- Jun 01, 2007
Perverted sex
Now that I got your attention...
In the form most of us know and enjoy it, it is in fact a corruption, a perversion, of nature. Homosexuality, sodomy ( which technically refers to both anal and oral, hetero or homo), masturbation, the religious and the prudes are right in that respect.
Just like chocolate cake, ice cream, movies and roller coasters, drugs of every kind (aspirin for example), soft beds, gyms, clothing; what they have in common, we were smart enough to find something that has a particular effect on the body or mind, and find a way to exaggerate it, or produce the effect artificially.
We could not have evolved, originally, to eat prepared food. We would eat whatever grew. Acorns. Leaves. Roots. We invented grinding, adding water to create mush. Heating food. Now we have tortellini. Totally unnatural. We taste sweet, we like it, to get us to eat fruit. Not strawberry cheese cake. We have enhanced nature, found ways to stimulate pleasure zones.
Nature, our genes, only "care" about having the genes exist into the future.
It could be no other way.
Your body, your mind, it is nothing more than a vessel for carrying your genes. What you think of as your soul, your experience, your life, all of it is just an envelope, just packaging.
That's ok.
We have no claws, little teeth, no camouflage, no niche. Instinct is not enough to get us frail things to survive. We must have intelligence. And in order to have a goal, to direct that intelligence, we must have feeling.
And having both affords us the opportunity to take advantage of pleasure. We have no incentive to adopt our genes goal as our own (not counting the Mormons). There is only one goal which it makes any sense for us to adapt, and that is pleasure. (Not necessarily all in the selfish hedonistic sense, but then, being good to others, causing them pleasure, feels good. Ultimately, it is all about happiness, which in tun is gaining pleasure and reducing pain).
And so we use our intelligence to invent cooking, and to invent birth control. If sex didn't feel good, no one would do it, there would be no children, and we wouldn't be here to think about it. It has to, by default, for every specie that has free will.
Birth control is unnatural. So is abortion. The whole point of sex is babies. Undeniable. But unimportant. No one who objects on these grounds objects to our corruption of the rush of adrenalin intended for avoiding predators and cliffs that we get with roller coaster or sky diving on the equally true point that those are unnatural.
People figured out that sex feels good before the invention of birth control. Our collective psychology has not caught up with technology.
Babies bring up social realities which are more complex than hedonism can take into consideration. We must care about them. Same as before - if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. We're too vulnerable while waiting for that big brain to develop. Sea turtles probably don't have any hang-ups around sex. Babies take a whole lot of resources. You want to know yours really is yours before you spend those resources. You want your genes, not your partners other lover's. You can't watch her at all times. From her point of view, there is no real incentive to be only with you. Maybe the guy with fewer resources has better genes. Or, in her mind, he looks better. Same thing. The problem is universal, and everyone's problem is solved by introducing the concept of adultery, and making it the gravest sin imaginable.
Worse than murder. And this must be fully ingrained into every individual in society. Any one person who questions it could shatter the whole illusion. Incorporating it into religion, beginning the indoctrination from a young age, insures each person feels it is true inside themselves, no matter how little sense it makes.
Undeniable that in a family unit, the adults have control, by default. Their children are theirs. Not a political statement, just the practical reality. The idea that children are their own, their parents merely caretakers, this is new, developed from the expanding sphere of "human rights" which is a purely made up concept - a good one, no doubt, but certainly not natural.
And if you want to negotiate good price for your daughter you need to insure she is a virgin. Groom's family isn't going to want a wife who may already have a baby, none of their genes get passed on. But what incentive does she have? he may not want to be married at all, especially to whoever has been arranged. Marriage may be years in the future. Only way is to convince all daughters that sex is immoral. At the same time, men must believe that the most awful horrible immoral thing they can ever do is have sex with a maiden. Her consent does not matter, the crime is against her father; (and in this you have the beginning of what we today call statuary rape). An entire society has to believe sex is immoral except if in marriage, for reproduction. Otherwise people may start asking questions. We start children believing early, just like with patriotism or religion, because, like those, the idea is so stupid that no sane objective free thinking adult would ever take it seriously. And there in lies the roots of masturbation being seen as wrong - even though there is no risk of pregnancy, no harm to anyone.
