GENDER AND SEXUAL PARADOXES

1. There are two ways of looking at every argument, and they almost invariably follow a gender distinction between soma and psyche, vacuum and plenum, left and right, empiricism and rationalism, darkness and light, fact and/or illusion and truth and/or fiction. To have become aware that one gender's meat is effectively poison to the other gender is no mean achievement in itself, but to know that different gender-conditioned criteria exist as to what constitutes freedom, sanity, equality, justice, etc., is nothing short of genius, the mark of someone capable of standing back from the prevailing ethos and seeing through it to the partisan orientation beneath, which unequivocally proclaims itself to be the only orientation worth taking seriously.

2. This may or may not be the case but, again, it would depend on gender, not least of all one's own gender and sense, more importantly, of gender before one could hope to evaluate the situation in a meaningful and relevant way. Some societies are bent from a male standpoint, but straight as far as the rule of female criteria is concerned. Others, their moral opponents, are bent from a female standpoint, but straight as far as the rule or, rather, lead of male criteria is concerned.

3. Moreover, each may contain elements of the other, and yet other elements, moreover, who signify a compromise between the opposing extremes, that of female dominion on the one hand and of male dominion on the other, and who are avowedly liberal in a somewhat androgynous and amoral sense, hardly representative of either society but desirous, no matter how futile such a thing may be, of their reconciliation in some kind of paradoxical synthesis which is neither completely factual nor completely truthful, neither fish nor fowl, but relatively half-and-half, with corresponding half-measures of illusion and fiction in subordinate vein.

4. It may be that traditionally British or English elements in, for example, Ireland and, conversely, Irish elements in Britain, especially England, often think in such paradoxical fashions, but this would not be representative of the official positions of either country, nor would it correspond very well to the prevailing ethos of sensuality which has so dominated the modern age, even outside Britain and America, that factual sanity tends to take precedence over its truthful antithesis as the prevailing concept of sanity, and illusory insanity over its fictional antithesis as the prevailing concept or, rather, manifestation of insanity, with a whole lot more evil and clearness than wisdom and holiness on the one hand, and a whole lot more folly and sin than goodness and unclearness on the other hand.

5. For if the sensible alternatives were still significantly influential, and not merely leftovers from some former age that, at any rate as far as their more representatively phenomenal (lower class) manifestations were concerned, has long since ceased to condition the prevailing course of society, or to characterize it in terms of a specific moral resolve, the notion of so-called sexual equality would never have gained credence to anything like the perverse extent to which it has in most Western countries, and we would still be regarding, and even treating, females as second-class citizens who had to be kept in their place instead of either looking up to them or, in exceptional cases, witnessing the extents, as ethnic outsiders or paradoxical adherents of some alternative ethos, to which males now look up to females and effectively take their cues from them as though from 'on high'.

6. Clearly the emancipation of the female from domestic or marital binding in strictly monogamous relationships is not commensurate with moral progress but reflective, on the contrary, of the extents to which society has regressed, in suitably modern, or synthetically artificial, terms, to a situation where immorality is everywhere the factually ascendant order of the day, and males must content themselves with an illusory subordination in what has been characterized as a secondary order of damnation/cursedness typified by the insanity of philistinism and sin, folly and unholiness, in, as often as not, poetically promiscuous relationships.

7. I know how this female liberation has come to pass, as I am sure the reader familiar with my mature texts would agree, whether he takes the technological facts and illusions of cathode-ray-tube vacuity as his starting point or indeed the more philosophical approach which reveals how Protestantism paved the way, even on the masculine or vegetative side of the gender fence, for secular freedom through the particle-predominance accruing to both the chemical and metachemical elements of water and fire, wherein soma takes precedence over psyche on the basis of the precedence of psyche by soma, and the State effectively rides out at the expense of the Church, and not so much, in this instance, of the Catholic Church as of those churches which can only defer, in their twisted nonconformism and/or fundamentalism, to the somatic hegemonies of secular realism and/or materialism or, in the case of Anglicans, to the somatic pressures which are brought to bear upon naturalism when humanism is effectively marginalized in consequence of its departure from the realm of physical sensibility to the realm of physical sensuality, and the ground is accordingly prepared for the upending of masculine criteria in subordination to female dominion.

8. Thus arises a society in which males are bent away from psychic freedom and dominance, and females get to play top dogs, even to the extent of their concept of freedom, necessarily germane to soma, not only taking precedence over but, in Protestant countries or societies, actually replacing the male concept of freedom, so that the darkness rides out at the light's expense and somatic negativity proclaims its barbarous and criminal triumph from every chemical or metachemical vantage-point to hand, with the inevitable corollary of the factual concept of sanity and the objective concept of right, whereof might dramatically proclaims its sovereignty.

