On Anglo Sexual Mores

So it's summer time, and people are starting to show some skin. It's real hot actually, and I spent the last weekend in a seaside town. And people there were showing a lot of skin. Tank top, tight shorts, you know. Lately it is common for people to complain about the old and ugly women who also wear revealing clothing, which makes most men want to puke. It is really disturbing. But I wanna complain too about the hot young girls in short and tight clothes.

Yeah they are hot as hell and they make me wanna fuck them all. But that's wrong, fellas. That's not a good thing. You shouldn't feel like watching porn just walking by the street. And it's not only in seaside towns; it's everywhere. On my way to work, going for groceries with my woman. I guess I am easily distracted, or perhaps more horny than average. But I can't control that and women can control whether they cover up their tits and legs. But why would they cover up when they can go semi naked around the street? It's empowering! If it's empowering for a woman to use her natural weapons against men's weakness, then if a man uses his natural weapons (fists) against women's weakness (her face), then beating the hell of some woman is also empowering, non? That must be why hot chicks dig violent assholes. They both dig empowering.

The thought crossed my mind that perhaps muslims have it right after all. Their women don't go outside uncovered. Some are hot, some are not, something that men are very good at telling, so there's always some amount of distraction when a cute girl comes close. But they don't have a constant stream of teenage girls in hot pants. I have been in Muslim countries and you don't get distracted much by women.

But in the way to asking for conversion papers at the neighbourhood mosque, another thought crossed my mind. Islam is a hotbed of fags.  It's common knowledge that in Muslim countries sex with boys is widespread, and not even considered homosexuality. The most extreme case is of course Afghanistan with its harems of prepubescent boys, but it happens all around the muslim world. And its prevalence is directly retarded with the issue I'm talking about here: the access to young women. Young muslim girls aren't uncovered so as to net elicit improper desire on others and wreck a long prepared cousin marriage which would produce cute little retards for the family. All during the summer you'll see lots and lots of horny boys and men going out approaching those sluttily dressed girls, desperate to get some poon. It feels pathetic from outside, but we have all gone to ridiculous lengths to get a shot at it. And you just couldn't stop it because the poon is everywhere. Sheer probability means you would fuck someone if you try long enough. And you eventually do.

Well what do muslim boys do then? Their girls aren't accessible but surely they are as horny as we are. But there's no girls to chase, let alone fuck. So they mostly fuck each other. Or get fucked by some older patron. It's as simple as this. And is not even uniquely Muslim. In fact the sexual openness of western women is a very rare exception in history, which makes sense when you think about it. All agricultural civilisations have tightly controlled access to their women. Women were property, which was only given away after a hard bargain, and you couldn't really do away with her once you got one. So you couldn't sleep for pleasure. Boys are expendable though, those can be fucked. So girly looking boys have always been screwed. In Ancient Persia, Greece, Rome. Big shot samurai lords satisfied their urges with boys. Medieval Europe and China aren't famous for buggering but we know that it did happen. Modern England is of course famous for its boarding school homos.

So it seems that the alternative to having sluts constantly at your face making your balls ache is to live in a country where your little brother is pretty much certain to be assraped sooner or later. Which is not to say that the West is free of homos. Obviously not, bu we have created a society for their own, instituted a scientific myth about buttsex being a genetic "trait", and set clear barriers for people who are into it and those who aren't. Caesar wasn't that lucky. He liked them nubile girls à la Cleopatra, but when he was a young man Nicomedes got a piece of his ass. 

So perhaps is not such a good idea to cover your women and hide them at home. But I still think that having 15-20 year olds out in the street half naked waiting for alphas to sweep them off their feet is a good idea either. Simply because young women are too valuable just to be allowed to waste their youth in the cock-carrousel. Women used to be property, and property is sold when its more valuable. Now women boast that their body is their own property. Still doesn't make sense. Nowadays women give their bodies away for free when they're nice and tight, and try to sell it higher when they've lost all value.

Old Europe had a curious arrangement, one in which adultery was subtly promoted and pretty much expected after some time. For all the talk about the spartan bourgeois and their puritan mores, western merchants have been sleeping with each others' wives for ages. In fact most provincial soap operas over here are based on that. "You slept with my business partner! How could you do this to me! Come on, you have been screwing my sister since before our wedding!"