But then, when no one is around, within marriage, what's to stop a married couple from telling each other they are trying for a baby when they both know they really aren't? And so then maybe sex for pleasure is ok after all (since its too hard to regulate), but only if its within marriage, and doesn't use birth control. Then its still bordering on "natural" which is the accepted rationalization for claiming immorality.
And you end up with a scale which makes various pleasurable acts more or less immoral based on how similar it is to sex for reproduction within a marriage. Birth control is not as immoral as oral sex. Adultery is less immoral than homosexuality. Any sexual contact with minors, consensual or not, remains the greatest offense (which is not questioned even as the definition of "minor" varies by as much as 10 years or more in different times and cultures).
My wife was still 17 our first few times, which legally made her my 'victim'; despite the fact that she intimated it. I could have done jail time and been listed for life under Megan's law for that. A few months later it was ok though.
Historically, rape was a crime against the woman’s husband (or father if she was unmarried). In the Bible, sex between unmarried people in the city, the woman was criminally liable, she would be punished, because it couldn't have been rape, because she could have screamed, and someone would have heard her and helped. In the countryside, however, only the man is prosecuted, for surely she called out, but no one heard. In the Bible the consequence for raping an unmarried woman was that the man had to marry her. Chances are, not the first choice of the victim.
Fortunately for all of us, humanity eventually figured out that everyone does better when everyone does better, that we can win at game theory if we all play altruist, and we invented the concept of human rights. Nature recognizes no rights. Evolution, survival, life, complex biology is complex chemistry is complex physics... Jackal chases a jack rabbit to eat - no rights involved. That's reality. But in addition to birth control, our intelligence allows us to invent "justice" and "equality". Human rights are no more natural than toilets, shoes, or agriculture; and they are all good things that make our lives a little easier, a little better.
Unintended consequence, since our collective human consciousness is uncomfortable with sex for hundreds of generations, unable to retract those beliefs, today woman are convicted of rape and child molestation, which, considering the reasons those were made sins, makes no sense. But its equitable to at least hold us all to the same standard - right?
In modern times with religion losing its all encompassing grip n our lives, with technology making birth control reliable, with concepts of rights equalizing people, changing relationships, with our greater awareness - it has barely scratched the surface of repression which has enveloped all of humanity.
In our "free" country, supposedly progressive and socially advanced, viewing partial nudity is considered a far greater threat to children than almost any level of violence. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, one of the most detailed and realistic video games (in content, not just graphics) yet produced, a veritable orgy of violence, drugs, and crime, violence for profit, for revenge, for fun or simply convenience - has its rating changed to "Adult Only" only after it is revealed that a bit o code can reveal a fully clothed soft-core simulated sex scene.
A (female) member of the air force is sentenced to 3 years in military prison for participating in a consensual three-some, because the other woman was slightly drunker than her (even though she did not request prosecution).
As of only 3 years ago, "sodomy" (which includes not only anal, but also oral, sometimes penetration with "objects", and in some cases even mutual masturbation) was a crime in 14 U.S. states. 9 of them did not discriminate between homo and heterosexual couples (guess which ones). While a supreme court decision on Texas' law effectively reverses them all, they have not all technically been appealed, and can be enforced until somebody legally challenges them. A married, heterosexual couple engaging in almost any form of "foreplay" may therefore be arrested, and, depending on the state, sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison, plus lifetime notification of employers and neighbors under Megan's law that they are convicted sex offenders. (Next time some body around you claims we live in a free country, feel free to punch them in the nose for me).
Nudists are quick to point out that nudity does not imply sexuality - which is true, but to mention it in that context is a concession that public sexuality is inherently immoral, or harmful to children, or whatever its supposed to be. (By the way, it is legal for women to be topless in public in a surprising number of U.S. locals, including Washington D.C., the State of New York, and, Maine)
Ideas so ingrained it doesn't even occur to question them. We don't feel we need a reason to explain why its wrong. Its just wrong. Anything which "just is" - probably isn't. If someone is hurt, it's wrong. If no one is hurt, it isn't wrong. Simple.
So
What say you and I get a reliable form of birth control.
And get busy.
