Sexual Education 101
WARNING : Because we live in a Post-Christian (or soon to be) society, with many centuries of prudery and sexual neurosis embedded in our collective unconscious, I thought I would do what people usually do in such a neurotic culture, and post one of those SEX WARNINGS at the top of this piece. If you are one of those people who are going to be severely angered by reading a piece in which S-E-X is discussed with unusual frankness then please do both yourself and everyone else a favor and do not read this piece, but find a piece about politics perhaps, and read that instead...Now with this WARNING posted I assume that I can now move on to my subject which is...
Sex EducationThis piece has been inspired by an incident which took place, which really angered me. What happened was this. A young teenaged male said, 'I don't like (oral sex)'. Now, there I go, right at the very start of this piece, making compromises with sexual prudery, when, really, what I intend to do here is challenge taboos, since it is only by doing what is taboo that one can deliver some authentic Sex Education in such an uptight, anally retentive culture such as this one we live in today. So, then, to correct myself, what he really said was 'I don't like blow jobs.'
I was thinking about what he said this week, and as I thought about it, I became angry, because as any guy should know, or you would think so, a blow job is better than intercourse, and if it isn't, then something is dreadfully wrong. And that something, which is dreadfully wrong, is a lack of sexual education. You wouldn't toss someone blindly into carpentry, and expect them to cobble together oak cabinets and chairs, and yet in our culture, we throw inexperienced people into sex and they haven't got a clue, and thus you wind up hearing unbelievable comments such as a young man saying, 'I don't like blow jobs.' As I brooded angrily about what this comment implied about society, I thought to myself, 'someone should do something,' and you know, whenever you think to yourself, 'someone should do something', that is always a sign that you should do it yourself, or so I always think, and then at least you know that it will get done, instead of waiting for someone else to do it, and then bitching all the time because it doesn't get done.
Religious irrationalityNow sex education, the type I am referring to here, would not be that dried out thing they teach in schools, assuming that they teach anything at all in schools these days (abstinent chastity is not sex education, and I recommend that all parents and all school teachers and all ministers and all church goers should lead by example, and practice strict abstinence from the time their kids reach puberty until they hit their twenties and get married-after all, it would only be a decade of abstinent chastity, and I am sure all those moralizing, idiotic adults preaching 'chastity' in the schools should be able to just sail through that sexless decade effortlessly, since they preach it, and I am sure they can practice what they preach, and find it just as easy to do themselves as it would be for the teenagers on the receiving end of their sage advice).
The argument from nature
Before I continue, I want to mention here that I have a very strong 'religious' belief system myself. My spiritual life centers around 'the Garden of Eden' as I call it. This does not mean that I take than ancient parable literally. Over the course of the previous centuries as explorers pushed further into previously unexplored areas of the world, again and again they discovered human tribal societies that have existed separated from the rest of the world for long ages past, and thus preserved the original, untainted expression of natural human society (tribal), and natural human sexuality (polygynous-extended sexual relationships involving multiple partners, absent the paranoia embedded in cultures that have been in contact with such absurdities as Christian hostility to human nature). It is typical that when such tribes are first discovered, horrified Christians set as their first task the destruction of this ancient evidence for sexual polygyny and the speedy introduction of irrational sexual paranoia, which, apparently, is the evidence of a truly 'civilized' culture.
Similar stupidity is demonstrated by the senseless irrationality of Christianity in raving about puberty. I believe in the God who made birds do it, yes bees do it, and even little tiny fleas have a penis and vagina, and they do it, too. Yes, I believe in the God of Eden, and I believe in the testimony of the natural world. When a photon tells me 'I have traveled a hundred million light years', which would take a hundred million years, I don't call that photon a liar and then rant about how doctrine teaches that the world is six thousand years old. Doctrine is crap, and photons never lie. Neither does nature. Religion does lie, and ministers often lie all the time, rarely saying an honest word, as they teach the 'inerrancy of scripture', which is to teach an obvious lie.
