Christianity & Dysgenics

1,062 words

How does Christian sexphobia influence youth unsoundly in the choice of a mate?

In the first place, by a persistent adverse selection against people normally sexed, it has produced a people largely deficient in genetic instincts and has thus substantially reduced human happiness.

Secondly, by making youth ashamed of their own sexual promptings (hence the enormous amount of repression, nervous debility, and auto-eroticism), it has also made them apprehensive of marked signs of sexuality in the sexual object, so that in England and countries like it the asexual type, male and female, has come to be regarded as the de­sirable type.

Recently, this influence has led to a tendency in men to seek the boyish or infantile girl, with a minimum of sexual development, and a tendency in girls to select the meek, rather soft and gentle type of youth. In men it also leads to a preference for the girl ‘who has no nonsense about her’—i.e., who can stand an unlimited amount of the stimulation of male companionship without becoming inflamed. This means that she is probably below par sexually. In girls it also leads to a preference for the male who ‘does not remind them that they are women’ or, as I recently heard a misguided girl declare, ‘who does not look upon me as a woman’. This means an oblique bias in favor of low sexuality in mating, which necessarily causes great unhappiness in marriage, quite apart from its deleterious effect on the race.

The same bias also creates a phobia against beauty because, since sexual intercourse with a healthy, good-looking specimen is of course known to be more enjoyable than with an ugly, unhealthy specimen, it is felt to be more sinful. Hence the slanders flung at beauty by all Christian fanatics . . .

Thirdly, Christian sexphobia has so poisoned the art of life that for the first time in history a generation of men has arisen which, by its lack of sex-mastery, has weaned woman from her primary and fundamental pastime. Getting no ‘kick’ out of sex (a fact they will admit in private), they naturally turn to other interests.

Fourthly, in Anglo-Saxon countries, which have suffered most from Christianity, there has been no attempt to organize suitable conditions to enable young men of all classes to enjoy safe sex-experience before marriage. Most young men consequently postpone their first normal heterosexual intercourse much too long, sometimes until marriage.

This has a threefold effect:

(a) It rears monsters who may be guaranteed to alienate the most passionate girl from sex after their first twenty-four hours of clumsy, ignorant experimentation upon her. In fact, it makes sexual congress as unattractive as the most rabid puritan could wish to have it.

(b) It leads to an enormous amount of auto-eroticism, which again causes matrimonial misery. For the girl who gets one of these chaste young men usually marries an habitual masturbator.

(c) It makes healthy young men too eager in love, so that they grossly exaggerate the desirability of a particular sexual object. Horrified by his choice, and unable to see the girl through the sex-starved man’s transfiguring glasses, his friends and relatives exclaim, ‘Love is indeed blind’. But this is ignorance. It is not love, but lack of love, that is blind. Tumescence is blind, especially when it has not been relieved except guiltily for years and years.

This of course leads to a good deal of dysgenic and ill-assorted mating. The boy thinks the girl a goddess, but he is not really sane. The subjective momentum in him, driving him to the sexual object, is so powerful that those about him, not suffering from his unrelieved tumescence, cannot understand his mania, and are not surprised when later on he comes round to their adverse view of the girl. But this of course means a disastrous marriage.

Now, normal pre-nuptial intercourse would obviously remove this evil, but it is important to insist that such sexual experience should not destroy the fillip that desire for a particular girl, chosen with greater sanity, gives to ambition in young men. And it should not jeopardize their health.

What about girls?

In a young nubile female, inexperienced in sex, there is no such thing as chronic mechanical tension aching for relief. There is a subjective momentum towards the male, but it becomes rather less than more discriminate with sexual intercourse. Indeed, the danger with the female is that the first sexual experience with an undesirable and unequal mate may increase rather than lessen her attachment. Besides which, when once the process of procreation is engaged, the instinct is gratified . . .

This is not to say that women are less sensual or less able to enjoy sexual intercourse than men, although these conclusions have been quite unjustifiably drawn by many from the circumstance that the unspoilt virgin does not consciously pursue the male for sexual relief. Woman is normally just as sexual as man; often, in my opinion, more so. She is just as able to enjoy her sex experience and no less seriously injured than he is by a long wait after puberty before normal functioning begins. (The Choice of a Mate, pp. 30–5)

* * *

As I have shown . . . the Christian regards beauty as dangerous because it is a lure to life and the pleasures of life. A beautiful woman, like a fine man, stimulates the instincts of procreation. Now this is of course very wicked, according to Christian notions . . . The consequence is that, wherever Christianity has prevailed, ugly people have been favored and regarded as particularly safe and holy, because in them there was no emphatic lure to sin, to life, to procreation. Inevitably, therefore, Christianity was bound to imagine its own highest man, Christ, as ugly, and . . . it did not scruple to do this. In this way, Christianity has exerted a powerful influence in favor of ugliness, and hence in favor of degeneracy and disease. (The Choice of a Mate, p. 165)

From The Lost Philosopher: The Best of Anthony M. Ludovici, ed. John V. Day (Berkeley, Cal.: ETSF, 2003), available for purchase here.