S E X

‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑

-- EROS ABIDING ‑‑NAKED REALITY -- WISDOM & MATING ‑‑ PRAGMATIC  GENES  -- CROTCHETY EVOLUTION ‑‑ BODY INVENTS THE FUTURE ‑‑ THE NAKED HEAD --  PORNORAMA ‑‑ LET'S TALK DIRTY ‑‑ DIRTY OLD MAN ‑‑ UNDERCOVER SEX ‑‑ LOOKING WITH CLOSED EYES ‑‑ MIND EATING SEX ‑‑ PHALLUS REX ‑‑ THE DAILY LEGAL MURDERS -- SCRAMBLED THOUGHTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warning: this chapter's language and images may be inappropriate for minors and some strict adults
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE RED QUEEN RACE

There is a modern biological theory nicknamed "The Red Queen Race", inspired by Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", where Alice in Wonderland who decides to run together with a live chess (or red-heart playing cards) Red Queen to just remain at the same spot, because the surrounding scenery runs as fast as they. If they slow down, they are left behind even by the "standing" trees and houses.

Biologists use the "Red Queen Race" metaphor to represent the incessant race for our bodies in producing antibodies against the bacteria, germs and viruses that want to devour our bodies, and for the latter in building new ways to defeat our defenses and attack our bodies. At the end, we or they will prevail and eliminate the opponent.

Sexual reproduction is what allows mankind to win the race.

Many people don't know that some species and other forms of life can reproduce  without sexual intercourse. They simply multiply by splitting, cloning or other processes that require no fertilization of an individual by another of different sex, as dreamed by the modern ultra-feminists to get rid of  male interference.

Probably the human male would give up if he were not provided by nature with a sexual desire that is as sure to regenerate after gratification, like the hunger and thirst urges, even if less frequently and only in the "prime of life".

A reputable publication ( I forgot which one) went so far as quoting
that "the average American male has erotic fantasies every 20 minutes...
What time is left for everything else..?
It is remarkable that many men can rebuild their sexual hormone charge after 15-20 minutes, (but increasingly slower after one "encores"...

THE PRIMAL TRUTH

Life is in a reproductive-chain sequence from sexual arousal, copulation with erotic pleasure and insemination.

The craving for this pleasure is the strongest physical pleasure desire in man. Hunger, thirst, survival urges and emotions don't have a comparable pleasure concupiscence.
Reason, planning or the loftiest motivations are to no avail for reproduction if the male does not reach the arousal necessary for copulating gratification.
It has been so for millions of years, since before mankind learned  that copulation caused reproduction.

Nature's evolution has nothing to do with justice, rights, morality or spiritual love.
In this process, man is to compete, struggle and perform on the stage of life. That is, man must "BECOME", not just "BE". He cannot stand still and wait...
Woman doesn't have to "BECOME" or prove anything, like man: she simply "IS", because she was born complete, like Mother Nature.

That is her superiority over man.

The overwhelming motivation for copulation is mostly only pleasure, otherwise we would risk extinction.

No amount of logic, money or any reward other than erotic desire can induce a normal man to impregnate a woman. Life, therefore, is the result of erotic gratification.

Man must seek and "conquer" his female mate , and fight other male who want the same woman... His urges are the sublimed together with the hunger, hunting and survival urges into historical struggles and achievements...

EROS ABIDING

Civilizations, nations, monuments, cultural achievements may be destroyed, die out, disappear without traces.

It was not the nations, the cultures or the glorious achievements that supported our continuity.
It was, is, and will be sexual intercourse.  Just from the desire to satisfy the urge for normal  (=heterosexual) erotic pleasure.

Only normal (heterosexual) mating creates unceasing regeneration, typical of life itself.

Sex is the only physical source of life. It survives and goes on beyond death and history.

Loving affection is welcome, but insignificant for procreation. Even if mindless, it becomes significant  for the nurturing mother and dependent child. In fact, Nature does not consider the child of rape a lesser being than the child of consensual intercourse.
 
So much for our worthiness as the lords (and ladies) of creation.
Perhaps we misplace much of our pride and our shame.

We provide ourselves with countless dignity‑saving thoughts, religions, theories, to redefine the mating mystery.
New  meanings are found; new methods, rules, customs and laws...

Eros, the mythical god of love, is the main factor on which our history and life continuity can depend.
Mating, whether of insects, reptiles, birds or man, is existentially more enduring than the most noble achievements by humans, insects, or angels.
It is also the most intense but ephemeral pleasure.
But there is no permanent pleasure, anyhow.
Pleasure is just a peak.
A peak becomes a bottom when one dwells on it.

In ours and other cultures, sex is also a taboo, a mystery, a sin and object of worship.
Probably that is the best that ever happened to sex.

The secret power of sex is the elusive enticement lurking  at the threshold between the first lustful encounter and the rapidly worn‑out experience of the following encounters with the same mate, between the fascination of the first sight of the first-revealed beauty and the satiated dullness after the peak of pleasure.

That elusive erotic charge is especially vibrant the first time with a new lover, but  it mostly vanishes after gratification; especially in the male.
The millennia‑old observation: "all animals are sad after mating" is confirmed in too many cases.

We surrender to sex power, but we only see its surface.
As usual with what we don't understand, we create ideas we can comprehend and immerse sex into them, until its essence is submerged under our delusions.
If and when we deserve it, sex is rescued and evolved into love.
It must be so, for sex only gives sterile pleasure, intense as it may be, not the happiness love can generate.

At any rate, males and females  keep copulating, meeting, no matter what.

OBVIOUS REALITY

When I was a young student in Germany, I had unforgettable experiences. One worth mentioning here  was about nudism.

One day (1948?) I refused the invitation by some friends to join them in a nudist camp. I explained that I didn't think I could enter the place and participate in their nude activities without the visually embarrassing evidence of my erotic reflexes.
As they assured me that it would not happen that way, I quipped that, if they were right in my case, the nudist camp in question must be frequented only by ugly or otherwise unattractive people.

Their assurances that most club members were more attractive and athletic than the average people reinforced my determination not to go, but they insisted and began to tease me for having no courage to confront the situation.
Thus, I finally decided to go to prove that I was not a coward.
 

The club had attractive buildings and appurtenances similar to those of a tennis or golf club with reserved beach and woods areas. 
The difference was that everyone was and remained completely naked in any activity inside the club.
The first thing I was asked to do was to completely undress and then simply join the members in whatever I liked to do.

After undressing, I left the locker room nude, with both hands (as "casually" as possible) down in front to hide my... unsophisticated reflex. The reason was visibly obvious, at least as an anticipatory reaction by a neophyte like me.

As I was introduced to various members, I managed to shake hands and gesticulate in a manner so that at least one hand was in place to cover my pudenda.
Everyone was friendly, most were good looking, and the conversation was so pleasant that being thoroughly absorbed into it made me totally oblivious of my covering precautions.
Both my hands escaped my conscious control and simply joined the conversation with the normal speech-supporting gestures.

When I realized that all my body was openly exposed, I also noticed that my body was behaving as if we were all dressed and in a normal, conventional place.

Beside the fact that I didn't see why one would swim, play tennis or golf, or whatever better naked than with proper clothing, I was impressed by the genuine "indifference" and odd adjustment that I felt in presence of totally exposed nudity of strikingly beautiful women.
On the other hand, the "disgust" I imagined to be caused by naked obese, ugly and otherwise "unattractive" persons turned into obvious uncritical acceptance that would cause heavy losses to the cosmetics medicine and industry.

Finally, it was amusing to hear nudists expressing curiosity to see another nudist completely dressed to find out how attractive and sexy he/she would be...
I assumed that also a surgeon would be curious to see the completely dressed appearance of a patient he had operated on.

The above saturated my experience in the matter and my wish to visit similar clubs again.
More than ever I comprehended how much "civilized" sex needs taboos, mystery and poetry.

WISDOM & MATING   

It seems that natural life has no use for wisdom.

Wisdom is achieved mostly with old age.
When we get there, we are closest to death.
If wisdom is so vital, why does life place it so close to death?

Accordingly (with a twist), what I am writing here must be unimportant because it endeavors to be wise (age 82 years on Jan. 1st, 2006).

Rather than wisdom, life wants growth, survival struggle,  copulation, reproduction and death, at the expense of other life forms.

Animals and primordial man are only aware of the natural drives of survival, food and sex.
Reproduction is the often unplanned and mostly welcome consequence.

Death is the mysterious conclusion.

I have grown, survived, copulated and generated children.
I should be left with nothing else but death.

Probably, I should be allowed to live as long as I can still mate...

PRAGMATIC GENES

Genes have no morals, ethics or virtues.
No feelings, culture, decency...
The most virtuous human being may be the offspring of a pervert and a murderer.
A criminal monster may be the child of refined saints (some saints copulate).

History abounds with such genetic "incongruities". But how incongruous are they, really?

