Tag Archives: sex

Dworkin, De Sade, the Right & the Left

Not long after the Abu Ghraib scandal, on a flight to Paris, I watched “Quills,” an awful and boring film “inspired by the life and work of the Marquis de Sade.” I had read Justine which I thought of as a horror novel, a perverted Steven King story, and knew some details of de Sade’s life and legend. While Quills itself was too trite to work up any moral outrage over, I began to question why de Sade was hailed as a hero by those on the “left” and the reception the film got from the “liberal” Hollywood establishment.

Wasn’t the Marquis de Sade exhibit number one of the rich preying on the poor, the aristocracy abusing the peasantry, the 1% exploiting the 99%? Wasn’t it “nobles” like de Sade who caused the French Revolution? Wasn’t it the cruely of men like de Sade which led to the bloodthirstiness of the guillotines?

I could understand a bit of taboo-breaking and a little kinky naughtiness, but Justine wasn’t that – it was horror, torture porn, and not at all sexy but instead had the same appeal as a slasher flick or body horror: you don’t “enjoy” it as much as forcing yourself to overcome your gag reflex and facing the worst, biological based fears, seems to make you stronger.

But what offended me about Quills was the complete misrepresentation about de Sade’s actual life. Instead of a wealthy and powerful exploiter of the weak and the poor, he was played as some sort of liberty-lover, a fighter against sexual oppression. The only reason de Sade himself wasn’t beheaded is because he switched sides, along with some other minor aristocrats, and joined the “rebels” long enough to save his head, and those of a few others, before the Terror ended.

Here’s the utterly absurd and completely deceptive byline for Quills:

Quills imagines the final days of history’s most infamous sexual adventurer, the Marquis de Sade. A nobleman with a literary flair, the Marquis lives in a madhouse where a beautiful laundry maid (Winslet) smuggles his erotic stories to a printer, defying orders from the asylum’s resident priest (Phoenix). The titillating passages whip all of France into a sexual frenzy, until a fiercely conservative doctor (Caine) tries to put an end to the fun, inadvertently stoking the excitement to a fever pitch. Featuring a cast that includes Academy Award® winner Geoffrey Rush, Oscar nominee Kate Winslet, rising star Joaquin Phoenix, and Academy Award® winner Michael Caine, Quills playfully turns Sade’s story into a sexy, sinister and shattering tale he himself might have written.

The scene in Quills that most sticks in my memory in that of a servant girl begging de Sade to write more “violence” so she could read it and be aroused. This is literally a reversal of reality, it’s having the rape victim beg to be raped. Whatever literary merits de Sade may have, in reality he was a rapist, a torturer, a poisoner, an abortionist and a murderer. He was John Wayne Gacy plus Jeffrey Dahmer, not Christian Grey.

And here Hollywood was making him out to be some sort of sex-positive feminist just giving the ladies what they want!

Apparently, the left has always had this attitude toward de Sade. Some choice excerpts Andrea Dworkin’s chapter on de Sade from Pornography: Men Possessing Women:

https://archive.org/details/PornographyMenPossessingWomenAndreaDworkinPdf/page/n8


The Marquis de Sade is the world’s foremost pornographer. As such he both embodies and defines male sexual values. In him, one finds rapist and writer twisted into one scurvy knot. His life and writing were of a piece, a whole cloth soaked in the blood of women imagined and real. In his life he tortured and raped women. He was batterer, rapist, kidnapper, and child abuser. In his work he relentlessly celebrated brutality as the essence of eroticism; fucking, torture, and killing were fused; violence and sex, synonymous. His work and legend have survived nearly two centuries because literary, artistic, and intellectual men adore him and political thinkers on the Left claim him as an avatar of freedom. Sainte-Beuve named Sade and Byron as the two most significant sources of inspiration for the original and great male writers who followed them. Baudelaire, Flaubert, Swinburne, Lautreamont, Dostoevski, Cocteau, and Apollinaire among others found in Sade what Paul Tillich, another devotee of pornography, might have called “the courage to be.” Simone de Beauvoir published a long apologia for Sade. Camus, who unlike Sade had an aversion to murder, romanticized Sade as one who had mounted “the great offensive against a hostile heaven ” and was possibly “the first theoretician of absolute rebellion .” Roland Barthes wallowed in the tiniest details of Sade’s crimes, those committed in life as well as on paper.

Sade was born into a noble French family closely related to the reigning monarch. Sade was raised with the prince, four years his senior, during his earliest years. When Sade was four, his mother left the Court and he was sent to live with his grandmother. At the age of five, he was sent to live with his uncle, the Abbe de Sade, a clergyman known for his sensual indulgences. Sade’s father, a diplomat and soldier, was absent during Sade’s formative years. Inevitably, biographers trace Sade’s character to his mother’s personality, behavior, and alleged sexual repression, despite the fact that very little is known about her. What is known, but not sufficiently noted, is that Sade was raised among the male mighty.

At the age of fifteen, Sade entered the military as an officer. At this age, he apparently began gambling and frequenting brothels. Purchasing women was one of the great passions of his life, and most of the women and girls he abused during his lifetime were whores or servants. Sade advanced in the military and was promoted several times, each promotion bringing with it more money.

Those leftists who champion Sade might do well to remember that prerevolutionary France was filled with starving people. The feudal system was both cruel and crude. The rights of the aristocracy to the labor and bodies of the poor were unchallenged and not challengeable. The tyranny of class was absolute. The poor sold what they could, including themselves, to survive. Sade learned and upheld the ethic of his class.

