same myth, as different peoples carried it forward.
So we cannot say that, because detail differences exist between two similar myths, they are different or have different origins.
I have taken the liberty of republishing in full the pages of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (APA DSM-V) which are relevant to Gender Dysphoria.
If the APA objects, I’ll take it down, but I publish this in good faith, without alteration or comment, as a public information service. I will write another post commenting. I’ll also put a link to this and to the DSM itself (which is downloadable in full as a .pdf) on my Links page.
I strongly advise anyone interested in the field of transsexualism, transvestism, gender dysphoria and related topics to thoroughly study the document below.
In this chapter, there is one overarching diagnosis of gender dysphoria, with separate developmentally appropriate criteria sets for children and for adolescents and adults. The area of sex and gender is highly controversial and has led to a proliferation of terms whose meanings vary over time and within and between disciplines. An additional source of confusion is that in English “sex” connotes both male/female and sexuality.
Gender is innate and evolved; it is not the result of ‘socialisation’, as the blank slate ideology contests. No serious scientist believes the blank slate hypothesis now, other than a few contrarians who allow their political beliefs to overshadow their rigour. The notion that gender — along with a raft of human behaviours — is ‘socialised’ has been completely, comprehensively and utterly debunked, for over 60 years.
Anyone who has experience of dealing with animals knows that male and female animals are very different, not just in the way that they look, but the way that they behave. In other words, they display innate gendered behavioural traits. Males tend to be more aggressive, females more nurturing.
There was a time when I, as so many now seem to profess to do, accepted that sexuality and sex were distinct from each other. Time and examination have since led me to a different understanding.
In general terms, when we are dealing with a natal sex binary (male/female) and without the influence of transsexualism, that premise is true. The fact that one is male or female is no determinant of a person’s sexuality. There are no shortages of homosexual and bisexual males and females and there seems to be no physical determining factor in either biological sex as to what makes someone gay or bi.
The introduction of transsexualism, though, brings a new dynamic into play when considering the sexuality of both of the transsexual themselves and their partner in relation to their natal sexes.
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.