Life wants merely growth, reproduction and death.
Do we care whether anyone in an ant colony has any ethics, artistic talent, philosophical or political savvy?
Why should life consider our beliefs, morals or philosophies any more remarkable than whatever a turtle does or thinks?

Nature gives us the instincts and trends we are programmed to use to further nature's designs.
If nature has no designs, who knows what we are talking about.?

Just as the dog is given the uncontrollable urge to sniff at the bitch, so are we given the corresponding human urges conducive to life reproduction.
With or without poetry.
How we spend the time between birth, copulations and death is of no consequence for the gods of creation and their heavenly cohorts.
 

CROTCHETY EVOLUTION

"Panta reis": Everything flows. Everything changes. Heraclitus (ca. 540-480 b. c.) said we cannot step into the same river (water spot) twice...

We are the present stage of evolution... Upward or downward?
We are the surviving fittest from a long chain of competition, mating and begetting.

Millions of years ago, from what we know, humans were completely immersed in the business of survival.

{I know you already know that, just as every word I write here is already in the dictionary}.  

Lucky were the ones who could kill rather than be killed. Or is the opposite true?

By the way, let's not forget that we are the killers' progeny.
What did our primordial ancestors do beside killing, eating and surviving?

There were no baseball, discos, singles bars, stock exchange or the needle tip for dancing angels.

Nor political campaigns, Internal Revenue, Deconstructionism, Affirmative Action or sumo wrestling.  

There was sex (heterosexual, of course. Homosexual, the deviating dead end, is as productive as mutual masturbation).

Anyone not interested in sex could pursue the loftiest  ideals, but all non‑mating people and activities lead to a dead end: no progeny.
Extinction.

What before then, when the species was beginning to choose between life and non‑life, when awareness was free to decide between the  stars and the love-making/begetting life?
Man's awareness was not able to perceive the significance of the choice, or even its presence.
The choice was there nevertheless.
That was in the stream of evolution.

We came from the sex‑possessed. 

Probably, those who gained awareness of eternity and infinity abandoned the pursuits of life by joining with the rest of the universe.
They discarded anything that tended to the continuation of life.
Probably they evolved unto higher levels.

They left no record for us to know, for the same reason we would not leave records for a "lower" form of existence like cockroaches (I just assume, tentatively, that they are "lower").
Nor did they leave a progeny, for their victory was to overcome life, not to perpetuate it.
Life was left "below".

Those who didn't make it remained prisoners of life and slaves to it, like you and me.
They did not choose. Life chose for them.
Nature gave them the sexual instinct, not reason, for the continuation of life.
"Reason" was something we sublimed from what nature gave us.

Here we are, the result of that evolution "downward".
With all our intellectual, scientific, artistic, philosophical achievements, we are still instinctively devoted to sex more consistently than to anything else.  Even if we don't realize it.

As said before, statisticians tell us that men have sexual fantasies every 20‑30 minutes....
More than artistic, literary, musical, religious, philosophical, scientific, historical, metaphysical, ontological, spiritual... 

BODY INVENTS THE FUTURE      

+
The whole known human reality depends on the body.

Birth, survival, reproduction and death seem to encompass everything.
No drive is as vibrant as sex, the life perpetuator.

Man seeds, and can do it, as long as he lives this side of senility.
Woman produces and nurtures the offspring most of her useful life.

The human bodies attune to this procreating function.
As the woman must be available to nurture the offspring for at least 16-20 years, she stops being fertile about 30‑40  years before man.
This one factor recommends the coupling of older men with young women.

As the younger woman has more time  ‑and consequent capacity‑ to produce and raise children, nature contrives to render her more attractive than the older one to man. 

Thus, no matter what his intellectual development is, man literally falls for the younger physically attractive woman, even if she is a "silly broad". 
To act on a higher level requires plenty of sophistication.

Again, Nature chooses for us.

The fact that this "choice" is a male rather than female characteristic is remarkable.
Pictures, movies and other visual representations of the young attractive female exhibiting her sexual attributes normally attracts the male.
A man of our time and culture can look at thousands of these pictures, and more of them, and he will be aroused.
The erotic excitement is mostly an ordained natural consequence.

The "normal" woman, on the other hand, is comparatively indifferent to such a stimulus.
In many cases, one could see her reaction being aroused by a more powerful factor: "I like to do this to him because he likes it...".
That alone shows her superiority over man.

This could echo her being programmed by nature to nurture and please her child.  This feeling  can  be "sublimed" in a sexual context.
It can be observed in  virtually all cultures we know, regardless of whether they had any contacts  with each other. 

Assertions by some hyper-reminists) that the phenomenon is a "learned pattern in a male‑dominated society" is a slanted wishful nonsense.

THE NAKED HEAD           

The second day I went to see my first American‑born son in a Chicago hospital, I was told I had to wait because he was being circumcised.
Shocked (where I was born, circumcision is viewed as a superstitious custom of other cultures) I asked why he was being circumcised.
"Why not?" was the reply.
I demanded that it be stopped immediately, and was even more shocked that the nurses did not understand my decision.
All I could say was that I remembered how some German SS (during World War 2) used to ask a man suspected to be a Jew to show his penis: only if he was not circumcised, like a "normal" European Gentile, he was beyond suspicion.

A circumcised man risked to be shot. I added that, at any rate, I was against any irreversible measure: "If the fashion changes, a circumcised man has no way to return to the natural condition. Only an untouched man has a choice".

Incidentally, now there are many cosmetic surgeons who offer to rebuild the foreskin for circumcised men.

I asked doctors to mention any scientific reason recommending circumcision, and everyone said he had none, and that it was just a custom.
It takes research to find out that in India, for instance, Hindus, who don't practice circumcision, are reputed to suffer more cancer of the penis than Moslems, who practice it.
But this applies only to Hindus or Moslems who don't keep clean.

The assertion that circumcision prevents penis infections, elicits the response that decapitation is the surest prevention of migraines or simple headaches.
Long ago, appendectomy and tonsillectomy were practiced almost like circumcision in America today, because people without appendices or tonsils have no appendicitis or tonsillitis.
Then, the fad was discontinued because physicians were not sure what the appendix and tonsils were supposed to be for.

Were it not for the additional medical fee and the original anti-Catholic flavor, circumcision would have been discontinued long ago in USA.

Progress is often very slow, like evolution.

There are primitive tribes that practice women's circumcision.
In black Africa, about 100 million women are circumcised (1998). The practice seems to be unstoppable.
Normally, circumcision of African women is practiced with primitive means. A crude, unsterylized razor blade is the normal tool.

There are three types of female circumcision in Africa.

"Sunna" (traditional) consists of cutting off the tip of the clitoris.

"Excision" is the removal of the clitoris and labia minora.

"Infibulation" is the removal of labia majora, labia minora and clitoris.

Still now (year 2001), this tradition (including infibulation) is more powerful than any law or religion in Africa.

Supporters of this practice inform us that circumcised women are purified, liberated of sexual desire.

This would make them more desirable as wives, for they would have no erotic temptation to adultery.

Some physicians observe that women who are not circumcised and don't keep clean have higher genital cancer incidence than circumcised women.
Just as women with hair have more lice than women without hair (lice are endowed with a primordial wisdom).

I would suggest women (as well as men) could wash their genitals and pubic hair.
It is indisputable that decapitation eliminates headaches, migraine, boldness, blindness etc. Indeed, there is no ailment decapitation wouldn't cure.
 

One more quirk.
American history ‑or folklore‑ has it that male circumcision started to became fashionable at the end of 19th century, when physicians came up with the notion that masturbation caused blindness and insanity to men, and that circumcision prevented masturbation.
 

Another origin of the American circumcision custom is shared with the American calendar which begins with Sunday and ends with Saturday (instead of the realistic Monday through Sunday): the Jewish Biblical tradition was chosen only to contrast the Roman tradition previously adopted by the Catholic Church, which -by the way- eschews circumcision.

With this lineage, circumcision, like the Jewish calendar, cannot claim a scientific or lofty birth.
Knowledge evolution is also giving a new dignity to male masturbation (of all things), which nowadays is considered not only harmless, but rejuvenating, if reasonably controlled.
The theory may be that the repeated production of semen keeps the male body in the youthful function of producing a renewed supply of a hormone that is antithetic to senility... 

As if that were not enough, masturbation has even become a cult with some.
In 1987, I found out that a famous Dr. ...., a physician internationally famous for her research and lecture tours about the phenomenon of death, had abandoned her academic and public career in order to join a sect of worshipers who were dedicated to "mutual masturbation".
Some explained later that the definition was used to designate a "homosexual cult".

Later, a famous religious leader and TV personality (unrelated with the above masturbation sect) hired a prostitute to watch him while he masturbated. The media had an orgy of fun on that "newsworthy" event.

Anything that reaches that level of religious following and media delight has attained the peak of success.

PORNORAMA

Eroticism was one of the first forms of painting and literature, for, normally, nothing has inspired man more consistently throughout the centuries.

Ancient visual expressions of virtually any culture show some sexual act.
Probably the Indian cave‑temples show the largest abundance of frankly erotic sculptures.
Such art was not on a level that could be disparaged with the term "pornography".

