Trying to deconstruct that which people are inured against recognizing

The Independent had a piece up on why we can’t stay married. One commenter wrote:

Ahh … the topic on which everyone is an expert as they’ve been there themselves !

Another wrote:

I grew up in the 50s and 60s and saw many of my friends’ parents stuck in poisonous marriages where escape was next to impossible. I was glad to see the easing of divorce laws, as it gave people another chance.

Like others here of my vintage, I met up with my future wife when we were in our early twenties, got engaged in what would seem like indecent haste today (less than three months) and tied the knot almost immediately afterwards.

That was 38 years ago and we still occasionally have to adopt the “stuck together in the trenches” mentality, which seems to get us through the tougher times.

Another comment on the issue which I think gets awfully close to the truth on the matter:

Having observed three career-minded daughters make heavy weather of their relationships, I do wonder at the peer pressure, and the way they respond to it. If you’re 30, have got your career nicely under way, have a good circle of chums and have worked out the way you like to live, accommodating a new person into your settled life isn’t going to be easy, and you’re going to have to make difficult compromises.

As you get older the pressure to settle down and have kids becomes greater, both from your biological clock and from wider society. I think it becomes more about ‘when’ rather than ‘who’. As in people (mostly women, I admit), think ‘I want to have kids by 35’, or ‘I want to be married by 30’, rather than ‘I want to have his/our kids’ or ”I want to be married to him/her’.

It creates relationships of timing and convenience rather than ones based on love and respect. People aren’t going to put the effort into maintaining a relationship based on convenience. I’m not saying it’s right, I’m just saying it doesn’t surprise me.

I never understood the idea of just wanting to have kids; the idea of wanting them without knowing _who_ you would have them with. How do you make such a huge, life changing decision without knowing who the other half of the equation is? [single woman of 30]

That bit again of “I never understood the idea of just wanting to have kids”. It’s not wanting, it’s longing. Kylie Minogue is one of the more high profile people who is on record as wanting to follow that urge and you see it all over the place but, in keeping with the comment above, it’s the wrong reason to do it.

In fact, there’s a selfishness to it – I want this so I’m going to have this. Besides, she was fishing in the wrong pool – the men she was looking at were self-centred, loser types. The love of the man involved doesn’t come into it with Kylie or many other women, although they dream, as most do, of the perfect partner. Where have all the good men gone? They’re right there in other pools but you simply can’t see them and wouldn’t want them. You’re fixated on the bad boy who’s miraculously the perfect husband and father at the same time.

It’s not that fish need to start appreciating bicycles but that they need to start appreciating or rediscovering their own unpolluted natural habitat. In fact, it’s precisely because they’re trying to ride bicycles that we’re getting this trouble.

The fundamental need which a kid has for both parents working in together doesn’t come into the argument with most of these women. I sheet this home primarily to feminazism and the damage it’s done to women, which they’ll never accept because so many women can’t see the forest for the trees and they’re terrified to lose what they think they’ve gained, plus the State, which goes out of its way to facilitate, promote and reward single-motherhood. When you have two generations now of women and men who are used to women not giving a damn for men and that is encouraged everywhere – in the media, the arts, the courts, even in everyday conversation – then dislocation of society is right round the corner.

You can’t keep marriages together where women insist it’s all done on their terms and it’s all their way. They can’t have their cake and eat it too. Women must be the bedrock, the centre of any family, the keeper-together of marriages but in recent years, it’s shifted from, as one commenter wrote, the love of two people sacrificing part of themselves for the good of each other and for the family unit … to fulfilling themselves personally [with marriage and family as a later incidental hopefully fulfilling that biological urge].

There’s incredible selfishness among women these days which manifests itself in believing they really can have it all without the natural order playing any part in it. And they use the State to back them that. That’s a recipe for destruction. Combine that with the new skankiness in women, manifesting itself as free love – Marcuse would be delighted to see the path his mischief has taken – and there’s further fuel on the fire.

Yesterday, at work, there was a conversation with one mother.  I asked when she was going to get clothes for herself after she’d been buying half the shop for her progeny.   “Well, their needs come first, then mine.”  So that puts her in the upper half of today’s women for a start [cf with Casey Anthony and Natasha Giggs].  I asked her, “Where do your husband’s needs come into it?”

She went very quiet and was struggling to give a reply.  Though the question might have been OTT, the assumption that she’d even have a husband would have been mainstream not all that long ago.  If one spoke of a woman with babies, one spoke of husbands.


Men are not being let off the hook either. There are incredibly destructive behaviours being adopted by males from a very early age and one of those behaviours is below.


There’s one basic principle which, if we can’t agree and get past it, then therein lies our problem.

It’s the principle that children are not adults and in particular, they are not mini-adults. In education, there is a wealth of literature which trainee teachers had to endlessly read, on development stages, particularly cognitive development. There were percentiles of children expected to reach this development age or that and we’d often write DA or CA for chronological age on the chart. There was also emotional development.

It’s one area where the disinformation specialists such as Piaget and Spock agreed with almost every other psychologist in the field. Now, if we can’t get past that, take it on board for political reasons, then we have no discussion.

