Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Don't slap a woman

"Men and women must be educated, in a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they live in." 
-- Mary Wollstonecraft

By Alex P. Vidal

NEW YORK CITY -- It's not nice for a man to slap a woman. Even in imagination, a man should never hurt a woman emotionally and physically.
If you want to know a man, listen to the language he uses to describe a member of the opposite sex after he has been jilted by the latter.
It's not pleasant to admit slapping a woman especially if she is a lover or former lover, a wife or former wife. 
Especially if you are having or had emotional attachment with her. Especially if you are having or had sexual liaison with her; if you benefited a lot from her concerning your carnal needs and fleshly desires.
She shouldn't be called a "slut" or "maniac" to justify dumping her like a waste so his macho tormentor can tarry-hoot with the next nymphet. 
It's not good to be a misogynist. Like envy and irrational jealousy, it's an aberration of the mind.
A woman is a special creation of God. She represents the image of our mother, sister, girlfriend, wife or partner in life. 

MARY

We have the Blessed Virgin Mary as the symbol of purity, the epitome of piety and righteousness, the mother of Jesus Christ.
Without a woman, no one could biologically bring us here in this material world.  
She labored hard, sacrificed a lot, and carried us in her womb for nine months. She feeds us. She gives us life. She sings for our joy and benefit.
No woman should be ridiculed or put to shame because of her sexual experiences or desires even if she is a criminal or enemy of the most powerful man in the universe.
After all, we are all sinners. In fact, many of us have committed more sins than her.
Magdalene, Cleopatra, Madame Bovary, Lady Chatterley, Princess Diana, Kris Aquino had their own share of infamy in the department of lechery. 
They have been slandered and persecuted. But men of antiquity and modern times treated them with respect and adulation because they are women--and because of the great things they contributed for mankind.

LOVE

Like men, women also fall in love with passion. They, too, have emotions. They also fail and get frustrated and hurt. When they fall for men, they give their best; they give it all.
If some of them happen to be naive they become susceptible to exploitation and abuse--and sometimes end up as sex slaves, if not tortured and murdered.
Women in general are loving and decent human beings. God intended to give them a special role in society, and they should enjoy equal rights, privileges, and happiness with men.
Let's hear it from Barbra Streisand: "I am a woman in love and I do anything to get you into my world and hold you within. It's a right I defend ever and over again. What do I do?"
To fall in love, to enjoy a satisfying sex life, to live with dignity and respect, to practice freedom of choice, is the right that every woman should fight and defend in a masochistic society governed by some do-gooder and hypocrite congressmen.

Monday, February 29, 2016

Our sexual behaviors

"One of the bizarre satisfactions of rape for the sadist is that the writhings and facial expressions of pain he produces in the female are somewhat similar to the writhings and facial expressions of a female experiencing an intense orgasm."

