sexology

The Sex Establishment V: “Normaphiliacs” and Freudian Slips

“This condition had no name, under the pen of Freud it would become the Oedipus complex and create a universal pathology for the sole purpose that he could be less alone [with his creation].” […] Here is the key to the Freudian epistemology: the extrapolation of a universal theory from a personal adventure.”

– Michel Onfray, Le crépuscule d’une idole – l’affabulation freudienne (Twilight of the Idol – The Freudian Fable) 


In the 21st century we have the results of various social engineering programmes made manifest. Alfred Kinsey managed to contribute to the gradual detachment of sex from love, and the fragmentation of family and community cohesion by placing the sexual act at top of the pleasure pyramid as an end in itself. As we saw in the previous post, the pathologising and mainstreaming of minority orientation and encouragement of greater and more extreme forms of unlimited sexual expression produced the prevalence of promiscuity and body-centric values which then became a dominant part of culture. This went beyond mere tolerance and acceptance of different forms of sexual identity and preference. It has led to acts of perversion as cool, anonymous sex as normal and sacred union based on love as old fashioned and silly.

That is not to say that we must all toe the line of heterosexual sex or that there is a right or wrong way to express ones sexuality. The key issue here is being true to yourself and whether or not sexuality and sex has been engineered in a certain direction and if it has benefited societies. If that is so, as I believe, then the choices presented to us as we are growing up are not choices at all, but a product of perception management. Are we getting closer to a greater understanding of not just our sexuality, but our place in the world or are we experiencing one expression of an endemic pathology that is tainting our sexual and emotional selves under cover of “normality”?

Are we roaming further and further away from our innate human potential while believing the opposite?

By delving into the reality of psychopathy within our socio-political institutions we might be able to find the answer.


  nrm_1415950011-fifty-shades-second-trailer

Screen shot from the film ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ (2013) based on the book of the same name which involves a young woman’s exploration into sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM). The book became a global best seller with 90 million sold worldwide by 2013.

Professor Amy Bonomi chairperson and professor in Michigan State University’s Department of Human Development and Family Studies conducted extensive studies which show that young adult women who read “Fifty Shades of Grey” are more likely than nonreaders to exhibit unhealthy behaviours. These include: eating disorders, binge drinking, having verbally abusive partners and a predeliction for multiple sexual partners. In other words, when films and books glorify and thereby normalise a narcissistic and/or psychopathic perception of reality, we can hardly be surprised that young people begin to exhibit stress and personality deformations. Or as Miriam Grossman M.D. observed: “There’s nothing grey about Fifty Shades of Grey. It’s all black.” 


The sexual revolution was in large part a triumph of emotional immaturity and anonymous sex with women and men reflecting a caricature of their gender roles: literal objects to use and consume as a true reflection of our consumer society. Sure, there was also genuine examples of a mystical liberation through sex to which our pagan ancestors connected. There is no doubt that nature and the body was synonymous with a spark of ecstasy, a way to commune with God which developed into the cults of Dionysus and Bacchus and other body-centric, sensual rituals. The body as a bio-chemical conduit for achieving altered states can give that mystical “high” in the same way that drugs can bypass the brain filters and introduce to dimensions beyond the five senses – even if for a moment. Sometimes that’s enough to initiate dramatic change. But it is a short cut to a spiritual union that usually requires years of self development and inner work. Which is why drugs and sex magick tend to backfire. So, too the fire of sexual revolution which liberated more than just blocked emotions and neuroses. Could it be that the pendulum was allowed to swing much to far in the other direction?

As discussed, rather than feminism increasing the freedom of women’s rights in the West, under the elite-sponsored role of sexual emancipation it may have led to less rights for women and less happiness. The sexual freedom that women have rightly struggled for has proved poisonous where the modern woman is either trying to emulate the model of the alpha male in the corporate world or being caught between the false liberation of sexual promiscuity. In between those two poles lies confusion and doubt for women exemplified in the rise in narcissism.

This Kinseyian form of pseudo-scientific justification for abuse seems to be alive and well in the form of the American Psychiatric Association and the psychoanalysis tradition. Back in 2003, The American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debated whether “Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses.” Psychiatrist Charles Moser of San Francisco’s Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz of the University of Ottawa presented a paper entitled, “DSM-IV-TR and the Paraphilias: An Argument for Removal.” They argued that people whose sexual interests are atypical, culturally forbidden, or religiously prescribed should not, for those reasons, be labelled mentally ill. These included exhibitionism, fetishism, transvestism, voyeurism, and sadomasochism which are to be viewed as simply another form of sexual expression. They were also calling for paedophilia to be removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Further, that all of us “normophilics” should allow paraphilias the freedom to be who they are and to remove the label of a mental illness forthwith. Though in the minority, a significant number of members agreed.

Another speaker at the same conference exclaimed: “Any sexual interest can be healthy and life-enhancing…” and “…that society should not discriminate against adults who are attracted to children…” noting that “many beloved authors and public figures throughout history have been high-functioning individuals who could actually be classified as paedophiles.” [1] This debate has continued to the present day.

Firstly, the emphasis is not to ostracise and place a judgment upon those of differing sexual preferences but to assist and heal if these extremes exhibit pathology that is negative to both the individual and the persons who do not harbour the same sexual preference. Healing the self by practicing bondage sado-masochism (BDSM) in the privacy of your own home is fine. Propagandising such a fetish and/or accepting predatory behaviour and sexual confusion as a template for society isn’t the way forward either. A sexual interest can indeed be “Healthy and life enhancing,” depending on which lens we have decided to view reality. Our focus can be tinkered with in order that it may flow in a direction not of our choosing, yet, we follow it by rote all the same.

51lec-Zn-jL-horz

Mainstreaming pathology: You can buy yourself a Black Padded PU Leather Hood “Gimp Mask” for Sensory Deprivation Bondage or be lead round the house on a lead if you so wish.

BDSM_collar_backBDSM dog collar (wikipedia)

It is not a case of whether or not society should be free to choose how to heal and release what we perceive to be natural sexual expressions, but to explore why it is that those sexual preferences have arisen in the first place and if the various factors involved are indeed natural rather than carefully conditioned.

Ethics and values appear to be shifting in favour of a voting consensus that removes mental disorders without any safety net concerning rehabilitation and treatment, which begs the question: from what basis are these disorders or genetic predispositions decreed normal? What appears to be happening here is a spin that suggests that if it is defined as ill or pathological it is outdated and anti-progressive. If it can all be seen as just another deviancy and thus normalised we can all go home and stop being so retrogressive. If it is not an illness but one symptom among many drawn from narcissism or psychopathy, then we have clear and present implications for the safety of our nation’s health, especially children. The legitimisation of psychopathology via the Sex Establishment is joining forces with the politicisation of values that is reshaping our culture.

Paedophilia has qualities that align itself not only towards pathological narcissism but elements of psychopathy. It is interesting that there are a growing number of “scientists” of the behaviourist and psychoanalysis schools that advocate a redefinition of paedophilia rather than a redefinition of causes which could direct resources towards the treatment and prevention of child abuse. This includes learning every possible method of pulling the wool over the eyes of the authorities be it psychiatrist, policeman or lawyer, making the whole question of science, law and sexual freedom an increasingly difficult equation to solve. For to do so, means that we must see the distortion and deformation of sexuality and the sexual predators that personify such a malaise. We must see this through entirely new eyes and as a web of relations intimately connected with psychopaths in power.

