Born With A Cunt

By Donna Barber

My thoughts on nature, society, law, crime and punishment, politics and in particular women.

Many of my ideas will be controversial and some people will find them crazy or disgusting.

They're based on personal experience, reading, study and discussion with lots of people.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Donna Barber
• Release date: Mar 4, 2017
• ISBN: 9781370579914

Donna Barber

Wife, mother of two sons and three daughters.An East End girl though I've lived in the country since I was 18!Feisty, love a laugh, love nature.

Book preview

Introduction

‘Born Female’ is a collection of thoughts, reflections, meditations on life experiences and so on. To me, biology is destiny. Those of us who, like me, were born female are defined and determined by that simple fact of nature.

I am a female; I was born with a cunt.

Yes, I used the word ‘cunt.’ I know that will shock some people and anger others but to me it’s my word of choice for my vagina. (I don’t even think of it as anything other than a cunt and sometimes have to correct myself in company rather than use that so-taboo word!)

The simple fact of biology – that I was born female and born with a cunt - defines me and determines me just as it does every other female.

Over the years I've been slowly evolving radically different ideas on the structure of society in general and particularly in terms of male/female relationships and in terms of male and female sexuality.

Of course, I've been influenced in my thinking by many other people, dead and alive. I've also reacted against many influential thinkers.

What I've tried to do over the years is to draw together any insights from other people and my own slowly evolving thoughts and my own life experiences.

The result is the essays collected in this book.

I'm sure some people will be angered, disgusted and shocked by what I say. Some will accuse me of being mentally ill, a fake or at least a satirist.

Well, I'm not a fake and though I do admit to being satirical at times that's a method I sometimes use to make a point. It doesn't mean that I don't believe what I say because I very much do.

Hopefully some at least of my ideas may be worthwhile and may help in a small way towards realising my dream of making the world a better place - even though my ideas on exactly what that would mean, especially for women, will be highly unpopular with many readers. Feminists of course will want to burn me at the stake but then as they subscribe to a view of the world that’s anti-life through and through I wouldn’t expect anything else from them. Hopefully my readers – some of them at least – may be more open-minded and more willing to listen to my radical and unorthodox ideas on life.

Section A: Nature and Life

I’ll begin by looking at how human beings fit into the world of nature. All too often we tend to forget that humans are animals and that we are, whether or not we like it, part of the world of nature and the animal kingdom. I’ve made that realisation the centrepiece of my own ideas about the world, both as it is and as I’d like it to be.

Naturalism and humanism

When you come down to it, every religion, philosophy, ideology or whatever comes down to a choice between two basic ways of looking at the world. Sure, the content of what they say is different but the approach is always one or the other.

All ways of looking at the world come down in the end to one of two principles. One is the idea of naturalism which sees biology as being the determining factor in life. The other is humanism, which sees cultural norms as the defining factor.

Feminism, especially radical feminism, is committed firmly to the humanist line. Like all humanist philosophies, it thinks we can somehow escape the consequences of our animal nature. To them, female liberation – whatever they mean by that idea, and there are huge differences among feminists on what that means – is as mystical and absolute as salvation to a religious believer. Feminists claim that there’s no such thing as human nature, only a kind of plasticine dough that is moulded purely by cultural forces. Men and women are the same and our anatomical and biological differences don’t define us. Only cultural norms make us what we are and assign us our place in the world.

Naturalism sees things differently. Humans are animals and liberation, salvation, progress and the other comforting myths we use to try to comfort ourselves are only mirages. We deceive ourselves if we think we are somehow outside the natural world and can overcome its physical laws.

Sex and gender, if you look at them from a naturalistic perspective, are completely governed by biology. In our bodies, you can see the difference at its most basic. The male sex organ is convex and thrusts. The female sex organ is concave and receptive. Even the sperm are shaped like little torpedoes and invade the vagina, while the ova is a spherical egg welcoming its penetration and fertilisation.

Even the most fanatical rad fems don’t (at least yet) deny that there are physical differences between men and women. What they deny is that there are any psychological or sociological effects of these differences, except the ones that come out of purely cultural ideas.

In essence, feminism claims that (except in purely anatomical terms) men and women are identical. The idea of sameness (Lenin actually advocated what he described as sexual sameness) replaces the idea of individuality and personality. In the same way – although this misuse of language predates feminism – discrimination changed its original meaning from evaluation, sorting out, analysing and so on, into a synonym for hatred, prejudice and unfairness.

Equality is not sameness any more than difference is discrimination in the negative sense of the word. Feminists argue fiercely among themselves about how applicable the concept of equality is to feminism and the advocates of men’s rights are also prone to make the mistake of thinking that equality means sameness. So, for instance, men’s rights advocates demand that women’s’ studies should be paralleled by men’s studies, that women-only spaces should be paralleled by men-only spaces. And so on and so on.