By Alex P. Vidal

NEW YORK CITY -- When we put a piece of food into our mouth it does not necessarily mean that we are hungry. 
When we take a drink it does not inevitably indicate that we are thirsty.
In the Human Zoo, writes English zoologist Desmond Morris, eating and drinking have come to serve many functions. 
We may be nibbling peanuts to kill time, or we may be sucking sweets to soothe our nerves. 
Like a wine-taster, we may merely savor the flavor and then spit the liquid out, or we may down 10 pins of beer to win a wager. 
Under certain circumstances, we may be prepared to swallow a sheep's eyeball in order to maintain our Facebook status.
"In one of these cases is the nourishment of the body the true value of the activity," explains Morris. "This multi-functional utilization of basic behavior pattern is not unknown in the world of animals, but, in the human zoo, man's ingenious opportunism extends and intensifies the process."
Let's examine the different functions of sexual behavior one by one. 
Morris reminds us that "it is important to realize at the onset that, although these functions are separate and distinct, and sometimes clash with one another, they are not all mutually exclusive. Any particular act of courtship or copulation may serve several functions simultaneously."
These are the 10 sexual functional categories, according to Morris:
1. PROCREATION SEX. There can be argument that this is the most basic function of sexual behavior. It has sometimes been mistakenly argues that it is the only natural and therefore proper role. Paradoxically, some of the religious groups that claim this do not practice what this preach, monks, nuns and many priests denying themselves the very activity which they hold to be so uniquely natural.
2. PAIR-FORMATION SEX. The human animal is basically and biologically a pair-forming species. As the emotional relationship develops between a pair of potential mates it is aided and abetted by the sexual activities they share. The pair-formation function of sexual behavior is so important for our species that nowhere outside the pairing phase do sexual activities regularly reach such a high intensity.
3. PAIR-MAINTENANCE SEX. Once a pair-bond has been successfully formed, sexual activities still function to maintain and reinforce the bond. Although these activities may become more elaborate and extensive, they usually become less intensive than those of the pair-forming stage, because the pair-forming function is no longer operating.
4. PHYSIOLOGICAL SEX. In the healthy adult human male and female there is a basic physiological requirement for repeated sexual consummation. Without such consummation, a physiological tension builds up and eventually the body demands relief. Any sexual act that involves an orgasm provides the orgasmic individual with this relief. Even if copulation fails to fulfill any of the other nine functions of sexual behavior, it can at least satisfy this basic physiological need.
5. EXPLORATORY SEX. One of man's greatest qualities is his inventiveness. In all probability our monkey ancestors were already endowed with a reasonably high level of curiosity; it is a characteristic of the whole primate group. However, when our early human ancestors took to hunting, they undoubtedly had to develop and strengthen this quality and magnify their basic urge to explore all the details of their environment.
6. SELF-REWARDING SEX. It is impossible to draw up a complete list of the functions of sex without including a category based on the idea that there is a thing as 'sex for sex's sake'; sexual behavior, the performance of which brings its own reward, regardless of any other consideration. The function is closely related to the last one, but they are nevertheless distinct.
7. OCCUPATIONAL SEX. This is sex operating as occupational therapy, or, if you prefer, as an anti-boredom device. It is closely related to the last category, but again can be clearly distinguished from it. There is difference between having spare time and being bored. Self-rewarding sex can occur as just one of many ways of constructively utilizing the spare time available.
8. TRANQUILIZING SEX. Just as the nervous system cannot tolerate gross inactivity, so it rebels against the strains of excessive over-activity. Tranquilizing sex is the other side of the coin from occupational sex. Instead of being anti-boredom, it is anti-turmoil. When faced with an overdose of strange, conflicting, unfamiliar or frightening stimuli, the individual seeks escape in the performance of friendly old familiar patterns that serve to calm his shattered nerves.
9. COMMERCIAL SEX. Prostitution has already been mentioned, but only from the point of view of the customer. For the prostitute herself the function of copulation is different. Subsidiary factors may be operating, but primarily and overwhelmingly it is straightforward and commercial transaction. Commercial sex of a kind also figures as an important function in many marriage situations, where one-sided pair-bond exists: one partner simply provides a copulatory service for the other in exchange for money and shelter. The provider who has developed a true pair-bond has to accept a mock one in return.
10. STATUS SEX. With this, the final functional category of sexual behavior, we enter a strange world, full of unexpected developments and ramifications. Status sex infiltrates and pervades our lives in many hidden and unrecognized ways. It is concerned with dominance, not with reproduction, and to understand how this link is forged we must consider the differing roles of the sexual female and the sexual male. Although a full expression of sexuality involves the active participation of both sexes, it is nevertheless true to say that, for the mammalian female, the sexual role is essentially a submissive one, and for the male it is essentially an aggressive one.

Monday, December 29, 2014

Sex and emotions

“Women are systematically degraded by receiving the trivial attentions which men think it manly to pay to the sex, when, in fact, men are insultingly supporting their own superiority.”
Mary Wollstonecraft

By Alex P. Vidal

DO we belong in the Maria Clara times if we still equate sex with emotional attachment?
Has sex nowadays become a commercial commodity that can be experienced even with the absence of a serious relationship commitment?
Some of the sexual revolution ideology stated that it was old-fashioned to want to connect sex with feelings—it meant we weren’t “hip.”
Not only marriage but monogamy and love or even tender feelings were often considered to be something only “neurotic” women wanted.
The idea was that “people should spontaneously have sex and not worry about hurting each other, just behave freely and have sex, no strings, anytime with anybody, just for pure physical pleasure.”
But almost no woman in the study conducted by Shere Hite, an American-born German sex educator, wanted that kind of sexual relationship very often—although a few thought that they should:
“I saw a TV show the other night and this guy said we need to separate sex and love and I think he is right—that is why women get hurt so much because men for some reason seem to be able to do this while we have a great deal of trouble separating them. At least I don’t seem to be able to.”
According to Hite, whose sexological work has focused primarily on female sexuality, “Overwhelmingly, women wanted sex with feeling.”

