Sex is what most excited moralists of all times, and gave the strangest and most varied conceptions. And the modern world is not the last in the race, as we shall see.
The foundations and tools of the previous chapters give us means to scientifically reach an objective morality, even in this area, the most subjective of the human experience. Still better, the use of fuzzy and non-dual logic, combined with the tools for ethics we saw in chapter VI-3, will lead us to a degree of freedom unmatched by any other system, while limiting the problems only to the natural causes. Which is the real purpose of a morals system: to eliminate problems. If a morals system adds more, then it clearly not serves its purpose.
On the pertinence of this chapter: To be frank, I wondered, while working on this chapter, if such a long discussion was really useful here. Or if it may even be harmful, by attracting the attention on a «polemical» point. Still I went along, in hope that speaking of sex would attract the attention on the other parts of this book, lol
If the sexual desire is about the body, love and tenderness are about emotions. However it would be a fundamental mistake to separate them: sexual desire and love are produced by the same mind, they develop together, and they result from each other. However sexuality and love involve different things, hence the division into two chapters, this one on sexuality, and Chapter VI-6 on love, family and children. Especially children could not be treated in the same chapter than sex. But we have to consider these two chapters as a single set, talking about love in general, its aspects and its consequences.
Content Warning: This page is not intended for children (Although, its conclusions should be featured prominently in any serious sex education manual). Moreover, even while avoiding descriptions, the evocation of alternative sex may shock, or give desires for things we do not necessarily want to do.
Warning on the type of logic: Some of the moral statements made in this chapter are non-dualities, or at least gradated, instead of all-or-nothing allowance or forbidding (which is a significant advance compared to most traditional ethical systems). This is explained in Chapter 1-3 of this book, and any critic which would «ignore» this point will be considered manipulative and defamatory. And nobody can pretend not to know: in common language, a position without nuances is called extremist.
Science Warning: If most of this chapter is in line with current opinions in democratic countries, some conclusions are different. This is not surprising, and it is not even a novelty if science finds that Earth rotates against the common prejudices and official ideologies. To be honest, I did not even attempted any comparison, because prejudices are useless, not even good for sale at the flea market. And if any illusory revolutionary (Chapter I-4) called me a reactionary, I would take this as a proof of his own stupidity. Since a true revolution does not stupidly take the opposite course of received ideas: instead it brings more understanding.
Legal notice: Everybody remains «free» not to agree with the content of this chapter. Scientific criticism is even desired. But criticism must be fair and not resort to manipulations such as defamation, imputation of intent, «interpretation», manipulation of the meaning of words, out of context quotes, lying by omission, etc. Especially, this chapter contains nothing which could be considered illegal in democratic countries (When it was written in 2014-2017, for after I am not warrant of anything). However, everyone knows that every new idea is hazed for 40 years before being accepted. So I protect myself from false accusations, with several methods. And especially the simple fact of attributing me things which are not written, or «not to see» things which are, or using one of the above methods, constitutes a debt acknowledgement for three months of income or turnover as damages for defamation, the double for a media, a journalist, an administration, politicians or a «crowd sourcing» system, with mandatory prominent publishing of the condemnation. So no weed smoking before reading this chapter.
Semantic Warning: A scientific text must prove its statements without starting from a priori judgements. This of course also applies in the area of morality. However it is impossible today to find words which are totally free of any connotation of judgement. Moreover these connotations vary between individuals, groups, countries, or even from year to year according to media hallucinations or mind control attempts by pro/anti-sex extremists. For those who «do not understand» this, read «1984» by George Orwell.
For example words like «negro», «sect» or «pederast» were originally neutral or even positive, and they are still found in ancient texts. These texts did not «become» segregationist, and they must be understood with the meanings of the time they were written. It will be the same for this text in a few decades, if such words as «kindness» or «love» are diverted from their sense to mean unhealthy things. Even translations are dangerous: «homo» is neutral in French, but an insult to the USA. «Negro» has become an insult in French, while «negra» remained neutral in Spanish.
For this reason, reading this section must assume no connotation to any of the words used, either rewarding or pejorative. Any assertion of the contrary will be considered as lie or slander (see the legal notice). Especially expression like «natural sexuality» or «alternative sexuality» were carefully chosen for their mostly positive connotations in democratic countries in 2014, not accounting with future changes or manipulations. Therefore these words must NOT be considered as an inducement or justification of the one relative to the other, and especially not some idiotic dualistic opposition between.
Methodological warning: you will sometimes sentences such as «it is generally considered that...» These sentences are in no way an endorsement, they simply say what is written: «some people think...» Such quotations are often needed throughout this study to compare the evolution of concepts. But the description of such views, even if majority, does not constitute acceptance or statements from me. So, the only deliberate judgments in this chapter are those expressed in this color, excluding any connotation, hint, hidden meaning, quote, reference to any other group or philosophy whatsoever, expressed or «hidden».
Sexual desire and romantic attachment are instincts (chapter V-16), this meaning preprogrammed feelings by special neural circuits in the brain, where they were implanted by the Darwinian Evolution, to ensure procreation and education of children for enough time.
More specifically, Evolution led to brains which are not empty: they contain genetically preprogrammed images, reflexes and desires, for everything needed for the continuation of the specie:
-Sexual desire, often powerful, at the sight of the body.
-Feeling of loving attachment, so that the father and the mother stay together long enough to ensure the education of children
-Feeling of attachment between members of the tribe, so that they support the group.
-Attachment toward children, for parents to take care of them.
-Attachment to the parents, as indispensable life supports and learning guides.
-Desire to breastfeed, and desire to suckle at the mere sight of the areola.
(The non-sexual aspects of the family will be discussed in Chapter VI-6)
These desires are accompanied by specific protections:
-Disgust of the contact of the body of the same gender
-Fear of sexuality in children
-Fear to «break the child», to counteract any sexual desire for him.
These bases can not be changed. Hence the need to do with them, instead of ignoring them or seeking an impossible «liberation».
Just that, as in most instincts, they are unequally shared, allowing some people to do otherwise. Let us call this alternative sexuality, and discuss the specific ethic of these, in section II.
The strength of sexual desire or attachment in love is such, that it is difficult to control (or at the cost of continuing suffering). They are actually much more deeply rooted than the neuroses, at the same level as the survival instincts (hunger, thirst, fear of injury or death).
The clever solution then is to accept the facts, to accept these things which naturally define our humanity, in the same way as the shape of our body or our three-color vision defines our humanity. These things are indeed purely contingent, without spiritual significance. Yet without them our spirituality would have no stake to apply its action.
This explains why the majority of people are looking for love and sexual union as one of the most effective source of happiness and pleasure. Therefore we could put love and tenderness as important natural values, because, according to the first foundation of ethics, they allow us to be happy, and their deprivation leads to suffering.
However, things are not so simple. The problem is that sexual desire puts us in a situation of dependence from other persons! It can even be so intense that it becomes in itself a source of suffering, or it pushes us into problematic situations. Worse, a loving union may at any time break, and then the loss of the loved one is one of the greatest grief that a human can experience.
This makes that some people instead seek chastity, to avoid both the desire and the problematic situation it can bring us into. However, simply deciding to refuse the desire is not enough to effectively remove it, and this makes chastity a difficult approach for most people. So, many tinker various personal solutions, such as masturbation, to keep the desire at a low enough level to prevent problems.
Thus all this is not simple, and creating moral rules for freedom or for chastity does not fix the problem, if people cannot really choose!
We must therefore undertake researches in biology, so that people can control their sexual desire, in a voluntary and reversible way, without unwanted side effects, and provide this mean at an affordable price for all.
This is possible: children live very well without sexual desire, and without side effects of inhibitory hormones.
At this price, people will be able to apply their choice without suffering, and especially they will be able to follow the advices against practices which create suffering.
In our judgement in what follows, we shall account on the difficulty of effectively following them.
This section is about the various sexual fantasies and their implications, with the purpose of knowing what can be allowed, inadvisable or forbidden. But we must start with not being trapped!
The above problem went exacerbated in the 1960s and 1970s, when appeared a strong current advocating sexual freedom as a means to obtain pleasure, happiness and relationships with others. The idea was that sex was by far the greatest source of pleasure and happiness, but we were «blocked» by puritan taboos (or «religious» taboos), which prevented us from enjoying our bodies, through psychological blockage or repressive policies. So we had to get rid of these prejudices, and «discover our sexuality», claim to which was quickly added the recognition of alternative forms of sexuality.
The idea seemed friendly, harmless in all cases, and the whole generation jumped in it (including me at the time).
Unfortunately, it was hiding a dangerous trap: we can easily activate synapses in our brain, but it is very hard to disable them! In clear, we can easily create a sexual desire for any type of object or action, but it is very hard to remove it! Thus, each activation of a new desire actually creates a new limitation: our happiness depends on more items to get, more wishes to fulfill, new occasions to expose ourself to problem prone situations. Sexual liberation is like a cult: we are free to enter, but not to get out!
And a freedom in one direction, I do not call this a freedom.
It is unfortunately very easy to activate synapses, since it is the same neurons which produce desire or disgust. Thus our natural instinctive protections (chapter V-16) against the forms of non-procreative sexuality can easily be reversed into desire: we are all potentially homosexual, transsexual, sadist, masochist, scatophiliac, paedophile, zoophiliac, etc. And just seeing a movie can be enough to activate the desire for these practices, through our spontaneous empathy with the characters. Militants of the practice then say that we received the «revelation» (of an aspect of our personality which was «hidden» by our puritanical prejudices, they say). Unfortunately this «revelation» much more resembles a verdict: our happiness depends on more conditions, as if it was not already enough to spend our time working for food and lodge, to wash ourself, etc. In addition, this new desire can make us commit dangerous acts, for others (sadism, paedophilia, zoophilia) or for us (masochism, dangerous partners, exposure to disease, etc.).
The situation is finally locked when people develop a neurosis of opinion (chapter V-12), which makes them think that their desire is their intent. So the desire and the opinion lock each other. And at this stage, the persons will throw themselves in harmful or dangerous situations, without any more effort to avoid them.
But let us study with more details how this operates, before going to the conclusions, when the desire became opinion or ideology.
Normally, everything is arranged by Evolution and genes for a man or a woman to develops a desire for a marriageable partner of the opposite sex, to ensure procreation.
However, the fact is that this is not always what happens: the desire can develop toward other objects: same sex, children, animals, etc. And useless to hide it to ourself: this is nothing new, these things always existed in every human civilizations, and they are visible in all mammals. This is not a cultural phenomenon either, as these things appear spontaneously in all types of society, whether they are admitted or repressed. And to make them mandatory as today, even not increases the proportion.
To understand why, we must review the development of the brain in Chapter V-14: everyone develops his own brain, from his own inner experiences, selecting among the basic functions built by the genes. This is possible because pleasure activates the synapses, and even entire functions, while fear or unpleasant experiences may inhibit them. For instance a pleasant experience will develop the capacity of mathematics, while the humiliation of a poor mark is enough to inhibit it.
However this system has a famous bug: our brain does not know our gender! Indeed, among the thousands basic brain circuits built by our genes, modern neuroscience found none which would be built by genes from the Y chromosome, indicating our gender to our brain. The two gene systems which build the brain and the sexual organs diverged something like five hundreds millions years ago, and when this happens, Evolution can never make them join again!
Then how can the person develop the desire for the opposite sex? This still works well enough, for most people. Most likely our genes build the two neural circuits: attraction to men and disgust for women, or attraction to women and disgust for men. It would then be the sex hormones which favours one or the other of the two circuits, producing attraction to the opposite sex, and disgust for the same sex. Moreover, as we saw in chapter V-14, genes are not enough to finish the brain: a self-adjustment process is necessary, which uses the desire of the person. Various experiments would then be responsible, some happening at puberty, others earlier in childhood.
For homosexuality, a common case would be some books «for teenagers», which, even without mentioning any sexuality, focus on friendship between men, associated with physical beauty or «manhood» (extreme right comics and novels «for scouts», some mangas, «virilizing» sport or military training, etc.). Or scenes which highlight women cohabiting more physically than with mere friendship, and concerned only with beauty and gossip. Emerging emotions in the preteen then naturally associate the feeling of love to the body of the same gender (since sentimental desire and physical desire generate each other and are inseparable). When the neural circuits of desire awake, then they would establish a desire for the body of the same gender, instead of the opposite gender. Since both solutions are encoded in the circuits, and that experience must fend for determining the slant in the right direction.
So this is how things should work, if the self-adjustment process works well. However the fact is that a relatively constant percentage of people develop homosexual desires. Is it a genetic mutation? We hardly see how a gene for homosexuality could be maintained: it would be ruthlessly eliminated by natural selection (homosexuals having less children). Paedophile or sadomasochistic genes also, for similar reasons.
The solution would be simply that the algorithm for determining the sexual desire in the brain would misfire, it would be imperfect. And no natural selection could improve it, for algorithmic reasons, or because no mutation can create a neural circuit depending on a gene carried by the Y chromosome. A small percentage of misfire is in any case not a problem for Evolution, not even for the survival of the specie. Thus the selective pressure is low. It is a bit like Microsoft and its bugs which stay indefinitely despite our protests: why would they improve their system, since in any case their clients cannot leave for a better system. In fact, Microsoft does not even have a complaints service... and our genes neither.
Thus, just as everybody builds his own brain according to his desire for a particular type of activity (intellect, manual, artistic...), people build their own sexual desire. In most cases, the result matches their body (heterosexuality), but in some cases not (homosexuality, bisexuality). In extreme cases, a person may have a body of one gender, and desire to be of the opposite gender (transsexuality). As discussed below, similar reasoning show how may appear all the other alternative desires: pedophilia, sadomasochism, scatology, zoophilia, etc.
It must be said in passing that, despite this neurological explanation, and precisely because of it, alternative desires (even the most dangerous, like sadism or paedophilia) are not psychiatric disorders: on the contrary, the circuits which produce psychiatric disorders are different, and they mature and operate independently, which clearly demonstrates the separation of the two things. So we have no right to say that alternative sexualities would be psychiatric disorders.
Especially, naming erotic desires with pseudo-medical vocables such as «paraphilia» is an ideological judgement, without scientific basis. Just some prudish religious people rationalized «scientifically» their taboos, calling them with psychiatric names, but without any real understanding of this area.
An older tradition is to qualify alternative desires of «perversions». The etymology of this word denotes the diversion of something from its initial function. But today the word is way too pejorative to be of any use in a scientific study on morals. It is as if we were saying that speaking is a perversion of breathing!
Quite on the contrary of a «perversion» or degeneracy, we may be witnessing the evolution of mankind in a new species, and even its differentiation in several species!
The only useful conclusion at this point is that:
We cannot speak about «normal» or «abnormal» sex, or «deviant» or «perverse» sex. We can even not oppose reproductive sexuality to non-reproductive sexuality, or natural sexuality to a sexuality deliberately modified by the person.
The only ethically justifiable forbidding are, after the second principle of ethics, when sexuality becomes harmful to the person or to others. We shall see case per case further in this chapter.
So let us continue this case per case study of the sexual desires, natural or alternative:
Let us continue this case by case study. With anal sex, it is more complicated:
Our distant ancestors the fish and tetrapods, then the therapsids, and finally the first mammals, were all monotremes, this meaning that they had only one opening, the cloaca, which they used for urinating, defecating, and sex. But 110 million years ago, the mammalian lineage separated into three: the monotremes (platypus), marsupials (kangaroos) and placental (us). The two latter brought several important innovations, including one this discussion is about: now the sexual and urinary openings were clearly separated from the anus and its sphincters, a configuration they still have today, in our human bodies.
The problem is that the sexual sensitivity of the cloaqual sphincter remained attached to what is now our anus and its external sphincter! This error is what I call the anal bug. This sexual sensitivity of the anus explains the variety and frequency of sexual practices about it.
A priori, there is no fundamental reason to prohibit consensual anal sex. It even has a great advantage: it is an effective contraception. Some religions even recommend it (discreetly) in the context of marriage, as a birth control method. Which in this time of catastrophic overpopulation may even lead to encourage anal sex and homosexuality.
But we must see that there are many and serious drawbacks to these practices:
-Evolution did not forget to remove the lubrication and strength of the rectal mucosa, making it difficult to avoid injuries and pain.
-Risk of exchange of intestinal flora (contagious diseases, various disorders, persistent diarrhea)
-Increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases
-Especially the confrontation with feces need to accept the associated very low vibrations (chapter V-17) (to love their smell), which is at the very least miserable. This makes of anal sex a major challenge to our spiritual evolution, by attaching us to the other low vibrations (violence, vulgarity, pornography, meat, wine...).
We are therefore obliged to bring here the first nuanced conclusion, which is neither a ban nor a deification:
We cannot prohibit anal sex. However in this world it can be considered as unadvisable.
We can, without going into details, say that the bad vibration (chapter V-17) of the excrements smells is enough to make such practices not recommendable, and even something of which it is better not to speak.
Urine has no scientifically proven medical properties.
Also, loving bad vibration is spiritually dangerous.
These practices have a big advantage: they are fully effective contraception, if the partners are happy with them.
However they have serious drawbacks:
-Possibility of excrements on the skin, including in the modern world where toilets seldom allow to wash.
-Risk of transmission of the papillomavirus, which causes cancers of the mouth and throat.
-Skin and sexual organs have in theory attractive scents, but in practice almost all the parts of the body can smell bad, or even be downright disgusting.
-Thus oral sex needs to accept the low vibrations (chapter V-17) of these odours. Precisely, a majority rejects these practices for this reason.
We cannot prohibit oral sex. However in this world it can be considered as unadvisable.
The only zone free of bad smells is... the breasts.
We can then accept the oral stimulation of breasts without any restriction.
Most people find these ideas shocking or terrifying, and we can indeed wonder how this is possible.
Sexual masochism would happen according to a process similar to the one of homosexuality. But, instead of reacting to the gender of the partner, some neural circuits have for purpose to label our sensations into «pleasant» or «painful». Masochism would appear when these circuits get wrongly connected.
This neural origin, different from psychiatry troubles, also makes that sexually masochist people are not either psychiatric cases. As a matter of facts, the «founder» Masoch had a normal social life, had positive social and humanist ideals, and fought anti-Semitism.
Sexual sadism would happen from confusion between the appearance of a person having pleasure and of a person having pain. Or also by the desire to give sensations, which would be hardly differentiated.
This explanation not either implies psychiatry troubles. But in practice, it is very hard to differentiate a person with a simple sex fantasy, from numerous crazy, evil or hateful people: psychiatric cases, sociopaths, fascists, ideologists, who also feel the desire to inflict strong pain, injuries, mutilations and death, often in a sexual way. Sade himself rejected any religion and morals, he kidnapped and tortured non-consenting persons, he regularly humiliated and deceived his wife, and he had an affair with a fourteen girl. So, reading or meeting supporters of sadism is often entering a world where sex frenzy leads to the abolition of any morality and human values.
Traditional moral judgements on sadomasochism are imbued with enormous confusion: non-sexual forms of masochism (burning sensation of chilli, rotten taste of wine, horror or violence films), and of sadism (hunting, war, bullfight, hazing, fascism, violent video games) are considered «normal» and do not raise disapproval. The only reproved sadomasochism is the sexual one! Thus the traditional moral conceptions are clearly inspired by hatred of sex, known to easily betray the protection of people.
An analysis after our bases of ethic shows no advantage for sadomasochism, but several serious inconveniences, in several cases:
-Risk to entrust oneself to a dangerous partner (psychopath, fascist, etc.).
-In some cases, deliberate risk taking, marking, mutilation, injuries or even death.
