What Consenting Adults Do Is Our Concern

A Refutation of The Most Preposterous Dogma of Our Age

One of the more pernicious legacies of our Anglo-American philosophical and even political traditions is the absurd notion that “what other consenting adults do” is not the concern of either other individuals or society at large. Quite the contrary, what others do affects everyone around them, in myriad ways that are seemingly unfathomable and most difficult to comprehend fully. And as individual autonomy is but a chimera, the predilections, language, religion, and so much of what forms an individual’s identity, personality, and worldview are defined by the externalities that surround and envelop the individual. With a deeper understanding of the profound effect the cultural milieu has on any individual, doubts emerge as to what extent the concept of “consent” “of consenting adults” can be taken seriously.  Finally, challenging this paradigm puts into question American sentimentality about “freedom” on which this precept is founded. As will be demonstrated, it is unclear to what extent such notions about freedom are beneficial to the individual and to society, and how much such freedom is destroying an untold number of lives and threatens greater civilization as a whole.

Many would consider this meme to be another instance of how “the left can’t meme.” To the contrary, this meme reveals something deeper about American sentimentality about freedom. These notions of freedom are destroying us.

The adage “what consenting adults do is none of my (or your) business” is a familiar one, pervading a wide range of seemingly different (but not really that different) perspectives in American life, from boomer hippie bullshit to the tired refrains blurted out by libertarians who actually believe in the so-called non-aggression principle.  To describe this mantra as a cliché would be an understatement. But even though this line is a tired cliché does not detract from how deeply engrained it is in our collective consciousness.  “What consenting adults do” is a powerful force in our collective dialogue that draws heavily from an American sentimentality about “freedom” and “rugged individualism.”  The degree to which this sentiment is ubiquitous throughout what passes as American “culture” and public discourse cannot be overstated.  Many expressions of this dubious creed of course come from the baby-boomers, the most insufferable and selfish generation in history, including this exemplar entitled “My Life” by Billy Joel:

I don't need you to worry for me 'cause I'm alright (sic)
I don't want you to tell me it's time to come home
I don't care what you say anymore, this is my life
Go ahead with your own life, leave me alone

Going well beyond songs boomers have tormented us all with for over half a century, the dogma enunciated in this “boomer-rock” staple governs a wide range of mainstream political and philosophical viewpoints in this society. It is with this directive in mind that Peter Boghossian and many other conservative—not right-wing, but conservative—pundits always caution that, in regards to transgender lunacy, he is not against adults destroying their bodies with so-called gender affirming care—that is genital and other bodily mutilation, being condemned to lifelong “medical care,” such as it is, permanent sterilization, the inability to have orgasms, and myriad other afflictions; he and so many others merely limit their opposition to transgenderism, particularly puberty blockers and other sorts of so-called “gender affirming care,” as it relates to children and minors.  A more enlightened perspective is offered by a much more radical, authoritarian ethos, correctly asserting that no one, either adult, child, or minor, should have the right to mutilate his own body under the fantastical delusion that one could ever change his sex—or gender.[1]

This philosophy, if one can call it that, dictates that what consenting adults do in their own private lives must necessarily be beyond the purview of other individuals, society, or the state, provided it does not harm others in the immediate instance of such vice or predilection, as it occurs in real time.  This directive, so incredibly simplistic and short-sighted, can be attributed to any number of social ills and vices that have proliferated since the Fall of Berlin and the End of World War II and most especially since the youth culture of the boomers in the sixties and beyond. Chief among them, the rise of divorce as a common—even likely—familial status since the 1970s and the rise of single motherhood.  The increasing prevalence of single motherhood is the veritable nexus from which so many social ills stem.  And in relation to promiscuity and the advent of feminism that has brought single mothers into the mainstream, all too many take umbrage with the very suggestion that anyone could ever opine what people do in the bedroom is anyone else’s business but their own. “Why do you care?” “How does it affect you personally,” they invariably retort.