Five months after his marriage, Sade terrified and assaulted a twenty-year-old working-class woman, Jeanne Testard. Testard, a fan maker, had agreed to service a young nobleman. She was taken to Sade’s private house and locked in a room. Sade made clear to her that she was a captive. She was subjected to verbal abuse and humiliation. In particular, Sade raged against her conventional Christian religious beliefs. He told her that he had masturbated into a chalice in a chapel and that he had taken two hosts, placed them inside a woman, and fucked her. Testard told Sade that she was pregnant and could not tolerate maltreatment. Sade took Testard into a room filled with whips, religious symbols, and pornographic pictures. He wanted Testard to whip him, and then he wanted to beat her. She refused. He took two crucifixes, crushed one, and masturbated on the other. He demanded that she destroy the one on which he had masturbated. She refused. He threatened her life with two pistols that were in the room and a sword that he was wearing. She crushed the crucifix. He wanted to give her an enema and have her shit on the crucifix. She refused. He wanted to sodomize her. She refused. Sade threatened, harangued, and lectured her through a very long night during which she did not eat or sleep. Before releasing her, he made her sign a blank piece of paper and promise to tell no one about what had transpired. He wanted her to agree to meet him the following Sunday so that he could fuck her with a host inside of her.

On being freed, Testard went to the police. Sade was arrested, apparently because police interviews with prostitutes revealed that Sade had abused scores of them. Sade was punished because he had become careless in his excesses. He was imprisoned for two months at Vincennes in squalor most distressing to a gentleman. He wrote letters to the authorities in which he begged them to keep the nature of his crime secret from his family.

Sade’s abuse of prostitutes became so alarming that, within a year after his brutal treatment of Testard, the police warned procuresses not to provide Sade with women. Sade’s valet scavenged the streets for victims, some of whom, according to Sade’s neighbors, were male.

In 1768, Easter Sunday early in the morning, Rose Keller, in her mid-thirties, a German immigrant, a widow, a cotton spinner who had been unemployed for approximately a month, approached Sade to beg for alms. He offered her work housecleaning. She accepted. He told her that she would be well fed and treated kindly.

Sade took Keller to his private house. He took her to a dark room in which the windows were boarded and said he was going to get her food. He locked her in the room. Keller had waited for about an hour when Sade came to take her into another room. He told her to undress. She refused. He tore her clothes off, threw her face down onto a couch, tied her arms and legs with ropes. He whipped her brutally. He took a knife and told her that he would kill her. According to Keller, Sade kept cutting her with a knife and rubbing wax into the wounds. Keller believed she would die and begged Sade not to kill her until she could make her Easter confession. When Sade was finished with her, he took her back to the first room and ordered her to wash and rub brandy into her wounds. This she did. He also rubbed into the wounds an ointment that he had invented. He was proud of his invention, which he claimed healed wounds quickly. Later, Sade alleged that he had paid Keller to be whipped so that he could test his ointment. Sade brought Keller food. He took her back to the room where he had beaten her and locked her in. Keller bolted the door from the inside. She unblocked some of the locked shutters with a knife, injuring herself in the process, made a rope of bedding, and climbed out of the window and down the wall. Sade’s valet pursued her and offered her money to return. She pushed him off and ran.

Keller was badly hurt and her clothes were ripped. She ran until she encountered a village woman, to whom she poured out her story. Other women joined. They examined her and then took her to an inappropriate official, since the local magistrate was away. A police official called in from elsewhere took her statement. Keller was examined by a surgeon and was given refuge.

Sade’s mother-in-law, Madame de Montreuil, settled a large sum of money on Rose Keller to persuade her to withdraw criminal charges. Despite the settlement, Sade was imprisoned for nearly eight months …

In June 1772, Sade traveled to Marseilles with his valet, known as Latour. During the course of Sade’s brief stay there, Latour procured five prostitutes for Sade. Sade (in varying combinations) beat, fucked, and forcibly sodomized the women, with his usual threats of worse violence and death. He also had his valet sodomize at least one of the women and himself. In Marseilles, Sade added another dimension to his sexual repertoire: he encouraged the women to eat candies that had been laced with drugs. The women did not know what they were eating. Sade’s defenders claim that the candies were treated with a harmless aphrodisiac and something to encourage flatulence, which Sade found particularly charming. Two of the women became violently ill from the candies, had intense abdominal pain, vomited blood and black mucus. The women believed that they had been poisoned, and there is little doubt that had they consumed the quantities of the candy that Sade had wanted them to eat, they would have become deadly ill. One of the women went to the police. An investigation of Sade’s brutality with the five prostitutes — the forced flagellation, the forced sodomy, the attempted poisoning — led to an order to arrest both Sade and Latour. Sade, with Anne-Prospere as his lover and Latour as his valet, fled to Italy to escape arrest.

Sade and Latour were found guilty of poisoning and sodomy (a capital crime irrespective of force) in absentia. They were sentenced to death. In lieu of the death sentence that could not be carried out, the two men were burned in effigy.

Sade, with an end to his legal troubles in sight, intensified his pursuit of pleasure. He had a procuress known as Nanon find him five fifteen-year-old girls who were taken to Lacoste and forced to submit to Sade’s brutality. Sade’s wife was a participant in these new sexual extravaganzas. She became the prime apologist for Sade’s violence against the girls, even though, as one of them testified, Renee-Pelagie was herself “the first victim of a fury which can be described only as madness.” 3 Parents of three of the girls pressed charges against Sade, who refused to release his captives. One of the girls was horribly injured. She was sent to Sade’s uncle, the Abbe, to keep her from testifying against Sade. Renee-Pelagie did everything possible to keep a doctor from treating the girl, since evidence of bodily injury could be used against Sade and herself as well. Madame de Montreuil, perhaps to protect her daughter, joined with Renee-Pelagie and Sade to try to coerce the parents into dropping their complaints. Meanwhile, Sade forcibly kept the girls at Lacoste. They would be returned to their parents only if no charges of kidnapping were made.

Sade brought more women and girls to Lacoste. Human bones were found in Sade’s garden; he claimed one of his mistresses had planted them as a joke. Nanon, the procures s, became pregnant by Sade. Madame de Montreuil had a lettre de cachet issued for her arrest. Nanon was imprisoned; her infant daughter died at Lacoste shortly after she was born because the wet nurse’s milk went dry.