TESTIMONIES

Here are some of the testimonies of the respondents in Hite’s study published in The Hite Report:
ALMA: “I think the sexual revolution is fantastic. But I have remained ‘faithful’ to my husband and will because I know from past experience that sex with me is totally involved with personal relationship. It’s part of me that I can’t separate from the rest of my body and mind. I could not successfully divide my sexual life among two or more.”
ROSE: “I think the sexual revolution has totally distorted the place of sexuality to the point that it has become an end in itself, an escape, or a desperate attempt to achieve love. Writers like Rollo May (Love and Will) and the women’s movement have helped me to value the integration of love and sex as opposed to casual encounters with partners who do not value me.”
DEBBIE: “Well, I like being able to have a sexual life even though I am not married. But I do not like the casual and ‘cool’ sort of relationship as well as what used to be called ‘romance.’ I like to feel involved with someone.”
RUTH: “I approve of the acceptance of sexual desires and relations. But personally I still believe it is more desirable to have a personally intimate and close relationship, not a casual one.”
REBECCA: “Where I see trouble is in people of my generation, many of my friends.  In their attempts to be freed by the sexual revolution they have undertaken sexual practices they are not psychologically equipped to handle. In joining groups gropes and multiple sexual encounters they seem to mess up their lives…leave their partners and families for all the wrong reasons…become middle-aged hippies, as though we could ever be twenties again.
“They seem confused and definitely not content. This older group has simply forgotten that sex should be a thing that fits in nicely with a lot of other things like a good nourishing one-to-one relationship, work, personal growth, strengthening friendships, going fishing and watching sunsets.
“I get the feeling they’ve thrown out all the commitments, not just the bad ones, and sex has become the mainspring of their every waking moment.
“The sexual revolution has permitted me to share home and life with a man without marrying, and it gave me the right to choose my way of life without having to be a flag-carrying rebel about it, but if I were not to pick and choose within this revolution to suit myself, to avoid damaging myself…then I would not have been freed by the so-called revolution either; they’ve just exchanged one kind of slavery for another.
“Without doubt though, more good than harm has come of it, and my generation will pass out of it in time anyway.”

SUPPLEMENT

TIFFANY: “I like sex a lot. But it can only supplement a warm affectionate, mutually respecting, full personhood relationship. It can’t be a relationship. It can’t prove love. It can’t prove anything. I have found sex with people I don’t really like, or who I’m not certain will really like me, or with people I don’t feel I know well, to be very shallow and uncomfortable and physically unsatisfying.
“I don’t believe you have to be ‘in love’ and married ‘till death do us part.’ But mind and body are one organism and all tied up together, and it isn’t even physically fun unless the people involved really like each other.”
JESSICA: “The sexual revolution is great. But as an individual I feel I could not have sex except with someone I loved. And if I felt such love I’d want it permanently (as permanent as anything can be). I am even at 53 a romantic idealist—Damn it!”
JANE: “Because I’m very sensitive and afraid of getting hurt (I’m only 18), I still imbue intercourse with very strong emotional meaning. It upsets me and leaves me unhappy to be with someone who views intercourse casually and feels no meaningful tenderness afterwards.”
PAULA: “My emotions play an enormous part in sex for me—maybe too much for my liking. I sometimes feel that I’m too ‘particular,’ or selective or delicate—I have to be feeling very intensely, or in love, or overwhelmed by sexual feelings in order to enter a deep sexual encounter. Sometimes I worry about whether the man will expect too much from me, sometimes whether I will expect too much from him.
“Sometimes I worry about whether I won’t feel enough, or will be disappointed afterwards. At times I have gone out to have a totally casual encounter just to avoid these complications. Most of my relationships—maybe all—begin with a combination of the physical and emotional. I can’t get turned on to a partner without an emotional or mental factor being present, even if not primary. And sometimes it is primary, and the physical secondary.”
DONNA: “I think the sexual revolution has caused a lot of suffering. People use it to avoid commitment; they refuse to work a relationship, preferring to search for the ‘perfect’ love. They fantasize their way through relationships, always seeking perfection, running scared at the first sign that work is needed to help two people together.
“No one knows where the other person is at, and what attracts one may turn off another. Everyone wants to try everything, but not stick to any one thing, so they change from day to day, and are bewildered by the way they and their friends reverse opinions and trade partners.
“I’m not saying the old way was better, but I’m afraid of what kind of life I can look forward to. I’m not married, but even if I do get married it seems that my marriage has a small chance of surviving. And I don’t see the advantages of this style, frankly.”
ELAINE: “I’m confused as hell about the ‘sexual revolution.’ My husband and I lived and slept together for over a year before we were married—and that was fine. We loved each other and there was some kind of commitment between us. The summer before I was married, my (then) fiancĂ© was away and I slept twice with another man because I was curious. Fine.
“As I mentioned earlier, I lost my virginity to a friend, a bit of a cold way to start out, but I was scared and wanting to get laid, so he helped me out. Fine.
“But extra-marital sex, after a man and a woman have made a big commitment to each other—I can’t buy. I moved out on my husband when he took on a girl friend because I couldn’t stand the pain. A year later, right now, we’re negotiating. We seem to be at a stalemate. I hate to think of myself as behind the times, but I just can’t hack anything but monogamy.”

