Children, girls and sodomy

When we wander the street on any day and look honestly, we see weak, spineless men controlled by their wife, exuding no virility or sense of confidence. As much as we can (and rightfully so) blame Jews and feminists (save for the second wave) in actively undermining the traditional values of strength and masculinity, this state of affair wouldn’t be possible if such excuse of a man had not been weak, spineless children first. Hedonism, degeneracy and the inability to stand up for oneself let alone for others - as demonstrated by the chore of videos where women are raped or people beaten up in the subway by subhumans with no one bating an eye - all stem from a fundamentally absent moral fiber, that our model of education totally neglects.

But we go about this education would require a complete overhaul of sexuality, in particular with children. Inspired pedophilia (or overtones of it) has always been the core of all successful youth organization of any kind, and of any education. Greek pederasty (the alliance of tough love and disinhibited sexuality in its vertical component) creates the strongest children, free from doubt and fixations, able to face the hardships of life and the tasks demanded of them by society (for good or bad) We need to rethink the way we educate children, how love, pedagogy, authority and discipline relate to each other.
This also holds the key to finally end the conflict between sexes and create genuinely strong females characters that need no man.

Character building

Europeans need the character to trust entirely those with the most inspiration in hope to approach their divinity. To ascend to their level to some degree. By first obeying his instructions, then emulating them earnestly, in order to truly making ours his qualities and thought process by uniting to him on an energetic level. This survival instinct (following the strongest around) does not equal to following blindly, unlike what normies in their well-defended kingdom, Wikipedia, would have us believe. This is the ideal totalitarian mindset, lead and be led, derived from the Führer Prinzip.

So the question is how to promote the formation of this kind of personality. Energy means sex, and the first hierarchical relationship we all experience is that of the child to its teachers, the first ones being the parents. It should come as no surprise thus, that teaching is conceptually and practically indissoluble from eroticism, as all even remotely successful cultures figured out. Thus we must talk extensively of how to relate to children, what sort of love and sex with them is congruent with natural law to get the best out of them, and ourselves as enamored teachers.

We will not shame from mentioning sodomy as an intrinsic part of the way, something I christened in all seriousness the gospel of the ass.

This incidentally brings us to the core differences between boys and girls, revealing the solution to the female question, of how to make the feminine part of our species currently much too often insufferable and whiny - truly the weaker sex - once again equal to men, as nature made us. I propose we first take inspiration from the most successful societies we know off in sufficiently abundant psychological details: On top, Sparta. Men were the strongest due to their unceasing training from the youngest age, both physically and character-wise.

We get our first lesson in these paragraphs, the necessity to confront a child to the harsh reality of survival out of their own strength, from the beginning, or as Hitler stated eloquently:

Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live.

But it has to be explained why those kids by and large (or ever) wouldn’t just fall into despondency, depression, abandonism. Nothing original in saying kids need both a pole of love and a pole of discipline/authority, though badmouthing any fatherly role trends a lot today which isn’t a surprise considering real men almost ceased to exist in this society. But how exactly is that supposed to work, how is balance realized ? Can unlimited strictness compensates unlimited indulgence, unconditional indulgence ? No, this would be the perfect recipe for schizophrenia, as been proved in dogs. Yes, by highly contradictory attitudes mixing rewards and punishments without rhyme or reason (or with purposeful sadism), even dogs loose it.

Parents (and to a lesser degree educators, reciprocal friends and lovers) should ask everything, infinite efforts from their offspring, squeeze out the least success in achieving their potential. And a the same time provide infinite love and acknowledgment. The key to this seeming paradox, is to understand what love even means. In our Western liberal society love is more often than not confused with self-indulgence or between lovers reciprocal indulgence of a nearly-contractual character which extends to the sexual sphere: I do you if you do me, that kind of thing. It became an agreement for each parties to allow each to stroke their egos continuously, feeding their vanity or sense of (undue) self-importance. Remove the sacred part of love, and there’s only partial gratifications or sentimental attachments left, but without energy or the prospect of it, it feels kinda hard to ask any personal effort of anyone without such binding contracts, without appealing to each partner’s egoism.

In the end, in absence of true love and energy, parenting has become little more than narcissistic projections hiding a sadistic undertone.

Genuine parenting on the opposite (or genuine love) was all about wishing the best for the kid, helping him to fulfill his transcendent destiny above any other concern while doing anything in one’s power to accomplish that goal, even if that meant killing one’s child with oneself if he dared to sully the family’s honor, like Japanese samurais’ mothers were said to.
We should understand such acts (more a performative fantasy than common facts) as benevolent, as without honor one is nothing and cannot not live up to one’s potential so being put out of one’s misery is not cruelty but mercy.

