Tag Archives: TERF

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?

I’m Really Uncomfortable With The Charges Against Nxivm

So this is some sort of self-improvement scam. “Take our class on business success!” and the like. All of these things are wastes of money and many may sometimes tip over into actionable fraud.

https://www.tvinsider.com/753102/keith-raniere-denied-bail-nxivm-sex-cult-allison-mack/

But the man who started it, Keith Raniere, along with actress Allison Mack and Seagram hieress Clare Bronfman, are being charged with “sex trafficking” and running a kind of sex cult where hot women would be recruited, then branded (hot!) and have sex with the founder. I mean, isn’t that the entire POINT of doing anything? Men build houses so women will come inside the house and have sex with them. Teenage boys learn how to play guitar so teenage girls will like their songs and have sex with them. It’s why men do anything.

This guy, Raniere, is on another level. He got his hot sex slaves to recruit other sex slaves for him, in a sort of recursive pick-up artistry. Come on, that’s pretty great. Anyone who has ever had a women recruit the other gal for a threesome, or even had an ex-lover introduce you to a new lover, understands the thrill of that.

Mack, under Raniere’s direction, would allegedly recruit women into the group, force them to to have sex with Raniere, have his initials branded into their skin, have them operate under “master-slave” conditions, and would abuse them if they disobeyed.

I don’t get the “force” part. I mean, if she was holding them down while Raniere raped them, fine, prosecute and send them to jail. But I have a feeling “force” means “hey, if you want into the club you have to put out.” While is the entire point of the club. Remember those old bumper stickers from the 1970s for hitchhiker, “Cash, Grass or Ass?” Is that sex trafficking now?

The FBI became involved as five women spoke out against the group in a New York Times exposé. After Raniere’s arrest, FBI official William Sweeney said in a statement: “As alleged, Keith Raniere displayed a disgusting abuse of power in his efforts to denigrate and manipulate women he considered his sex slaves.”

What “power” did this man have over these women, really? These were attractive, intelligent and in most cases very well off upper-middle class career women. He wasn’t even paying them, it’s not like it was an employer-employee relationship. His “power” was social proof as far as I can tell.

“He allegedly participated in horrifying acts of branding and burning them, with the co-operation of other women operating within this unorthodox pyramid scheme. These serious crimes against humanity are not only shocking, but disconcerting to say the least, and we are putting an end to this torture today.”

I’m against branding and tattoos in general, but these were adults weren’t they? They wanted into a club and this was the hazing ritual. Are we going to arrest the entire military of the United States for getting tattoos as part of their male bonding?

Think about this: I could move to Los Angeles, rent a hotel room and pay a desperate 18 year old girl $600 to get anally gang raped by ten old men, film it, and distribute it on line and that’s “free speech.”

But I can’t pal around with a couple of beautiful career women to give me social proof to recruit other beautiful career women for hot threesomes and sexy initiation rites like bikini tatooing?

It’s ok to “humiliate” women as long as you film it and show it online, but it’s terrible “manipulation” to do it privately and consensually?

As far as I can tell, this Nxivm/DOS group is far more moral – far more feminist, even – than the entire Los Angeles pornography industry.

All I can say is I’m glad I’m old and settled down now, because if half of what I did in my teens and 20s, in the USA, back in the 1990s, were known, I’d be in jail, along with just about every girl I’ve ever dated and half of my guy friends too.

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.)

A Radical Feminist, Not The Fun Kind

Andrea Dworkin was almost right:

I think we need to ask ourselves the question why men love prostitution so much? The fact of the matter is despite the rhetoric of men on the right and men on the left, they love prostitution a lot. The global proportion of the trafficking of women indicates that men like to buy and sell women. And that there’s a special kick in sex when you can pay somebody and use money as a symbol of their servitude, not as an agent of their independence but a symbol of their servitude. [1]

I think that what we’re dealing with with prostitution in all of its forms is the most basic kind of power there is; it’s a core definition of power, and that is, “I want it, you do it. I want it now, you do it now. Bend over.” [2] And when someone has that kind of power, that’s the same kind of power that kings had in feudal societies. And now it’s the power of every man, over every woman, because of these systems of trafficking in women, that exist all over the world. There’s clearly a sexual pleasure in destroying human dignity. [3] There is a sexual pleasure in repeated personal invasions of a person’s body and you don’t know the name of the person and you don’t care. She’s there because she has to be. [4]

Marriage – monogamy – was a part of civilization that feminists wanted destroyed, they destroyed it, now are upset that they have lost the privileges that civilized institution afforded them.