-Impact on our social lives on practices such as maintaining a high desire, exhibition, permanent wearing of objects, domination/submission, «alternative» weddings, etc.
In Second Life, we often had to eject people thinking that we «have» to show our sexual proclivities everywhere, including in public places. But I read much worse stories, like a couple who practised slavery in the presence of their children! We can imagine the devastating effect on the children of this standardization of the most abject form of relationship.
-Temptation of loving sinister representations and vibrations (jails, demons, fascist uniforms, etc.), which create an horrible karma (chapter V-11) of being bound to these things.
-Attachment to strong physical sensations, which is very detrimental to one's spirituality (which aims instead detachment from the body, since we shall lose it anyway)
This leading to the scientific conclusions:
We cannot prohibit all forms of sadomasochism. However in every world it can be considered as unadvisable.
We must forbid as criminal any form of sadomasochism, sexual or not, involving non-consenting persons, children, animals, social display, permanent detention, social isolation, social marking, deliberate risk taking, body marking, injuries, mutilation, death, etc.
A strong spiritual advice is to avoid any representation of evil: fascism, gangsters, demons, and in a general way any low vibrations.
In a general way, democratic laws, and the SSC rules, follow these requirements about physical and social risks, but not about spiritual risks.
We can only shudder when seeing the intensive promotion of criminal sadism made by today society, with books such as «The Story of O» or «fifty shades of gray» (that I saw on sale 30 centimetres above children's books in my local supermarket). We cannot avoid making some very disturbing parallels with these politicians all dressed in fifty shades of gray, or these bankers who force their employees to dress in as in a sadomasochistic club. Especially when these people are busy to sadistic practices such as economic austerity policies, or antisocial spankings imposed on some countries of southern Europe (chapter VI-8). Our «elites» are clearly on a down slope, and need some serious brooming out.
Paedophilia desires would also appear after a process similar to the one of homosexuality. But, instead of reacting to a partner of the same gender, the neural circuits would create desire for younger non-nubile persons, that is children. In common language the word covers both homosexual and heterosexual desire.
The problem however is that this child partner cannot cope with the desire of a paedophile:
-A child has no sexual desire, so that he will be shocked and disgusted
-Children are scared of adult sexuality by a protective instinct (chapter V-16)
-This unpleasant experience will break the future development of his own sexuality, or leave him socially intimidated
This makes that:
sex with children is to be prohibited in all cases.
However there are several remarks and limit cases:
The neural origin of paedophilia, different from psychiatry troubles, also makes that paedophiles cannot either be considered as mentally ill. But this argument, which was helpful for homosexuals, turns against paedophiles: they are responsible of their behaviour, and thus law can punish them.
To be added that everybody is aware of the evil results of paedophilia. Even if an honest person has paedophile desires, he will abstain of any act, or if he tries he will be stopped by the protective instinct (repulsion of adults from touching children). This makes that only dishonest people not caring for their victims will pass to the act. And indeed all the paedophiles I had to deal with were egocentric, manipulators, liars, or sociopaths.
People with such sexual fantasies must consider using psychological or spiritual methods of psychoeducation to take control on them. And they can do it, since paedophilia is not a psychiatric disorder.
Children and sex liberation. In the 1960s and 1970s prevailed the idea that the forbidding on child sexuality was only prudishness, and that we also had to sexually «liberate» children. This was an error, and it was corrected since: far from making the child «free», untimely sex instead destroys his development, often to the point of blocking his whole future sexuality and personality. And I can confirm this, having several times met victims.
There is a limits problem: the age at which sexual activity becomes positive varies widely among individuals. For this reason, the laws of most countries provide a fuzzy logic (chapter I-3) transition period, usually between fifteen and eighteen, where it is up to the parents or tutor to assess whether sexual activity is good or destructive. This is not perfect either, as it opens the door to abusive denunciations, persecuting Romeo and Juliet, and as far as covering real paedophile activities.
Any judgement about sex with teenagers will scientifically assess their maturity independently of the parents or tutors.
Consent of children: Some paedophiles defend themselves with saying that the child was consenting, or even demanding. What happens in these cases? First, the child has little sexual desire: he is not spontaneously interested. Most often he hears about sexuality, incidentally or intentionally. And, by his natural curiosity, or his desire to imitate the adults, he asks, or he accepts a proposal. Of course, when he realizes what it is, the relationship quickly becomes a trauma, from children's instinctive fear of adult sexuality (chapter V-16). Personally, I remember scary dreams, or discomfort in the presence of certain adults.
The child's consent is not an informed consent.
Adult-child marriage happens when one of the partner is too young to be nubile. Many traditions may propose and even impose it, but this does not change the functioning of our neurones: adult-child marriage is technically paedophilia, and calls for the same ethics and laws. Even if sex is not involved, there are too much stakes in a marriage for a child to handle, and anyway when the real time arrives he will most likely want otherwise. So that:
The person's informed consent is always needed for marriage. But the child's consent is not an informed consent.
Yet sentimental love between children must be respected.
A recent innovation is virtual paedophilia: the representation of virtual sex between adults and children (when actors are all adults, any other case falling on classical paedophilia). The media used such cases to discredit these wonderful areas of freedom that are virtual worlds. In reality, the question of whether we must foster or forbid virtual paedophilia has not been studied: we cannot say if it would increase the desire to take action, or if it could instead serve as an outlet to avoid real assaults. Anyway, today almost all virtual worlds prohibit these things, and whoever would be caught would see the end of his virtual life.
The reflection on morals must be entrusted to clever people, not left to peremptory idiots living in the basement of their mother.
Child pornography is a very different case of the virtual, since it is photos of actual children, who were exploited to take the photos.
For this reason we must forbid sexual photos, films and records of children. Anyway, when we had had children, we love them too much to play with their image in such a way.
Maybe the use of the very prudish word «pornography» in the text of a law allows for a loophole: this indeed means that «child eroticism» would be legal! Not sure any judge will fall in this, but we saw paedophiles defending themselves in this way, so the issue exists. And clearly eroticized drawing of children are very visible in some mangas and comics for sale in the children's department in supermarkets. So we have to choose: denigrating sex at a whole, or protecting children. We cannot do both.
Since a family member can be a desirable partner, love or sexual desire could happen as well with them. (we consider here the case of partners of similar ages. An adult with a young child is paedophilia)
However we have a strong protective instinct (chapter V-16) against this. The Darwinian evolutionary reason is to prevent consanguinity, which would allow bad genetic mutations to accumulate in a given lineage. Right on the contrary youngsters have a strong instinct of seeking love in other families, and often with strangers.
Communities which practice consanguinity accumulate minor genetic defects (the serious ones being quickly eliminated). Their members are often ugly or they have mental disabilities like fascism, unrealism or stupidity. This happened with several nobility lineages. On the other hand, people in small islands often seek procreation with visitors. This was common with the Maoris, and was mistaken with a kind of sexual freedom.
This protective instinct is probably at the origin of the strong traditional feelings against consanguinity and marriage between brothers, sisters, siblings, or between a parent and his/her child (as long as the later is adult, otherwise it is paedophilia).
On the point of view of scientific ethic, this point would be valid enough to discourage incest. But in practice, it is rare enough to not bothering making laws to break loving couples.
Same family marriage between nubile partners should be discouraged. However totally forbidding it can break valid couples, so that it is sometimes better to let go. It is mandatory to allow when it happens without the knowledge of the persons.
(Added July 2018) For the above reason, everybody must know who are his genetic parents. But in case a viable same family union is already engaged, disclosure must be retained. Disclosing after allowing such a situation to happen is a deliberate act of sadism.
Children issued from incestuous or inbred unions are not intrinsically bad, they just have slightly increased odds of hosting a genetic mutation. This by no way justify any discrimination on them. They bear no responsibility of what their parents did.
Reminder: if homosexuality is a sexual desire for the same gender, transsexuality is the desire to be of a different gender from one's body, or feeling to be of the other gender (What some call «gender identity», although I was never asked such a thing to establish my passport? They even not checked if I really had a penis, lol). A transsexual is not necessarily an homosexual: he or she really wants persons of the opposite gender of the one he feels to be. In some cases, this is even not an erotic affair, it may be simply an aesthetic preference, of vibration.
Although transsexual desires always existed (transvestism, Hindu Hijras), it is only recently that we hear about actually changing of gender, through surgery and hormones. I am very careful: we need to actually change so many things, that it is difficult to say that a person has really changed of gender. He anyway keeps her chromosomes, and cannot have children. Moreover, in the subjective realm of sexual attraction, a person might feel raped if he discovers that he is united with a transsexual. This feeling is no other than the instinctive disgust (chapter V-16) that many heterosexuals feel for the same gender.
The first gender reassignment surgeries were scary: they started by cutting the clitoris or the penis. Therefore a true sexual mutilation, with ambiguous or repulsive results. Today, surgeons transform the organs in their homologues, while leaving their sensitivity, and the latest version transsexuals are more difficult to detect. But they still give a strange feeling, unconducive to love: we do not really know which gender the person is.
Clearly, breasts or beard is not enough, everything happens as if a man and a woman were not made of the same stuff, and they anyway are of a very different vibration. And this is very visible, and no surgery can change it.
There still are many negative judgements on transsexuality. Thus the English page of Wikipedia (March 2014) addresses the problem as a psychological disease, which must be diagnosed and treated, to which we must find hormonal or genetic causes. The explanation I propose above for alternative desires, based on proven scientific knowledge of brain functioning, has at least the advantage of decoupling transsexuality from psychiatric disorders: the responsible neurons are not the same which produce psychosis.
Another common problem is forced sex changes: when a child is born with ambiguous organs, he is often «treated», that is, he is administered hormones or surgery, to make him comply to one gender or the other. Problem, at puberty, there is one chance on two that he turns out to be of the opposite gender... or he is rejected, to avoid the «shame»! It is then clear that:
In case of ambiguous gender at birth, it is the opinion of the pubescent adolescent which counts. Non-consenting or non-informed gender reassignment are a criminal mutilation, and reassignments of the legal gender are inevitable. Shaming or rejection of these persons is inadmissible.
A special case is the one of gender change in an union, either before this union starts, or during the union. The problem here is simple: the partner can feel deceived, disgusted, etc. We then have a simple and obvious ethics rule, but imperative:
In any case, the partner in an union must be informed of a gender change before the union, and agree for a change during the union. Otherwise it is deception, and the union can be dissolved from this mere fact, with the wrongs going to the deceptive person.
If we want to return to a healthier definition of our gender, we must find the one which produces the least occasions of suffering (Basis of ethics 1a, chapter VI-2). And then it is simple: our gender is what we desire. In most cases, it is easy, because it is our biological gender, the one of our body.
But if our desire does not match our body, well unfortunately there is no simple solution. Surgery is imperfect, with pitfalls, accessible only to the rich and leaving us forever diminished, rejected by most potential partners, not really one gender, and not really the other either.
Spiritual methods allow to better experience these situations. I could quote, for example, people who want to be reincarnated in the other gender, here or in a paradise. They meditate and visualize their dream body. But in the meantime, they do with what nature provided them.
A deeper spirituality would rather avoid creating desires difficult to achieve, cultivate appreciation of what we have, instead of attachment to a vision which is not really possible to achieve. And avoid to make of it a conflict. Especially a conflict where we are both the aggressor and the victim, a conflict with no real victory possible, which will never demonstrate anything to anyone. These are meditations for beginners, relatively easy, which allow at the minimum to avoid switching to a desire which does not match our body, and especially to avoid that this desire swells and becomes unbearable, see an opinion which governs us.
This anyway does not prevent us from having other plans for the afterlife.
(Added in August 2017)A possible satisfying solution will appear when surgery will be able to re-create full organs with 3D printing of cultivated stem cells. The main problems today (2017) still are the difficulty of recreating micro-structures like capillary vessels, or the slowness of cell cultures. But studies started in this direction, with purpose of recreating amputated body parts, and people living today may see this becoming a common hospital practice. When we shall be at this point, it will then be possible to enhance or to recreate unsatisfactory organs: firmer breasts, larger penises, and why not totally replace them by another gender. This will also solve the problems of hormones, by the replacement of the gonads, making a transgendered person nearby indiscernible from a person with a natural body. The brain will require more developments to be modifiable, but this is not a hindrance in this case, since male and female brain are the same. Only sexual interests and sexual sensitivity are different, but precisely what makes the desire to change gender is that these parts of the brain are already of the desired gender. In doing so, most of the warnings of this sub-chapter will become obsolete. Save of course changes without the consent or knowledge of the partner.
Multiple unions (polyamory) have more than two partners (We consider here only official partners who recognize each other as such, not hidden partners, who resort from the sub-chapter on deception)
The increased probability of occurrence of natural problems (death, disability...) or neurotic problems (relationship problems, especially jealousy) decrease the chances of maintaining a multiple relationship. However the consequences of a polyamorous failure are potentially less serious than for a conventional marriage, as the union will usually break into several couples. Children also are more likely to keep their support for the same reason.
Although this is more difficult, psychoeducation also protects these forms of union (or even simply makes them possible).
The main risk factor with multiple partners is jealousy. Jealousy may be a form of instinct (chapter V-16), which often forces animals to fight other partners. It makes common life unpleasant, if not impossible, and it may even lead to serious actions like murder. However many people do not feel jealousy, and this increases their freedom.
Psychoeducation could avoid jealousy, but it is a strong feeling. This difficulty is the reason why almost all religions provide a marriage between only two partners, said monogamous.
Note however that recent legislation no longer recognize jealousy as an excuse for murder: as for rape or driving while intoxicated, it is to everyone to control his feelings.
Casual partners, if they allow to feel «free», bring several additional drawbacks:
-Jealousy of the usual partner (see above), or the risk of hurting this partner, because he can interpret an encounter as the beginning of a stable relationship which will frustrate him of the affection.
-Sexually transmitted diseases. Recent scientific studies show that, past a certain rate of partners exchange, these diseases are statistically forced to spread. This is why AIDS, yet appeared among poachers in Africa, emerged in the American gay community. Many less serious diseases have emerged recently, but prostitution always allowed various diseases to continue.
-In Contrast, over time, we better know a stable partner, we better accept his body, and he can even become like a part of our own body (In French we say «on l'a dans la peau», we have him in our skin)
Even occasional sex makes that the partner has a sentimental need of us. Even a simple kiss can start this process. We must therefore devote time to the partner, and refrain from taking «freedoms» which can ruin the relationship, such as adventures with others. If one commits to a common life, then the responsibility extends to psychoeducation (chapter V-12) and economy (chapter VI-8). (Even without living together, a relationship between a poor and a rich is unlikely to continue if there is not any sharing. But then the boundary with prostitution becomes very blurred).
So clearly, in any cases, a sexual or romantic relationship leads to a natural dependency (chapter VI-3): the partner needs us. And we need him or her.
The traditional exclusive and indissoluble marriage is a response to this set of problems. If we do not want this response, then we must understand the problems and assume ourself our responsibilities toward the partners. Like a tree which must grow straight even without a support.
The fact of being more numerous in a relationship increases the need for a clear agreement at first, and thereafter for more attention, responsibility and psychoeducation.
Masturbation has long been considered a «perversion» or a «sperm wastage». I know no justification for these judgements, neither traditional nor modern, neither spiritual nor scientific. It seems that the ban on masturbation is only a sadistic play.
Masturbation is certainly not the optimal, since it necessarily lacks the whole dimension of love and tenderness (This is the reason why it is called the «solitary pleasure», hinting at incompleteness). But it has a considerable advantage: it allows to control the sexual desire, when we have no partner to satisfy it. This is, to my knowledge, the only safe way to do so, and, for many, the only way to have a normal social life, and focus on their business instead of being obsessed by erotic daydreams, or by the neckline of their next class mate. (Or for the more boorish, to be «unable» to avoid raping or visiting prostitutes!)
The only way to do better would be that the person directly controls his brain using an implant. But this is clearly not ready...
This situation has important practical consequences:
Masturbation must not be considered a taboo or an anomaly.
Ideally, sex education should explain how to do. Some will say it is obvious. But precisely, for a teenager, it is not! He must indeed confront shyness, porn remarks, medical denigration, humiliating giggles...
For women, read Betty Dodson: Liberating Masturbation.
Adolescents and adults must always have a private place.
So no dorms, but single rooms, even tiny, but in any case protected from brothers and «buddies» (who are quick to «monitor», I several times had to face such «inquiries»). For many teenagers and adults, the lack of a private place can be a form of torture, and a serious obstacle to social life, studies, work, etc. Anyway, even without masturbation, we all need a private place to study, dress, meditate, read our mail, etc. Personally, not to have a place to study quietly, sheltered from chatting, rumpus and hazing, is one of the main reason of my relative failure in Math Sup studies.
One might also think that this recommendation of «liberatory masturbation» can apply to monks and other fans of chastity. But it must be remembered that the purpose of chastity is to free the mind of sexual concerns. But this conditions is not realized during the session... I think that if we cannot prevent the desire to monopolize our consciousness, then it is better to not follow this path. I would advocate instead a form of «semi-monachism»: to masturbate the time needed to calm the desire, and be free to do anything else the reminder of the time. Most religions also propose solutions adapted to people who still want having a sex life.
Because the biggest danger of masturbation is not the act itself, but the fantasizing daydreams which accompany it, as we shall see in the next section:
Desiring is human. But desire must emanate from us, not from others.
Psychologists and sexologists almost unanimously state that to fantasize anything is not dangerous.
Thus we could fantasize torture, paedophilia, scatology, homosexuality, deception of our partner... without any consequences, since «it stays in our head»
Under the light of the above neurological considerations, the experience appears in a whole new light: as always fantasizing the same thing is soon boring, we constantly search more exciting images. And we enjoy them. But in doing so, we create new synapses: homosexual synapses, masochistic synapses, torturer, scat, paedophile synapses, etc. That we cannot turn off afterwards. In this way, everything we fantasize becomes a new desire, everything becomes irreversibly connected to the centres of desire in our brain! And this is indeed what we observe, when our fantasizing activity suddenly give us the desire to try something else, that we did not wanted before. It is thus a real bomb that we carry in our primitive nerve centres! A real sex demon, ready to take us to the most addictive and dangerous experiences.
This makes very clear that we must not fantasize without limits, especially not try «something forbidden in real». We saw in the subchapter «How alternative desires appear» all the occasion we have of fall in this trap. Fantasizing during masturbation is the most common, and always at hand so to speak. And all the more tricky as we do not see the danger at the moment, only later when the desire is enough to frustrate us, push us towards problematic partners, or even abandon a good partner. These things work exactly like drugs: we realize too late that we are hooked, and the desire can quickly become unbearable.
It is also difficult not to fantasize when our partner is too passive: it happens nothing but our gesture, which is equivalent to masturbating. Lack of interest in sex is something which happens, and we accepted simply by starting a relationship. However if this results from a relationship problem, then it must be resolved.
What should we think at, then, during masturbation (or with a partner who is not involved)? At something exciting, of course. Everyone can choose what he likes, but:
In the light of both neurology and spirituality, we should fantasize only things that we could actually do in real life, of a good vibration, or as part of a controlled spiritual practice such as viewing a paradise or a Yidam.
Well, if we did not followed this advice, and that we created a new desire, it is too late. We have to live with, learn to refrain, or bear the consequences of the practice. Only intensive spiritual practices allow to regain control.
If fantasizing frustrating or dangerous things during masturbation creates new desires, this is not the only opportunity. There are many others: readings, films, meetings, «professional parties», friends, «initiations», hazing...
The opportunity may be unexpected, such as «professional meetings» «needed for our integration», which appears to be sexual «initiations», to which we «must» take part, even if we are married. Usually the event displays a misleading title, with a totally different content: film, evening, book, «art work», etc.