This pervasive abundance of erotic representations should indicate a universal tendency toward uninhibited sex expression.
Yet, sex has remained a sort of taboo almost everywhere.
If not, it becomes something between a sterilized banality and sadistic atrocity.

Nowadays, explicit erotic representation in writing and pictures is called "pornography", a Greek term that means: description of prostitution and prostitutes.
Obviously, the original meaning has changed into today's prurient connotation.  

Researchers say the average American male has sex fantasies every 20 minutes. Only the individual male can verify or deny it.
The same researchers stated that the American female also has plenty of sexual fantasies, but less frequently than the male, as expected.

Her fantasies -researchers say- would rather sublime being possessed, raped or "rescued" by the man who killed other men to possess her.

This amounts, according to our "moral" standards, to a sex "obsession" no conventional member of our society would confess to.
A person in the public eye would emphatically deny such frequency of sex fantasies, lest it would devastate his public image.

Why the sexual impulse is at the same time so intense and so taboo is intuitive, but it still begs for explanations beyond the official answers.

Most mammal males have the compulsion to exclude other males from sex intercourse with whatever female they choose.
This "me‑only" exclusivity is explained as the result of natural competitive selection.
It removes the defeated males from mating, and doubts about the paternal identity.  

How many species end up with a surplus inventory of eliminated "bachelors" and "spinsters"?
Probably, this selection and exclusivity commands some kind of societal taboo that, in our case, may be best expressed with a religious explanation.

It is made undisputable under form of Commandment.
That takes care of the spoilsports who dispute anything in the name of liberty or democracy. 

So, sex becomes a sin, and that's it.
 
No, it is not.
People still have their sex dreams, their irrepressible desires...
They keep them carefully hidden. 

Sigmund Freud made the most significant revelation of the phenomenon that had remained concealed for many centuries. 
The reaction of the "proper" people was vehement.  
Freud was accused of being sex‑obsessed and trying to attribute his own lewd obsession to all human beings.
The aroused defensiveness was revealing, as we know today.
Those same people poured great sums of money into the pornography market, especially in the periods of greatest Puritanism.

The Victorian period is said to have generated an impressive amount of "dirty" books and pictures that were avidly read and looked at.
The abundant pornographic writings were focused on hardcore matters that revealed the sex starvation of the writers and readers.

Today, pornography is uninhibited and legally free. Pornographic movies and videos of any kind are shown and sold everywhere to adults.
This uninhibited expression is dispelling the fog that used to keep the facts unknown.

Many things are cropping up to our awareness.

In the past, the pornographers' inexperience was evident.

One remarkably common detail in most Victorian narratives was the copious emission of some kind of frothing fluid from the woman's genitals during orgasm.
Writers who insisted on this detail believed it to be true for any woman who enjoyed sex.

The same writers did not experience it with their wives or lovers.
That lets me think that their wives were considered sexually indifferent, or quasi, and that extra‑marital intercourses happened with prostitutes, also considered sexually indifferent.
Consequently, they imagined that the woman who really enjoyed sex (that is, somebody else's woman...) experienced orgasm with the emission described by the unknown author who was believed to have the fortune (?) of enjoying the "hot" women...

Another revealing fact is that porno normally attracts men almost exclusively.
Pornographic publications for women are not successful.
Magazines showing naked males are purchased primarily by homosexual men...  

The most successfully shown sexual act in porno movies is fellatio, or fondling the penis in the woman's mouth.
The act is certainly the easiest to photograph.
 
Then, it is the sex act that requires the least effort by the man, it is safe against pregnancy, and it is often the easiest to provoke orgasm.
Which is not a small achievement for a man being watched, photographed, monitored and directed by quite a crew of jaded movie technicians.
This indirectly explains why the sex taboo contributes to defend pornography and simple sex acts from being marginalized in erotic fantasies.

An apparently standard requirement is that male orgasm is always shown as an emission outside of the woman's body: on her abdomen, chest, pubic hair, back or face.
Presumably, the viewers want proof that the actor goes through an authentic sexual enjoyment.
If this matter is sufficiently important, one should interview as many men as possible to find out how many want to see that stuff on the woman's face and body...

Also remarkable is that the penis is continuously shown, from all angles, whereas there is almost a reluctance to photograph the woman's genitals too directly, or not covered by the woman's hand or fingers.

It is also interesting that porno movies for heterosexuals show lesbian scenes almost as frequently as heterosexual sex.
No male homosexuality, unless the publication is for gays only.

Normal males are aroused by lesbian as well as heterosexual scenes, but revolted by male homosexuality.

Outside of morality, it appears that, in pornography:

watching porno makes males tolerant of other males making love (with women only) in their presence;
promiscuity looks harmless;
love and sexual pleasure become free of each‑other;
jealousy tends to be blunted or removed;
sex becomes unemotional, relaxing, more ordinary and harmless than we suspected, but also banal or even boring...

At any rate, pornography seems to have an assured success from the fact that normal man is visually excitable about normal (=heterosexual) erotic intercourse.
There is no doubt that a reasonably good erotic representation has the power to arouse the average man's erotic feelings.

The great success of the porno movies and videos is disturbing for people devoted to traditional morality.
Many of these same people, however, declared that they changed their mind after becoming familiar with the pornographic craft.
I tried a similar experience after watching  erotic videos.

I started with a negative opinion about the porno actors and actresses.
This opinion paralleled the one Victorians and Puritans had about theater people in general.

In reality, good porno actors and actresses can use the same skills of their non‑porno counterpart.

Furthermore, the physical and emotional requirements for sex on the stage are relentless and unforgiving.
The male cannot fake erection and orgasm, and both male and female must be in superb physical conditions, which can be faked or covered up in conventional movies. 

One disturbing thought: what would children of such actors think if they watched their fathers or
mothers in those movies?
When faced with reality, we perceive the feeling that reality's very existence explains itself, even when we don't understand the explanation.
If the child of a devoted, kind and loving mother sees her as the uninhibited heroin of the "dirtiest" movies, he must find an acceptable explanation for the porno aspect, because his mother is unquestionably acceptable to him,  porno or no porno.

After all, people can change (psychologists would say "grow") radically in both behavior and beliefs. 

It may be unconventional, but exposing the genitals and erotic intercourses is not less realistic than showing couples embracing, kissing, caressing and petting.
Besides, genital intercourse is more true, consistent, and international, from time immemorial, than any "refined", "socially acceptable", or "moral" love ritual.

If we have no inhibition showing murder, sadism, torture, all kinds of crimes, cruelties and suffering in gruesome detail, our taboo against erotic portrayals, no matter how "crude", is hard to explain.

On the other hand, sex is always intertwined with mystery, taboos and myths. Like poetry.
This cannot be completely understood, because sex originated and matured before thinking, reason and civilized life.
In fact, rationalizing or intellectualizing sex spoils it, to put it mildly.

When I saw the first erotic movie, I was shocked not by its immorality, but by the fact that I appreciated it. Besides, it was one of the better ones. Thus some artistic value was there.
My expectation was that repeated viewing would blunt or destroy my voyeuristic enjoyment.
It did, but it also revealed a lot that was hidden:
 

1) Female genitals are rarely "beautiful" or reasonably well shaped after conventional parameters.
Yet, they remain exciting beyond any aesthetic sense.
However, the genetic, instinctive, primordial initial arousing remains undaunted, regardless of our "refined" taste. But repetition blunts it in the long run.

2) Rather than "dirty", the erotic love‑making, in better movies, looks more natural and obvious, the more it is watched.
It is not just a matter of getting used to it. One simply discovers the countless natural reactions that only sexual play reveals as common to virtually every uninhibited man and woman.
Since the matter is never openly discussed in normal environments, every new viewing of the same movie shows a new human attribute that sex reveals. 

3) Repeated viewing of erotic movies cannot promote rape, as the feminists and "experts" proclaim. It may promote masturbation in the worst cases, which is immediately in everybody's reach, and therefore blunts the compulsion for violent sex, or even the temptation toward adultery.
Besides, after enjoying the erotic charms of the usually splendid physical persons acting in the pornos, the ones we meet in normal life become  relatively less attractive as bodies, and more interesting otherwise, which is a gain for the "homely" woman or man.

4) The ones who are much more easily bored by the pornos are the women.
The reasons may be so unexpectedly conventional, that finding and describing a convincing explanation may be difficult and/or boring.

 5) As the pornos must sell, anything that is not directly or indirectly erotic is minimized.
One trait that is often shown is the initial reluctance of the woman toward the sex act.
In a "filthy" movie, such a posture would seem counter-producing. But eroticism has its roots in the darkest depths of human nature, which are also the most enduring for reproduction (which is simply life survival and continuity).
The initial reluctance of the woman against the sex act may recall an anthropologic explanation that woman had an instinctive repugnance toward any penetration that may contaminate her birth canal. 

6) There is much more, for the subject is simultaneously the most ancient and the most conventionally unexplored.