A young woman who is promiscuous or indulges in other personal vices predicating single motherhood typically only fails to have an effect on other members of society in the very instant such vices take place (even that is not the case if she or her partner are cheating).  But when that woman begets and then raises a child—and most especially a son—without a father, and that young man is afflicted with attachment disorders or any other number of maladies stemming from being raised by a single mother, that young man is affected in the most personal and intimate ways imaginable, ways that will forever predominate his destiny.  This consideration alone reveals the so-called non-aggression principle touted by naïve libertarians to be an absolute farce, an intellectual and philosophical fraud of the most preposterous sort. In the likelihood this individual succumbs to illicit drug use or any other number of personal vices to self-medicate attachment disorder or other maladies stemming from the dysfunction of being raised without a father, or any other assortment of antisocial behaviors or disorders that are a proximate cause of his unfortunate lot, the toll is then spread not just to him, but to society at large.  Of course, as with any supposed “individual choice,” such scenarios are hardly if ever an isolated exception, but are part of a greater aggregate, a sociological trend that pervades our society and culture.  In very real ways, the choices any such person makes—whether the single mother acting in accordance with the cultural milieu she was born into or a son born out wedlock making those life “choices” that usually result as consequence of single motherhood—are not truly an individual choice at all, but part of a greater sociological phenomenon as such choices are observed again and again, millions of times over. That troubled young man afflicted with all the tribulations and problems of single motherhood—and many more besides too numerous to enumerate here in detail--is not merely a sample size of one, but one of legion. And so it is with the bitch in heat who gave birth to him.

Some of the more recent, but deeply disturbing and flat-out outrageous developments in modern society and culture offer interesting case studies, a sort of exercise how chimeric and illusory this formulation really is, namely that “what consenting adults do in their private lives” is only their concern and does not concern anyone else or society at large.

Sports Gambling

In recent years, endorsed and promulgated by the owners of various professional sports franchises, their leagues, and associated business partners, sports gambling has been, quite astonishingly, legalized, and legalized quite quickly—doubtlessly in the service of the inexhaustible greed characterizing these nefarious interests. The mantra about “what consenting adults do” insists that it is none of society’s concern, and certainly not a compelling state interest that warrants strong regulation, or, better yet, banning outright.

While Konstantin Kirin and Francis Foster of Triggernometry cannot receive such a high recommendation from this author, this presentation on the actual truth about sports gambling is illuminating, as it demonstrates what a destructive vice gambling and particularly sports gambling is: a vice endowed with an advertising campaigns in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  With addictive properties closely matching that of cocaine, the burgeoning sports gambling enterprise must necessarily take a slash and burn approach to customer acquisition and turnover. The short life cycle from the start of a new account to the point where the average gambler has bankrupted himself necessitates this slash and burn approach.  Gambling often leads to divorce or disastrous break-ups of long-term relationships. Small business owners and employees suffering from gambling addiction are known to convert company funds to sustain their gambling habit, which of course adversely affects the financial health of that enterprise and sometimes can lead to a business failing. This among other real, tangible harms to individuals and society alike.

“But how does it affect you? Why do you care personally?”  In the very instant that a gambler loses a bet on a football game, that effect is not yet born by others in society to any significant degree beyond the sum of money lost in that particular instant in time, at least not always; although others would be affected, society at large would be affected if such a lost bet would prevent the gambler from paying his rent or his mortgage, or prevented or hindered him from providing for his family should he have children. But over time as divorces or breakups occur because of how destructive gambling is, as people struggle to pay their rent or mortgage or are unable to save for their retirement or their children’s college fund, as people are put in jail or face other criminal sanctions for converting company funds, as employees lose their jobs or small owners imperil or lose their small business because society tolerates the propagation of such a vice, the aggregate effect of sports gambling has a clear and obvious adverse impact on society at large.  When the son of a gambling addict loses his college fund or is subjected to the evils of single motherhood and falls subject to the many social ills correlated with these other social ills, there is a terrible cost incurred by those individuals closely related to such a person and society at large. As the social costs emanate from those most directly affected in any number of ways that can even include life ruination and suicide, those costs are also incurred by society at large.

Only Fans and The Cam Girl Phenomenon

Another cultural and social development that impugns and discredits this ridiculous creed is the increasing prevalence of the cam girl. Articles featuring some woman who is doing only fans or some other “adult”—ie pornographic— streaming platform appear regularly in tabloid sections of publications like the Daily Mail and the New York Post.  Sometimes the stories concern a mother facing controversy from the school her children attend after other parents learn of her presence on such a platform, other times it features some young woman making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Very often, one wonders to what extent such stories are paid advertising of some sort.