Personally, I remember being trapped once with a «political» film, which was in reality a mere pornographic film, disgusting and shocking, unrelated to any social emancipation. Problem, these images are still haunting me, forty years later...
The problem is that, once these images seen, presented in an erotic manner, then they find their way in our nervous systems, where they will have the same effect as voluntary imaginations. It is indeed very difficult to voluntarily forget something, especially when strong emotions are involved: try for example to forget the name of a famous criminal.
These opportunities are kinds of rape, and the law even has a name for them: psychological rape.
The second problem is that, when a new desire awakens in us, activists of the mandatory sexual freedom come along, and they tell us that we have «discovered» or «revealed» a «profound aspect of our personality» or «our identity», which was «repressed by society»!
And that we «must» now «freely» express this practice, and claim it publicly!
Precisely not: we created this desire, which did not existed before (or only potentially, since in any case all the desires, even the worse, potentially exist in everybody).
And if people create a neurosis of opinion as what they «are» this or that, then they lock the situation, making themselves unable to only envision a change.
Then they will clash with their partners, with society, and even with the law if their fantasy is illegal. And then they will actually feel «repressed by society». A perfect example of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Thus the intellectual scam is obvious: creating new desires from scratch is not a liberation, not even a revelation, it is on the contrary the creation of a new dependency (in the meaning of addiction).
The conclusion is then clear: Just as forcing somebody into sexual activity by ruse or by surprise is a sexual assault or rape, forcing someone to only viewing a sexual activity that he does not want is a psychological rape. «Viewing» here stands for any presentation: reading, film, real scene, virtual world, etc.
The problem is that these practices are common, and they are presented as a «liberation» by many important social movements, which publish books, movies, do public demonstrations, etc. regardless of the frustration and suffering they cause. Indeed, people suffering from an ideology consider that they are «normal» and others are «in distress»... just as religious fundamentalists do! This sparks their desire to «convert» us, what they call to «liberate» us!
These people think they are a kind of vanguard «criticizing the establishment». However, the said establishment encourages them in a very suspicious way: sadomasochist books promoted by the media, highlighted in the supermarket, politicians with sadomasochist clothes promoting their sadomasochist austerity policies while giving the Sadian example of partners to consume and to discard, banks which require employees to dress as in a sadomasochist club, etc. An «establishment» which also adapts quite well to the legalization of drugs, or which opposes the prohibition of alcohol, hunting, etc.
I think we can rightly be wary of a «liberation» where it is the guards who hand us the key of our cell. It has to be a trap, and where they lead us is certainly worse: a society where people are enslaved by their desires, ready to take anything uncritically. A society where human and spiritual values are crushed, preventing any real liberation and perpetuating the exploitation and subjugation of the majority by a minority of financial barons. Demonstrate, demonstrate... the banners are already on sale in the supermarket.
So that the conclusion is very clear:
We cannot make the apologia, show publicly or by surprise any form of alternative sexuality whatsoever.
Neither of natural forms of sexuality anyway, because it is to everyone to build his own emotions.
In practice, in a sadian society, only us can protect ourself, by refusing to look at these things, at need by closing books or with leaving the movie theatre in full session.
This is probably the most important and innovative statement of this chapter. It has important implications on various aspects of public life, including on some recent «reforms» (which are often only illusory revolutions, chapter I-4).
But there is another even more compelling point:
Children have a vital need of the collective space (living spaces or collective places, cities, nature, media, Internet, etc.), for their education, discovery of life, socialization, etc.
But we repeatedly saw that children have a protective instinct (chapter V-16), which makes them feel uncomfortable in the presence of sexuality, or even from its evocation. The consequences can be devastating, since the children exposed to sexuality often develop a dislike of sex, which then can considerably hinder their adult love life.
So the presence of sexuality in the collective space badly impacts children. Then the question is: should we exclude children from the collective space, or should we exclude sexuality? Can we, in order to satisfy our fantasies, confine children in a kind of silly sub-world in the Disney style, from where they would come out more or less idiot?
Our bases of scientific ethics allow to easily solve this age old dilemma, by the method of the optimum:
-To show sexuality to children seriously harms them.
-To exclude children of public life and public places still more harms them.
-To exclude sexuality from public places is an inconvenience, but it does not fundamentally prevent the exercise of sexual freedom.
Thus the optimum is:
Sexuality has no place in general public places. Including the simple display of sexual tastes.
Regarding children, the best is that they discover sexuality themselves, at the age when their desire awakens, and in their own way. And therefore that they arrive at this age «virgin» of negative impressions which are not theirs. (This is probably in this sense that we must understand the word «virgin» in religions, especially in the Quranic vision of «virgins of paradise»: pure beings free of any prior feeling, ready to wonder).
As to adults, they do not necessarily appreciate the show either. For alternative sexualities, this is compounded with the risk of converting people who do not want to, as we saw in the previous subchapter. Some practices are even more dangerous, like a couple who practices a sadomasochistic dominance-submission relationship in the presence of their children (I heard stories of this calibre). If this is not «sex», it is still a very serious normalization of slavery and sexism to the eyes of these children. At this point, we can even legally consider this as a child abuse.
This leaves little choice for suitable places:
-In places dedicated to a particular type of practice.
-Places accessible to the general public cannot be used for this purpose. (I make it clear, because it happened to me several times to step into public places which were also meeting places dedicated to specific fantasies, without any warning. If I was there, my kids could be there too).
Some say that they have to «publicly claim» their «sexual identity». This claim seems harmless, but it nonetheless falls under two of the previous sub-chapters: risk of converting people who do not necessarily want it, and display in the eyes of children of what is still of the sexual domain. In any case a taste is not an «identity», or it would be needed to write on our passports «likes strawberries». In fact, I have never been asked my sexual tastes to establish my passport.
We must therefore be discreet, and for alternative sexual tastes even more than for natural tastes.
This applies to alternative marriages, which cannot be displayed publicly. Well, same-sex marriage of course, but a book like this one needs to stay current for long enough. So I take some steps ahead of the deputies: zoophiliac marriage, scatological marriage, sadomasochistic marriage, marriage with a robot, marriage with the moped, in short with everything which is not with a dad and a mom.
We do not have to show sexual fantasies in public and in the presence of children. This applies to the ostentation of marriage or of common life.
For the common life, it is enough to speak of friendship. Children can understand this very well.
Knowing for example that those who shock children will reap disapproval later. Illusory revolutions often make real reactions (that is illusory revolutions which in more are in the wrong direction).
To address the previous problem without restricting anyone, my suggestion would be places dedicated to consensual and respected communities, where everyone could meet, or even practice, without receiving opprobrium to attend these places. The attendance of these places would even be a private information, which for example journalists would not be allowed to disclose. They would not be places of residence, much less of enclosure: everyone would continue to live the other aspects of his life anywhere, in public, in family, at work, and so on. I find that such a system is what would allow the maximum of freedom and mutual respect, allowing each one to express himself while removing the opportunities to hinder each other.
It is not necessary (and it would be unfortunate) to isolate these places by means of barriers: a signage would be enough, discrete signs indicating places of rendezvous or practice. Different signs could even indicate different types of practice, dress code, etc. Even children, seeing one of these signs, would know that they must not go there, without having to know what they mean exactly.
Note: we cannot use for this purpose symbols already used elsewhere, such as the rainbow (universal) or the Triskelion (Celtic) of Lesbos (people there are not happy with that)
Note: Places in virtual worlds generally have ratings, which are a step in this direction: depending on rating, children are allowed, or natural sex, or alternative sex, etc. This works well, and just needs to be normalized and generalized.
Oh, this is not a novelty: it's called everyone a place to live.
Well, I see at once the reactions: all the idiots will accuse me of relegating their dear alternative sexualities in ghettos, against the current rage of wanting them to monopolize the public space. This is where a scientific ethical approach marks its strength against arbitrary opinions: instead of simply taking the opposite view, or reversing the «positive law» (arbitrary customary consensus), we arrive on an exquisitely detailed vision of the different cases, and logical and simple solutions which allow everyone to live his life without being a problem for others. All this at an acceptable cost: not to exhibit our sexuality in the public space. We are well asked not to «make ostentation of our religion», right? What a world it would be, to be able to show our dick but not ourselves.
Well, if you clicked here for lists of positions, you failed. We shall discuss here only of means to ensure sexual freedom, not of sex itself.
Not so long ago, unwanted pregnancies posed a drastic limit on sexual freedom. Today, contraception allows for a previously unheard level of freedom, by allowing sex whenever we want and with whoever we want. It also protects unborn children, as they arrive in a family which is prepared to receive them, instead of being thrown into wobbly situations. It is also the interest of society, with better education of desired children.
Chastity, abortion and homosexuality are not contraception.
These reasons make a strong need to make access to contraception as easy as possible (especially to adolescents, who often start their sex life without warning, or without daring to speak of it).
Today, there are still people pressured against contraception. This is why seeking a contraception should be considered part of private life (including against parents or spouse, so that they do not interfere. A child is made at two, or not at all).
Indeed, it is very remarkable that the contraceptives proposed today are often biased, in a way to still leave a possibility of fertilization:
-Condoms in a fragile, bad smelling and expensive material
-Very little research on male contraception. Which makes men dependent of women. I know what I am speaking about.
-Propaganda against hormonal contraceptives, accused of giving fat excess, cancer, etc.
-Propaganda against Depo Provera, because it removes the menses, of which women would «psychologically need» (that men who say stuff like this wear a menses simulator for one year, and we shall speak again of this)
-I remember in the 1970s, there was a prejudice as what an IUD worked only with a woman who already had three children. In the 1980s, the requirement reduced to one, and it is not even mentioned today.
-If «the pill» is theoretically the safest method, however only one forgotten is enough to ruin it. This makes that, in practice, the most reliable female hormonal contraceptive is the Depo-provera (monthly injection). However, in France, many physicians offer the pill to White women, and depo-provera to Arab women...
Of course they correct it is not out of racism...
But it remains that they offer a less effective method to White women. As in the time of Pétain, the «duty» of White women remains to bear children, in order to perpetuate the White race!
Many similar facts point at the main problem regarding contraception today: many actors of contraception are reluctant to limit births, either from Petain-style ideology, or for «religious» reasons. They therefore limit the scientific research, or they offer biased methods to limit their effectiveness. Such an attitude is irresponsible, considering that parents are not always able to offer a good family to their unexpected children. But this is especially criminal in these times of massive overpopulation (chapter VI-15).
To be noted that religious obligations of having children date from a time where life was difficult and hard to maintain: it was imperative to have many children. Today, the situation is totally inverted: making children is easy, but the catastrophic overpopulation makes a major threat on their survival, and even on the survival of mankind. So the least thing is to allow for people who do not want children for not having any. If any Prophet went back, it is what they would say. But they will not come back: it is up to us to be smart enough to understand such simple things. If we are unable, no Prophet can help us.
-Existing contraceptions inject hormones into the systemic circulation, which arises problems.
-Surgical methods are the most effective, but their disadvantage is that they are... surgery, precisely, not always reversible, and sometimes with significant side effects (pain, abscesses... ).
-The withdrawal method, the dates methods, and Tantric methods of retention of ejaculation are not reliable enough.
(Added in August 2017) Natural Contraception. The very idea of «natural» contraception is biased: contraception is by principle artificial. Well, we can talk about methods like plants or dates, but unfortunately we do not know any really effective one. Therefore, we must check if the «refusal of chemical contraceptives» is not in fact some plan to have children anyway, while pretending not to want any, in order to divorce later and use them for claiming alimony.
(Added in August 2017) There is little documentation on contraceptive plants, either because there is none, or because this information is hidden. Also, «plant» does not necessarily mean «harmless»: they can have side effects, sometimes worse than artificial pills.
(Added in August 2017) Hop is sometimes considered a contraceptive or an abortive. An Internet search does not provide information on this. It would still have oestrogenic effects, such as to «disturb» menses. Mitigating or halting menses would already be an interesting result. But of course no research is done on this point. Perhaps budgets would be released fast, if we forced our «decision makers» to wear a menses simulator...
-Today condoms are a joke, since latex is too fragile to be really reliable. Real condoms, solid enough, would be effective contraceptions, and an effective protection against sexually transmissible diseases. To match contradictory mechanical requirements, they should be in high tensile strength materials, like for instance ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fibres. This is more biocompatible than latex, easily dyed, compatible with fat lubricants, while re-usability would really break the price.
-A small strap under the testicles would keep a preservative in place, much more efficiently avoiding it to slip.
-A simple tool, within reach of everybody, would be a rigid condom: easy to manufacture, in all sizes and textures, 100% effective against any disease, 100% effective against unwanted pregnancies (If you see my General Epistemology criticized, this is the real reason). But the main advantage is to avoid the direct stimulation of the penis, prolonging the pleasure of the woman. Very good also for people with insufficient erection.
-Feminine or masculine preservative integrated in a thong. Which makes of it a major erotic accessory, which magnifies and enhance the body, instead of killing its poetry like the vulgar condom. In more, it cannot slip by accident (or purposely, as some wacky morons advertise) Which supposes of course that it is made in a solid material, washable and re-usable, see the previous remarks.
-To cheat on contraception should be legally considered as a rape.
-A future prospect soon possible (2016) would be the extraction of the gonads, and rebuilding with 3D printers, using their own living cells. These modified gonads would therefore continue to produce natural hormones, including during puberty. However gametes could get out only under the effect of an external mechanical manipulation, ideally by the carrier himself, without the need for any equipment. A similar method could even control the desire itself. So everyone would be subjected only to his own choice, not even the one of his partner.
This sub-chapter on contraception is not complete without the conclusion of the following sub-chapter on abortion:
Abortion is the action of deliberately killing a fertilized egg or a baby in formation. This arises an ethical problem of a very different order than contraception. For this reason, we do not count abortion as a contraception.
We do not discuss here the medical cases, or the case of 10 years old girls made pregnant by boors: unfortunately in these cases we have to choose between two lives. As for the use of abortion for repression purposes, or aiming at a gender or an ethnic group, it is obviously barbarism.
Usually the debates on abortion revolve around the question of when a simple object, the egg, becomes an human being. That is, when a simple convenience becomes a murder.
The religions of the Book, facing the difficulty of explaining the existence of consciousness, proposed that the soul (consciousness) is created by God at the time of conception. The ancient theologians, however, had no knowledge whatsoever about this, they made a pure dogma of this assertion (It even is them who invented the word «dogma», and the dogmatic attitude). But the modern world can no longer be satisfied with dogmas, especially when lifes are at stake.
Scientific knowledge on the construction and operation of the brain shown that the neuronal consciousness (chapter V-2) cannot appear until the third month of pregnancy (the brain does not exist yet). This knowledge is the source of generally prevalent laws in democratic countries, which permit abortion before this date, and ban it after, except in case of rape or serious medical condition. However this scientific knowledge suffers in the end of the same problem than the religious dogma: since materialistic science does not know what consciousness is, it cannot really grasp at it, and especially it cannot assert when it is here or not.
The theory of logical self-generation of consciousness leads to a similar result, since the spiritual consciousness (chapter V-2) appears as a result of the information processing by the brain. This contradicts the dogma of the monotheistic religions as what consciousness is created by God at the time of conception: this is not necessary, since the brain creates it itself, spontaneously, by its own natural physical functioning.
However the theory of logical self-generation of consciousness also predicts that, once created, consciousness can continue to exist after the destruction of the physical brain (death). So we cannot exclude the possibility of reincarnation, as proposed by the eastern religions, or sometimes seen in countries where reincarnation is socially accepted (checked memories of past lives). Reincarnation therefore opens up the possibility that abortion is indeed a murder before the third month, as soon as conception.
Moreover, even if we consider that abortion is not a full murder, it still involves the death of an human body. So we must recognize that abortion is always a grim affair, which considers the human body as a simple object, in addition to the unpleasantness and dangers of a surgical act.
The pro-abortion often invoke the right of women to control their bodies. Well, this is an excellent point, but they forget just a «little» detail: the right of children to control their own bodies, or even simply their lives. And it is still extremely hypocritical to wave the right of a person, while burying the rights of another. Especially when this «other» cannot make his voice heard.
Therefore the liberalization of abortion has been, as always when we see two values opposed to each other, an illusory revolution (chapter I-5), which does not solve the problems, but discards them on other victims who cannot defend themselves. thus, to say that abortion is a «right» is just as dogmatic as the religious dogma about the divine creation of the soul at conception.
The accumulation of all these arguments has long pushed to ban abortion, except for severe cases (rape, medical risk).
However the dry prohibition of abortion does not solve all the problems, and even it creates others: women abort clandestinely, under dangerous conditions (I know what I mean: one of my cousins died like this, bled white without being able to do anything. When her husband came home from work in the evening, he found blood everywhere in the apartment). If the birth occurs anyway, the relationship between the mother and the child may not work with an unwanted child, or a child part of the trauma of a rape. Thus, beyond the ethical or metaphysical debate, it is these pragmatic considerations which finally led to the legalization of abortion, despite the inhumanity of such an activity.
But this legalization led to an as much perverse a situation as the ban, when women began to abort for their personal convenience (to stay beautiful, to be able to go skiing...) or based on segregationist criteria: gender, «genetics», on the unborn child. This kind of backfire is what always happens when we stupidly oppose two moral values, instead of understanding their non-duality.
Therefore the logical conclusion is:
-Ideally we must not abort.
-However the truly effective way to accomplish this, is to avoid situations where people are tempted to abort, especially by making available effective and safe contraceptive methods and practices, accessible to all men and women.
Thus we comply to the two values, the freedom of women and the lives of children, instead of opposing them and making an arbitrary choice.
The ideal would be an inexpensive contraception, effective and without side effects, allowing everyone to be under contraception by default, even the ones without sexual activity (to deal with contingencies such as unexpected encounters, rape, or the awakening of sexual desire at puberty). Thus abortion would not be «necessary», and its prohibition would be pointless.
Note that chastity, often presented as the «logical solution», remains a... theoretical solution: in practice, most people do not want to abstain of sexual activity, or are unable to do so. Thus, to throw this «solution» in the face of people is rather a lack of respect, or a lack of knowledge of human realities. But for those who wish to remain chaste, this is obviously the ideal solution!
The ideal would be to have to do something when we decide to have a child, instead of having to do something to avoid it.
It would be even better if both parents had to do something. This would avoid many types of problems, such as children hostages for divorce, or sexist exploitation of men as disposable stallions. (I know of what I am speaking, since I was myself a victim of this filthy trick). Hey, men no more like being treated like objects!
Is an urgent moral imperative the scientific research on a contraception «by default» for all men, women and pre-adolescents, which would require both partners to have to do something to start a pregnancy. This would prevent any form of unwanted or imposed pregnancies, making abortion unnecessary.
Sex education is meant to prepare children and adolescents for what awaits them when their desire awakes, and the possible implications.
It is a delicate art, as the instinctive disgust of children transforms only gradually into interest, and moreover this is unpredictable, often secret, sometimes abrupt.
-For the youngest children, the best approach seems not to take initiative, but to answer questions in an honest and clear manner, albeit simple and appropriate to his age, and above all without responding further than the initial request. For example the young child does not have anything to do with more precise answers than for example «sex is cuddles between the daddy and the mom». If he asks how, «with the willy» is usually enough to bring him to the point where curiosity is counterbalanced by the childish repulsion for sex. While this may vary significantly from one child to another, the general rule is not to offer any unsolicited information.
-Some propose to teach young children to denounce paedophiles. But this is also very dangerous: besides introducing sex as the devil, children are given the idea and the means for making abusive denunciations. It would be better to do screening, especially when a child shows uncomfortable, has a sudden drop in school work, and so on.