7) If intelligently analyzed, pornography can only be viewed from a totally amoral and agnostic point of view.
By itself, even if rationalized, it should be allowed to describe -not advocate- behaviors that are not necessarily approved by the traditional rules of our society's morality.

As far as inducing us into such behaviors, I am sure it only disgusts normal people, just like male (especially) homosexual acts.

LET'S TALK DIRTY

There is too much that we don't know and do yet about sex.
In it, we do a lot which we are unable to talk about.
We have so many prejudices, defensiveness, reluctance to confess the truth about ourselves, and fear to be condemned for what we like or do.

A good start to go beyond the barrier of inhibitions would be to record what two uninhibited lovers say in the heat of love‑making.
Then, we should also be able to read the minds of the resentful lovers, and write down the silent misgivings they feel plagued by.

When lovers sincerely say: "I like this... Let me do it" or: "Do this to me....Let's do that"... they enjoy a pleasure that is in harmony with the essence of sex.
After the orgasm (or often when one is reluctant to have sex), the experience of sex might be from joyous  to one dulterated with worries, thoughts, misgivings and images that don't really belong.

Frequently, the woman resents that the man wants what she doesn't like, or vice versa.

One is resentful that the other expects something without caring whether the lover likes it...
This renders a lover frigid or impotent, especially when our misgivings are compounded by the irksome feeling that speaking up makes things worse...
There is also the anticipatory resentment of those who expect to be rejected if they express a desire or a complaint.

A completely uninhibited sex, without fears, restrictions and loyalty obligations, would encourage a promiscuity that would probably fit the male rather than the female.
The male sex performance is inextricably conditioned to the same pleasure repeated time after time.

Since woman's pleasure is unnecessary for her procreating role, "dispassionate" sex may leaves the woman alone with her pregnancy, while man continues the pleasure search with other women.  The same as other mammals do.
From this perspective, he has no reason for commitment to a woman and offspring.

It is thus likely that the woman developed a submissive and man‑devoted attitude as the effective lure to elicit and sustain man's interest in the family. She certainly needed someone for the heavy and dangerous tasks, while she was raising the children.
That places the woman on the invisible family throne .

Taboos and religious prescriptions were probably invented to render sex-connected commitment more attractive and less disputable through its sacredness and rituals.

DIRTY OLD MAN

Man can be fertile until 80‑90 and a woman only about half as long.
Consequently, we must imagine primitive old men chasing and impregnating young women, as nature dictated.
This has been going for millions of years.

A "dirty old man", then, is just a healthy older man who behaves as nature dictates.

What does nature assign to a woman after the menopause, namely in the second half of her life?

If a woman is attractive or interesting only while young, I am afraid we are missing a lot...
Women themselves contribute to this situation with their youth worship.
It is too easy to blame it on the "male‑dominated" tradition.
It is more correct to recognize that we often cannot yet go far behind the merely copulating motivation.
These are facts.

The trouble is, we don't know their deeper causes and consequences, what they mean, and how we must re‑examine our values when we finally understand... If we review our values on the basis of ideals ‑as usual‑, rather than knowledge (=reality), the problem becomes an inextricable mess and the origin of a spawning multitude of troubles. 

Ideals are contrived by the students of life, not by its practitioners.
It starts with pompous socio/philosophical/religious statements about the real value of woman, of the necessity to redress injustices perpetrated by the male ‑as usual‑ against the hapless woman.

Armies of women, politicians and legions of naive men rise to show that they are "enlightened" (which is good for votes, sales and promotions).
 
They toil to support any legislation and initiative in favor of the fad.

The laws and initiatives breed all sorts of consequences that have problems coping with reality.
Whenever this kind of conflicts occurs, more remedial rules, laws, regulations are promulgated by those who don't understand them.

They create more riddles to envelop conundrums to protect futile mysteries.

Special government offices, enforcing agencies, bureaucratic crowds, special interests, businesses, printed matters, advertising, and intricate complications infiltrate society with a capillary system that no one can unravel any more...

The cancer becomes incurable.
This is not the only cancer our society is affected by.

The solution? Let us scrap the over-structures based on convictions supported by ideals rather than undisputable facts, and carry on from what was before our "improvements".

What are undisputable facts?
Let's be cautious and begin from the kindergarten:

Steel is heavier than wood, night alternates with day, black and white are different colors, babies depend on their parents, life always runs into death,  much money buys more than little money...
Silly?
Certainly, but less than many religious, political or moral disputes for which millions of people have given their lives.

If we cannot find better undisputable facts, we deserve the mess we are in.

UNDERCOVER SEX

When a man and a woman have a sex affair, its sex gratification means more for the man than for the average woman.
The woman knows it. The man may know it or believe otherwise, depending on how open the woman is.
In a second stage, trouble starts if the woman wants this or that in exchange.
She may attempt blackmail or other forceful means to extract either money or other rewards. 

Why is it mostly the woman who makes this kind of trouble?
Why is the woman who comes up with late scruples and demands some form of compensation or reparation?

Here lies one of the reasons why the woman is more condemned than the man in a sexual relationship: the man is mostly drawn into it by passion he cannot control; the woman is more likely to get into it with some purpose, even if she feels compelled into it by destitution.

The conventionally worst manipulation of man by woman is prostitution.
Outlawing prostitution and punishing prostitutes sounds worthy and moral. But it is hypocritical or dumb..
Condemning a man the same as a prostitute he is caught with is naive.

Let a man stand on a street corner, with a male attire as exciting for women (if there is one) as a miniskirt is for men, and solicit women for sex.

He would be in trouble immediately.

Women would end up calling the police, regardless of whether he would offer or charge money for sex.
Why doesn't the man call the police or react in any similar outraged way, when a woman offers sex and asks for money (let alone offering sex and money)?
 It is not that they were raised that way, as the feminists want us to believe.
By nature, they love to bite the bate.

It is women who are the most interested party against prostitution, and the harshest judges of prostitutes.
They fear the prostitutes may take husbands away.

After the conventionally righteous posture has become law and long standing custom, its origin is forgotten, and women develop the present glib feminist righteousness.

This suggests that men have created unjust laws against women.
So, let's undo them and put men and women on a more equitable footing.  

Back to the drafting board, to a primitive stage that still awaits the discovery of the wheel.

LOOKING WITH CLOSED EYES

Of all human activities, very few are as commonly felt and misunderstood as sexual intercourse.
It is written, however, that, as much as our activity focuses on sex, our attention must be lured away from its purpose, as if our attention would interfere with it.
We see it in the courtship rituals of many animals, who strive to show off a dance pattern, a call, vivid colors and other indirect seducing means.

In humans, the "disguises" of sex take many forms, such as dancing, drinking, dining, chatting... The history of sexual awareness is rich of direct approaches that should have accumulated a tremendous wealth of information on the subject.
Uninhibited, open and complete involvement was at the beginning of human history, and it lasted long enough to give us sufficient  evidence.

Such involvement was even a requirement in many cases, such as described by the Greek historian Herodotus, about 2700 years ago, about Babylon: 

"Every woman who is a native of the country must once in her lifetime go and sit in the temple and there give herself to a strange man... She is not allowed to go home until a man has thrown a silver coin onto her lap and taken her outside to lie with him... The woman has no privilege of choice ‑she must go with the first man who throws her the money. When she has lain with him, her duty to the goddess is discharged and she may go home... Tall, handsome women soon manage to get home again, but the ugly ones stay a long time before they can fulfill the condition which the law demands, some of them, indeed, as much as three or four years."

Babylon was in an area that today lies between Iraq and Iran.
Today's descendants of that society ‑and of those women‑ have a diametrically opposite approach. Their women are expected to be chaste before marriage and to know no other man than their own usbands.
As a rule, they live secluded lives, cover their faces, avoid contact with men and practice all sorts of

"modest" behavior.

Why did it change?
The first clue that I know of the beginning of that change was the Egyptian prohibition to have intercourse with women in temples, about 26 or 27 centuries ago.
That seems to coincide with the end of sacred promiscuity.

The sacred love priestess did not go out of business. She simply became the harlot.
Worship became contempt: the woman who makes love cannot be on the same level of man.
She must be either above or below him. 

Many try to find an explanation for it. None of them is satisfactory.
The most they can do is to show how far off the mark we are.
Probably we ought to look at our cultural sterilization of Greece.

Conventional intellectuals love to see ancient Greece as pure art, intellect, poetry, sheer beauty.
The known disdain of Greek philosophers for practical matters was extrapolated in general aloofness above the physical.
Yet, as I mentioned before in another version of Greek mythology, Hesiod's "Theogony" narrates that the god Cronos tore his father's testicles with a billhook and hurled them into the sea, where they spilled sperm that foamed in the water.

Aphrodite (later idealized as Venus by the Romans), the goddess of sexual intercourse, was born from that foam.
She, then, gave birth to Hermaphrodites, endowed with a penis and a vulva, both complete with their sexual functions.
She also gave birth to Priapus, with an enormous penis in permanent erection. 

