Alone in the social environment

Ok I’ll make it very simple: Is there anyone who has gone from a semi autistic state (like one of those guys that you might see that doesn’t look you in the eye and is generally fairly socially incompetent especially in sexual matters but not a full blown autistic) – so gone from that state to higher than average level of being able to read and understand people and the overall social environment? I’m not quite sure if this would be exactly an empathic awakening as it’s not so much about feeling the emotions of other people but rather knowing them and allowing better communication.

So how about a narrative? Everyone seems to love ‘em and have I got one for you.

So I had a fairly normal childhood except my family moved around a bit to various countries which meant that it was difficult for me to establish long term friendships, so by the time we finally did stop moving I was pretty much on the outer socially but that is no big deal. At the time I went to university I felt I was pretty much like my peers. Of course university began a shakedown of my peer group and I became more socially isolated at that time. Now in terms of relationships I had a number of friends but never had any girlfriend. The reason for this is that although I was of above average looks and intelligence I lacked social confidence and competence with the opposite sex. In short I was seen as a ‘weird guy’. This lack of sexual relationships pushed me into some darker places intellectually as I sought to explain my lack of success in this area. I even started writing manifestos and the like. In short I was an incel long before I or anyone had ever heard the term.

Now to be clear, I can very easily prove this. I have the writings that I did at that time and although (of course) I didn’t have the terminology that people now use, they were clearly incel writings.

Anyway, this went on for a number of years during which I had a chronic illness that added to my woes. I tried various things to cure my illness but I could only manage to at best control it. As for girls I had pretty much given up.

So by my early 20s I was getting desperate, while in Las Vegas I decided to accept an invitation from a prostitute just so I could finally have sex. After that for a number of years I was in the situation that I had had sex but I had never been kissed by a girl.

Then in my mid 20s I ended up going to London and an event occurred which absolutely transformed my perception of the world. I was living with small time drug dealers and I took some drugs which they gave me which I was told was ecstasy and went out to a club. After a while I thought that the drugs hadn’t worked and I may as well just go home. Well it hit me on the bus on the way home and it was the best feeling I had ever felt. It was like my whole body was having an orgasm, ongoing for a long time. Furthermore, it was like I suddenly knew everything. I could understand how everything worked. It was like the most incredible thing I have ever experienced. I had some more drugs the following weekend and I felt like I could see and understand the social environment. Although this feeling wore off when the drugs wore off.

Then unfortunately I had to leave the UK. I had a stopover in China where I stayed for a while. It was there that I made my big breakthrough. I had been continuing my writings of incel-like explanations of the social world when I decided to test out a particular hypothesis. I’m not going to tell you what that hypothesis was for reasons I will get on to later.
But holy shit – what an eye opener. Instant results. Suddenly I could get the insight into the social environment that I had when on the drugs – but without the drugs!

What followed was the most amazing period of my life of intense concentrated learning, of which I was documenting in incel style and reforming my view of the social world.

Then I had some shocks. The shocks were twofold: One was was a particular kind of social contact which I felt was both extreme in its implications and more importantly outside my control. Secondly I was shocked to discover that the social environment contained truths which meant that people were violating both my own values and theirs.

These shocks brought my major period of learning to an end. It had only lasted about a month or so. I found myself back in a similar place to where I had started but for different reasons. Before I had seemed shy and nervous because I couldn’t see the social environment and didn’t understand it. Now I seemed a similar way but because I saw the environment all too well and did not want to see the horrors that lurked there, nor to evoke those horrors. I call this breakdown “the horror” because I didn’t want to see the truth of the social environment. It would take me many years to become able to fully deal with the things I had seen.

With regards to relationships with opposite sex I was certainly in a much more beneficial state of being able to do things that I previously had not been able to do, as I felt a great deal of confidence about the social environment compared the blindness I had once had. This enabled me to finally have a girlfriend who I ended up going overseas with. While overseas it was a relief because I was in an Asian culture and did not feel the same expectations on my behaviour as at home. Whilst there I began to coalesce my writings into a book which I called “What it is – A Journey To The End of Philosophy”. (Currently behind a big fat paywall on Amazon) I didn’t know what to do with this book but I felt it was important to record my discoveries. One big problem however was that I didn’t feel that I could promote this information for a couple of different reasons. One was that I didn’t want to be identified as the author of the book because I felt it might interrupt my personal life and secondly, I felt that since I had gone through this traumatic time with discovering the truth of the social environment, what if everyone was to go through that trauma at once? What kind of social effect would that have? It might be a revolutionary prospect. You wouldn’t know what would happen. For instance you might not like Islam but if you were living in Saudi Arabia and everyone stopped believing in it at once it might be quite a scary prospect as to what would happen next. In the case of western society I came to believe that it’s all one big lie that forms a meta-myth around which our lives are structured and if that myth was broken by the intrusion of social reality then what happened next could be a terrifying and chaotic collapse in to anarchy in a bad way. So that’s the main reason I keep my mouth shut as to what’s going on.