The resilience of a child and his capacity to endure like a man instead of caving in or prostrating like a Swedish cuck, is a function of his energy level and trust in his parents’ good intentions, which comes to down to the certain prospect of energy with them.

Hence I don’t find especially jarring than Japanese children can notoriously cope with objectively insane training regimen to prepare them for universities.
Unhealthy as it may be (arguably), the fact they do manage those training without breaking or not nearly as much as we would, is a testament to the customary intensity of parental love in Asia. As a proof, Japaneses until twenty to thirty years or so, used to bath with their the opposite sex parent, usually until 15, or limitlessly. Mixed bathing in honsen was normal until feminists and Western influence exorcised it out.

And anyone thinking nothing happened, must be an incurable fool.

That explains why Japanese children appear superior (or at least until recently)and the impressive reconstructions efforts after the war (resulting in no time in at thriving Western economy in advance on many points):
Incestuous orgasm-fueled superpowers.

Relationships with teachers have always been customary until their defeat, with admiring instances of dedicating from teachers, housing and financing students for free at a time where university were all private and one heck of an investment for families (this hasn’t changed terribly…).

We have to think in economical terms: energy is a resource, which like physical energy, can be acquired, transformed into useful work, or lost entirely in heat, its most entropic or degenerative form. A wholly entropic system can not be put to work anymore, it creates friction and things start breaking down real quick.. When we perform automatic tasks requiring no mental efforts, but merely follow a kind of algorithmic pattern however complex, then we don’t really use our higher abilities, with little to no human intuition at play, the brain just gets to run its usual well-trained and well oiled course. In those situations we act like computers and do not feel much if any effort, merely the physical tension of investing attention, and even this is proportional how much we’re used to the task.

But things are different whenever we need to learn, change our ways, develop totally new skillsets out of sheer grit or merely function beyond our ordinary, physical capacities.

Running counter already established lines of functioning or years of mental reference to specific beliefs isn’t free. To break free from conditioning or adopt new ones, is costly and spend energy, transforming it with more or less efficiency giving off more or less steam or mental friction in the process.

Adults - average muhricans - can function in their job on sometimes ludicrously low love energy levels same for scholars: exceedingly intellectual and smart creatures but wasting their life in inane pursuits writing useless papers, which hardly anyone will read, nor be impacted by. Without inspiration we make the wrong choices as making sense is never a mechanistic process, or as Einstein said:

A theory can be proved by experiment; but no path leads from experiment to the birth of a theory.
There is no logical way to the discovery of these elemental laws. There is only the way of intuition, which is helped by a feeling for the order lying behind the appearance.

Children on the other hand, need to learn even the most elementary laws, in the wild (apes) their very survival depends on it hence the reason of our extended childhood. Children thus especially crave for love to fuel their growth.

Yet, though correct intellectual maturation depends on energy-information it pales in comparison to metapsychical needs: building the soul and its psychic abilities requires a tremendous amount. As a result Spartan kids had no issue expressing themselves fully, morally, physically, intellectually: adults’ insane demands were merely commensurate to their capabilities, because love knew no bounds¹:

Now let’s go back to the agoge, to know what it consisted in:

[Between 7 and 12] at the communal barracks where the groups of children were housed, the boys were imparted education which ranged from academics and sports to training in hunting and warfare. The male students were treated like future soldiers, and their education was mainly military-oriented.
Children were taught how to endure hardship, pain, fatigue, hunger, as well as the bitter cold. Their athletic activities included gymnastics and different ancient sports, which they had to undertake barefoot. They were also given severely rationed food daily, so as to accustom them to hunger and thirst.

Evidently it was never pushed so far as to hinder their development, or this wouldn’t create strong soldiers.

The agoge dictated that the boys slept on beds which they had to make themselves out of reeds and straws, which they had to pull out from the banks of the river Eurotas, without using a knife [Incidentally, this is how chimpanzees make new beds each evening !].

The main intention of the agoge regime was to discipline the students at a young age. They were taught how to read and write, war poems, history, singing, dancing, as well as the works of Homer. Sources support the notion that intellectual accumen even more a Spartan defining characteristic than their martial prowess.

As must be apparent now, while swimming in sexual care up to the neck, young people were treated like adults, so the adult in them could awaken. We have less information on girls, beyond the fact their respective love life were nigh identical: no weak sex, no infantilization of women.

On a psychological level, we think children should come to experience the widest and most intense range of emotions and inner experiences possible, sadness, rage, pity, love, desire, so that nothing coming their way later could disturb their sense of balance, their stability.

Gender differences

How do men and women differ, and why ? This will reflect the key differences in psychology which must be taken into account relative natural weaknesses (in order to compensate for them) or gender-specific needs, in the way we raise children.