[1] Dworkin’s describing the thrill of market exchange and it’s the same thrill that a woman gets when she pays for the labor of a man to drive her, to fix her car, to massage her feet, or to build her a house.

[2] Dworkin, a lesbian, hated men’s sexuality, or more precisely, she hated heterosexuality – she, in fact, married a homosexual man and called him her “love” and her “life partner.” I don’t know about Dworkin specifically but it’s the stuff of common lesbian fantasy to “mentor” – i.e., seduce – a younger, less “powerful” woman. The notorious Vagina Monologues, in fact, had a woman thanking the adult lesbian who “seduced” her when she was 14. So, to lesbians, what they object to is the heterosexuality, not the power difference – in fact, power exchange is a key component of lesbian sexuality (as it is all women’s sexuality in general.) It’s one of the reason that “not the fun kind” of feminism never hit the mainstream, while the “fun kind of feminism” – “sex positive feminism” – *is* mainstream.

[3] Dworkin, and all radical feminists, are very similar to religious vegans and animal rights activists who decry the exploitation of animals by mankind. Humans eat animals, wear their skins, and they don’t even bother to name the animals.

What Dworkin’s feminism really is, is the same great emotional cry that all humans give when confronted with the reality that there is no “human dignity.” Humans are just animals, and the state of nature is the law of the jungle.

The irony is that there’s nothing in men’s pornography that is any worse than The Story of O – pornography for women, written by a woman. Dworkin would probably consider Ann Rice as a “handmaiden of patriarchy” but her Sleeping Beauty Chronicles was as humiliating for her male characters as it was for her female characters. It was a woman who wrote “Belinda” the touching story of a 16 year old girl in a “voluntary” relationship with an older, 30 something man. The book held no interest to men, it was written for women, from their perspective, to justify their own fantasies and sexual desires.

[4] Dworkin would almost certainly acknowledge that this applies to capitalism generally – and as a woman-centric feminist, she of course “centers” women as the central “good” in capitalism (not at all without good reason.)

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up. It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed. Every morning a lion wakes up. It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death. It doesn’t matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle: when the sun comes up, you’d better be running.

The real irony is that Dworkin, the Jewess who said she would have been a Talmud scholar if they had let her, is literally longing for Christ. She bemoans the lack of “human dignity” and the lack of “brotherly love” (thus) that is idealized in Christianity. But the fact is, humans are incapable of “loving” each other, outside of close friends and family (and, especially, husbands and wives, which must have angered Dworkin, even though the only man she loved, she actually married, just presumably didn’t have sex with, because she was a lesbian.)

Humans, apes with bigger brains, only have 200 “empathy slots” for other human beings. You can empathize with, love, respect, and “dignify” – and remember the names of – just about 200 people. Evolutionarily, speaking, the number is a small village and extended clan (which makes perfect sense.)

There isn’t, and has never been, any inherent “dignity” for “humanity” as a whole – and Dworkin and the feminists are, of course, massive hypocrites, because women have never, throughout history, spent a single second agonizing over stepping over the bodies of “their own” dead men to find greener pastures, better food, and sexier men, on the other side of the river. Women have never afforded men any dignity, ever, but merely respected male power – and have evolved to be sexually aroused by male power. At the end of the day, what really disgusts women like Dworkin is the banality of male sexual desire. Like food, all it takes is a scent, a sight, and men start salivating. Women require a lot more indirection and need a lot more emotional play-acting, but that’s all it is – emotional play-acting. Women’s sexuality isn’t at all more “dignified” than men’s, and women are indifferent to male suffering – in fact, male suffering disgusts women.

But Dworkin – and the “not fun kind of feminists” – are completely correct about sexual power and the commodification of women. What they are objecting to is civilization and capitalism, two things they have no interest in ever giving up.

