Category Archives: Sex

Stop Your Ears

Freud’s fundamental error is that he listens to women. He listens. He encourages complaint. Freud teaches men to listen to women when what women actually require in order to not become bitches and shrews is men refractory to female protest. Hard men. Dominant men.

Not for nothing did Odysseus stop the ears of his sailors against the keening of the sirens. Women will drive men who listen mad. Freud listened. The result was psychoanalysis. Women have not stopped talking since, and men have lost the ability to shut them up.

In Shakespeare’s time it was understood that indulging a chronically dissatisfied woman would only makes things worse. Petruchio’s cure for the shrew was to acquaint her with real deprivation. Unlike Freud, Petruchio did not ruminate over “what a woman wants.” A woman reveals what she wants not by what she says but by the kind of man she surrenders to. She wants a man who will put her in her place. But for a man to be capable of putting a woman in her place, he must know her place without asking. And he must show he knows by adroit conquest.

A man who starts down the path of asking what a woman wants, as Freud does, never gets to the end of it. For such a man has forfeited the knowledge that should constitute an essential part of his masculinity. The man who asks will never know. He is impotent.

A woman becomes a woman through subjugation. To ask her what she wants is to undo her as a woman. The question hystericizes her. Freud’s technique makes hysterics. It does not cure them.

This undoing of woman does not produce a man. It produces a malformed creature who is neither woman nor man, neither fish nor fowl: a harpy. The harpy is a creature who loathes herself and takes vengeance on the men who failed to make her a woman.

Expressed as feminism, this inchoate rage against ineffectual men is legitimate punishment for the white male abdication of virility. The old covenant between the sexes has been broken. Men preoccupied with the vast modern enterprise of subduing and exploiting nature have forgotten how to conquer women. They only have themselves to blame if in their modern cities they are now beset by the disordered, misgendered creatures they have loosed upon the world.

Freud was an early exemplar of the inadequate man engendered by modernity. What he invented was not a cure but a symptom, a symptom of a spent, ineffectual patriarchy no longer capable of form-giving and resigned instead to suffer the incessant chatter of disappointed women.


A disordered society in which men have grown too feeble to rule women, inevitably produces an epidemic of misshapen, unrealized women. This is bad enough in itself. But what’s worse is that such a society eventually must also produce an ideology that makes a virtue of ugliness. Disorder is rationalized as diversity. Ugliness is rationalized as emancipation from the strictures of male domination. Delusion is celebrated as enlightenment.

And, yet, this nonsense never really takes root. Beauty and ugliness produce involuntary responses. No quantity of Dove commercials can turn cows into swans. Ideologies that attempt to “redefine” beauty to make it a more “inclusive” category themselves acquire the taint of ugliness. They seem forced, artificial, risible. Feminist.

Desire imposes aesthetic hierarchies. It manifests as pure, indefensible prejudice: her, not her.

Conversely, the abolition of aesthetic hierarchies requires the abolition of any manifestation of desire. This is why liberals resemble gray, unsexed zombies. Gender neutrality is death. The battery of desire requires polarity not equality.

Equality is noxious to fantasy. It is equally noxious to sexuality and aesthetics.


A curious shortcoming of Freud’s Civilization and Its Discontents is that Freud never considers the libidinal economy of the pagan world, which seemed far more tolerant of sexual enjoyment than the Christian civilization that displaced it.

The fundamental difference between the pagan and Christian cultures is that the former was a culture of customs with no claim to universality. Paganism unlike Christianity did not distribute personhood evenly. It did not preach the communion of souls now or in the hereafter. It did not concern itself with abstractions like love of neighbor. It had rituals but little in the way of theology. Its orientation was worldly rather than otherworldly.

What poisons European sexuality is the introduction of the Christian notion of personhood, which is later secularized into the doctrine of rights.