Evolutionary psychology is a stickin’, miasma-filled cesspool of weakly grounded stale moralistic commonplaces. Closer to philosophy or literature, minus the rare inspiration. Firstly because it hardly make use any statistics or nearly always their bias is laughably apparent, ignoring blatantly contradicting evidences.

And no topic gets worse than psychological or cognitive differences (or sex habits) between genders and ensuing projection over early primitive societies.

Truth be told, when we consider an overview of all pre-industrial societies as a whole, we realize genders don’t matter much. Yes, women tend to revolve around the relational (taking care of others, community building) and men around making stuff (the material) and exploration.

Nevertheless specifics are so variable divergent depending on the specific culture, that dwelling on this or building an ontology or a cosmology around yin and yang, Mars and Venus or whatnot is utterly pointless, and anyone older than 20 with eyes to see, should have met enough diverging characters in both sexes to be convinced of the same.

The greatest divide between sexes seems to have been the neolithic revolution, with the advent of agriculture and complexification (and ossification) of society. Hunter-gatherer societies appear quite egalitarians, everyone contributing a little to the survival of the group. There’s been debate for years about how many hours a day working for survival (collecting food, processing it) takes them, at least those still surviving today.

The problem is their rarity, most not living in forests, let alone lush primeval ones. I couldn’t find figures estimating the work load of chimpanzees, beyond the fact they spend half their day eating and/or touching each other… Which sounds pretty dope.

What I mean to say is, for intelligent people, sexual division of labour has never been a practical need, while if we go back to pre-human times, we only had to climb in the damn tree to eat, break open a beehive and munch some leaves. On the other hand, people will naturally gravitate around what they like.

Beside, tools as means of force multiplication, almost made the very real physical strength gap irrelevant (regards to survival in the wild), while group lifestyles ensure the impossibility of domination through brute force alone: chimpanzee females can easily gang up then dismember any male at 4 vs 1 or less.

The most daring gap we observe today, lie in intelligence. As IQ tests show women as more centered on the mean, lacking much of the genius and high-achieving spectrum responsible for the advancement of society. Women maintain and relish in the status quo, men strive for what they perceive as progress: revolutionary groups, for ill or bad were all male-dominated. Most women lack the ingenuity, curiosity and rationality to take the next step:

Curiosity or the lack thereof is a problem, but the worst one is the irrationality: as a general rule how many women are capable of putting aside emotions when considering a sensitive issue, whatever that is ?
Granted, today few men can either, but I have yet to see even one woman managing when it comes to sexuality, children or what comes in and out of their own wombs. This is why woman voting was a terrible idea.

But why have we got to that point and is it curable ?

We need to understand what it means on a deeper level: women fundamentally lack in divine inspiration, they lie on the base, material level, of the sensation or sentiment. The call of destiny and total dedication to a spiritual ideal has been essentially masculine all along history, with some exceptions of course.

There is little differentiation based on sex below puberty, and virgin girls keep longer an air of purity to them, as a fortiori do lesbians. On the other hand, mature girls most will simply react to novelty defensively because evolution made them wary of anything troubling the stability and safety of the nest, to raise the offspring.

All of this reflects the divide between the reproductive instinctive program and metapsychic instinctive program and for obvious reasons females of all species (save for hyenas perhaps…) are easier to sway to a reproductive mindset, tending with social conservatism, aligning with social expectations.

Carl Gustav Jung had little expectation nor hope for women:

The feminine mind is the earth waiting for the seed.
Anything you acquire by your own efforts is worth a hundred years with a woman analyst

As a result he is much more likely to touch himself and not a single boy doesn’t, be it in his dreams: on the other hand girls can easily spend their whole childhood, nay, life, without knowing a damn thing about her clitoris and so never orgasm a single time while orgasms for boys are as natural and unavoidable as breathing. Eternal sexual dissatisfaction coupled with the very ignorance of their needs (which to blame on their partner !) make them empty shells, superficial creatures living only on the level of sensation, yet of a biological and superficial level. The exhilarating feeling of being alive with adrenaline and electricity rush through your veins, is one with the soul , higher levels of consciousness and is synonymous energy.

Girls who know how to satisfy themselves are better off, more lively, not featuring the meekness we usually ascribe to their sex. On the other hand, modern women show how engaging in such activities and the knowledge of orgasm did not help women in the slightest however: frustration hasn’t diminished. Instead it transmuted from a crude organic level to a much more important metapsychic dissatisfaction, the lack of energetic orgasms, that most men live in their whole life. Moreover modern women access to pleasure fuelled a an unlimited sense of entitlement: anything that can fuel their vanity will do so. So we see it isn’t an issue of pleasure, so much as of psychic structuring.