Paedophilia and related pathologies may well be a symptom of biological, environmental, and traumatic abuse. It may also be a choice. What is conspicuous by its absence in the above appeals for paedophile rights are the rights of children for whom we must, by virtue of our roles as guardians and protectors, take a positive discrimination in these matters regarding their welfare and safety. People with “sexually unusual” interests, said Charles Moser and co-author Peggy Kleinplatz “may in fact be quite happy and well-adjusted,” which is entirely beside the point. The paedophile’s victims may not be quite so happy and well-adjusted after he has molested them. It is these kinds of remarks that feed into the mainstreaming” of pathologies under the guise of normality which may progressively alter the landscape of mass sexuality and under specific directives – then we have a problem, a problem that is not even the fault of those exhibiting sexual pathologies or otherwise.

We can regard all kinds of pathology and child trauma masquerading as healthy and well-adjusted living. This is not about making judgements about what is right or wrong in our sexuality but rather to question where we draw the line in favour of sexual expression that enriches society rather than infects it; where sexual boundaries are being pushed towards more and more extremes, rather than augmenting social relations.

Is the line between “healthy” and “damaged” becoming blurred here?

It is a contradiction that behind closed doors a select minority of paraphilics and a larger proportion of humanity seek to indulge their fantasies towards violence, fetishism, paedophilia, ritualistic sex and child molestation which may be indicative of a suppressed and learned behaviour caused by inverted and unresolved suffering. Meantime, an entirely different face is presented to the world at large. Genetics may play a significant role whereby traumas are imported down the generational line and impose “bombshells” on the next generation if no other role models exist. Yet what this means for society is the set up between the guardians of over-protection and the guardians of over-liberalisation with the resulting chaos created between the two, where opportunities for creative solutions are forever denied.

Noted luminaries were paedophiles or had paedophilic tendencies. There is certainly an historical basis in fact that much of the Establishment or “high functioning” individuals could be classed as paedophiles and/or child rapists. The nature of government, secret societies, occult fraternities, and religious institutions that offer protection of power and status as a class-based tradition may also offer a sanctuary for such people.

Is there a link that those with deviant sexual expressions gravitate towards that which can offer them cover?

This quote from The American Psychiatric Association sums up this conversive thinking in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: “302.71 Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder’: ‘The essential feature of this so-called condition is a deficiency or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity (Criterion A). There is little motivation to seek stimuli and diminished frustration when deprived of the opportunity for sexual expression. The individual usually does not initiate sexual activity or may only engage in it reluctantly when it is initiated by the partner.” [2]

This illustrates the point and might be drawn directly from Kinseyian sexology. If you do not have sexual fantasies, a desire for sexual activity, little motivation to seek stimuli and little frustration when an opportunity for sexual expression comes your way, or even – horror of horrors – you have minimal interest in sex, then you are abnormal. You have a disorder. Notice too, that the idea of love being a factor in this purely mechanical equation is of little importance. If clinically, the activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology “unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning,” then what is known as zoophilia *can be considered no more functionally different from any other love/sex relationship. Even having sex with a deer can be considered fine and dandy in our paralogical reality as one Wisconsin man’s attorney claimed in his client’s defence that the:‘crimes against sexual morality’ statute prohibits sex with animals, but fails to mention carcasses … “The statute does not prohibit one from having sex with a carcass.” Getting this man off is not the issue but the social and developmental factors governing his desire to see a carcass as sexually fulfilling is obviously the real point of contention. [3]  Paralogical and paramoralistic arguments are employed to suggest that it is perfectly normal for human beings to use animals for sex – be it dog, horse or the neighbour’s parakeet – should the desire be strong enough.

These are extreme examples. Nonetheless, what does this mean for more down-to-earth issues of sexuality? The fusing of definitions of acceptable and pathological become habitual and thus the propensity for normalisation. The manual’s criterion for mental illness appears to be getting both ever more flexible and increasingly restrictive. With a suitably biased psychiatrist, the manual can be used as a way to give undue credence to almost any abnormality or disorder depending on the required outcome. As a tool for removing subversive persons for example, a method to which psychiatry has long since lent itself. For instance, there is still no diagnostic test for schizophrenia or any of the other three hundred so-called mental disorders listed in the current edition. A cursory look at the manual gives the impression that American psychiatry is sometimes a mix of culturally biased, reactive, class-driven moral judgements of what it considers to be abnormal behaviour.

Freud

Sigmund Freud

Sigmund Freud believed that any and all symptoms of perceived dysfunction or neuroses could be sourced from repressed memories, irrevocably tied to a repressed sexuality. Although Freud offered intellectual insights into our understanding of human sexuality, the final analysis reveals that his psychoanalysis was an indication of his own neurosis and sexual abuse which he was busy burying under a grandiose schema of rationalisation.

While casting out any possibility of incest as predatory, he rejected the body in favour of an acute form of biological asceticism; a kind of clinical denial that strangely lent itself to the exact kind of religious conservatism that he was trying to avoid. It may be true that his victims’ pleas for understanding were merely absorbed into his own fragmented, mechanical view of sexuality by turning them all into variations on the theme of Oedipus. His rejection of incest as abusive or traumatic fit perfectly with future psychiatry and Kinseyian programming.  Proven cases of recovered memories were simply ignored. Repressed and false memories can exist but the battle between both is currently being expressed through their respective extremes with money and psychopathy as the deciding factor.

Freud’s simplistic associations have allowed pathocratic principles to burrow deeper into human consciousness and to drop our crumbling defences against the psychopath still further.  Author George K. Simon, Jr., writes in his cautionary book: In Sheep’s Clothing: “The malignant impact of overgeneralizing Freud’s observations about a small group of overly inhibited individuals into a broad set of assumptions about the causes of psychological ill-health in everyone cannot be overstated.” Simon further suggests: “We need a completely different theoretical framework if we are to truly understand, deal with, and treat the kinds of people who fight too much as opposed to those who cower or “run” too much.” [4]

The whole basis upon which Freudian psychoanalytical movement rests is the wholly subjective notion that all psychological illness is rooted in repressed sexual impulses, unconscious incestuous fantasies, the spectre of death and the fear of castration, the latter of which appears to have their roots in the genital mutilation (circumcision) of the Old Testament.  Freudian psychoanalysis has given credence to the myth that girls secretly want to have sex with their fathers for example, which is crude, simplistic and on a par with the generalizations we can find in the Kinsey reports. In fact, if the denial of whatever sexual impulse is at work – whether depraved or perverted – then the basis for finding perversion distasteful must necessarily lie in one’s own unconscious desire for perverse practices. This is a both an intensely paralogical, materialist and nihilistic view of life that has no room for multiple psychotherapeutic dimensions of healing.

The psychoanalytical movement made claims that there’s was a new science when in fact it was nothing more than pseudo-science that developed a cult following. As Bob Altemeyer a Canadian professor of Psychology astutely sums up:  “One gets nowhere with a theory that can ‘predict’ whatever happened, after it happens. Having an answer for everything may make one a great used car salesman, but it rings the death knell for a theory in science. In science, the best explanations are nailed-down-testable.” [5]

814894886Freud: Father of the Cult of Psychoanalysis

While undoubtedly breaking new ground in tapping the unconscious fears that lie within the human psyche, these successes paled in comparison to the fear and loathing of both sexuality and the feminine that Freud seemed to set in motion. Freud’s own neuroses as well as the broader fears of the Jewish culture were injected into this new “science.”

Psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley illustrated the cult of psychoanalysis in this way:

Today celebrated psychiatric authors “plainly demonstrate” by methods widely proclaimed as scientific that the chief reason human beings came in time to wear clothing lies in the ever-present influence of a “castration fear” of which they all remain unconscious. Not for protection against the weather, primarily, we are told, or for purposes of adornment, did primitive men and women first don bearskin coats or grass skirts. According to high authority, the real motivation lies deeper, in a universal but unconscious terror felt by each male that a jealous father will amputate his penis. Concealing his genital organs with apparel offers him, it is claimed, a slight measure of protection from this inescapable anxiety. The female (unconsciously), believing herself already dismembered as a punishment for (unconscious) incestuous aims, hastens to cover her mutilation and veil her shame.

Much of the reasoning and investigation classed as dynamic depends upon verbal constructs which can be readily manipulated by the accepted rules to furnish a bogus proof for virtually any assumption the human imagination might contrive. […]From the standpoint of modern operational logic, a theory must be expressed in such a way that it may be proved. This is surely the case with the Freudian theory. On the other hand, from the standpoint of modern methodology, the evidence or experiment which is designed to prove the theory must he one which could have a possible negative outcome and so disprove the theory. At the present time, many of the concepts of psychoanalysis are undoubtedly developed in such a way that only proof and not disproof is possible …[6]

And it is this “bogus proof” and extreme subjectivity that gave the perfect cover for psychoanalysis to gain dominance in psychology, psychiatry and culture. It lent itself not only to misuse but acted as a gateway for any and all interpretations. Disagreements with Freud’s and his associates’ interpretations were summarily dismissed as products of “resistance.”  This was a word used by Freud to illustrate the reluctance patients showed in speaking of painful or humiliating experiences during the process of analysis. He believed this resistance: “… often utilized the mechanism of repression to remove or to withhold from consciousness impulses or memories which the patient found it particularly unpleasant to accept and admit as his own.” [7] Therefore, when the medical psychology community did not accept these chief concepts Freud put this down to the theory of resistance thereby placing constructive criticism into a box he could padlock at will.

In the early part of the twentieth until the post war period, psychoanalysis firmly stamped its mark on the subconscious of the West. Although the diversity of psychology, psychotherapy and alternative medicine has diluted Freud’s power the legacy of his influence lives on as it did most strongly in the 1950s.  As Cleckley outlines:

If a psychiatrist cannot accept as adequate the evidence Freud offers for his claim that at age four this patient was intensely motivated by a specific desire for his father to practice sodomy upon him, and was restrained in these inclinations by a fear of castration, he must be prepared to defend himself against the argument that similar (unconscious) desires and fears are determining factors in the dissident opinion. So, too, the critic who cannot accept the popular concept of universal bisexuality lays himself open to suspicions that an unrecognized homosexual tendency within himself, probably one of more than ordinary magnitude, is playing an important part in his alleged failure to accept evidence and react to it normally. [8]

Dr. Cleckley highlights the fact that Freud’s cherished beliefs do not necessarily equate with rigorous science. Politics and religion are bastions of such authoritarian, fear-based thinking that imposes the same fundamentalist beliefs upon others. Psychoanalysis is no different, which is why it has fallen out of favour in more recent times. The idea that those who disagree with the methods of the Freudian approach are somehow expressing resistance and respond: “…with unconscious longings to emulate the very thing being criticised is obviously a ridiculous simplification. The idea that the roots of all neuroses are from the repression of the procreative, biological sex impulse is equally fallacious.”

Perhaps the most revealing legacy of psychoanalysis is offered from author and consultant on abusive men and family issues, Lundy Bancroft.  He wrote about Freud’s discovery at the turn of the 19th Century, of just how many of his female patients revealed instances of incest by their fathers and brothers. Early in his career Freud came to the conclusion that child sexual abuse was a key issue in emotional illness in adult women which resulted in his famous paper: “The Aetiology of Hysteria.” He reminds us it was at this juncture that Freud, so keen to be accepted by his peers found himself ridiculed and rejected for proposing such a thing. How could it possibly be that pillars of society with unimpeacable reputations could be perpetrators of incest? It was unthinkable. The results of this shock to Freud’s intellectual pride and the consequences for the future of psychology were enormous:

Within a few years, Freud buckled under this heavy pressure and recanted his conclusions. In their place he proposed the “Oedipus complex,” which became the foundation of modern psychology. According to this theory any young girl actually desires sexual contact with her father, because she wants to compete with her mother to be the most special person in his life. Freud used this construct to conclude that the episodes of incestuous abuse his clients had revealed to him had never taken place; they were simply fantasies of events the women had wished for when they were children and that the women had come to believe were real. This construct started a hundred-year history in the mental health field of blaming victims for the abuse perpetrated on them and outright discrediting of women’s and children’s reports of mistreatment by men. Once abuse was denied in this way, the stage was set for some psychologists to take the view that any violent or sexually exploitative behaviors that couldn’t be denied—because they were simply too obvious—should be considered mutually caused. Psychological literature is thus full of descriptions of young children who “seduce” adults into sexual encounters and of women whose “provocative” behavior causes men to become violent or sexually assaultive toward them.”

Bancroft is under no illusions that the cultural influence of psychoanalysis remains strong and offers an anecdote from his experience to illustrate the point:

A psychologist who is currently one of the most influential professionals nationally in the field of custody disputes writes that women provoke men’s violence by “resisting their control” or by “attempting to leave.” She promotes the Oedipus complex theory, including the claim that girls wish for sexual contact with their fathers. In her writing she makes the observation that young girls are often involved in “mutually seductive” relationships with their violent fathers, and it is on the basis of such “research” that some courts have set their protocols. The Freudian legacy thus remains strong.”

We shortly discover just how strong this belief really is as we look further into the various expressions of abuse presently rising to surface within society.

 


* Zoophilia (from the Greek Zoon, “animal”, and Philia, “friendship or love”) is a paraphilia, defined as an affinity or sexual attraction by a human to non-human animals. Such individuals are called zoophiles. See Appendix 3 for further paraphilias.

