In Defence of Consent
When I wrote the manifesto in 2020, during COVID, I thought the most controversial part would be demonstrating that natural rights are not derived from God. That is offensive, so I hesitated.* But nobody cares about rights, even those who claim to, so that was not it. I am still surprised when adults with lived experience and who know better deny it. Biology determines adulthood, not a social construct.
No other statement has elicited more death threats, hysteria or bottomless, irrational hate. Feminists will always reject biology in favour of their antihuman utopian fantasies. Biology is not arbitrary. It provides real, measurable transitions.
When does a human being become an adult? A human being becomes an adult when they begin puberty. When a human being begins puberty, they start having lust and fertility, the two defining features separating pre-adulthood from adulthood.
Having your first nocturnal emission is not the standard because women will never have a nocturnal emission. Having your first period is not the standard because men will never have a period. The standard must be such that it is equal and universal for both genders. Both genders can begin puberty.
Completeness is not required, only that the threshold has been crossed.
The onset of puberty is vague. Each race must determine for themselves what that means and who decides, while the traditional definitions of nocturnal emission and first period, respectively, remain options.
The capacity to bring a baby to term is not the standard because many fully mature women cannot carry a baby to term. The capacity to bring a baby to term would have to be something that is proven. What if a human being demonstrated their capacity without full maturity? Women do not lose their womanhood or their right to be treated like an adult because they cannot carry a baby to term or produce offspring.
Full sexual maturity is not required to procreate. Not even complete maturity guarantees reproductive success. Not all human beings will even survive to full sexual maturity. If we were to magically erase all of your ancestors who reproduced before they had reached full sexual maturity, you would not exist.
The likelihood of reproductive success is not a standard for adulthood.
As long as they do not deprive or interfere with your rights, you do not get to determine what is an acceptable risk another transcendent being takes with their life; procreation rights are fundamental to human existence. Human beings are allowed to make mistakes.
Emotional maturity cannot be the standard because emotionally immature thirty-year-olds are common, and disparate racial impacts. Human beings are allowed to fail. The issue remains: does their failure affect others?
Predicting an outcome can make you responsible for the outcome. If you know something is going to happen to the extent that you can predict it, you can be responsible. If you are predictably having miscarriages, that is no different than choosing abortion. Not all can breed, but all human beings become infertile.
For our purposes, a miscarriage is only a miscarriage if a woman has evidence that she is carrying a child. How many miscarriages is too many? One could be anything. Two is suspicious. Three is a pattern. Four is murder.
Under natural conservatism, the punishment for murder is permanent, physical sterilization. That is an incentive to wait until full maturity. Once a woman naturally, successfully procreates, the count begins again.
“But I had many children after many miscarriages!”
No life is worth more than another life. It is wrong for many to die for one to live. It is wrong to make the cost of life death. Transcendent beings cannot be disposed of or treated like animals just to satisfy your biological desire.
There is possibly something deeper happening with miscarriages. It is a human truism that sometimes human beings do not know what they want until they lose it. Evolution does not care if it is intentionally preventing women from a rapid sexual maturity. Within our evolutionary context, women who attempt procreation before full maturity and lose their first but go on to have many will dominate over the women who have a rapid sexual maturity and therefore, do not lose their first, so lack the incentive for more and only have a few.
Achieving transcendence means understanding and controlling our evolution. Even though evolution potentially primes women to attempt procreation before they are fully sexually mature, that does not mean that they should. Human beings care about miscarriages because transcendent beings have rights from the moment of their creation.
Those with early onset puberty or who have an irregular/late puberty are dysgenic and should not breed. Why would you want to give your offspring a disability?
Females begin puberty before males. In the natural order, human females become adults before males. This naturally increases the number of fertile females that a male has access to imprint upon within his age cohort before he reaches puberty.
Imprinting is part of our biological program for mate selection. Imprinting determines the object of lust. Lust is fundamental to human procreation because lust reduces the disgust response. If a male lacks the lust necessary to reduce his disgust and fertilize a female, that male will not procreate. A male unable to perform for a female in “heat” is a failure from the perspective of evolution.
Males are prone to sterilizing paraphilias (psycho-sexual disorders). Mis-imprinting is the typical cause of paraphilia, but not exclusively. Pornography facilitates paraphilia. Female fertility triggers male lust; lust reduces the disgust response, while in a state of lust, in a state of reduced disgust, the intended object of lust can be gradually reprogrammed. Males should limit their searches to: young, female, solo, (your race). All other searches are potentially sterilizing. For older males, developing a sterilizing paraphilia is largely irrelevant since age diminishes fertility. Societies with a lack of young males are the exception. In those societies, the fertility of older males will still have value.
Normal women lack the agency to have a sexual orientation; there is no act they are required to perform. A female with the agency necessary to have an abnormal sexual orientation will not procreate. A woman who fails to procreate is a failure from the perspective of evolution.
Women manifest social contagion because their nature is for social conformity.