It is a matter of objectivity today, to realize how women have become inferior on every level:

• Physically weak and fatter
• Inconsistent in their decision-making, plus acting upon irrational feelings instead of logical reasoning open to scrutiny, debate and questioning
• mean cranial volume 10% inferior to that of men and less represented in higher categories of intelligence.

To be fair though, their body mass is also inferior, they also are less represented in lower categories, and center around the same mean overall. Tests with Raven’s progressive matrices (arguably the most culturally neutral tests available) do not show a consistent gap, quite the opposite, when the sample is in the hundreds in size. Girls studying the same topics fare no differently to their male brethren, the same as those working the same number of hours are paid the same (putting aside specific jobs like modeling which intrinsically favor attractive women). The facts simply state that women aren’t interested in technical jobs and studies anywhere as much as men, so are paid less and represented less in higher IQ categories. Because of course, since one can train for IQ tests, they are cultural and doing activities which stimulate the mental muscles they call for, will seem to increase intelligence, this is the Flynn effect.

Nothing to do with raw intelligence or capacity, for which there exists no transgenerational test or measurement until now. Consistent intergroup differences though, can on the other hand demonstrate a lasting gap throughout generations, even though putting measurements from different eras numerically on the same scale would be nonsensical. What I mean is, after normalization (for economic status, education levels etc) we still see a gap of one standard deviation (15 points) between Whites and Blacks, but not between men and women.

We may hence derive these conclusions:

• Differences in IQ variation around the same mean should be inconsequential: We assume the lack of genius and general irrationality of women in real life situations (which few realistic people would deny, smart women included) is a consequence of a lack of study or work.
• This lack of study in worthwhile branches like physics and biology, compared to worthless curriculum like modern literature and sociology is a world-wide constant regardless of affirmative actions.

All throughout history, people have noticed the female stunted, lower soul, lesser ability to think themselves to the Truth. Others assimilated this to a stronger animal nature compared to men, and that is entirely true, but modern society showed that cultural sexual repression of men on women isn’t to blame as much as leftist thought, as today women can access pleasure as much as men (whether they actually do is not the absent patriarchy’s fault !).

So men have more often than not been the leaders, chieftains, kings and emperors, with women catering for local communities, their own, maintaining the status quo whatever it is, fair or unfair, logic or not. Doesn’t this somewhat lack in grandeur ?

Progress, change of perspective, has always been a man’s job, women nurturing society at best, and degrading it at worst quite often. Founders of a culture act out a vision (in the symbolic or literal sense of the word) doomed to fade from their successors’ eyes as time goes by and less inspired people understand values in their own lesser ways, mothers always imparting this fading vision to their children, of both sex, in early childhood.

I believe this lack of spark, of will to achieve, to be a direct expression of cooking and its dissimilar, very asymmetric: amplifying base animal instincts makes women meeker, just like the hen or cow submit to the cock or bull respectively. Within our genes and brain structures a whole set of character traits is ever present, stemming from ancient, outdated evolutionary pressures from millions to tens of millions of years ago, already present in the simplest animals to be honest - save for rare outliers like hyenas with aggressive girls boasting several times males’ testosterone rates.

This set of traits and tendencies form the core of lesser species whose entire lives around the need for reproduction (which is the one purpose of all lower lifeforms at least on the species’ level), is what we call the breeding instinctive program. What happens to women as this ancient evolutionary background is artificially stimulated by cooking, is a shift in life interests toward baser concerns seemingly all related to reproductive needs:

• Nesting: having a big, comfortable house (even when children are far, far ahead in the planning or unthinkable with current partners), cleaning the house, cooking (feeding the fledgeling !).
• Gossiping
• Keeping the men busy or downright manipulating them with sex in hope they continue providing resource and caring for kids, and ensuring said men don’t see other females as it would dilute their attention.

On the other hand, men’ animal instincts are simpler, cruder, but also saved them from perdition: we males want to fuck, regardless of the situation. We at least do it. While our attention shifts from anality and polymorphisms to coitus, which is a terrible consequence, reaching some modicum of satisfaction is still easier, because both breeding and metasexual instincts push us toward stacking the body count.

And both use the penis whereas the same shift toward coitus for women has had a very different consequence: the absolute center (and only source, anatomically) of pleasure for girls is their clitoris, which simply has no role whatsoever in a breeding situation. This leads girls in cooking to automatically and instinctively disregard their clitoris even as they know it’s there, know what’ it’s here for and that men won’t do shit about it.

In general the more uninspired a woman is, the more her focus will shift from her obvious true needs (cumming) to manipulative behaviors, either through scheming (hence the endless gossiping) or submission to the male. Both attitudes conducive to keeping the male(s) to herself and her own material, social or emotional situation afloat. Even though in no way this appears to give her satisfaction or pleasure. Cooked females simply identify to their reproductive, forsaking entirely their eventual access to pleasure and so an eventual higher spiritual or cognitive development.

