My plan had originally been to make my trip to Asia after Christmas, but Crissy had told me that she was unlikely to be available then. I was in contact with a number of girls, but only she had that spark, and I knew I wanted to meet her. She was lively and enthusiastic, but had an edge about her and a depth too, that I liked. She had a way of just knowing what I was thinking, even before I said it, that always bodes well for a new relationship.
So I rearranged my schedule. In fact, November is the best time to go to southeast Asia in any case. The typhoon season should have come to an end, and the temperatures are relatively low, with lots of sunshine. In addition, flight prices are twenty per cent or so cheaper then, than in March or April. I readily persuaded myself that making the trip sooner was justified on a whole raft of counts; other, of course, than my interest in getting to know Crissy a whole lot better…
When Islam, in the form of the Ottoman Empire, launched the attack on Europe that ended before Vienna, it was engaged in Jihad — fighting in the name of Allah, to make the world Islamic. The Caliph, his general and all the men who fought, were carrying out their religious duty — to conquer the world for Islam. This is Offensive Jihad, the most aggressive form. We see it today in Daesh and similar bandit groups today, but under the Ottomans, it motivated the biggest killing machine in the world.
There are other forms of jihad, and they may, in the right circumstances, be almost as effective at destroying other cultures and their values. They corrode them just by contact.
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. 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.
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 for dealing 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.
We now know that women are becoming increasingly unhappy, and this is because they are no longer doing that which would make them happy, having and raising children. There are no unhappy women in traditional cultures, because they are not infected by feminism. They don’t need to go to the city to compete with men. Their men go there and work, while the women run the home, bear, care for and educate their children.
Women in the West are unhappy because feminism denies them the opportunity to be happy by doing the same. Any who try to do so are berated on the sewers of social media, shouted down as ‘pawns of the patriarchy’ and as ‘sex-traitors.’
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.
The terms homosexual, bisexual and pseudo-bisexual are often misunderstood and misused. So here’s an explanation with particular relevance to transsexualism.
In the general vernacular, this is taken to mean ‘attraction to same sex’; so a homosexual male is sexually and romantically attracted to other males and a homosexual female to other females.
These are people who are attracted both to their own sex and to the opposite one. In practise, this can be sequential (one after the other) or concurrent (at the same time). In other words, the bisexual individual might form monogamous relationships, sometimes with the same sex, sometimes the other, or might establish multiple relationships with individuals of both sexes at the same time. It’s likely that social factors and the level of partner tolerance will affect this.
This term applies to a very specific sample and is NOT the same as the above. Pseudo-bisexualism is a function of one of the Male-to-Feminine trans forms, the non-homosexual or autogynephilic. In this the male subject becomes obsessed and sexually aroused by the idea of himself as a woman. As a result of this, he creates a second mental model of himself. This man is not homosexual so this erotic target must be a woman. As this gathers strength, the pseudo-bisexual autogynephile will seek out sexual or romantic encounters with men in order to validate it.
Western feminists, for over half a century, have argued that gender itself has been the fundamental agent of women’s oppression. The solution often claimed, is to establish a matriarchy. But very few understand what a matriarchy really is.
Where society was based on forms of meritocracy — often on the power to make financial profit — artificial barriers that might exist in less fluid societies could be broken down by women excelling and so they could rise in the culture.
Phuket, Thailand. Midnight: Bangla Road is packed with tourists. They’re mostly Westerners and Russians, but many Asians and a smattering of Indians. There seems a disproportionate number of unattached males. The music is very loud, and throbbing. Outside the bars, on elevated stages, Thai girls are dancing provocatively. They’re tall, fantastically beautiful, and seductive. They look, and move, like supermodels, but with better bodies. Then you realise: there are other Thai women here too, but they’re short, cute and pretty, not at all statuesque or magnificent. Alongside the kathoey, Thailand’s famous trans women, they are all but invisible, like candles next to a searchlight. It’s easy to see who has the attention of the gathered men.
On stage, one girl rolls her dress down to her hips so that her naked breasts and torso – she sports an intricate tattoo on her back – are shown off, as she wriggles to the thrumming music. Her body is as flawless as a Greek goddess’ and her dance mesmerising as a Siren’s: you just can’t help but watch and smile at her exquisite insouciance.
In 2009 Dr Charles Moser entered the discussion about Blanchard’s Typology of transsexualism. It is worth revisiting Moser because his mischievous intervention not only hindered the progress of the science of transsexualism, but damaged some people, while favouring others.
As you may know, Blanchard separates male-to-feminine (MtF) transsexuals into those attracted to their own sex from their earliest arousal, and those who are either not attracted to their own birth sex or who develop such an attraction, usually partially, in later life. These are called, using Blanchard’s terminology, ‘HomoSexual Transsexuals’ or HSTS and ‘Autogynephilic Transsexuals’ or AGPs. (We will later quote studies that call the latter ‘non-homosexual’.)
Blanchard’s underlying thesis is that both these forms of transsexualism are stimulated by male sex drive. MtF HSTS are, essentially, seen as extremely feminine homosexual males. This is relatively easy to understand and this type was formerly known as the ‘Primary’ or ‘True’ type. The other type is much more complex and shares an aetiology with fetishistic cross-dressing men. These individuals are romantically or sexually attracted to themselves, but as women.