In nature we see both human societies, that remained in the ancient tribal relationship until very recent times, and bonobo apes, as one example, practicing tribal polygyny, as well as practicing oral sex, and among bonobos, who live in a matriarchal society, the female-female sexual bonding ritual is very important (male -male bonding and sexual relationships are also observed, although infrequently, and this seems to be due to the fact that the society is matriarchal and bonobos use sex as a bonding ritual...therefore all that chatter you hear about how 'same sex relationships are a violation of the laws of nature' are false...let's just say that dogmatism, obsolete thing that is, says one thing but as for the law of nature, you might want to adopt the religion of nature, in which case you can get your doctrines concerning 'the law of nature' from nature, instead of from religious dogmatics, who after all only peddle doctrines and dogmas which in the end are nothing more than human traditions and cultural customs, and not a 'law of God' or 'a law of nature' for that very reason).
Yes, during puberty, according to the sacred law of nature, a rush of powerful hormones pours into teenaged bodies, genitals are prepared for sex, as nature, filthy thing that it is, begins 'molesting' our kids, you know, putting naughty ideas in their heads, leading them 'astray', yes, perhaps even taking them straight down into that Christian hell, which is where people go for what are referred to as 'illegal orgasms.' You know, you might imagine someone frying in hell for, say, um, giving the order to bomb some village, and killing a bunch of poverty stricken civilians, blowing the arms off of kids, and so on. Something as joyous, and completely harmless, as an orgasm, well it is hard for anyone with their common sense intact to view such a thing as a criminal act, warranting not just the death penalty, but a sentence of constant torture or the most barbaric sort (try holding your finger over a match for, say, five seconds, if you can).
That so called 'law' and the so called 'just punishment' (permanent torture burning) is an expression of just how cruel, how harmful, and how far removed from the natural order that so called 'law of nature' called Christian doctrine really is in that it requires the most far fetched, gruesome, exaggerated superstition to crush natural human nature and then replace it with the 'grace of salvation'. Doctrine requires a change in human nature (monogamous forever, never ever looking, since even looking causes one to be burned forever, never practicing 'unnatural sex acts'). This strict prohibitions, and the ridiculous excesses of doctrine are required for the simple reason that human beings are by their very nature polygynous, as even Christians know (hence their need to harangue about 'marriage' and promote 'chastity' in schools, lest, horrors, people practice polygyny which is what they would do without the 'saving grace' of the gospel).
Natural law dictates that teenagers have sex, hence all those naughty hormones. This will keep uptight preachers and school teachers real busy trying to pound down those powerful hormones, not to mention blaming Hollywood or the porn industry for making their kids so damned hard to handle. Of course, given the irrationality of it all, no one considers prosecuting the old pervert who keeps molesting their kids with heavy doses of hormones, and let's face it, Hollywood or the Porn industry wouldn't be able to accomplish much without that all important assistance from those horrible, horrible hormones.
My suggestion would be that concerned Christians should prosecute God for the perverse act of putting those horrible hormones into our 'children', or, if that is unpalatable, then at the very least concerned ministers and their uptight followers should at the very least lobby for an all important change in the laws of nature, to bring them into line with religious traditions, so as to move puberty and the onset of those horrible, harmful hormones up to at least the age of twenty one, thus bringing natural law into line with that ever so important church law. Even better, so as to prove the validity of church law, the best thing would be for puberty to be permanently delayed until marriage vows were exchanged. Then, in a miracle, following that most blessed of events, suddenly their would be a rush of those nasty hormones, the appearance of pubic hair, and then finally about a year after the marriage vows were exchanged, once everything is in working order, there would be sex.
As well, it would be good to change human nature so that it became impossible for people to look, thus getting rid of temptation. After all, their are bird species that remain completely monogamous for life, unlike primates, like bonobos and humans, who do not, and so we can see that, according to the dictates of natural law, it is already the case that the 'monogamous forever, no looking' law has already been invented, and has been tried out successfully on those species of birds (who only have eyes for each other). This would save millions, even billions, from frying in a barbeque for eternities of time, and would also make the work of the church so much easier, since, finally, natural law would be brought into line with church law, thus sparing churches all that excessive work involved in destroying the natural order, cursing and battling endlessly with human nature, including doing such stupid things as battling with the natural law concerning puberty and hormones, instead of doing the sensible thing, and lobbying to get that horrible puberty, and all its troublesome hormones changed, as well as getting that looking thing changed as well, so that finally at long last human beings will be strictly monogamous, like those birds are, instead of being the polygynous things they are today.