Dissatisfaction, so much more than for men, on the most basic physical level is a structural consequence of cross-drive induction, the chemical amplification of breeding instincts induced by the abundance of cooked or otherwise denatured molecules. When it comes to loss of creativity females really are more sensitive to cooking, for evolutionary reasons.

As a side note, I think our wholesale general cultural forgetting about the clitoris in the West from 1800 to 1960, is better interpreted not as evil patriarchy dumbing down women (while it did dumb them down a lot) but as a natural shift of perception (a willful ignorance) and obsession toward breeding as society got infinitely less inspired and more materialistic. Then less polymorphic activity led to less energy, in an inevitable downward spiral. Culture create inspired or uninspired people and is generated by said people at the same time.

Finally, we conclude that their girls have untapped genetic resources when it comes to scientific qualities as well as bravery, charisma, rationality and valid intuition (true extrasensory perception linked to scientific breakthroughs, so definitely not the average feminine intuition !) but this hidden ability has been neglected by none other than girls themselves. Because of their diet, directly (the heightening of animal instincts), indirectly (the subsequent lack of pleasure, while base men rather tend to seek it too much).

The patriarchy’s prejudices against girls while indeed justified for the reasons explained above, as a matter of fact added to female inferiority, cementing it: by relegating females sometimes by laws (Muslim and Jewish societies) into the exclusive breeding role they seem to focus on on their own accord, men have ensured women wouldn’t improve on their tendencies. This is a classic case, of our true nature being fallen and needing culture to bring itself to the fore.

That’s why we need to enforce lesbianism and generate an upward movement subjecting women to the same hardships men have always known, in order to develop similar qualities. To man up and stop whining like little bitches.

On the opposite, the insane privileges and unfairly easy treatment bestowed on women compared to men in this disgusting feminist society in sheer virtue of their genitalia (best instance being the military and dumbing down of standards to accommodate weak women) infantilized the former. In the end we recuse both retarded traditional roles (Kinder, Küche, Kirche) and modern feminism, for they end up doing the exact same thing, robbing women of the occasion and need to grow collectively and as individuals.

Beside, let us contemplate for a second the absurdity of that German slogan: what is left in a natural state, as the church disappears, cooking too, and we used to live for hundreds of years with but a handful of offspring per life on average to maintain population levels ?

As explained , it is most essential for adequate structuring to develop before puberty otherwise all the libido, aspirations and expectations pertaining to the spiritual and the metapsychic program are transferred on to the reproductive program, because that one starts automatically at puberty.

Problem is, its potency is multiplied ten fold by cooking, and at the same time these penetrative impulses aren’t channeled into active sodomy anymore, breeding fantasies taking over completely, civilized more often than looking down on it. Spiritual degradation simply follows automatically too rich a diet, meat in particular, as shown by ever earlier menstruation: it is the same physiological phenomena.

To compensate for this it is vital 95% of the time for girls to discover pleasure in a energetic context before puberty, more so than for boys as the biological imperative to breed is so much stronger, and in general the feminine will-power too weak to undergo such a grueling process as changing one’s whole worldview and psychosexual sensibility, that truth be told past 15 nothing much can expected from a woman beyond the level she already arrived at due to circumstances. The will - or capacity - for self-betterment, is very much children’ or men’ characteristics. Currently.

The purpose of pedication

Would pederastic love from older women save the day as in Sparta ? In short, yes. I use to say reaching orgasm with the good mindset/partner regardless of how, is all that matters, and compared to the current situation it is true. But humans harbor still more mysteries, so I take you to our primate roots once again. The anatomical disparity between bonobos and humans quite significant: the sexual dimorphy is lesser so compared to chimpanzees males are relatively smaller and females taller, while penises are smaller and clitoris huge, so much so that clitoral penetration has been observed !

On the other hand penile sodomy is impossible to them, and overall the most frequent contact is genital-genital rubbing (dry humping or tribadism for lesbians, while it lacks a name when it involves a penis). On the other hand, male homosexuals are mostly unanimous as to what contact provides the stronger pleasure, by miles: passive sodomy.

In essence this issue is not limited to gays or male homos. Though bonobos do show a great deal of our erotic genetic norm, what we should aspire to and express if not for induced sexual repression (and endogenous inhibitions due to cooking), on the other hand it seems like we did improve on them, a lot.

We became much more attune to energy, much more capable to feel it, internalize and metabolize it: the evolution toward complexity of consciousness started with apes, continued within our own lineage, with some failures and successes along the way, in the form of the various phenotypes/species either continuously improving on themselves, mixing out, erased by others or failing to adapt to climate changes. Though we currently fill them with shit our big brains theoretically allow for an expanded consciousness richer in experience than anything a primate’s could host.