Sade was again threatened with arrest. He escaped again to Italy. The fifteen-year-old girl who had been most severely injured and had been sent to Sade’s uncle had not, in nine months, recovered from her injuries. She was finally taken to a hospital where the Sade family conspired to keep her from talking with anyone to whom she might reveal what had happened to her. By this time, the Abb6 believed that Sade should be imprisoned.

For a year, Sade traveled in Italy. He complained of being lonely. One of the kidnapped girls, still kept at Lacoste, died. Another escaped and went to the police. Against the advice of Ren6e-Pelagie, Sade returned to Lacoste. More women were procured for him. Sade kept spending money on women while Renee-Pelagie lived in near penury. He hired servants, locked them up, forced them to submit to him. A father of a servant hired by Sade tried to shoot him. The daughter signed a statement defending Sade. The authorities ordered the woman returned to her father. She was not.

Another attempt was made to arrest Sade. He hid. On being informed by Madame de Montreuil that his mother was dying in Paris, he went there. She died before he arrived, but in Paris Sade was arrested under a lettre de cachet. Madame de Montreuil had told the police Sade’s whereabouts. He was sent to Vincennes, where he was imprisoned for nearly six years. In 1784, he was transferred to the Bastille. In 1789, the people of France were near revolution. Sade rigged up an improvised loudspeaker from his cell and exhorted the people to lay siege to the Bastille. He was moved to Charenton, a lunatic asylum. On July 14, 1789, the Bastille was stormed and its warden killed. In 1790, Sade was released from Charenton along with all prisoners who had been imprisoned under lettres de cachet by the old regime.

During the years of his imprisonment in Vincennes and the Bastille, Sade wrote the body of literature for which he is best known (though his literary career did not begin in prison; he had done some writing and even produced and directed theatrical events sporadically). On Sade’s release, Ren6e-Pelagie, whom Sade had subjected to extraordinary scorn and abuse during his imprison- ment, left him and obtained a legal separation. Sade’s bitterness toward her was unrelenting. Apparently he felt that he had given her the best years of his life, which were less than perfect only because he had been maliciously persecuted. He especially blamed Renee-Pelagie for the loss of manuscripts that had been taken or destroyed during the siege of the Bastille. She had failed to rescue them, as he had demanded, and may have burned some herself. In the ensuing years, he set about re-creating the lost work. After his release, Sade also met his daughter as an adult for the first time. He hated her on sight. Early in 1791, Sade began living with Marie- Constance Renelle, to whom Justine is dedicated and with whom he had what his biographers consider a sincere, loving, devoted relationship. Sade was no longer a young rake. In prison he had become very fat, and the French Revolution had deprived him of his power as an aristocrat. Necessity, that fabled parent of invention, gave birth in a few short months to Citizen Sade.

For nearly four years, Sade walked a political tightrope. He played the role of one who had been abused by the old regime, who had no loyalties to the old nobility and was entirely committed to the new society. He made politically correct speeches, renamed streets to reflect the ideology of the revolution, and worked to keep his own property from the legitimate claims of the revolution and of Renee-Pelagie. According to his biographers, Sade’s essential humanism was demonstrated during the Terror when he was on a committee that passed judgment on the Montreuils: he could have denounced them and had them killed, but he did not. It is more likely that Sade, a consummate survivor, had understood that, during the Terror, guilt by past association could endanger his own life. Condemnation of the Montreuils could eventually have led to his own death for his having consorted with them.

Revolutionary leader Jean-Paul Marat discovered the nature of the crimes for which Sade had been imprisoned under the old regime. He denounced Sade but by mistake someone with a similar name was executed. Marat, although he became aware of his mistake, did not live to rectify it: he was assassinated by Charlotte Corday.

Toward the end of 1793, Sade was imprisoned. The charge was that in 1791 he had volunteered to serve the king. Sade insisted that he had thought the regiment in which he had volunteered to serve was Iqyal to the revolution. He remained in prison and in July 1794 was sentenced to death. The administration of the prisons was so inefficient that Sade could not be found. He was not executed. Later that same month, Robespierre was executed, and the Terror ended. Two months later, Sade was released.


It’s interesting too that Catholic apologist E. Michael Jones, in his chapter on de Sade in Sexual Revolution, paints de Sade as a leading light of the French Revolution and especially its disestablishment of the Church and aristocracy. But that’s another revesal, a similar reversal, in fact, to the left’s painting of de Sade as a revolutionary.

De Sade was a member of the Catholic aristocracy and raised by the Catholic aristocracy, and almost certainly sexually abused and tortured as a child by that same class. One can to this very day see a reflection of de Sade’s desecration of Catholic symbols like the Host.

One of the most disturbing stories to come out of the “Catholic abuse crisis” is a ring of three American priests who would befriend altar boys, demand they strip and “pose like Jesus on the cross” while they photographed them nude then “award” them with crosses and rosaries and other pieces of Catholic paraphernalia.

When one reads the brutality against priests during various anti-Catholic movements, from the Hussites to Spain in the 30s, reactionaries are quick to note a Jewish role, but always seem to forget how many of those raised Catholic participated in the worst anti-clerical atrocities.

Considering what we known of the Vatican in the Renaissance era, to the Catholic aristocracy (like de Sade) in pre-Revolutionary France, to the Catholic priests of Boston in the 1970s-2000s, it not difficult to guess where the murderous hostility by former parishoners towards the Church comes from.

De Sade is a product of the French Catholic aristocracy, ret-conned into a “revolutionary” by the new ruling class – and by apologists for the former ruling class. And now, considered some sort of hero of sexual liberty – even a FEMINIST of sorts, by the left and Hollywood.

Maybe Dworkin was right?

Should Christian Women Wear Pants?

