Female Sexual Satisfaction, a Note on "Against the MedGroid Mindset" by Mr. Brucean
Agreed. Most of the big accounts in the medgroid / brown pua sphere of twitter are married guys strangely enough. I think they're sorta day dreaming and thinking of their glory days and as such do not get it. Seems there's been a definite shift in the world since about 2018 or earlier. Basically I think it's too much internet. A lot of people have just withdrawn entirely.
(07-31-2022, 07:05 PM)Michael Wrote: Agreed. Most of the big accounts in the medgroid / brown pua sphere of twitter are married guys strangely enough. I think they're sorta day dreaming and thinking of their glory days and as such do not get it. Seems there's been a definite shift in the world since about 2018 or earlier. Basically I think it's too much internet. A lot of people have just withdrawn entirely.

It's a relatively popular mainstream take that "the pandemic made 'us' irreversibly online," but I agree with you that the shift was slightly earlier; frankly, the level of digital pacification already endemic in late 2019/early 2020 was a precondition for the relatively seamless herding of docile millions into their houses for the COVID-19 "quarantine."
(07-26-2022, 06:17 PM)A D. L Wrote:
(07-06-2022, 08:05 PM)Coyote Wrote:
(07-01-2022, 10:35 PM)BillyONare Wrote: YNBAW

At a loss for what to make of this comment, if it's directed at me.  I guess I should make effortposts about why fucking is bad?

I don't think "fucking" is bad, but it is not necessarily a positive thing in and of itself nor a panacea for what ails society for people to have more of it in any context. Joe Sobran noted way back in the '70s that it was a sign of cultural rot that there was even a word -- "sex" -- that purports to objectively taxonomize the monogamous (really marital) conjugal act, fornication with a random broad, and patronizing a prostitute as all the same thing.

(It was  “What Is This Thing Called Sex?,” published December 31, 1980 in National Review.)

What Is This Thing Called Sex?