Abstinent chastity and 'purity'There have existed cultures in the world where they actually teach their kids about sex, as puberty approaches. In such cultures this was considered the wise thing to do, you know, given how puberty was approaching, and what with those hormones about to kick in, well, we've all been there, and so if we think we back, we can recall what is going to happen when those hormones kick in and suddenly nature begins to urge teenagers to have sex. Urge is to mild a word, as I remember the experience. Having prepared those genitals, and then added some pubic hair as a sign that everything is in working order, and ready to go, nature then demands that sex commence immediately, as anyone who has lived with the experience will recall. Yes that is a truly remarkable time of life, when you have natural law demanding that you have sexual relations, which is fun, and certainly not harmful (getting hit over the head with a baseball bat, or shot with a gun at school, that is harmful, but an orgasm is a beautiful thing, and I do believe that not once did a person walk away from an orgasm thinking, 'that hurt.' You know, 'do to others as you want them to do to you', and if there is anyone on earth who doesn't want an orgasm, preferably a really good orgasm, you know not a mild orgasm, but rather the really powerful, really fun orgasm, well my advice would be that you never do that to anyone else, since you don't want to do to them what you wouldn't want them doing to you, right. It is, after all, the law.)
Christianity is a dying religion, as the steep nose dive in that graph illustrates (with the precipitous death of the church beginning at about the beginning of the previous century and continuing unabated to this day..for this reason we see the rise of defiant fundamentalism in the world at the present time, since fundamentalism is the final death spasm of a dying, fading obsolete religion). However, even though Christianity is currently going through its death spasms, getting rid of Christian cultural influences will take a little longer to achieve, since this sexual paranoia has embedded itself into the unconscious of an entire culture, and it will take deliberate, determined effort to finally yank that worthless nonsense out by the roots so that once again people can return to what they lost so long ago, and thus once again people can simply be human, without that nagging feeling that somehow being born human is some sort of a terrible crime.
Yes, the influence of an ancient sex hating superstition is deeply embedded in our culture, and thus we find ourselves dealing with adolescence, in a post-Christian culture. Thus we see nature and the natural law demanding that teenagers have sex while ministers and teachers and concerned parents demand something called 'abstinent chastity', which, as I said, is a fine example of not practicing what you preach (in that while junior is being 'chaste', and hopefully not masturbating during the interim, since that is a mortal sin, since it often involves looking) mom and dad will be going at it like minks behind closed doors, since it was unlikely right from the start that mom and dad were going to be able to hold out for a decade, until junior got through college, while remaining 'pure' and then got married, thus leading by example, and practicing what they preach. This would be true unless mom and dad 'found Jesus' and were then 'blessed' by what they call 'the gift of celibacy', thus becoming 'filled with the ghost', and thus completely frigid, irrational, neurotic, and thus setting a good example by not having sex for that decade, which would be easy, since they were now controlled by a ghost, and that ghost, so they say, allows you to 'overcome the sinful flesh.' That, they say, is the assigned job of that ghost, since ghosts don't have evil flesh like people do, and ghosts really hate flesh, thus making a ghost the perfect choice for a weird job such as that one (although a class action lawsuit for criminal negligence would make more sense, targeting the obviously perverse God who made such sinful flesh in the first place, and then tried to make up for the error by passing church laws concerning not looking and so on, along with gruesome penalties, since tragically, people do look, being hardwired in the brain to look, boys looking at girls, for example, well unless a fellow is hardwired somehow to look at a fellow, which works the same way, and which will get that fellow burned twice as hard, since that ghost will be particularly appalled by something like that).
Let's hope that ghost thing really does work for the alternative is that a thinking person must hold one's nostrils while being forced to dwell among a society of irrational hypocrites perpetually involved in an idiotic war with nature, while of course blaming Hollywood or some Porn Star, or bad girls at school who should be wearing loose sacks, but wear low riding jeans instead (those damnable hormones again).
It goes without saying that such a brain dead culture as the one that currently exists will consider 'sex education' to consist of, ideally, 'abstinent chastity and purity'. This same brain dead culture will then decide to teach 'purity' and the 'chaste lifestyle' to adults as well, in what are called 'third world countries', doing such things as shutting down family planning clinics (as one Christian minister stated, if they don't want babies, let them practice 'self restraint' and 'chastity'...that same Christian won't be feeding those hungry babies, just like they never fed them before in the last century, but at least the sexual neurosis will be safe, at least until the rotten leadership currently leading churches into that fundamentalist dead end, and then right over that cliff into oblivion, finally, at long last, just get it over with, die, and then disappear, giving the planet a chance to finally start healing after being mindlessly, needlessly bludgeoned by the senseless cruelty of religion for millennia.)