One of my guilty pleasures is watching Pastor Steven Anderson of Faithful Word Baptist Church on youtube. A decade ago my other guilty pleasure was watching Westboro Baptist Church parody music videos but I don’t think they make them anymore. I find them refreshingly subversive to modernity and liberalism.

I don’t enjoy watching, say, Paul Washer videos. Anderson is a dork and not particularly bright. But Washer is a full fledged sociopath. So the difference is it’s fun to see Anderson ranting and railing against stuff, often getting it wrong in a hilarious way because he’s not that smart and a huge dork. But it’s not fun watching Paul Washer because he’s a competent, sadistic sociopath. It’s the difference between watching a crazy old man yelling “get off my lawn” to a bunch of naughty kids vesus an evil psycopath psychologically torturing children.

Anderson (and the Westboros) were known for their “homophobia” but really that’s what they used for publicity and controversy. As Anderson notes, the fact is most people don’t approve of homosexuality and are absolutely repulsed by transsexualism. That’s exactly why the media promotes LGBT constantly (and also, relatedly, why they promote Jews, Israel and Holocaust culture so much – and also why there is so much Afrophilia.) People have to be browbeaten by this stuff because they naturally don’t like it.

While the media will tell you Anderson is “hateful” it’s not true, he’s actually kind of dorky, which makes it fun.

You have to understand the role that Pastor or Preacher had in American society. Before the era of mass education, the only educated person in a community was the Minister. Harvard University, in fact, all of the universities, were started to train ministers. In an entire town, the Bible was very often the only book that anyone had. So the Pastor was not just a religious figure, he was essentially the only intellectual.

The precise reason that religion lost so much cultural clout is because people started to read more than one book – and more than one person started to read. So Pastors lost their place as the only educated person in town.

In any case, Anderson tries to fulfill the role as “general intellectual” for his small congregation of working class, mostly (but not exclusively) Whites in Arizona. He’ll read the news for them, discuss issues, etc.

In this particular video, he actually does a somewhat credible job of trying to explain the difference between SEX and GENDER. He wants to tell his congregation why women shouldn’t wear pants, because while putting on a pair of pants doesn’t change a woman’s sex, it can be seen as a form of cross-dressing.

But he even gets this wrong, mostly because he’s a) not that smart and b) kind of a dork.

So he writes three columns on the whiteboard and has the congregation categorize different kinds of clothing into either for men, for women, or both. He starts with easy stuff: skirts, dresses, bras, pantyhose – all for women. Then, he asks about shoes, hats, gloves, tee-shirts, etc., and everyone agrees they are for both women and men.

So then he comes up to his big point, his coup de grace. How comes there’s nothing in the men’s column? He wants to point out that the verse in the Bible that says women’s shouldn’t wear “what pertains to a man” would have no meaning if there’s no clothing specifically for men.

But one of his congregation helpfully points out – TIES. Oops. Here’s a clear case. In modern, American society, men wear ties, and women don’t. But that ruins his entire point. His point was to say that women shouldn’t wear pants and pants are exclusively for men and if women wear pants there’s no point in the Bible verse.

But it’s OBVIOUS to everyone that ties are more stereotypically men’s clothing than pants. So what does Anderson do? Well, he’s a dork, and not that bright, so he mocks the guy who helpfully tried to help him out and give him a CLEAR example of something in our culture that is for men only: ties.

So Anderson says, well, he’s seen women wear ties. (WHAT?) I do remember a school uniform that had a kind of “tie” for women, it was a short thing, more like a ribbon really, that they would wear over their right breast. It was never popular and never caught on.

But Anderson just tries to ignore this to make his point, that women shouldn’t wear pants – and throws his earnest, helpful congregant under the bus – even tries to make fun of him. He’s just not that smart, because it was the obvious answer. Essentially, his entire sermon is begging the question.

Besides – physically speaking, it would make a lot more sense for men to wear something like kilts, wouldn’t it? I mean, men have a penis and testicles that literally hang down inches between their legs, and wearing pants scrunches them up in a very often uncomfortable way. Wearing tight underwear is actually bad for fertility – men who are having trouble getting their wives pregnant are often told to wear boxers to give their balls some breathing room. In fact, the entire biological purpose of a scrotum is to keep the testicles at a lower temperature than the rest of their body, thus, not killing sperm.

Did God design the male genitals incorrectly? Of course not, so men should wear kilts. Women’s vaginas are inside and their outer vulva doesn’t take up any room, making pants anatomically correct.

So the fact that men wear pants and women wear skirts is just cultural, in fact, biologically inappropriate.

Real Men Keep Their Balls Cool And Their Sperm Healthy To Impregnate Women!

So why do women wear skirts? It’s to signal sexually of course. It’s to make a show of “easy access.” You just have to hike up their skirt to penetrate them. So in theory, Christians who are against this sort of thing should point out that the modern American culture has it all wrong, and that CLEARLY it is more in tune with God’s creation – and sexual modesty and the “life culture” of fertility and natalism – for men to wear skirts – i.e., KILTS – and for women to wear pants, at least a piece of clothing that restricts access to their vaginas. Pants show less skin than skirts, after all.

Anderson, being not too smart and only reading one book, is actually THE WEAKEST LINK and exactly the reason why the sexual permissiveness and now transsexualism has been able to take hold. He – and people like him – were just outsmarted by the sexual revolutionaries. The irony is, of course, that if Anderson and the people like him were even slightly familiar with the context of the cultures of their own Bible, they would know that men actually did wear skirts – robes – in Biblical times and that women most certainly did NOT show their legs or signal easy access to their vaginas.

(White Anglo-American conservatives got stuck at Protestantism and left the culture to the most insane leftists instead of continuing our actual organic tradition, which should be post-Protestantism. The Enlightenment.)

They Laughed When I Said My Teenage Sex Stories Had Political And Cultural Resonance

Who’s laughing now? Remind me to never run for Supreme Court.

