Subtitle: “our cultural normalisation of sociopathy”.
The perpetrators in the Pelicot rape case are the most contemptible shower of losers imaginable. They’ve never had good sex, and they are incapable of ever doing so, for the fairly obvious reason noted below.
There are a couple of issues:
- As 1970s feminists alleged, are all men rapists?
- What is wrong with any man who is capable of being turned on by an unconscious / asleep woman? Someone with whom they have had zero eye contact or indeed any prior or concurrent social interaction?
After Pelicot, are all men rapists?
First, let’s deal with the stats. Circa 70 men from an approximately 30×30 square miles region. Much has been made of their ordinary jobs – it’s almost as if people would have been somewhat comforted had they all turned to be vivisectionists or slaughterhouse operatives. The sheer number of defendants, and their supposedly “shocking ordinariness”, has did much to revive the old feminist war cry that all men are rapists; and there’s no doubt that many women are more concerned about men in general thran ever.
Many modern rape cases derive from a drunken, bro, hook-up culture, with built-in stupidity, mutual selfishness and guaranteed misunderstandings on all sides. It certainly doesn’t excuse the resultant abuse, but it does at least make it explicable by recognisable human failings, e.g., drunkenness and stupidity. (Incidentally, in the case of Conor McGregor, a man incapable of having even casual sex without a bro along in the next room doing likewise, you can probably thrown in closet homosexuality also. No straight man wants another dude banging away in the next room, adjoining door open, ffs.)
But there are no such everyday factors in the Pelicot case. The coldly pre-meditated nature of the Pelicot rapes is chilling. There is not even the pretence of a disagreement about knowledge or consent – “without her knowledge” was the very point. These guys knew they were raping, without a shadow of doubt. These rapes were organised and carried out like laboratory experiments. The lack of empathy, the lack of tenderness, the lack of a normal male protective instinct for a loved one in their most defenceless state (sleep), is astonishing. Mr. Pelicot is a psychopath of the worst kind, as is every snivelling cowardly women-fearing scumbag loser freak who queued up behind him.
However, I’m not sure that anything in this case signifies any departure from, or expansion of, established knowledge about human behaviour. France has an average population density of 315 persons per square mile. Assume half of those are male. The catchment area, roughly 30 miles x 30 miles, is circa 900 square miles. (315 ÷ 2) x 900 = 141,750 people. 70 out of 141,750 people is 0.049%. This equates to the accepted view that, while psychopathic traits generally are evident in circa 30% of any population, extreme psychopathy generally is estimated at circa 1%.
Remember folks, these are not a random 0.049% either – these cowardly pricks self-selected as psychos – all were members of a website apparently called “without her knowledge”. It doesn’t get any worse than that. Even in today’s shabby and navel-gazing world, these “people” are outliers for whom the word “inadequate” barely suffices. A normal man is turned on by a turned-on woman, ffs; and no normal man is on, or even aware of, a website as scummy as that.
What is wrong with these creeps?
Well, psychopaths, the lot of them, self-evidently. Nothing more to be said or analysed about that.
However, it’s interesting to note that there is a wider pro-psychopathic culture afoot in 2024. It derives from a number of classic liberal ideas, namely: (1) sex is a “need” (like water, air, food, shelter); and (2) all forms of sexual behaviour, provided mutual consent is present, are equally valid and laudable.
Both of those confident liberal propositions are unmitigated horseshit, of course. See an earlier blog post:
“Liberals view casual, drunk, sex as a human right. You’re not allowed to say that its cheap, exploitative and dumb behaviour. You’re certainly not allowed to say that it’s profoundly un-erotic.
Instead, we must maintain the fiction that wanting to shag someone the same night you meet them is decent and acceptable behaviour, and that it doesn’t mean that you’re an immature, timid, selfish, asshole. That’d be judgemental, right?”
These stupid, mistaken viewpoints have led to some pretty weird cultural shifts, of which the modern quarter-baked “concept” of “demi-sexuality” is the most pernicious example. “Demi-sexuality”, as far as I can work out, is the populist pathologising of what used to be a laudable psychological trait of a well-adjusted adult, namely that you had little serious sexual interest in someone until (gasp) you had gotten to know them. (How quaint, eh?) Sure, any normal single person will clock pretty quickly if someone cosmetically is hot (to their tastes). But any normal person thereafter seeks to validate their initial fleeting perception. You look for kindness, optimism, a twinkle in the eye, a cheeky smile, a bright and pleasant voice, a genuine interest in being in your company, and, crucially, how well you converse together – a shared laugh and “getting” each other’s repartee is very attractive. It’s that combination of cosmetic appeal with those latter aspects which turn a potential sexual interest into a real sexual interest. Conversely, someone with a fit body who then, on closer acquaintance, has a whiney voice, or a sense of humour bypass, or a negative and self-pitying view of life etc; well all of that means that any potential sexual interest goes out the window right away. For me, the personality makes or breaks the body. I – stupidly – thought this was a healthy adult state to have evolved to.
But, by modern standards, I’m wrong. That approach is now considered to be a pathological condition, known nowadays (by trendy freaks) as “demi-sexuality”. It’s viewed as a sharp departure from “normal” human sexuality, which nowadays holds that, especially for a man, attraction derives wholly and primarily from a woman’s looks alone, without much or any reference to what she’s like as a person.
It is astonishing bullshit, but nobody’s laughing. This dumb, sociopathic piffle, which derives directly from the absurd notion that sex wholly is a “need”, is now all-pervasive, and un-challenged. Essentially, if a woman’s personality is a big part of your sexual interest in her, you’re now officially a freak.
This pathetic stigmatising of healthy sexual attraction in favour of mere cod biological determinism (which must always be genuflected to) did not per se produce the Pelicot psychos, but it nonetheless is part of a wider trend which is on the same dehumanised spectrum as the Pelicot rapists. The common trend in each is that personality and humanity have little or nothing to do with sexual attraction. For the psychopaths, it’s a congenital condition; but for the semi-educated and semi-literate trendies, it’s an article of progressive faith. It’s a deeply stupid viewpoint, and quite wrong, but we live in a deeply stupid era; and one which is more aligned with the psychotic Pelicot rapists than it will ever have the brains to realise.
Disjecta 