-The pre-adolescent can receive schematic information on the issues, anatomy, emotions, etc. Even if increased timidity still diverts him from the precise descriptions of the act itself.
-The adolescent must receive full and detailed information, even if he does not solicit it. Indeed, at any time, he may experience a violent desire to take action, or experience untimely states of excitement, which may disrupt his concentration in the classroom, or cause him to commit harmful acts. This is why he is entitled especially with precise information on the dangers (diseases, dangerous partners), the respect of potential partners (abstaining from mockery, womanising, hand contact, etc.) contraception (he is too young to assume children) and methods of masturbation (the only currently known safe way to regulate sexual desire).
-Young couples are entitled to complete information on all types of contraception and, if applicable, on pregnancy, birth and child care.
While the foregoing points are theoretically accepted in democratic countries, some more specific points are still ignored or insufficient:
-Sex education must respect the part of mystery, intimacy or magic of the love relationship. So no pornographic denigration, but no either medical disparagement, presenting things in a trivial, mechanical way, with close-up photos, bloody babies, vivisection and all these horrors.
Sex education should also include a component on loving attachment (chapter VI-6), how it works, how it is maintained, how it can break. This is really urgent, when we see most of the couples divorcing while the kids are still young...
-Sex education must combat discrimination on alternative forms of relationships: homosexuality, transsexuality, sadomasochism, etc.
-But we also saw in the third section that none of these forms is truly desirable: this is why sex education must also provide basis of psychoeducation to master our desire, before it is the latter which controls us.
-Sex education should also provide a basis of prudence for alternative sexuality, each of which having specific rules, dangers and imperatives, that it is better to learn in the classroom, rather than to understand them only when we find ourself tied in the cellar of a stranger, or suffering from an incurable disease. Interest in this information can also happen at any time in adult life. General sex education of adolescents should mention these types of relationships, and explain their dangers, however without giving details, in order, as we saw, not to cause forced conversions. This information must be from safe sources, which includes non-practitioners, as practitioners tend to minimize the disadvantages.
If sex education is normally done by the parents (especially for young children), it is good that the school provides sufficient foundations, schematically for pre-adolescents, and more comprehensively for adolescents. There are still too many cases of incapable or ideologically blocked parents.
However, the school must not introduce its own ideological biases, such as presenting things trivially, and especially not to introduce pseudoscientific theories as we have seen in France with attempts for gender theories (Chapter II-7).
Everybody is enticed to a sexual education appropriated to his age and his needs, while respecting his freedom, tastes ans aspirations.
Hygiene has an obvious purpose: sex with a dirty or bad smelling partner is a very unpleasant experience, which can even disgust us with sex, just like a rape.
But «safe sex» rather refers to avoiding the transmission of diseases. Unfortunately there is no safe method, as even honest partners can be contaminated unknowingly (herpes, papillomavirus), or during a rape.
Especially, the appearance of serious and incurable diseases has been a serious blow to the «sexual revolution»: it is no longer possible to have spontaneous relationships with casual or unknown partners, either in the way of the hippies or in the way of the male homosexual community (adepts of multiple blind encounters, they paid a heavy tribe to AIDS). And the ones who still want to push us toward these attitudes are not the ones who die.
If we cannot solve the problem right now, there are some simple things we can do:
-Forbid prostitution (prostitutes undergo a «natural selection» in favour of resistance to AIDS, which makes that in some countries virtually all prostitutes are contaminated but without symptoms, contaminating men, and then their wives, thank you)
-Abstain from unknown partners
-In a stable union, refrain from external relations
-Make real condoms (and other protections) in solid materials (see the sub-chapter on contraception).
-Some will add scientific research to this list, to fight sexually transmitted diseases. However, it is to be expected that an unknown number of new diseases are still awaiting in viral reservoirs, or even created artificially, by mistake or intentionally.
It will be noted that, a few years ago, it was said «venereal disease» instead of «sexually transmitted disease». Until someone reminded the etymology of this word: «from Venus», that is, from women! Bringing the responsibility for these diseases on women alone was truly shabby, and some brains had to be rubbed with scotch brite and bleach to get rid of this shame.
Let us pass on the idiotic prejudices which see a sexual act in naturism. Naturism is an art of living in nature, while removing artifices such as clothing. There are different variants, like «familial» (with children), where all sexuality is proscribed, or «between adults», which can admit «encounters». But in any case, any sexual act in public is forbidden in naturist places, as much to protect the reputation of naturism as to avoid the diversion of naturism itself.
I must say that when we have thrown all the taboos and obsessions, to be naked in nature, alone or in the company of others who share this ideal, is an inexhaustible pleasure. We are like nature had foreseen, enjoying without filter all the sensations, warmth, freshness, wind, contact of the grasses, and so on. Never did I feel as human as when naked in nature, and as accepted as with other people equally naked in the same state of mind.
A curious fact is that fascism does not always oppose naturism (although of course it confines it to an illustration of its ideology). Thus the Germans practised naturism in the midst of anti-Nazi war, and Franco's Spain tolerated it, while ruthlessly chasing marxism. Which, on the return of democracy, has produced an interesting result: Spain found itself at the forefront of ecology, while in France ecology is still corseted by the extreme left.
The reason why nazism was interested in naturism is that, in this ideology, «to inhabit the country» also implied to feel and to communicate with the nature, the legends, and so on. But of course, at soon as the liberation, the naturists withdrew the nazi crosses from their camps and took back their movement in hand.
Young children accept naturism very well, as long as they are not confronted with sexuality or mockery directed at their bodies. But children victims of mockery or aggression become uncomfortable with nudity.
In adolescence also appears the shyness to show one's body. Of course the girls have a delicious embarrassment to show their nascent breasts. But men feel exactly the same! These sensations are at the origin of the widespread customs of covering the body at adolescence.
The ideal would be to be dressed in public places, and to be naked in nature. Nature would be somehow «private», not in the sense of forbidden access, but in the sense of, say, if we walks and we stumble upon naked people, or even making love, well it is up to us not to see them, instead of them having to dress up in shame.
This condition is still far from being realized today, where nature still belongs to a whole heap of prosaic, destructive, hunting, fencing, fascists, idiots with prejudices, and so on. Susceptible of disproportionate or even dangerous reactions. There even has been cases of legal persecution. This is the reason why naturism is practised mainly in camps. But this is way too narrow to really communiate with nature.
We often hear these two words used indifferently, as if they were the same thing. These are, however, two totally different and opposite things, and to confuse them has serious consequences.
Pornography could be defined as placing coarse, vulgar or dirty vibrations on sex, or focusing on those naturally found there. In this, pornography does not differ from prudishness, for they both despise sexuality as much, assimilating it both to something dirty, grotesque, vulgar. Well, gray prudishness hates sex, while brown porn is an attachment to sex. Which leads to the same result, since hatred or attachment are just two sides of the same neurosis. Besides, we almost always find the two mixed together in the same person. As evidenced by the use of words like «bitch» to indifferently mean a woman interested in sex, or a dishonest woman.
The net result of this collusion is to sully the romantic love we all want, and make of it a matter of dirt, vulgarity or shame. Pornography and prudishness are thus two direct and coordinated attacks against one of the most desired forms of human happiness.
I say that these are facts known to all, without any excuse. Indeed, the etymology of these words clearly indicates which one is positive or negative:
-Erotism comes from Eros, god of love. It is therefore clearly positive and romantic.
-Pornography comes from the Greek pornê, a prostitute. It is therefore clearly pejorative.
-Prudishness is an addition to «modesty», which indicates an excess or even a hypocrisy. This word is therefore clearly pejorative.
-Other words like «obscene» imply a general condemnation of sexuality, assimilated as a whole to something dirty. So let us never use it. Many dictionaries do, however, which is a serious mental manipulation. To indiscriminately use the word «pornography» for erotic activities is therefore a conscious and deliberate mind control.
In general, pornography can be described as:
-Prostitution and everything which mixes sex and money (or power)
-Stereotyped productions of the pornographic industry (round mouths, etc.) and associated sexist prejudices
-Daily sexism, mockery, vulgar remarks, shabby womanising
-The majority of videos posted by amateurs on sex sites, which show the human body in a trivial unflattering way, with colours deliberately greyed, or in trivial scenes: cellars, dungeons, toilets, etc.
Things are complicated by the fact that pornography is often in the eye of the pornopath, who slobber his dirty words and repulsive giggles even on the finest works of art. Fortunately we can effectively suggest without showing, and the most beautiful works of art are often those where eroticism only appears between words.
From a spiritual point of view, attachment to low vibrations is dangerous.
Prudishness dirties the religious ideal, while pornography stifles the ideal of freedom.
Everyone has the right to keep his perception clean.
Given all the problems with love, sexuality, couple or family, some people prefer not to do it at all.
I know this will shock the «puritans of sexual liberation», but when you do not have the desire, sex seems boring, and even frankly disgusting. If in addition it costs so many problems ...
When I was a child, I lived very well without sex or desire. I had a thousand other things to excite or motivate me. Today, what I miss most is an on-off button for desire, in order to be able to do other things at times. My mother often told me that with age, she was «glad to be rid of it».
Sex disgust could be at the origin of the many «moral» opinions against sex, and we shall see how it determines our opinions, and even social norms.
In certain specific cases (monks and nuns), the purpose of chastity is to break attachment with matter, avoiding neurotic attachment to body and objects. However, the key is not «not to do» but «not to be attached». It is useless to spend days fighting against physical desire, if it can be relieved in a few minutes by hand. The key is not to create an attachment for this act.
Well, you will say, if one is obliged to go through this, perhaps it is better not to apply to the monastery, and to prefer another form of retreat from the world. Precisely, almost all religions have solutions for this. Chastity is only practicable if one has little or no physical desire.
As to imposed chastity, it is a bad treatment. Not to mention penis cages and other sicko tools to demolish children. The «hunt for masturbation» often took extremely sadistic turns.
Science must look for ways for everyone to control their level of desire, including to cancel it.
Freedom, it is to choose, including not to do. Rite?
Platonic love is often understood as something frustrating or incomplete. It is not so: love is, let us remember, a sentiment. And a sentiment is self-sufficient, with actions in the realm of the mind, without requiring any specific physical activity. There is therefore no sex, and often no common life either. For various reasons, people do not wish to cross this path, to remain in pure sentimental, artistic or spiritual connivance, without having to manage all the trivial side of physical or economic relations. Platonic love is often considered incomplete, or a failure, by a society which thinks that a man and a woman «must» necessarily land in a bed. As if there was only sex in life. On the contrary, platonic love is a fantastic victory of the mind over matter.
A poetic description of platonic love is what we feel in love, before declaring oneself (or before going to bed). Some people like to stay at this stage, by common non-verbal agreement, to preserve the sentimental purity of this state.
This is why we should not talk about their relationship to a platonic couple: it can break it, or make it fall into physical love, what precisely they wanted to avoid.
All the religions of the Book, and many others, command women to arrive virgin at marriage. And indeed, this fantasy is very widespread. Yet I do not know any explanation for this commandment, nor especially why it would only apply to women. Only certain analyses of the Koran suggest that, once in paradise, people would be resurrected «fresh» (women and men), that is, pure and new in feelings, which is not the same thing as physically virgin.
Thus «virginity» is not so much the presence of the membrane (which can be lost as a result of an accident), but a freshness of feelings, a capacity to give oneself up and fully enjoy the experience, as for the first time, naively, without filtering or blocking.
This is precisely what we lose when we discover sex through pornography, medical denigration, womanising, «initiations», vulgarity, paedophilia.
As for «virginity tests», they can be considered a rape. Often with different aggravating circumstances: committed in reunion, by an «authority», in a context of stalking, segregation, inquisition, etc.
Joke of former rocket science worker: at least let us hope that these tests are non-destructive...
The end of sexual desire is undoubtedly the part where we hear the most idiocies. Thus in the 1960s we could still hear that we can no longer be in love after 30 (and therefore that we had to «hurry», at need by rape!). Since then, menopause is receiving disproportionate attention, and we see barmy doctors trying to prolong the menses, or even to allow 60-year-old women to have children!! As for andropause, we still read (2016) in wikipedia that its very existence is «polemic», or that it would be a «disease». And I had to get there myself to finally know!!
Then, indeed, we observe a decrease in male desire, a moment after 60. Even if men do not seem to experience so much physical discomfort than women, there are still some disadvantages. Especially the psychological attachment to desire and the physical desire do not diminish in the same time, which can lead men to seek unusual or extreme excitations, to revive a body which no longer follows.
Well, I did make a specific observation: physical desire does not really diminish, it is rather the refractory period which passes from a few hours to several days. Thus a man can still experience an intense desire, if he does not relieve himself. It is probably this confusion which is at the origin of the different assertions about the male desire after 60 years.
Of course, the very materialistic wikipedia assimilates these changes to only drop in hormones, and therefore only to physical desire. However the changes are much more complex, as for puberty, and they involve the whole personality, with changes of mindset and goals in life. Thus, the reduction of the psychological attachment to sex makes it possible to invest in other things, such as a more varied social life, or to devote oneself to objectives or leisure activities which we did not envisioned before. Also, the approach of death, and the greater availability, makes us more available to the immediate enjoyment of life, travels and other social experiences, or preparation for the afterlife. It is like being a child, free and spontaneous, but with the wisdom, knowledge and experience of a long life.
In countries such as India, the third age is traditionally considered an age where one dedicates oneself to one's spiritual fulfilment. China also considers the third age as the age of wisdom. And indeed, with the experience of life, we usually take things in a more gradated way, without wanting to block them. With the loss of physical desires, usually hard to satisfy, the third age can ultimately be a happy time. This is what I see in the virtual, where the most positive and responsible people are in this age group (and they are not necessarily «old hippies»).
Many people complain about accesses to sadness after a sexual act. The explanation is very simple: it is an instinct (chapter V-16) which purpose is to make us stay with the partner, so that we can take care of the child who may result from this union.
The trouble is that we also feel this sadness after masturbation... yet another bug in the human brain.
Well, as always when we are sad, we must be aware of the cause. Because sadness without apparent cause can quickly degenerate into existential anguish, or take disproportionate proportions.
The best solution would be to build a world less sad, less grey...
...where engaging in a romantic relationship is not a risk-taking.
Desire is an element of the consciousness experience. If we experience it, then desire exists. If we do not experience it, then desire does not exist. An element of consciousness experience can not be «unconscious». The notion of sublimation is one of the many smoky notions invented by Freud, and accepted without verification by his followers. It is of no help in solving our problems.
On the other hand, we can move the object of desire. For example people who fantasize about children can train to fantasize about something else. Or, in the Tantras, practice fantasizing about the divine beauty, instead of looking for necessarily disappointing material experiences. A commonly quoted example is also the artist whose desire drives him to create beautiful or angelic characters. But in all these cases it is always desire, and it is always sexual.
In addition, physical sexual desire is generated spontaneously by the body, just as hunger or thirst. We cannot, therefore, suppress it, but only control our actions by the will, or render it inoperative by advanced meditation. Indeed, if we contemplate desire, then it becomes a simple element of the landscape, which loses any mean to make us suffer or to force us to do things.
Is sex «good» or «bad»? Do we really need to abstain of it to deserve paradise, or is it only a pleasure without consequences?
It is easy to verify that our own spontaneous response to the question «do I have to abstain from this or that» drastically depends on our level of sexual arousal, and may even vary from one minute to the next. Thus, the more we are excited, the more we tend to forget risks and disgusting besides, and the more agreeable and legitimate we find things. But when we are no longer excited, we think on the contrary that it would be better to abstain from this or that, in view of the disadvantages. At the extreme, the elderly sometimes turn to unbridled bigotry.
Worse, we easily notice that hatred of sex is very often associated with hatred of joie de vivre, beauty, peace, etc. And those who promote unlimited sex are often for egocentrism, pornography, vulgarity, drugs, etc. It is then easy to conclude that most people who have enacted moral rules about sex only expressed their personal attraction or disgust. And only the power of states or religions made of these personal tastes «rules of morality» imposed on all. More precisely, these people created «positive laws», that is, imposed by force and not based on scientific basis.
This book right on the contrary is seeking scientific conclusion true for everybody, independently of my personal state of sexual arousal. I can do this, since I have several neurones (a rare gift seemingly) and a memory allowing me to remember what I was thinking when I was in a different state. This allowed me to filter out what depends of my personal state of arousal.
It is already very embarrassing to end up with a strong desire of doing weird or dangerous things, or likely to ruin our relationship with a good partner.
But psychoprimitive people, without introspection, are even more badly led: in their mind, desire automatically becomes a «will», without critical examination or critical overview: «I desire» then «I want». Some especially stupid people even seem not to know the difference between the two, as an animal would do.
(You may think I wrote this out of frustration or exaggeration. But when I translated this text from French, Google translator really translated both by «I want»!).
Thus a person hooked to a pleasure will «want» to indulge freely, while a shocked person will «want» to forbid others from enjoying it.
Everything is then in place for the emergence of a neurosis of opinion (chapter V-12): the pro arguments are felt as «true» and «good», while the pro arguments are felt as «false» or «liar». And a person of the same opinion appears as a «friend», even if he is about to torture us, ruin our family or contaminate us with a serious illness. Thus the neurosis of opinion removes any protection against dangerous desires, whereas a psychoeducated person at least tries to protect himself by preventing the desire to push him in spite of his will.
Worse, these people then generalize their personal opinions to everybody, forbidding or imposing sex on everyone! Hence the variety of naive «morals systems» about sex, from religious prudishness to atheist pornography: arbitrary prohibitions of various practices, or on the contrary, impossible or dangerous claims.
The last step, ideology (chapter I-9), is crossed when people construct buggy systems of thought, so as to justify their desire, and in the end feel themselves «right» and the others «bad».
In this section, we shall disassemble several examples of such pervert systems, pro or anti-sex, sometimes so warped that we can speak about prudishness disguised in sexual liberation.
We saw in chapter V-13 that one of the favourite games of sociopaths is to define arbitrary rules, and then to say that anybody not complying with them is abnormal. Sexuality provides them with a playground of choice, as any forbidding directly encounters violent or fundamental victim's desires. Prudishness therefore works every time, as a method of stalking. Otherwise, there is rape, mockery, pornography, and so on.
Fashion could simply reverse values, with homolatry and mandatory sexuality everywhere: it is then chastity, conjugal fidelity or «belonging» to a religion which today are targets for harassment or discrimination.
Like the amoral instinctive «disgust» of other races (chapter V-16) can lead to racism, the instinctive disgust of the contact with the same gender can lead to homophobia: the desire to harm homosexuals. But the fact that such a feeling is spontaneous, natural and instinctive (encoded by our genes in our neural circuits) is by no means a moral «justification» of it. This is a bug of the brain, and nothing else. And on the contrary it is this feeling which is immoral, because it can ruin our relationship with others, and it even can lead toward harmful and quite unnecessary acts.
So recent Human rights movements fight homophobia, just as they are already fighting racism. And this book clearly does the same.
However, today the balance is quickly tipping toward the opposite extreme, by simple dualistic inversion (chapter I-5): homolatry, which is defining the lives of everybody as a function of an homosexuality which is about only a few percent of people. And «phobia» and «latria» being just the two sides of the same neurosis, we can safely leave these two beat each other in the same cell, and go in peace take care of more useful things.
So, after the second foundation of ethics, Chapter VI-2:
We do not have the right to discriminate against anybody on the basis of his sexual tastes.
We do not have the right to force anybody in tastes which are not his.
The only ethically justifiable forbidding are, after the second principle of ethics, when sexuality becomes harmful to the person or to others.