As soon as I got to the party, I saw her. Chrissie. Blonde hair, blue eyes, a tiny little frame. She was almost 16, a sophomore, and I was 17, a junior. All day I’d seen her swimming in the pool and I just couldn’t get her out of my mind for some reason.

“Like, ” she was saying to her friend, as she flipped her hair and rolled her eyes. She looked just so delicious, it made me want to bite her ear lobe or even just sniff her hair. I had to think of a plan to get her alone, I thought, as I took another sip of this terrible tasting beer. Why do adults drink this crap anyway? …

Conservatives Are Losing The “Transgender War” Because They Are Sexually Obsessed, Stupid And Easily Fooled

When the “transgender” thing started a few years ago, presumably with the Bruce Jenner “transition” it caused a huge dust-up among the “right wing” from “Conservative Inc.” to the “Alt Right.” Everyone jumped right on it and many said it would be a winning issue for the “right” because who wants bearded men in dresses stalking little girls in the ladies’ restroom?

I demurred. I didn’t really know much about the issue and I figured that the right was being suckered, as it always is. Conservatives tend to be stupid and have a near-perfect record of LOSING, especially on sexual issues.

I blame religion, in a sense. The thing is, Christian (i.e., classical Stoic) sexuality morality is great, and is pretty much obviously the most healthy sexual lifestyle. Monogamy, fertility, family. If women and men married as virgins, and didn’t cheat, there would be no STDs. If motherhood was promoted in our culture, we’d have lots of White babies, fulfilled mothers, and responsible fathers.

Pornography, masturbation, female – and male – genital mutilation (“circumcision”) promiscuity, homosexuality – all these are vices that have traditionally been proscribed to one degree or another.

But religion can’t explain WHY this kind of sexual morality is healthy, because Western religion/Christianity doesn’t believe in biology or nature. So they have to come up with “spiritual” reasons which are false and mostly imaginary.

Even worse, Western religion – Christianity – can’t accept vice as vice – vice has to be “sin.” So instead of a socially effective form of “vice control” – suppressing vice, punishing vice when it harms society, Christianity has to eradicate it, which doesn’t work. You always have the return of the suppressed.

For the religious, there has to be a “zero tolerance” approach to vice, because vice is a “sin” meriting eternal punishment in hell. Instead of the natural truth – vice is bodily unhealthy, religion has to make it a “sin” that is deadly to the soul.

And of course those people who want to “fight sin” can find “sin” anywhere. Since Christiainty always follows the culture, NEVER leads it, all it can do is rear guard actions. So that means right wing religious types want to “eradicate homosexuality” while left wing religious types want to corral homosexuality into “gay marriage.”

Neither really works.

In any case, when it came to the “transgender” thing, of course the religious people went straight to the “won’t somebody thing of the CHILDREN!” angle and assumed that the “transgender” thing was about sexual perverts perving on little girls in the restroom.

But of course it wasn’t about that at all. What is the “trans” movement – a VERY well funded movement, promoted by the richest and most powerful corporations in the world – what is “trans” really about?

It’s not about SEX at all – it’s about DRUGS. “Trans” is, essentially, a drug cartel.

View at Medium.com

Religious people jumped on the sex angle, and made themselves look like the sexually obsessed church ladies they are. And the “trans” movement loved every minute of it, because they know that religious people ALWAYS LOSE on sexual issues – they can’t even keep themselves sexually normal, they can’t even stop divorce and remarriage (or the Catholic equivalent) in their own churches.

So by baiting the religious conservatives into obsessing over SEX – the trans movement has successfully slipped their actual agenda – DRUGS – right under the radar.

CONSERVATIVES ALWAYS LOSE. Don’t be a conservative – it’s unhealthy.

Women Find Sexist Men Sexier

In the very clever and very good “meta-sitcom” “Little Mosque on the Prairie” the White wife says it’s “exciting” that the imam is asking her husband for her daughter’s hand in marriage. Her friend asks, “but isn’t that sexist?” The wife replies, “well, yes it’s sexist. But it’s exciting too. Kind of like Mel Gibson, it’s exciting AND sexist!”

In my continuing series restating the obvious about women and men, here’s another obviously obvious point: women prefer sexist men.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5908839/Women-hard-wired-meaning-sexist-men-attractive.html

Women are more attracted to men who are sexist because they think they are more willing to protect them, provide for them and commit to a relationship, scientists say.

Men who are considered to be sexist in a well-meaning way – for example if they are chivalrous or think women need a man to protect them – may be more attractive.

Even though women find these men patronising and can feel undermined by them, they are more likely to want to couple up with them than with men who don’t give them special treatment.

Researchers say women may be hard-wired to think the benefits of being with a kind but sexist man outweigh the downsides. …

And even women who consider themselves strong feminists showed the same preferences in the study by British and US researchers.

“A Vickstrom” on Hipster Racist

Don’t you see that he’s playing mind games with you? You are attempting to have a historical debate with a man who writes BDSM porn and publishes it on his blog. Men with Hipster’s kink have very unique, and easily recognizable, personalities. Men do not normally write / read about sex since we are visual creatures (a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say). His interest in that specific kink and his desire to write about it indicates an exceptional imagination combined with a high IQ and a high sex drive: aka he’s more aggressive than average and thinks in a different way than 95% of straight men.

Have you ever noticed that he uses a Jew (Don Adams of the series Get Smart) as his avatar? That in itself is quite a giveaway into how his mind works. HR is playing mind games on a level that most straight men don’t comprehend. That’s why he calls himself a ‘hipster racist’ – he is a race conscious liberal man and as such is using a different set of tactics.

It’s also likely that he has ties to – or intimate knowledge – of intelligence agencies. Men like him are drawn to those things like moths to a flame so at the very least he has studied counter intelligence & espionage tactics. His knowledge of neocon tactics also hints at this.

You are not going to get him to make concrete statements on historical subjects (or to even show interest in them). That’s not how people like him operate.