Notes

[1] “Should These Conditions Be Normalized?” American Psychiatric Association Symposium Debates Whether Paedophilia, Gender-Identity Disorder, Sexual Sadism Should Remain Mental Illnesses By Linda Ames Nicolosi, http://www.narth.com/
[2] American Psychiatric Association’s DMH  (p. 496)
[3] ‘Sex With Dead Deer Not Illegal – Lawyer Argues’ The Register, November 11, 2006.
[4] In Sheep’s Clothing – Understanding and Dealing with Manipulative People by George K. Simon, Jr. PhD. Published by AJ Christopher & Co. 2000.
[5] p.54.The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer, Associate Professor Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada, 2006 by Bob Altemeyer
[6] op. cit. Cleckley (p.112)
[7] Ibid. (p.117)
[8] Ibid. (p.118 / p.99-100)
“Freud’s long report published under the title From the History of an Infantile Neurosis can, I believe, be taken as a typical example of this work. In it a dream recalled by the twenty-six-year-old patient as having occurred when he was four years of age is confidently interpreted. The chief conclusions reached about this patient appear to be based fundamentally on this interpretation. Freud reports the entire dream as follows:
‘I dreamt that it was night and that I was lying in my bed. (My bed stood with its foot towards the window; in front of the window there was a row of old walnut trees. I know it was winter when I had the dream, and night-time.) Suddenly the window opened of its own accord, and I was terrified to see that some white wolves were sitting on the big walnut tree in front of the window. There were six or seven of them. The wolves were quite white, and looked more like Foxes or sheep-dogs, for they had big tails like foxes and they had their ears pricked like dogs when they are attending to something. In a great terror, evidently of being eaten up by the wolves, I screamed and woke up…
’The only piece of action in the dream was the opening of the window; for the waives sat quite still and without any movement on the branches of the tree, to the right and left of the trunk, and looked at me. It seemed as though they had riveted their whole attention upon me,Freud draws from this dream a number of conclusions by interpreting its various items symbolically. From its association with a few fairy tales familiar to the patient in childhood and with some not particularly extraordinary early memories he devises an astonishing explanation of the patient’s illness. Freud confidently states that the dream reveals in considerable detail an experience the patient was subjected to approximately two and a half years earlier, when he was eighteen months old.
Fragment after fragment of the dream is used by Freud to derive proof that the infant at that time saw his parents while they were having sexual intercourse.He is quite confident that the dream reveals that the parents had intercourse three times in succession while the infant observed them and also that the a tergo position was chosen for their activities. He maintains also that the patient, at eighteen months of age, was so affected by this scene that he had a bowel movement as a pretext to make an outcry and interrupt the parents in their still enthusiastic love-making. In this interpretation the number of the wolves, which the patient recalled as being six or seven, is regarded as an effect of the dreamer’s unconscious processes to disguise what he had really seen—that is to say, the two parents.
The fact that the dream scene is quite stationary and the wolves make no movement is accepted as evidence (by reversal) for vigorous coital activity by the amorous couple.The appearance of keen attention noticeable in the dream-wolves who stood in the tree, according to Freud, indicates an intense and absorbing interest on the part of the infant in what he was watching. The fact that the four-year-old boy experienced fear of the wolves in his dream is said by Freud to represent a terror experienced earlier by the infant at the sight of his mother’s external genital organs when seen as an infant of eighteen months.
The interpreter assumes without question that this alleged sight contributed to the belief that the mother had been mutilated sexually. From these points Freud reaches the confident conclusion that when the boy at four years of age had the dream he was suffering from a profound dread of castration by his father. The fact that the wolves who appeared in the dream are remembered as having particularly long tails is considered sound evidence of an opposite state (taillessness) and hence a substantial confirmation of this disquieting dread.
This preoccupation is said by Freud to have been the chief deterrent to this four-year-old boy’s dominating impulse, assumed to be a specific and strong yearning for his father to carry out upon him sexual relations per anum. In the entire report no item of objective evidence is offered to support these conclusions. Freud appears, however, to be completely convinced that all this is correct and adequately established. In fact, he insists that his whole study of this case must be ‘all a piece of nonsense from start to finish, or everything took place just as I have described it above.’

[9] Bancroft, Lundy; Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men published by Berkley Books (2003) (kindle edition)

The Sex Establishment IV: “Sexual Attitude Restructuring” (SARS)

[Alfred Kinsey’s] “…methodology and sampling technique virtually guaranteed that he would find what he was looking for.”

– James Jones, Kinsey biographer,


Keeping our ideas of ponerology in mind, it seems what Reisman calls the “Sex Establishment” was tasked with a progressive ponerisation of our attitudes to sex and love. As we will discover in later posts, this may have been a spoke in the wheel of a much wider social engineering agenda.

The pioneering academic sex study centres under scrutiny are The Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality (IASHS) – thereafter called the “Sex Institute”- which offers extensive training and advanced degrees originally directed by Penthouse Forum Board member and Kinsey co-author, Dr. Wardell B. Pomeroy, and Hustler Magazine contributors, Drs’. Ted Mcllvena and Erwin Haberlae. The accreditation curricula includes a wide variety of Kinsey inspired material such as the Sex Institute’s degree program which includes:“ ‘advanced graduate’ studies such as: ‘erotic sensate and massage therapy,’ and focuses most of its scholarly training on student viewing, using and even making, ‘erotic’ films … And the “training in the design and implementation of ‘sex education curricula’ for all ages.”  [1]

Kinsey6Alfred C. Kinsey

So, we have Dr. Pomeroy, co-author and a Kinsey Institute principle, who recommended incest as beneficial to the juvenile to adult readers of Penthouse, Chic, and other magazines and for whom a belief in “positive incest” allows him to still teach child sexuality.

What is more interesting is that:

“These now-accredited Sex Institute experts commonly testify for sex offenders and for businesses which specialize in the production of … pornography. ‘Experts’ from the American Sex Establishment regularly testify in courts and provide their expertise to legislatures and other public agencies.  For example, in 1980, Wardell Pomeroy testified for a pornographer in Happy Day v. Kentucky, a court case in which Pomeroy admitted under oath to seeking funds from the sex industry to produce his own child pornography.” [2]

This may go a little way in explaining the present chaos in the European and US courts in cases of child abuse and custody cases. Though courses under the IASHS curricula offer historical, psychological, anthropological and psychodynamic training, the overwhelming mission is a distinctly Kinseyian one.

One particular form of sexual education in the San Francisco “Sex Institute” and in other universities comes under the formal sounding Sexual Attitude Restructuring (SAR) (now known as “Restructuring”). According to wikipedia entry SARS “is not a traditional academic experience designed to disseminate cognitive information, nor is it psychotherapy directed toward the resolution of personal problems”. What apparently SARS proposes to do – though this is without a citation – is to provide: “… an opportunity for participants to explore and understand their beliefs, attitudes, values and biases within the realm of sex and sexuality.” And according to Kinseyian principles, of course.

Promulgated by Pomeroy himself this process is said to achieve a shift in pedagogical attitude and teaching by incorporating specific images of a hard and soft-core nature which also happens to: “scars the viewer’s brain as it short circuits his and her conscience.” This is particularly interesting in light of ponerological aspects of psychopathy that inflict a progressive dissonance that effectively cuts off the ability to express higher feelings such as empathy. The entrainment of SAR is said to erode “emotional refinements by using high resonance images that “psychopharmacologically and neurochemically mold, coarsen and reform viewer’s brains, minds and memories.” In effect, it channels sexual energy to a strictly mechanical and animalistic perception of sexuality and in Pomeroy’s words: “The SAR is designed to ‘desensitize,’ that is to disinhibit, all viewers.” [3]

This has a particular resonance with the CIA-led mind programming operations under the generic term of MK-ULTRA in the 1950s and 60s. Kinsey himself was indirectly associated with some of the main proponents of such mind experimentation. With Rockefeller funding, one cannot help but wonder if these are offshoots of that same secret research which became purposely mainstreamed into academia.

eatenawareness

© Infrakshun

Even before Kinsey left his intensive study of Gall wasps and launched into the field of sexuality, he was an ardent eugenicist who “recommended that a portion of the ‘lower classes’ be sterilized to foster a more robust gene pool.” [4]  It becomes more worrisome when eugenics appears so frequently as a prominent principle behind Kinsey’s drive to collect “data” as it does with so many of the academic and intelligentsia of his day. For instance, Dr. Herrmann Muller, a co-worker at IU for several years had done research at the “Sex Institute” in Berlin, since it was illegal in the United States. It was also at a time when the German Eugenics programs had full academic approval since before the 1920s, as a definite precursor to Hitler’s Nazi Germany.  In 1943, fellow eugenicist and infamous “scientist” Dr. Ewen Cameron became a fellow Rockefeller guarantor. In 1973 as president of the American Psychiatric Association, Dr. Cameron was a covert CIA “mind-control” researcher who conducted human experiments outside the borders of the United States, at McGill University in Canada, for CIA director Allen Dulles.

