Epstein Island is the Logical End Point of Our Corrupted Culture
The belated performative outrage concerning the Epstein files and the UK rape gangs reeks of hypocrisy and moral whiplash as politicians and influencers have been relentlessly encouraging the sexualisation of society since sex was reputedly invented in 1963. Now, we are all expected to condemn with sorrowful faces these ‘outrageous’ sexual perversions when in fact people in power have been cheering them on for years. When Keir Starmer said recently to the Epstein victims: “I am sorry, sorry for what was done to you, sorry that so many people with power failed you,” his words may actually for once be accurate. Whether he realises what he should be apologising for is another story.
Two differing elements – moral climate and specific government policies – have helpfully signposted the way towards the sexual slurry vat we find ourselves in today. Firstly the climatic winds: they whispered so gradually it was impossible to realise until perhaps this very week that any pretence at a realistic approach to sex and the consequences of sex has been entirely blown asunder.
Some like Larkin finger the 1960s, others the Bloomsbury Group. Virginia Woolf recorded Lytton Strachey in company pointing to a stain on Vanessa Bell’s white dress and asking, “Semen?” Woolf wrote, “With that one word all barriers of reticence and reserve were swept away.” Others reach back further and cite Dickens’s sentimentalising of 1838 Oliver Twist’s mother, or silly Hetty Sorrel in George Eliot’s 1859 Adam Bede. Why all the criminal fuss when all women wanted was a Jilly Cooper-style romp in the woods? National emotions were readied for an eventual liberalising of sexual relations.
Fraudulent doctors Freud, Money and Kinsey also played their parts in moving Western society to the state where to even criticise sex exploration for people of any age would have you immediately called a prude.
This new sexual weather was used as a vaporous foundation on which governments and international bodies enacted a number of laws and policies that embedded sexual freedom as an unequivocal common good. The charge sheet is long, and perhaps in hindsight unwise: The 1959 Obscene Publications Act; the 1967 Abortion Act, the 1969 Divorce Reform Act; the 1967 National Health Service (Family Planning) Act; the 2000 Safeguarding Children Involved in Prostitution guidance created a blind spot whereby police and social workers interpreted underage sex with adult males as consensual.
Even school children have been roped in. The Education Act 1993 made sex education compulsory in secondary schools and the Children and Social Work Act 2017 made relationship education mandatory in primary schools. At 10 our eldest was taught by his Year 6 teacher that “girls have a button over their vagina that if you press it makes them feel nice”. By 14 at secondary school, that porn was perfectly healthy for a hormonal teenager and there were over 100 genders.
This vigorous approach to children and sex is fully supported by the UN which suggests “comprehensive sexuality education” should “begin at five”. Suggested teaching materials include such arousing ideas for 12 year-olds as: “Different cultures have different ways of understanding sex, gender and reproduction and when it is appropriate to become sexually active,” and: “Everyone has the right to choose if, when, how and with whom to engage in sexual activity and this should be respected at all times.”
Kant argued that one should “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”. Well wasn’t the Prussian badger right about that! We have long been living in the universalised reality of unrestrained sexual freedom: Page 3, lads mags, padded bikinis for children, hypersexual PVC clad popstars, Mick Jagger celebrating sex with underage groupies and Rod Stewart crooning about pouring a “good, long drink” to seduce a “virgin child“, twerking as a national past-time, Love Island as family entertainment, hook up culture, a $100 billion porn industry, the lionisation of heroic shaggers, dick pix, upskirting, Only Fans as a career of choice for 4% of British women, articles in Teen Vogue about how to have anal sex, Netflix’s Cuties, prostitutes Bonnie Blue and Lily Phillips interviewed on podcasts and featuring in the Spectator, prostitutes being rebranded content creators, the once deputy Prime Minister talking about flashing her “ginger growler” in the House of Commons, drag queen story time, the current Prime Minister defending appointing paedo supporter Matthew Doyle to the House of Lords, 25% of children raised in single parent families, around 300,000 abortions a year in Britain and young women now being the unhappiest they have ever been in recorded polling history. Within this sex-triumphant climate can we really pretend to shock concerning Epstein, his brutal cronies, the rape gangs and their state-affiliated allies?
I write, not as one who wishes the sour wind of puritanism to blow again across the land, but as one who has been randy as an alley cat since a young teenager. How natural sexual desires are fruitfully channelled has of course been under discussion since Sodom and Gomorrah. Society swings from lauding sexual self-control and celebrating sexual liberation. Which way will the winds now blow? Sententious statements are repeated against “Ending Violence Against Women and Girls“. Consent lessons, misogyny classes, online grooming awareness lectures and the like may well end up returning sex to the constrained territory of the Victorians – the whole subject so forbidding that Ruskin-like young people will recoil entirely.