Sexual EducationWell, having got that out my system (thanks for listening), it is now time to do the forbidden, and break those taboos, and begin delivering some much needed sexual education. Keep in mind that my target audience would be young people, you know the types, the ones being tossed out into a sexual world, with no sexual education. (Well that will get me into a lot of trouble,,,but then its called a taboo for a reason). Later on people will chatter about how 'harmful and hurtful' first sex experiences were, and use that stupidity as an argument for 'abstinent chastity', when actually it was an argument for sexual education. It will be required to maintain the taboo, and the level of ignorance lest those experiences no longer be harmful, thus robbing the chastity preachers of that one argument they use.
I will leave it to schools to teach biology (you know, this is a penis, this is a uterus), if schools are still allowed to teach sexual biology during this, the age of the fundamentalist death throes of the church. Perhaps, having shut down those clinics and upped the birth rate in the third world, our increasingly bitter fundamentalists have also succeeded in purging sexual biology from the school curriculum.
I only intend to touch briefly on relationship issues and sexual responsibility (in regards to sexually transmitted diseases) since the main focus of my anger is SEXUAL EDUCATION (you know, how sex works, how to have sex, how to have a good blow job, and not a lousy one, and so on...that's right sexual education, something sadly lacking in out culture, and since someone should do something about that, I guess that someone is going to have to be me.)
'Fornication'I have been protesting churches since 1996, and that is a long, long story I won't go into here, except to say that I am becoming increasingly notorious, and given my agenda (help the obsolete church to hurry up, go through its fundamentalist rage, and die) I am also becoming more and more of a problem (and if things continue to go well for me, I look forward to becoming someday, the biggest problem of all).
Well at the present time I may not yet be the biggest problem of them all, being at the moment just a big problem, and that apparently is bad enough. And the way you deal with problem people, if you happen to be a church on its death bed, suffering fundamentalist spasms, not to mention delusions of 'revival', is to turn to that old trusty method, virulent superstition.
You see, the thing about me is that I am obviously one of those evil false prophets, and given how I preach and practice 'fornication', it goes without saying that both myself and anyone who gets tangled in my sticky web of devilish deceit, will spend an eternity together roasting on the coal beds of hell. Those orgasms are just that bad, just that deadly, and therefore all Christians should greatly fear and thus stay in church, not thinking about inconvenient things, and just practice fundamentalism while their incompetent leadership keeps working on that fundamentalist 'revival' which is supposed to turn an increasingly desperate situation around, and thus save the day. (This is a fine example of the 'blind leading the blind', and its just painfully obvious, but I won't go on about it, since that church is destined to die, its long overdue, and any help and assistance church leadership wishes to invest in bringing that day closer is actually a good thing, and not a bad thing at all...just something to think about at those times when you might find yourself getting really pissed off by all that rising tide of fundamentalism...I know I have felt frustrated and angry by it all, but it is one of the signs of impending death and ruinous collapse, and when I take a deep breath and remember this, I find that I can locate that 'wisdom to accept what I cannot control or change, while having the courage to change those things that I can change'-to quote an old cliche).
Now I am starting to hear a lot about 'fornication' and 'being a fornicator' as well as lots of fiery brimstone from the bible about the hideous fate awaiting all fornicators, and as time goes on, I expect I will hear more and more about it. I am not surprised. I was expecting this and what is surprising is that it took so long, but then no one bakes a loaf of bread without allowing it time to rise first. Apparently this loaf is ready and so, finally, at long last, into the oven it goes.
'Fornication' is a term that deals with those relationship issues that I only want to touch on lightly, since I am focused this morning on 'sexual education'. The controversy centers on the definition of the term 'fornication'. The term is described as 'sex without a marriage licence', and also includes any sinful looking. According to what they say, 'sinful looking' is just that same as actually doing the deed of 'fornicating' and so that counts as well, and with such a sweeping definition of 'fornication', well that would nail just about everyone, and if superstition can take hold, might very lead to that much heralded 'revival' of fundamentalist religion.