The vibration bug, whatizit??? Dude this General Epistemology leads to strange concepts...
Since the emergence of animal life on land, 300 million years ago, animals are confronted with the microbial hazard of excrements. Evolution quickly endowed them with the disgust of the smell of excrements, which, for our consciences today, translates into a «bad vibration» (chapter V-17) associated with this smell: we do not want to live close to them, or if we are forced we feel bad.
However, in animals with only one opening serving both to defecate and to sex, sexual desire had to cancel this disgust, and instead allow to love the smell of these excrement which were always sullying the object of the desire, to the point of obscuring any perfume attached to it. Hence the ambiguity of the nerve circuits which sometimes produce disgust, and sometimes produce attraction, and many possible errors of assignment.
The problem is that these neural circuits are still there with us, and they are at the origin of scatological desires, and of pornographic desires (bad vibes sex). More generally, a large fraction of the population prefers the low vibrations of meat, wine, etc. instead of looking for the good vibes of real life.
This is a serious problem, because these people are attached to an ugly and dirty world, that we often see them building in cities and in the countryside as well.
That our love pleasures are attached to the worse dirtiness is one of the worse curses of the human condition.
The main argument in favour of alternative marriages (homosexual, sadomasochistic, paedophile, robot, moped, etc.) is that an alternative couple needs the same protections as a natural couple. According to the second principle of ethics (chapter VI-2), this argument is valid, but it does not necessarily give the «right» in all cases. In any case, we saw in section II that alternative sexualities are not advisable, and that in more they must not be shown in public, in order to preserve the freedom of choice of everybody, especially of children.
The most common argument, however, is the recognition of a sexual identity. Unfortunately a sexual taste is not an identity. We can then ignore this argument. Only a change of gender implies a publicly visible change of identity, but we saw in the sub-chapter on transsexuality that this is not simple today (2017, subject to future changes).
We cannot prohibit or suppress alternative marriages in general.
However, in this world, they can be considered as discouraged, as resulting from alternative sexualities.
In the case where an alternative marriage is practised, it opens the same protections and the same rights, with two exceptions:
-It does not allow for the conception or adoption of children, see the next sub-section
-Unlike the natural marriage which is public, an alternative marriage is private.
A person must be informed when marrying a transsexual.
Paedophile marriage (with non-nubile children) is aggravated paedophilia, with complicity and abuse of authority.
Marriage after rape or paedophilia is an aggravated continuation, with complicity and abuse of authority.
Marriage with a robot is not a marriage, as a robot is not a conscious being.
(modified on October 30, 2017) Marriage with a person expressing through a virtual world (save roleplay) can be considered as an alternative marriage. However, it would take a level of realism unthinkable today (2017) to be regarded as equivalent to a natural marriage. It still no less remains a valid union, since it involves emotions and the body (at least the naked body or sexual poses.) For this reason, jurisprudence considers extramarital sexual relations in a virtual world as a breach in the marriage contract.
We can legitimately consider a virtual union or marriage as a true marriage.
(Added on October 30, 2017) For the same reasons, a marriage with a clearly identified deceased person expressing through a machine, either physically or through a virtual world, can be considered as a legit real marriage, and if applicable as the continuation of a marriage during life.
The use of Medically Assisted Procreation, surrogate mothers or adoption is envisioned to give children to alternative couples who cannot naturally have any.
These ideas are even brandished as rights. However, they openly trample on the only right which counts in a family: the rights of the children. In this case the right to a father, to a mother, to breastfeeding, and the example of a natural relationship, all of which the child has a vital need for its development and future freedom. Especially the absence of one of the two genders makes of the child an orphan. See chapter VI-6 for more details.
Non-heterosexual families cannot have children.
Surrogate mothers must be prohibited in all cases, as a serious form of slavery, in addition to seriously harming the child.
To withdraw children from disadvantaged families to fulfil the affective desires of a rich family is human trade or slavery.
Medically Assisted Procreation or adoption are forbidden to any non-heterosexual family.
There are however some nuances:
-PMA is superfluous, in a world in severe over-population.
-It is more difficult for a polyamorous family to have children, but it cannot be forbidden.
-Finally an alternative family can be formed with partners already having children, or else by fait accompli. Their children cannot be taken away if an affective relationship has been established. Indeed, this relationship is more important than the example of natural sexuality.
For information, the legalization of homosexual adoption in France caused an uproar, with a large majority of the population opposing it. The mental manipulation of the media to block this movement was then to say that it was an extreme right movement. This forced everyone to remain silent, under penalty of being assimilated to moronic homophobic extremist. The single right-left party then voted for the law, including the spiritually disoriented «greens». To make it clear, I do not support any form of extreme right, and any way any left-right party. I support life, intelligence and real people.
First, because these things are not diseases.
Second, because the currently proposed methods are dangerous hogwash: hormones decreasing sexual desire at the price of serious side effects. Let us remember the tortures inflicted to Turing, to «cure» him.
To really do that, we should be able to intervene in the brain at the level of the individual neurons, and change the few dozen neurons responsible for our sexual likes and dislikes. This is not inconceivable, but clearly not yet developed.
Let us suppose that we can easily change the tastes and desires created by our neurons. It would be to everyone to have the final word, to decide if he wants to stay homosexual, or even to become so... And if the consciousness of the person also took a sexual orientation, then even if we change the neurons they will regain this orientation in the following months!
This also shows another possibility: that the consciousness can, by spiritual exercises and visualizations, modify the neurons which determines the sexual orientations and tastes. This is personally what I did, to get rid of some annoying stuff. It is unfortunately not easy practices, but still a much greater freedom than to «claim» an orientation that we did not choose.
In some cases court decisions force paedophiles and sex offenders do «receive a treatment». If the idea is appealing, it is nevertheless a dangerous intellectual scam: we cannot cure a sexual taste, and even not dishonesty, because they are not diseases. The «treatments» simply have no effect.
In more, these justice decisions go straight against two essential judicial principles:
-A judge is not a physician. So he cannot diagnose or prescribe
-A mentally sick person is not responsible in front of the law. So we cannot in the same time punish and do medical care.
These «treatments» actually are hormones which inhibit sexual desire, at the cost of sometimes serious side effects (depression, deformation of the body, etc.). We shudders to the case of a false accusation, or a miscarriage of justice, where these hazardous substances are administered by force to innocents... a thing which may happen more often than we think, see the subchapter on false accusations.
Modified on Mai 1, 2017: The only methods which work are psychological or spiritual trainings, based on visualizations, sometimes of vows. And again, it is not easy, and relapses can be many. In fact, only you can decide to engage in such an approach, if you feel that such or such of your sexual tastes is problematic for you, for your family or for others. In the case of a judicial condemnation, such visualizations can be proposed, to allow a person to refocus his desires on things which are less dangerous for the others. However, it is impossible to force somebody to do so, let alone to verify if he actually does.
Added on May 1, 2017: As for modifying the neurons by force, according to the technique proposed above for homosexuality, this arises ethical problems far surpassing the possible benefits, and can therefore be considered a serious violation of human rights, similar to a mutilation.
The only safe way known today (2016) to limit the sexual desire of a confirmed dishonest would be... to milk him every morning.
At least General Epistemology is more fun than the Inquisition.
Well, no need to fantasize: the nurse would use a device.
Warning for those who only see what they want to see: risk of prosecution.
We clearly stated above that paedophilia is bad. The problem we are going to deal with in this sub-chapter is FALSE accusations of paedophilia, or inhuman or disproportionate treatment against real culprits, the whole using methods which are dangerous for the victims (real or supposed). This is neither justice nor protection: this is called witch hunt, or inquisition.
The best documented «reference» inquisition case is the Salem «witches», where a group of wacky women had fun terrorizing children, to force them accusing innocents. If ever there were witches in Salem, it was these women, precisely.
In the very first, this inquisition harms children, instead of protecting them. The first reason is that it diverts the means of police and justice, to the detriment of genuine cases. The second reason is the psychological rape of children, through untimely interrogations, which introduce them to sexuality by the most sordid side.
But above all, the children are also treated as guilty, who must be forced to «confess» imaginary facts. Of course, if they don't, it is because «they have a problem», justifying «psychological treatment» or isolation. Everything is ready for scenarios of psychological torture to make Orwell shudder. Such outrageous ill-treatment are perfectly documented and detailed in major and well-known cases: the Dade County Affair in Florida, and the Outreau case in France. The details of such ill-treatment include isolation from their family, threats, harassment, sexual situations, and pseudoscientific methods such as hypnotic regressions or search for suppressed memories. These abuses can be considered as real paedophilia.
The fact that these cases are the action of judges and social workers is a highly aggravating circumstance. Some proposed to «reform» justice. But the very first reform would be to hire only honest, normal people, and not sex fundamentalist sickos.
The anti-pedophile inquisition also includes various violations of the principles of law: exceptional jurisdictions, lack of prescription, double penalties, which in more are applied on simple accusation, like social isolation by the confiscation of computer equipment. Even proved culprits are treated outside of the norms: exceptional limitation periods, social marking, electronic pillory, etc.
There also is a very suspicious statistical excess of paedophilia accusations against people teaching various forms of spirituality. I personally know a case, but it did not worked, because the French gendarmes are not so easy to fool.
People accused of paedophilia have the same rights as other litigants: fast decisions, presumption of innocence, defence, judgements based on verified facts, penalties proportionate to the real damage, prescription delays similar to other litigants.
Children victims of paedophilia, real or alleged, are entitled to a normal human treatment, respect for their speech and respect for their modesty. They can be removed from their parents only in case of proven abuse, and in this case entrusted to a stable replacement family (chapter VI-6).
In case of computer devices are seized, they will be returned within days, to avoid a double penalty, in more applied even to innocents.
Since the awareness of the dangers of paedophilia is recent, then why was it condemned before? The answer is very annoying: it was condemned just because it is sex. It was a form of inquisition. As to the kids, they were just told to shut up, as they were too considered as culprits!
One component of the Inquisition is what might be called the normative delirium: to enact arbitrary criteria, in order to declare some persons culprit. We recently saw a book passing along, which author claimed that «men who love women without body hair are paedophiles». What are writers without a brain, then?
(Added July 2018:) Cases of largely publicized but obviously false paedophilia accusations happened recently. In 2016 the disinformation against Hilary Clinton resulted in a major defeat for the USA. In 2018, Vernon Unsworth, lead rescuer in the Luang cave affair in Thailand, reported that his family first took literally the gratuitous accusation he received, creating a juge grief. I hope these highly publicized affairs raise the awareness of the danger of anti-paedophiles inquisition, be them be used for mere sadistic play of as a political weapon.
When I was a teenager in the 1960s, the still prevailing idea on rape was that a woman refused solely because of puritan prejudices, that she felt as much pleasure as a willing woman, and even men sodomized by force were supposed to experience pleasure! Rape would have been taboo only because it is sex! These ideas still persist today in some simple minds, with for example the «corrective rape» of homosexual women, supposed to make them discover the pleasure with a man. Advocates of rape put forward various «justifications» for rape: that it was the woman who «provoked» by her appearance. It is like saying that a bank «provokes» the holdup, and that we puts its owners in jail.
But the truth is quite different: a raped person is deeply hurt in his person, in his sexuality, in his relationship with his body, or in his relationship with others. This makes of rape a real mutilation. Rape is a sort of hazing, sadistic, fascist or sociopathic bullying. Added to this is the risk of serious illness, injury or unwanted pregnancy.
Sexual penetration of a non-consenting person is a serious crime.
Marital rape occurs in the following cases (clarified on September 19, 2017):
-Following a forced marriage, or a paedophile marriage, either to «regularize» such a relationship, or a «marriage of honour» to «regularize» a rape. In such cases, rape is fully constituted, without nuances or excuses.
-When the partner turns out to be manipulative, disrespectful, etc. or when the situation hides a deception: grey marriage (sham marriage where one of the partners is sincerely in love and not aware of the scam), marriage for financial purposes, spying, manipulation, etc. These are the rare cases in which the accusation of rape can be made a posteriori, because the consent had been obtained by deception or manipulation.
-On the occasion of the loss of desire of one of the partners. Such a loss of desire can happen naturally (age, endocrine disruptors, spiritual evolution...), but this also happens when the relationship deteriorates, whatever the cause or the responsible. The limit here is very blurred, and situations can degenerate slowly over years, bringing an habit, before the partners realize. The result is a whole continuum of situations, between sexual intercourse accepted by kindness, accepted without joy, by submission, unwillingly, imposed by manipulation or blackmail, or by force. Only the latter two cases can be truly regarded as rape. Technically they are, because the situation of marriage (or informal union) does not change our neurons or our feelings.
Here too we find the whole range of false accusations: violent or authoritarian accuser, accuser who has changed his appreciation, ambiguous consent, manipulation by feelings, false victim accusing a partner to get rid of him (insemination dildo or pear for alimony). If one is wrongly accused of marital rape, one must immediately stop all sexual contact. Such a serious false accusation is a strong ground for divorce with alimony and child custody. If the accusation is true, then of course these rights go to the victim.
Any forced marriage, or with a child, is null. Rape is fully constituted. The «laws» or «customs» which permit it are null and void. Any political, legal, customary or religious authority who collaborates is accomplice of aggravated rape.
In all cases of rape justice will verify that it is not a false accusation, nor with an ambiguous or trapped consent. (See below: ambiguous games). For this we need a thorough and contradictory psychological evaluation of both partners, to detect whom is lying or psychologically disturbed. Lack of doing so will turn the court in a mere shooting game.
The rules of morality and laws on consent, rape or sexual assault apply equally to all genders.
I point this out, because in 2016 we still see in France new laws that favour one gender over the other.
Various systems have been proposed to physically prevent a determined rapist from committing his crime. Some solutions are passive, in the chastity belt type. Others are active, which can hurt or mutilate the aggressor.
Self-defence is invoked to justify these weapons. However, this poses a serious problem: such weapons can also be used to trap honest men, injure them, mutilate them, and prevent them from defending themselves by accusing them of rape. Such horrors have already happened, so the problem is very real.
Not to mention the terrible revenge of a man realising that his life is wasted, and having nothing left to lose.
As one uncontested weapons specialist Michael Kalatchnikov put it: «I am sad that my invention is being used by terrorists». Indeed, when you build a weapon, you never know for what it will be used for. Thus, the least thing if we build anti-rape devices, is to be sure that they cannot cause injuries or mutilations, or be modified to produce any.
Generally, feminists consider not normal that women have to carry arms to defend themselves, instead advocating education and protection by law.
Not to mention the gross incoherence of opposing female sexual mutilations, while proposing the mutilations of men.
We must also remember that the primary purpose of feminism is to propose the same happiness to women as to men. To reverse the horror definitively not goes in this direction.
Any non-consenting sexual act, but not involving penetration, is called a sexual assault. If the ethical, and therefore legal, principles remain the same as for a rape, a simple buttocks pawing, or a sexual remark, have much smaller consequences than a rape. They can even happen by accident, or from clumsiness. A mere proposition is not in itself a sexual assault, but it can become one, if it lacks respect (sexist or pornographic remarks, a proposal by a superior, to a married person, etc.). Thus the way of doing things can be more important than the act itself.
Me must not exaggerate: a hand on the buttocks, even if it clearly requires consent, is not a «rape». Especially this is not a reason to be «traumatized» or «to be afraid of men» years later. I can talk about it with authority: a man can also be targeted by this sort of thing, by women, or by homosexual men. This happened to me several times, and it was clearly not inadvertence! Even if these experiences are unpleasant, I have not been «traumatized», nor have I become homophobic or misogynous.
Any judgement on sexual assault must be proportionate to the intent and consequences, without exceptions to other principles of law or human rights.
Especially there cannot be special laws, longer prescription time, special punishment, sexual mutilation, etc.
False accusations are about acts which did not happened. Often in these cases, the lack of reality of the facts is difficult to prove objectively. A frequent variant is the false accusation of paedophilia.
The ambiguous games involve acts which took place, and where the target apparently gave consent. But afterwards this target changes the qualification of the act in assault or in rape.
The motivations can be very diverse, from simple psychological disorder (love becoming hate) to elaborate plans: despising a politician or a spiritual leader, harming a person, getting revenge, obtaining alimony, using a man as an insemination dildo, etc.
Of course, ideally, justice must in any case disentangle the truth from the false, in order to avoid condemning the innocent. However, in this case, it comes up against a metaphysical problem: consent is an element of the consciousness experience of the person who gives it, which cannot be observed by another person (chapter II-3). Hence, even if the act is physically proved, it is often impossible to evaluate if it is an assault.
Even the presence of elements such as an alimony claim does not clearly demonstrate a machination.
In the case of a false accusation of paedophilia, the child is also a victim of it, since the mere fact of questioning him is a sexual assault on him.
The case is too complex to give a valid solution in all cases, but we can still obtain some guidelines:
-Psychologically evaluate the accusers as well as the accused (this is what resolved the Outreau case).
-Rely on secondary points such as abusive or pornographic messages (In a case in which I was the plaintiff, a secret message written in sympathetic ink helped to convince the judges of the duplicity of the accused)
-Any person receiving the complain of a victim must be able to quickly direct this victim toward the search for evidences (medical examinations). (In the previous case, a doctor refused to help the victim. It took us fifteen days to be in the right administrative location, but in general after such a delay there is nothing left to see).
-To condemn on a simple accusation constitutes an inquisition. If such condemnations are common, then false accusations will multiply, as an easy mean to harm innocents.
An extreme case of delirious accusation recently occurred in France in 2015, when a primary school child was arrested in the classroom and taken to the gendarmerie, on a charge of «sexual assault» simply for singing to a girl an harmless love song heard on the TV! Do this to my kid and I sue you.
What would be interesting, and which would avoid any ambiguity between a legitimate «manual proposal» and a contemptuous sexual gesture, would be a «protocol» learned in sex education, which would make possible to clearly manifest one's desire without committing a maybe undesired act. Indeed a priori refusal marks exist: hijab, rings, apron, bindi, monastic clothes, uniform of function, etc.
The «no which means yes» assumes that every woman always consent. Of course, this imputation of intent is a mind control, and therefore it constitutes an aggravating circumstance.
The «yes which means no» is about accepting to begin a sexual action, to bring a victim to a point where he can be accused.
«Sexual harassment» refers to a repetitive action, which continues despite a net refusal, or toward a person who is not in a position to refuse easily. However, this expression is often used to denigrate a single proposal, even respectful.
The «I was not consenting» is about changing the qualification on the act afterwards. This can be a deliberate trap, or a psychological disorder.
One must «know to feel» is the strangest: not to consent despite one really wants. Sorry, in love, telepathy is not more common than elsewhere. I know many who lost a great opportunity.
The «he should have suspected»: non-consent sent by telepathy, or by backward time travel. Normally, unlikely to be recognized in court... although we have seen people convicted for ignoring a telepathic refusal.
Then we must be clear: we can qualify of aggression only an action which occurs (or continues) despite the clearly expressed refusal of the target, prior to the action. However, a person may be in a situation of not being able to refuse: child, employee or subordinate, threat of violence or retaliation. In these cases the aggression is automatically constituted.
Interestingly, on July 7, 2016, just two or three days after I wrote this text, Germany tightened its definition of sexual assault: any sexual act committed «against the identifiable will of another person». What is interesting is the adjective «identifiable», which specifically excludes all the foul games denounced in this subchapter. However, lawyers denounced a new problem: a person can always claim after he was not consenting, or he may deliberately accept a sexual act in order to have a motive for an accusation. The lawyers (who will have to decide the real cases, while the politicians will quietly enjoy their retirement) say that it will be «word against word», or that «the bedroom becomes a dangerous place», because «we can no longer differentiate a rape from an act that everybody accomplishes every day». Hence my proposal:
-In some cases it is word against word. The proofs of the act itself do not serve much, since it is not intrinsically an aggression. It would be better not to condemn in this case. Letting some culprits pass, or considering an affair as unresolved, is a lesser evil than condemning the innocent.