— “A Vickstrom” Holocausting the Holocaust the Andrew Joyce Way

“No one has ever had a fantasy about being tied to a bed and sexually ravished by someone dressed as a liberal” — P. J. O’Rourke

The difference between getting what you want, and what they want, is nuance,
So listen baby girl, put your boots on, here’s something to chew on …

KFlay, Doctor Don’t Know

Gender Critical

I have a morbid fascination with the Gender Critical reddit forum. It’s a “radical feminist” forum, and many on reddit consider it a “hate sub.”

It really is just the female version of the “Red Pill” or the “Men’s Rights Activists” or even the “Incels.” They pretty openly hate men, and admit it in a way that the “misogynist” subs would never admit they hate women.

Many on reddit do label Gender Critical a “hate” sub, but not because they hate men – because they don’t consider “transgendered” men women. They refuse to accept the propaganda phrase “Trans women are women.”

Of course, it’s obvious that “trans women are women” is false. If it were true it wouldn’t need the “thought terminating cliche.” “Trans women” are just men wearing dresses. Those that undergo “sex reassignment surgery” are still men, just mutilated men, men with enhanced circumcision that have been poisoned with artificial estrogen – just like Alex Jones’ Gay Frogs, in fact. (OMG – ALEX JONES WAS RIGHT!)

I just can’t help but feel some sympathy for these women. They are right about “transgendered.” They are right about men’s “objectification” of women. AFAIK, homosexual men “objectify” men. It’s just testosterone.

So these women hating men for male biology really are the equivalent of men hating women for female biology.

The Gender Critics are also mostly correct about “gender” too. “Sex” is a biological reality, “gender” is a social construct. There is nothing “natural” about women wearing skirts – see Scottish kilts. There is nothing “natural” about women shaving their armpits or men having short hair. As someone once posted here, sex roles are not entirely socially “constructed” – instead they are socially reinforced.

Only women can nurse babies, so child care is basically a woman’s job – due to biology. Of course, men can take care of children – historically, men took charge or raising boys at about the age of 7. But child care is a woman’s job precisely because of the biology involved – and only ideological fanatics would object to that.

Ironically, it’s precisely at this point that the Gender Critical Feminists become the biology-deniers they rightly criticize the “transgenders” for.

What draws these women to radical feminism? Some perfectly legitimate objections to prostitution/pornography. But also some illegitimate reasons – such as their shallow hatred of men and their obvious agenda to recruit straight women to lesbianism. Lots of them utterly whine about being “invisible” to men as they age – apparently, they DEMAND male sexual attention, until they get it, then they complain about “objectification” – then when they don’t get it anymore, they complain about “invisibility.”

As they say, women want “fried ice.”

Occasionally, they will step right to the edge of racial reality – they hate men of color too – but they quickly correct themselves.

https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical

More On Moore: The Evangelical Cult’s Denial Of Basic Human “Sin” Nature And Its Cost To White Culture

When the Washington Post article came out, I actually read it. Of the four women, three just said that Moore dated, or tried to date them, when they were 16-18. Frankly, I find the idea of a 30 year old man courting – for marriage – an 18 year old woman to be a big “meh.” It may not be something the culture should encourage, as it’s a pretty big age difference, but there’s nothing biologically strange about it and there are plenty of strong, healthy and fertile marriages that have such an age gap.

The only accusation that mattered was that of the 14 year old girl, and her story was somewhat corroborated by two other women, who said she told them at the time that she was “dating” Moore.

For the next 48 hours, Roy Moore issued a bunch of “non-denial denials” which frankly made him seem guilty. Hipster Racist isn’t a court of law, and I frankly could not care less about the Republican party or the Alabama elections, so I’m just calling it as I see it. The woman’s claims seemed quite credible to me, because I’ve had numerous women tell me stories of exactly such behavior on the part of men – yes, even men in socially conservative, Evangelical subcultures. In fact, that is exactly the sort of behavior I expect of men in that culture. No, of course, not all, nor even the majority or a large minority, of Evangelical men are rapists, or chase jailbait, but neither does Christianity or the Evangelical subculture change the nature of men. In fact, I thought that was an important part of Christianity – the idea that we are “born in sin” – and it’s particularly true of the Reformed/Calvinist theology.

Eventually, on Sean Hannity’s show, Moore specifically and categorically denied the accusations of the woman, said he didn’t know her, and I figured that was that. I did expect – and warned – that there were likely to be other accusers, but 40 year old “he said, she said” accusations can’t really be judged.

I wasn’t particularly surprised to see fans of Moore denying everything and suggesting the women were lying, but I have been somewhat surprised by the reaction of many so-called “Christian” conservatives. At least now three times, on Twitter and this blog, so-called “conservative Christians” have suggested that anyone giving any credence to the accusations, or suggesting that Evangelical men aren’t always angels, either:

1. Hates Jesus

or

2. are sexual perverts and want sexual anarchy, promiscuity, and only believe these women because they don’t want a sexually conservative society.

I think some are protesting too much. I also noted, here and on Twatter, that these reactions are EXACTLY THE SAME as the reactions of Jews and Scientologists. Anytime anyone says anything negative about Jews, the Jewish religion, Jewish power in America, or the Israel lobby, 100% of the time they are met with essentially the same accusation:

“You are just jealous of Jews because of your personal failures.”

Scientologists are trained to ALWAYS respond to any negative critique of Scientology with accusations that the critic is a “suppressive person” and Scientology has a “counter attack” strategy, laid out by L. Ron Hubbard himself, that is straight out of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

(1) Spot who is attacking us.
(2) Start investigating them promptly for felonies or worse using own professionals, not outside agencies.
(3) Double curve our reply by saying we welcome an investigation of them.
(4) Start feeding lurid, blood, sex, crime actual evidence on the attackers to the press.

I was a little bit surprised to see otherwise normal seeming conservative Christians doing the same thing to me, for the “crime” of believing a bunch of Southern, conservative, Christian women that claimed Roy Moore, the GOP politician from Alabama, sexually assaulted them. All of a sudden it was ME on trial – even though it’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s a bunch of conservative, Christian, southern White women from Alabama – most of them, in fact, Republican Trump voters.