Once me and my partner started to have kids it became easier since I had plenty of other issues to deal with but then along came Elliot Rodger. Now at that time I knew about the PUA movement and I thought what a bunch of clowns – all they need to be able to do is see, not all this other bullshit they were promoting. But I didn’t know about the incel movement per se and I thought “These are some guys that could use my help”. I once thought like Elliot Rodger and I can understand these guys. So I decided to try and ‘join’ the community in a low key sort of way to see what I could do to help. But it didn’t really work because I saw that there was no way to reach these guys. They said they wanted help and that they would try anything to get a girl but they wouldn’t try even very basic things. They just wanted to luxuriate in their own helplessness like sort of adult babies. Literally people with the sexual understanding of a child with the intellectual capacities of an adult and incredible hornyness. Now in many ways they had a point. In the past such persons would have been scraped up by some desperate woman and set to work in exchange for sex and even love. But its hardly their fault that society has changed. It was actually men that set woman to work in the world wars as a full mobilisation of society. Once this was combined with the pill it was all over for your typical nice loser male. So all of their theories were right – in a way. I had the same sort of theories myself. Society doesn’t accept incel theory, not because its wrong but because its politically incorrect
Now I have no clue what kind of society I believe would develop if everyone could see the social environment. Perhaps it would be more like Ancient Greek society in which case it might not be too bad. But I digress.

I again got distracted by life and now its more than a decade since I first discovered the psycho-sexual environment and the world has no more knowledge of it now than it did then. One good thing about that is that I have learnt that if I speak in general terms about it then people don’t care. It doesn’t mean anything to them. So that’s lucky!

On the other hand this situation is a lonely one. I know about this thing that others don’t. I can ‘see’ them but they can’t ‘see’ me. So I’ve got to ask myself: Surely there’s someone else out there like me? The internet is a big place. I would expect to be able to find other people if there were people like that out there but I have

LSD or acid telepathy seems to fit, as does The Oliver Sacks story “The President’s Speech” but in general there is very little.

So on the internet you’ve got various communities. There’s autistics – people who don’t get the social environment at all and then there’s incels being people who don’t get the sexual environment and/or are going at it from the wrong sexual stance. Then there’s a whole lot of normies of various stripes who see the social and sexual environment to some functional degree or another. Beyond them on the spectrum there are empaths and highly sensitives who have a much greater feeling for others emotions. All I’m looking for is someone on another part of the spectrum – the highly aware. There MUST be people out there like that. So why can’t I find them?

I don’t want everybody to be able to see me, but it would be nice if there were a few people around that I could connect with in that way. I’ve been thinking that if I can’t find anyone then I should just enable some people, but it’s so risky. Not just to their own mental state but also to the upholding culture as a whole. “Mythspace collapse” is what I call it and I consider it to be a dangerous prospect with the potential of unrestrained revolution.

So there’s my dilemma. Wanting to say enough that I can describe myself to anyone like me but not so much that I give the whole game away and risk collapse of the mythspace in which we all so ‘happily’ live. Well it keeps most people going pretty well. The mythspace has big downsides for sure but if we didn’t have those myths things could really go to crap in my opinion. I just want to help some of the people that have really lost out to those myths and connect with a few likeminded people who can see the environment. Surely that can’t be so hard. If there’s anyone out there who can help please do.

Before I go I’ll just put my standard disclaimer: If you do know the contents of the psycho-sexual environment please do not mention the specifics in the comments. Feel free to DM by all means though. In fact I encourage it!


The (belief in) Christianity Myth

Part of the Christianity Myth

Chritianity is a huge and persistent myth, yet it is also a myth that is in decline and perhaps on the verge of collapse. The biggest problem that Christianity faces is that even its adherents don’t actually believe it. They believe in something but what that is would not typically be recognisable to the original followers of Christ. If you take one of the disciples at the time of the ministry of Jesus and transport them to a modern Christian Church I can’t think of a single thing in the form of worship that would alert them to the fact that it was anything to do with them. So you could be reading from the book of Mark for instance and Mark wouldn’t see any connection. Of course if he knew the language he would soon see the connection, but the form of worship would be completely foreign to him.
Contrast this with Islam and Buddhism where the current form of worship would presumably be somewhat recognisable to its original adherents.
The changing of the forms of worship originally had the effect of opening up the religion to a vast group of new adherents, but it now faces the problem that the original texts as written are hopelessly inappropriate for the lives of those adherents.