GREATEST

HELEN: “I still believe the greatest sexual satisfaction comes from having a partner you care about. I’ve gone through stages of having several lovers and thinking I was really liberated. But I’m much more fulfilled now with one caring partner.”
MICHELLE: “I went along with the sexual revolution quite a while until I realized that holding my feelings back was causing me lots of anguish. I was very depressed. I tried opening communications line up—that was part of the problem, but not all of it. Now, in love with my lover and trusting him, I can see how all that damaged me—made my trust mechanisms inhibited by sex.
“For a while I stopped having sex with him because I couldn’t love and fuck him both. These days things are much better. I think that the loyalty is important.”
MARY: “It’s an overreaction and after years and years of the old double standard, of women expected to be pure and virginal for marriage and to always set the limits, society has overturned itself.
“Now women are supposed to be willing, ready, and able to have sex with anyone, anytime, no strings attached and so on. Out of the latter swing of the pendulum have come some good opening ups of certain repressive taboos.
“But women, and men, remain oppressed by these roles. I have found that I can’t detach myself from sex and still enjoy it. I can’t make love with someone I’m not supposed to trust—and feel good about it.
“These attitudes don’t treat me like a whole person either. Too much mind/body separation results in either compulsive screwers or strained virgins!”
BERNADETTE: “I have mixed feelings about the sexual revolution. Hedonism seems the opposite side of the coin of Puritanism.  My daughters tell me that they feel used and abused and refused promiscuity, although they have had sex with young men they cared about. I personally hate the singles scene. It makes me feel like a walking cunt!”      
SOPHIA: “I guess I like the idea of intercourse—two people’s bodies joined in an act of love or mutual excitement or whatever, but I’ve become so disillusioned by the whole thing—having met and fucked with a lot of guys who (as I came to realized later) just wanted to get laid and liked the looks of my body but wanted little or nothing to do with me.
“I have come to regard sex as exploitative—having sex is almost like saying ‘here, fuck me, do anything with me that you want, I’m not worth anything anyway.’
“I guess I’m sort of screwed sexually, my ideas about sex are screwed up, and I hope my therapy will help me there. I’ve found I have a lot of guilt feelings and a refusal to enjoy sex, or at least that is what my therapist says.”



Friday, December 26, 2014

How sex got a bad reputation


“Love is something far more than desire for sexual intercourse; it is the principal means of escape from the loneliness which afflicts most men and women throughout the greater part of their lives.” Bertrand Russell

By Alex P. Vidal

IS sex dirty?
Sex for procreation good.
For health good also?
Sexual behavior is often judged by clergymen whose qualifications include their solemn renunciation of sexual intercourse.
“Tragically,” protests Dr. David Reuben in Beyond the Birds and Trees, “those who undertake to control our sexual destinies are often sexually sick themselves. The decency league dedicated to abridging sexual behavior—except on their terms—are simply trying to deprive others of the reasonable use of their sexual orgasms.”
Reuben adds: “Every one of us has made that seven-inch journey through the penis into the vagina to meet the other half of our future protoplasm, and has then settled in the uterus for the 280-day wait. There is no reason now to be ashamed of how we traveled and where we grew—there is no more suitable place.”
In Any Woman Can, Reuben, 81, a psychiatrist and sex expert who now lives in California, says sex started with the crocodile.
“This scaly cold-blooded distant relative of man was the first animal to develop a penis. Before then, life was much simpler. All the earth’s inhabitants had about the same type of sexual equipment and used it about the same way.”
This was how Reuben explained further:
The male and female simply backed up to each other, wiggled their sexual equipment into contact, and oozed primitive sperm into contact with primitive eggs.
There wasn’t much to see, hardly anything to feel, and in many species if a couple turned on like this once a year, it was sufficient. Twice a year was oversexed and many animals copulated only once in a lifetime.

VISIBLE

For one thing penis was visible. Secondly, it revolutionized sex by fitting inside the female body. In those days there was no such thing as a vagina. The female sexual equipment was a cloaca consisting of a common channel for urine, feces, and semi-annual eggs. (Things have improved a lot for women since then.)
Obviously, the crocodile penis too has undergone major design modifications as it was handed down over the years to homo sapiens. From the evolutionary point of view the modern American male sports the latest in phallic equipment. But problem still remained.
Men equipped with this wonderful organ quickly developed a lively interest in the female sexual apparatus, by then improved and expanded into a closely-coupled vagina, labia, and clitoris.
Like the crocodiles before them men and women discovered that combining their sexual resources resulted in immense pleasure for both contributors.
For the next 50,000 years all went well. Sex was a normal psychological function as routine as swimming had been to the crocodile and as essential and enjoyable as eating was to early man. Then came the Dark Ages.
About 400 A.D. Western civilization abruptly lurched in a different direction. Suddenly sex was out and guilt was in.
As some long-forgotten genius in the field of medieval motivational psychology discovered, men and women are unbelievably responsive to the liking up of sex and guilt.
From that moment on, the fate of society (and most of its members) was sealed. The most efficient means of controlling human behavior had been put into effect: focus on an activity which everybody must engage in—sex; select its most joyable aspect—copulation; finally provide the threat of severe and relentless punishment for its enjoyment.
As the machinery of sexual repression creaked into action, the power and influence of those in control grew enormously. There were, to be sure, a few hitches at first but all resistance finally yielded to the crushing force of sexual repression.