The most obvious anatomical change associated with such a heightened metapsychical metabolism (beside brain size) that our theory can explain, is our much improved ability for passive sodomy.

People who unlocked it fully, be them men or women, can lubricate very quickly, better than most vaginas can boast of. This very fact is still ignored (or flat out rejected in a self-justification lashing-out) by authorities in the matter, even the most disgustingly liberal ones:

Before I slide down this particular pole, let me reveal a bias: I am a firm believer that lube makes any sexual activity much more pleasurable. The wetter and slipperier everything is, the better. But lubricant is not just desirable; it’s essential to any anal penetration. Unlike the vagina, the anus and rectum are not self-lubricating.
During anal exploration of yourself or a partner, you might find that the anus feels wet. What you’re feeling is a natural mucous secretion from the anal canal and maybe some sweat—but neither this nor spit provides enough wetness to do the trick. Beyond sneaking a finger a millimeter inside someone’s ass, you need lube.

We find the same discourse from a rabid retarded Christian:

Finally, the human sexual body itself reflects what is natural, the tradition taught. A penis can slide into a vagina easily and comfortably during love-making, while anal penetration requires artificial lubrication and often causes pain. Vaginal intercourse can bring intense orgasmic pleasure to both parties in a way that oral sex cannot, absent simultaneous masturbation and spilling of seed by the other party.

Which is remarkably wrong on all accounts. **I assert the exact opposite, that many homosexuals can attest of, that there exists a distinct anal lubrication, which might even make adjunction of saliva unnecessary.

Specialized glands exist called anal glands, whose original function is to ensure adequate lubrication during excretion at the end of the tube: the glands of Hermann and Fossé ². They also produce odoriferous substances marking a male’s territory.

The ignorance of science of anything not fitting its narrative really could really compete in its obtuseness with with religious literalists… Those same glands must have been repurposed since our separation from chimpanzees (at least some good 9 millions years ago) in order to support penile sodomy all the way.

Under good psychological conditions an individual can excrete an ungodly amount of such lubricant - enough to visibly grease buttocks ! - with little to no stimulation, reliably.

The fact the majority of people (not even of homosexuals) can not boast of such a feat, is easy to account for, not contradicting the theory one bit. Vaginas lubricate better in most circumstances because of the following:

1. Vagina are meant (mainly) for reproduction from the moment of the first periods, hence its lubrication is under control of the same chaotic breeding instincts amplified by dietary feedback. As there are reasons to believe in an excessive fertility on a physiological and hormonal level, women could logically lubricate too easily, when neither energy nor the need or desire to make a baby arise, as an automatic response to a situation evocative of breeding. In other words, in presence of a triggering pattern specific to the breeding instinctive program.
2. This program, being more animalistic in nature, activates much more easily that’s why it has to be actively (though spontaneously) restrained and corralled into more civilized and transcendent goals, sublimated, as Freud would have. Hence under extreme existential frustration and confusion of programs (akin to a BIOS corruption in a computer more than a simple OS bug), mating mechanisms would logically run amok. And yet many women do have a difficulty with getting properly wet, needing some more titillating the breasts mechanically much like a cow for its milk: the emphasis is deliberate, if you feel disgusted, this is the absolute state of physical love. Blame people, not the theory or me.

Conversely the three natural sources of lubricants necessary for a good seemless sodomy totally depend on the metapsychic instinctive program and the requirements of metasexual energy and psychic structure.

These three sources are

1. Anal lubrication proper². This biological ability, by far the most important for a pleasurable penetration, is also by far the most sensitive. Normally developped during the anal stage before 6 the mother’s care (licking and fingering, as observed universally with Primitives), its later development after that key moment is difficult, even under raw conditions. Once unlocked with enough training it works well, but slight remains of prior unconscious conditionings often require exceptional mental calm and trust in a partner.
   Otherwise the butt clamps like crazy at any attempt of penetration even of fingers, leading most homos to resort to artificial lubrication to force tings out. If that is difficult to do under raw food, without the strongest dedication it becomes nearly impossible for most people under cooked food. This is the single biggest reason behind the rarity of natural sodomy today, even for people who actually enjoy it.
2. Penises do produce a coat of lubricant (called Cowper’s fluid or vulgarly precum), an excellent one, which nevertheless only answers to very important desires often of the metasexual kind such as age gap. For the same reason it can’t be forced either, and often lack in intercourses.
3. Lastly, a third abundant source of natural lubricant, is the saliva: but not just any saliva like the one involved in the early oral phase of digestion. *While it lacks an official recognition just like anal sexual lubrication, there is a distinct kind of fat viscous saliva excreted on command by the mouth’s many glands (abundantly so).