One of the effects of this disconnect is that Christians don’t actually believe in Christianity, much less Jesus. What they typically do believe in is certain moral lessons drawn from the teachings of Jesus, but without an intimate connection to Jesus’s way of life itself. The modern Christian wouldn’t like to become a disciple of the original Jesus and those disciples wouldn’t find the modern Christian acceptable adherents of the faith.

Imagine for instance if the typical modern Christian in the United States was given the opportunity to take a one way trip into the past to the time of Jesus’s ministry. It should be the case that every person who says they are Christian leaps at the chance of such a thing. After all, being around Jesus ‘the actual son of God’ is what it’s all about. What could be better than that?
It is also possible that if the offer was made, a good proportion of so called “Christians” might think that they had to accept the offer, but once transported to ancient Judea would find that they didn’t like the situation there very much.
Can you imagine your typical pastor or priest walking around ancient Judea after Jesus?  Where would they get food and medicine?  Oh, well that wouldn’t be a problem right – Jesus would feed them and heal them!  More likely the local people would stone these weird barbarians to death.
They wouldn’t know the language Aramaic, the language Jesus likely spoke day to day nor would they know Koine Greek, the language the New testament was written in. So they couldn’t communicate with Jesus or his disciples. Roman Latin would be much more familiar to the average person, but that was the language of Jesus’s enemies at the time.

Even if they could learn the language of Jesus (which of course only the tiniest portion of president day ‘Christians’ bother to do) life would be very difficult for any modern person around Jesus. It would be much more attractive to the modern person to live in the more ordered Roman world, and that would be invariably where they would migrate whether they liked it of not.

Jesus is nice in theory but if you had to meet him and deal with him it would be exceedingly difficult for people not acquainted with the ancient Judean culture and norms.

It’s a bit like a teenage fan from a affluent background catching up their rock idols. It’s something they might find they want to idolise from a distance.

“Never meet your idols” is a phrase that would be suitable for Christians in relation to Jesus.

I should add as a disclaimer that I would very much hope that Christians don’t bother trying to purify their myth of its glaring inconsistencies as stated. Doing so would create something much worse than even the Amish. But I don’t have to worry about that too much since – they won’t!

Ok I found something…

I decided the other day since the weather was bad to do an intensive search on the internet for something along the lines of my experiences years ago when I took drugs that I was told was “E” and then subsequently reached a different level of social awareness.

On the Psychonaut forum on Reddit I actually found something relevant. Someone had written a post a few years ago titled “Uncontrollable LSD Telepathy destroying my relationships” In which he recounted an LSD/MDMA drug experience and the aftermath. Importantly he listed a number of different things that I had experienced in the way that I would expect people to recount them:

“I’ve also experienced a great deal of panic from “telepathing” to unwanted listeners (like police, government officials, middle east leaders, etc.)”

“In particular, my sexuality seems to have completely exploded, and in many ways that cause me a great deal of pain”

“What’s killing me here is that I don’t know how to stop. I don’t know how to turn the switch off and exit this realm of deep, non-verbal communication.”

This is what I would call the “horror” stage which then eventually settles down to a more nuanced understanding.

I have tried to contact the person who wrote the post, but it was a few years ago. They may no longer be active and they haven’t got back to me at time of writing.

I do want to mentioned though that there is a massive amount out there about LSD telepathy that is effectively a whole other thing altogether. I would not scientifically believe in regular telepathy, although I have to admit that is is plausible since I have seen this stuff. I have to agree with this quote:

“Understandably, a lot of people write off the idea of telepathy pretty quickly, and granted the idea kind of seems insane lol. I’d just like to point out as well that I am a healthy and sane adult working towards my BS, lol, no I’m not a full blown hippie living in the woods (although sometimes I wish I was! :p). I’m actually not one to consider this kind of stuff without solid proof and logical explanations, but after previous experiences with LSD, I just cant ignore that I 100% experience telepathy on LSD.”

Note: I’ve never had LSD as far as I know but I don’t know what was in what I did have.

It’s great to have found the above, it’s just a shame that I don’t have a name for what I have experienced and others don’t so they are posting under the title of “LSD Telepathy”.

I do feel some relief that I am not completely alone in the world as it seems like at least a couple of people have had similar experiences, but they are few and far between. Of course someone could object that in the realm of LSD/MDMA experiences there’s such a range of different experiences that some would surely accord with mine but in this case it really does seem like the experiences are of the same general class of experience.