There’s a second principle – that children and humans in general are far more resilient than we like to imagine. When some kid brought hardcore to school when I was eleven, it was the naughtiness of what we were doing which was the thing. We weren’t exactly turned on, as I recall. Not yet.

Those things happened every so often but in some homes, they happened all the time. Our family were friends [for a short time] with another family and the father would openly have porn lying around. We visited them the once and I [at about eleven again] picked up some of these magazines, which my mother, usually the more adventurous of the two, told me not to look at. It was a hopeless thing to say – of course I was going to look. They had two daughters, the younger my age and of course, they got a steady diet of this stuff.

They broke up as a family. Now I’m not saying we were better in other ways – because my parents did not get along, even though they stayed together. There was no violence but there was something not right all the same. So no, we can’t directly attribute broken marriages to porn but we can attribute them to the values and way of acting which included porn as rampant.

Children have sexuality

At scout camps, there was penetration going on the whole time and at one stage, even though I was one of the main perpetrators [eleven and twelve again], when my parents visited on the open day, I begged them to take me home, whilst failing to explain why. Hell, I didn’t want them knowing that. In the absence of good reason and because my father was all about sticking to something you’ve taken on, I was condemned to two more days of buggery. And yes, the scoutmaster felt me up too but not overtly.

The reason I was so upset and yes, I’d call it traumatized by that scout experience, was that it wasn’t a kid’s experimentation at issue but marauding bands of older boys who’d go to tents and force it on the younger, under threat of being beaten up and having other things done to us. That powerlessness characterized all the sexual abuse I ever received, especially at the hands of adults.

That coercion is going on right now in school-age peer groups and it’s been written about, mainly on Christian sites.

In general in earlier days, boys were pretty resilient. We’d ride bikes everywhere, try anything going, we were cheeky, we’d get in and out of trouble, you know – the usual thing. It was just this area I couldn’t control – people doing these things to me.

So I’m the first to admit there is already a quite developed sexuality in kids, perhaps by eight but certainly by eleven. When I was fourteen, my summer gf and I most certainly had penetration on the mind. Her parents knew that too because every time I tried to lie her down on the sand, she said they’d told her always to stay upright. Never struck me at the time to try it standing up.

I don’t want to bring the gay issue in here but at fourteen or fifteen, there was still homosexuality going on, e.g. at school camp. Most of it was cream-puff playing but it was there. I think that when girls became more plentiful and available, that gay thing died a natural death. There’s no way a child of five can “decide” something like that and sexuality in kids is something no adult should interfere with, either way – the kid will find his own level eventually.

That’s the issue – let it find its own level, free of interference. And that interference can come just as much from peers as from adults.

There are certain things about this comment which are disturbing:

Andrea Leadsom revealed that her own son had told her that ‘handing around very hardcore porn on memory sticks is absolutely rife at his school’. The mother of three fears regulators are ignorant about the availability of porn through internet-ready TVs, calling the internet a modern-day ‘Wild West’.

The issue here is “rife”. It’s always going to be about and we all know of Rodox and Colour climax from the 70s but our access, in general, was so much less. As I was into anything going, I’d have known if it was doing the rounds.

That’s a far cry from the floodgates opened today and “the industry” permeating every corner of a kid’s day to day existence. It’s a completely different animal to what was going on in earlier years.

Men are the main culprits keeping the hardcore industry going and bringing it into every home – it’s something very few men are going to admit to. Just how a man can look at a teen girl who could have been the friend of his own daughter with multiple men inside her and smiling at the camera is, quite frankly, sick.

More than that, it is both preying on natural feelings in either the way selfish women, having p***ed men off, then succumbing to the biological urge or a man’s ordinary love for his daughter being twisted into something altogether different which is the real evil. Real evil does not take something totally alien to the human and try to make it attractive. It takes something natural and normal and twists it, playing on the side of it which, if it becomes dominant, is going to destroy.

The men and women behind this industry are the same ones as those doing all the other things at elite level – just look at that Belgian situation again.

“No evidence” is a heap of BS because evidence is suppressed. The flood of porn and decayed morality is no accident.

The rise of the little monster

One commenter wrote on the post about children becoming addicted to online porn – surprise, surprise:

This is where the “sexual revolution” has ended up. And you haven’t seen anything yet. The next generation of monsters is now walking among us, their heads debauched before they reach puberty. You can lay most of this at the feet of the Frankfurt School intellectuals, who called for imposing a set of values on the West that would break it down and make us more amenable to Marxist ideas. You can follow this strategy here… and another one here… Don’t think we got here by accident.

Even common sense tells you that kids exposed to a wall of porn before a certain age are not going to cope with it and taking the example of girls who experience sex early and boys too [using my own experience as an example], then you get a taste for the act. I tried to get an eighteen year old to have sex with me when I was twelve and I slept with two nineteen year old girls when I was fifteen. Combine that with the constant porn message that girls are bits of meat to poke in various permutations and men are merely their penises and I ask if that is any recipe for a stable societal unit of the family?

Is a man having terabytes of porn on his computer sane? Is flogging the log over a computer keyboard sane? Is walking around like a tart and saying men should learn self-control sane?