PROBLEMS

One of the major early problems was that the moralists actually underestimated the potential of their new weapon to change the destiny of the Western world.
Apparently the original idea was to make sex only a minor transgression. However all levels of society almost immediately succumbed to the irresistible urge to feel guilty about perfectly normal sexual feelings. In effect this was the “new morality,” Dark Ages version.
In some ways a most frightening form. Sex rapidly became an emotional commodity to be consumed under the strictest prohibitions, if at all.
Like the famous insurance policy that pays off is the insured is killed by a cable car on the Fourth of July while carrying an Easter bunny, sexual relations came to be allowed only under the most rigid restrictions.
According to these forerunners of our modern moral guardians, sex was to be limited to married couples in bed, in the dark, fully clothed, ideally involving an important man and a frigid woman with just enough sperm dripping onto the lady’s private parts to bring on a joyless impregnation.
That was another challenge for the moral reformers. Since it sets a liberal tone toward sex, a major hatchet job was in order.
The Good Book was extensively distorted and misinterpreted to make it appear to endorse sexual repression.
Genesis was reinterpreted to make Adam and Eve seem like sinners who were evicted from the Garden of Eden for daring to engage in sexual intercourse.

SANITIZED

Later versions were further sanitized and Adam’s penis was replaced by the ever-present serpent hovering greedily around Eve’s pubic fig leaf.
The sexual purifiers smugly ignored reality: if God had not intended His first man and woman to copulate He would simply have molded their mortal clay a bit differently and left them nothing to work with.
Some of the changes were downright silly. In the Revised Version of the Bible of 1881, the word “whore” was changed to “harlot” and the term, “whoremonger” was replaced by “fornicator.” No exact figures are available to the number of souls saved by these semantic gymnastics.
The Bible was only the beginning. After emasculating this once lusty and vital Scripture, every other possible work of man, artistic and literary, were purged and distorted to eliminate any mention of rational human sexuality.
Fifteen hundred years ago the single most enduring principle of Western society was forged: SEX IS BAD.
From that moment to the present, hundreds of millions of innocent people have been brainwashed into believing a silly bit nonsense: sex is synonymous with sin.
Regrettably, no force on earth has been able to turn back the emotional calendar and the misconception goes on, constantly reinforced.
For more than a dozen centuries every persuasive force available has been harnessed to desexualize the most highly-sexed animal this planet has ever known—the human being. Their message is always the same and always untrue: sex, except under nearly impossible circumstances, is wicked.
One of the real tragedies of recent times is the attempted corruption of the human body. A small group of moral crusaders, working with that fevered devotion seen only in the mentally deranged, has been trying to convince everyone that the perfectly synchronized beautifully designed, elegantly planned mechanisms of their bodies are nasty, filthy, and horrid.
That psychological masterpiece which makes human reproduction unique has been distorted by those who should know better into a curse and a sickness.

MENSTRUATION

In reality menstruation signifies perfect health. The ounce or two of blood that is passed each month is the banner of a normal reproductive system. If blood is unclean, imagine what the moral crusaders can make of a nosebleed.
When it comes to sexual intercourse, the guerrilla fighters for purity bring on their big guns. Their favorite word is “dirty”—and they are wrong again.
By every test, sexual intercourse is probably the purest and daintiest activity that a man and woman can engage in, aside from being the most enjoyable.
The genitals themselves are normally free of harmful bacteria, the secretions are perfectly sterile, and the penis and vagina were obviously designed to be brought together in their own inimitable style.
By contrast, the throat of every person, including the anti-sex orators, is crammed with a dozen varieties of lethal bacteria.
These include the bugs that cause diphtheria, gonorrhea, strep throat, and rheumatic fever. If they want to start a crusade, it should probably begin in their own noses and mouths.
Actually the sexual reformers are on the wrong track. If they really hope to make men and women afraid of themselves, they might devote their attention to other organ systems.
Breathing offers a good opportunity. We take in good clean air and pervert it into bad breath! Only a few cynical mouthwash salesmen have jumped on that one, but there is plenty of room for moral education about how the body ruins God-given oxygen.
Sweating is another good area. Fifty thousand years ago human beings used their noses as much as their eyes. They could identify a stranger by his smell and could distinguish approaching animals and men by their specific odors.
The need for that talent has diminished somewhat but the human aroma still clings to man. It is now known as “body odor” and must be eliminated at all costs.
A human who smells like a human is headed for social and occupational disaster. In order to be accepted by the rest of his race, his breath must reek of carbolic acid, his armpits give off the scent of gardenias, and his skin exude hexachlorophene.
A few years ago chlorophyll tablets were developed to expunge once and for all every trace of human smells. (As a tribute to man’s sanity, they were tried and quickly discarded by all except fugitives wishing to avoid the bloodhounds.)