9. Yet the notion of sexual equality seems hard to square with societies in which females objectively dominate if not literally - though this would be hard to gainsay - then through the proxy of bent males effectively acting on their behalf. And by 'bent' I don't so much mean the deceived and reviled foolish and unholy majority of males who would still be sufficiently masculine to lynch anybody arrogant enough to pretend or even contend that they were bent other than in relation to their own gender, i.e. in terms of the upending of the psyche-favouring relationship of humanism to naturalism within physics under, in particular, sensually chemical pressures from 'on high', but, rather, those who had actually crossed the gender fence, as it were, between physics and chemistry, not to mention, on a higher class basis, between metaphysics and metachemistry, and now operated in an effectively female manner, less philistine or sinful than barbarous and criminal, with a tendency to evil and clearness that, while not able to match, much less surpass, straight females, is indubitably at loggerheads with the generality of sensual males, for whom an emphasis upon naturalism or idealism is the mark of both their folly and unholiness.

10. No, if it is one thing to be philistinely or sinfully bent in terms of falling victim, under sensual female pressures, to an emphasis upon soma at the expense of psyche within one's own gender element, it is quite another thing to be gender bent and effectively function like a female in one or other of the hegemonic elements in sensuality, with a dramatic as opposed to a poetic bias. For then one is likely to take the barbarous and criminal reality of free soma for granted, and to act and think as though one were primarily a creature of soma rather than psyche, with a capacity to live a more intensively, if not extensively, somatic lifestyle, bodily freedom without seeming end.

11. Here, at last, one is getting to the underlying cause, it seems to me, of homosexuality, of the paradoxical emphasis upon soma at the expense of psyche and the seemingly unmale ability of certain males to identify with soma to such a deplorable extent that they are prepared, and manifestly undertake, to treat other males as though they were female and to indulge in sexual acts with them that would be hard to imagine taking place in circumstances wherein the male was still sensibly hegemonic over the female and well aware of the extent, even in the necessarily limited and paradoxical context of the Christian tradition, to which he was primarily a creature of psyche and only secondarily somatic, i.e. of the body, in consequence of which intercourse between male and male could never be sexual but only mental or, at worst, physically competitive in war or sport.

12. Therefore homosexuality between males (not to be confused with its female equivalent) emerges as a symptom of Western decadence, as manifest evidence of a civilization which has gone regressively to the dogs of somatic freedom and female dominion and now produces males who are prepared to treat one another as sexual objects, as though they were in effect female, for whom soma predominates over psyche and the precedence of psyche by soma in, according to element, either absolute (most particle/least wavicle) or relative (more particle/less wavicle) ratios permits of an evaluation of life in terms of somatic and, hence, secular freedom, the negativity of which ensures that only the basest actions and sensations and cogitations and emotions will rise to the surface, like barbarous and criminal scum from the nether-depths of somatic darkness.

13. How, then, to explain the decriminalization of homosexuality ... except in relation to Western decadence and the ongoing degeneration of a civilization towards ever-greater depths of secular depravity and social chaos, of devolutionary and counter-evolutionary darkness? For there can be no doubt that homosexuality is less philistine and sinful in naturalistic or idealistic male terms than realistically or materialistically barbarous and criminal, the product less of male promiscuity vis-à-vis the hegemonic freedoms of the opposite sex than of the abandonment of maleness in favour of a female stance which permits its practitioners to treat one another as females and to sexually invade one another's bodies in patent violation of their gender standing in psychic predominance premised upon the precedence of soma by psyche in either relative (more wavicle/less particle) or absolute (most wavicle/least particle) terms, depending on the element and, in a correlative sense, class of male.

14. Therefore male homosexuality is worse, in its pseudo-femaleness, than male promiscuity vis-à-vis the opposite gender, since it is less poetically philistine and sinful than dramatically barbarous and criminal, if arguably to a lesser extent than the outright female modes of sexual barbarism and criminality which, far from having anything to do with lesbianism (about which more anon), can be characterized in relation to the eyes and/or the tongue and thus, for example, to voyeurism and/or oral sex on one level, probably naturalistically or organically traditional, and to pornography and phone sex on what is avowedly a more contemporary level of metachemical and/or chemical sexuality, a level at once synthetic and technological, or technologically synthetic.

15. Therefore when either the eyes or the tongue are sexually free, on whatever basis, sexuality attains to its barbarous and criminal nadir, the nadir of sexual evil and clearness such that puts even male homosexuality in the metachemical and/or chemical shade, since males who are bent enough to be homosexual are nevertheless less bent than those actively engaged, especially from a productive point of view, in pornography or phone sex or anything else which could be described as unequivocally metachemical or chemical, of the eyes or the tongue, and therefore largely, if not exclusively, objective.

16. But sexual freedom of any description, even when heterosexually promiscuous or sadomasochistic or whatever, is an expression of somatic freedom and therefore of a society characterized by the dominion of female criteria in factual sanity coupled, in under-plane subservience of males, to illusory insanity. It is dark and undesirable from a moral standpoint, the standpoint of a male hegemony in ego and soul, for it points to the freedom of will and spirit to deprive ego and soul of authenticity and to render them, or their quasi-somatic surrogates, acquiescent in the evil and clearness and/or folly and unholiness of somatic freedom, which everywhere banners forth its state-oriented darkness in defiance of the light of reason.