Now I have a definition of 'fornication' myself, and I think the best way to define this term would be to tell a parable like story. One time I was out with some friends, and there was this one guy in the place who was, unfortunately, a fornicator. That's right. There was terrible fornicator in that place. You see, what happened was that this one full figured girl in that place, and he started to mock her, making oinking and squealing pig sounds. Of course, that same guy would have gone fornicating later, with someone else of course, because you don't want to fornicate with girls who are disgusting pigs, right.
So the point to be made here is 'don't be a fornicator...it is thoroughly disgusting.' You know as I say it, I heard some guy oinking and squealing like a pig, and as the saying goes, if it oinks like a pig, and looks like a pig, and acts like a pig, well I guess that fornicating guy must have been a fornicating pig, right.
As for sexual relationships, which excludes that revolting fornication, I think that it would be good for people to turn for lessons to our closest primate sexual cousins, the Bonobo. You see, the Bonobo apes use sexuality as a bonding ritual. For this reason, although they are, like humans polygynous, they never fornicate, because it is impossible to fornicate when you are using sex as a bonding ritual between two individuals. On the other hand if you are just being a pig, well then you are fornicating.
And that summarizes my position on the 'fornication' controversy which is currently building up steam and swirling around me, as well as my position on sexual relationships. Sex is a lot of fun...the bonobos typically squeal with delight as they do that bonding ritual of theirs, and so do people. An orgasm is a beautiful thing, and it just logically follows that when two people get together to do something like that they are strengthening and cementing a bond just as happens between bonobos for whom sexuality is a bonding ritual.
And there are many types of bonds. I am not monogamous by nature, but I am intensely affectionate. I discovered very young that sex with affection was my hot button, and I just cannot get interested in sex otherwise. And there is no criminal act involved in bonding rituals, even the kind of tribal bonding rituals that arouse and interest me. I will leave it to the dying fundamentalist church to attempt to criminalize something that is beautiful, for the sake of dogma, so that even bonding rituals can be redefined as 'fornication'.
One complicating factor exists at the present time, for while bonding is a lovely thing, and not a criminal act of some kind (which is painfully obvious, since love experienced is more powerful than doctrines and dogmas) nevertheless there is this issue of sexually transmitted diseases. Sadly it is not a perfect world. Monogamy is often touted as a solution, but people are not monogamous by nature, and monogamy is not a singular solution, which excludes all others, as propaganda implies. For example the closed polygynous circle is an interesting compromise solution, which better fits natural human sexuality, while providing about as much 'protection' as monogamy, while at the same presenting similar difficulties (breaking trust for example). Lowering the risk factor, choosing lower risk, and yet still fun activities, is another way, and those who think critically and responsibly can probably find other ways to deal with the complications surrounding sexuality in the current time.
Sex-EdIn this, the concluding section of my piece, I am going to make an attempt to deliver some sex education, and I won't make a claim to completeness, although I am convinced that I can fill a void left in our society in that, unlike other more sensible cultures of the world, we don't teach sexuality (teaching instead biology, if even that, which is not the same thing). Thus we are abandoned to fumble in the dark, and after what will probably be some painful experiences we will either learn about sex, and thus successfully meet the challenge, or perhaps we may join the ranks of the failures and thus develop some ridiculous neuroses which can then be dragged for the following forty years.