FRONTIER

Perhaps the last frontier for those reformers who want to protect us against ourselves is the digestive system. If they really concentrated they might be able to spoil the pleasure of eating for a hundred million or so fellow citizens. All they would need to do would be to explain, “When you take that beautiful food, provided for you by Heaven’s bounty, and put it into your body, it is attacked by filthy chemicals and changed into a green stinking mass. Do you know what that food finally becomes? Do you know what it is turned into?”
The lecture would have to stop at this point because the devoted moralists couldn’t say the word.
Every organ, every secretion, every cell of the human body was put there by nature, by the Creator, for a purpose.
The respiratory system, the digestive system, the sweat glands, all have a vital function in the preservation of the body. The sexual organs are no exception. For the past few hundred years, not more than a fleeting moment in the history of mankind, a strange collection of misguided do-gooders and moralizing misfits have tried to make us forget how we all arrived in this world. They miss the point. Ever since the beginning of the human race, sexual intercourse has been the most noble and wholesome of all man’s activities.
In spite of the shrill protests of those self-appointed moral guardians, nothing is going to change that.
Every woman, married or not, deserves the freedom to enjoy the ultimate expression of her sexual potential. With knowledge and determination and courage, that achievement is within her grasp.

Tuesday, January 7, 2014

The enemies of sexual happiness

People could disregard the Biblical warnings against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions. 

"The emotional, sexual, and psychological stereotyping of females begins when the doctor says: It's a girl." SHIRLEY CHISHOLM

By Alex P. Vidal

Two experts with opposing views about human sexuality have produced some of the greatest arguments that became subjects of intelligent debates among scholars in this age.  
Dr. S. I. McMillen wrote a controversial book that opposed some of the views of Dr. Alfred Charles Kinsey and "as a result of a thousand sighs for the many people who left my office without receiving adequate help."
Kinsey was already dead for seven years when McMillen's book, None Of These Diseases, was published in 1963; thus, he was not around to defend himself when McMillen devoted chapter 7 to crush and expose Kinsey's numerous "faults" in the Kinsey Reports,  two books on human sexual behavior: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953).
McMillen, a graduate of University of Pennsylvania Medical School and the London School of Tropical Medicine, pointed out: "I have written the prescription that I would have given these patients if only I had the time. I hasten to add the counsel is not original with me. When God led the Israelites out of afflicted Egypt, He promised them that if they would obey His statutes, He would put 'none of these diseases' upon them."

PIED PIPER

McMillen recalled the story of the pied piper of Hamelin who enticed the younger set to follow the enchanting, irresistible music of his flute. 
He led the children into a cave in a mountain, and they were never seen again.
Each generation produces a swarm of pied pipers, he proceeded. In the middle of this century one of them swung down the main streets of America, playing the catchy tune of "sex freedom." 
He sprightly, jazzy jingles promised emancipation from the "traditions" and "horrible confinement of religious inhibitions." 
There were many who left their homes and loved ones to race down the street after this alluring music. 
The piper had neither flute nor the waving hips of a rock-and-roll singer. 
He was a zoologist who gathered certain statistics on the theme of sex, and he shook them and beat upon them like a tambourine.
First, let us look at the statistics he gathered. He and his associates had interviewed 5,940 women, questioning them about the intimate details of their past and present sexual lives. 
From these reports, our piper figured the percentages of the women engaged in this and that sexual perversion, the percentages of those who had had premarital experiences, and the percentages of those who were guilty of extramarital affairs. 
From these percentages he drew certain conclusions.

EXCEPTION

Authorities and specialists have taken exception to this report and to the conclusions that Dr. Alfred C. Kinsey made. In the first place, Kinsey interviewed only one out of every fourteen thousand women in the country. 
Second, these women were certainly not typical of the average American woman, because in this abnormal sampling the ratio of single women to married women was three times greater than that found in the country at large, and the ratio of college women to noncollege women was ten times greater. 
Third, the only women in the group were women who had volunteered to lay bare the details of their intimate sexual lives. 
Such women are rare in more ways than one. Women who would volunteer to reveal sexual secrets would be women who had, probably as a result of their sexual experiences, lost an inborn female reticence. 
Many of these women stated that they enjoyed being bitten during the sex act, and that trait certainly marks them as being abnormal. It is a neurotic mind that can translate pain into pleasure.
Kinsey's sampling was loaded with typical and masochistic women. 
It was the sexual image of this group of women--who were strangely devoid of the natural inhibitions of women--that was superimposed on all other women.