17. But only reason can liberate males from female domination and save them from the folly and unholiness of psychic enslavement to the sorts of freedoms which ultimately can never satisfy them because of the negativities under which such freedoms operate - the negativities of ugliness and hatred in the case of metachemical females (or metachemically bent males) and of falsity and woe in the case of metaphysical males, not to mention the more prevalent negativities of weakness and humility, if not humiliation, in the case of chemical females (or chemically bent males) and of ignorance and pain in the case of physical males. Reason does not, and never will, countenance such freedoms, even if circumstances brutally override reason and propel people into an evil or foolish, clear or unholy, accommodation of them under pressures stemming from a want of moral guidance and having their basis in female dominion.

18. For the female is not, by nature, a reasonable creature, but one whose factual sanity is grounded in the unreasoning assertion of will and spirit, instinct and intuition, from a somatically hegemonic vantage-point in the darkness of empirical objectivity. Females are forced to act or sense in consequence of their gender structure as creatures for whom, in particle vacuity of metachemistry or chemistry, soma precedes psyche and continues to predominate over psyche come what may.

19. Only males genuinely have the prerogative of reason, which pertains to ego and soul, to intellectual and emotional enlightenment, and it is reason which counsels sensibility and the subordination of females to the rule or, better, lead of male criteria in the interests of that higher sanity which, centred in reason, appertains to truth and to the philosophical pursuit of either knowledge or joy, taking or being, according to whether physical or metaphysical, manly or godly, psychic criteria are paramount.

20. It is in such contexts, where males are firmly in the driving seat of one order or another, according to class, of culture and grace, wisdom and holiness, that females are obliged to toe the secondary saved/blessed line of civility and punishment, goodness and unclearness, and to behave as though they were more in favour of psyche than of soma, emphasizing psyche at the expense of soma or, at the very least, constraining soma in the interests of free psyche, principally male, despite the immutable reality of somatic precedence and predominance remaining more or less unchanged, so that they tend, by and large, to be 'down on' the will and spirit rather than 'up to' the ego and soul.

21. And under pressure of having to live this fictional lie from their gender standpoint, a noble lie which suits males and their nobler pursuit of either graceful culture or cultural grace, some females, lacking what they might consider adequate sexual satisfaction, might be disposed to consort with other females in sexual practises which some would describe as lesbian, and to seek compensatory satisfaction outside the usual monogamous channels.

22. If that were so, then lesbianism would be a consequence of female dissatisfaction with somatic enslavement to free psyche and a sort of vent for sexual repressions deriving from a sensibly male ascendancy in society.

23. Thus, far from being on the same level or even parallel types of sexual deviation, homosexuality and lesbianism, defined as inter-male and inter-female sexual relationships respectively, would be opposites, and whilst one could expect more of the former in sexually free societies, where some males incline to behave in a female manner, the latter should be more prevalent in societies that repressed sexuality in the interests of psychic freedom and therefore drove females to the wall of their own devices, as it were, which, besides lesbianism, could include fetishism and the manipulation of penetrative devices such as dildos and/or vibrators.

24. However that may be, no sane man, given to truthful reason, would voluntarily acquiesce in any philosophy or doctrine likely to lead to female hegemonies, whether under cover of euphemisms like sexual equality or female liberation or equal opportunity or whatever, when the only consequence would be his enslavement in illusory insanity to a species of sanity rooted in unreasoning adherence to somatic fact and having for its raison d'être the dramatic exploitation and degradation of males.

25. No sane male, I repeat, would acquiesce in such a thing, and yet that is what has come to pass in the West in consequence of the gradual retreat from reason into its unreasoning, and all too impulsive, antithesis - a retreat originally instigated by Protestantism under pretence of Christian reform and superseded, in the course of sensual time, by the outright secular freedoms of realism and materialism, which were bound to ride out from under the cloak of nonconformist religiosity.

26. That is what condemns contemporary society more than anything, and it is from the triangular darknesses, Catholic as well as Protestant, of such unreasoning adherence that people must be saved, if there is to be any meaningful progress in terms of a return by males to reason and, thus, genuine sanity.

27. But such a return can only be engineered at the expense of females, not through slavish adherence to such unreasoning, if not insane, concepts as sexual equality and gender equalitarianism. It presupposes, through Messianic leadership, the promise of 'Kingdom Come', and thus a firm commitment, on the part of males, to gender inequalitarianism and unequal opportunity, even to the extent, in its religious manifestations, of gender segregation, as previously outlined by me in earlier texts in relation to the triadic Beyond and its three-way subsectioning of each tier, one female and two male, one objective and two subjective, viz. reduced spirituality on the one hand, and enhanced intellectuality and emotionality on the other.

28. For the constraining of objectivity is one thing, the enhancement of subjectivity quite another, and only males properly qualify, on a psychically hegemonic basis, for the latter, and should be encouraged accordingly, whether in relation to humanism or transcendentalism, the ego or the soul.