As I am writing this I can feel the pressure of a powerful taboo. I put this piece aside for several days as I considered how 'pornographic' one must be to educate about sex, and I also recall some previous writings of mine which were damned as 'pornographic' and which, as I think back upon it, did not come anywhere near what I was planning to write about here. And so I would suppose then that writing something like this is helpful to myself, therapeutic, and something I therefore must do simply because I can feel the pressure of a taboo, and that won't do. Where those taboos are is where true human nature exists, and the purpose of a taboo is to continue the war against nature and the natural world by declaring war on human nature, thus creating some presumed 'new human', absent those aspects of natural human nature proscribed by taboos. As Freud put it, and rightly so I believe, if you want to learn about true human nature, you must reverse the religious proscriptions and taboos of the culture, since these taboos are in place only because it is required to place a ban upon what people would otherwise do by nature. Even religion acknowledges that Freud was right, in that all religious people know that without the enforcement of the taboo, people will in fact act the opposite to what the taboo prescribes. This is the doctrine of 'natural sinful human nature' or the doctrine of 'the evil flesh', both of which acknowledge that people are born that way, but then everyone it is said is 'born in sin' thus justifying, it is suggested, the taboo. As I have suggested, justifying the taboo condemns the Christian god, for what is natural comes from creation, and thus their god is either incompetent or unjust, since the Christian religion requires the war against the natural order. Even worse this war against nature does not remain confined to the war against sexuality but rather targets the environment, and soon enough even targets other species for extermination (with one of the greatest mass exterminations about to take place in the coming decades as the war against human nature also expresses itself as the war against the entire natural order, which must be corrupted, perhaps by Eve, which explains the need for sexual taboos, which also explains the disconnect from nature and the following hostility towards nature expressed in the kinds of destruction we see approaching in this the new century-or so goes my hypothesis, which makes breaking sexual taboos even more important, for reasons of human psychology that go far beyond sexual health.)
I recall the first time I had sex, and it was a disaster. Consequently I dragged around some stupid neurosis, fortunately only for several months (not for the following decades as some unfortunates do). 'I am broken,' I thought to myself, 'and woe is me, sex doesn't work for me.' This is what can happen when you toss people together who are woefully ignorant and yet are expected to make a china cabinet or an oak desk.
Eventually I understood that there was nothing wrong me, but rather that sex is not like a light switch - you just turn it on, and the light fills the room. No, that takes time, and when suddenly the light switch didn't work, I was horrified, and thus that ridiculous neurosis. This might sound like a simple thing ('sex takes time...it doesn't happen instantly') but even something as stupid as that can be enough to cause a disaster and give someone a neurosis, and I know that, because that idiotic bit of ignorance caused me months of worry and anguish, because, you see, I was broken, I was abnormal, nothing worked, what happened? Fortunately I stumbled upon someone who led me through the process, and once again that was just the result of more that stumbling in the dark, which when I look back on it, is the result of living in a weird sexually neurotic post-Christian culture.
Therefore I assume when I hear some young man saying 'I don't enjoy blow jobs' that the two of us have that much in common, since what he was saying is evidence for bad sexual education, since there is no logical reason for saying something like that.
Now first of all, to deal with the squeamish, can I suggest that miracle known as the bath tub or the shower, and just get that business out of the way.
Now let's talk sex. For the purposes of this mini-lecture I will imagine that I am teaching sexuality to this one fellow who, you know, found the 'blow job' to be a big disappointment, and I would assume that there are probably problems elsewhere as well (intercourse) since what is wrong here applies broadly to sexuality in general.
One of the first techniques that would lead to a decent 'blow job' or even decent sex in general follows from the principle that it is every bit as good to give as to receive. Here I am referring to the clitoris. Those who have taken sex education would know that in the womb, if the right chemical signals are present, a clitoris can evolve into a penis (we did not have any sex education at the school I went to, other than some very basic biology about eggs). One friend of mine once told me that women said that he performed the very best oral sex, in that he did not just 'lick with his tongue' but rather provided complete coverage and 'sucked'. He said this was natural, because, after all, a clitoris is just like a penis in that sense, the two are related, and so any guy who actually enjoyed oral sex should be able to put two and two together and figure out how to give the same pleasure to a woman that a man feels when on the receiving end of oral sex or that a man feels when having intercourse (you know, warm, wet, complete coverage, friction, etc). I am convinced myself that the clitoris was invented for the purposes of oral sex, and when you study natural law, you will notice that, as just one example, the bonobos have discovered oral sex and the clitoris. Now if this was not true, then it must be the case that 'warm, wet, coverage with friction', that glorious male feeling, must forever remain the sexual domain of the male, since the clitoris is not a penis, and thus can only experience what a penis experiences if it is experienced orally, as a study of natural law indicates. Therefore, I would suggest that to be heterosexual, and to not perform oral sex, is a grave sin, and very selfish, and over the course of neurotic sexual history, probably the majority of women died without experiencing the kind of sexuality that most men take for granted ('warm, wet, coverage with friction').