What it’s been like for me the past however-many-years is what I imagine it would be like for someone who was the only normal person in a world where everyone was autistic.  It sounds a bit brutal but I think it’s an apt analogy.

Still hoping to have an actual discussion with someone who has had such experiences and I will keep on exploring.

Rape and the Kama Sutra (The rape myth)

Kama sutra

One surface level manifestation of us not being in reality is how rape both is and is not a big deal so far as we are concerned. The standard understanding among people in society right now is that rape is an almost uniquely and universally damaging thing. Rape has to be presented as universally damaging regardless of cultural context because if it wasn’t people might say to shift the culture rather than the action.

Yet where rape is presented in other contexts, people don’t typically continue to intuitively or even intellectually believe that it is universally damaging and evil.

A good way to highlight this is to look at respected historical texts. The Bible obviously has rape in the OT but people can say that’s just history.

The Kama Sutra is like an ancient self help text that actually advises on the circumstances that a bit of rape might be a good and advantageous idea. Surprise surprise it’s when the woman can’t make up her mind about marriage. Once you’re raped her that’s the issue settled then!

Kama sutra rape

An interesting thing about it is the amorality of it. It’s just something that will achieve the purpose.

Yet where we go to see what people think of it on Amazon it has mostly positive reviews. Most of the one star reviews are because it doesn’t have pictures (the original never did) only two say:

“If you want to read a text from another time and place of elitism, sexism, racism, classism just for starters this book might reveal to the reader one aspect of the way society functioned. It is certainly nothing that should used as a guide for sexual relationships. Despite what this book has been historically cracked up to be, it also includes tips on how to cheat and/or seduce someone’s wife, some disgusting references to pedophilia in a positive light (disgusting), how to pimp out your daughter and pretty much details from certainly a wealthy man’s point of view of who to take advantage of, discard and use for their own devices. It is not a sex tip book or anything remotely close to the study of tantric sex, which emphasizes marital faitfulness, fairness and kindness in its philosophies.”

Eleanora Fagan on September 7, 2013


rapist’s and child molester’s How-to guide

I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS BOOK !!!!!!!!!!!; ZERO STARS, NOT EVEN ONE !!!!!!!!! I bought this book several years ago —– and was mortified to find it included instruction on how to rape women, how to seduce and molest girls and boys (by both men and women), and how mothers can train their daughters to be prostitutes …… and that was all i could stomach reading before i burned it (i am a survivor of childhood abuse and molestation and adult rape and abuse). If you want help learning how to pleasure your spouse intimately, there are far better books than this one; i recommend such old faithful books like “The Joy of Sex” and “The Gift of Sex” but there are others ….. if you are a woman and want to be grateful for being a member of America and its Judio-Christian culture, then read this. When, as a survivor and concerned citizen trying to protect our children and other woman, i mentioned these contents to my local Barns and Noble store where i bought it, i was treated with condesending snootiness, the manager not even offering to read it to see for him/herself ~~~~~~ and, needless to say, i have never bought another book from that or any other B&N store since … again, as a survivor trying to protect our children and other women from becoming victims.

By crushed ember on November 21, 2011

Realistically, out of the 144 reviews only two have the actual outraged fact of the matter so far as modern society is concerned. And so because of that the Kama Sutra continues to be sold in bookshops across the land.

In comparison if you do a search for “How to rape” it comes up with this and a whole lot of rape prevention stuff.

Even the internet won’t tell you how to rape, ever mind your local bookshop in any other context. Rape is this universally disparaged thing.

Here is some advice about rape for teenagers:

What is it like to be raped?
It’s very difficult to talk about what rape feels like at exactly the moment it happens or is going to happen, because words rarely cut it. Rape is a physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, personal identity, gender and sexual violation, all at once. At the moment it happens, for most rape victims, something in the fabric of the world as we knew it rips wide open. For those who had such low self-esteem they already felt they only deserved pain or suffering, rape validates that feeling. But the pain of rape doesn’t stop once the rape is over: not even close.”

That’s interesting for me as that’s what the horror of seeing the social environment is like too. Seeing the social environment is “a physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, personal identity, gender and sexual violation, all at once. At the moment it happens, something in the fabric of the world as we knew it rips wide open.”

Given that seeing the psycho-sexual environment is sort of like a mental rape its not too surprising that not no one wants to see that. I mean people don’t rape themselves do they?

BTW one thing I don’t want is for people to do any myth purification on the Kama Sutra and go ‘OK it’s got rape in it so now we’re going to get rid of the Kama Sutra’. Myth purification is where people take aspects of the mythspace and eliminate any obvious incongruities that may have accumilated.