It’s not so much that they’re positively wrong (and, as you’ll find out soon, when I use the word wrong I generally mean it in a factual or logical sense of the word rather than a moral one) but that they’re confusing effects and symptoms with the fundamental misjudgements.

Our bodies belong in the real world and the idea that men and women are different in other ways and not just anatomically is an obvious fact of life.

Our anatomy and biology are crucial factors in forming our character.

In a way, the feminists are making the same kind of mistake that Lysenko and his Marxist biology did. Just as he denied the importance of genetics, so feminists deny the importance of biology. Since around the 1950s – when feminism began to spring to prominence – the very idea of sexual polarity – that men and women are different in their sexuality and in the very core of their psychology – is regarded as some kind of primitive superstition. The idea that it’s biology rather than our culture that determines how we are and how we behave is dismissed out of hand either as pre-scientific thinking or patriarchal attitudes.

The strange thing is that numerous experiments have been conducted with babies and that they invariably show that boys and girls, from the earliest period of their life, do consistently display different attitudes and behaviour. Not only that, but neurology, DNA and other biological evidence also shows a consistent pattern of different attitudes and behaviour in males and females irrespective of their upbringing and cultural influences.

That, of course, is a fact that doesn’t fit in with the politically correct theories of feminism so the evidence that disproves their cosy claims is simply dismissed. In fact, they are the ones who are displaying pre-scientific thinking and matriarchal attitudes rather than being genuinely concerned with truth. The inability of feminists to accept unpleasant facts that contradict their cosy little theories is one of their most infuriating habits. They always go for dogma over facts whenever there’s a conflict between the two.

Humans and the animal kingdom

Let’s return to the broader context of naturalism and humanism. Naturalism recognises that humans belong to the animal kingdom and that for all our veneer of sophistication, the edifice of manners and the rest of our cultural accretions, we are animals and our nature is and will always be primarily an animal nature.

Now if you look at the natural world what do we see? The survival of the fittest, the strong preying on and/or dominating the weak, the hard struggle for existence. We see (overall – some animals are different) that polygamy rather than monogamy is the norm. We see that the alpha male – I’ll write a lot about them in the human sections of my book – is selfish, brutal, domineering and has a harem of females that he impregnates and keeps under control and that he regularly fights off challenges to his supremacy from other alpha males who want to muscle in on his territory.

That’s the reality of life in the natural world and fundamentally humans are no different. We have wars, murders, rapes, fights and so on and the whole idea by humanists to try and make out that our behaviour is somehow morally wrong is just crazy.

It’s nature’s way and that’s how the world is – the human world every bit as much as the animal kingdom.

In the natural world, sex isn’t about consent or love or respect or even affection. It’s a simple biological urge – the strongest urge in human beings – the desire to fuck. Now it’s true that in most animals fucking only takes place when the female is in heat and then the males pursue her and fuck her and, to be frank, rape her. Because human females have a menstrual cycle as well as an oestrus cycle we can be fucked all the year round which is unusual.

But there’s no more reason why fucking among humans should have any more to do with the ideas of consent, love, affection and respect than they do among other animals. Rape and polygamy are the norms among other animals, so why should we expect humans to be any different?

I’ll deal with both issues later in my book when I discuss the issues of rape and sexuality in more specific ways. But fundamentally there’s nothing morally wrong with rape or polygamy and the attempts of Puritans and feminists to try and pretend that there is just show their total ignorance of the way the natural world works. Human nature is as much part of nature as any other form of life on the planet. It’s arrogant and stupid to pretend that somehow we have a special status that means that the normal natural laws don’t apply to us. Of course they do!

I’m married with four children and my husband doesn’t love or respect me in the slightest. Why should he? I’m just there for him to fuck and I accept that and I know my proper place in the world is to be fucked by him and to be available to him for fucking whenever he wants me. In his eyes (and in my own too) I’m just his property and I exist to be fucked by him. Questions of consent or love or affection or respect don’t come into it at all. Why should he treat me any differently from any other property he owns? That’s all I am, after all. That’s what I was put on this earth for – to be fucked

And it’s completely natural and there’s nothing morally wrong about it! Female animals are owned by their male masters, fucked by them and generally part of his harem of females who were put on earth to serve him and be used by him.

The animal kingdom is a world of rape, polygamy, violence and killing. The human world is no different. We have just developed more technically advanced methods of being violent and murderous, that’s all.

So, like it or not, that’s nature’s way. It isn’t only feminists who find that simple truth hard to accept. Humanists are also in denial about the reality of the natural order. Most religions are also humanist in their belief that men and women can achieve salvation. This belief, like the myth of progress, is nothing more than wishful thinking. Human nature is the same as animal nature and it’s silly to pretend otherwise. We really do need to have a complete and fundamental re-evaluation of all our existing systems of morality, putting them on a proper basis that reflects the natural order of things rather than the present mixture of wishful thinking, sentimentality and prejudice that they are now.