Satanist, Aleister Crowley, American Nazi George Sylvester Viereck, aforementioned French paedophile Rene Guyon and occultist film maker Kenneth Anger were all friends and acquaintances of Kinsey. Anger commented on Kinsey as follows:

“Kinsey was obsessed with obtaining the Great Beast’s (Crowley’s) day-to-day sex diaries … To obtain grant monies and maintain the support of the university, Kinsey needed the excuse of research to validate his twenty-four-hours-a-day obsession with sex. However, Prok’s (Kinsey’s nickname) battle cry of ‘Do your best and let other people react as they will’ seemed a variation on Crowley’s ‘Do what thou wilt’ maxim. i.e. ‘Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law’ ”. [5]

Granted, we have no way of knowing the truth of Anger’s claims but the historical saga does not end there. With eugenics, Nazism, and Sex-Magick topping the Kinsey bill, this already heady brew may account for the suspicions which eventually surrounded the so called father of the “Sexual Revolution” and which contributed to an equally dubious counter-culture. His personal and professional life, clearly exhibited a pathological obsession with the mechanics of sex. When you mix a sexual obsessive with the above mentioned friends and acquaintances then it becomes clear that Kinsey’s influence could have contributed to the sexual ponerisation of society more than any other single individual. But as we know – no-one acts in isolation.

It is interesting that Kinsey’s research conveniently excluded incest and physical abuse/battery yet focused entirely on the more salacious aspects of deviancy giving them undue credence, effectively normalising them to the point that perversion and pathology is often a part of mainstream culture. For a man famous for harbouring some very dark sexual demons indeed (and regaling his party friends with the fact that he could insert a toothbrush into his penis, bristle-end first (?) it is safe to say that the type of science he carried out and the subsequent Sexual Revolution he birthed bears the same indelible stamp. [6]

The Kinsey sex studies reported that: “95 percent of American males had violated sex laws seriously enough to put them in jail, 85 percent had experienced premarital sex, 69 percent had used prostitutes, 45 percent were adulterers, as high as 37 percent had experienced orgasm in a homosexual act, and that 17 percent had had sex with an animal.” While this may appear pedestrian to the sensation-saturated 21 century, in 1948 it was shocking in the extreme. [7]

We see the same play-offs between the Christian-right and the liberal left, the former seeing him as a child molesting monster and the latter as a great pioneer and deliverer from the last throes of Victorian values and sexual Puritanism.

In reality, neither is correct.

He was very likely used by such overseers as the Rockefellers for his talents and his well-placed sexual psychopathy to act as one of many shapers of society. Persons such as Kinsey and his sponsors may have played on the lowest instincts in man and brought them to the surface to play an active part in the erosion of family, community and for a laissez-faire mentality to reign. Many of these ex-Kinseyian staff and sexologists are now within the court system pronouncing judgements on who is fit and proper to look after children in custody cases or whether or not sex offenders should be locked up or released into community care…

The effects of the Kinsey reports cannot be underestimated. They were after all, used as education templates within academia, government, charities and non-governmental organisations such as UNESCO where official documents incorporated and promoted an elite package of  humanist, eugenics and Kinseyian themes.

The Kinsey Institute and Indiana University haven’t rested on their laurels. They are still carrying out further “studies” with great gusto.

kinseyapp

Screenshot of the “Kinsey Reporter” a mobile smart phone app which logs random data on sexuality for reasons unknown, but certainly not for scientific knowledge.

At kinseyreporter.org/ they have produced a smart phone app to track sexual activity of users across the globe. It is difficult to know what purpose it serves other than the reinforcement of Kinseyian themes and titillation With a proven flawed metholodology for which the Kinsey Institute is most famous, this hasn’t stopped them from producing a: “… global mobile survey platform to share, explore, and visualize anonymous data about sex.” And where these “scientific”
reports “… are submitted via smartphone, then explored on this website or downloaded for off-line analysis”. None of the information generated qualifies as research or science since there is nothing scientific whatsoever in this data collection. In the same way as the Kinsey reports were completely random and unscientific in their methodology as well as a blatant example of well-funded social engineering, the Kinsey Reporter app follows the same low standards for maintaining the momentum of behavioural change through unrepresentative, unreliable and unverifiable methods which are inherently open to imagination and fabrication.

In summary, the Kinsey Institute reinforces its lack of credibility with more attempts to claim it is conducting scientific research. However, if we view the Kinsey Reporter as another tool of SMART society and the perfect avenue in which to promote Kinseyian sexualisation for societies around the world, then this is a very effective tool. It is another example of how pervasive Kinseyian beliefs have become.

Though it would seem that the most vociferous Kinsey critics are predominantly right wing, “apple-pie” conservatives, they do have considerable justification for their outrage. Admittedly, while foaming-at-the-mouth with Christian indignation doesn’t help and may even obscure the truth, it would be extremely foolish to write off all of their objections as prudish “judgment day” invective. Similarly, it could be said that Kinsey did provide partially valuable data regarding the sexual mores of middle America and that he was genuinely interested in such “research” it is highly likely that he used this as a convenient method by which he could satisfy his paedophilic fantasies and sexual obsessions of sado-masochism, voyeurism, child pornography and molestation.

According to biographer James H. Jones, he was “among the most influential Americans of the twentieth century.” If so, then you can be sure he was used for a specific purpose. Many sexologists and academics dislike having their beloved godfather of sex toppled from his mantle, but when the evidence is carefully pondered, Kinsey’s own sexual demons suggest they had become the driving force in his research, fully exploited by those who provided funding. When one puts the Rockefeller foundation in the driving seat it leaves a decidedly uncomfortable feeling that Kinsey’s detractors are onto something, yet they are shackled by accusations of fundamentalism and undue adherence to parochial, middle-American family values.

In 1948, Dr. Kinsey publicly advocated that adults engage in sexual relations with children, making the “scientific” finding that they “derived definite pleasure” from sexual use by adults. Kinsey wrote those children’s screams of pain, their striking and struggling to get away from their “partner” were all supporting evidence of the child subject’s pleasure from sexual contact with an adult “trained observer.” Dr. Reisman wrote that: “While it is clearly established that these above children’s responses were obtained by adult male child sex offenders, the Kinsey group accepts child offender/evidence re: the child victims.”

Knowing that the nature of the sexual predator in our midst is highly manipulative and with an almost supra natural cunning, it is not without good reason that this is exactly the kind of niche post that such individuals seek out where their molestations can then proceed undetected through a variety of ingenious covers. Teachers, priests, occult students, government officials and sex researchers cloaked by science: all offer the potential for secrecy and Establishment protection for psychopaths to “do as they wilt.”

Mr. Kinsey at no time allowed the question of morality to determine what was scientifically acceptable and went way beyond the bounds of perceived bourgeois repression and conservative restrictions. Perhaps the doctor did indeed have his own mandated stamp of approval that allowed him to do as he pleased and strengthened by the social naiveté concerning the dynamics of psychopaths at the time, which was even more in awe of academic and social status. Which makes the following quote from the Doctor even more delusional:

“We are the recorders and reporters of facts — not the judges of the behaviors we describe.” – Dr. Alfred Kinsey

Clearly, Kinsey was a follower of the Goebbels propaganda principle that “… when one lies, one should lie big and stick to it.”

And the Kinsey Institute have carried on this legacy to great effect.