Although largely anecdotal, there are indications that young single men are encountering increasing numbers of women in dating applications who are doing only fans or some other pornographic streaming service.  Sometimes, very often even, these incidents are nothing more than these girls using dating application and websites to promote their account, but there are incidents where women earnestly searching for romantic interest tell prospective romantic or sexual suitors that they are on these platforms. Although anecdotal, there is reason to believe this is becoming more and more pervasive.

“So why do you care?  How does it affect you?” As stated, young women across several generations are increasingly drawn to such platforms. Among other things, this taints the dating market for young men who are seeking romance, seeking women suitable for long-term relationships and even marriage, which cam girls statistically are not. To the extent young men would still rightly object to women doing this, either for moral or religious reasons or simply because promiscuity and lose sexual morality is closely related to relationships ending poorly, this adversely affects society by reducing the number of suitable women for their male counterparts in the sexual marketplace.  Every woman rendered unsuitable, for this or other reasons including hyper promiscuity, drug addiction, or any other personal vice, corresponds to a male counterpart who no longer has that woman available as a potential romantic interest—a woman who might otherwise be suitable if society was not tolerant of what simply must not be tolerated.  As crass as it may sound, the law of supply and demand does apply to the sexual and romantic marketplace—a reduction in supply leads to increased demand, that is higher cost.

Given the hypergamous nature of female sexual attraction, one wonders how a young man in his twenties is supposed to vie for a young woman his age who makes many thousands of dollars a month masturbating or performing sex acts on webcam. These platforms also concentrate and compound interest from lonely or pathetic men, inflating the sexual marketplace value of these young women beyond what it can be in a healthy society in which numbers of the populace court and marry at a young age. Precisely because of female hypergamy, a woman performing sex acts on cam to hundreds of paypigs will have an artificially high and deluded sense of her value in the sexual marketplace, to an extent that is prohibitive to most suitors: suitors that would be far more attractive in any sane society that prevented the proliferation of such vice and took any interest at all in maintaining a sustainable equilibrium in the sexual marketplace.   Another effect of this is to further reduce the birth rate and create further dysfunction by compounding the plague of single motherhood, insofar as women who stream sex acts over these online platforms or otherwise indulge in hyper-promiscuity are far more likely to marry only to be divorced soon thereafter or have children out of wedlock, as they are much more likely to have children later on if at all.

On the other side of the increasingly tenuous relationship between the sexes in society, every indication is that, despite such libertinism, advanced in large part by successive waves of feminist “thought,” women are more miserable than they have ever been.  Stories have been published that sensationalized coverage of only fans girls making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year are the exception, not the rule, as many young women come to soon regret degrading themselves for sometimes not even a hundred dollars a month.

There is also the phenomenon of the love shy or jilted young man who panders to these women, giving them money to feign attention, and how this lamentable trend in society not only harms them, but those around them, and therefore society at large. These “simps,” as they are known in internet parlance, are not an isolated incident or extreme outlier, but are part of a destructive societal trend that has been allowed to flourish because society not only tolerates but also condones young women doing what they do on platforms like only fans and the like.

Were this social pariah properly banned along the same reasons we have laws banning prostitution, men would be far less susceptible to this vice and thus would be more inclined to direct that time and money to something more productive, or at least something that is not inherently negative or destructive. This addiction to cam girls prevents many from saving money for a house or other investment that is beneficial to themselves and to society as a whole. The exploitative “relationship” with these simps, to the extent one can call it a relationship, can only be depressing and self-defeating in the long-run, and so this vice and temptation makes it that much harder for vulnerable men to focus on things that might improve their lot. One can only guess the myriad vices and destructive behaviors that flow from how much of a downer it must be to be a paypig. Drug abuse, alcoholism, a worsening porn addiction, suicide.  Perhaps the most shocking instance of the cam girl “simp” is Grant Amato, whose disturbing story was covered by one of this author’s favorite commentators, right-winger Devon Stack of Black Pilled. Very quickly Grant became obsessed with Sylvia Ventsislavova, a Bulgarian woman who performed sexual acts on cam for money.  Over a fairly short period of time, Amato spent $200,000 of his family’s money on “tips,” as well as lingerie and sex toys for this woman to use in private shows.  This sum of money was expended by depleting his family’s savings and racking up credit card debt, endangering his parents’ financial security, retirement, and well-being.  Ever-loving and devoted to their son, when perhaps they ought to have cut off all contact, his parents placed him in an institution for treatment for sex and internet addiction, and then took him to live at home, but with rules regulating internet use and prohibiting the use of these platforms. Amato proved incapable of giving up his paypig habit, and when his family reacted to his relapse by cutting him off, he killed his parents and his brother.  The deadly circumstances of the Grant Amato case may seem extreme, but this case study still exemplifies so many of the consequences that arise from the vice of cam girls, including emotional dependence on women who hold that person in contempt, pornography and internet addiction, squandering time and money on this vice that could be applied to more constructive uses.