Calling any and all en-viron-mentalists*

I feel like I have a lot to say after my blogging break of a few years. The break was as a result of having too much to do – which I still do. I came back because of a break which allowed me to think about these issues again. But in brief why do I do this? Originally it was to try and promote my book but I’m well past that now. I simply want companionship, or not even that, but some acknowledgement of mutual feeling that would be generated by finding someone who also knows as I do that we are not in social reality. That would honestly be enough, if there was one single person in the world who I could talk to about this stuff. I would also really like it if they could get there themselves since I don’t want to have to be responsible for their state of mind.

Obviously there is the option that I could go out and play some game of getting some number of people to hear what I am staying and indeed directly showing them that we’re not in social reality. I do not want to do that because of the potential negative effects – Something like a collapse of the mythspace, possibly. That could be bad. Not in any absolute sense, but the mythspace is there for a reason!

But if there’s someone who has independently discovered that they are not in reality, then there is no worry about that sort of thing. In that case we just use the mythspace language to communicate about the actual nature of things, and this could be a very relaxing and stimulating fellowship.

In some sense this could be a hopeless task. If I really am the first person to truly understand that we’re not in social reality then I’m not going to find anyone to talk to about it. It’s just that from my perspective it seems incredibly arrogant to think that. Still, it might be like the blindspot Edme Mariotte was apparently the first to discover some information that any individual had access to.

Now, I just wanted to explain to you the difference between directly and indirectly telling someone about something. I regard every time I say “We’re not in social reality” as indirect. It sounds direct, but it’s a bit like going up to someone who doesn’t know about the blindspot and saying “You have have a blindspot”. It’s not necessarily going to mean much to them even if they believe you. However if you make “A small coin placed in the blind spot disappears from vision, a seemingly magical event that amazed the French royal court when first presented by Mariotte.” That’s going to mean something to them.

Another example would be if you went to a movie that you’ve been told is a scary movie and the person on the screen says “I’m in a movie and you’re an audience member” then you’re not going to worry about that. If they start saying personal details about you that no one else knows you’re going to run screaming from the movie theatre.

Me saying, “We’re not in reality” is like someone on TV saying “I’m on TV”. It doesn’t have that personal connection. It does when You’re Donald Trump and Steven Colbert does this however:

So it would presumably be easy enough for me to directly show people what lies (or ‘truths’) beyond the mythspace to try and generate some company on this planet, but (conveniently you might think) the risks outweigh the benefits.

But you know, if you have the slightest inkling of what I’m taking about, even if you’ve just seen it once and dismissed it then feel free to get in touch. It would only take me a very short time to verify you.

*Environmentalists are what I call people who can directly access the psycho-sexual environment without it being mediated by cultural myth.  (Gee I don’t appear to care how blatant I am anymore.)



The Problem

We are in the situation where we are not in social reality – and by that I mean that our explanation of what is happening in social reality does not match the anthropological facts about what is happening in social reality.  However, that’s not what bothers me right now.  It has bothered me a great deal in the past but what bothers me now is that no one seems to know that.

You would think that out of all of the billions of people on earth there could at least have been enough to recognise that we’re not in social reality and then some, or one of those could have put pen to paper or keyboard to document to mention the simple and yet revolutionary fact that we’re not in social reality.  Oh, and for such a memoir to find it’s way to my eyes.

The fact that it hasn’t is not due to lack of trying on my behalf.  I have looked up many books on what might be the subject as well as tried numerous Google searches on keywords that might be relevant to such an enquiry. That’s all pretty much come to nothing.
Google is usually pretty good. Normally if you put something in you’re going to get what you’re looking for. Even if you don’t know what that thing is called. For instance if I put into Google “That pole that sticks out of a water tank” I can be at “Water tank level indicator” on the second result. That didn’t take long! It didn’t take a lifetime.

A good example of what it would be like is if we were in a completely theist society, and there was a person who one day wondered “What if god doesn’t exist?” So they looked for books, news articles, blogs and web sites that might say something about that question and drew a blank. Well you can try it. It certainly doesn’t draw a blank. It actually auto-fills it in for you before you can even finish typing.

And a whole lot of stuff comes up. Actually one of them is quite good:

“I have often wondered how a materialist philosopher sees his wife and family. Does he see his children as little opportunistic Darwinian parasites?
Does he see himself and his wife not as a loving human couple but as two organisms somehow enslaved to the biological program hard-wired into his brain, mediated by various hormones and reinforced by cultural norms?
Anyway, for all of its transparent absurdity, it appears that we live in a society that is in danger of succumbing to this view of life.”

Well don’t worry about it Tom, although you have correctly described reality, people, even “materialist philosophers” in fact don’t see things like that. I wish they would! That would be getting somewhere near the truth.