The bad smell or unclean argument against sodomy has a bit more truth to it, but doesn’t really stand up to close scrutiny either.
Bad smells from feces do not exist in nature: wild animals’ stools do not smell at all and those of instincto babies neither. Healthy rectums are self-cleaning. Those odors come from systematically bad digestive processes, which otherwise would be as transparent as any organ in the body we are not supposed to think about nor can control consciously.
Elimination of denatured molecules in instincto and/or consecutively to viral episodes, also induces the expulsion of such fragrant bouquets: what goes in by error, goes out by design, or we wouldn’t live nearly as long as we do… It also means different persons will stink more or less depending on their diet and overall health. Different cultures or the same at different points in time will vary for the same reasons, as per all pathological processes.

Nevertheless **accidents of a coprologic nature, even without raw food, are actually as uncommon as easy to avoid, pointing at bad smell and faeces rather acting as both a symbols for that disgust of anality and a convenient excuse, masking for our peace of mind the true unconscious irrational motives.

We believe that increasingly complex cooking induced a world-wide tendency not only to reject sodomy on a conscious level, but more importantly it radically hinders or stop altogether, the natural tendency to lick infants to clean them, like do all mammals.

All instincts need actualizing and it is theorized that the key moment for learning ensuring a normal healthy structuring regards to anal sensibility (later on proper sodomy) occurs early on between 0 and 4 (or 6) years old, when the mother should routinely caress and pleasure with her fingers and tongue our lovely butthole up to and including gentle penetrations, as exhibited by a great primitive societies both for practical purpose and love.

Not undergoing this initiation at the right moment, creates a deficiency extremely difficult to compensate or overcome, at least completely, requiring years of work, a voluntary - pro-active and thoughtful - exposure to the right sexual activities.

But most people grow up without knowing such sensibility should be common (or even exists beyond a few biologically degenerate sexual inverts), and never doubt this illusion for most of their lives, as people inevitably judge according to their own (lack of) experience, creating cultures reflecting the same prejudices, ultimately demonized sodomy out of spite.

On a side note, the selective pressure of metasexual energy processing might possibly explain the loss of our baculum , which is a bone present in the penis making it rigid at all time… yes, always hard. Most mammals have it, others don’t, and while all primates have it, men lost all of it. We don’t understand these fast and extremely frequent changes (Evidence suggests that the baculum was independently evolved 9 times and lost in 10 separate lineages) as evidenced by the nonsensical opinions:

A bone in the penis allows a male to mate for a long time with a female, which can be a distinct advantage in some mating strategies. The length of the baculum may be related to the duration of copulation in some species

Except that… individual human copulations figure among the longest in the animal kingdom hands down. More likely usually chance genetic drift have a lot to do with this. But In humans, the rigidity of the erection is provided entirely through blood pressure in the corpora cavernosa and I don’t think anyone has to complain… In any case our inborn expectations for performance would necessarily match our capabilities.

But on the other hand, being steel-hard is useless. On the contrary penile flexible softness adds a great deal to the variety of sensation, and adapt our sacro-sainct glorious penis to a wealth of locations and touchings, whose exquisiteness might actually exceed bonobos’. Hands, butts, mouth, armpits, from any direction, you name it. Only true humans could take from a chaotic child game in apes to a true symphony of magical accords.

Now that we saw the reasons our visceral disgust for sodomy, we should wonder: How enjoyable is it ?

While the descriptions vary and may sound rather exaggerated or outright fabricated, from my own experience I know it is - can be - at least extremely pleasant for women while for men it is the strongest physical experience, usually way above isolated front orgasm in comparison coming up short in relief, power and duration, by miles. This, is something 95% of heterosexual men fully ignore, a fact which statistically necesarily bears the most far-reaching consequences. According to Ancient Greeks, passivity (synonymous with pedication ) not only wasn’t infamous, but it was thought that boys loved by elders make for the most virile warriors and statesmen.

Anality rose as the primary and most advanced exchange of energy, and the intensity, ease of access and wealth of sensation it brings match its metapsychical importance.

Now that we laid out women’ defects and found out they might be missing the most. Spartans exposing for all to see, the result of this generalization to all age and all sex: women as headstrong and resilient as their male equivalent, intelligent and duty-bound, while ignoring flaws such as possessivity, idle gossips and backhanded badmouthing.

United under a strong patriarchal leadership, they obtained total freedom and total responsibility, they obtained true virility which has nothing to do with superficial development or impressive physics:

It is about standing your ground no matter what, giving your best honoring the gods and inspiring your peers, gaining immortality by living up to one’s true possibilities. True masculinity and true femininity only differ superficially, men being more straight forward, convincing through diamond-like shining logic and intimating respect authority through their powerful physique while women appease with graceful gentle words, fluid diplomacy and the pure crystal-clear innocent beauty of prepubescent girls, whose traits in instincto are maintained for decades especially in superior races. Different approaches for different public and contexts, but same practical and energetic result.