Of course, the same considerations apply to the proliferation and normalization of pornography writ large, a vice which needed to be properly dealt with before society became utterly inundated by pornography with the advent of the Internet. The number of the most alluring (mostly white) women who have been procured and ensnared by pornographers invokes the very same considerations. A critical mass of women doing porn normalizes it, wears down society’s ability to regard it as deviant, as the normalization of pornography removes stigma from its use. The ubiquity of pornography begets a plethora of other social ills, from pornography addiction to normalizing sexual profligacy. Those touting the “what consenting adults do” mantra blithely insist that that also is of no one’s concern. The number of young women who wind up dead from drug abuse or other deadly maladies directly associated with doing pornography has been America’s dirty little secret for decades. Discussed at length by Devon Stack in this stream, the death of Colleen Applegate, known by her porn name Shauna Grant, is a case study unto its own.  One should ask her former boyfriend back home in Minnesota whether her choices, which ultimately destroyed her, are of no concern to society or to him.  He lost his first love because this sick society tolerates anything and everything— and our society’s tolerance for this filth deprived him of that love and killed her in rather short order.

Ubiquity of Fast Food

Another example demonstrating how what others do affects everyone else is the scourge of fast food, both as a vice and as a favorite hobby horse of the libertarian set that insists the consumption or ubiquity of such poison is no one’s concern except the purveyors of such food products and those that consume them. Because figures of the left, from Michelle Obama to Michael Bloomberg, have rightly called for greater regulation and constraints on fast-food and junk-food some years ago, libertarians were able to capitalize on a reflexive instinct to oppose such measures because of a dislike for those persons who typically advocate for such policies. The hard, immutable truth is that fast-food, other junk-food such as soda pop and the like are deleterious to any person’s health and to the public health at large, particularly when laden with high fructose corn-syrup. The ubiquity of such food products is harmful to the health of the populace, increases the aggregate cost of healthcare, and from a cultural or aesthetic perspective is part of the blight that is the ugliness of the modern world. Given that fast food concerns are endowed with multi-billion dollar advertising campaigns, they further wield an irresistible influence not just on children and minors, but adults as well. Most damning of all, society’s toleration and even facilitation of this slop hinders our ability to field law enforcement and our armed forces.

While our armed forces are experiencing difficulties in meeting enlistment requirements for a whole host of reasons, including alienating the demographic that has traditionally comprised our armed forces in the past by retaining transgender persons in their ranks and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, obesity has become an epidemic among children, adolescent and young people, leading to an increasingly smaller pool of persons that meet minimum fitness requirements in order to be considered for enlistment.  Thus, widespread fast-food consumption has adversely impacted this nation’s ability to field its armed forces as much or more than any other single factor.

In relation to our brethren in Europe more specifically, eschewing more enlightened authoritarian tendencies has allowed McDonald’s and other portents of Pax America to mar the cities and landscapes of Mother Europa.  Europeans who give heed to the libertarian paradigm of “what consenting adults do” are sapped of the intellectual framework and political will to expel McDonald’s and other portents of American popular culture that are contaminating European cultures and accelerating the rapid absorption of thousands of English loan words in European languages by way of English language advertising and other expressions of American popular culture that are becoming more ubiquitous in Germany, France, and the rest of the Old World. As Rammstein decries, “we’re all living in America.” 

The Transgender Menace

This mantra of what consenting adults do is probably as pervasive with the cult of transgenderism and radical gender theory as anything. “How does it affect you, why do you care,” they ask.  While one is loathe to reference Dr. Phil, this exchange in which an old school educator confronts gender radicals and transgender lunatics comes to mind, as it was discussed widely on social media. It is by no means atypical of the rhetoric often deployed by advocates of transgender and gender radical theory, but instead could very well be cut whole cloth from boilerplate script.