If Dworkin and the “not fun” kind of feminists ever got their wish, and civilization and capitalism were destroyed, we’d all be living in small, 200 person primitive villages, with no running water, matriarchal clan structures, parasite load, rampant STDs, and constant tribal warfare with the villages next door.

And the FIRST man who came up with something better, the FIRST man who invented a new technology that gave him a significant power advantage over his rival men – he wouldn’t NEED to “buy” any women, the women would be stepping over each other – and their own children, in fact – to get to that man, the one with the most beautiful peacock feathers.

What Dworkin is most sad about is that Jesus doesn’t love her, because there is no Jesus, and human beings – including women – have no inherent dignity. It’s all just jungle.

A Culture Free of Patriarchy

Radical Feminists Are The Only Interesting Feminists

Reddit.com is going through another bout of censorship and it’s typical – “Nazi” subreddits are being banned, the minority of “right wing” and some principled types are complaining that Communist and other radical left subs and comments – often openly encouraging violence – are still being allowed.

But one new development is rather interesting, some transgender activists are demanding a radical feminist sub, https://reddit.com/r/gendercritical, be banned for “transphobia.” GenderCritical is a “radical feminist” sub that does not accept that “transwomen” are real women, rejects the entire “trans” movement, and posits that “transwomen” are really just men, dressing up or otherwise mimicking women, in order to invade women’s spaces.

The intersection of radical feminism and traditional (Western, Christian) morality has always fascinated me. In the 1970s, feminists and Christians both fought against pornography and the sex/prostitution industry.

Another interesting development: in England, a feminist conference was violently “protested” by transsexual activists that have weaponized the term “TERF” – Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. The trans activists made the simple comparison: TERFs are “Nazis” and since it’s ok to punch a “Nazi” it’s ok to punch a “TERF.” One proceeded to do just that – a man wearing a dress punched an elderly woman feminist in the face, and the trans activists justified it because TERF=Nazi and it’s ok to “punch a Nazi.”

Reading the GenderCritical subreddit is fascinating, you have the same bizarre mix you typically see with feminism. On the one hand, there are silly girls being bitchy and obvious man-hating shrews moaning about the patriarchy, and the ever present leftists trying to pair Black men and “women-as-a-class” as being “oppressed” by the White Male Patriarchy.

But you also have some quite sensible women making quite sensible points – why is it that “liberal feminists” are siding with radical Islamics, perhaps the most openly “misogynist” culture there is? You have quite sensible women decrying prostitution and the sex industry, the recently deceased (bisexual CIA lackey) Hugh Hefner, and very legitimate normal seeming women decrying boorish behavior on the part of men. All perfectly understandable and even a “right wing” liberal racist sexist like this author finds myself nodding in agreement with half of what these women are saying.

I came across a fascinating site, https://trustyourperceptions.wordpress.com/ which is a radical lesbian separatist feminist site that has some very interesting biological analyses about sex – literally, on the cellular level. In this analysis, maleness itself, the Y-chromosome, is a sort of parasite. I don’t know enough biology to properly judge how much of this is true or false, but some things that stuck out for me:

– Semen: Men’s Chemical War Against Women. Past Evolutionary Context for Seminal Engineering: how females not signaling estrus trumped males.

It’s been discussed that semen has “calming” – or in this analysis, paralyzing, effects on women. Semen is a way for the y-chromosome to inject itself into women, turn off one of the x-chromosomes, and actually inhibits parthenogenesis – the creation of a baby without a male “sperm donor.”

– The invention of the birth control pill coincided with the mainstreaming of oral sex

This seems to be somewhat of E. Michael Jones style coincidence-shopping, but it’s still rather interesting. Spermicides and birth control and other ways of killing sperm/preventing impregnation of women were followed quickly by men figuring out other ways of getting semen into women. The vagina can be a very sperm hostile place and “sperm competition” is an evolutionary explanation for a lot of seemingly unintuitive aspects of human sexuality. The author notes that injecting sperm into a woman’s throat is a way of getting semen into a woman’s body which, while not making her pregnant, does in fact have some of the “calming”/”paralyzing” effect on women. It makes women “docile” – it’s like a species that has a toxin that paralyzes its prey, but in this case, it perpetuates the y-chromosome.