 


Notes

[2] op. cit. Reisman (pp. 172-174,)
[3] Ibid. | See also pp. 174-175 and the following extract: “In December 1982, George Leonard reported his Attitude Restructuring (SAR) experience in Esquire magazine. [Esquire: The End of Sex, p. 24]   Noting at least 60,000 people trained in colleges and university by the SAR beginning in the early 1980s, Leonard expects his experience is typical: The sensory overload culminated on Saturday night in a multi-media event called the F—korama … in the darkness … images of human beings – and some-times even animals — engaging in every conceivable sexual act, accompanied by wails, squeals, moans, shouts, and the first movement of the Tchaikovsky Violin Concerto.  Some seventeen simultaneous moving pictures … Over a period of several hours, there came a moment when the four images on the wall were of a gay male couple, a straight couple, a lesbian couple, and a bestial group.  The subjects were nude,..I felt myself becoming disoriented … was she kissing a man or a woman?  I struggled to force the acts I was watching into their proper boxes … and now I couldn’t remember which was which.  Wasn’t I supposed to make these discriminations?  I searched for clues.  There were none.  I began to feel uncomfortable.  Soon I realized that to avoid vertigo and nausea I would have to give up the attempt to discriminate and simply surrender to the experience … The differences for which lives have been ruined, were not only trivial, but invisible.  By the end … Nothing was shocking….But nothing was sacred either.  But as I drove home, I began to get a slightly uneasy feeling.  It was almost as if I had been conned … by my own conditioned response of taking the most liberated position … whatever my deeper feelings…. love had not been mentioned a single time during the entire weekend.”
[4] p.57; Alfred C. Kinsey :A Public/Private Life by James H. Jones, published by W W Norton & Co Inc. 1997 | ISBN: 0393040860.
[5] ‘Sex Experiments of Alfred Kinsey.’ by Jim Keith. 1999.
[6] ‘Alfred’s brush with pleasure’ By Roy Porter , professor in the social history of medicine, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, London.Times Higher Education Supplement, 14 November 1997.
[7] ‘On Kinsey’s German, Nazi Pedophile Aide; The New York Times Asks: “Alfred Kinsey: Liberator or Pervert?’ By Dr. Judith Reisman, ‘The Kinsey Coverup’ February 4, 2007 | http://www.drjudithreisman.com/

The Sex Establishment III: The Kinsey Legacy

“The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform.”

– Alfred C. Kinsey


As the US government gives Viagra to paedophiles and Europe offers Prozac to children, we could be forgiven for thinking that the world is indulging some very dark humour. Bizarre contradictions and paramoralistic laws are in place to facilitate such oddities. [1] Meantime, utter confusion of identity and sexual orientation is being normalised with the fostering of sexual expression that is nothing short of perverse; where pain, suffering and degradation are just “normal” indicators of a “liberal” society finding itself at last. Something is being found all right, but it doesn’t seem to be along the path to a more creative society.

Psychiatry that twists the nature of paedophilia and child molestation to pander for narcissistic desires seems to have partially taken root from the research of Dr. Alfred Kinsey. He and his co-researchers shaped our perceptions of sex and sexual habits and eventually inaugurated the “sexual revolution” and the age of “free love.” Under ponerological influences however, this could never end well. The time was certainly ripe to explore Western sexuality but it seems, once again, this need for awareness and healthy exploration was hijacked.

This culminated in Kinsey’s highly influential book: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male published in 1948 where 200,000 copies of the book were sold within the first two months of its publication. It was followed by his 1953 companion volume Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, which was seen as pioneering by most in the scientific Establishment, proof of which was sealed when Kinsey appeared on the cover of Establishment mouth-piece Time magazine in the same year.

To some he is one of the great minds in the science of sexuality. To others, he is merely one of many sexual psychopaths given the task of ensuring that our sexuality remains irrevocably distorted.

Kinsey-Time-1953-08-24

Alfred Kinsey on the cover of Establishment rag ‘TIME’ in 1953

The UK’s Channel Four television programme Secret History: Kinsey’s Paedophiles, first broadcast in October 1998, revealed some interesting facts about Kinsey’s research where the so called “normal sexuality” of test subjects was displaced in favour of an inordinately high number of persons imprisoned for criminal sexual deviancy. Interviews took place with prostitutes, child molesters, rapists and an assortment of petty criminals and the collected information entered into a database as normal examples of the population. There were suspiciously high levels of homosexuality and bestiality. Under the new spirit of “scientific” sexual emancipation however, this wasn’t deemed so…sexy.  Moreover, his research department staffed by young males and females were expected to reveal their sexual histories and participate in explicit sex movies that were shot in Kinsey’s attic … All for research purposes, of course. In summary, the scientific methodology of data collection, statistical analysis and the results that followed were all deeply flawed. [2]

What was perhaps most controversial were the methods by which Alfred Kinsey obtained child orgasms. He stated confidently: “We have now reported observation on such specifically sexual activities as erection, pelvic thrusts, and several other characteristics of true orgasm in a list of 317 pre-adolescent boys ranging between infants of five months and adolescence in age.”

Come again? Did anyone at all consider this a red flag? Apparently not.

table34Table 34 from ‘Sexual Behavior in the Human Male’

This included the use of stop watches and “stimulation” of children’s genitals in order to time the duration of response leading to orgasm. His claims that infants “measured in the nursery with special instruments, were found to experience orgasms at the age of four or five months” and that “[o]ne preadolescent child had 26 orgasms in 24 hours,” apparently never caused researchers concern as to how he gathered this data. Indeed, Kinsey’s obsessions with infant and child reactions to stimulation was due to his own paedophilic tendencies.John Bancroft, M.D., emeritus director of the Kinsey Institute, confirmed this preoccupation as the driving forc behind his research in his paper, “Alfred Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research” by stating that Kinsey was “particularly interested in the observation of adults who had been sexually involved with children.” [3]

What is even more worrying about the experiments, and certainly Kinsey’s own ability to interpret basic human distress is the descriptions he gives associated with infants and children during and after orgasm: “sobbing, or more violent cries, sometimes with an abundance of tears (especially among younger children) … extreme trembling, collapse, loss of color, and sometimes fainting …,” “pained or frightened” expression, and “violent attempts to avoid climax …” [4] Testament to Kinsey psychopathology or ambition (or both) despite these reactions, he concluded that children, “derive definite pleasure from the situation.”

One wonders whose perception of “pleasure” he was really talking about.

According to arch Kinsey critic Judith A. Reisman’s research: “… anywhere from 317 boy infants and 2,035 total children” were subjected to the sex experiments for the Kinsey data in Chapter 5 of the Male and Female volumes of his reports. Kinsey’s methodology could be seen as obvious forms of abuse yet this did not seem to worry academics at the Indiana University of his day, nor those who are happy to highlight what might be labelled Reisman’s religious even conservative beliefs, but do not have answers for the questions she raises. The very nature of his research that focused on detailed charts of orgasmic toddlers and infants must lead us to re-evaluate the motives of such research.

It is now common knowledge that Kinsey’s sources for this data came from none other than: “… habitual paedophiles whom Kinsey encouraged to keep careful records of their ‘contacts’ with children, even suggesting that they time the ‘orgasms’ which these children supposedly experienced. One such Kinsey correspondent was a man who claimed to have molested hundreds of children, while another was … a Nazi storm trooper who sexually exploited children in occupied Poland and was eventually accused of murdering a 10-year-old girl in post-war Germany.” [5]

To say that there there were gargantuan flies in the ointment of scientfic rigour would be an enormous understatement.

What were the real reasons that lay behind Kinsey’s sponsored obsessions and why was his own paedophilia, and sadomasochistic preferences overlooked so comprehensively?  Even before the more bizarre aspects of Kinsey’s methodology came to light, the source of his funding provides a clue.

kinseyThe original patron of the Kinsey research in 1938 was the publicly funded Indiana University. In this case, it was the National Research Council and the Rockefeller Foundation who have had a long pedigree in social engineering under the cover of philanthropy as well as Nazi business dealings and psychological experimentation via none other than Joseph Mengele (an individual we will explore further in later posts).  The Rockefeller patriarchs also pioneered the support of eugenics in Germany and America and the belief in depopulation as an answer to poverty and “bad breeding.” Marketed as a philanthropic family with its many charitable and educational organisations, its history tells a somewhat different story.  [6]  Reisman states: “…The Rockefeller Foundation’s knowledge of the research flaws [in Kinsey’s data] is certain; however, they continued to fund its use in the Model Penal Code anyway.” [7]

They did so because their objective wasn’t to improve society’s sexual habits but to impose their own agenda.