The most relevant excerpt reads in pertinent part:

“If a transgender person is not harming you or the people you love, why do you care so much.” …”I don’t want you to care. I want you to be quiet. I want you to stop being hateful.”

Often times this cliché is expressed in terms of affecting other people rather than harming other people. Of course, any interest group that seeks to fundamentally change the language we use has exacted a pretty heavy toll on our daily lives. As discussed in this two part-series, transgender cultists and gender radicals have demanded radical changes to our language, and are to some extent succeeding in this campaign. Aside from the absurd convention of customizable pronouns, and redefining words like “gender,” formerly venerable institutions have succumbed to this mania. The London Tube has abandoned “ladies and gentlemen” in addressing its passengers, as Lufthansa has jettisoned the age old salutation “Meine Damen und Herren” on flights, as the Deutsche Bahn has similarly done on its rail service.  They have attempted to make an utter mockery of what “man” and “woman” mean, and have introduced such linguistic travesties as “birthing people” and “pregnant men” into our discourse.

This is particularly onerous in work settings, whereby employers and now state governments are coercing individuals to play the pronoun game. In New York, playing to the demands of transgenders and gender radicals is, at the moment, compulsory under the law, even though such provisions are flagrantly unconstitutional. Those who advocate for customizable pronouns insist it is voluntary, but even in cases where it is not yet compulsory under law, it is coerced. Refusal to adhere to an individual’s demands to respect “preferred pronouns” will be met with accusations of transphobia. If taken outside of the context of a professional setting or other situation involing one’s real name where the wokescold mob could “cancel” that person, resulting in a loss of job or other consequences, accusations of transphobia should of course be worn like a badge of honor, but one cannot typically be so cavalier in the professional world or in other, real-life interactions.

Beyond the havoc these people have wreaked on the language we use and the coercive games they impose on everyone else, the mere sight of a so-called transgender “person” has an effect on each and every person who beholds such an individual. Put bluntly, looking at these creatures takes a psychic toll on the mind, body, and spirit. Seeing a person who is obviously male in woman’s attire taxes the optic nerves of everyone who beholds such a monstrosity.  This is not merely because such persons break societal norms.  They are an affront not just to human sexuality, but an affront to the mammalian essence. This is compounded by the attitude whereby these individuals insist everyone play along with their delusions. The mere sight of such an abhorrent spectacle is thus a signal, a flag, that a strong disagreement could ensue if one does not play along with their delusion. This of course on top of everything else, from seeing men’s large, ugly feet in slutty, open toed heels, an obviously male body more fitting of a linebacker presented as a “woman” in women’s dresses and skirts, to any other such abominations that characterize the freakshow that is the Cult of Troon.

Troons: the mere sight of them is an affliction on the eyes, mind, and soul.

Even rare instances of transgenders who pass reasonably well have an uncanniness about their appearance that forces the mind to scrutinize the conflicting signals received, a most unwanted mental toil that transgenderism forces on us all.  Quite often they have succeeded in obliterating many but not all signs or tells of their actual sex, while displaying counterfeit, artificial signals that are nothing less than an act of deception, as they seek to deceive those they interact with into thinking that that person is not the gender they were born as, but the one they pretend to be. For all but the absolutely most deceptive, this creates a sort of cognitive dissonance, as the brain struggles to process what is displayed with those nagging “tells” that signify male—for example unusually narrow hips, large hands, or an Adam’s apple for a man presenting as a woman.  And even for the rare transgender who reasonably passes as a woman at first glance, the lying and delusion ends in spectacular fashion for anyone stupid or gullible enough to believe that so-called transgender “women” are women when they see—or worse yet experience in other ways--what is between the legs: either a penis and testicles or the assorted horrors of the so-called neo-vagina.

One is afflicted with the same mental struggle at the sight of most so-called female to male transgenders.  The signs, the tells, usually include unusually short stature and bone structure, unusually sparce beards coupled with unusually soft skin for a woman presenting as a man. Of course, any sane person is further disturbed, outraged, and disgusted by mere knowledge of the assorted procedures that comprise so-called “gender affirming care” for the female to male variety, which can include testosterone therapy, mastectomy (breast removal) and other horrid procedures, including metoidioplasty and phalloplasty, the two surgical procedures that create a so-called “neo-penis.” Very often these lost souls undergo the surgical removal of ovaries and other female parts to prevent menstruation.  Materials are widely available on the internet depicting these monstrosities for the horror shows that they are.  Of course, the sight of every young woman, who was or could have been attractive and healthy, but “chooses” to destroy herself takes a different sort of psychic toll than does her male to female “troon” counterpart.