FAULTS

There are number of other faults in the Kinsey report. First, it is inferred that if the "average woman" is engaged in an act, then that act is advisable. 
There is a gulf as wide as the Grand Canyon between that which is advisable and that which is average. 
The average Hindu drinks filthy water on his pilgrimages, but it is certainly not advisable, since the Hindus die of cholera by the thousands. 
The faulty implication in the Kinsey report is that it is advisable for women to adjust to that which is average, even to a badly distorted average.
Second, having classified a woman and a hog in the same zoological category, Kinsey could see no reason a woman's sexual life should not be patterned after that of a hog. 
A hog has no horrible inhibitions about sex; why should a woman?
Many people thought the reasoning seemed plausible, smacking as it did of science. 
After all, they asked themselves, had not "certain skilled psychiatrists" told Kinsey that restraints were bad for the mind? 
Now, if men and women mingled freely in the pen of promiscuity, the ultimate in living could be achieved. There would be no restraints and no frustrations. 
Here at last was the panacea that could cure all their longings.  
People could disregard the Biblical warnings against fornication, adultery, homosexuality, and other perversions. 
They could follow the piper of promiscuity into a Utopia where nary a restriction would be placed on sexual impulses, however wild and bizarre they might be.

'OUTDATED LAWS'

This zoologist deplored the fact that the "outdated laws" of the moral code were a great hindrance to the operation of his ideas. 
But modern pipers feel that these laws will soon be changed. Until they are, they suggest that their followers seek "to avoid open conflict with the law." 
I suppose rape of little girls and defenseless women should not be attempted if there were the probability of conflict with the law.
It is not a little strange that a zoologist, a specialist in animals, should set himself up as an authority on the sex life of women? Dealing with the purely animal aspects of the matter, he fails completely to realize the deeply human relationships involved.
What do medical specialists think about putting women and hogs in the same sexual category? 
Two specialists, a gynecologist and a psychiatrist, resented this bull-in-the-china-shop intrusion so strongly that they wrote a book to refute Kinsey's erroneous statements.

SPREAD

Kinsey assured his followers that the spread of venereal diseases through premarital intercourse is "a relatively unimportant matter today." 
This salesman of promiscuity is at variance with the U.S. Public Health Service which recently reported: "We estimate the reservoir of untreated syphilitics today at 1,200,000 cases and that the true annual incidence is 60,000 cases." 
It has been further estimated that the annual number of new cases of gonorrhea in this country is 1,000,000 cases."
Kinsey is far removed from the best medical opinions when he makes repeated inferences that girls who engage in premarital petting have more successful marriages than those who do not. 
Medical specialists, who deal with people rather than animals, refute his deduction: Such advice is scientifically wrong.
There is no premium for premarital petting to orgasm. There are no penalties for not indulging in this manner. Experience proves that neurotic girls are the most persistent petters and that emotionally healthy girls usually reject sex without love. 
Successful marriage and sexual adjustment are based more on gradually established confidence, liking and mutual respect than on any premarital trial and error sexual process.

ENEMIES

The real enemies of man's sexual happiness are those who would entice him away from his home, his family, and the Biblical standards. 
Few people have ever stopped to realize that the blessings of sex and civilization that we enjoy exist because a large proportion of people take heed of the words of Jesus: "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female. 
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh."
People who take this Scriptural standard as their model will save themselves from many diseases and a thousand heartaches.  

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Dialectic of Sex

"When we consider and reflect upon Nature at large or the history of mankind or our own intellectual activity at first we see the picture of an endless entanglement of relations and reactions, permutations and combinations, in which nothing remains what, where, and as it was, but everything moves, changes, comes into being and passes away. We see therefore at first the picture as a whole with its individual parts still more or less kept in the background; we observe the movements, transitions, connections, rather than the things that move, combine, and are connected. This primitive, naive, but intrinsically correct conception of the world is that of ancient Greek philosophy, and was first clearly formulated by Heraclitus: everything is and is not, for everything is fluid, is constantly changing, constantly coming into being and passing away." FRIEDRICH ENGELS


By Alex P. Vidal


HOLLYWOOD, California -- What is the deepest division in nature? 
The biological inequality of men and women, says Shulamith Firestone in her brilliant book, The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for Feminist Revolution.
But what is fact is not necessarily human. 
To survive in our time we must break down politically traditional sex-roles, she suggests. 
Ten provocative chapters push Women's Liberation to a new radical peak and paint a persuasive picture of a post-revolutionary society where the sexual class system has been eradicated.
Firestone cuts into the prejudice against women (and children)--amplified through the modern media--that paralyzes our society.
With penetrating insight into the political machinery that consolidates male power, the author examines the historical development of special cultural constructs--such as romantic love--that have kept women subservient to their gradually eroding roles as wives and mothers. 
She looks at the cultural backlash to the feminist movement and, finally, envisions in amazing detail a post-revolutionary computer society in which the deepest source of social and cultural disease, the sexual class system, has been eradicated, thereby allowing for the first successful revolution in history.