But it’s all so telling that his partisans, instead of dealing forthrightly with the accusations against Moore, or even having the decency to look at their own culture and accept maybe there is some dysfunction, to immediately start accusing others of having immoral motives or … “hating Jesus.”

It’s pathetic, it’s un-Christian, and it really says more about them than it does about the people they are attacking.

Well, what do you know, another woman has stepped forward and gave a detailed allegation of Roy Moore sexually assaulting her as a 15 year old girl. Unlike the 14 year old, Moore cannot claim he’s never met her, because he SIGNED HER HIGH SCHOOL YEARBOOK.

I find Beverly Young Nelson’s accusations to be VERY credible, because I have heard this story, from numerous women, for my entire life. Including and especially from women from the Christian and/or Evangelical subculture.

Not only have I heard stories, for my entire life, that match Nelson’s story, I practically witnessed it personally, myself, at a church meeting. Once, at a night time event, a young woman, about 16, came running into the church building, crying and hysterical, saying that she was attacked by one of the other church attendees, who was about 18. I knew both of them. The girl was an extremely beautiful and very sexy young woman – to be clear, I don’t believe she went out of her way to be “sexy” or “seductive” – she was just a beautiful and blossoming young woman and even I, at about the age of 12, was utterly mesmerized by her. She accused a young man, of 18, of offering her a ride to the church function, then he parked the car in a dark spot and assaulted her.

The boy was expelled from the church and the church school, although I don’t believe the incident was ever made into a legal case. I heard, through the grapevine, what happened, and it was virtually exactly the scenario that Nelson says happened to her. As far as I can tell, this is a very typical, very common, way that men sexually assault women. I knew the alleged attacker, and was in fact quite fond of him, even though he was much older than me. He was a “sincere Christian,” seemed somewhat like a “leader” to us younger boys, seemed quite serious about Christianity and the Bible, and it was shocking news to us.

But, now, as an older man with some experience under my belt, I think I can figure out what happened. He had a crush on this girl for a year, found her extremely sexy (as we all did) and one night he just “snapped” and made very aggressive sexual moves on her, and when she wouldn’t cooperate, became somewhat violent. His “Christianity” went out the window because his lizard brain – his testosterone, and his evolved biology, took over. Why? Because he was a human man with a strong, overpowering sexual drive and the naive culture he was a part of somehow thought that “Jesus” would prevent young horny teenagers from doing what comes naturally. I do also suspect that the Christian subculture simply had no way of dealing with the realities of sex, simply expecting that “faith in Jesus” would stop him from “lusting” after a highly lust-worthy young woman his age.

I also heard NUMEROUS TIMES of older men – adult men – doing very similar things to young teenage girls in that culture. Women and girls that I knew. They certainly had no reason to lie to me. I witnessed on NUMEROUS occasions very obvious strong sexual tension between adult men and teenage girls – the kind of sexual tension that you can cut with a knife. To my mind, the problem was that adult men simply shouldn’t be in positions of power over teenage girls. In fact, I think co-ed education itself is basically asking for trouble.

I attended an upper-middle-class Christian high school based around a very mainstream, but very conservative, Protestant church. I remember at 15, sitting next to 15 year old girls, in those little school girl outfits, absolutely unable to concentrate on my school work because the slightest flash of leg, the slightest scent of “girl,” the tiniest hint of curves, flooded me with testosterone. It was often PURE TORTURE and it somewhat amazes me that these Christians, supposedly well aware of “sin nature” and lust, nevertheless, forced young horny teenagers together and then expected us to NOT “lust” after each other.

I don’t think at all that Christians are “worse” than the secular world, and I don’t think that the “answer” is “sexual liberation” or the promotion of promiscuity or “safe sex” for teenagers. I think, in fact, what old fashioned and traditional (even Christian) culture did is best for everyone – sexual segregation, a frank understanding of human nature and sexuality, and a restoration of old fashioned courting and young marriage – and by young marriage, I mean that 16-20 year old girls should be married off to 20-24 year old boys. That sort of marriage worked quite well for a thousand years and it can work again.

To accuse me of wanting “sexual license” because I have zero respect for some grand-standing GOP political hack like Roy Moore – and I find the stories of White, conservative, Southern, Christian women to be credible because it’s a completely observed pattern of behavior on the part of men – just shows how morally bankrupt the GOP, as well as the Evangelical subculture, really is.

It’s not ME accusing Roy Moore, it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore. It’s not the Washington Post, the liberal media, or the Democrats accusing Moore – it’s White, conservative, Southern Christian women accusing Moore.

It’s just that the Evangelical subculture can’t deal with biological reality because they have their heads in the clouds, expecting “Jesus” to fix everyone’s problems and keep everyone “free of lust.”

Which is, of course, highly ironic because Jesus Christ himself, in the Bible, said the exact opposite of that. The Evangelical cult, and “conservative” American culture, lost the culture war, and lost their culture to the sexual revolution, precisely because they didn’t even read their own Bible.

Why The Accusations Against Roy Moore Are Probably True

Of course they are politically timed, and of course his political enemies are the ones promoting the story, but that doesn’t change the fact they are almost certainly true.

According to the story, at around 30 years of age Roy Moore courted a number of young women from 16-18. He eventually married a woman 12 years his junior. This is normal male behavior and it’s clearly a pattern for him.

One of the women, 16, wanted to date him but her mother forbade it because he was too old for her. Another of the women, 17, did date him, described him as “romantic” and her mother said she was “lucky” to have his interest. Moore was an up and coming politician, a home town boy made good, and was described as handsome. There’s another incident of him chatting up a girl at 14 then asking her out later at 16.