THE TWO GREAT institutions of the twentieth century are Socialism and Sex. Neither is anything to be proud of: one may as well say it. But to say it offends the official and quasi-official etiquettes of good cheer that attend both.
In America you can still denounce Socialism. Under its own name it has even less appeal now than it used to have. It has to be smuggled into the forum these days —under cover of terms like "reindustrialization" and "compassion" that conceal that you are talking about state control. Most people still agree with Oscar Wilde that Socialism would consume too many evenings—one of Wilde's few normal reactions to anything.
But his objection doesn't seem to apply to Sex. Citizens of the free countries think that’s what evenings are
for. As in Socialist countries you may maintain indifference to Socialism as long as you don't oppose it, so in the West you don't have to have Sex: you only mustn't oppose it. If you do you won't be sent to a camp, but you will face the disguised opprobrium of a diagnosis: the judgment that you lack the capacity, poor fellow, for a wholesome animal joie de vivre.
What is this thing called Sex? The indispensable word "sex" has been around for a long long time, but it always meant gender. Then, early in this century, as nearly as I can judge, it came to mean What the sexes do in bed, then it widened to include what two members of one sex do in bed, then what one member Of one sex does in bed. This usage would seem as odd to the ribald Donne as to the chaste Tennyson. What we call Sex comes down to any form of genital stimulation.
The act of love has always had a variety of names, full of moral tonalities. And the most comprehensive words, the lowest common denominator of the physical act itself, were necessarily the coarsest ones: they obliterated distinctions among the relations of the participants. Only a crude term could give one name to what a man does with his wife and what a man does with a whore. The new sense imparted to the term Sex serves precisely to name the act without moral, aesthetic, or social affect. It is a deliberately clinical and colorless word.
And we are encouraged to give hearty approval to this stripped-down thing. To disapprove, we are cautioned, is prudery. But of course this is false. You can enjoy conjugal love, or for that matter any Of the forms of love that used to be called illicit, without giving your assent to the current notion of Sex. True, the prudes do line up on the anti-Sex side; but then, the lechers line up on the other side. That either position draws to itself certain kinds of neurotics tells us nothing useful about the position's merits.
In the recent movie Time after Time, H. G. Wells comes via his time machine into present-day San FranCisco, where he discovers that the political utopia he envisioned has failed to come to pass: in its stead, world wars, genocide, endemic crime. It _is an amusing, not untender moment of satire. But the film misses a further irony. Wells was also an apostle of "free love." At the beginning of the film he is shown lecturing his friends on this subject as well as Socialism. And surely a man who held that quaint ideal and then abruptly o'erleaped eighty years would notice that the promised erotic utopia too has broken its date with us: in its stead, disease, abortion, the dissolution of loyalties bespoken by illegitimacy and divorce, the neurotic masturbation bespoken by the pornography trade.
And yet we see Wells falling quickly into an affair that effortlessly becomes True Love. This utopia, at least, it's still heresy to doubt. The obligatory Sex scenes are permeated with obligatory false optimism. A glance over the work of, say, Shakespeare ought to banish this sentimentalism. The poet with the largest and most comprehensive soul may not supply the detail of Krafft-Ebing, but he does show us a tremendous range of normal human emotions. And love in Shakespeare gives rise to responses that run from ecstatic joy to violent nausea. Romeo and Juliet, Othello and Desdemona, Antony and Cleopatra all harmonize spiritual and carnal love, but the poet gives equal time to the impact of perverse carnality. Othello, Troilus, Posthumus, and Leontes writhe in sick horror even to imagine their lovers' bodies in conjunction with others'. Lear's disgust is more general, a revulsion against lust as such; Hamlet's is more specials When he thinks of his mother and uncle-stepfather, but Horatio doesn't urge him to seek therapy.
Once you recognize as ideal certain forms of love, other things follow. The rival forms may range from imperfect to downright abhorrent. The lasting torment of rape victims, about which we hear so much, ought to prove this. Physically, rape is no worse than a severe beating. But the horror of it lies in a deeper violation than mere pain can inflict. There is something jarring in the contrast between the "trauma" of rape as we hear it described (accurately enough, no doubt) and the general trivialization of Eros. Why in one case alone are we supposed to assume, and accept as normal, that deep nerves are struck? If casual Sex is not to be experienced as defiling, why should a rape seem so lastingly degrading? Do rape victims just happen to be women with more than their share of hangups? Or is it that the experience of rape gives the lie to the ideology of Sex? Sangg!