That would be sexual education lesson one. If you are a woman, and you have not experienced oral sex, then you really don't understand what a man takes for granted, and given that, as my friend says, 'its just like sucking a cock', well given that simple fact, there really is no excuse for you, a woman, to go through your life not experiencing the intense pleasure men take for granted every day. As for squeamish men, did I mention the bath or the shower? Nature, and simple generosity demand this, and to do otherwise is to be not only selfish, but I would say that denying women oral sex is also sadistically cruel. Its a sin. Its wrong. And the religious taboo is a crime against humanity, in particular against female humanity, and this is a fine example of how some sickening religious taboo, which pretends to righteousness, is actually needlessly hurtful, even sadistic, for no really good reason, other than maintaining that type of control which has always been the obsession of religion.
I have written on this subject before, and it is my past writings on the importance of sucking a clitoris (certainly not licking a clitoris, which would put a man to sleep) was the very writings which in the past were damned as 'pornography'. So here I am again, back writing 'porn'. There is a long story here, but I have been engaging in what you might call a resistance movement against the Christian church since 1996, and consequently I have become quite 'notorious' (with notorious being a better word than 'famous' to describe my growing reputation in the churches). At one time, I had some churches gang up (from all the way down in California to my hometown) and drag me before some psychiatrist to have me institutionalized. This was some years back (and it didn't work, as anyone can tell). One of the charges against me was that I was writing 'porn', and I responded to the charge that those so called pron writings, mostly about the clitoris, one of my big causes, were actually liberation writings. You see, I want to be liberated from the church, and how can I be liberated without writing 'porn'. Just as an interesting aside, I got a call from the 'crisis intervention center' just about a month ago, and it seems some church was once again filing a complaint about me. I replied, 'look I run a website...anyone who wants to inflict myself upon themselves can feel free to click a link, and if they so desire, they can stay away.' That's the wonderful thing about the internet. Before that I was a kind of 'pamphleteer' and that sort of thing gets you locked up (on the grounds that you are 'violating their space'. Now I just violate web space, so I feel that complaints are unjustified).
But I digress...to get back onto topic here...
The performance of oral sex by a man upon a woman is required by natural law, as the design of the clitoris, and natural biology teaches us (given the close relationship between a clitoris and a penis in the womb...we all start out with a clitoris, and for a clitoris to become a penis only requires a dose of hormones at exactly the right time). As well, by teaching a woman about the penis, using a clitoris as a teaching tool, a man also stands the chance of having better sex, since there is nothing like connecting with another person, bridging those differences, and coming to a common understanding.
This brings me back to the blow job. If a young man did not enjoy a blow job, well perhaps the girl he was with never enjoyed oral sex herself. So, given how she never had a clue, perhaps she was lamely licking, or ever so lightly gumming, and that wouldn't be all her fault, since she had no basis for comparison.
Communication is also so important. I have spoken to men and I suggested that there are these certain techniques that are wonderful, and would they communicate this matter to a woman, and once again I encounter a taboo. No, that would be off limits. Why this taboo would exist for a man, I do not know. I can understand how a woman might want to protect a 'fragile male ego' by pretending to like something more than she did, and by not mentioning any possible improvements, but a man? Let us take oral sex as an example. To much pressure is not good, but to little pressure is worthless. There is a fine line between pain and pleasure and the objective here is to find that line, since that's the ideal spot. But how can this be achieved without communication, without mutual learning. Furthermore, after arousal, more pressure is better, in fact what didn't work before now works, since the threshold between pain and pleasure has been pushed backed, making more pleasure possible. Once again this requires great sensitivity to a partners state of sexual being, and communication helps.
When I finally learned to make sex work (it was a learned behavior, and not pure instinct for me) I discovered the principle of the plateau. It is a kind of myth that women have multiple orgasms during oral sex, while unfortunate men can only have that one orgasm, and then due to those chemicals that are released, hover near a state of unconsciousness for some time afterwards. No, men can experience a phenomenon much like female multiple orgasm, and indeed, the two might in fact be identical.
