Scientism and liberal feminism are sex-negative, anti-woman puritan cults (originally published on 1/28/22)

     How could this be? "Traditional Culture Preservation Society" is clearly a troll, an incel, or perhaps most damaging of all, a RuSsIaN bOt!!!!! Everybody knows that in Whig Historyland, we began a slow march from the evil, terror, backwardness, misogyny and homophobia of the medieval past and into a glorious, and much superior world. This is the consistent message of all the great thought leaders of all time, our Stephen Pinkers, our Jordan Petersons, and Neil Degrasse Tysons. They may have their personal quabbles and disagreements over politics, but in the end, they have one major area of consensus: now is the best time to be alive in human history, and we will continue to march forward into a glorious future as soon as all distinctions, borders and culture is destroyed and the Tower of Babel erected in its place. And nothing is more of a clear sign of the superiority of the present over the past (except perhaps our "science juice" and our wonderful "plaunt based" soy crap) than the fact that we have risen from the prudish, puritanical 1950s, to the wondeful, joyous, multi-sexual rainbow present.

    Peel away at the childish narrative of stupid whig history for a moment and actually begin looking at actual anthropology, and the ethnographic record does not seem to indicate a state of traditional, horrendous prudery and puritanism, not even (and I know this is going to be a shocker to everyone) in the Christian West. In fact, the traditional attitude toward human sexuality in many (though not all) traditional cultures was quite progressive when it came to FEMALE sexuality, which is something utterly, totally denigrated in modern corporate consumerist culture like internet pr0n. 

    I know, I know. This is total, utter crazy pseudoscience. "Next, you're going to be telling us that the ancients in the Dark Ages had better medicine or lived healthier lives than we do." Well, here's my response to that accusation:

    "B...bu...but... how???? Are you telling me (horror of horrors!) The Boomers have lied to me??????? The Boomers would never lie to me!!!!!!!!"

    Let me know, Mr Bugman, when they find those Weapons of Mass Destruction.

    For now, those of us in the Reality-Based Community are much more in tune with the wisdom of the ancients, a wisdom that the neo-Victorian and neo-puritan scientist incels and nerds (and yes, most of academia is incels and nerds) have been trying to wish away for quite a while. Ever wondered how our sexologists and sex experts are a bunch of lab-coat wearing beta males who look like they've never been anywhere near Vag in their lives? And if you have, ever put two and two together for how modern, western scientism has absolutely zero understanding of the female orgasm, to the point that a lot of incel-anthropologists in the mid 20th century literally doubted it existed in some cultures (*cough* Melford Spiro *cough*) and even "enlightened", "sex positive" (haha, as if there is any sex positivity in modern society except for homosex positivity) researchers regularly repeat the most fundamental lies and misunderstandings about how literally women's sexual drives are nothing more than a "byproduct" of evolution that serve no actual function? No joke, a lot of "feminists" literally find it "liberating" to be told that they can only experience orgasm because they are failed men. Such is the state of western society's incredible pride and arrogance, that they would refuse to admit the mistakes and lunacies of their phony junk-soyence.

    You know what is lousy, lame, pseudoscientific woo-woo craziness according to All Respected Scholars, though? Why, nothing more and nothing less than the wisdom of ages. If you want to learn about sex, and sexuality, and women, and how to please women sexually (which you shouldn't do by the way because then you are a naughty boy who think the female orgasm matters, and isn't just a random evolutionary byproduct), the last place you want to go is the Kama Sutra, the Hadiths of the Prophet, the Tao Te Ching, or the Song of Solomon. Those are all "dusty old books" of fairy tales written by people who don't actually exist, like Jesus (a mushroom), Lao Tzu (a bunch of anonymous writers in ancient China), or Mohammed (an LSD tablet). Even worse would be to go to the traditional cultures of the world, none of whom understand anything about human sexuality since they are too busy having sex rather than studying it in minute, autistic detail like the labcoats do. Rather, if you really want to learn about sex you have to go to a bunch of bespectacled nerds who have high "IQs" and believe current dogma over that icky, outdated transcendent wisdom. So what, if it's provided meaning and purpose to literally billions of people? Those people all exist randomly because of random biological mutations and drives, bro. So what, if these labcoat geniuses are all perma-virgins and literally the most sexually inexperienced losers on the planet? They sure do know a lot about Bopping the Bologna, and that's basically sex anyway amirite.