Now if I am to change my search to “What if social reality doesn’t exist?” Google just gives me some stuff about quantum physics. Worthy but irrelevant. It ignores the social as if to say ‘Of course social reality exists. It’s physical reality that doesn’t exist!’

(Actually I’m not trying to say that social reality doesn’t exist but rather that it’s typically rather different from what we consciously perceive.)

Those sorts of searches however have an downside as a comparison, in that to say something doesn’t exist you’ve got to have a concept of that thing. Yet even if people both have the same concept, if they don’t have a shared language they may not hit on the right words to try and describe the concept, which are then findable by someone else.

For instance, if someone didn’t have a concept of God and they independently thought of it, they might try and search under the words they would ascribe to their concept to see if someone else had the same concept.

So let’s think about that. If I didn’t know the word for ‘God’ and I had that concept, what words would I use to try and describe that concept? Let’s say I call it ‘big invisible being’ how does that go in Google? Actually I don’t get God with “big invisible being” in Google. That’s actually quite encouraging! I might try something else. How about: “a being that is everywhere at once”?
That gets me God on the first page:

See? So even if you don’t have the words, by describing the concept you can generally easily get to the concept as thought about by other people. So why no joy with social reality? That question will have to be continued on another day.

The Transsexual Myth

The transsexual myth

Now, I thought I might finish off my foray into sexual myths by saying something about transsexual/transgender people as part of the mythspace.

What it is is there are these people that want to change their genetic or birth gender.

Their self reports are interesting in that they often say that they’ve always felt like the other gender ‘trapped’ in the wrong body.

No one ever thinks to dispute this because of the believed infallibility of personal psychology. This is actually an extension of the believed infallibility of personal psychology because not only does the person themselves find it indisputable but others find it impossible to dispute. For instance if I said “I have been experiencing the existence of God since I was a child” Others might still dispute whether I have really been experiencing God whereas if I say “I have been a male trapped inside a female body since I was I child” no one will dispute my experience.

My biggest objection so far as transsexuality is concerned is surgery being used to correct the ‘problem’ especially if public money is used for this purpose.

Say if a person had any other sort of delusion would surgery be contemplated in order to change them into the thing that they said in their delusion that they were? Of course not.


If a household animal acted as one or another sex from its own then would surgery be contemplated? I doubt it.

(Using such search terms as “sex change surgery for pets” I was unable to find an incidence of someone actually doing that to an animal for that reason even in America!)

So actually people treat other animals better than humans in this case. It’s only because we live in cultural fantasy worlds that people are willing to mutilate themselves. With animals there’s no cultural fantasy worlds – no mutilation.

Secondly, it is so relative that its ridiculous. If you mutilate in that way (and this goes for most plastic surgery) then you’ve admitted that you’re completely subservient to societal expectation.

Basically you’re saying that if you woke up one morning and found that everyone’s nose had disappeared in the night except yours you’d b running to the plastic surgeon crying “Quick cut off my nose – I’m a freak!”

It’s the same for sex changes. If everyone was born in the situation that the transgender person says they find themselves in then everything would be equalised.

So if everyone was born having the behaviour and sexual desires of the other gender then there would be no problem at all – all roles would simply be reversed. It would only be that if there were a few people around that were what we call normal that there would be any problems. Infact they would then have to get surgery to fit in with the societally acceptable body for their ‘felt gender’.

How stupid is that?

The Hetrosexual Myth

The Heterosexual myth.

In the same way as there’s a gay myth there’s also a heterosexual myth. There is no such thing as gay and there is no such thing as heterosexual (and just incase you’re trying to escape there’s no such thing as ‘bisexual’ either, but we’ll get on to that later.)

The heterosexual myth is that most of the population is heterosexual and a smaller percentage are gay.

The counter myth is that everyone is bisexual.

All ‘gay’ means is a mass of confused concepts.

All that ‘heterosexual’ means is myopic object fetishism.

Sure, if you’re willing to accept being embroiled in that kind of autism you can call yourself heterosexual, but otherwise you should reject it with vehemence.

The classic heterosexual dilemma is the transsexual. This is where the ‘heterosexual’ man may be more attracted to a transsexual than a biological woman (especially if he doesn’t know) because the transsexual may have even more cultural accoutrements than the average woman, and therefore be more attractive to the object fetishist.

The thing that the heterosexual is lusting after is not a human being as such, but a set of cultural and conceptual traits.

Therefore a heterosexual man may make out with a suitably madeup and attired male, but then when the pants come off there is this conceptual shock.

Infact so long as the penis and balls have been cut off, or turned inside out, or whatever, he may be perfectly happy to have sex with someone who is genetically male. He even gets to retain the title of ‘heterosexual’ if he does that.