-There should be some cost in improvable accusations, in order to discourage false accusations.
-Since cellphones are so numerous, there could be some way to use them to record the declaration of non-consent to the attacker, without this attacker can avoid the recording.
We say «to make love» for a reason: sex is an act of love. If consent is not clear, or if there are other motives, then it is not love, but aggression or prostitution.
-The consent is clear, preliminary, free and mutual, enlightened, and based on the sole search for happiness in love
-Consent cannot be arbitrarily removed after.
-There are some exceptions however, if it appears that the act concealed a deception, hidden intention, grey marriage, exploitation, espionage, etc.
Well, I have to say that these things have become so troubled and complicated, that I do not make any proposals for long. Not even in the virtual.
Indeed, if it takes a lawyer to make a love declaration, then you can ask him to keep the case open, for the divorce.
We hear a lot of women suddenly «remembering» a rape by such or such celebrity. But there are many other cases, to the point we can consider this trick as common.
The principle of these delayed accusations is simple: the person claims that these memories were «suppressed». The person seems sincere, and may even show evidence of real trauma, which a psychological examination confirms. This is a variant of the witch hunt, and like them based on subjective feelings escaping objective proofs.
I can answer with authority to these things, both from known scientific research about false memories, and from my personal experiences.
First, all the specialists will say, a trauma cannot be «forgotten». It remains present, precise and vivacious, with all his emotional charge. For example, there are no survivors of the Holocaust who have «forgotten» (I take this example because this traumatic event is well verified, as opposed to a rape without a witness). Personally, I remember perfectly, in details, several small sexual assaults. This notion of «unconscious» memories comes from psychoanalysis, which is a pseudoscience. But it is only invoked to justify false accusations of paedophilia, or false cases of extraterrestrial encounters (I personally knew somebody in this case).
So my explanation, about false accusations of rape aimed at famous or rich people? There is of course the pure lie, by good actors, for money, or to serve a political «cause». But there is something more vicious: a psychoprimitive person, without introspection, can actually persuade himself of an imaginary fact (create a false memory). And I know very well what I am talking about, thanks to a precise memory:
When I was ten, each evening our mother was reading us passages from various books, including The Jungle Book. I was so fascinated by Mowgli's freedom in nature that I began to imagine that I had a similar experience earlier in my life. However, if such a thing had happened to me, it had to be when I was very young, in order not to remember. So I tried, by play, to search my most distant memories... and at the limits of my memory, an image appeared! What probably happened is that I had an impression of déjà vu, on a scene I however had entirely imagined. I was not aware of this phenomenon at the time. But I still understood, from the height of my ten years, that this was a very slippery slope, and that we can «make oneself believe» totally false things in this way. Since then, I carefully keep away from this path to madness.
On the other hand, in psychologically immature people, the vicious little game will quickly lead them to «make reappear» memories, which they will then take for «a truth»: extraterrestrial encounter, previous life in Atlantis, and therefore why not an interesting rape story. The false self-created memory can even show the same emotional charge as a real one, because it involves the same nervous circuits. Which can then produce anguish, and even post-traumatic stress, which a psychologist cannot distinguish from a real traumatic memory!
This is why immature people (of mental age lesser than my ten in all cases) can place themselves prominently in the centre of attention, and even pretend to be a feminist. A vicious little game which broke the life of many innocents. But there are no excuse left, now that I published the explanation (February 2017).
Before any discussion, we need to clearly discriminate these three concepts, often confused in one, although they represent totally different things, calling for totally different solutions.
Physical sexual desire is a sensation spontaneously produced by the body, like hunger or thirst. By lack of hormone or safe method without side effects, the only solution is to relieve oneself, including by masturbation if one does not have an interested partner to do so. This is why everyone should be able to enjoy privacy, especially teenagers (family, holiday camps, boarding school).
The sentiment of sexual desire is produced by our psychology: we desire a partner, or we fantasize about such or such activity. If this feeling becomes a personality trait, then it is a neurosis (chapter V-12).
It is clear that, according to the physical or sentimental nature of the desire, the solution will be different: physical relief or psychological method. Especially the court must account with the fact that psychotherapy can do nothing against the physical desire, and hormones can do nothing against the sentiment of desire.
Finding a partner is of course the ideal solution. But this does not always happen, and moreover it is difficult to establish a healthy relationship on the sole basis of a fantasy. It is therefore better to control our sexual desire, so that it does not hamper our legitimate pursuit of amorous happiness, with a partner who will function on the main aspects of the love relationship (chapter VI-6 next), even if he does not satisfy our fantasy.
We speak of addiction when desire becomes invasive, to the point of forcing us into sexual activities at the expense of other activities. For example to be unable to stop watching porn movies is damaging, from the time wasted, money lost and shabby life experience. Not being able to stop thinking about sex at work or while driving can ruin our occupations, or even be dangerous.
We speak of sexual delinquency if a person commits harmful acts on others. Although the term «delinquent» is strong, it only applies to activities which seriously harm the targets. Let us speak about abuser, about the annoying little womanizing.
There are, however, two very different cases:
-The person is the victim of his desire, which drives him to harmful acts, against his will. This does not mean that he should be allowed to do so, as the targets of his acts are also victims. But if this case lands in a court, then it will be more a matter of a problem rather than delinquency.
-The person is dishonest, if he has the will to use others regardless of the consequences on them. In this case the person is guilty, and only his targets are victims. Only this case deserves the full qualification of delinquency.
Both two cases certainly require action to stop them. But it is very important to differentiate them, because fair and effective solutions are fundamentally different. In the first case, the person can understand the problem, and accept methods to control the physical desire (masturbation) or the sentimental desire (psychological or spiritual methods of control of neurosis). In the second case, there are no alternatives than to punish and to coerce. The nuance is important, because errors have terrible consequences: punishing an innocent instead of helping him, or punishing the victims by imagining that a dishonest person will not re-offend.
It must also be remembered that the desire, both physical and sentimental, is natural and legitimate. It only becomes a problem if it leads to harmful actions, for us or for others. But the boundary between the two is fuzzy and very loaded, and it happens way too often that some try to blur the lines even more:
-A man who desires is called a phallocrat, or delinquent, or dependent,
-A woman who desires is called a bitch,
-Homosexual desire is called perversion or anomaly («cared» by hormones rendering impotent and deforming the body)
-On the other hand, abusers declare that their desire is «natural» (rapists, sexists, paedophiles),
-Children are persecuted for desires they do not have,
Thus, as long as the damage is limited to only the person who desires, in the end it is up to this person only to decide the course to be taken. And our only duty is to inform him of the problem and the solutions. No dirty inquisitors paws, then.
If there is a broad consensus to prohibit and criminalize sadistic sexual activities by individuals, this consensus oddly becomes much more sparse when the same sadistic sexual games are made by government forces or activist groups, under military, political or religious pretences.
We indeed note that these behaviours often involve undressing of the victims, rape, and torture on the sexual organs. For example the «gégène» homosexual practice was widespread during the war in Algeria. Or Bachar El Assad regime's attested paedophile practices, which definitively cannot be the feat of anybody defending a cause whatever it is. Thanks sir the tyrant, to so brilliantly confirm my conclusion:
Therefore we can say without risk of error that it is not politics which justifies torture, but that it is sexual sadists and sociopaths who implement fundamentalist, fascist or incompetent political regimes, in order to have fun to torture. Just like in a sadomasochistic club, where a simplistic story serves as a pretext to start the actual scene.
Anyway, today there are far more effective methods than torture to obtain confessions. It is better not to tell what, but all the police or spy agencies of the world necessarily know them. Sufficient proof that the choice of torture is not from effectiveness, but from pure sadism.
Some anecdotes. During World War II, the German Luftwaffe was not torturing prisoners, from ethics. However they had effective methods to obtain seemingly insignificant but useful details.
Another anecdote, which I read in a book by an OSS agent operating in Mussolini Roma (I do not remember the title or the author, sorry). The hunt for spies was then a great excuse for amateur offices to have fun at identifying «suspicious» persons (randomly picking people) and take a sadistic pleasure in torturing them. The problem had become sufficiently obvious that these offices had to be closed by... the gestapo.
Such a perversion of politics or religion is an aggravating circumstance.
Perpetrators and order givers must be punished in the same way, as it is done for gangsters.
The commonly invoked 50-year delay to cover state crimes is complicity.
Depriving a person of one of the basic pleasures of life, is the most direct violation of the first principle of ethics (chapter VI-2). Such an act is purely fascist, without any excuse or justification.
It should be noted that, if this machist world has produced female mutilations, experience in the virtual worlds or in the «left» groups shows that the misandric fantasies of male mutilations are as much widespread: emasculations, male chastity belts, etc.
Even laws and initiatives often reflect this inverted sexism. For instance, a recent law in France (2015) protects «women» from domestic violence, but not men! Another example, microsoft's Bing translator translated «sexual mutilation» by «female genital mutilation»! This was not enough, in the next following sentence Google translator replaced «male mutilations» by «female mutilations»!
Male genital mutilations are as frequent as female genital mutilation, in a context of war, on prisoners or on populations.
(Sensitive people abstain :) It has often been said that during the Algeria war, the fascists emasculated people. Wikipedia and a special issue of «Science et Vie» of 2012 actually quote «cases» in both «camps», but without giving any indication of their number or prevalence. «Science et Vie» confirms that the conscripts (soldier slaves enlisted by force) «lived in the fear of emasculation» (which matches my personal memories from 1964-67: my father spoke of this). Such acts cannot be justified by any cause: their very existence is the brute proof that, except in self-defence, wars are only a deliberate pursuit of sadistic sexual pleasure, between bands of sociopaths equally warped on one side as on the other. We can even paraphrase Clausewitz: «War is the continuation of sexual sadism by other means». It would even be more true than his original text.
Circumcision is not so benign, and is the homologue of some female mutilations decried by feminists. It makes masturbation more difficult. From a Tantric point of view, the increase of physical sensations is always at the expense of the sought after psychical sensations. Thus circumcision would in fact run against its alleged spiritual justification.
Some religions are viewing circumcision as a sign of obedience to God. However, we can mark this obedience in many more useful ways, such as practising psychoeducation (chapter V-12) or at least behaving ethically (what the Qur'an calls «being circumcised from the heart»). Thus circumcision is only a symbol, not at all indispensable to the exercise of spirituality, and the prohibition could be integrated without problem by all religions.
For information, removing this obligation is lengthily discussed in the epistles of the New Testament. The refusal of following this progress was the cause of the separation between Christianity and Judaism.
In Europe and especially in the United States, circumcision is commonly practised out of social conformity, or as a sexual fantasy. I wish them all the pleasure they seek, as long as they do not impose this fantasy to their children. Unfortunately, I myself had to threaten a surgeon of a lawsuit for sexual mutilation, so as he stops bothering my boy.
Others, led by
the Gates Foundation, claim that circumcision would
against AIDS, based on pseudo-scientific studies which do
not mention the religious orientation of the participants. Indeed, in
Africa, where religious orientations are often blurred or multiple, a
person who favours circumcision is also likely to practice Muslim
ethics, which is an excellent protection against AIDS, well enough to
explain the weakly positive correlations of the studies. Under these
conditions, claiming that circumcision protects against AIDS is
scientifically false. This is also completely irresponsible: this
claim will push millions of people to expose themselves to the
disease, while believing to be protected.
On the other hand, I can tell the positive case of a friend who was doing humanitarian aid in Burkina Faso, a country where excision is a «passage ritual» for girls. My friend, tired of seeing the girls wrecked (and often dying), ended up going to the village council. The palaver lasted for hours, leaving my friend exhausted, short of arguments, without apparent results. But a few days later, the Burkinabés themselves came with their solution: the rituals would continue, but the mutilation would be replaced by a symbolic gesture with a wooden knife, without injury.
Finally, there are reconstructive surgeries. I do not know how effective they are, pleasure-wise. But at least they remove the risk of infection and the painful amputation neuromas.
Unlike the sub-chapter on polyamory, we are talking here of hidden relationships, which the usual partners ignore. This is usually called deception.
The problem is that in this case the secret tells an intention to harm, or at least a contempt of the habitual partner. It is indeed their first impression, when they discover the deception (which always happens sooner or later: a loving person inevitably feels the trouble). Such a discovery can easily generate strong jealousy, ruining the relationship, or likely to lead to harmful or irreversible acts.
With such conditions:
We can state an Aristotelian rule that having a relationship with a partner (or even several) is equivalent to a commitment to not have others in secret.
There are, however, limit cases. As a matter of facts, sexual temptation is not always easily controllable, and there also are many traps, such as manipulators, or sects, who can make use a quarrel or a weakening of a couple, to show themselves as a better alternative. For this reason, it is not easy to punish deception. In general, the deceiver punishes himself, by losing a good partner. But we also see cases where it is the former partner who is bad, and the new one who is a better alternative. Then we need to punish the former partner, for making the person unhappy to the point of breaking the relationship.
Legislation on this subject must therefore be non-dual, and even non-conceptual, to account with this variety of situations. Indeed, in the name of the principle of not deceiving, we see for example rape victims imprisoned for «sexual relations outside of marriage»... Which nevertheless requires a high dose of hatred of women.
«Disposable partners» is a more serious, «organized» form of deceit: to mimic love, and then say that «it was not serious». This can range from a single relationship with refusal to continue, to getting rid of a long-time partner who no longer fits the desire of the ego. An attitude which can generate a great suffering...
Indeed, a sexual relationship with one(several) partner(s) can, in an unpredictable way, create a sentimental bond. So:
The mere fact of having a sexual or loving relationship with a person is a strict commitment not to reject the person (except of course if this person makes the relationship problematic).
See Chapter VI-6 for more information on how a couple relationship works.
Most often the reason for this behaviour is selfishness, muflery, contempt for others, who are seen as simple objects to be used and thrown when consumed.
However, there is an ideological background which develops slyly, which deserves another subchapter:
Sexual desire and sentimental love normally result from each other. To the point that we call love the presence of both (without sex it is friendship, with only sex is an adventure). The proofs are sexual dreams involving people we love but who are not our usual partners (These are normal dreams, but are not to be taken as incentives to actually have sex with these persons!) Or the both sexual and romantic dreams of the adolescents: millions of years of Darwinian evolution have built us a brain which indissolubly combines the two, while in our minds our spiritual future speaks to us of beauty and love which transcend physical sex into a work of art.
Well, the sentimental attraction does not necessarily imply sexual desire: it can target persons of the same sex, parents, children, etc. In this case we speak of friendship, or family love.
But the opposite is not true: the sexual act always more or less create a sentimental love. This is why it is dangerous to have a purely sexual partner, and a fortiori several. Indeed the sentimental attraction can start without we want it. This is normally a good thing, but it is a disaster if we already have a loving partner. Some find themselves breaking their family and their lives, following what they thought was only an adventure without consequence.
It is already serious that this happens due to unconsciousness or lack of care. But when the rejection of feelings is elevated to the rank of an ideology, we directly veer into fascism. «Cool» fascism «left» fascism, but just as much generator of suffering as the morons in black uniforms.
This ideology is that feelings would be «a problem» because they are an obstacle to our «sexual freedom» to change partners according to our desire of the moment. That is an obstacle to the imperative of doing whatever we desire with anybody, as our ego dictates. Of course, such an ideology denies all spirituality, all morality, all feelings, reducing us to mere machines for executing the injunctions of our ego. But this needs to eliminate all feeling, and especially empathy, like an illness. What sex ideologists call «to be free», or what hitler called «being strong». But this is exactly the opposite of a liberation: it is the absolute submission to our ego, that is to our material neurons (chapter V-10). Far from being the loving and respectful freedom of the Hippies, it is the egocentric and brutal freedom of the sociopaths. Just with a touch of fake Bohemianism, hence the name «bobos» (bourgeois bohemian) given in French to these people. And since the extremes meet so easily, the nazis also had developed the same kind of «sexual freedom» without feelings, using and abusing of beautiful young blonde «Aryans», and getting rid of their unwanted children in the «lebensborn».
Shortly before the writing of this chapter, we saw the pitiful example of a French politician who dropped his companion for another. Such a boorishness is already serious, especially from a character who ought to set an example, to illustrate the human values that he is supposed to represent. However this is not the most serious: on the contrary, it was his neglected companion who was sent in the hospital! Officially for depression. Thus a feeling is treated as a disease, and the suffering of the victim is «his problem»!
In antiquity, there was no real justice, but arbitrary decisions, where everyone could beat his companion, abandon him, kill him, and so on. Religions, at the time when they were at the leading edge of the progress of humanity, sought to protect the happiness of the couples, by proposing marriage as an indissoluble sacrament, in order to eliminate abandonment.
However, the Aristotelian rules of marriage were soon taken in default by the variety of human situations. Especially, an unhappy partner could no longer leave a violent, sociopathic or inattentive spouse. Yet we had to wait 2000 years that religious dogmatism was expunged from politics, for the enactment of laws authorizing divorce in case of ill-treatment or lack of care.
However, the difficulty of evaluating these situations (often word against word), combined with an increasingly arrogant atheist fundamentalism, quickly led to the opposite excess: automatic divorce, on simple defamation, this meaning the return of the ancient repudiation. So, instead of «liberating» ourself, we went round in circles for nothing.
The rules for the dissolution of a union, the wrongs, and the follow-up, will be examined with more detail in chapter VI-6.
Prostitution is the act of having sexual intercourse against material compensation, money, services, professional advancement, by political arrangement, and so on. The least that we can say is that it is really miserable to be unable to obtain tenderness in the normal way, and to resort to one's power to dispose of the bodies of others. But the most serious thing is that prostitution lowers the value of tenderness far below the contingent material needs! This simple fact is enough to make prostitution look like a social disease.
We often hear that prostitution has always existed, that it would be «the oldest trade in the world». This is a gross lie: it does not exist in tribal societies, whether they practice monogamous or polyamorous marriage. In a tribe, survival is ensured collectively for all the members, active or disabled, making prostitution without object. Prostitution was only technically possible with the disintegration of tribes (the normal social unit for the human being) in egocentric urban societies, when families and individuals had to ensure their survival without being supported by society. Those who were reprobate, or incapable of supporting themselves, were forced to resort to expedients: theft, submission (servants or slaves), begging, prostitution. All things which were absent from the tribes. Thus, the «porne», prostitute of ancient Greece, or the Roman «lupa» (she-wolf), ensured above all her survival. Often a victim of a rape (also very common and «normal» in the ancient world), she was then considered «impure», without the possibility of finding a husband to support her. She therefore had no alternative but to continue the rape, against money.
The modern world sees more «refined» justifications for prostitution, through the desire of many lovers, the specious claim of a statute of «sex worker», homosexual prostitution, and even men selling their services to women. However, we find that it is always the client who receives social impunity, and the prostitute who receives the stigma. Clear proof that all these people remain stuck in extremely primitive prejudices.
In addition, prostitution has always been the vector of sexually transmitted diseases, whether by the victim, or by the irresponsible «client». This is especially true for AIDS: the disease exerts a powerful natural selection on prostitutes, which, in Africa especially, are nearby all asymptomatic carriers of the disease.