Or we instead could elevate the pursuit and celebration of love rather than sex, and limit sex to within loving relationships, and see where that gets us?
Joanna Gray is a writer and confidence coach.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I have long argued that what passes as “sex education” (such as how to put on a condom or the reference to the “girl button” above) is more sex instruction. The 2 are not the same.
This is putting ideas into children’s and teenager’s heads that they wouldn’t otherwise have thought of. Note expressly how in the example of Lytton Strachey, just one word can sweep away all barriers of reticence and reserve.
Sex education in schools is literally the premature sexualisation of children.
The problem is that it is almost impossible to get modern day teachers to understand this.
They are completely indoctrinated. They firmly believe that in the absence of sex education you will have an epidemic of teen pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Even though there is no actual data to support that notion. If anything, the reverse is true.
All the things they talk about increase the more they talk about them. Teen sex, abortions, homosexualoty, transsexualoty. Who would have thought, huh, that when you put ideas into kids’ heads, they do more of it.
And one of the most vocal proponents of modern sex education were the cultural Marxists.
Ultimately Marxism is extremely reductionist: it analyzes society in almost purely economic terms (man = unit of production), history as purely class struggle and ultimately, as a logical step, sex as purely a bodily function that can be reduced to the pressing of “pleasure buttons”.
As this ideology progresses, human life gets devalued; the best example is the Marxo-fascist regime (Stalin), with its forced labour camps. And let’s not forget: it was the Soviet Union under Stalin that first legalized abortion (another “progressive” idea), reducing human life to a clump of cells that we can do whatever we want with.
I am unconvinced by this article. Repressive societies (e.g. the Victorians) are famous for their strict sexual morality – yet brothels and prostitution were common and unremarkable.
And so on to the realisation that the Great and Good are comfortable enjoying their passions – it’s the little people who are criticised.
One might say that nothing changes. Promoting ‘love’ rather than sex is a distraction.
This sort of sexualisation of society that Joanna describes is no natural progression. It is a determined strategy to erase forever any foothold for Christianity and its virtues. The court of Charles II and the England of Pepys were awash with the bawdy, but it was no determined strategy. If societies are ‘repressed’ there is a good reason for it. ‘Victorian’ is a piece of propaganda. The brothels were not part of the demoralisation of society. In the ancient Roman world, slaves were allowed sex but not families. The creation of society where sex is everywhere might have created an environment where none of the plebs cared about the Epstein overclass pulling the Untermensch girls like party poppers at the sort of party at the end of history and the unipolar moment that they clearly thought would see their class unchallenged forever. Providing, that is, the plebs themselves could indulge somewhat, though suffering all the adverse effects of their declining societies that this overclass extracted wealth from without suffering any adverse effects themselves. There is an important distinction here. A person young in years is only a child if they are separated from the adult world. This was once achieved… Read more »
It’s a while since I heard that word “repressed,” but isn’t it strange how it’s still the motor for universal sexualisation half a century after Freudian Psychoanalytic Theory was pretty much debunked (it was considered a museum-piece even when I studied social psychology in 1973).
Absolutely true.
Ironically, the overall sexualization of society has now led us to the point where young people have less sex than before.
Another of Joanna’s well written articles. The problem is as you say but it is also about the lack of proper parenting where the parent is in charge and delivers guidance and mild discipline in bringing up their children. Parents now appear to be afraid of ‘upsetting’ their children or seeming to be ‘old-fashioned and prudish’ in society.
The level of morality in modern families is very low and this has gone hand in hand with a rise in secular activities instead of around Christian values and people can ‘pooh pooh’ that type of thinking all they like but the facts speak for themselves in society. There is a clear intent to undermine decent values by the Progressive Left in the Western world so that the unrest can be the be physically controlled and their values prevail.
Hypocrisy is essential for the avoidance of a Brave New World orgy-porgy society. Of course there is something wrong when a man is expected both to marry a virgin and sow his wild oats. There are no solutions to this except to muddle through or control females as is still done in the orient. Polygamy, child brides, harems and other eastern practices seem to escape closer inspection here since they are simply ‘cultural’, but they should merit discussion too.
You are unconvinced by reality.
Sluts, slags and whores abound. Every ad is a sexvert. Women don’t get married, they want to shag the football team(s) and abort the outcome calling it a right. Men are now women and women are now cats.
People like you are a problem. But I already knew that when the plandemic kicked into high gear and ‘the unconvinced’ like you became ‘convinced’ that a medical nazism was a great idea.
Your lack of standards and critical thinking etc.
Suggestion: avoid the phrase “people like you” – we’re discussing, not accusing.