True and false morality

Let’s talk about morality, conventions, belief systems, laws and the various other ways that humans have used to try and avoid the consequences of our status in the natural world. They invented morality, religion, ideology and laws to try and prettify the world and (at least in their own minds) somehow make it a kinder, fairer and more compassionate place than it is.

All of them are based on a fundamental fallacy; that somehow humans can rise above their animal nature and become more than simply one among many of the species inhabiting our planet. Every system of morality is an attempt to control human behaviour and to make it less like the natural world and more like an artificial construction

Progress, like salvation and humanist morality, is a convenient myth. It’s a secular vision of heaven and non-religious humanists talk it up a lot.

Sure, you can find technological change – not always for the better – but the idea that morality or even society has made progress is doubtful.

Technological progress has allowed us to kill more people and at a faster rate than in less technically advanced societies. Are wars any less common than before? Of course not.

Torture, genocide and warfare have become more advanced and more common than they were. Crime figures, especially for rape and crimes of violence, are up in most countries. Terrorism by various groups has killed at least tens of thousands of people.

What does morality say about all this? It holds up its hands in horror and says, but these things happen because people are behaving immorally.

To be fair, humanists don’t always see morality in the same way. Some think that what matters is the intention, others the motive, others the results of an action that decide on whether something is good or bad.

It isn’t hard to knock all three of these theories down. Let’s take terrorism as an obvious example. Were the French Resistance, the IRA, the Tamil Tigers, Al-Qaida and ISIS murdering scumbags? Does their motivation make their actions better or worse? All of them use or used violence in the hope it would achieve the results they wanted – which, by the way, in their eyes were morally good.

Morally speaking, how can a humanist view the actions of terrorists any differently from those of a bank robber who shoots a cashier or policeman dead during a robbery? He too used violence to achieve the result he wanted. The difference between terrorism and simple crime is wafer thin.

So, motive and intention don’t matter a damn. And it’s no better if you judge by results.

Logically, why should the law treat manslaughter as a lesser crime than murder? Why should it even treat an accidental death any differently? The results are just the same and the victims are just as dead.

So, what humanists offer is a meaningless and desperate attempt to justify condemning other people. And, of course, humanist morality is far more obsessed with sin than it is with virtue.

Naturalist morality asks only one question. Does this action help in my survival? If it does, then it’s good. If not, it’s bad.

Naturalism is logical, consistent and totally unsentimental. It faces up to the truth of the world, the way things are.

When humanists talk about morality they mean altruism, benevolence, love, compassion, tolerance, fairness, equality and perhaps freedom and respecting others.

Does the world look like that? Does history show that sort of behaviour as the norm?

Of course not. It shows war, revolution, famine, violence, rape, torture, genocide and so on.

Why? Because the real oppressors of the world are the ones who believe in what they call morality. They will happily oppress, torture and kill anyone who doesn’t conform to their moral standards.

Morality has become a poison destroying the world. In the name of the common good, a God of love, an ethnic group, a patch of land, people are routinely murdered or oppressed in other ways by those who enforce their morality upon others.

This view of the world isn’t just distorted bullshit.

It’s worse than that.

If you look at life honestly rather than through the distorting lens of morality you see in the end that right and wrong have nothing to do with the fake ideas of good and evil that have been rammed down our throats for thousands of years.

The truth is that what’s right is – in most cases - what’s presented by the moralists as evil and what’s wrong is what they call good.

Yes, you read that right. Thousands of years of sentimental moralizing have been designed to create a world that’s morally wrong rather than one that’s morally right.

I’ll explain more about this in the next section where I show how we can and should create a morality based on naturalist principles rather than humanist ones.

Towards a naturalistic morality

We’ve already seen how illogical, inconsistent and untrue to life humanism

Reviews for Born With A Cunt

[Catherine Lester · Rating: 5 out of 5 stars]

This is my new favorite piece of fiction. Better than anything Mary Shelley or Charles Dickens ever wrote. Masterfully crafted, and truly an exquisite novel the author must have martyred himself during the writing process, which was certainly extensive and arduously long. I must applaud the effort to spread misinformation and scientific falsehoods. I would highly recommend this piece for anyone whose IQ is in the negatives. I would like to call this piece of steaming garbage a parody, but parodies are meant to be funny, and there was nothing humorous in this... whatever this trash is. I did not chuckle even once, I didn't even do that thing where you sputter a little but it's not a full laugh. This piece is brilliant in the way that it fails spectacularly at everything it sets out to do. Note to the author: before you publish a piece, at least use Microsoft spellcheck first. Foolishness.