The Greek mythology is astoundingly rich of the crudest sexual images, actions, attributes and perversions.
Incest, for instance, started from the top: Hera, the wife of Zeus, king of the gods, was also his sister.
This could suggest a parallel with the custom of the Egyptian Pharaohs who married their own sisters.

No body of literature has ever been more pornographic.

Words like Androgyny, Aphrodisiac, Eroticism, Hermaphrodites, Homosexuality, Lesbians, Narcissism, Necrophilia, Nymphomania, Pederasty, Pornography, Satyriasis, Zoophilia... are Greek.  

Today's Greeks are as removed from that crude eroticism as any other modern people.
Our methods follow patterns like rituals, each country or people designing their own style.
First, there are religious customs, the most venerable and successful.
Then, there are folkloristic customs, wedding ceremonies, ritual and frankly erotic dances...
We can also include the dating patterns, the single bars, festivals, pageants, social and artistic events and other customs that overlap and hide in other declared purposes. 

Animals also must have started the most direct way: male organ spots female organ and plunges in.
Kind of crude, but it works. Until the next evolutionary step occurs.

We have countless documentations of love calls, mating dances, mating rituals of all kinds conducted by all kinds of animals everywhere.
They are not fads, but patterns dictated by the genes.
The mating occurs only after those rituals,

Are those patterns comparable, in their own realms, to our social developments?
Probably, the direct approach turns the involved parties off, and they must find a sublimation to get aroused. It is unlikely.
There are unlimited proofs that the direct approach can successfully go on and on. 

It seems that mother nature wants us to focus on something else while the  copulation proceeds.
Apparently, our focusing on it is like the original sin of contaminating the truth with our interpretation (=knowledge) of it. 

The mating dances of many animals, as well as many of our ritual and other formal habits, seem to be a devise nature uses to detour our attention elsewhere, so that the natural process can proceed undisturbed by our interpretation.
Nature can concentrate on its own business better if our presumptuous attention is focused away from it.

We ruin many natural processes by just focusing our attention on them and by influencing them with decisions based on our incompetent notions.
We end up "improving" a process into a failure caused by our presumptuous ignorance.

For instance, natural forms of life we concentrated on were degenerated by us into other forms nature could not allow, such as the breeding degeneration of the wolf into the various weird dogs that could not survive in natural environment.

We cause extinction or miscegenation of animals we focus upon because of fur, ivory, horn, oil, meat, feathers or other attributes.
A fitting instance is man's usual inability to perform sexually if he concentrates on (or tries to be erotically excited by) the purpose of having a child, rather than on the act's pleasure or the woman's charm. 

Could we then conclude that nature's purpose is hidden in the pleasure and disguised by it at the same time?
Nature's message seems to be that life reproduction is a process too far above our heads to mess it up with our "understanding" of it. 

Now we are finding means to produce children by focusing merely on that goal, without seeking, or concentrating on, the erotic pleasure of the act.
Laboratory fertilization, artificial insemination in spouses or in "host bodies", sperm banks and other enterprises are developing surprising complications and legal intricacies that may be only harbingers of ominous developments in directions that mother nature would reject.

================================================================= ==========

 ****/

‑ Feminists are especially excited about women who make a living with sex, such as prostitutes, erotic actresses and nude models.
They campaign tirelessly to outlaw prostitution, pornography, and any form of sex commercialization.
They claim that such activities demean women and lead them away from more dignified activities.

First, it remains to be seen what other activities the presently "sex exploited" women are willing or able to engage in.
Second, they had a free choice far before the feminists started to complain.
No one would have prevented them from training and getting other kinds of jobs.

Finally, prostitution is a female phenomenon only because there is a demand for female prostitutes.
If male prostitutes were also in demand, at least as many men would "prostitute" themselves as women now.
The core of the matter is that men covet women erotically very much more than women men. 

‑ Women have accepted and enjoyed the admiration and desire of men for as long as human species has existed.
All the claims feminists and "progressive" women make against the "demeaning" worship of the female body and sexual attributes are contradicted by the behavior of the same female militants.
They nurture their own appearance and sexual appeal with the same intensity as the "frivolous female objects".
If they don't, they become the losers in the competition to attract the male suitors.
Men would behave similarly.

Only the hopelessly unattractive feminists are coherent with their "anti‑sexist" disdain for cosmetic attributes.
The more they fail in attracting men, the more militant they become in the "noble" feminist cause. 

Woman's "subservience" to man is apparently rooted in the sex act.
Copulation is the origin and essence of life, beyond all our ideals, religions or laws.
In that, woman must nurture man, after they have become used to each other. If she cannot arouse or somehow attract him, copulation becomes impossible for lack of erection. And she won't have the children she normally covets more than man.

He, on the other hand, doesn't have to please her, for he can impregnate her even without her knowledge or against her will.
Nature has determined it. No equalrightnik or male/female chauvinist can change that as a natural phenomenon.
Our opinions and morality have nothing to do with it.

 Physically, man is instinctively attracted to woman for the pleasure she can give him (or he can find in her).
(At this point, we must weather the storm of indignant invectives by those who righteously proclaim much "loftier" motivations).

If man could get the same pleasure without the woman, he would avoid tying himself with her.
As woman has always been aware of that, she chose dependence and subjection as a fitting balance for her advantage.

The inability of the male chauvinists and ultra-feminists to understand this natural phenomenon is creating incompetent theories and laws that sacrifice the family to primitive fads about rights and equality.

MIND EATING SEX

Food and sex are continuously present in virtually everybody's mind. Yet, we act and talk as if it were not so.
We treat them as subjects beneath the dignity or interest of intellectuals and other exalted people.
Are then the latter remote from reality?
We should focus on those subjects and treat them in the first plane.

Conventional intellectuals or "sophisticated" people consider "corny" or vulgar to focus on the obvious.
The same happens when we repeat history or the well known after we elected to ignore it.

Clichés, for instance, are discounted or ridiculed. Yet, they are the proven reality that we misunderstand or ignore because we don't want to contemplate again what has been said before.

The result is that the intellectual leaders set a fad that ignores the proven truths, because they are considered clichés beneath sophistication.
The truth then sinks into the underground, where it is picked up by the "unsophisticated" who cling to the living reality.

So, we have an underground erotic literature and activity, as well as an underground racism, which are hard to suppress...
The fad says that there is no difference between sexes, races...
And the unsophisticated have no choice but to go underground to preserve a posture that they feel is more valid than the current intellectual fad.

Food was prevented from coming into its own, as the determining factor according to "we are what we eat".
We should concentrate on finding out how to use food to not only feed and cure ourselves, but also to develop basic parameters such as intelligence, longevity, emotional strength, and the countless attributes that we don't know yet how to correlate with food.

As to sex, being it confined to low mental levels, it is actively focused on only as porno, prohibitions, legislation and primitive‑morals postures.

PHALLUS REX  

Phallicism, or  penis worship, as symbol of fertility and life generation flourished thousands of years ago, primarily in Asia Minor and India.

It was particularly strong in India, where the representation of the "lingam" (penis) was also used to worship the "yoni" (female genitals), in the "Sakti Puja" rites dedicated to motherhood. 

We may want to ridicule or condemn phallicism and its occurrence also in other, and unrelated, parts of the world; but one fact remains irrefutable: the penis is the factor that inescapably dictates the possibility, occurrence, and behavior of the act of fecundation.
That is: if the woman does not excite the man, the penis cannot perform intercourse and reach the orgasm, without which life is extinct.
That means that the penis possesses the power of life and extinction, beyond good and evil, beyond rights and justice: let's please him, or we perish.

Probably that is what rationalized the exaggerated self esteem of masculinity.

THE DAILY LEGAL MURDERS

March 5, 2002. Karen D. published this letter in a newspaper:

*************************************************
"I'd like you to think something through with me. image that there are two women, both six months pregnant. The first woman doesn't want a child, and so she legally aborts" the "fetus". The second woman does want the child. She is hit by a drunk driver and loses the baby. The drunk driver can be charged with manslaughter for "killing" the "baby".

"So, which is it - a fetus or a baby? I propose to you that the only thing in our country that determines the truth of whether or not a child has been killed is the feeling of the mother.

"Consider another situation. A woman becomes pregnant. Her boyfriend believes abortion is morally wrong. She is pro-choice.
Whose truth will take precedence? Obviously hers will, because it will be her body inconvenienced by the pregnancy.
So, we've reduced a "truth" choice to what is most pragmatic, or practical. Can you see why this is not logical?

"Our generation had better watch out. Someday we may be an inconvenience to those children that we allowed to live.
If our truth says that our lives are still worth living, but their truth says that we have become an undue inconvenience or expense, pragmatism will hold the trump card.

"Wake up. We cannot have it both ways. Either a fetus is a living human being or it is not.
If not, oh well.
If it is, legal murder is being committed daily.