It is reasonable to prevent interference with a being’s natural development, and that is the typical justification for age of consent laws. Paradoxically, modern age of consent law promotes interference by mandating sex education.
Preventing interference and consent are two different things. Conflating the two has empowered those who wish to abolish the age of consent laws. They claim that children can consent. They cloak interference in justifications for tolerance and education. They are called groomers.
There is no reason a child needs to be aware of intercourse, and under natural conservatism, educating children about intercourse is completely forbidden. The risk of mis-imprinting is too great, and it erases the number one tell for a doctor, educator, or law enforcement to determine if a child has been sexually abused or interfered with: do they know about sex or the mechanics of sexual intercourse?
Disordered paraphiliacs and spiteful mutants will always seek to “educate” about degenerate and obscene sexual preferences because there is no paraphiliac gene, and grooming is the most reliable way they have to “reproduce.” Children have no lust or fertility and will only put themselves in danger by exposing themselves to adults who do.
When modern age of consent laws use age to determine adulthood instead of biology, they create fundamental problems that groomers use to prove that age of consent laws are arbitrary and deny dignity, agency and autonomy.
If eighteen is good, why is nineteen not better? Why not twenty-one, thirty or forty even? You say those who desire intercourse with anybody under the age of consent are pedophiles. I then claim that anybody who desires intercourse with those under the age of consent and a day is a pedophile. Accusations of being a pedophile as the go-to response demonstrates how weak the position is.
Why has the age of consent kept changing over time if it is not arbitrary? Our sexual biology has not changed. It is better to adopt a clear, obvious, non-arbitrary, universal, traditional standard that only requires a doctor, a checklist, and not the approval of the state. Demand age of consent laws that are based on biology and not an arbitrary number.
Who decides? The state? A child? Biology? Between trans, homosexual and pedophilic advocacy groups claiming children can consent and bitter, aged-out dysgenic feminists using state power to push higher ages to reduce competition, I have the moderate position. My standard respects human dignity without violating innocence. It is also pro-natal, pro-human and pro-life.
I am not claiming that young adults should have intercourse. As I previously implied, there are people in their thirties for whom I would recommend abstinence.
The problem is not lust, which is fundamentally necessary, but that a human being in lust can be easily seduced. For young males, it is an omnipresent distraction. A woman’s nature as a social conformist protects her from lust-induced mate selections. For women, it is most problematic during peak fertility. When she is most fertile, most in lust, she is most like a man. That is when her equation changes from best theoretical to best available. Her female social circle, those whom she relies most for self-esteem, approval and identity, can protect her from poor mate selections for most of the month.
Lust-induced mate selections threaten women because they reduce the value of their fertility. When something has no cost, when it is given away for free, it has no value. Failed mate selections hurt women more than men because female fertility has more value than male fertility. Human beings exist in a paradigm of many seeds but few eggs.
How do we protect those who are most vulnerable to seduction? How do we protect women from failed mate selections? Young adults are vulnerable to seduction because they have the least experience in understanding their lust. Males can quickly “self-soothe” their hormones away. When a female is in “heat,” no amount of self-soothing will change her hormonal state. Evolution wants women to be fertilized, not satisfied.
When a human being becomes an adult, educate them about the biological reality of our evolution, why we have transcendence and why we have rights. Public space must be respected as public space, and private space must be respected as private space. Public space means spaces that are safe for children where anything “adult” is forbidden. Private space means spaces safe for adults where children are not allowed.
Human beings have rights. Human beings exist to procreate. When a human being becomes an adult, they have the right to manifest that which makes them a human being; the act of controlling their evolution.
Controlling your evolution means understanding how you evolved; as a human being, you evolved through mate selection. Men and women have different methods for mate selection. We had to understand fatherhood before we could have methods for mate selection. Understanding fatherhood is when pre-human beings, meaning animals, became human beings. Understanding fatherhood means understanding that intercourse is procreation. Only by understanding fatherhood could we understand rape. Rape is a violation of consent.
In the state of nature, all selections are natural, meaning there is no awareness that a selection is even occurring. Animals do not and cannot rape. Rape is a human concept dependent upon understanding fatherhood. To apply it to animals is anthropomorphism.
For pre-human beings, the strongest male would be the one most likely to procreate. Understanding fatherhood cast us from the state of nature, and yet, males remain stronger than females.
Why are males stronger than females? Rape prevents females from controlling and dominating human evolution.
The male mate selection method of rape is more eugenic than the female mate selection method of love. If the female mate selection method were more eugenic, it is reasonable to conclude that there would be less sexual dimorphism because the strong male/weak female dichotomy would not be selected for; the female method would select for gender-amorphous nullities with a greater susceptibility to emotional beguiling and manipulation. Since there is no need for a strong male and weak female for the female mate selection method to work, that would predict that equal strength would be the norm. The male mate selection method is more eugenic precisely because it selects for sexual dimorphism and fertility. When males raided an enemy tribe, those most obviously female would be selected. The males who could identify which ones were female and the most fertile were the ones to pass down their genes.