To sum it up I believe that being a third homo allowed girls to be imbued by virile inspired men an indispensable formative information quintessential in shaping their character while saphic energy - universally acknowledged in the Greek world at the time - gave it depth and substance and meaning. While lesbianism remains from ancestral times the number one instinctive impulse in females , sodomy could be the key for a truly enlightened heterosexual or inter-sex relationships. United we stand strong, toward a brighter universally virile and militarist future.

Role models and biological parents

This question is more complex than it appears at first consideration.
Usually, males have little involvement with their offspring, their interest is rather to fecundate the highest number of females while the interests of females is to get the best males as genitors, and possibly to get them to spend efforts in their kids. Hence slightly to significantly divergent interests between sexes are theorized. For any given child, the mother is always known. The father ? Not so much.

Whether or not male animals are capable to recognize their offspring instinctively is debated, but specific cases are acknowledged in vertebrates. Though males often (not never) do not raise their kids, to avoid hunting them by mistake (cannibalism isn’t rare) or mating with them (unless incest is prevalent in that species, which is indeed the case sometimes) or to favor them one way or another, there are plenty of reasons for kin detection to be selected upon, and in most likelihood to some degree all modestly intelligent species instinctively use a variety of cues from smell to facial traits, while a lot more inferior ones rely on smell.

Male chimpanzees do seem to have a clue whom they father, a fact which baffles scientists it would fly in the face of their nice theories of females using matriarchy as a means to fool them and force them to care for all kids, reduce violence, etc. Truth is scientists have a hard time understanding why an animal would care for a child he knows is not related at all, so that not even the egoist gene could easily explain that away.

Truth is, they can’t conceive love as transcending egoist breeding concerns in species lacking our capacity for abstraction and the conscious identification to the whole species, or at least broader circles of relatedness than the immediate family (I doubt anyone could tell apart even a cousin from a random person of the same race…).

In historical or ethnographic annals, the role of fathers is very variable. Some cultures discarded it completely, others (like Romans ?) accorded fathers a much bigger role than mothers. Overall, the first align with matriarchies, the latter with patriarchies, but prosperous societies ignored neither. Our position circumvents historical analysis, as always we prefer genetics-based arguments and contemporary experiences.

• The natural size of raw human groups is rather small, a hundred persons at most, more like 50, with which intimate meaningful relationships on a personal basis can be established, mostly with those we grew amongst. Given a few generations, the level of relatedness grows steadily.
• We determined how our species evolved to take advantage of that consanguinity to further and accelerate its adaptation. It is in our advantage to know who are siblings especially older ones quickly susceptible to drift away from their mother, on which they wouldn’t depend more than a few years.
  Or not at all in fact, since several higher mammals do practice allonursing, reciprocally swapping infants to breastfeed, including giraffes , seals of all kinds, meerkats and ape mothers ) do swap infants to breastfeed to varying degrees so an absolutely specific mother-child bond isn’t actually really a biological necessity for higher species.

But I believe both energetic link and attachment born from blood (chimpanzees bond with their offspring for life, about a third of adult males are essentially best friends with their mothers according to this study and later on with humans the need for efficient incest might be said to constitute a counter-acting evolutive pressure. Ultimately, the persistence of father-daughter incests among GSA stories ( Adults With Their Parents in this page ) convinced me. If the phenomena akin to animal kin recognition applies to fathers and daughters separated at birth then cases then then said partners who were separated at birth can indeed recognize each others immediately.

Conclusion

What conclusion to this ?
We should stick preferentially with their immediate family including fathers while profiting from the presence of a broader spectrum of role models, regardless of common blood according to energetic affinities. Definitely familial ties shall last a lifetime. Mothers and fathers should involve themselves imparting all their knowledge and skills as much as practically possible and later on breed with their offspring if the right conditions present themselves. Hence, societies should align with these instincts by favoring small energetically and dietary independent consanguineous settlements, within the limits of contemporary economic necessities.

As for parental roles, beside the physiological dependency on mothers, traditions world-wide (or just in Europe) don’t really agree on fixed responsibilities to distribute between mothers and fathers or even men and females. And since virility according to the metapsychical perspective is functionally equivalent in both sexes the most vital for a child is to have a mother until weaning is done (6 years), then psychology-wise many arrangements might do, as long as the role models are inspired and loving…

Spartans proved inspired mothers could totally provide for an adequate father role (a so-called pole of discipline) without loosing their feminine grace, while modern fathers are either careless tyrants or spineless wimps, in any case metasexually impotent and frustrated.