In the form most of us know and enjoy it, it is in fact a corruption, a perversion, of nature. Homosexuality, sodomy ( which technically refers to both anal and oral, hetero or homo), masturbation, the religious and the prudes are right in that respect.
Just like chocolate cake, ice cream, movies and roller coasters, drugs of every kind (aspirin for example), soft beds, gyms, clothing; what they have in common, we were smart enough to find something that has a particular effect on the body or mind, and find a way to exaggerate it, or produce the effect artificially.
We could not have evolved, originally, to eat prepared food. We would eat whatever grew. Acorns. Leaves. Roots. We invented grinding, adding water to create mush. Heating food. Now we have tortellini. Totally unnatural. We taste sweet, we like it, to get us to eat fruit. Not strawberry cheese cake. We have enhanced nature, found ways to stimulate pleasure zones.
Nature, our genes, only "care" about having the genes exist into the future.
It could be no other way.
Your body, your mind, it is nothing more than a vessel for carrying your genes. What you think of as your soul, your experience, your life, all of it is just an envelope, just packaging.
That's ok.
We have no claws, little teeth, no camouflage, no niche. Instinct is not enough to get us frail things to survive. We must have intelligence. And in order to have a goal, to direct that intelligence, we must have feeling.
And having both affords us the opportunity to take advantage of pleasure. We have no incentive to adopt our genes goal as our own (not counting the Mormons). There is only one goal which it makes any sense for us to adapt, and that is pleasure. (Not necessarily all in the selfish hedonistic sense, but then, being good to others, causing them pleasure, feels good. Ultimately, it is all about happiness, which in tun is gaining pleasure and reducing pain).
And so we use our intelligence to invent cooking, and to invent birth control. If sex didn't feel good, no one would do it, there would be no children, and we wouldn't be here to think about it. It has to, by default, for every specie that has free will.
Birth control is unnatural. So is abortion. The whole point of sex is babies. Undeniable. But unimportant. No one who objects on these grounds objects to our corruption of the rush of adrenalin intended for avoiding predators and cliffs that we get with roller coaster or sky diving on the equally true point that those are unnatural.
People figured out that sex feels good before the invention of birth control. Our collective psychology has not caught up with technology.
Babies bring up social realities which are more complex than hedonism can take into consideration. We must care about them. Same as before - if we didn't, we wouldn't be here. We're too vulnerable while waiting for that big brain to develop. Sea turtles probably don't have any hang-ups around sex. Babies take a whole lot of resources. You want to know yours really is yours before you spend those resources. You want your genes, not your partners other lover's. You can't watch her at all times. From her point of view, there is no real incentive to be only with you. Maybe the guy with fewer resources has better genes. Or, in her mind, he looks better. Same thing. The problem is universal, and everyone's problem is solved by introducing the concept of adultery, and making it the gravest sin imaginable.
Worse than murder. And this must be fully ingrained into every individual in society. Any one person who questions it could shatter the whole illusion. Incorporating it into religion, beginning the indoctrination from a young age, insures each person feels it is true inside themselves, no matter how little sense it makes.
Undeniable that in a family unit, the adults have control, by default. Their children are theirs. Not a political statement, just the practical reality. The idea that children are their own, their parents merely caretakers, this is new, developed from the expanding sphere of "human rights" which is a purely made up concept - a good one, no doubt, but certainly not natural.
And if you want to negotiate good price for your daughter you need to insure she is a virgin. Groom's family isn't going to want a wife who may already have a baby, none of their genes get passed on. But what incentive does she have? he may not want to be married at all, especially to whoever has been arranged. Marriage may be years in the future. Only way is to convince all daughters that sex is immoral. At the same time, men must believe that the most awful horrible immoral thing they can ever do is have sex with a maiden. Her consent does not matter, the crime is against her father; (and in this you have the beginning of what we today call statuary rape). An entire society has to believe sex is immoral except if in marriage, for reproduction. Otherwise people may start asking questions. We start children believing early, just like with patriotism or religion, because, like those, the idea is so stupid that no sane objective free thinking adult would ever take it seriously. And there in lies the roots of masturbation being seen as wrong - even though there is no risk of pregnancy, no harm to anyone.