A young woman before she was infected with the transgender contagion, and after. Any society that tolerates let alone promotes and celebrates such madness deserves to die.

The psychic toll that the mere presence and sight of these creatures exacts on society is compounded by the overt malevolence that often characterizes such creatures. Many so-called transgender women—that is men with gender dysphoria—seek to perpetrate overt sexual fraud, what should be tantamount to sexual assault on the straight men they desire. Women are afflicted with similar malevolent intentions in their somewhat successful bid to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms, trample over women’s sports, and populate women’s prisons.

Transgenderism also affects the sexual marketplace, particularly if one adopts the thesis presented in Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage, which posits that transgenderism is a craze that young adolescent girls and women have proven especially susceptible to. Those from white, affluent backgrounds seem the most susceptible of all, though it does seem that Shrier’s definition of white includes Jews (she herself is, of course Jewish).  This sociological phenomenon is further expounded in “The Assault on Children’s Psyches,” which further recounts how young women are embracing transgenderism as part of a mass hysteria. Anti-white animus propagated in our culture and most particularly by truly odious elements in our education system plays a key-role in fueling this craze:

Their schools compulsively tell their children how awful it is to be white, how white people enjoy unearned “privilege,” how they benefit from “systems” put in place by and for white people for the sole purpose of oppressing “people of color.” Plagued by guilt, the children—almost all of them girls—rush to the sanctuary of “LGBTQ+” identity. Once there, they are catapulted into hero status. According to [one parent], some teachers at her daughter’s school are more forgiving toward “queer” and “trans” kids who hand in their homework late.

So, “how does that affect you?” Why do you care so much.”  In addition to all the deeply disturbing considerations detailed above, and in specific relation to the social contagion Shrier focuses on as it relates to young white women and adolescent girls, if even five percent, even if two percent, even if one percent of young women fall prey to the transgender menace, a sufficient number of young women will thus be removed from the dating pool. (which is, as stated before, subject to the laws of supply and demand) and this will have an appreciable negative effect on society.  Decreased supply of women in the pool of potential romantic interests means they are in higher demand, and thus potential suitors pursue those in the dating pool at a higher cost.  Even when a young man finds a long-term girlfriend who has wife potential or even marries a young woman, his prospects will have been rendered that much more difficult by some unknown quotient by that mere fact alone. Above all, there must be compassion for those this mass mania harms most directly, the girls themselves. It cannot be emphasized enough that the humanity of these young women is far too often destroyed by these reprehensible procedures and the detestable hysteria and craze that deludes them into such life ruination. Whether they realize it in the moment or not, their lives are ruined by being sterilized, subject to binders, horrific breast removals, and even the horrific, Frankenstein surgeries involved to construct a so-called “neo-penis.”  Ruining those lives will impact those close to them. Doubtless some young men have been affected by losing a girlfriend, wife or other love interest who had been seduced by this madness. It must also be emphasized that as white European peoples, in Europe and the European diaspora in the world, all suffer from disastrously low birth rates well below replacement level, any number of women whose fertility is destroyed by way of this madness only exacerbates one of the existential threats to our posterity and civilization. In this way, even a seemingly negligible number of young women ensnared by the transgender menace will thus have a direct, tangible impact on society.

Defining Deviancy Down, Social Contagion, and the Herd Mentality

Beyond these considerations, perhaps the greatest rebuke of this mantra in regards to not just transgenderism but all social vices is the concept of Defining Deviancy Down.  Discussed at length in “This Horrible Rainbow: Defining Deviancy Down and Away,” this concept is fundamental to understanding why society must resist the proliferation of vices and other deviant and harmful behavior. Discussed in detail by the late Robert Bork in the introductory chapter to Slouching Towards Gomorrah, Defining Deviancy Down posits—quite correctly—that any society, no matter how moral or depraved, can only afford to regard so much behavior as deviant before that behavior becomes normalized.  This is closely related with the Durkheim Constant, postulated by German Jewish sociologist Emile Durkheim, which posits every society, no matter how moral or depraved, will have the same quotient of behavior that society regards as deviant. A society of saints will have vastly different morals and mores than a society of sinners, but both societies will regard the same quotient of behavior on the outlying edges of that particular society as deviant. Quite critically, as deviancy is defined ever further downward, society will then regard behavior that had been regarded as normal and beneficial as deviant.  And so people who disapprove of miscegenation, a perfectly normal position 40-60 years ago, are regarded as deviant by mainstream society, just as disapproval of homosexuality is frowned on more and more in mainstream society.