    The West has a bizarre modern history of puritanism, starting with the literal Puritans. The Protestant Reformation, and its Catholic cousin the "counter-Reformation", basically reintroduced total Augustinian/Gnostic hatred of the body and the flesh (especially the *yuck* FEMALE body, and, horror of unspeakable horrors, the clitoris) into what had previously been a very sexually open (in some ways) culture of medieval times. A lot of modern Cucktholic, beta-male sedevacantists and trads would be no doubt shocked, triggered, and horrified to find out that in medieval penitentials, a man would actually be barred from communion for the act of sexual intercourse WITHOUT foreplay. Wait a second, but Ron Conte and his gang of I-will-never-know-the-touch-of-a-woman gnostic zoomers told me the clitoris is the devil's dumpling, because hey, apparently now Satan created body parts or something. Even worse, from the perspective of scientism, the reason female sexuality and female orgasmic capacity weren't utterly reviled and hated in medieval times, but rather CELEBRATED, is because (oh noes pseudoscience trigger warning), the predominant view of pregnancy was that it was caused by BOTH male and female ejaculation. A view which, I might add, is held by nearly all primitive cultures, from the Tuaregs to the Okinawans, and even among Native Americans. The outlier is Modern Scientistic Consensus and its high-IQ warriors of Truthy Truth and Facty Fact. 

    Avicenna, one of the greatest scholars and scientists of all time, and a strong influence over both the Islamic East and the Christian West, writes that female sexual pleasure is a necessary part of the conception process, which should be encouraged by whatever means possible. His theories were in part a virtue of his devout Islamic faith, which is vilified stupidly in the West as "anti-female" and "puritanical", when in fact the actual teaching of the Prophet states:

            "A woman's capacity for sexual enjoyment is 99 times greater than a man's, except that Allah                 has made modesty so overbearing in women."

            "When you intend to have sex, do not rush or her needs will be unfulfilled."

            

    In boomerland, this isn't supposed to be true. Islam is supposed to be that damn raghead religion where they oppress womyn and destroy our freedumbs, right? The women of the Islamic world are oppressed, beaten down and treated like garbage, whereas in the West they are liberated and equal? Oh wait. Holy shit. Even "muh science" now states that women have MORE sexual satisfaction in Pakistan, the ultraconservative baddybad Islamic patriarchy, than in good ole freedom-loving, misandrist Murrika. How could this be???? Must be a bunch of libruls in Academia lying to support evil towelheads and their homerfobia. #RegressiveLeft

    Let's take a look at that other mean, jerky patriarchal ancient culture, known as ancient India, you know, that baddy bad country where they practiced sati until the British saved them from themselves. That evil culture. Let's see, didn't they write a book called the "Kama Sutra" or something? Must have been full of prudery, or else made sex just some male dominated patriarchal misogynistic thing right? I mean, they didn't have access to the joys of modernity and Science. So there's absolutely no way the Kama Sutra contained anything about women enjoying sex ten times as much as men do, or the necessity of sexual climax for both partners to sustain a properly functioning society. That would be totally out of place in the horrendous patriarchy we all know traditional societies in their backwardness must have been.

    Taoism? That's that crap from Commie Red China right? They don't know a damn thing! I am 100% sure that there is absolutely nothing in the Tao Te Ching about female 'chi' being released through orgasm, as being necessary and essential in order to have a properly functioning sexual relationship and avoiding chaos and imbalance, just as I know for an absolute fact that the Taoists never would have regarded a man who can control himself so as not to ejaculate, while simultaneously bringing large numbers of women to orgasm and therefore harvesting their 'chi', would be regarded as a true Taoist hero and the ancient equivalent of a "chad". Such things would be unthinkable.

    Or what about the society of the Amharic Ethiopians, some of the oldest Christians on Earth, who regard human sexuality as sacred and in particular regard the synchronicity of male and female orgasm as a wonderful holy and ancient practice which they actually teach young people?

    Or the Tuareg, among whom it has been written "the birth of a girl is a sign the woman's orgasm occurred first, or that her semen is stronger than a man's" (Unitthan-Kumar and Tremayne 2011).

    Or the Gonds, a Dravidian Adivasi tribe in India, among whom Verrier Elwin writes that their 'ghotul' or youth dormitory courtship system fostered a deep understanding of human, including female, sexuality and that sex was always preceded by lengthy courtship rituals and foreplay? The Gonds, by the way, like most non-western cultures, had their own indigenous term for the clitoris and did not have to borrow from the Greek like our language (and most other Germanic and Romance languages) did. 