“Different cultures have different ways of understanding sex, gender and reproduction and when it is appropriate to become sexually active,” and: “Everyone has the right to choose if, when, how and with whom to engage in sexual activity and this should be respected at all times.”
If that doesn’t read as an explicit couple of sentences which encourage and envisiage child adult sexual relations I don’t know how more “in the face” it could be. Clearly the Pedophile culture is very much the vogue at the top of our elite circles. These so called institutions need to be shut down and the perverts within them jailed they are a danger to our children
At a care home for female “problem girls” I visited in Essex c.1980, as part of my familiarisation with local social services on a GP course, the director told me (as a subservient young girl brought in the coffee) that since these kids weren’t good at anything, they taught them good sex so at least they were good at that.
At the time I thought it a sad sign of the over-sexualisation of society, and the staff misguided in overemphasising that. Only decades later (mea culpa) did I realise the place was clearly a knocking shop for “care workers” more concerned about liberating their own “repressions” than helping their unwilling charges to succeed in life.
The place is long closed down (no doubt the director got a promotion and the girls stayed on the scrapheap, having never had the “right to choose”), but the revelations about care homes in relation to the Muslim rape gangs suddenly seemed familiar when I heard about them.
Sexual ‘liberation’ generally benefits the predatory.
Or as someone before him suggested, do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
Christ confuses word salad thin armed philosophes like Kant. Not enough big words and long tautological sentences.
I probably share much with the author on this subject, and it sounds like we have similar approaches to how we are trying to live our own lives in this regard. However I am not sure what the author is proposing,
other than that we each reflect on the matter and act accordingly. I have become suspicious and wary of anything that looks like Utopianism. I think we’d all be better off focusing on how to better live our own lives while doing the least harm to others.
“Limit sex to within loving relationships”? Is marriage even among critics of the Sexual Revolution a dirty word?
“Sex is fine so long as the couple, heterosexual or homosexual, love one another was precisely how the revolution was justified by society’s respectable leaders.
I’ll stick my neck out here and say they 99.999% of the British population neither know nor care about all the machinations of the Epstein saga.
Like many things it is fodder for the media and the Chattering Class.
Far back in the Mists of Time, when I was in school, “sex education” was the province of the “physical education”/ sports teachers, and it consisted of only a few special lessons during one year when most kids were around the age of puberty, just after middle school.
The female teachers taught the girls, and the male teachers taught the boys, using medical textbook diagrams (not photos) to explain the biological basics of human reproduction, and answering any awkward questions the students were too embarrassed to ask their parents.
That was it, clear & simple, long before the Satanic attempt by Globalists to force the entire world to become obsessed with sex, as if sex is a new kind of religion. And the reason the Satanic Globalists are so determined to do that is because…
Sex is a Soul Trap.
Thank you Joanna for an excellent piece, which really deserves a wider circulation. Our church leaders should be shouting this stuff from the rooftops rather than pathetically trying to get with the spirit of the times. Like you I spent most of my adult life cheering the sexual revolution on and indulging in my own irresponsible ways before latterly seeing the damage, dysfunction and unhappiness it was causing. The myth of sex without consequences is the pernicious lie behind it all, leading inexorably to abortion, family breakdown, the vulgarisation of practically everything and, dare I say it the glorification of homosexuality as some kind of genetically acquired virtue.
And still this article misses a point, that being a male who has many sexual partners is a “player”, yet a female does the same, she’s all the names under the sun, and not pleasant, and no 5 year old should be taught about sexual relationships, it is far too young, there is a world of difference between explaining clinically and emotionally.
Women have always been held to a different standard in society than men, though. Same shit, different century. The evidence is everywhere, including many examples on this site, which the DS Boys’ Club graciously provide us with via their comments on the regular.
I’d say it’s obvious where Joanna ‘Flying Monkey’ Grey’s loyalties lie, also.
1)The 1959 Obscene Publications Act; 2) the 1967 Abortion Act, 3) the 1969 Divorce Reform Act; 4) the 1967 National Health Service (Family Planning) Act; I am in favour of all these acts but much of what has come afterwards has been a bridge too far indeed. 1) Adults should be allowed to choose what they read and watch provided in the latter case nobody involved was coerced and harmed – because obviously that would be rape which is illegal – and obviously no animals or children are involved because they cannot consent. Everything that is classified as pornography should be rigorously monitored for harmful content such as violence – even if simulated – but banning adults from reading and watching anything erotic is wrong – and doesn’t work – it just goes underground and cannot be regulated – the internet is now the main source of unhealthy porn and seems impossible to regulate but the 1959 Act was in response to Lady Chatterly which is very mild indeed although I do not consider it great literature. Would Joanna ban Bridgerton because it has sex and nudity? I think it is good harmless fun for adults – but I am… Read more »