"Pinch yourself - hard - every 20 seconds for the next 24 hours. Each bruise will represent a baby that has been aborted (killed) in the United States that day.
More babies are murdered each and every day in our country than people were killed Sept. 11 at the World Trade Center.
If that day was a disaster, what is every other day in our country?
How in the world can God bless America?"
**************************************************

How can anyone dispute the above?

The abortion subject could be placed in other categories, like "freedom of choice", "reproduction", "birth".., but the deep cause of abortion is the arbitrary demand to have free sexual pleasure unrestricted by moral, religious, ethical and social reasons.

The craving for such sexual pleasure as such deliberately ignores the right to live of the innocent and defenseless infant.

It is unavoidable to think that the child did not ask to be conceived in an act that both the mother and father arrogantly decided to perform solely for a very brief and ultimately sterile pleasure.

When and where life begins is a question that too many physicians, moralists, politicians and others have no courage, honesty or competence to investigate and freely inject into public postures. That causes biases and perplexity in politics, legislation, courts of law and  in the "law of the land".

The "partial birth abortion" has become the event as monstrous as a crime wrapped in a legally abusive protection:
a birth process so manipulated that the living baby comes totally outside of the mother's body, but his head is artificially blocked inside of the mother's birth canal. That makes the baby a living-about-to-be-killed innocent. It makes the murder of a baby into a surrealistic "non-murder of a dead-living baby".
Then, the nightmarish monstrosity is perpetrated: while the living head of the living being-born baby is unnaturally held inside of the mother's birth canal, a hole is drilled or broken into the baby's scull and his brain is sucked out with a powerful vacuum pump (of course, labeled with smug and sanctimonious euphemism, like the rest of the procedure).

Accomplices of this criminal horror: the A.M.A., A.B.A., the supreme Court, the hospital, the liberal politicians clergy etc., lawyers, judges, feminists, homosexuals, and other participants of the cultural/suicidal march toward Hell.

Why? The complete, mindless, blind surrender to the irresponsible pleasure of an intentional sterile and brief enjoyment of the physical act (without simple birth-control precautions), which dies and vanishes in inanity.
A ritual temporary Satanic victory of debauchery over nature and integrity.

================================================================= ==========

 Scrambled thoughts

For 2000 years, we have glibly under-designated the mother of Jesus by calling her "Virgin Mary".
We have kept no records on her other characteristics, be they moral, intellectual, physical, etc.
All we can popularly mention of her is that she was a virgin.

Sex is so obviously pervading, fundamental, like breathing, that we forget its rank, or insert it where it is incongruous.
We avoid talking about it and choose subjects that are considered loftier.
If breathing could be hidden, like sex, we would probably consider it also obscene.
We refrain from talking or focusing on something unavoidable that we don't understand properly.

A strange attitude toward sex is evident in the various taboos and rules in our culture.
In the strictly puritanical Christian tradition, for instance, celibacy is considered a perfect status; marriage comes on a second level.
Then, perfect life induces the end of life.

This theme of the end of life being caused by perfection recurs in the famous conversation in the train described in Tolstoy's "Kreutzer Sonata", in which the total elimination of the sex urge is considered as the ultimate evolution of mankind: self‑obliteration.
Which happens to converge with the obliteration of desire and life originally predicated by Buddhists and Hindus.

 ‑ Incest is a peculiar subject that has been considered either on the lowest scale of contemptibility or on the highest level of elitism: our culture considers it as one of the worst evils, and Egyptian pharaohs would only have children from their sisters...

 ‑ I don't know why so many women I have met complained that men kept their socks on while making love with them.
I also don't know why so many men keep their socks on when they make love.
I don't know why this matter is sufficiently important to being mentioned here at all...

 ‑ Love‑making itself proceeds like any entropic process.
The conclusion, for the participants, is a surrender to chaotic rest toward annihilation.
The praying mantis underlines it by devouring her mate immediately after mating.
On the other hand, the product of mating is life, the island of negative entropy.

 ‑ Cultures that require the woman to be a virgin until she marries have far less troubles for the woman than "enlightened" cultures.
It seems that we are sacrificing far more to our equality fetishism than the "women‑oppressing" cultures to their virginity and submission principle.

 ‑ Male‑emulation by imitation is easy for the woman, because she has been raising males since the origin of mankind.
She has learned to act ‑or show how to act‑ like a man, without being one.
At the end, it may become difficult or even impossible for her to distinguish between being like a man and imitating a man.

 ‑ From our beginnings, food and sex have been our main goals and pleasures, for survival before and beyond death. We become food ourselves.
The search for food was difficult and in dangerous competition with other forms of life.
Sex was also hard to obtain because males were deadly possessive with every woman within reach.

 Thus, sex and food were full‑time endeavors for which people formed families and communities.
Now, they have lost their first place on the stage of life since they have become so easily obtainable.
People have not found a substitute for them as main source of enduring happiness and togetherness.
Food and sex are still indispensable, still first for survival before and after death, but too easy to obtain.

We don't know how to cope with that unnatural ease.
Riches, power, art, culture, work, leisure, sports, social endeavors cannot even begin to fill the void left.
We are falling prey to the existential problem created by the fact that food and sex are too easy to obtain.

‑ Today's sex is officially amoral. Promiscuity is a right among consenting adults, married or not.
Teenagers and even elementary school children are given contraceptives as an "entitlement".

Courts do not consider adultery as relevant as before.
Sexual promiscuity is no longer a sin, even for children.
Then, why are rape and any type of sexual violence still as grave a crime as when promiscuous sex was a sin?
To quench bloodthirsty feminazis?

 ‑ The pursuit of sex as an ultimate goal is a deliberate ignorance or misinterpretation of the nature of sex.
Sex as such is not a goal: it is only a means nature uses to achieve procreation.
Pursuing sex as the ultimate is an admission that we are enslaved to a means nature has imposed on us, and we misunderstand it as a goal.

We find pleasure in sex by nature's imposition.
Devising it as a goal is an admission that we perverted it for our own pleasure.
The natural purpose of sex is procreation, not pleasure.
Pleasure is great, but it is nature's purposeful bait, even if it may be deleterious to enjoy it as such.

The pleasure of food is similar. If we pursue food merely as a pleasure, we may ruin our health.
The pursuit of sex for its own sake could also be damaging, even if its parameters are different.

Higher yet than sex is love coupled with sex, but that is not quite enough.
In order to harmonize with reality, or nature, we should have sex together with procreation, family and love.
We cannot neglect that.
This, of course, implies an indictment against homosexuality, which results to be the most blatantly distorted perversion.
People are afraid to say it openly for temporary political reasons.

On the other hand, it is healthy for the heterosexuals to be scared by militant homosexuals, otherwise heterosexuality falls into the trap of monotonous complacency.

Liberation from sex cannot exist for longer than just a few years, otherwise it would be the end of mankind.  

‑ Pre‑orgasm and post‑orgasm male attitudes are different because of hormonal factors, not because of rational choice.
If a man is sexually attracted to a woman, he would do almost anything to have intercourse with her.
After intercourse the desire vanishes or becomes controllable.
The extinguishing effect comes from the orgasm, rather than intercourse per se.

In fact, intercourse without orgasm leaves the man with the same desire as before, and orgasm from simple masturbation has virtually the same extinguishing effect as orgasm from intercourse.

After orgasm, the same erotic desire will return as soon as the man is again able to have another orgasm; which merely depends on the physical hormonal "recharge".
The intense male desire for a woman, therefore, is an effect of hormonal action.

Her being "sexy" for him is an important ingredient, but its role ceases after the orgasmic discharge.
The fact that hormonal secretion can be so powerful in determining man's behavior insinuates a devastating flaw in the theory of individual free will, this-side of quasi-heroism. 

‑ The enthusiasm we have toward a goal, before and after achieving it, can be often depicted as a sublimation of our hormone‑caused desires.
It would be interesting to speculate what takes the place of the hormones in this kind of sublimation. 

‑ As we are nature's instruments, nature does not want us to concentrate our attention on our reproductive, nourishment, growth and death functions, so that they can proceed undisturbed by our incompetent interference.
Therefore (or concomitantly) we get astonishingly involved in rituals, work, religion and other worships that keep us occupied with what can hardly interfere with the main realities of life: reproduction and death.  

The mating ritual diverts the attention from the mating act that must happen "concentrated in itself" for conception and birth, not in the least influenced by attention  of the participants.
The erotic pleasure of the act is not only the motivation for conception, but also another screen against the incompetent intrusion caused by focusing on conception.

 ‑ Our natural sex customs and attitudes are genetic even in the peculiar necessity we have to aim at it by ostensively focusing on something else.

The sex act is so important and sacred, that we make it unmentionable or obscene to avoid tampering of it by the uninitiated.
Therefore our culture wraps it under a cover‑up taboo.

In the most enduring and massive of other cultures, like India and China, sex is not even a moral issue as we know it.
Their old art and literature are sexually open and uninhibited. 
Yet, even there sex seems to be mysteriously elusive.
Something, like a hidden Mother Nature, seems to impede our clear vision of it, as if to protect it.

