Prostitution is, they say, ‘the oldest profession in the world’ and, as far as the historical record goes, it’s at least close to being so. The first mention of prostitution that we know of was 5,500 years ago, in the city of Uruk, in Sumer in Mesopotamia, where priestesses in the Temple of Inanna performed this service.
The religious connection with prostitution, of course, is one that has long since been lost — though we might discuss it in another piece; yet of course, the practice itself continues. Until recently, the major push to suppress prostitution was religious, coming from, in particular, the Protestant Christian traditions and notably the Anglican one, which has always been a pillar of sex-negativity and repression.
Of recent decades, however, the attempt to prevent women from engaging in prostitution has come from other women. Indeed, it has become a bastion of modern feminism. But this throws up a thorny moral question: do we or do we not have the right to do as we will with our own bodies?
There are many myths about relationships with trans women but they are, for a man, little different from those with cis women. Obviously, in the case of an intact trans woman there is her penis to deal with, but this amounts to something around 1% of her; the other 99% is more important.
There are subtle nuances of difference but no more than one might encounter if in a relationship with someone from a different cultural background.
I think the most damaging of the myths, regarding transwomen who retain their genitalia, is that they will want to use it in the way that a man would. Outside of sex work, this is rare; most just won’t. (I do know some who do, for pleasure and in private but they are unusual, likely well under 10%.)
(A brief History of Homo, Part 2) In hypermasculine ‘egalitarian’ homosexuality, the basis of the New Gay Man cult, the individual’s Erotic Target, is himself, in the form of a masculine man. This results from the peculiar social conditions he operates in.
The New Gay Man is an individual with Sexual Inversion, that is to say, he is male, but has female or passive sexuality.
(In sexuality) activity is put into operation by the instinct for mastery through the agency of the somatic musculature (the body); the organ which, more than any other, represents the passive sexual aim is the erotogenic mucous membrane of the anus.
Feature pic: apparently Sir Ian thinks ‘gay men’ are more masculine than straight men. Well, women are better judges of this than men…but really I think it’s because we don’t have to try as hard as gays.
All male-to-feminine (MtF) trans are EITHER homosexual (exclusively attracted to men from childhood) or non-homosexual (not exclusively attracted to men from childhood.) The latter are commonly known as autogynephilic. This distinction is obvious and has been observed since the 19th century. It is recognised as fundamental by all serious scientists working in the field.
Homosexual Transsexuals (HSTS) exhibit a cluster of trait characteristics in addition to their sexual desire for men. They tend to be small, delicately built, light for their height, naturally feminine and neotenous. They have intense difficulty learning to be masculine, if they ever do. Non-homosexual trans exhibit no such clustering; in fact they conform to the averages for men of their ethnicity and are attracted to women.
The explanation for HSTS is easy and has never been disputed: they desire men and are feminine, so to attract men, whom they know to be attracted to femininity, they make themselves more feminine. Again none of this is true of non-homosexuals; so why on earth might it be that a man, who is not attracted to or seeking to attract men, would want to appear to be feminine?
Sex is a social bargain, formed by Evolution. Men agree to behave in certain ways in order to have access to it. Women, who need fathers for their children, are prepared to give that access, as long as men behave in certain approved manners.
However, men’s need for sex is in their need to orgasm, as women have so often pointed out. If they can do that without women, then much of the need to bargain with them vanishes. This is because, while Evolution requires that we reproduce, for men, this is largely felt as a desire to have a lot of orgasms by penetration. Men do not have the visceral connection between the act of sex and the arrival of a baby that women do. For men, babies really could be delivered by the storks.
This unquestionably leads men to have a somewhat cavalier attitude towards sex — they’ll take it wherever they can get it — but it has also caused women to bolster the social bargain that keeps their behaviour moderate. Principally, this was through marriage, an arrangement whereby a woman only has sex with one man. In this way, he knows whom his own children are, something he otherwise could not. So the bargain becomes sexual exclusivity in exchange for heredity.
Women always think in terms of power. When they decorate a home they are showing their power within their space. When they outlaw masculinity and masculine behaviour, they are exercising power.
Men think in terms of targets and things rather than power. That is why a man gets irritated when his wife interferes with his prized model collection. It’s also why men ‘objectify’ women. Men objectify everything, there is no need to feel it’s special treatment.
Men, innately, seek to achieve targets and to acquire things as measures of status with which they can persuade women to give up what they want, which is sex. Women see their power over that sex as the means by which they can control the individual man they might be partnered with, but also the broader society.
The Philippines is steeped in folklore and mythology. The very air seems supernatural at times and even today, Filipinos firmly believe in the supernatural creatures which also populate their country. Best known of these are Aswangs and Engkantos.
Many of these beliefs certainly date from the pre-colonial period and before the establishment of Catholicism as the dominant religion. Prior to this, the Philippines was not a unitary polity, but was made up of many small kingdoms and tribal areas. These all seem to have believed in a somewhat similar form of Animism but were all brought together under one faith and one colonial rule, by the Spanish.
Sex, folks, is real. So are Sexuality and Gender. But these are not always related as people might expect them to be. So let’s have a look at them.
In all sexually dimorphic species there are two morphs, which are directly linked to reproduction; that, after all, why sexual dimorphism exists. One of these produces large, relatively static cells called gametes, which contain half the DNA needed to make a new individual. The other produces small, highly motile gametes, which contain the other half. The former are called ova and the latter spermatozoa or sperm.
Women think in terms of power and men in terms of sex; this is innate.
Women’s best chance of success in evolutionary terms is the protection of their children. They are limited in how many they can have and rear to maturity, and childbirth, without modern medicine, is extremely dangerous. So women constantly (and reasonably) seek control (power) over their own reproduction, since for them, choosing a good mate is paramount. This extends over the space they live in — so that male aggression in particular is removed and with it the risk of violence, accidental or otherwise to children.
As women move out of the Home Group space and into the broader society they take these objectives with them, and this leads them to try to gain power over that society in the same way. So, although the impetus is evolution and reproduction, this is expressed as a desire for power. That is why the abortion debate is so polarised: nothing can ever be allowed to challenge a woman’s power over her own body, even the rights of her unborn child.
Gender is innate. It is not a social construct This article discusses how it evolved.
Early human society was fluid, with survival always the goal. It was, in general, divided by sex. Women and children formed a home group, which focussed on protection of the children and nursing mothers, foraging, perhaps trapping small game and birds, and the preparation and cooking of food. This group would have been a sisterhood of equals, but led, in all probability, by the elder women, the grandmothers, who were also the teachers, the midwives and shamans.
The other group was of men and older boys, based on the hunt. This group had to be able to respond quickly to the changing circumstances of the hunt, which could, especially when hunting large game, be lethal. A command system developed, probably around the best and most experienced hunters. We call this the ‘away’ group.
These two groups have long been identified and are still obvious in non-Western societies today. They are the evolutionary basis of gender.