For these reasons, many people wish to eradicate something as pathetic as prostitution, and we can scientifically be with them. But targeting only the prostitute is generally ineffective, if clients remain free to pay her. For this reason, recent attempts to limit prostitution are aimed primarily at the clients. But we should also tackle the bad vibrations and the sexist prejudices, not to mention of course the egocentric economy reducing people to such expedients for a living.
Women's clothing is often considered «provocative». Hence the various injunctions made to women (but never to men) to avoid certain clothes. The porn/prudish idea is that women bear the responsibility for what abusive men do (touching, womanizing, segregation, rape, etc.). However, modern psychology shown that, even if the sexual desire can be violent, it is never such that a man is «forced» to obey it. In any case, this desire arises in the mind of the man: therefore what he does with it is his sole responsibility.
Anyway, the more nudity is accepted, the more calm and respectful the relations are.
Of course these remarks are valid in the other direction: in the misandrist world that some are preparing actively, the clothing of men could be considered «phallocrat». Obedient object-men, hirsute with hypertrophied muscles, must dress, fight and tattoo in a very codified manner, exactly like the «bimbos» of the porn films. Let us call them «rambos», by symmetry with the «bimbos»... It is not me who invented this name, prototype of the violent man, reactionary and not subtle! While amiable or slender men are «phallocrats» (I know this only too well: I was often told).
Since in 2016 France it became almost impossible to find clothes of correct colour, I sewed myself my pants. With all the pro details, except one: I made no zipper. Indeed, I have seen and heard so many stories, that I am always afraid to forget to close this darn zipper (or that it opens by accident) and get all kinds of troubles: people who throw their anathemas, or even trial and jail if ever such an incident happened in front of a school.
A similar concern occurs with windows. Indeed, at night, one sees very well inside the houses, and we read in the media stories of people who suddenly see the police raiding their house on charge of exhibitionism, and even of sexual aggression, because of an idiot who watched them through the window.
Well, everybody knows that accidents happen: forgotten zipper, pants which goes down, which cracks, swimsuit which stays on top of the diving board, unexpected menses or diarrhoea, etc.
Intelligent people have the tact not to see this kind of things.
Perfect reciprocal situation (chapter I-4) of the previous case, aggressions against women wearing this type of clothing are clearly motivated by pure racism.
It is certainly legitimate to discourage a garment reminiscent of an ancient culture which relegated women to the kitchen or in the bed. However, doing so in the current context becomes very delicate, when our little feminist voice arouses a thunderous racist echo, or even aggressions. Moreover, one of the main contributions of this chapter to morals is precisely to bring more nuance than the terrible ancient morals: discouraging is not prohibiting.
It must also be remembered that the Muslim dress code is not an «ostentatious sign», but a rule of modesty. We can agree or not, but again, we cannot force people to show their bodies. Especially in a society which prides itself on freedom... All this just reminds me of the «scandal of the bikini» when this garment was introduced, or any other imbecile paranoia on guitars, motorcycles, hair, short dresses, long dresses, eclipses, blondes, scarves, shorts, car driving women, etc.
These two (Sylvain and Sylvette by Maurice Cuvillier), are a French comic whith an enduring popularity among young children, despite they are now 76 years old. They were my childhood dreams, or they could have be my Grand Parents. Indeed, not so long ago, it was common for french women to wear scarves or «fichus», and I remember my mother wearing some. The point here is that nobody ever saw any «ostentatious sign» in Sylvette's scarf. Maybe because she is not Arab...
In any case, people stupid enough to persecute a type of garment produce a result far beyond what their very limited intellectual capacity can grasp: by mechanical reaction in the quadripolar diagram (chapter I-4), they favour Islam and spirituality in general.
The «social gender», is a normative delirium as what a person of a given gender «must» love such or such colours, or such or such activities. With of course heavy suggestions against young children (the toy department «for girls», in pink, where it is «shameful» for a boy to go) and the full range of common social and psychological persecution (prohibited trades, teasing on tastes, accusations of homosexuality, etc.).
Modern neurology shows however that our brain ignores our gender. Our genes, totally indifferent to the media propaganda, build exactly the same brain in a woman and in a man. Therefore there cannot be any spontaneous differences in tastes, concern, or even in thinking.
There can even not be a «female brain» which would be «more intuitive» (a sexist women's prejudice, where «intuition» means boudoir connivances between sexist women), or a «male brain» which would be «more logical» (a male chauvinist prejudice, where «logical» means bar discussions between sexist men).
The choice of profession, especially, often fails to involve gender (midwife, heavy work), and the observed differences are only the result of mind control («You want a Meccano? But this is not a girl's toy!») or discrimination (guidance counselling, job hiring...).
Statistics even show slightly better feminine results in mathematics and science, provided that they are allowed to study in these areas, instead of being systematically discarded toward the kitchen or the sewing shop. But this better female average even not shows that female brains would be better: it probably results only of the higher frequency of antisocial behaviour in men, due to their idiot conditioning of «dominant males» which leads them to neglect their studies. Indeed, we find that only 5% of people in prison are women, and 95% are men. So these men delinquents are numerous enough to bring down the average of all the males.
The only exception is of course motherhood: women more often desire this, and especially they necessarily devote more time to it, most often at the expense of their studies and other life plans. But a woman who does not specially wish motherhood is not discernible from a man. Conversely, a man may very well desire to care of babies... (I had the opportunity to do this, and I did not disliked it. It did not turned me gay, anyway, ha ha ha ha!).
Gender stereotypes are instilled very easily, just as racism, of which they are only a variant. We are contaminated by friends, newspapers, supermarket departments, or advertising: it cannot be at random if, after two centuries of women's liberation, advertising is still showing the woman taking care of the household, and the man of the car.
Social pressure, segregation, ridicule, etc. have no reason to be, since they always produce suffering, while never producing happiness. But these things are the responsibility of the persons who make them, not the victims who would «attract» them. Then It is up to the perpetrators to abstain, to cure themselves, or to be punished.
In virtual worlds, where people hide their physical gender, it is almost impossible to guess. And if a man shows maternal feelings, then he can be mistaken for a woman, and vice versa.
In the extreme, the concept of «social gender» sends to the «gender studies» (chapter II-7). Unlike my book, the «gender studies» are not based on neuroscience, but they are based on dogmatic psychoanalysis, heavily tinted with Marxism. Of course, such a pseudoscience has been heavily criticized, and it even made a major scandal in France, in 2014, when it was said that the government tried to introduce the the «gender studies» in schools. The true women liberation visions are far away from these stupidities.
Discriminations against women
Since millennia, in most Human cultures, women are considered inferior, or target of ill treatment, without any objective reason, just as for racism or any other form of idiotic hate.
For this motive, since about two centuries, women want to be free from any discrimination, be it from the law, from customs, and even from mindsets and habits. This book fully agrees with this ideal, and it applies the second principle of ethic to the statute of genders: all consciousnesses are equal.
But we found, especially in chapter V-12 on neurosis, that a mere opinion is not enough to bring any actual change, as could learn at their expenses all the idealists who tried (communists, hippies, etc.). This makes that we need a psychological of spiritual work, called psychoeducation, in order to eliminate the habits and neurosis which make us discriminate of behave in an unpleasant/idiotic way. I state here that only persons who understands this ideal and actually obtained sufficient changes in habits and behaviour can call themselves feminists. But on the other hand, men can also call themselves feminists in this way.
Discriminations against men
Many feminists claim that they want to obtain their liberation by themselves, without the help of men. This is an effective method, but we still note that at a moment men also have to do their psychoeducation work, otherwise no liberation will ever happen. This is what I mean with feminist men, and what our part of the job is.
Things starts to smell fishy when some women want to become «equal» even about things like pregnancy, motherhood, love, or marriage. Indeed, even if we start from the second principle of ethics, where all consciousnesses are equal, we still have to admit that people have different tastes and different abilities. This was discussed in details in chapter VI-2 on the bases of ethics, and compelled us to add a third principle, in order to modify rights and duties in order to better realise the second principle. For instance a blind person, cannot be expected to produce any useful work, so that this person needs an allowance and specific helps to live. However it is not always possible to bring back a perfect balance: whatever we do, a blind person will never be able to enjoy the good vibes of beautiful colours, flowers, etc.
Hence the foolishness of wanting a perfect «equality»: a woman is not a man, and therefore cannot be for instance a father in a marriage involving children. Right on the contrary, far from bringing any equality, such a marriage is highly detrimental to the involved children, who miss half of the vision of the world.
Men and women have equal rights and duties. However they play different roles regarding children, which cannot be ignored or exchanged. In any case, children need a mother, a father, and a tribe to live in.
In the 2010 years, failure to understand this balanced statement led to a huge confidence crisis between the «advanced» intelligentsia and the general population.
Things frankly veer to inverted sexism, or fascism, when we come to segregations against men, considering them as inferior, target them with ill treatments, as far as male sexual mutilations. Such visions are an illusory revolution (chapter I-5), and what happens when we just stupidly revert attachment into rejection.
This subchapter aims at giving a general orientation on sexuality, beyond the advantages and disadvantages specific to such or such specific practice. But we can now do so knowingly, after the preceding sections enabled us to evaluate these advantages and disadvantages.
But in order to do this, we must first eliminate the causes of errors in the morality textbooks of the past: in no case can we deduce universal rules of morality from a neurosis, a personal taste, neither pro nor against sex, Neither pro nor against any of its «natural» or «alternative» forms. Even spirituality does not have this right. So politics...
We would thus find ourselves with a complete void without the three foundations of morality seen in chapter VI-2:
-The first foundation allows us to state clear and firm prohibitions only when we harm others, or at a pinch when we harm oneself (risk-taking, addiction, bad vibrations, frustration).
-In the other cases, given the variety of liking and abilities, it is difficult to make rules in all or nothing, in the sexual domain. However we still come up with usable advices.
-The second and third foundations allow us to carry another strict prohibition, entirely original: not to try to convert someone to something he does not like, or does not want, or cannot assume, as seen in section III on forced conversions. This requirement leads to considering sexuality as something that cannot be displayed in general public, or which cannot be shown by surprise without first informing on the type of practice. This is the only general restriction we have found.
It is these points which guided all our detailed moral conclusions in this chapter, when we examine case by case the different forms of sexuality, resulting in flexible and detailed rules, but indisputable.
It is important to note that the moral claims of this chapter are the result of scientific reasoning, not «claims», «beliefs» or «consensus».
Changing them would require scientific proof that they contain an error.
You can still try, I am not infallible, nor a prophet.
Sexuality and love being sources of happiness, and being part of the definition of the human, it is perfectly legitimate to seek them, and to enjoy them when they arrive.
The fight against arbitrary taboos has therefore led to sexual liberation: to enjoy love and sexuality without being limited by arbitrary or dogmatic prohibitions.
However, we quickly realize that doing anything leads to other problems, and that finally some taboos have a reason to be.
The right attitude regarding love and sexual pleasure is a non-duality between the legitimate pursuit of happiness or pleasure, and the protection from various dangers or problems.
Added in May 2017: Most traditional religions prohibit alternative sexualities in very similar ways, and some persecute their followers.
This quasi-unanimity is not necessarily explained by the reception of a single divine message. Indeed, there were important exchanges between the different religions: Zoroastrianism influenced Judaism, Islam and Hinduism. The greek culture passed to Buddhism through the civilization of Gandara (Afghanistan) (The Orgyen of the Tibetans). Buddhism and Hinduism influenced the West through Egypt, in antiquity (Alexandria, where Jesus could have visited their centres) and during the first centuries of Christendom (Thebaid, where Buddhist monks could be at the Origin of the Christian monastic rules). Islam influenced Hinduism. In Africa and Asia, where people often have several religions, they all influenced each other.
However, no spiritual justification is given to the traditional condemnation of alternative sexualities.
Of all the religious texts, only the First Covenant gives some indications, calling these practices «abominable» (bad omen, non-human). However, the original Hebrew word «to'e'va» (horror) does not really support this interpretation. The discussion is complex and uncertain: for instance, according to wikipedia (April 2017), the word «sodomy» would in fact refer to a spiritual attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom, not to its modern sense. The modification of the meaning would have been made later, wikipedia says by Flavius Josephus. But it could also be wikipedia which attempts to normalize homosexuality by rewriting the Bible...
The Dalai Lama explicitly acknowledged that he does not know the reason for these prohibitions (which is not in contradiction with his enunciation of these prohibitions by traditional Buddhism).
Thus the religious condemnation of alternative sexualities probably emerged only from the instinctive disgust of these things (chapter V-16), and not from an analysis of their consequences.
Considering things scientifically, as in this chapter, leads to different conclusions, and this should entice traditional religions to change their attitudes and even their rules:
-Inadvisable is not prohibition. Thus, even if one discourages alternative sexualities, one cannot prohibit them.
-Forbidding is not persecution. There can be no punishment or religious exclusion on the basis of sexuality alone.
-The only possible divine injunctions concerning sexuality, are to
Thus, our spiritual warnings to religious persons involved in alternative sexualities will be:
-Do not cultivate guilt. Feel good and fair, even in the event if your sexuality that makes you feel uncomfortable. Guilt feeling will not change anything anyway. Only you can decide to stop your alternative practices, or engage in a conversion therapy. Especially do not think that you would be spiritually evil, excluded or condemned. Personally I encourage a vision of a world of beauty, happiness, perfumes and colours, where body and sex would be subjects of pure joy, without any shame or unnecessary limitation.
For information, The NDE experiences are unrelated to our gender or type of sexuality. The only thing which may influence the content of a NDE is the wish of supporting a partner or our children.
-Avoid arrogance and ostentation. One of the main novelties of this chapter is precisely discretion, so as not to shock or convert by force. Moreover, people who choose chastity or traditional rules have their reasons for doing so, and even if one may disagree, one has no right to hamper them.
-I do not know if religions will change, if new ones will appear, or if spirituality will emancipate itself from religions. But one thing is certain: spiritual sex will remain high hogwash as long as the non-duality between freedom and discipline is not understood, or as long as spirituality serves only as a pretext for sex, or even for scams.
-Cultivate detachment: sexuality, whether natural or alternative, is not something important, nor something which defines us. Life alternates between periods with desire and periods without desire, but what always remains important is our constantly loving attitude towards others, whether through sex or otherwise.
-Above all, cultivate beautiful vibrations (chapter VI-9) before anything else. Cultivate them by meditating, praying, reverie, fantasizing, and above all cultivate them concretely when you carry out your sexual practices whatever they are, while avoiding dirty, black or terrible visions. Indeed attachment to these vibrations can actually lead us to «hellish» experiences in the afterlife. And this even without «divine punishment», simply because our own inclination toward these things attracts them, in the afterlife mind experience.
-The above advices are also true for chastity: Even chastity must remain in the clean, the luminous, the non-attachment! Indeed shame, prudishness and guilt have as much, if not more, the power of projecting us into a hell... in this very life.
The above spiritual advices are deduced from the scientific considerations of this chapter. But they are also confirmed by experience and by years of meditation.
Sex being a situation of life like any other, it is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad for our spirituality.
Sex and attachment.
However, because of the intensity of the involved feelings, and the severity of the consequences, sex demands a stricter application of ethics, and more control on our desires. The difficulty of doing so often led religions to issue strict rules, vows, etc. The modern world claims more freedom, but freedom on our own mental limitations cannot be claimed: we have to build it.
The intensity of the sensations and feelings involved can also produce a strong attachment to the physical body, to dangerous partners or to harmful practices. This results in a degradation of our freedom, or a greater difficulty in avoiding dangers. This is why every form of genuine spirituality requires to reduce such attachment! Many methods such as meditation, Yoga or Tantra allow us to train to pacify our mind for various purposes, including control of desire or neurosis such as jealousy.
As of any hedonistic pursuit, love and sex need spiritual practices to control attachment and ego, in order to avoid backfiring, disappointment or other side effects.
This situation is also a good motive for more physical control methods of desire, in order to be able to devote oneself to something else without having to spend years fighting against it.
Sex and Vibration (Chapter V-17)
However, where sex most directly impacts our consciousness and our spirituality is with vibrations. Attachment to vibrations conditions our tastes in this life. But there are good chance that they also are the most effective way to determine the direction we shall take in the afterlife: angelic, beautiful, grey or horrible. (see about sex after death)
Hence the interest of keeping at beautiful vibrations: no one likes to live in a dirty house or in a concrete city. But it would be even worse to end up in disgusting worlds, or to reincarnate into an animal (if such a thing is possible, I never tried).
The problem with the raw sexual experience is that it often confronts us with the low vibrations of excrements, bodily dirt, meat. Hence the high probability of developing attachment to such pornographic vibrations. Things are even worse with certain alternative sexualities, and even with sadomasochistic practices, which often confront us with visions of cells, hell, and fascism, which we would certainly not wish to see become «the reality» after our death. Then the least thing is to avoid using such visualizations, and to prefer angelic visualizations, even if we are looking for strong sensations.
These risks mean that religions and spirituality often recommend to keep to a few practices which avoid confrontation with the most unpleasant aspects. For example, moving the face away from the sexual areas. Moreover, to see each other's face also promotes the sentimental exchange, without which, let us recall, sex has no meaning.
At the extreme, religions recommend abstinence, although for many people this is difficult. Moreover, the refusal of sex is too often transformed into prudishness (disgust for sex) which vibration is as low as pornography, and just as capable of making us commit criminal acts, or of sending us in a dirty or unpleasant after-life.
Thus the confrontation with imperfect terrestrial conditions forces everyone to make choices, between the respect for others (ethics) and our personal pleasure. What counts in the end is not so much the amount of sex, nor the type of sex, but the attention that we keep at respecting others and at remaining in beautiful vibrations, building us a beautiful vision.
And of course the only serious spiritual practice are the ones which propose effective methods to eliminate neurosis and attachments, including inverted attachment (prudishness).
The foundation of spirituality must be taught to all, right from the school, so that everyone can learn to control and modify his mind, and especially eliminate neurosis of attachment or rejection.
At the risk of repeating myself, tantrism is not sex, it is a spiritual practice. You can go to Yoga lessons, Sufi prayers, Tai Chi, Tibetan centers, Vietnamese, Hindu, etc. and send our children there, being sure never to encounter sex.
Tantric sexual practices properly called, are rarely taught in the West. Even in the East they are discreet. Indeed, using Tantric practices for the purposes of mindless sex exposes to several serious dangers, and this is why the sexual practices of the Tantras were traditionally kept secret.
One of the basic principles of Tantrism is to move the spontaneous attachment of consciousness from the physical body towards a spiritual body. We begin with simple practices such as Pranayama or Tai Chi, in order to learn to feel the psychic energies. Then come the visualizations of Chakras, etc. and finally of the divine body itself (after a model, called a Yidam). At first, this spiritual body is simply visualized; but as our spiritual sensitivity awakens, this spiritual body becomes perceptible, alive and felt. Oriental traditions call this process «the opening of the Chakras» (chapter V-17), or «rise of the Kundalini», but there also are Muslim, Judaic or Christian forms.
The Tantrikas have noticed that sexual pleasure is an effective way to move the attachment from the physical body to the spiritual body, if it is visualized during the orgasm. However, sexual pleasure remains a physical sensation, and therefore limited to the material world. For this reason the practice demands to visualize psychic pleasure, which alone can attach to the spiritual body and follow us in the afterlife. This is perfectly possible, and relatively easy, even if it requires years of training: Pranayama, Chakras, Kundalini, visualizations of purifying energies, divine energy, etc.
However, it is also needed to to keep in a state of mind of non-attachment, especially of physical appearances. This alone is Tantra, the rest is only... sex.