Naturally, the new type of parent takes some of the blame:

How much easier does it have to get? If you’re a parent, get off your lazy complacent rear end and take an interest in your child’s life! If you allow your child to have unrestricted internet access, what are you thinking? There are plenty of software programs that have been around for years that will enable you to have control over what your child does online. Stop sitting around waiting for the government to raise your kid. It’s YOUR responsibility!

The following commenter sees the flaws in that reasoning but then goes on to make new errors by saying “that’s nonsense”. It’s not nonsense, it’s all part of the same phenomenon which has many links in it, each link having gone wrong:

That’s nonsense. Children are growing up addicted to drugs and alcohol which are issues to be addressed. Porn advertising is not regulated like tobacco advertising and most “hits” arise from click throughs on ads. But even late night porn channels on digital receivers allow uncontrolled access on the “sampler hours” as parents do not know how to set parental restrictions. However even mainstream advertising use sexual content (after the watershed) or soft sexual imagery to promote their products. So it’s a bit like saying “try cannabis but not cocaine because I say so.”

What came through quite clearly yesterday at work was the percentage of children ranging from out-of-control up to just bad-mannered. As someone who was in education, it shocked me to say to one of my colleagues that it would be nice to ban kids from coming in – leave them tethered at the door with the dogs.

The worst was a kid who was so obviously hyper, so obviously oblivious and unamenable to any reason or influence. He immediately went round pulling things from the shelves, then grabbed a soft toy, of all things, and started beating it to bits against the rack it had been in. The mother was looking in the women’s clothing section, heard the ruckus, smiled across and called out, “Now Crispin, be careful what you’re doing.”

When I came over swiftly to where this spotty herbert was, with that “kill” look in my eyes, the kid stopped it immediately. In that second, I saw it had nothing to do with “special needs” or “Asperger’s” or anything else like that. The little victim knew exactly what the score was and I think all kids know that deep down – he knew and he desisted, until he thought my eyes were off him.

We were all naughty in our youth, we all have tales. I say this yesterday was different and though he was the worst, he wasn’t the only case. Of about a dozen kids in the shop during the day, not counting babies, two were what you could have called well brought up. Hell, even at my naughtiest as a child, I still remained polite.

The title of this post was “Trying to deconstruct that which people are inured against recognizing”. If parents and others did recognize the issues, then that would go halfway to overcoming them. Perhaps people have no idea why what is happening is happening and moreover, throw up the hands and go off and do something for their own pleasure.

A mother came in with a baby in a pram and a bun in the oven. She had bits of metal stuck through her eyebrow, nose, tongue, ears and tatts all over. The baby was just a baby but I feared for his upbringing. Not because of bits of metal or body-art but because of the attitude/ignorance/limited mentality of that mother.

Another mother with the adolescent version of that baby then came in and that was the one I referred to above, racing round destroying all he could and no one picking him up on it, no one saying a harsh word for fear of inconveniencing him or harming his feelings.


That’s where we are. I lay odds that the women reading this post utterly reject the top bit about women and that men utterly reject the bit about men. Taking responsibility – that’s what it’s all about.

6 comments for “Trying to deconstruct that which people are inured against recognizing

  1. edgar
    April 22, 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Concision is not your strength. Communicate concisely: it will at least give the impression that you can think clearly.

    • April 22, 2012 at 10:10 pm

      Sometimes things can’t be contorted for those with short attention spans. Occasionally it’s necessary to present three or four concepts one after the other. On the grounds that OoL is for people of a certain educational level, this short post could perhaps have been expanded.

      • April 22, 2012 at 10:56 pm

        Thanks, James, for presenting both sides of this problem. The blame lies with both men and women.

        It is a complex issue with no simple solution, other than more balanced parents which give a better example to their children. By balanced, I mean more stability and less adverse excitement. (See my toxic churches posts: ; these churches attract children from dysfunctional homes.)

        My hypothesis is that marriage-shy men and women come from dysfunctional homes. Now you might say that this is purely ‘psychological’ but it seems to me that this is a significant factor. A young woman wants a baby who will love her; at the same time, she has sexual urges (I will not go into the fornication issue). A young man wants to make a better union than his parents, but he lacks the wherewithal, even though he wants children. Neither knows how to make a better marriage. Yes, the state is also a factor, which aggravates the situation.

        I, for one, am glad for your lengthy posts and your anecdotes. 🙂 Many thanks!

  2. Voice of Reason
    April 23, 2012 at 2:44 am

    One part that you mention is asking when the lady’s husband is considered. To me, that is one of the main symptoms. Thanks to the welfare state and divorce laws, the only thing men are considered to contribute are sperm and money. This was aided by the pop-psychology starting in the 1960’s, which said that men were unnecessary to raise children. It sounds easy, but is completely wrong.

  3. Kitty White
    April 23, 2012 at 7:25 am

    I think I’ve been reading the wrong website. I was looking for a libertarian one; this one seems to be all about reactionary Christianity. Just for the record, I think that the Abrahamic religions are the biggest societal problem on this planet, and the biggest threat to freedom and democracy.

Comments are closed.