Knowledge of this key concept Defining Deviancy Down is critical—absolutely essential—to understanding the nature of our troubles. It is the hidden key. Understanding this concept allows one to articulate how tolerating transgenderism—along with any other vice or deviant behavior—has a harmful effect on society at large, and the individuals who exist in that society, as acceptance or tolerance of transgenderism not only brings this insidious delusion in the mainstream, but further defines deviancy down to even more abhorrent, deviant behavior. One shudders to think what such outlying deviant behavior might soon be normalized in this sick society. Aside from ostracizing persons who disapprove of miscegenation or homosexuality, one wonders if necrophilia, zoophilia, or even pedophilia will soon be normalized.

Beyond normalizing bizarre, wholly destructive behavior that should simply not be tolerated, such behavior, even if engaged by “consenting adults in their own private lives,” harms society in other ways, insofar as people generally have far less individual autonomy than is presumed by our Anglo-American tradition.  To varying degrees, humanity is largely defined by a herd-mentality.  A subject somewhat beyond the scope of this article, as many books and articles have been written about it, people take social cues from one another and often mimic each other in ways that are difficult to comprehend or enumerate fully.  Consider why young persons of any generation seem to act very similar to one another, like the same or similar genres of music (or genres that our contemporaneous to the time, place, and circumstance they were born into).  This is particularly true with young people, that is adolescents and even young adults.

As alluded to earlier, Abigail Shrier makes a persuasive argument in Irreversible Damage that transgenderism is a social contagion.  Social contagion theory, perhaps more aptly described as social contagion fact, explains why girls placed in institutions or hospitals for treatment for bulimia or anorexia need to be isolated and separated from other female patients. Because when they are not so separated and isolated, social contagion takes hold and soon other inmates follow after patient zero and succumb to anorexia or bulimia themselves.

Accepting or tolerating transgenderism normalizes it and allows it to fester as a social contagion.  In this way, any person, whether adult, child, or minor, who chooses to indulge in such madness as the absurd proposition that one could ever possibly change sex—or gender—does not only affect his life, or even the life of those close to him. The acceptance or tolerance of such behavior breaks down society’s resistance to it—such tolerance normalizes it, and puts such behavior in play to influence others.

Of course, social contagion theory is exacerbated by social media, mass media, and other elements in the culture that have sought to normalize and even promote transgenderism and radical gender theory. Abigail Shrier documents over several chapters the barrage of messages in social media, mass media, and even institutions of education that promote this contemptible life ruination to vulnerable young people.  This of course calls into question to what degree anyone chooses to embrace various ideas, proclivities, or past times they do not, in fact, divine themselves as autonomous individuals unto themselves as if each person were an individual island. These ideas were planted in their minds by the externalities of the cultural milieu and circumstances that envelops them, as the individual is invariably defined, to an incalculable degree, by whatever cultural milieu, time, and circumstance that envelops him.  This is what German philosopher Martin Heidegger describes as Geworfenheit in Sein und Zeit, as explained in “Thrust Into It All: The Individual Defined by Culture and Circumstance.”  Most commonly translated as “thrownness,” but perhaps better translated by this author as “the state of being thrust or thrown into something,” this critical concept, so fundamentally true to the human condition but so foreign to much of our Anglo-American tradition, belies any this or that talk about an individual “consenting,” adult or otherwise.

Do those in the silent generation who grew up in the fifties really choose, in an absolute sense, to like music popular and available to young people in the youth culture of the time and circumstance they were born into, or was it something they were born into? Do white girls in American suburbia really choose to like rap music when it is promoted by the recording industry and mass media conglomerates and is favored by all their peers, or is it something they were born into, at best a very strong predisposition determined by the time, circumstance, and cultural milieu they were born into?