Even now, when females have more choices, they still select males with the capacity to rape. If a female were sincerely interested in eliminating rape, she would only select males smaller and weaker than herself. Except for rape, there are no other reasons males need to be stronger than females. Hunting, warfare, farming (the typical reasons given) and existence would all be easier for human beings if females were as strong as males.
There are rational reasons why rape as a mate selection method is not a good idea, and it is even forbidden under “patriarchy” as a violation of property. There are also rational reasons why a woman would choose a man who could rape her. If a male is capable of raping her, he is more likely to be able to produce offspring that can rape, and offspring that can rape are more capable of passing down her blood than offspring that cannot.
Why am I defending rape? I am not. Under the natural eugenics of natural conservatism, males compete, and females select. This gives women immense power to dictate the course of human destiny by controlling what gets selected for. Just because a woman could choose a weak male because she is ideologically opposed to males having the capacity to rape, that would be a dysgenic choice and contrary to our evolved heritage. Women more comfortable with ideological fads rather than respecting our derived nature would be happier as modified beings. There is no reason for a woman to feel guilty for preferring males capable of rape.
There is no rape gene. Premature ejaculation is not proof of a rape gene, but evidence that rape is the male mate selection method. If you were to magically eliminate all of your ancestors who were conceived in rape, you would not exist. A male who was incapable of rape would be as dysgenic as a male incapable of racism, or homophobia, or lacking a disgust response.
It is not your fault if your son rapes. The punishment for rape (violent, forced penetration, not regret) should be permanent physical sterilization. The sterilization of murderers and rapists will not eliminate rape and murder. Human beings will always be inherently disordered; we exist outside of our original context. Sterilization will only prevent recidivism and satisfy our natural human desire for justice and revenge.
There is no blood guilt because all are guilty.
It is natural for a woman to desire a strong, competent male. Hypergamy as a biological phenomenon must be respected. It is reasonable for a woman to want her hypergamy satisfied, and better for society (and general human biological health) to facilitate her. It is reasonable that she deserves a man bigger and stronger than her. What is not reasonable is one above an artificially arbitrary number like six feet tall.
It is naturally eugenic to pair every female with a male that is measurably better than her in every way. Because hypergamy means never being satisfied, it is important to remind women that a five deserves a six, not a seven; sixes deserve sevens. Hypergamy-derived mating naturally excludes the highest-ranked females and lowest-ranked males from relationships because there are no males above ten and no females below one. Luckily, the bell curve predicts their numbers will be low.
Males are naturally superior at ranking because they are less influenced by social conformity. Females are better at arranging because they crave social harmony. Virgins deserve virgins.
The individual human being is a horrible mate selector; if they were not, divorce and abortion would barely exist. We have a limited, selfish awareness. We are easily distracted by fads, social pressure, mental health issues, trauma and substance abuse.
Arranged marriages have a higher success rate than attraction marriages; there is no reason to believe eugenic councils would not perform even better. Arranged marriage is a successful social construct that has existed for millennia. It is a traditional solution to human sexuality that is still practiced by the majority of the world. Parents, families and the community are demonstrably better mate selectors than the individual. Arranged marriage ensures that human beings are paired at their most fertile and when they have their highest value as human beings capable of procreation.
Why is this important regarding the natural eugenics of natural conservatism? This is an essay on the issues associated with natural eugenics. Selection paralysis is an issue. When there are so many choices, and the choice is so important, potentially mis-selecting can become a source of terror and anxiety. Some limiting and pre-sorting will probably be preferred by most women. Dating services exist. The irony is that while controlling our evolution is what makes us human, to understand you are a human being is to accept your limited awareness and that the most human thing you could do with your evolution might be to share your selection with your race.
What comforts women in their selection is social approval, and if it makes their peers jealous. As long as a woman has choices to select from, the selections satisfy her hypergamy, they are competent enough to ensure her survival, and she always retains the right not to select, including opting out, the letter of natural eugenics will still be respected, albeit maybe not its purest spirit.
The female mate selection method of love is not really about love; it is about fulfilling attraction. Attraction is not love, and it is not lust. Lust is a biological response to fertility. Attraction is a biological response to compatibility. Because opposites attract, it facilitates completeness. Both lust and attraction are forms of biological emotional beguiling that deprive victims of the ability to consent. They facilitate breeding to serve evolution, not human pair bonding. Evolution only requires intercourse: human beings require more.
Love is an emotional investment; it is something you choose to build, and it accumulates over time. It is not dependent upon attraction. Parents can love their offspring and are not attracted to them. Offspring can love their parents and are not attracted to them.
Whatever initially attracted you, whether it was physical, intellectual, emotional, or spiritual, will not be enough to sustain a lifetime relationship. Arranged marriages are not dependent upon attraction. Arranged marriages begin where most attraction marriages end. Love requires more than attraction and more than lust. It requires clarity, not biological delusion.
Animals cannot rape, therefore they cannot be raped, therefore they have no consent to violate. Love requires consent, and consent requires transcendence.
* Nothing I could say could diminish God. All attempts to diminish God centre God.