It may seem severely wrong, but it's a much saner arrangement than the cock-carrousel/serial dating culture where women are fucked silly from 15 to 30 and lose all sense of what life is about, and the ephebe slavery of old. If you have to fuck around (and a fair amount of people do), society is better off if you play around on the older second hand market, rather than disrupt the much more important world of young mating and marriage. That's how the French do it,  or did it.  Clueless anglos tend to take it too seriously and run away leaving your family behind. That's probably the reason why Anglos have always been more open about homos. They take women so seriously, and their women take themselves so seriously, that they restrict supply in effectively the same way as muslims.

And women are getting worse. The obesity epidemic combined with continued Muslim immigration might very well bring ephebophilia into Britain or the US. Progress!

Couple of points: Merchants in general were considered low class sort of folks. Not the type to be imitated. The west has always had a class of loose women to service unmarried men. It was accepted that a certain number of women would up be whores or town bicycles. Both puritanism and Islam rejected this idea and fought against it. Islam dealt with this problem by constant warfare and the taking of slave girls to service unmarried males. Now that Islam can no longer expanding the supply of slave girls has dried up. Homosexuality became common because they didn't adjust the age when men got married to match the supply of women or allow some of their women to become sluts. Boy/male fucking in general seems to spring from genes that control the population during hard times or when it's dangerous to expand the population. That's the reason it's practiced so extensively in places like new guinea, Afghanistan, and prison.

Be careful now guy. Also this. Your description of the arrangements of the past is too reductive, but your disgust with the present amuses as always. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. What's your point though? That I'm a pastafarian? Or a Diabolist. The diabolist sounds close enough to the character I take my name from.

Slave girls went to unmarried muslim men? Could they afford it? I'd like some sources on that. If buggery is a demographic tool, do other mammals do it too? It's not like they don't have demographic issues.

No, just this: "...as Malcolm X put it, if you take one step toward Allah, Allah takes two steps toward you." And if anything this post shows that you are not a diabolist. Neither are you an anti-diabolist, but Chesterton believed that one is always moving towards one of the two poles (I agree with him). Turns out it's a slippery slope in both directions.

That's a poetic way of seeing it, and indeed Chesterton wrote beautiful prose. It's a matter of aesthetics, some people just crave consistency. But those are few. I don't agree most people are moving towards the poles. Not at all, as I see it the vast majority of people are constantly moving between decent and mediocre, going back and forth sinning, repenting and sinning again without gaining any insight about it. It's a deep and comfy valley, rather than a slippery slope.

I've never understood the fascination with looking at hot women. Men will go to a place just to stare at scantily clad women, then remark upon it to each other. To me if your not going to fuck them what's the point. Especially when it isn't some unique beauty (like a supermodel, mostly they ogle the hot young women downtown they see all the time anyway). Better to spend that time actually accomplishing things, maybe then a hot women would like to sleep with you rather then just be looked at.

I'm not quite following that second link.

"Better to spend that time actually accomplishing things" Says a civil servant.

It's ok. Looks like I'm going back to trading derivatives for my last private megacorp. My company will pay slick salesmen to call up old ladies who are lonely and kinduv losing it, but have retirement nest eggs. They will talk them into buying complicated annuities they don't understand, but generate big profits and commissions for us. I'll be tasked with hedging off the risk with some investment bank who will make take a good portion of our cut for the privilege. Since these are all voluntary transactions in the glorious private market you know they are fantastic for our nation. I will be a capitalist superman once again.

Bear in mind that many cultures have lived on the edge of starvation, and starving people shut don't have vigorous sex drives. Ancient cultures were often undersexed because they were underfed.

Lol, I was just pulling your leg. What happened? I thought you (reasonably) regarded business is as evil as government.

That's a good point. But I wonder. Modern Chinese aren't that oversexed now that they eat properly. And the 12th century sexual revolution in Europe wasn't caused by better nutrition.

Government is too dysfunctional for me to exist there. So dysfunctional I'm pretty sure we are doing more harm then good, which kinduv defeats the whole purpose of why I went there. If my only options in life at this point are all evil I might as well take a job where they are really good at evil and I'm rewarded better.

Heh. That must be the slippery slope that Gabe Ruth was talking about.