After all, a heterosexual is not defined as someone who is having sexual relations with someone of the genetically opposite gender, but rather someone who has (or wants to have) sexual relations with someone of the culturally opposite gender.

This is where concepts in our rational minds, that have been developed over thousands of years take over from automatic responses that have been developing for millions of years.

Guess what? Animals don’t define gender by clothes and hairstyles as we falsely teach children to.

If you put a dress and lipstick on a monkey, it’s not going to make any difference what the other monkeys think of it. Why? Because they don’t accept our fucked up cultural symbols that’s why. They’d rather go with their inbuilt biological ones.

Basically the animals are smarter than us when it comes to this.


With ‘bisexual’ we must reject it because it’s so bound up with the other concepts of homo and hetero sexual. It doesn’t mean that just because I reject those two ideas that I think people are infact bisexual, because that generally means all the stuff that heterosexual means plus all the stuff that homosexual means.

It would be like if we go to the ancient conception of the four elements of earth water air and fire. Now because I would reject something being described scientifically in those terms I would reject even more something being described scientifically in any number of those terms.

Besides if we are to look at the bisexual thing we come across the problem that people may never have experienced sexual attraction to one or the other gender. I’ve been in that situation myself.

So what is there then?

What there is, is you can either produce male or female behaviours, and you can either object fetishise particular culturally identified gender traits or not.

The normal individual in society is forced into producing a range of male and female and ‘other’ behaviours just to get along in the world. However, what matters in our culture is whether they have some or other types of apparel and styles of personal grooming.

If however, they are not interested in object fetishism of that kind then they get to be called ‘gay’ rather than ‘straight’.

That’s the kind of reality we’re trapped in.

Luckily for me in society, I’m heavily into object fetishism, which would be for one indicated by the number of objects I haul round with me such as pieces of vinyl and books etc.

Lucky for that eh!


A response to the Gay Myth.  Not written by me as seemingly believed by certain idiots on

Clare Flourish

I have lived my life with the handbrake on. Too prone to hit the foot-brake too, and terrified of the accelerator pedal, I seek to free myself. My project here is finding what stories, understandings, and responses serve my freedom, which increase my serfdom. Jtteop, despite a rebarbative idea which initially blinded me to the value which might be in what he says, seems to seek such freedom through words, so repays a closer look.

His “myth” is that one is born gay, only attracted to persons of the same gender. His counter-myth is that being gay is not innate.

The process starts when a person says words or performs actions that are outside the range of social acceptability for their gender. It will then be suggested to the person that they might be ‘gay’ and they will be asked to meditate on that possibility, with the hope that…

View original post 347 more words

The Gay Myth II

The Gay myth – Part II, Witches and Stockholm

The latest in my series of myths that practically everyone believes. Last time was part one of the gay myth

We’ve got this big fat question for which there are scientific studies done. The question is: “Why do certain people of the same gender make love, not war – what is wrong with them?”

So you’ve got this supposed group of people unique in their sexual fixations, Oh and there is the additional factors that there is no historical record of such a defined group ever existing before (although it has been said that they were constantly repressed before).
“Oh, but what about the Ancient Greeks?” you might say. Only problem there, is that it was more of a man-boy love thing, so since everyone really hates that, you’re going to have to forget about your Greeks!

Secondly there is no scientific reason why such a group should exist.

“OK” you may say “I know what I am, and I know that some other people are a different way, so all your talk of lack of historical precedent and scientific reason is going to have to fall into line with that.”

This is a version of the old believed ‘infallibility of personal experience’ that I’ve discussed before.

Basically if you see one piece of evidence that seems to be presented to your psychology directly, you will be willing to dismiss the whole rest of your logical understanding of the world to accommodate it no matter how incongruous that may be.

For instance, if you had a minor stroke in the part of your brain that deals with emotional connection to people, when you saw those people you would automatically presume that they had been replaced by identical clones. Yeah, that seems likely!

Now, witches; That seems like the kind of thing that couldn’t exist right? (And I don’t mean members of the modern Wicken movement), I mean the old lady down the street who you presume is putting a curse on you because your dog just died and she looked at you funny in the street one day.

Yet once people did believe just that – they believed that there was this special group of devil worshiping people with special and destructive supernatural powers.

So where are all the witches now?

Hey, here’s a suggestion: Maybe they got all the witches when they had witch hunters and witchcraft trials!
They must have cleaned them all up so that all the genes of people with supernatural powers were made extinct.

The only other explanation would be that the whole witchcraft thing was a cultural myth at that time, which was used to get rid of certain individuals that weren’t liked.
But that can’t be true. Many of those individuals themselves confessed!