DEEP


Sex class is so deep as to be invisible, according to Firestone. 
Or it may appear as a superficial inequality, one that can be solved by merely a few reforms, or perhaps by the full integration of women into the labor force. "But the reaction of the common man, woman, and child--'That? Why you can't change that! You must be out of your mind!'--is the closest to the truth. We are talking about something every bit as deep as that. This gut reaction--the assumption that, even when they don't know it, feminists are talking about changing a fundamental biological condition--is an honest one," writes Firestone. 
"That so profound a change cannot be easily fit into traditional categories of thought, e.g., 'political,' is not because these categories do not apply but because they are not big enough: radical feminism bursts through them. If there were another word more all-embracing than revolution we would use it."
Until a certain level of evolution had been reached and technology had achieved its present sophistication, she says to question fundamental biological conditions was insanity.
"Why should a woman give up her precious seat in the cattle car for a bloody struggle she could not hope to win?" she asks. 
"But, for the first time in some countries, the preconditions for feminist revolution exist--indeed, the situation is beginning to demand such a revolution." 


MASSACRE


Firestone says the first women are fleeing the massacre, and, shaking and tottering, are beginning to find each other. 
Their move is reportedly a careful joint observation, to resensitize a fractured consciousness.
"This is painful," she adds. "No matter how many levels of consciousness one reaches, the problem always goes deeper. It is everywhere. The division yin and yang pervades all culture, history, economics, nature itself; modern Western versions of sex discrimination are only the most recent layer. To so heighten one's sensitivity to sexism presents problems far worse than the black militant's new awareness of racism: Feminists have to question, not just all of Western culture, but the organization of nature.
"Many women give up in despair: if that's how deep it goes they don't want to know. Others continue strengthening and enlarging the movement, their painful sensitivity to female oppression existing for a purpose: eventually to eliminate it."
Firestone explains: "Before we can act to change a situation, however, we must know how it has arisen and evolved, and through what institutions it now operates. Engels' '(We must) examine the historic succession of events from which the antagonism has sprung in order to discover in the conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict.'


REVOLUTION


For feminist revolution, the authors suggests the need for an analysis of the dynamics of sex war as comprehensive as the Marx-Engels analysis of class antagonism was for the economic revolution. 
"More comprehensive. For we are dealing with a larger problem," she points out, "with an oppression that goes back beyond recorded history to the animal kingdom itself."
Firestone says in creating such analysis, "we can learn a lot from Marx and Engels: Not their literal opinions about women--about the condition of women as an oppressed class they know next to nothing, recognizing it only where it overlaps with economics--but rather their analytic method."
Marx and Engels outdid their socialist forerunners in that they developed a method of analysis which was both dialectical and materialist. 
The first in centuries to view history dialectically, they saw the world as process, a natural flux of action and reaction, of opposites yet inseparable and interpenetrating. 
Because they were able to perceive history as movie rather than as snapshot, they attempted to avoid falling into the stagnant "metaphysical" view that had trapped so many other great minds.


VIEW


Firestone says they combined this view of the dynamic interplay of historical forces with a materialist one, that is, they attempted for the first time to put historical and cultural change on a real basis, to trace the development of economic classes to organic causes. 
By understanding thoroughly the mechanics of history, they hoped to show men how to master it.
"Socialist thinkers prior to Marx and Engels, such as Fourier, Owen, and Bebel, had been able to do no more than moralize about existing social inequalities, positing and ideal world where class privilege and exploitation should not exist--in the same way that early feminist thinkers posited a world where male privilege and exploitation ought not exist--by mere virtue of good will," writes Firestone.
"In both cases, because the early thinkers did not really understand how the social injustice had evolved, maintained itself, or could be eliminated, their ideas existed in a cultural vacuum, utopian. Marx and Engels, on the other hand,  attempted a scientific approach to history. They traced the class conflict to its real economic origins, projecting an economic solution based on objective economic preconditions already present: the seizure by the proletariat of the means of production would lead to a communism in which government had withered away, no longer needed to repress the lower class for the sake of the higher. In the classless society the interest of every individual would be synonymous with those of the larger society."  
But the doctrine of historical materialism, as she explains further, much as it was a brilliant advance over previous historical analysis, was not the complete answer, as later events bore out. 
For though Marx and Engels grounded their theory in reality, it was only a partial reality.