Machen, The white people " "Yes, and of the sinners, too. I think you are falling into the very general error of confining the spiritual world to the supremely good; but the supremely wicked, necessarily, have their portion in it. The merely carnal, sensual man can no more be a great sinner than he can be a great saint. Most of us are just indifferent, mixed-up creatures; we muddle through the world without realizing the meaning and the inner sense of things, and, consequently, our wickedness and our goodness are alike second-rate, unimportant." "And you think the great sinner, then, will be an ascetic, as well as the great saint?" "Great people of all kinds forsake the imperfect copies and go to the perfect originals. I have no doubt but that many of the very highest among the saints have never done a 'good action' (using the words in their ordinary sense). And, on the other hand, there have been those who have sounded the very depths of sin, who all their lives have never done an 'ill deed.'" (...) "You're quite wrong," said Ambrose. "I never make paradoxes; I wish I could. I merely said that a man may have an exquisite taste in Romanée Conti, and yet never have even smelt four ale. That's all, and it's more like a truism than a paradox, isn't it? Your surprise at my remark is due to the fact that you haven't realized what sin is. Oh, yes, there is a sort of connexion between Sin with the capital letter, and actions which are commonly called sinful: with murder, theft, adultery, and so forth. Much the same connexion that there is between the A, B, C and fine literature. But I believe that the misconception--it is all but universal--arises in great measure from our looking at the matter through social spectacles. We think that a man who does evil to us and to his neighbours must be very evil. So he is, from a social standpoint; but can't you realize that Evil in its essence is a lonely thing, a passion of the solitary, individual soul? Really, the average murderer, quâ murderer, is not by any means a sinner in the true sense of the word. He is simply a wild beast that we have to get rid of to save our own necks from his knife. I should class him rather with tigers than with sinners." "It seems a little strange." "I think not. The murderer murders not from positive qualities, but from negative ones; he lacks something which non-murderers possess. Evil, of course, is wholly positive--only it is on the wrong side. You may believe me that sin in its proper sense is very rare; it is probable that there have been far fewer sinners than saints. Yes, your standpoint is all very well for practical, social purposes; we are naturally inclined to think that a person who is very disagreeable to us must be a very great sinner! It is very disagreeable to have one's pocket picked, and we pronounce the thief to be a very great sinner. In truth, he is merely an undeveloped man. He cannot be a saint, of course; but he may be, and often is, an infinitely better creature than thousands who have never broken a single commandment. He is a great nuisance to us, I admit, and we very properly lock him up if we catch him; but between his troublesome and unsocial action and evil--Oh, the connexion is of the weakest."

Yes, nice piece. After all these years and the great debate on moral agency is yet to be done. The idea that criminals can't 'sin' because they are stupid maps nicely with the liberal view of NAMs and foreign cultures.

Lewis has a very similar passage from the mouth of Screwtape, where he bemoans the low nutritional value of modern sinners. I don't disagree with the observation about the nature of evil and how it is manifested in people (or not), but I think we should acknowledge that mediocrity in humanity is a victory for evil, a degradation. As good reactionaries we know that mediocrity is and always has been the worldly fate of most men. The thing that is declining is the objectives, the goals of men. Modern man is ignorant of any goal beyond the satisfaction of animal wants and noxious passions (his own or his fellows, if he fancies himself an altruist) and higher things become harder for him to even conceive of with each passing generation. "Evil, of course, is wholly positive–only it is on the wrong side." I confess to some confusion on this point. Is this incompatible with the view that all evil is a perversion of the good, and that evil can have no original substance of its own? On a tangential note, have you (Baduin or Spandrell) ever read A Voyage To Arcturus? Note: I don't recommend it, but it presents a vision like few books I've ever read (in spite of being awfully written).

No, I haven't. Why don't you recommend it? It looks good enough. A point I'd like to do is that premodern men were also vain and vacuous to a great degree. It's true that hedonism wasn't the ultimate cultural standard, but most people were still petty and mediocre, and didn't give a shit about their religion or any standard of greatness. Even most 'great people' are regarded as such by cherry picking from their biography. Modern culture is indeed bad, and I do think it's a degradation, but there's no magic past were people were good and noble.

I found the vision presented unsettling and repugnant, and couldn't stop thinking about it for days. There is much depth to it though, and it is beautiful at times. If you happen to read it I'd appreciate someone to discuss it with, because there were parts whose symbolism escaped me.