Children as uninvited guests

Maybe it is our present casualness about Sex that is really artificial. All the propaganda, from Academia to Madison Avenue, stresses only half the truth. We are forever reminded of the beauty and attractiveness of the body. We don't hear (it runs against too many vested interests) of the equally natural modesty and delicacy of the soul, in fact the universal sense of privacy against which all this explicitness batters. Both being natural, we can, if we choose, cultivate the one and coarsen the other. But this is to distort Nature, not to liberate her.
The idea of Sex as a thing existing in abstraction from marriage (or any other specific human connection) came into the popular mind along with the acceptance Of contraceptive devices. Hard as it may be to recall, the agitation and scandal of Margaret Sanger's contraception crusade traversed denominational lines; the Catholic Church was only part of the chorus. And as so often happens, the wildest reactionary anxieties were more honest than the soothing promises of reformers: the reactionaries sensed, and warned, that the moral implications of birth control were enormous. When copulation was severed from reproduction, the very essence of the act would be changed. And so it proved. The act became Sex.
Contraception was nothing new. Casanova knew about as much on the subject as Mrs. Sanger. David M. Kennedy has noted her tendency to talk as if existing knowledge had been withheld from the public, when in fact you could find it in the public library. She was, in fact, a Socialist ideologue, raised by a Socialist father, consorting with Socialist friends like Eugene Debs, John Reed, Emma Goldman, the young Max Eastman. She simply decided, early on, to specialize in Sex. She propagandized for contraception on both feminist and social engineering grounds, even appealing to nativist sentiment with the argument that it was desirable to control the breeding habits of lesser breeds. Her defenders treat this as a brief aberration, and so it was: but it shows that much of the attraction of birth control (and abortion) lies in its potential for controlling other people's birthrates. The lesson has been taken to heart in Germany, China, India, and a number of Southern states.
Since Mrs. Sanger's triumph in the forum, people have increasingly thought Of Sex as a pastime to which reproduction is incidental, and often inconvenient. Between our technology and her ideology, the whole meaning of physical love has changed for us.
The problem, obviously, is not contraception in itself, but the way it has habituated us to imagine ourselves and to reconceive our rights and obligations. This has created, or sharply accentuated, a conflict of interest between parent and child: a conflict easily resolved by redefining it as coincidence. For today, children are no necessary consequence of Sex. They are uninvited guests, party-crashers. Abortion therefore belongs to the logic of Sex, not of economics. Though abortion is often justified in terms of what people can afford, modern society can obviously support far more children than previous ages could. Today it is spoken of less as a misfortune than as an actual injustice that anyone should be afflicted with "unwanted pregnancy." And how presumptuous that anyone so afflicted should be "forced" to bear an "unwanted child"—meaning, to bear the natural and foreseeable consequences of a biological act. We now hear the grotesque argument that it's good for a child to be aborted if its mother doesn't want it, since nobody could want an unwanted existence, The same sort of conflict also exists between parent and parent: what if one parent wants a child (or an abortion) and the other opposes? Who decides, and how?
This much seems likely: the decision will not remain solely with the individual or the family. Under Socialism, neither is sacred; the family isn't indissoluble, or even special; and nothing will be inviolable if it opposes the state's purposes. And even under freer regimes, the state will step in when authority is unsettled. When marriages are dissolved, the state must assign the children to one parent or the other. That is inescapable as long as the public demands divorce. But the state now claims the power to declare unborn human beings subhuman. If it doesn't itself kill those it has so designated, it claims the _right to delegate the killing.
What most people haven't yet noticed is how the state's interests may clash with those of the individual. So far the individual's freedom and discretion have been held to be total; arbitrary, not subject to rational scrutiny. But such a freedom immediately becomes vulnerable when the state brings its own rationale to bear. Already we have heard a few voices foretelling, and even advocating, mandatory birth control as a population policy. Personal preference won't count for much in a showdown with the armed and amplified modern state.

Neither the individual nor the family is a natural institution, in the sense of existing outside civil society. They are creations of civil society. I mean, of course, the individual and family endowed with legal Status and rights.

When civility breaks down, these things perish. The breakdown can be imposed from above, but it can also come about by popular demand, even in the name of "reform."
C. S. Lewis noted that many allegedly progressive doctrines of our time had the ultimate effect of eroding the human community and all its moral traditions, a process he summed up as "the abolition of man." He found in such doctrines the common error of supposing that man somehow "creates" his own values. In his scattered ruminations on this theme, one finds him tracing the heresy, apparently, to the Renaissance doctrine of sovereignty, known at first as the Divine Right of Kings, according to which the ruler's commands become the subject's obligations, no matter what—i.e., even if they contravene what would otherwise be common morality.
Socialism In loco parentis