    Or most Zomian cultures of Southeast Asia, which also had elaborate courtship and sexual customs which were the opposite of "prudish". The Li of Hainan, an ancient tropical island people living in China, for instance, had a custom, called "prunkau" in their native Kra-Dai language, which means a small house or hut where teenage girls live for several years, entertaining multiple male lovers over that time, completely free -- and in charge -- sexually in this matriarchal society. By the way, a study of Li marriages found that all were extremely happy and the wives were highly sexually satisfied (Lavely, Li and Li 2001). Another study found that anorgasmia, while relatively common among female Han Chinese, was extremely rare among minority ethnicities like the Li and others (Zhuang, Tong et al. 2017).

    The Badjau of the Philippines are thus described: "the Bajau claim males reach climax more easily than the females, but most females nonetheless have an orgasm during intercourse since a male who allows himself to reach climax before his mate is an undesirable lover" (Dutoit and Anastasi, 1998). If only most American women could say the same, they wouldn't all be a bunch of angry feminist harpies who hate men with a passion.

    The Trobrianders described by Malinowski are such a famous example I don't even see fit to go into detail in their case. If you know even basic anthropology, you know how this group of "savages" have proven themselves much, much wiser than modern "peer reviewed double blind" stuh-deez nuts.

    Among the Idu Mishmi of Arunachal Pradesh, India: "...fulfillment of desire is known if a girl tightly holds a boy and won't release him immediately after an orgasm" (Bhattacharjee, 1983).

    Among the peoples of Gilgit-Baltistan in Pakistan: "...after some practice they enjoy intercourse: desire comes and pleasure comes" "...most enjoyed men's attention, matrimonial intimacy and orgasm" (Walter, 2016). Again, this is in an "ultra-conservative" Islamic context, yet how many "liberated" American women could say the same?

    Almost all the Pacific Islanders (Marquesans, Samoans, Trukese, Ulithi, Yapese) are very aware of the female orgasm, and do whatever is in their power to stimulate it.

    Almost all Dravidian, Tai-Kadai, Hmong-Mien, and Austronesian languages have specific terms for the clitoris that are not loanwords from other languages, indicating a very deep knowledge of this aspect of female anatomy which is lacking in the West. This is also true of a majority of Sino-Tibetan languages as well as the language isolate of Enggano.

    Margaret Mead describes both Mundugumor (Papua New Guinea) males and females as highly orgasmic, although she then later on bizarrely claims that neither experience orgasm among the neighboring Arapesh. Overall, her work does not seem to be particularly scholarly and has been widely criticized.

    Havelock Ellis writes, quoting Richard Burton: "the prolongation of the man's excitement, in order to give the woman time for orgasm is...much studied by Moslems, as also by Hindoos..."

    The Yucatec Maya are known to take a very matter-of-fact view of female sexual pleasure, which they regard as natural (Wynne, 2020).

    Other Native American tribes known to prioritize female orgasm include the Puebloans, Pomoans of California, the Siriono, and at least some of the Je tribes. Bizarrely, some writers have claimed that the majority of indigenous Americans did not understand or had never heard of the female orgasm. This is almost surely the result of reticence, since many tribes are not willing to answer nosy, sexually perverted anthropologist palefaces about such intimate questions. I suspect something similar is going on with Melford Spiro's (widely criticized) claim that the female orgasm does not exist among ethnic Burmese.

    Overall, the ethnographic record is extremely clear on this issue. Women are much, much more sexually satisfied in primitive, rather than "advanced", industrialized, soyence-minded cultures. In traditional societies, female sexuality is prized and privileged both as a means to procreation, and a prosocial mechanism to avoid divorce. Dravidian tribals like the Oraons, the Muria and Maria Gonds have among the lowest divorce rates on Earth (despite holding liberal attitudes towards divorce), and they also teach their young men how to satisfy women. Even some societies which practice female circumcision (a maladaptive custom if there was ever one), nonetheless still teach young men the art of love in such a way that -- at least if the circumcision is of a mild variety -- the women still end up MORE sexually satisfied than they have in the west in modern times. That's because real men are chads, and real chads are able to please their women. Modern men are soy coomers who can't control themselves, who splooge themselves constantly to bizarre, disgusting online prawn which is a total psy-op, and hence are unable to practice the semen retention and self control of the traditional Hindu or Taoist custom, or the art of lovemaking seen in Zomian or Dravidian youth culture. 

    I will leave with one final example of the superiority of the self controlled, alpha man for the female sex, over the pathetic f@gg0t of western coomery. In a lot of areas of the Caucasus, men must spend the entirety of their wedding night slowly undoing their bride's corset, in order to show tremendous self control. Circassian and Khevsur men are already major chads, so it is not terribly difficult. It is seen that a stoical, self controlled man who is not ruled by his passions will be a superior lover to a woman. Guess what? That is 100% accurate. Suck it, soyboy westerners.