Enjoyment is in opposition to rights because enjoyment is predicated on use (usufruct). To put it bluntly, fucking is not loving. “Respect” and mutuality are alien to sexual enjoyment. Sade was perhaps the one modern European who cut through the accumulated miasma of a millennium of Christian sentimentality and articulated the precise terms and implications of sexual enjoyment:

DOLMANCE: . . . What is it one desires when taking one’s pleasure? that everything around us be occupied with nothing but ourselves, think of naught but of us, care for us only. If the objects we employ know pleasure too, you can be very sure they are less concerned for us than they are for themselves, and lo! our own pleasure consequently disturbed. There is not a living man who does not wish to play the despot when he is stiff: it seems to him his joy is less when others appear to have as much as he; by an impulse of pride, very natural at this juncture, he would like to be the only one in the world capable of experiencing what he feels: the idea of seeing another enjoy as he enjoys reduces him to a kind of equality with that other, which impairs the unspeakable charm despotism causes him to feel. ‘Tis false as well to say there is pleasure in affording pleasure to others; that is to serve them, and the man who is erect is far from desiring to be useful to anyone. On the contrary, by causing them hurt he experiences all the charms a nervous personality relishes in putting its strength to use; ’tis then he dominates, is a tyrant; and what a difference is there for the amour-propre! Think not that it is silent during such episodes.

The act of enjoyment is a passion which, I confess, subordinates all others to it, but which simultaneously unites them. This desire to dominate at this moment is so powerful in Nature that one notices it even in animals. See whether those in captivity procreate as do those others that are free and wild; the camel carries the matter further still: he will engender no more if he does not suppose himself alone: surprise him and, consequently, show him a master, and he will fly, will instantly separate himself from his companion. Had it not been Nature’s intent that man possess this feeling of superiority, she would not have created him stronger than the beings she destines to belong to him at those moments. The debility to which Nature condemned woman incontestably proves that her design is for man, who then more than ever enjoys. his strength, to exercise it in all the violent forms that suit him best, by means of tortures, if he be so inclined, or worse. Would pleasure’s climax be a kind of fury were it not the intention of this mother of humankind that behavior during copulation be the same as behavior in anger? What well-made man, in a word, what man endowed with vigorous organs does not desire, in one fashion or in another, to molest his partner during his enjoyment of her? I know perfectly well that whole armies of idiots, who are never conscious of their sensations, will have much trouble understanding the systems I am establishing; but what do I care for these fools? ‘Tis not to them I am speaking; soft-headed women-worshipers, I leave them prostrate at their insolent Dulcineas’ feet, there let them wait for the sighs that will make them happy and, basely the slaves of the sex they ought to dominate, I abandon them to the vile delights of wearing the chains wherewith Nature has given them the right to overwhelm others! (1)

But Sade in a sense arrives too late. He is himself tainted by a post-Christian tendency to speak in absolute terms, to oversystematize, to dogmatize. Pagan worldliness in regard to sexual enjoyment is depaganized when Sade expresses it as willful blasphemy. But the hegemony of Christian slave morality prevents the attempt to revive pagan sexual mores from being expressed any other way. In the end, Sadean “libertinism” can only invert but not escape an internalized and undislodgeable Christian ethic of personhood.

Still, Sade, in proposing a sexual ethic predicated on a return or reinvention of a society of masters and slaves, alerts us to what Freud overlooks in Civilization and Its Discontents. It is not civilization per se that imposes neurotic sexual repression but post-Christian European modernity, which recast the Christian doctrine of universal personhood into the modern democratic doctrine of human rights. It is modernity that makes it impermissible to use another for one’s capricious enjoyment. Freud will not broach this subject, but it is the modern emancipation of women that has impoverished the sexual life of Europeanized peoples and contributed to the rise of neurotic illness in both sexes. Freud’s complaining hysterics (whose characteristic symptom according to Freud is that they experience disgust in circumstances where they should experience sexual pleasure) are the paradoxical product of this emancipation. The woman who can do as she pleases turns out to be a woman who can no longer be pleased.

Once the doctrine that all are equal before God is transcribed into the secular language of rights, it strangles enjoyment. The emancipations inaugurated by modernity diminish rather than increase enjoyment as concern for mutuality and consensuality reclassifies the enjoyable use of the other into abuse.

Freud attributes the strangulation of enjoyment to the over-aggressive repression of aggression in the service of civil peace, but he fails to take note that this surplus repression, is a specifically modern, European phenomenon.

Today, under the rubric of “harassment,” enjoyment to excess (which Sade tells us is the only enjoyment worthy of the name) is forbidden even to the elite. The result is that in Western societies libidinal energy is increasingly forced to find discharge in spasmodic outbursts of scapegoating that canalize the cruelty of the sexual drive into moral crusades. These puritanical convulsions are not a new phenomenon. If anything, they indicate that long after its secularization, European culture retains the essential repressive characteristics of its Christian origins.