The author also notes that anal sex is now being mainstreamed, another way of getting semen into a woman’s body that, while obviously not getting a woman pregnant or perpetuating the y-chromosome, does allow semen into a woman’s body to work its paralyzing effect. We’ve seen studies showing that genetic material from sperm shows up in women’s brains.

She also notes that the porno mainstreaming of “facials” and otherwise ejaculating on women is yet another way to get the chemicals and hormones found in semen into women through their pores! For these lesbian separatists, semen itself is a sort of toxin – talk about “toxic masculinity!” There’s also some interesting discussing of female/males of other animal species. To her, semen itself is toxic (it certainly is a carrier of disease) and the “male hormone” testosterone is the obvious “cause” of violence. Feminists are completely correct that women are – “as a class” – at the mercy of male violence (as are other men, of course.) Testosterone makes men fight other men and then they inject that “toxic masculinity” into women, perpetuating the y chromosome.

This is sort of a futurist “evolutionary end of men” type thing, but it would be pointless – and rather girlish – of “manosphere” types to get angry or outraged by this stuff; I find it really quite interesting and as a “race and sex realist” and someone who thinks evolutionary biology can likely explain the human condition more than anything else (religion, metaphysics, etc.) I’m looking forward to reading her new posts:

* The Chicken IS the Egg. Parthenogenesis and the Mysterious Evolution of Males.

* Testosterone: What it Does.

* X-Inactivation: How Dudes’ Dying-Y-Asses Get Saved as One of Women’s Two X-Chromosomes is Turned Off for Life.

* Female Bonding/Female Trashing: Chimps, Bonobos and Homo Sapiens

I also found out that the first “manosphere” post that I ever made – the one that had me libeled by the male feminist manboobz.com and made me a two year long hit on the reddit.com manosphere subs – actually has scientific proof for what I posited: it’s called the “Cheerleader Effect.”

I suggested that men in groups – the “mannerbund” – made men more attractive to women, and what do you know – it does. And women in groups – like a cheerleading squad – also makes women more attractive to men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheerleader_effect

To finish off, here’s a kind of interesting “male feminist” media analysis of the “Born Sexy Yesterday” trope. It’s Beta Male Geek Fantasy – some alien/robot with a woman’s body but the naive mind of a girl falls in love with geek boy who gets to introduce her to the wonders of sex – and he’s the Alpha Male for her because she knows nothing of the world. It’s really just the male version of 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight. In 50SOG and Twilight, Alpha Male CEO Businessman – or Sexy Supernatural Vampire with Magical Powers – falls head over heels in love with Average Everygirl.

But of course the purpose of the “deconstruction” of the Born Sexy Yesterday trope is simply to sell cuckoldry to men, the male feminist ends with demanding that sci-fi media creators stop selling youth and virginity and chastity as sexy, and instead tell men that “experience is sexy” – i.e., Man Up And Marry Those Sluts – and that any man who wants the youth, chastity, virginity (and by extension, fertility) of a woman is just “fearful” and “scared” and “insecure” – he’s just afraid that her former lovers may have had a bigger dick and be better in bed.

Both sides – the radical feminists and the liberal male feminists – as well as the “dudebros” and pornographers and Hugh Hefner Playboy PUAs – want to continue to destroy monogamy, thus the nuclear family, thus humanity itself – but they always “just happen” to only target Whites, of course. Monogamy – patriarchy – is a delicate balance of women’s and men’s evolutionary interests that preserves the recessive traits of Northwestern Europeans and gives men an incentive to invest in their children (and the mothers of their children) – thus creating White civilization. So of course it is constantly attacked. Kevin MacDonald’s analysis of the European Catholic Church comes into play here (and it’s not at all a completely pro-Catholic analysis either) – but for 1000 years it was Christianity that spread the monogamy of the Roman Empire to Europeans generally, thus had a significant impact of the genetics of the White race.

Born Sexy Yesterday

From Male Ally To Full Fledged Feminist

You know what’s the opposite of a Social Justice Warrior? An Anti-Social Unfair Coward, that’s what! Think about it.