The real scandal is the 14 year old girl at the center of the scandal. He meets her when her mother is waiting for a child custody hearing at the courthouse: in other words, the alleged 14 year old victim came from a broken home. Exactly the sort of girl that would be a target for predation.

She claims he picked her up “around the corner” from her parent’s house. Unlike the girls he was actually courting and considering for marriage, he allegedly drives the 14 year old girl straight to his house, gives her alcohol, strips her down to her bra and panties, feels her up and tries to get her to feel him up. He does not rape her, he doesn’t go “below her underwear” and drives her home when she asks.

This makes the story much more believable because “heavy petting” would be exactly the “line” that someone in that culture wouldn’t necessarily cross. Two other women, friends of the alleged victim, went on the record saying that she told them she was “seeing” an “older man” and at least one said she named him: Roy Moore.

We have no problem believing all the stories about the Hollywood moguls like Weinstein, the “male feminists” and their bizarre and passive aggressive behavior towards women, and no one is at all surprised that Kevin Spacey likes “chicken” and is aggressive and engages in assault – and years ago an internet commenter on reddit claims to have witnessed him engaging in sexual behavior with very young “pubescent” boys in Thailand. Spacey was also on Jeffrey Epstein’s “Lolita Express” plane.

Few have expressed doubt that Bill Clinton may have been having sex with Epstein’s teenage prostitutes/”sex slaves” – we’ve seen the picture of Prince Edwards with the then 16 year old Virginia at the center of the Epstein case. Few expressed doubts about this because it fits exactly the profile of these people. This is exactly how we expect “male feminists” to behave and it’s how we expect wealthy sociopaths like Bill Clinton to behave.

Well, this behavior fits the Christian conservative subculture that Moore is a part of. The choice of targets, the fact that it didn’t escalate beyond “heavy petting.” The fact is that Moore’s entire political shtick has been using a particular version of “Christian” sexual “repression” – that is virtually a mirror image of the “male feminists” the “Jewish moguls” and the “liberal’s” version of “sexual liberation.

Watch this famous video of an Evangelical preacher in Alabama named Paul Washer. Notice that sexual shaming used against teenagers just on the cusp on adolescence when they are first starting to develop a serious sex drive.

There is no healthy sexuality here. There is no promotion of marriage. There is no acknowledgement of the sex drive as “God’s plan for marriage.” Instead, it’s literally making horny teenagers feel bad for being horny teenagers. In fact, after watching a number of Paul Washer videos, my impression is that he is a typical sociopath, a high functioning emotional “abuser” (for lack of a better word.) He’s highly emotive but in way that seems clearly feigned – and highly practiced. Remember, sociopaths are often far more charismatic – and far more “sexy” – than emotionally normal people. They do not have normal emotions and no empathy for others, but highly functioning sociopaths are often quite good at feigning normal emotions.

Roy Moore’s pattern of behavior – and the behavior he is being accused of – matches PRECISELY with the negative sexual patterns of conservative Christian subcultures. It is not the same as the negative sexual patterns of feminists, homosexuals, the “sexual liberated” nor Jews with hostility to “shiksas.” No, this is the negative sexual patterns that are common to conservative subcultures.

Growing up, I have not only witnessed this exact same pattern of behavior of conservative religious men towards teenage girls, I’ve heard numerous stories from teenage girls and older women from that subculture describing this pattern of behavior from older conservative Christian men.

If she had claimed he took it out and jerked off into a potted plant – that would totally be unbelievable. If she said he held her down and raped her, that wouldn’t have been believable. If she was, say, a black prostitute that claimed Moore had paid her to pee on him, that would sound like a political hit.

But an up and coming powerful man with a pattern of courting teenage girls and women, who engages in “heavy petting” with a particularly vulnerable girl – but doesn’t actually rape her and won’t even take it to the level of sex (only “above the underwear”) – that fits the pattern.

Monogamy was always a balance of the sexual and reproductive interests of men and women. Young marriage is a good and healthy social practice – and a man like Moore marrying a woman a decade younger than him is not particularly scandalous to my mind.

But the problem with Christians (and considering the previous post, I’ll include Mormons here) is that they often can only rely on shame to repress young sexuality. They have no way of discussing sexuality and thus revert to a very simplistic mechanisms to keep teenagers from doing what comes naturally. It typically worked – when you have segregation of the sexes and young, companionate marriages.

But add in a power imbalance and an inability to deal forthrightly with biological reality, and you have just the situations that Moore is accused of engaging in. It’s understandable too that Moore is being attacked by the people most opposed to his conservative sexual morals, but that doesn’t change the fact that what he is being accused of is precisely the type of behavior one would expect of just such a man.

Catholic priests were able to get away with buggering the altar boys for close to ONE THOUSAND YEARS, and despite dozens of reformers, dissidents, and actually chaste Catholics complaining about it, it was only AFTER the “gay liberation movement” forced the uncomfortable issue into the public discussion that the victims could, in fact, complain about it, be heard, and believed.

Strom Thurmond had a black daughter. Of COURSE plenty of Southern plantation masters had sex with the prettiest of their black slaves. The power imbalance makes the sex ULTRA-HOT.

Of course Weinstein liked to humiliate “shiksas” that needed him to help their careers. Of COURSE some goofball like Louis CK likes to jerk off in front of women. Of COURSE “male feminists” are some of the biggest creeps – and rapiest rapers – of all.

And of course powerful men in sexually closed religious subcultures are going to be attracted like moths to a flame to vulnerable young girls – the power difference makes it all so ultra-hot.

The solution is NOT “sexual liberation” nor is it “sexual repression.” The solution is a frank recognition of biological reality, and a civil society that recognizes that biological reality, and can steer these natural biological forces into socially productive – and biologically reproductive – ways.

If the Christian sexual repression was a workable system, it wouldn’t have been overturned so easily by the sexual revolutionaries and the pornographers. And if sexual liberation was a workable system, we wouldn’t see the barely 50 years old sexual liberation movement collapsing on itself over and over again.