The Indian Kamasutra shows remarkable ignorance (or "creativity") of the sex details it displays in countless statues and paintings, as in thousands of lifesize or larger sculptures inside and outside hundreds of large temples, like those still standing of Khujarao, Ellora, Konarak, where absolutely nothing is left to the imagination of all kinds of normal, abnormal, impossible contorsionistic positions to introduce the "lingam" (penis) into the "yoni" (vulva), or into the anus,  or to enjoy them manually, orally or in any other fashion.
Their impossibility or utter disregard for reality defy our comprehension.
Mother Nature is there, protecting us from ourselves.

 ‑ If there ever were women who craved for sex as much as men, evolution must have marginalized or hidden them, or most of them.
They would be so promiscuous (with promiscuous men's initially enthusiastic cooperation) that men would never know which children they have fathered.
So, men would avoid marrying them.
Probably, the historical cycle is about to start again with the rights women have won to be as promiscuous as men.

 ‑ Sex tension is always there.
The more we hide it, the more obsessive it becomes, as in the castigated societies (veiled women etc.) where one can kill or be killed because of a shown woman's leg, face, or by saying the wrong word.

The more restrictions with sex, the more crimes are connected with it. 

‑ Ancient Greek athletes exercised naked, with a string tying the foreskin over the tip of the penis.

 ‑ Spartan men, similarly to the Nayar people of Kerala (Malaber coast of India), used to live with male friends away from their wives, and visited their wives only during the night. Consequently, some of them did not even know what their wives looked like in daylight, even after having children.

 ‑ In ancient Rome, Venus was worshiped by married women on April 1st, but on April 23rd by harlots.

 ‑ It seems that the Greeks invented the dildo; they called it olisbos. It was used by "tribads" (female homosexuals), as well as by "normal" women.

 ‑ "Fascinum", from which the words "fascination" and "fascinate" come, is the Latin equivalent of the Greek phallus.

 ‑ In most religions, sex is not as serious a sin as in the Christian.
Moreover, in the Christian world, the preoccupation with the sin of sex ‑even among consenting adults‑ nearly obliterates awareness of more victimizing crimes like oppression, persecution, cruelty, exploitation, enslavement, physical and mental barbarity, despotism, social injustice, intolerance.

 ‑ While Christians preach abstinence and chastity as a way to heaven, other religions encourage sexual intercourse.
The Chinese "Tao" (="the Way"), states that the more women man copulates with, the better for all.

 ‑ Israel's law forbids men with injured genitals from marrying born Jewesses, but it allows them to marry convert Jews or "bastards".

 ‑ The incestuous marriages typical of the Pharaohs were reported to produce girls only. So, were the boys illegitimate?

 ‑ The Greeks believed that beauty of body and soul went together. Where was, then, their sophistication?

 ‑ Pederasty was institutionalized in the ancient Greek and in the 15th century Yucatan Maya societies.

 Greek pederasty was primarily with boys 12‑16, as it was that of Japanese Buddhist monks in the 10th century AD, which then became adult/adult in the 17th century, especially in the all‑male Japanese theater.

 ‑ In Tao, some intercourse positions were attributed therapeutic values for some infirmities.
Even in 1950, in communist China, a Tao secret sect predicated promiscuous sex as a means to health and immortality.

Homosexuality was allowed, lesbianism was accepted as a natural "harem effect" among confined multiple wives.

Bisexuality was mistrusted and attributed the consequence of generating hermaphrodites, who were considered the worst kind of monsters.

The Tao sex tradition produced countless recipes for aphrodisiacs.
Probably, the most famous was the "bald chicken drug", so called because a cock that ate it became so oversexed that he copulated with many chickens so many times that he plucked their heads bare in the incessantly repeated intercourses.

‑ In China, polygamy (up to and beyond 30 wives and concubines) was considered not only desirable, but essential for developing the necessary female (yin) and male (yang) fertility.

Even the straitlaced Confucianism made it a duty for a man to copulate at regular intervals with each wife and concubine.

‑ For the Indian Hindus, sex was "Dana", a religious duty, one the four stages of "Karma", the cycle of rebirths from lower to higher forms of life toward the final aim beyond life itself, as described in the Kamasutra, (probably 25 centuries ago).

‑ Whereas the "Ars Amatoria" of the Roman Ovidius was a poetry work describing how to entice a lover, the Chinese manuals, mostly in poetry form, described positions and manners of copulation, the Indian Kamasutra was straight prose describing not only intercourse positions, but also seduction morality, as well as cynical stratagems how to commit adultery, how to seduce and destroy a man or woman with sex, how to use sex for vengeance, extortion and any other purpose, including ‑why not?‑  pure enjoyment.

‑ More recently, the Indian "Tantra" gained large following as an action system promising bliss and release through magic and sex intercourse by aggressive cultivation, rather than by the customary Indian method of rejection.

‑ It is revealing that the most vital of all functions, sex, cannot be legislated. So far.
It is simply there with unqualified disregard for any criteria of justice, rights, equality, morality, ethics, fairness or freedom.
Since no other life subject is as (questionably) important as sex, it should becomes inescapable that everything we consider important outside of sex is simply futile.

‑ The sex burden is in many ways on the woman.
Her body is too obviously made for procreation first, second and third.
Man/family-hating ultra-feminism (I prefer to call it "feminazism”to avoid the 5 words that define them) desperately endeavors to ignore and hide it.
The more feminazism succeeds in it, the more woman is deprived of the emotional and intellectual inner support she needs for her main and noble function.
Therefore, today's feminazism influenced woman is the least fit to harmonize with her destiny.

Woman's very body is like a proclamation of reproduction primacy: breasts, milk, menstruation, ovaries, uterus, cervix, vagina, Fallopian tubes, pregnancy, child delivery, etc...
Twisted civilization has contrived to make those words sound like obscenities.
Add to them the instinctive focusing on fashion, cosmetics, "sexy" behavior and ruses to attract man remarkably more than on intellectual or business skills.

Woman can attract man erotically, remarkably more than man her.
She can use sex charm effectively to keep her man; man must use other means to keep her.
This pattern, as a norm, prevails against anything, but is made to look degrading by the feminazis.

Woman, however, is a non-reluctant prisoner of her erotic power, since nothing else works as well for her.
Nothing else serves both her motherhood needs and her wish for power over man.
In this process, she soon finds she must cultivate her love‑making skills to get her man, prevail against other women and keep her man loyal.

Depending on her sophistication, woman uses her charms in a gamut of styles that varies from whoredom to intellectual and moral refinement.
True femininity leans more decidedly toward the latter.

 As woman is prisoner of her erotic power, man is prisoner of his erotic desire.
Therefore he can not manipulate his "charm" to any degree comparable to woman's.

 ‑ Sooner or later, we will have to recognize that the genuine, original form of impromptu sex is the "quickie", the brief intercourse limited to genital and oral pleasure, without affection or love as necessary ingredients.
Men and women will expect it without guilt or obligation, and women will offer it almost as easily as coffee or food, but without any immoral connotation.
This will reintroduce woman's catering, devotion to man, which feminazis and today's psychologists disparage.

Religion, meanwhile, will have faded away, and with it the overloaded meanings of "pleasure", "sin", "lechery"...
Even today's religionists are intimidated by this corrupting trend.

 ‑ Before making love, let's look at each other under the skin, as if the skin were not there at all.
We should try it, to come to our senses.
What would happen to the sexual appeal of the gorgeous ones?

 ‑ "All you want is sex", "You are interested in my body, not in my personality" has been griped for millennia against men by women who would feel devastated if the accusation were not true.

 ‑ The reason why many wise men have overcome the desire for sex is merely their diminishing hormonal activity.

 ‑ The ritual diversions from sex, before the sex act, may be necessary to build up the necessary erotic tension.

 ‑ The fact that there is nothing sex cannot interfere with suggests that nothing in life is as important as sex. At least at first sight.

 ‑When reason started its own crude infancy, sex had already been reigning for millions of years. If the age of evolved sex could be expressed in 1000 units of time, reason could not have started earlier than at the end of the last one thousandth.

At this stage, the fully developed and sophisticated sex cannot be understood, let alone handled, by our primordial reason. Therefore, anything based on our belief that we understand sex is condemned to fail and to produce results in utter contrast with our goals.

 ‑ From "Sexual Personae", by Camille Paglia, one of the most brilliant and least read contemporary  writers (1993):

 "Sexuality and eroticism are the intricate intersection of nature and culture. Feminists grossly oversimplify the problem of sex when they reduce it to a matter of social convention: readjust society, eliminate sexual inequality, purify sex roles, and happiness and harmony will reign. Here feminism, like all liberal movements of the past 200 years, is heir to Rousseau. "The Social Contract" (1762) begins: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains". Pitting benign Romantic nature against corrupt society, Rousseau produced the progressivist strain in 19th century culture, for which social reform was the means to achieve paradise on earth.

 The bubble of these hopes was burst by the catastrophes of 2 world wars. But Rousseauism was reborn in the postwar generation of the Sixties, from which contemporary feminism developed.