She continues:

The continuously repeated misrepresentation by Rockefeller and Indiana University that Kinsey had a “well-developed methodology” is refuted by the 1950 report from Warren Weaver, then director of the Natural Science Division of the Rockefeller Foundation.  He documented for the Foundation what would have been an insurmountable fact for honorable men: that Kinsey’s data were totally invalid statistically. However, this stubborn scientific fact did not stop the official actions of the Rockefeller Foundation. By 1950, Rockefeller was funding the American Law Institute with the mission to re-craft “fixed” American law including the state laws regarding sex offenders based upon Kinsey’s invalid research. [Emphasis mine]

Without the support of the Rockefeller foundation it is unlikely that Kinsey’s work would have been allowed to come to fruition. What is important to keep in mind is that Rockefeller and Kinsey were on the same perceptual page, a belief that went far beyond the idea of liberating humanity from sexual repression but actively encouraging sexual mores that would inevitably swing to its polar opposite. To understand this better one needs to get inside the beliefs of the Rockefellers and others of their ilk, something we’ll come back to later on in this series.

Although Judith Reisman certainly has her own religious belief, she is more than qualified both academically and from her own experiences of abuse (her daughter was abused at 13) to offer compelling evidence that Kinsey was not what he seemed. She illustrates the depth of Kinsey’s subterfuge and the historical forces behind his placement via an extensive and meticulous research into what has been called the “Kinsey model” which is now used in many institutions and law courts all over America, often by proponents and advocates of Kinsey’s findings. Mix in narcissism, misguided feminism, reflexive political correctness, erroneous psychiatric evaluation atop endemic corruption and it is difficult to see how progress can be made under the current social engineering that makes up our current system of laws.

Reisman summarized the Kinsey Model in the following list from which the Kinsey team suggested to Americans that if they follow their conclusions derived from the analysis of human sexual conduct, American society would benefit in innumerable ways.  Kinsey’s “findings” included the following, suitably buttressed by the traditions of Freudian psychoanalysis to help them along:

  • All orgasms are ‘outlets’ and equal between husband and wife, boy and dog, man and boy, girl, or baby – for there is no abnormality and no normality.
  • As the aim of coitus is orgasm, the more orgasms from any ‘outlet,’ at the earliest age – the healthier the person.
  • Early masturbation is critical for sexual, physical and emotional health.  It can never be excessive or pathological.
  • Sexual taboos and sex laws are routinely broken, thus all such taboos and sex laws should be eliminated, including that of rape and child rape, unless serious ‘force’ is used and serious harm is proven.
  • Since sex is, can, and should be commonly shared with anyone and anything, jealousy is passé.
  • All sexual experimentation before marriage will increase the likelihood of a successful long-term marriage and venereal disease and other socio-sexual maladies will be reduced dramatically.
  • Human beings are naturally bisexuals Religious bigotry and prejudice forces people into chastity, heterosexuality and monogamy.
  • Children are sexual and potentially orgasmic from birth (‘womb to tomb’); are unharmed by incest, adult/child sex, and often benefit thereby.
  • There is no medical or other reason for adult-child sex or incest to be forbidden.
  • All forms of sodomy are natural and healthy.
  • Homosexuals represent ten to thirty-seven percent of the population or more. (Kinsey’s findings were always very fluid on this point.) Some educators have interpreted his findings by saying that only four to six percent of the population are exclusively heterosexual so the ‘heterosexual’ bias in the US should be eliminated. [8]

Reisman provides evidence that these “findings” and the 1948 Kinsey model as a whole, were swiftly incorporated into the educational establishment, including the health and social services, the military and most commonly from a Kinseyian “variant” sex model that draws heavily on the above. It is not difficult to see how these models have contributed to the effects we now see in our societies.

The net psychological fallout from this was not merely the hope of releasing sexual hang ups and “blockages” that might be interfering with one’s sexual identity or the ability to lead fulfilling lives. No one would say that this could not be viewed as positive. But what the Kinsey report actually served to do was to create a climate that was sourced not only from faulty data but to inculcate a preference for the pathological.

kinsey505x476

Alfred C. Kinsey

Inhibition and experimentation with a loving partner was one thing, but if you didn’t feel like indulging in sado-masochism, husband/wife-swapping, pederasty, fetishism, gay sex and orgies then of course there was clearly something wrong with your newly liberated self. After all, half of America was at it, shouldn’t you be too? The man and woman in a loving heterosexual relationship were wondering whether such normality was actually pedestrian.

Perhaps the standard sexual expression of the male-female and loving intimacy was passé?

Following the publishing of the Kinsey reports came in a veritable flood of old and new literature to imbibe the sexual revolution with suitable largesse – or guilty perversity, depending on your focus. As we have seen, the psychiatrist Hervey M. Cleckley goes into a lengthy discussion in Caricature of Love on the nature of the intelligentsia’s art –  including literature – which had a profound effect on the sexual consciousness of pre and post-war America and Europe. He included examples from Baudelaire, Huysmans, Strindberg, Whitman, Wilde, Swinburne, de Sade, Swift, Gide, and others, finding a remarkable common theme of antipathy towards women at best, and downright loathing and derision at worst. In fact, all authors exhibited pathologies of the perverse and delighted in an overt or passive aggressive narrative toward the feminine, the advocacy of sexual deviancy in general and the denigrating of normal sexual relations between a man and a woman.  (We might say that “normal” here, is where an affectionate and/or loving relationship exists with some form of commitment to each other. Mechanical sex as an end in itself is not the primary motivator).

Again, this is not about prudish aversion to different forms of sexual expression but the intent behind the sexual revolution that was set in motion.

Cleckley cited a number of books that took hold of the public’s newly acquired curiosities immediately after the bombshell of Kinsey’s findings. One of these books he listed was The Ethics of Sexual Acts (1934) by Kinsey’s friend author and occultist Rene Guyon and very pertinent to the mind-set under discussion. In the introduction to the book a doctor breathlessly presents the man as a sex philosopher and an expert in matters of passion, eroticism and sexual freedom serving as a welcome antidote to the anti-sexual puritanism. For this gentleman, the “science” of the Kinsey reports confirmed the doctor’s view that Guyon was a sexual visionary of the highest order.

For instance, he writes:

“… it is amazing how frequently Kinsey’s cold objective figures bear witness to the truth of Guyon’s assertions and tend to support his ideas, which at times may seem extreme.”

The same physician informs us:

“…that Neither Guyon nor Kinsey can find justification for the terms “normality” or “abnormality” in the sexual life of man.”

He also warns us:

Both Guyon’s and Kinsey’s books are high explosives. They are likely to blow sky-high many of our most sacred notions. What arguments can the anti-sexualists and professional moral-izers—forever on the warpath against men like Guyon—advance against Kinsey’s figures and charts? …

Faced by Guyon’s disconcerting candor (and also by Kinsey’s unimpeachable figures) even the liberal-minded scientist, believing himself quite free of prejudices, may suddenly discover that he too has retained childhood inhibitions and that his reasoning is impaired by some deeply embedded, ecclesiastical taboos and subconscious repressions. [9]

Rene GUYONCleckly reminds us that this individual was clearly elated with the antidote to all that repression that he believed Guyon and Kinsey were offering, as whole generations were. In part, of course, this was true. In the introduction refers to Kinsey as standing: “… closely behind Guyon, ready to back up this early crusader with science,” which is false. What this really meant was an exclusively mechanistic, Darwinian and Freudian theory of sexuality, heavily influenced by sex magick and paedophilia.