Millennia before our neurologists, the Tantrikas analysed the functioning of orgasm, and developed methods to prolong pleasure, including retention of ejaculation, which can lead to several dozen orgasms a day or a «plateau» which can last several minutes. It works very well, but maintaining a high sexual arousal all the times is not very practical to go to work or wash the dishes... it is better to keep this for the retreat.
Practitioners of chastity however arrive at the same results, with visualizations like the Tumo. A confirmed Yogi can easily arrive at a greater intensity of pleasure than the bodily orgasm, or experiences similar to the ones of St. Teresa of Avila in her Catholic monastery, without any physical gesture or any sexual arousal of the body.
The foundations of spirituality must be taught to everybody at school, in order to avoid confusions, which consequences can be very dangerous (sects, dependence, immorality, associability...)
Scientific research must study the means for the person to control his desire, his orgasm and his ejaculation.
One of the results of these visualizations is that the physical body appears to us increasingly gross and unpleasant, in comparison with our wonderful spiritual body. As a result, we can eventually detach ourselves from this physical sex which distracts us from our meditation, draws us into trouble and causes us to lose our energy. We can even give up looking for one of the rare partners who is himself on the same level. This explains why in Tibet most of the Tantrikas were actually monks. The minority of non-monks take Tantras vows excluding non-Tantric partners. In India, when failing to find Tantric partners, the Yogis chose simple folks, «laundry women», free of the puritan prejudices of the «superior» castes. Some Tantric paths like Muslim Sufism are a thousand leagues away from any sexual practice.
We saw however, in chapter V-10, that the cohabitation of a spiritual consciousness and of a neural ego does not happen without problems. We can logically infer that the spiritual consciousness desires the spiritual body, while the neuronal consciousness desires the physical body. But the neural ego, which always wants to control everything, will also want to control the spiritual body, as a far more reliable source of pleasure than the physical body. Even, it will want to modify the visualization according to its own desires! This is why the way of sexual tantras is considered very dangerous, because it can literally realize the worst fantasies, which then appear for what they are, horrible or dark. Tradition says that it can even project us into «vajra hells» from where it is virtually impossible to get out.
But it is up to the spiritual consciousness to take command, and it ends up doing so, when meditation gives it enough strength. It will therefore end by commanding the physical body, and therefore all our social life, until death totally and definitively puts an end to the neural ego. The person may seem to behave like everyone else, with a random physical body, but a closer relationship quickly shows the influence of something superior.
What we observe in any case is that well-conducted Tantric practice gradually destroys all our attachments. Forms of violent sexuality or low vibrations make the first losses, but eventually any physical sex becomes boring in the eyes of the practitioner, facing the wonderful vision of his paradise (sexual or chaste) where death will send him anyway.
These remarks call for a clear conclusion: in Tantric practice, physical sex is only a tool, which will only be useful at a certain moment. When one becomes able to feel the Amrita or the Tummo without having to resort to physical orgasm, then the latter becomes progressively less and less useful. The only thing which remains useful to the end is the tender support of the Shakti to the Yogi. Or from the Shakta to the Yogini, if one wants to be modern without distorting the tradition!
No ancient Tantric tradition mentions homosexuality. All the visualizations are based on 100% male or 100% female bodies (Wisdom and Method, Yin and Yang, Yab Youm, etc. according to the path). The statues are even ostensibly devoid of anus (many examples). Today a Taoist master of the Dragon Gate, Mantak Chia, who unveiled the Taoist sexual techniques, also proposes adaptations for homosexual men. Some will think that yeepee it is modern, but that does not mean that it works. Indeed, this meditation aims only at restoring the Yin side, which is necessarily absent from the male homosexual relationship. The conclusion is that, even if we do not prohibit alternative tantric sexualities, the more we move away from the natural model, the more difficulties are added to the practice.
Well, the Tantras are not a religious dogma, but a pragmatic knowledge of the mind. There can therefore be no a priori assertion or claims. Just that no one to my knowledge has tested alternative sexualities, to know if for example an homosexual couple can use these methods. So that, if you want to know, you must try. And for this, you must apply the correct procedure:
-Study the classical Tantras, their principles, their techniques
-Adjust them to your alternative sexuality
-Practice, especially the detachment of appearances and sensations
-Once done, show proof of your achievement: tukdam, imputrescibility, lights, etc.
At this point, you will be recognized by the Tantric community, and your methods will add to the corpus of valid spiritual awakening methods.
Well, the only ones who passed these tests so far are either chaste monks, or heterosexual Yogis and Yoginis. If you want to extend this list, practice.
Transsexuality might be seem as something exclusively modern. However, I personally know a very cute case which came to me from a very traditional Tibetan lama, a very chaste monk, who nevertheless can be seen seated on the side of the nuns during the ceremonies. As I was told, he is visualizing a female Yidam. So we could call it a form of spiritual transsexuality, aiming at reincarnating in the opposite sex.
This is not at all an isolated case: In India religious groups have been practising transsexuality for centuries. Many Buddhist or Hindu divinities have forms of both gender. In fact, our psychological or spiritual sex (that some call our «sexual identity») being only a taste, an attachment, there is no inconvenience in changing it. Of course, the physical body does not follow, but for a Tantrika this does not matter. Thus the problem is not with transsexuality in itself, but with the modern haste for changing the physical body with methods which ruin it. The elders were more patient.
We shall however note that, even if the traditions propose deities with a male form and a female form, on the other hand these deities are never in union. Reversely, the one in union have only one gender. So, this is how the traditions avoid the ethical problems of sex change of a member of an union, against the other.
An amusing anecdote would be that some day somebody asked the Dalai Lama if he intended to reincarnate as a woman (to look modern, I suppose). To which he would have replied «Yes, if it is useful for beings». Then he would have added, we imagine with his mischievous smile: «But no need to fantasize: I would be a nun».
(Edited on September 18, 2017) Practices involving low vibrations (scatology, anal sex, pornography, violence, zoophilia) interfere with the vision of beauty of the spiritual body. Concerning sadomasochism, I am afraid that intense physical sensations lead to attachment to the physical body rather than to the spiritual body. Our consciousness can certainly reverse the painful sensations into pleasant ones, but these things remain a wound to the body, a thrashing of the nervous system, a humiliation for our mind and a terrible example for society. Moreover, the desire for these things can become violent or invasive, as for a drug. Not to mention the black vibrations of visualizations of crimes, hell, etc.
(Edited on September 18, 2017, continued) There even is a literature proposing a «spiritual sadomasochism» (yes yes yes). But it is based on confusion, for example with the notion of spiritual hardship. Indeed the latter are unpleasant, and especially involuntary. They happen when one of our misunderstandings plunges us into a painful situation. Even among spiritualists, many think that such hardship would have the magical virtue of making us advance miraculously. I oppose this point of view: it is the practitioner who advances, by himself, and only if he is skilled enough to use the hardship as a source of motivation to understand and overcome one of his problems, and thus avoid the return of such a hardship. We are therefore far from sadism or masochism, and especially at the exact opposite of any hazing, ordeal, fachism, etc. Others, quote for instance St. Teresa of Avila, when she mentions a «delicious pain» in one of her experiences. But in this case, it is about psychical sensations, not physical sensations, in a context of high angelic vibrations. Another outrageously deformed notion is the master-disciple relationship: this is simply totally unrelated with any form of domination-submission.
(Edited on September 18, 2017, continued) My recommendation for followers of these practices would be to visualize only scenes of high vibration between consenting people, while sensations would be only pleasure, similar to those resulting from Yoga. In any case, a yogi ends up detaching from physical sensations, and even no longer needs tantric sex: he can at any time trigger the psychical orgasm, from his mere meditation, without any sexual arousal or stimulation of the body.
As for practices which harm others (paedophilia, prostitution, rape, deceit, manipulated partners, zoophilia), they run counter to the very purpose of Tantrism: to develop our compassion for all beings. They are therefore to be formally excluded in all cases. I would add that such practices from a spiritual «masters» are a very serious offense, and in the eyes of the law an aggravating circumstance (relationship with a dependent person, or subjection, deceit)
It is difficult to extrapolate on what actually awaits us in the afterlife, from the rare scientific data on the NDE (chapter V-9). The common parts of these experiences (said advanced) is a very great beauty and a high vibration, including for our bodies. Which, in comparison, makes our flesh bodies very dull, and even unpleasant (the sensation of a mud clothe that many feel when returning from a NDE). On the other hand, we do not hear clear mentions of sex in science studies on the NDE: the main occupations are clearly spirituality, family, friends, education.
However, NDEs give only a very brief overview of the after-life. They could be only an antechamber, a place of orientation. Other sources, such as the Bardo Thodol (which, scientifically, would have the status of a testimony) describe paradises, where occupations could be more varied. The theory of logical self-generation also predicts the existence of such worlds (chapter III-6). But it states that these worlds behave like dreams: sequences of images and other elements, which we can more or less direct. we would therefore have «magical powers» such as modifying the objects around us, teleporting, etc. (See a more detailed discussion of these interactions, chapter V-10, sub-chapter on the «dissolution» of consciousness).
The main occupation in such a world would therefore be to create images and sensations that we like, which is probably infinitely easier than in the physical world, and even more than in electronic virtual worlds. This leads us to the topic of this chapter: sexuality. Of course in spiritual worlds there is no need to eat or to reproduce. But nothing prevents us from putting these things into scenes for pure pleasure. As it is a common practice in virtual worlds.
We can even envisage worlds where sexuality would be the main occupation, realizing without inconvenience or risks our most exotic fantasies. But I doubt that a consciousness can indefinitely hold the same occupation, even by constantly experiencing a powerful sexual desire. Hence the need for other occupations, aesthetic experiences, exploration, meeting people... We see here the outline of «laws of physics» of the spiritual worlds, with for example a need to exchange energy between different people, or alternating different activities, different occupations.
The most probable thing in my opinion, would be that the relationship with others are mostly governed by sentiments and vibrations (chapter V-17). When someone brings energy, or pleasure, we feel an attraction for this person, and we are happy to have him near us. This feeling is accompanied by the perception of a beautiful vibration which, in the worlds of the mind, could even appear as a colourful and luminous aura surrounding the person. It could appear to us as sexual pleasure. But this pleasure would be totally different from the pleasure of the physical flesh, more akin to the psychic orgasms of the Yoga. We can therefore understand why the bad vibrations often associated with physical sex are so dangerous, and why they must be banished from any spiritual visualization, and even from any fantasizing activity without spiritual aims.
On the other hand, the absence of physical hazards, and the much lesser psychological hazards, imply that many things which are forbidden or inadvisable in the physical world, can be benign or even legitimate in the spiritual worlds. Yet not always, for instance sex with a non-mature person would remain unpleasant for the later.
The differing moral rules between this life and the afterlife make that
the later must not be spread in the general view, to avoid the false idea as what
rules of the afterlife would also apply in this world. They don't.
People may think that the pleasures of the spiritual worlds would be bland or evanescent (Right on the contrary any yogi or NDE witness can confirm that they are much stronger and more satisfying than the physical pleasures). Such a belief is dangerous, because it can cause a desire to return to a physical world with more «tangible» pleasures. That is, to reincarnate. But in doing so, we bind ourself again to suffering!
Another possibility, also described by tradition, is that we can reincarnate in psychical worlds which would be a faithful imitation of the physical world as we know it. Role-playing worlds, in a way. There could be sensations comparable to those of the physical sex, and even of eating. Still, the lack of food would not kill us. For example, we pick a cherry on a tree, and instantly another takes its place. Thus we can spend the whole day eating, without indigestion. So why not to make love all day long, while keeping the desire.
In the absence of factual information on what actually happens in this or that after life world, and in view of the different ethical principles which would prevail there, the law of the Earth does not have to legislate or intervene in the afterlife.
Human societies must promote and protect palliative cares.
Human societies must promote and protect the spiritual techniques allowing to prepare the access to the beyond.
Human societies must guarantee the right of people to choose their destination in the thereafter.
One point I do not know the solution is when a member of a couple dies, if the survivor must wait for him, or if he can remarry. There are arguments in both directions. Most probably it is a thing that the couple must agree together, while wedding. For Christians, they are supposed to find themselves back (this is the reason why a widowed Christian must not remarry). But for Buddhists, even love is subject to impermanence. However, Buddhism admits that people who really love each other find themselves again, although not necessarily in the same family situation.
Virtual worlds on the Internet allow for romantic or sexual relationships at a distance, even anonymous.
Of course, in the current state of the virtual worlds (2016), this sex is just a representation. However it could quickly become real: remote controlled sex toys, or even force return allowing for a physical interaction.
There have been debates about whether such relationships are «real» or «virtual» (implied: virtual = ridiculous or good for hazing). The reality of these relationships quickly prevailed because they engage our sentimentality as well as in a physical relationship. It was also necessary to understand that «virtual» does not mean «non-existent» or «unimportant», but rather «which has the force of» (as the etymology says), that is to say, which counts in the same way. Logically, there have been cases of divorce on the basis of a virtual adventure, while those who pretend love or who drop their partner are considered to be true boors. It is also often considered that these anonymous relationships can be dangerous: we do not know who is on the other side of the screen, which can be very different from what we see.
Especially, this can lead to break the ethics rules about transgender unions, and other deceptions (sex with inappropriate persons, espionage, financial schemes...)
On the other hand this type of relationship has interesting advantages: no diseases, no unwanted pregnancies, no overpopulation, and for lovers of blind encounters or of thrills, no risk. This type of relationship also has a fantastic advantage: we are no longer bound by our physical appearance, nor by our social position. For example, disabled people can walk or dance without being excluded. We can also visualize wonderful bodies in dreamy settings, without any of the trivial disadvantages of the physical bodies. Physical couples who are separated for whatever reason can also reunite in the virtual. So that there is a real virtual sexuality in creation, allowing lovers to live as in a fairy tale, in beauty and perfection, without having to worry about defects of the body, diseases, or borders.
This leads us to the privileged use of virtual worlds for spiritual purposes, even of Tantric visualizations.
I feel obliged to add this sub-chapter, because I see (2016) the media trying to normalize sex with robots, while as usual bypassing all the reflection on this subject.
The very first thing is to remember, after chapter V-18, that robots are not conscious people, but unconscious machines. Under these conditions, having sex with a robot is only a sophisticated form of masturbation. More serious, it is also a palliative to the inability to visualize scenes in imagination. In short, a poor life experience, which is still presented to us as a fantastic liberation, see an extension of the definition of the human. These pretences are utterly ridiculous.
Therefore we shall look in the sub-chapter on masturbation, for the ethics of sex with robots.
But we shall especially refer to the following subchapter on the danger of fantasizing activities, since robots will represent our fantasies. It is therefore a new trap, to develop an additional attachment for representations of low vibration. And robot makers will surely con us this way: see the horrible world of the video games, and even some children's toys (monsters).
Well, chapter V-18 also provides for the possibility of robots who would be conscious, or who would house for instance the consciousness of a deceased person. We are not there yet. But the essential discovery could happen anytime, and conscious robots be actually manufactured soon. In this case, then, they would deserve the same respect and the same laws as natural persons. And all the rules of morality described in this chapter would also apply to them, and to our relations with them.
The key point at this moment is that conscious robots cannot be considered as «our creatures», as sexist men have been able to consider women. Conscious robots would have the same rights as us, the same right to choose their lives, and especially to choose their level of sexual arousal. Clearly, we would not have the right to violate or sequester a conscious robot, or impose him a level of sexual arousal: neither sexual slaves nor forced chastity.
In the longer term, scientists predict the replacement of biological bodies by robotic bodies, or virtual bodies in virtual worlds. However they «do not know» how the consciousness can actually be transferred from the biological brain to an electronic brain, ha ha ha! (See also chapter V-18 on this point).
Such a world would make possible to free ourself from all the limitations of physical bodies, as well as from all their repulsive aspects (odours, excrements, obesity, old age ...). But they will not free us from the intrinsic limits of the physical world, including the inevitable death, just pushed farther away. Above all, if current scientists do this with their current ideologies, then they would construct neurotic brains, and even psychotic brains, incapable of free-will, introspection or change (see also chapter V-3 on this point). «Reality» shows characters reproducing indefinitely the same antics, under the sadistic control of super-sociopaths. Changing the world into a huge sadomasochistic club, I have better projects.
Some say we have «everyone his tastes», and therefore there could not be any ideal model of body beauty. However, we shall see in chapter VI-16 that a vision is in the process of being introduced as an ideal, guiding the future evolution of the human body and of our tastes.
This vision includes:
-A young aspect, even teenager.
-Thin bodies (But not meagre: the curves remain well visible, but on a slender body)
-Absence of body hair.
-Long and free hair (many variants).
-Narrow hips (at most medium, but not wide)
-Small but well rounded buttocks.
-Long legs, without fat on the side.
-For women, firm and large breasts (But all sizes keep their lovers).
-For men, a discreet musculature (no «rambos», but no meagre men either).
-Large male organs, smooth female organs.
-Pleasant, fruity, spicy and floral body odours.
-Large eyes (which is not always easy, because they easily give an angry look)
-On the other hand, there is no «norm» regarding race, skin colour, hair colour, eyes colour, etc. which remain varied personal tastes.
Some argue that this ideal is only the result of media propaganda. In reality, this ideal existed for centuries, and it is propagated by people of spirituality:
Hindu temples, Ajanta paintings, representations of Tibetan deities, all show slender men and busty women. (For the time it was «big». But the modern world has pushed the definition of «big» much further). Some Tantric texts explicitly confirm the size of the breasts. The Quran also gives a vision of virgins of paradise with diaphanous skin, large doe eyes, «well rounded» breasts, and «beautiful young men of eternal freshness». All these oriental sources expectedly like very black hair and eyes, but blond hairs and varied eye colors have many followers in the western world.
We thus have a very visible evolution of the tastes of humanity:
-The prehistoric or megalithic «Venus» (Malta) outrageously obese
-The Greek Venus, of average proportions, and the antic ideal of male organs of very small size.
-Appearance in various places in Asia, apparently separately, of the ideal of thinness described in this subchapter. These appearances are linked to the great spiritual movements.
-In the modern democratic world of the 20th century, recent and rapid appearance of this ideal, compared to the obese hips and small breasts of the 19th century or before. Unlike the Asian case, it affects everybody, spiritual or not, and seems more related to the emancipation of the poorest classes.
-Appearance of the «elven ideal» in virtual worlds and games, with many natural or fantastic variations of skin colours, hair, and even size (Pixies, small adult creatures, and even very small fairies).
The appearance of such an ideal is not a novelty: this is how animals such as birds developed beauty. Indeed, the taste for such or such reproductive partner can exert a stronger selection than the Darwinian selection (especially in the present human world, where survival is no longer the main issue).
However, the emergence of this ideal in humans is clearly not a Darwinian evolution. We therefore need to look elsewhere for the cause: «in the future» with a logical feedback (chapter IV-6), or maybe in the afterlife, or resulting from the influence of more advanced cosmic civilizations. Especially, we shall see in chapter VIII-6 the case of nursery worlds, where people just take birth, to populate spiritual worlds after their death. We could be in such a world without knowing it.
Ideas, texts, drawings and realization: Richard Trigaux.
Legal notice and copyright Unless otherwise noted (© sign in the navigation bar) or legal exception (pastiches, examples, quotes...), all the texts, graphics, characters, names, animations, sounds, melodies, programming, cursors, symbols of this site are copyright of their author and right owner, Richard Trigaux. Thanks not to mirror this site, unless it disappears. Thanks not to copy the content of this site beyond private use, quotes, samples, building a link. Benevolent links welcome. No commercial use. If you desire to make a serious commercial use, please contact me. Any use, modification, overtaking of elements of this site or the presented worlds in a way deprecating my work, my philosophy or generaly recognized moral rules, may result into law suit.