1. Sade, Richard Seaver, and Austryn Wainhouse. 1966. Justine, Philosophy in the Bedroom, and Other Writings. 1st paperback ed. New York: Grove Press., 344-45.


The ruling class has always known that in times of crisis, scapegoats can help deflect the fury of the peasants. The tactic is particularly effective when the miscreants are charged with lurid sexual offences that intensify the sadism of the mob and the cathartic efficacy of the ensuing lynchings. Meanwhile, what is truly obscene, the concentration of wealth and power at the top proceeds without interruption.

License to Ill

Modernity has turned out to be not so much an innovation as a conclusion, a feverish squandering of the European cultural legacy. The incessant “transgressing” of boundaries, the eradication of hierarchy and distinction that promised “emancipation” have ultimately yielded cultural and social vacuity.

At its most basic, civilization is the imposition of form upon chaos. It is the elaboration of contrasts, distinctions, hierarchies. It is what happens in Genesis when God creates the world and puts everything in its proper place, the invention of culture allegorized as the articulation of nature.

This arising is always a signifying erection, a triumph of the phallic power, of the father over the mother, Marduk over Tiamat. Conversely, the now-reflexive denigration of the phallus and the elevation of inclusion over distinction are signs of a regression into chaos. What is promoted as diversity turns out to be the abolition of diversity, an excrementalizing homogenization that dissolves even the fundamental distinction between the sexes. Like every other demolition of supposed conventional infringements on “human rights,” this postmodern queering of distinctions has delivered us into the clutches of an even straiter dogma. As Jacques Lacan once quipped, “if God doesn’t exist, then nothing at all is permitted . . .”

The abolition of patriarchal authority does not lead to greater freedom but paradoxically to less because it removes the regulating agency that protects us from unmediated oligarchical tyranny. The destruction of tradition turns out to be the removal of any cultural impediment to the dictatorship of an elite whose moral superiority is predicated on contempt for common mores, values, and sense. Thus, on the principle that no form of discrimination is tolerable, we end up in a topsy-turvy world intolerant of its own most deeply ingrained traditions. Today no culture is more hostile to Western values than Western culture: White guilt is now the supreme expression of white culture, eagerly promoted by corporations and individuals who are themselves paragons of “white privilege.” In a similar vein, in the manner of South Park’s PC Principal, white male virility now displays itself as an exaggerated recoil from maleness and whiteness.

It’s a queer world alright, on its way to turning turtle.

The Brutal Phallus

The Unexamined Brutality of the Male Libido” would be worthy of examination if the exercise wasn’t yet another occasion for a “sensitive” male to put on a display of self-flagellation calculated to titillate The New York Times’ bluestocking readership. As with all outbreaks of sexual hysteria, the current crusade against sexual harassment is itself obscenely orgiastic. Nothing is allowed to get in the way of the sadistic enjoyment of the destruction of careers and reputations, not even the customary presumption of innocence.

What is truly unseemly about this feeding frenzy, however, is not so much the fury of the roused harpies as it is the lameness of the male response. As James Howard Kunstler noted a while back, the seeming triumph of feminism in this country testifies to a failure of American manhood.

Men capable of affirming their virility would not recoil from the “brutality” of their libido. They would stand up to own it.

The will to dominate defines manhood. It is the reason why “gender equality” is unachievable. Equality between the sexes would require nothing less than the wholesale extinction of the male sex drive, which is always directed toward conquest. But the extinction of the male sex drive, were it even feasible, would also mean the extinction of all its sublimated forms. It would mean the end of civilization itself and a reversion to a stagnant amoebal existence bereft of even the capability of signification, since that too is predicated on the phallus. In Babylonian myth the emergence of cultural order from chaos is synonymous with the subjugation of woman. The ascent of woman must then be construed as a reversal, a presaging of civilizational collapse.

Men who cannot affirm who they are and what they desire are tired, useless stock living off the diminishing legacy of their forefathers. If American males have lost their mojo, they will soon enough succumb to hardier specimens. The concurrent hysteria about Russian meddling gives an indication of from which direction the “barbarians” are expected.