What the Kinsey report sowed in the mass consciousness and sexual identity was more than just the permission to indulge in sexual acts that could become as extreme as one liked. It was more than seeing the instincts as caged tigers to be let loose in pretty much in any way that men and women felt inclined, to be exacted on anyone who fitted the bill of one’s sexual desires, it was the imposition of a perception of sexuality as a mechanistic function devoid of higher possibilities and thus an open door to pathology. Now, the only limits on the proffered banquet of sexual acts is the landscape of our imagination overflowing with instinctual hunger and valueless desire but isolated from any hope of true intimacy.

Cleckley continues:

“By this theory the author repeatedly ‘proves’ that any and all means by which ejaculation can be attained are equally ‘natural’ ‘A sexual object,’ he announces, ‘is not essential or indispensable for the full satisfaction of the sexual sense. For this purpose, any one mechanical process may be as good as any other, whether this process involves the use of an object or not.’ […]

This being so, if the anal, oral and sexual mucous membranes are all equally suited to play their part in the mechanical process, they are all of equal value, and it is no more necessary to delimit these specific zones than to compare their relative efficacy …

In reality, all this amounts to nothing more than that the anal and oral zones behave like the genital zone …This behavior derives its value from the fact that the cavities in question have all more or less the same form; but we know very well that in onanism the prehensile members [hands] show themselves quite capable of creating an artificial cavity which serves the same mechanical purpose.” [10]

Cleckley highlights the theme of this “mechanistic theory of sexuality,” revealing that just as Kinsey believes “The only unnatural sex act is that which you cannot perform” so Guyon attempts to prove the same, where exhibitionism, incest, paedophilia, pederasty, necrophilia, and coprophilia “are healthy and equally satisfactory expressions of biologic impulse, entirely normal and commendable.” [11] 

If the object of desire is a sentient being with consciousness rather than just a screw in a machine; (no pun intended) – a set of orifices that must be penetrated – then there is always a chance for the connection to responsibility, values, ethics, empathy, and the deeper potential of love to come into play. But this is not the case. In normalising the pathology listed above it places the mechanical, chemical dominator of instinct squarely in the human consciousness as the destroyer of principles and limits. Narcissistic sex for sex’s sake is to be not only natural, but hip and cool; the forerunner of “free love” and a free society. Is that really what the new flares of psychedelic and sexual freedom were about? Was it free love – or just a free for all? Healing our sexual selves by releasing repression in the Freudian tradition seems to have spilled over into something entirely different.

Guyon, after encouraging the enlisting of prostitutes to pad out the numbers for a good old fashioned orgies states: “It goes without saying also that its justifiability is never called into question by those who have rebelled against repression and have deliberately rejected it from their system of sexual ethics.” In other words, the system sexual ethics actually involves the absence of any ethics at all. Anything goes and you need not be concerned about consequences or the deeper substratum of the human being. Which goes surprisingly close to the idea of “Do what thou wilt,” the maxim of which forms the lynchpin of a particular Satanic occult practice we will look at presently.

tumblr_n7qhr6Ulo71sfie3io1_1280

The Freudian, Kinsey-Guyon view of sexuality

tumblr_nhrpkdBfkR1sfie3io1_1280(public domain: New Old Stock)

Those who see such free-spirited emancipation as something other than freedom of the body and mind are accused of prejudice, anti-sexuality and retrogression. While the prudish and puritanical are also part of the problem, the issue here is of psycho-subversion by pathological constructs paraded as sexual emancipation. Or, as Cleckley explains, Guyon sees: “…The psychology of these extraordinary acts [which] can be explained as a simple manifestation of preference, and cannot be looked upon as “morbid,” since it has a perfectly natural source…” where: “… all methods are equally normal.”

Now place this worldview in the context of how one views women as literal objects to penetrate and domesticate and man as nothing more than alpha-pistons re-fuelling their engines of desire to conquer and consume. What this perception increases is the idea of a world of consumption, without sexual limits, sex for its own sake and the erosion of values that surround the hope of loving, more cohesive and strengthened relations. Moral distinctions and thus values between communities and society play no part where sensation and the orgasm is the defining factor of liberation. It is a road map for a psychopath’s view of sex, as Cleckley reiterates:

Every mechanical means of producing sexual pleasure is normal and legitimate; there is no room for moral distinctions between the various available methods; all are equally justifiable and equally suited to their particular ends…The personal characteristics of the sexual partner have nothing to do with the physiological manifestations of sexual pleasure itself; the importance attributed to these characteristics is a matter of convention…. […] …the ‘sexual pervert’ has no real existence, nor any proper place in the nomenclature of disease . . . these are not pathological cases; they are, on the contrary, people who have remained in much closer touch with nature, truth and health than those who, willing or otherwise, have succumbed to repression. [12]

These books and others like them, set out to explore sexuality not always in favour of true freedom but to redefine sexual taste and change the normal person’s incentive which is naturally lacking towards what can be safely defined as pathology. Such strains of literary psychopathy infiltrating and warping cultural mores is defined by Łobaczewski as both essential psychopathy and in the case of some of the more literary classics: “asthenic psychopathy”: “This type of person finds it easier to adjust to social life. The lesser cases in particular adapt to the demands of the society of normal people, taking advantage of its understanding for the arts and other areas with similar traditions. Their literary creativity is often disturbing if conceived in ideational categories alone; they insinuate to their readers that their world of concepts and experiences is self- evident; also it contains characteristic deformities.” [13]

Thus, as part of a larger method of social engineering by psychopathological influences, this helps to contour such “tastes” towards their singular preferences – starting in childhood.

We are now in the early part of the 21st century, where we will be able to gauge how successful this direction has been.

 


Notes

[1] ‘US government gives free Viagra to paedophiles’ Times Online, By James Bone, May 23, 2005.
[2] Methods, Sex and Madness by Julia O’Connell Davidson and Derek Layder. Published by Routledge 1994, this edition 2001. ISBN 0415-09764-9.  See Chapter 4 The Survey Method p.83.
[3] Bancroft, J. (2004). Alfred C. Kinsey and the Politics of Sex Research. Annual Review of Sex Research, 15, 1-39.
[4]Kinsey, A. (1998). Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
[5] ‘Kinsey’s Crimes Against Children’ By Robert Stacy McCain, Washington Post, May 1999.
[6] For further reading on the Rockfeller dynasty’s relationship to Nazi eugenics and research in psychology read: ‘Rockefeller, Nazis, The UN, & Genocide’ by Anton Chaitkin educate-yourself.org and Nazi Nexus: America’s Corporate Connections to Hitler’s Holocaust by Edwin Black. Published by Dialog Press; First Edition edition, 2009. ISBN-10: 0914153099 / War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America’s Campaign to Create a Master Race by Edwin Black Published by Dialog Press, 2008. ISBN-10: 0914153056.
[7] p. 201; Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences: The Red Queen and the Grand Scheme Third Edition, Judith A. Reisman, Published by IInst. Media Education, 2003 | ISBN-10: 0966662415
[8] Ibid. Reisman (pp. 170-171)
[9] op. cit. Cleckley (pp.182-183)
[10] Ibid. (pp.183-184)
[11] Ibid. (p.184)
[12] Ibid. (p.187)
[13] op. cit. Lobaczewski, (p.94 )