As every young man (who doesn't enjoy blow jobs) would know, from the experience of masturbation, it takes time for that critical sexual mass to develop, and this process resembles climbing a mountain, let's say. This is a mountain with many peaks and plateaus as you scale the heights. So then a man can reach a peak, where ejaculation is imminent, and then there is this plateau, and things level off at a new level of pleasure, and then the climbing begins again, reaching another peak of ecstasy, followed by a leveling off, and a plateau, and then more climbing, and on and on it goes. This mini orgasmic experiences resemble the peaking and multiple orgasms of women, and I suggest that its probably the same thing, thus making that myth of 'single male orgasm' a falsehood, since these peaks are orgasmic in intensity, although they do not include ejaculation. It is never as good to have an orgasmic ejaculation at one of these lower peaks, although sometimes a trade off must be made, and greater pleasure in the sexual act, and thus more and more of those orgasmic peaks, must be traded for an eventually less powerful ejaculation later (I have spoken to other men who have agreed that this is the case for men, so I assume this principle is commonly true).
So then we can say that the secret to a 'good blow job' is both sensitivity, and knowing the right amount of pleasure so as to sit on that fine line between pleasure and pain, with increasing stimulation alright with increasing arousal as the mountain plateaus are reached, and the threshold moves. Unless a woman is a kind of mind reader, she might have trouble determining just how far to push it, and similarly a man may be under stimulating a woman when she is ready for some a little more intense. And that's frustrating, and needless, since a little bit of communication, combined with a little bit of sexual education and understanding, combined with sensitivity to the process, is all that is required to push things to the limit, thus getting away from that disconnect that leads to intense feelings of frustration, rather than to intense pleasure. And if something is worth doing, which sex certainly is, then it is certainly worth doing well.
Another important point, dealing with sensitivity, is to understand that when a person reaches a plateau, once they have had one of those little orgasmic peaks, followed by a subsiding, and the plateau, this is usually not a good time to intensely stimulate, but rather, something a little more subdued is temporarily required. This is true for a man (as far as I have experienced it) and is probably true for a woman. Sensitivity is required here, since when someone peaks, it is obvious, and when someone plateaus briefly afterwards, that is obvious as well. This is the time to pull back a little, and then slowly being the climb to the next peak, and the next plateau, and during oral sex this would be a good time to give it some air, maybe some kissing or even some of that 'licking', this lessened stimulation actually helping the climbing process to resume. So then, to summarize an important point, if some inexperienced person gets oral sex, peaks, and then suddenly plateaus, this does not mean that something is wrong (which disappointed me terribly I recall, since I had suddenly become 'dysfunctional' in mid stream - I did have a lot of neuroses to deal with due to the lack of sexual education in our neuroses inducing culture). Peaking, and plateaus, are natural phenomena.
A variety of techniques is possible, and also a very good way of dealing with the plateau phenomenon. For example, speaking here just of the blow job, we know that there are two separate areas of sensitivity - the tip and just below the tip at the top of the shaft. Let us assume that the tip is being stimulated, and a peak occurs. This is typically a good time to begin gently moving up and down the area on the shaft. Similarly if a peak occurs here, then once again switching to another area, gently at first, after a peak and a plateau is one very easy way to deal with the phenomena. I will leave it to women to explain female sexual responses, but what I have just suggested here Surprisingly it is possible to create an extremely intense orgasm in a man with very slow movements. It would be typical to assume that the most intense orgasm requires frantic friction, but this is not the case, and variety is the spice of life. This requires numerous plateaus, followed by very tight, intense stimulation, with the movement slower (or it would be painful) and, if this involves oral sex, typically the vacuum effect, which results in an extremely erect penis (or I would assume, clitoris). I have spoken to men about this technique and they have told me that there is no way they are communicating such things to a woman (some taboo there) and so since discussing these techniques is taboo, I will do my thing, that I do, and break the taboo. I will also point out that those who just cannot get past those communication taboos could just try these techniques themselves on their partner, and then later, when they are enthusing about what just happened to them, you could explain what you just did, and thus break the taboo yourself, and thus experience these things yourself (which is why it is just as good to give as to receive).
Well I am running out of things to say. As I said, this wouldn't be complete, but given how little is said, even this much would be of great help to someone somewhere, especially someone, like me, who in the future is about to plunge into some kind of disaster, due to ignorance. Who knows, perhaps I will spare someone a useless neurosis caused by ignorance. And with that I will assume I have done enough taboo breaking for today, and thus leave off on this subject for now (or perhaps as time goes on I will think of things I missed and eventually come up with a more complete 'sexual education' piece...)
Have a nice (sexual) day...hope this helps someone somewhere...
contribute to this article
contribute to this article
add comment to discussion