A handy doctrine for warmongers, no doubt. But what interested Lewis wasn't the royal prerogative in itself. The deeper error was to think that Will could be the standard of Right—a question on which Lewis sided with Aquinas and Hooker in denying that even God's will could make right what was metaphysically wrong. Yet the heresy had survived _its monarchic embodiment, and the Divine Right became democratized. Later theorists held that some sovereign will—that of the people, the Volk, the revolutionary vanguard—constituted the subject's obligation, even that the subject was doing no more than obeying himself. Under such doctrines, modern states pretended to redefine human obligations. Politics became the means of man's abolition. Old forms of authority fell. Education was replaced by conditioning—or, as it has lately been called, "re-education."
It is no accident, as the Socialists say, that Socialism and Sex (or "free love") came in together as "advanced" ideas. They supplement each other. Russian dissident Igor Shafarevich, in his profound book The Socialist Phenomenon, explains that the Socialist project of homogenizing society demands that the family be vitiated or destroyed. This can be accomplished in good measure by profaning conjugal love and breaking monogamy's link between Sex and loyalty. Hence, in their missionary phases Socialist movements often stress sexual "liberation," and members of radical organizations may impose mandatory promiscuity within the group, everyone sharing a bed with &iCh of the others, each equally related to each. It is the ultimate in leveling.
Socialist regimes, once established, may appear puritaniCal. It is true that they forbid public erotic expressions; these are as tightly controlled as other forms of expression, which shouldn't surprise us. But the Socialist state has no need of a sexual campaign when it has already destroyed the essence of the family with easy divorce and abortion, surveillance, and the threat of sanctions against parents Who teach their children religion. Christian children may be sent to orphanages, because children belong principally to Socialist society, and to instruct them in religion is to subvert the state by corrupting its members. The "accident" of biological relation gives a parent no claim on the child that can rival the state's.
The Socialist mind loathes what it calls "accidents" of birth, and applies this invidious term to every advantage a child receives. Pressed to the limit, this means that every benefit you give your own child amounts to a kind of deprivation for every other child. Unless parenthood has that privilege, unless family relations enjoy priority over the relations that obtain among citizens, Socialism must regard special favors as injustices. Hence the Socialist regime must be forever correcting and undoing the work of Nature, who is partial to her own. This is the rationale that lies beneath our "affirmative action" programs; they have less than they claim to do with race and history. Some extreme egalitarians even argue that physical beauty and native intelligence must be compensated for by "society," since they are undeserved. Socialism can't rest until the family is either abolished or reduced to the lowest administrative unit of the state. In Sweden it is now against the law to spank your own child (and even a good scolding may count as "child abuse"). The Socialist, it has been said, would aid the orphan by destroying the family.
In America Socialism doesn't sell under its own label, as I have said. But it is still real enough; the heresy is global. Most American liberals are more or less unconscious Socialists. There is no reason to shrink from so identifying them. Giraffes may be unconscious of being giraffes, but the zoologist goes by his own taxonomic purposes. Or, to use another image, the world Socialist phenomenon may be likened to a beehive (an image Shafarevich also finds useful), which consists of several kinds of bees—queen, workers, drones—all of which cooperate without comprehending the system they compose. Different though they are, they work in harmony to create a certain kind of order. Workers and drones don't (ordinarily) attack each other. Neither do liberals and Communists.
Most liberals are far less lucid than Communists about the ultimate shape of the order they are working to produce. Liberals' minds are much more ad hoc. But behind all their organizations—civil rights, feminist, civil libertarian, consumerist, environmentalist, sexual, homosexual —lurks a Socialist model. They want a certain kind of regime, almost always requiring a bigger and more centralized state power. They show the greatest reluctance to criticize the Socialist bloc and they attack, ridicule, and wax hysterical about those who do. They are not only alert to benign Signals from that bloc, they fall for all its dissimulations, but they maintain hostile suspicions toward anti-Socialist forces. They insist there are no values worth fighting over separating us from the Socialist powers, with whom they desire "normalized" relations, but they prescribe severe sanctions against Chile and South Africa. Willmoore Kendall, reviewing a book by Chester Bowles about the "developing" nations, noted with amusement that Bowles had at bottom a simplistic view of the whole melange of Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, cannibals, nomads, aborigines; herdsmen: all their "aspirations" seemed to be Socialist! Clearly Bowles illustrated the psychological phenomenon we Gill projection. Thus does the Socialist mind homogenize the most diverse realities. Too many evenings? It is hard to see how any spirited or intelligent person can bear Socialism for one evening.

Under the guise of personal freedom, the leftist hive has gutted many of the institutions through which freedom is mediated. The hive defined the family as a repressive institution, and mounted assaults, in the names of sexual liberation and civil liberties, against all the local and traditional supports of family structure and authority. Two of our most oligarchic and centralizing forces—the Supreme Court and the mass media—have done the dirty work which representative institutions could hardly have done: the Court has mandated "change," the media have advertised and marketed it. The first great step was to force the cutting back of local censorship. The second was to legalize abortion. All this was justified as constitutional imperative that warranted bypassing the usual legal and political processes, and celebrated as the "opening up" of American moral life. In reality it meant Socialism, a central power immune to popular resistance.
As I have said, few Americans will buy a bottle labeled Socialism. The cunning of the Socialist hive has consisted largely in its skill in  on more attractive things. Like Sex.

Type your reply to this message here.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)