But then, when no one is around, within marriage, what's to stop a married couple from telling each other they are trying for a baby when they both know they really aren't? And so then maybe sex for pleasure is ok after all (since its too hard to regulate), but only if its within marriage, and doesn't use birth control. Then its still bordering on "natural" which is the accepted rationalization for claiming immorality.
And you end up with a scale which makes various pleasurable acts more or less immoral based on how similar it is to sex for reproduction within a marriage. Birth control is not as immoral as oral sex. Adultery is less immoral than homosexuality. Any sexual contact with minors, consensual or not, remains the greatest offense (which is not questioned even as the definition of "minor" varies by as much as 10 years or more in different times and cultures).
My wife was still 17 our first few times, which legally made her my 'victim'; despite the fact that she intimated it. I could have done jail time and been listed for life under Megan's law for that. A few months later it was ok though.
Historically, rape was a crime against the woman’s husband (or father if she was unmarried). In the Bible, sex between unmarried people in the city, the woman was criminally liable, she would be punished, because it couldn't have been rape, because she could have screamed, and someone would have heard her and helped. In the countryside, however, only the man is prosecuted, for surely she called out, but no one heard. In the Bible the consequence for raping an unmarried woman was that the man had to marry her. Chances are, not the first choice of the victim.
Fortunately for all of us, humanity eventually figured out that everyone does better when everyone does better, that we can win at game theory if we all play altruist, and we invented the concept of human rights. Nature recognizes no rights. Evolution, survival, life, complex biology is complex chemistry is complex physics... Jackal chases a jack rabbit to eat - no rights involved. That's reality. But in addition to birth control, our intelligence allows us to invent "justice" and "equality". Human rights are no more natural than toilets, shoes, or agriculture; and they are all good things that make our lives a little easier, a little better.
Unintended consequence, since our collective human consciousness is uncomfortable with sex for hundreds of generations, unable to retract those beliefs, today woman are convicted of rape and child molestation, which, considering the reasons those were made sins, makes no sense. But its equitable to at least hold us all to the same standard - right?
In modern times with religion losing its all encompassing grip n our lives, with technology making birth control reliable, with concepts of rights equalizing people, changing relationships, with our greater awareness - it has barely scratched the surface of repression which has enveloped all of humanity.
In our "free" country, supposedly progressive and socially advanced, viewing partial nudity is considered a far greater threat to children than almost any level of violence. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, one of the most detailed and realistic video games (in content, not just graphics) yet produced, a veritable orgy of violence, drugs, and crime, violence for profit, for revenge, for fun or simply convenience - has its rating changed to "Adult Only" only after it is revealed that a bit o code can reveal a fully clothed soft-core simulated sex scene.
A (female) member of the air force is sentenced to 3 years in military prison for participating in a consensual three-some, because the other woman was slightly drunker than her (even though she did not request prosecution).
As of only 3 years ago, "sodomy" (which includes not only anal, but also oral, sometimes penetration with "objects", and in some cases even mutual masturbation) was a crime in 14 U.S. states. 9 of them did not discriminate between homo and heterosexual couples (guess which ones). While a supreme court decision on Texas' law effectively reverses them all, they have not all technically been appealed, and can be enforced until somebody legally challenges them. A married, heterosexual couple engaging in almost any form of "foreplay" may therefore be arrested, and, depending on the state, sentenced to up to 10 years in a federal prison, plus lifetime notification of employers and neighbors under Megan's law that they are convicted sex offenders. (Next time some body around you claims we live in a free country, feel free to punch them in the nose for me).
Nudists are quick to point out that nudity does not imply sexuality - which is true, but to mention it in that context is a concession that public sexuality is inherently immoral, or harmful to children, or whatever its supposed to be. (By the way, it is legal for women to be topless in public in a surprising number of U.S. locals, including Washington D.C., the State of New York, and, Maine)
Ideas so ingrained it doesn't even occur to question them. We don't feel we need a reason to explain why its wrong. Its just wrong. Anything which "just is" - probably isn't. If someone is hurt, it's wrong. If no one is hurt, it isn't wrong. Simple.
So
What say you and I get a reliable form of birth control.
And get busy.
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you ask a question, I will answer it.
NEW: Blogger finally put in a system to be notified of responses to your comments! Just check the box to the right, below, before you hit "publish"