At the time of the witchcraft trials did people say “Hey, you know the historical precedent for there being witches is kind of weak?” So far as I know they did not. Did they say “science doesn’t have a clue why such people should exist”? No. (well fair enough because science barely existed then).

Let’s get it right here: What I’m claiming is that we have a concept which doesn’t make sense. It may have started out making some kind of sense, but which got twisted and formalised and now makes no sense whatsoever.

Part of this, is the rigidity with which a variety of sexual strategies that humans have developed over millions of years have then been described and then placed in the formal cultural environment. Now I won’t describe the reasons for people pursuing these various sexual strategies in the environment, because that is massively destructive to the formal environment. Suffice to say; that people’s sexual strategies are many, varied and entirely tending towards their survival and reproduction. To make this understood let’s give the example of one such strategy:

In some long hostage situations it has been noted that women will become romantically attracted to the men that are responsible for taking them hostage, and this attraction will continue past the point where the hostage situation is resolved and the men in jail for instance. This is called Stockholm Syndrome, and it can be clearly seen that there is a good survival reason for it, in that people are probably historically more likely to survive in such a situation if they form such attachments.

Anyway, we have that little bit of formal description of that situation. Now what if we were to formalise it some more, and add a vast amount more judgments to the analysis?

We could say that some women are Stockholm women and some are not. That is their sexuality. If they are ‘Stockholm’ women what they ‘want’ is to be abducted and then be in close confines with their abductors so that they may then form a romantic pair bond.
So once a woman decides that she is a ‘Stockholm’ she can register online and browse various men than might then kidnap her in the middle of the night and then hold her for a certain amount of time in his house and then release her and which point she would make a choice as to whether he was the specifically right Stockholm man for her. Because a man that had the fantasy to do that would be a ‘Stockholm man’.

At that point of understanding in the culture there could be kids playing and some boys lock a girl in a cupboard, so the parents decide that the girl is obviously going to grow up to be a Stockholm women and noone should tease her about that because that is her sexuality that she can’t change even if she wants to.

After all we can all agree that Stockholm syndrome is real and has been known about for X amount of time, so any kind of madness which we might create around it in the culture must be ok!

That’s how bad things are.

If a male is seen to be acting or looking in too feminine a way people say “hey he’s gay” But when some one asks who you define gay you say “Someone who is attracted to men” So the apparently ‘normal’ man who is merely being attracted to some female behaviour is then ensnared in this concept even though both parties actually doing two different things.

But then what if we find out that the guy who is producing the ‘female’ behaviour isn’t even aware of what he is doing, and the whole time his conscious thought is along the lines of “How can I score with a hot chick tonight”?
So then it’s just the other guy who is then ‘gay’ – and what if that other guy has a ‘mate’ or ‘buddy’ who doesn’t notice the first male’s female like behaviour, but instead is scoping out the room for women based on how superficially cute they appear?

By this stage what we’re forced to do is call one guy ‘gay’ for basically noticing female behaviour, whereas another one is ‘heterosexual’ for not noticing, and instead being involved in some sort of object fetishism based on clothes, hair and jewelry.

And as for the guy who was producing the original female behaviour – he’s already half way down the street with a nice young bird, thank you very much.

That is literally how demented our cultural ideas about the social landscape are.

On the other hand what if it’s the guy who notices to the female behaviour that isn’t fully aware of his own attraction? In that case he’s going to have certain feelings which will cause him problems. He’s going to have to run after the person, tell him, try to make him confess and then castrate him with the culture he’s going to make him wear. He can go: “Hey, you’re gay, and for some reason that forces me to attack you.”

…just like they attacked the witches.

How many real witches were there again?

In the year 1548 at Arnhem in Holland one of the city’s most respected citizens was brought before the Chancellor accused of sortilege, or enchantment. This man was reputed to be the regions most learned and excelent physician, and knew ‘the cure and remedie for all manner of griefs and diseases’, according to the churchman-scholar Hegwoad. But his wisdom was not restriced to medicine. He was always ‘acquainted with all newes, as well forrein as domesticke.’
Accusers stated that the physician obtained his powers from a ring that he wore on his hand. Witnesses claimed that the doctor – who later became known as the Sorcerer of Courtray – constantly consulted the ring. It was stated that ‘the ring had a demon enclosed in it, to whom it beloved him to speak every five days.’
Despite the marked reluctance of the Chancellor to pass judgement on such a valued citizen, he found the evidence was so overwhelming that he had no choice but to find the man guilty. The physician was immediately proscribed for sorcery and put to death.

David Day, Tolkien’s Ring, p20