Rousseau rejects original sin, Christianity's pessimistic view of man born unclean, with a propensity for evil.

Rousseau's idea, derived from Locke, of man's innate goodness led to social environmentalism, now the dominant ethic of American human services, penal codes, and behaviorist therapies.

It assumes that aggression, violence, and crime come from social deprivation ‑a poor neighborhood, a bad home. Thus feminism blames rape on pornography and, by a smug circularity of reasoning, interprets outbreaks of sadism as a backlash to itself. But rape and sadism have been evident throughout history and, at some moments, in all cultures.

 This book takes the point of view of Sade, the most unread major writer of western literature. Sade's work is a comprehensive satiric critique of Rousseau, written a decade after the first failed Rousseauist experiment, the French Revolution, which ended not in political paradise but in the hell of the Reign of Terror.

 Sade follows Hobbes rather than Locke. Aggression comes from nature; it is what Nietzsche is to call the will‑to‑power. For Sade, getting back to nature (the Romantic imperative that still permeates our culture from sex counseling to cereal commercials) would be to give free rein to violence and lust.

 I agree. Society is not the criminal but the force which keeps crime in check. When social controls weaken, man's innate cruelty bursts forth. The rapist is created not by social influences but by a failure of social conditioning. Feminists, seeking to drive power relations out of sex, have set themselves against nature.

Sex is power. Identity is power. In western culture, there are no non-exploitative relationships. Everyone has killed in order to live. Nature's universal law of creation from destruction operates in mind as in matter.

 As Freud, Nietzche's heir, asserts, identity is conflict. Each generation drives its plow over the bones of the dead.

 Modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions. It exalts individualism and freedom and, on its radical wing, condemns social orders as oppressive. On the other hand, it expects government to provide materially for all, a feat manageable only by an expansion of authority and a swollen bureaucracy. In other words, liberalism defines government as tyrant father but demands it behave as nurturant mother. Feminism has inherited these contradictions. It sees every hierarchy as repressive, a social fiction; every negative about woman is a male lie designed to keep her in her place.

Feminism has exceeded its proper mission of seeking political equality for women and has ended by rejecting contingency, that is, human limitation by nature or fate.

Sex is a far darker power than feminism has admitted. Behaviorist sex therapies believe guiltless, no‑fault sex is possible. But sex has always been girt round with taboo, irrespective of culture.

Sex is the point of contact between man and nature, where morality and good intentions fall to primitive urges. I call it an intersection. This intersection is the uncanny crossroad of Hecate, where all things return in the night.

Eroticism is a realm stalked by ghosts. It is the place beyond the pale, both cursed and enchanted.

The identification of woman was universal in prehistory. In hunting or agrarian societies depending upon nature, femaleness was honored as an immanent principle of fertility. As culture progressed, crafts and commerce supplied a concentration of resources freeing men from the caprices of weather or the handicap of geography. With nature at one remove, femaleness receded in importance.

Buddhist cultures retained the ancient meanings of femaleness long after the West renounced them.

Male and female, the Chinese yang and yin, are balanced and interpenetrating powers in man and nature, to which society is subordinate.

This code of passive acceptance has its roots in India, a land of sudden extremes where a monsoon can wipe out 50,000 people overnight. The femaleness of fertility religion is always double-edged.

The Indian nature‑goddess Kali is creator and destroyer, granting boons with one set of arms while cutting throats with the other. She is the lady ringed with skulls. The moral ambivalence of the great mother‑goddesses has been conveniently forgotten by those American feminists who have resurrected them.

We cannot grasp nature's bare blade without shedding our own blood.

Western culture from the start has swerved from femaleness. The last major western society to worship female powers was Minoan Crete. And significantly, that fell and did not rise again. The lesson is that cultic femaleness is no guarantee of cultural strength or viability.

Judaism, Christian parent sect, is the most powerful of protests against nature.

The Old Testament asserts that a father god made nature and that differentiation into objects and gender was after the fact oh his maleness.

Judeo‑ Christianity, like Greek worship of the Olympian gods, is a sky‑ cult. It is an advanced stage in the history of religion, which everywhere began as an earth‑cult, veneration of fruitful nature.

The evolution from earth‑cult to sky‑cult shifts woman into the nether realm. Her mysterious procreative power and the resemblance of her rounded breasts, belly, and hips to earth's contours put her at the center of early symbolism. She was the model for the Great Mother figures who crowded the birth of religion worldwide. But the mother cults did not mean social freedom for women.

Nature's cycles are woman's cycles. Biologic femaleness is a sequence of circular returns, beginning and ending at the same point. Woman's centrality gives her a stability of identity.

She does not have to become but only to be. Her centrality is a great obstacle to man, whose quest for identity she blocks.

He must transform himself into an independent being, that is, a being free of her. If he does not, he will simply fall back into her. Reunion with the mother is a siren call haunting our imagination. Once there was bliss, and now there is struggle. Dim memories of life before the traumatic separation of birth may be the source of Arcadian fantasies of a lost golden age.

 The western idea of history as a propulsive movement into the future, a progressive or Providential design climaxing in the revelation of a Second Coming, is a male formulation. No woman, I submit, could have coined such an idea, since it is a strategy of evasion of woman's own cyclic nature, in which man dreads being caught. Evolutionary or apocalyptic history is a male wish list with a happy ending, a phallic peak.

 Woman does not dream of transcendental or historical escape from natural cycle, because she IS that cycle. The ancients knew that woman is bound to nature's calendar, an appointment she cannot refuse.

The old Greek pattern of free will to hubris to tragedy is a male drama, since woman has never been deluded (until recently) by the mirage of free will. In that tradition, she knew there was no free will, since she was not free. She had no choice but acceptance.

 Woman's reproductive apparatus is vastly more complicated than man's, and still ill understood. All kinds of things can go wrong or cause distress in going right. Western woman is in antagonistic relation to her own body: for her, biologic normalcy is suffering, and health an illness. Dysmenorrhea, it is argued, is a disease of civilization, since women in tribal cultures have few menstrual complaints.. But in tribal life, woman has an extended or collective identity; tribal religion honors nature and subordinates itself to it.

 It is precisely in advanced western society, which attempts to improve or surpass nature and which holds up indivi­dua­lism and self realization as a model, that the stark facts of woman's condition emerge with painful clarity.

The more woman aims for personal identity and autonomy, the more she develops her imagination, the fiercer will be her struggle with nature ‑that is, with the intractable physical laws of her own body.
And the more nature will punish her:

Do not dare to be free! for your body does not belong to you.

 The female body is a chthonian machine, indifferent to the spirit who inhabits it.
Organically it has one mission, pregnancy, which we may spend a life time staving off.

Nature cares only for species, never individuals:
the humiliating dimensions of this biologic fact are most directly experienced by women, who probably have a greater realism and wisdom than men because of it.

The sexes are eternally at war.
There is an element of attack, of search and destroy in male sex, in which there will always be a potential
 for rape.

There is an element of entrapment in female sex, a subliminal manipulation leading to physical and emotional infantilization of the male.

Freud notes, a propos of this theory of the primal scene, that a child overhearing his parents having sex thinks male is wounding female and that the woman's cries of pleasure are cries of pain.
Most men merely grunt, at best. But woman's strange sexual cries come directly from the chthonian. She is the Maenad about to render her victim.
sex is an uncanny moment of ritual and incantation, in which we hear woman's barbaric ululation of triumph of the will.
One domination dissolves into another.
The dominated becomes the dominator.

Prostitution is not just a service industry, mopping up the overflow of male demand, which always exceeds female supply.
 

Prostitutes testify to the amoral power struggle of sex, which religion has never been able to stop. Prostitutes, pornographers, and their patrons are marauders in the forest of archaic night.
The old "double standard" gave men a sexual liberty denied to women. |

Marxist feminists reduce the historical cult of woman's virginity to her property value, her worth on the male marriage market.

I would argue instead that there was and is a biologic basis to the double standard.
 

The first medical reports on the disease killing male homosexuals indicated men most at risk were those with a thousand partners over their lifetime. Incredulity. Who could such people be? Why, it turned out, everyone one knew. Serious, kind, literate men, not bums or thugs. What an abyss divides the sexes! Let us abandon the pretense of sexual sameness and admit the terrible duality of gender.

Male sex is quest romance, exploration and speculation. Promiscuity in men may cheapen love but sharpen thought. Promiscuity in women is illness, a leakage of identity.

The promiscuous woman is self‑contaminated and incapable of clear ideas. She has ruptured the ritual integrity of her body. It is in nature's best interest to goad dominant males into indiscriminate spreading of their seed.

But nature also profits from female purity. Even in the liberated or lesbian woman there is some biologic restraint whispering: keep the birth canal clean. In judiciously withholding herself, woman protects an invisible fetus.

Male chase and female flight are not just a social game.
The double standard may be one of nature's organic laws."

Please click here to send a comment or suggestion  
 

Back to Main Page

030727