The same tired retort of course applies to adolescent white girls liking disgusting vulgar rap music.  “But how does it affect you personally? Why do you care?” A young man properly inoculated from such filth will be affected, insofar as many if not most of the young women he would be interested in succumb to the herd mentality and “choose” to listen to like the same music propagated to them by the recording industry and mass media conglomerates, only to be further reinforced by the power of peer pressure. If a critical mass of attractive white women join sororities and engage in binge drinking, hyper promiscuity. and the like, NOT as an individual choice, but as a sociological and cultural phenomenon, that will affect any young man resistant to such pernicious elements in the culture as that social contagion will drastically impact the pool of potential romantic or sexual interests available to him. Of course, the ubiquity and popularity of horrible music—rap and other shit “music”-- affects us all as it becomes the collective soundtrack in our daily lives.  It affects any person who walks into a restaurant to enjoy a meal and is suddenly afflicted by Katy Perry’s “California Gurls,” replete with that grating, out of tune “millennial whoop” for which it is so infamous. Or sitting at a swanky lounge for a pre-dinner cocktail only to be subjected to this charming ditty by “Dajo Cat,” as this author was tormented by recently. Sample lyrics read as follows, with apologies for the obscenity and profanity:

Said play with my pussy, but don’t play with my emotions (Emotions)
If you spend some money, then maybe I just might fuck ya (Fuck ya)
When I shake that ass, I'ma do that shit in slow motion (Motion)
You got a whole lotta cash, and nigga, you know I want it (Want it)
Play with my pussy, but don't play with my emotions (Emotions, yeah)
If you spend some money, then maybe I just might fuck ya (Fuck ya, yeah, yeah)
When I shake that ass, I'ma do that shit in slow motion (Motion, slow motion, yeah)
You got a whole lotta cash, and nigga, you know I want it (Want it, you know I want it)

But how does it affect you, why do you care that music like that has become the soundtrack of our lives?

These case studies offer an important exercise in thought that can—and should-- be applied to innumerable vices and vulgarities of the modern world.

A Powerful, but Intellectually Hollow Force in American Life

This essay offers a brief sketch, an outline, of how simplistic and preposterous this idea is, that it is none of society’s concern whatever consenting adults do, so long as it does not harm or adversely affect others in that very instant.  This paradigm takes no account of the greater social good, how what others do invariably affects others in profound and far-reaching ways that most scarcely begin to comprehend, and how tolerating deviant and undesirable behavior only serves to normalize it.  As absurd as this postulation is, there are few maxims in modern life that are celebrated more or enjoy greater consensus.  Despite its seemingly unassailable status given how many take this precept to heart, creating the political will to respond to nefarious elements in our culture effectively and with firm conviction will require a critical mass of people to embrace the dark epiphany revealed in this tract, namely that American sentimentality about supposed “personal freedoms” is harming people and society, as this precept seductively lures Europe and the West into racial suicide and civilizational ruin.  This process of refutation begins with any cracks and fissures one can make in this absurd postulation, one conversation, one retort at a time. A most arduous task lies before those so enlightened, as all the cultural institutions and centers of power have of course been overtaken by those elements that promote unabashed libertinism and false values that, if left unabated on their current trajectory, will prove the downfall of our civilization.

PLEASE NOTE: Readers who appreciate the insight and perspective set forth in this treatise are urged to consider offering a paid subscription or even a founding member subscription, provided such expenditures are not unduly burdensome. Readers who enjoyed this article and found it informative and insightful are also encouraged to signify their favor for this and other writings by clicking on the “like emoji,” as well as sharing this and other articles to those who would find this and other essays and articles interesting, insightful, or provocative. The like emoji or lack thereof is a greater factor than it should be that readers unfamiliar with an author or publication use to decide whether to read any particular piece or not.

Follow Richard Parker on twitter (or X if one prefers) (@)astheravencalls.com. Remove the parentheses, which were inserted to avoid conflict with Substack’s own handle system.

---

[1] As discussed at length in “This Mockery of Language: Gender redefined,” gender is properly defined as sex or sex as expressed by cultural expressions. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary of Historical Principles defines the word gender in pertinent part: “Gender n. LME. 3 The state of being male, female, or neuter; sex; the members of one or other sex.  Now chiefly colloq. or euphem.  LME b Sex as expressed by social or cultural distinctions.” (emphasis added).