126.   But we should distinguish, in any event, between oral sex in respect of church-hegemonic criteria and its church-subordinate counterpart, as well as between coitus in respect of state-subordinate criteria and its state-hegemonic counterpart on each of the rival axes.  For in such fashion we will come to the conclusion that whereas it could be said that oral sex takes precedence over coitus on the diagonally ascending axis, logic compels us to the view that coitus would take precedence over oral sex on the diagonally descending axis, the former characterized by a psychic emphasis, the latter by a somatic one.

127.   Be that as it may, it would not be my view that oral and coitus took exactly the same forms on each of these axes, in view of the extents to which they conformed to either an overall male dominion in church-hegemonic society or to an overall female dominion in state-hegemonic society, the lower-class female and male positions of each duly subverted by the technically subordinate opposite gender at the behest of its parallel  overall controlling one, whether in respect of rulership or leadership.

128.   Therefore much as I incline to the assumption that coitus would more typify a society in which the State was hegemonic rather than subordinate, I cannot pretend that that only applies to heterosexual coitus, since it seems to me that, whilst embracing coitus of a broadly heterosexual nature, especially with respect to the use of contraception, such a society would be more partial, in consequence of female hegemonic and subversive criteria in metachemistry and antichemistry, to both lesbian and gay modes of homosexual coitus, with lesbianism epitomizing the height of sexual vanity and male homosexuality the just retort, largely though not exclusively from a secondary state-hegemonic standpoint, of somatically subverted males to the hegemonic or subversive power of females which is fundamentally responsible, all along, for deflecting them from psychic freedom in relation to their gender actuality to either free or bound somatic emphases, according to class, which exist in the shadow of their respective female counterparts.

129.   Of course, one cannot categorically presume that lesbianism is simply the product of a metachemical hegemony and male homosexuality the physical retort to antichemical subversion on the part of somatically bound females, although this may appear to be the most logical conclusion.  What I am convinced of is that both lesbianism and male homosexuality can be noumenal or phenomenal, absolute or relative, so that we can distinguish, class-wise, between a solitary approach to homosexual coitus which may or may not involve some form of penetrative sex and a couple-based approach to it in which there will be penetrative sex in one of both cases between the consenting couples.  Hence coitus need not automatically imply coupling, least of all in respect of metachemical and antimetaphysical somatic criteria, where it will more usually take the form of masturbation, nor need we suppose that any such absolute approach to sex necessarily excluded lower-class people or, conversely and more bizarrely, that sexual coupling was exclusively lower class.

130.   But whatever the context, whether noumenal or phenomenal,  homosexual coitus will, together with modified heterosexual coitus, including recourse to anal penetration, more typify persons affiliated to the diagonally descending axis of state-hegemonic criteria by dint of the extent to which such an axis is reflective of female dominion, whilst oral sex, although secondary to such criteria, will take a more somatic form than its church-hegemonic counterpart in respect of recourse on either an absolute or a relative basis to cunnilingus or fellatio, female or male types of oral sex which, when not heterosexually balanced, can take either a lesbian or a gay form on both one- and two-sided terms.

131.   But if the axis descending from noumenal sensuality to phenomenal sensibility attests to a distinction between free and bound forms of coitus in state-hegemonic vein and bound and free forms of oral sex in church-subordinate vein, then it is on its diagonally ascending counterpart that one would expect oral sex, suitably reinterpreted in relation to various types of kissing, to take on more significance than coitus in relation to church-hegemonic criteria, and for a similar distinction between a  phenomenally sensual and a noumenally sensible approach to both oral and coitus to make their appearance, not least in respect of a progression from the relativity of couples to the absolutism of individuals, as from the many to the few.

132.   Frankly, I do not doubt that oral sex, regarded in this more elevated light, would be more characteristic of church-hegemonic criteria, progressing, as it were, from the psychic binding of loving couples to the psychic freedom of individuals bestowing solitary or one-sided kisses in a much freer, less personal manner.  Also I do not doubt that, in a society characterized by male hegemonic and subversive criteria in metaphysical and antiphysical terms, not only will kissing be the principal mode of oral sex and even of sex, but baser forms of oral sex will be effectively taboo, as taboo, in respect of somatic irrelevance, as cunnilingus and fellatio and, indeed, the whole spectrum of lesbian and gay homosexuality, whether oral or coital.  For such manifestations of sexual perversion stem, in large measure, from female domination of society, and where that is institutionally and culturally taboo, then so will be all forms of sexual perversion and, not least, deviation. 

133.   Even heterosexual coitus will be comparatively independent of contraceptive perversion of sex from its original propagative essence in respect of the reproductive organs, since the male who subverts the female allows himself to be sucked-in by and to free soma from a standpoint centred in bound psyche, preferring that coitus should not become the focus of sexual attention but remain more the by-product, as it were, of oral stimulation in a loving relationship, even, in some sense, the exception to the general (kissing) rule.

134.   Of course, times change and other criteria impose themselves, as in relation to AIDS, or are imposed upon any given society from without  via imperial influence, not withstanding the extent to which the overall death of man factors-in to a general withdrawal from reproductive sex in favour of pleasure or pain in connection with the utilization of various gadgets or artificial stimulants; but I cannot pretend that, as a rule, the godly are partial to acquiescence in sexual perversion or deviation, and would wish to condone activities which fly in the face of church-hegemonic/state-subordinate criteria, including undue emphasis on coitus of one type or another at the expense of oral sex, as defined above.

135.   Frankly, there is no way that a society built around the lead of God the Father/the Antidaughter of the Antidevil could allow itself to be implicated in acquiescing in sexual perversion or deviation, of which not only bestiality and paedophilia, but rape and self-abusive recourse to pornography must be accounted among the more extreme departures from sex, whether straight or perverse, between consenting adults, but would be obliged to condemn any such acts outright and trust to the goodwill and sense of the People to reject and refrain from them. 

136.   For it is not for the elect of God the Father to condone what stems, whether directly or indirectly, from Devil the Mother, but to deliver the People, as far as lies in their power, from such corruptions, in order that they may be all the more capable, when the time is ripe, of living as and like God the Father/the Antidaughter of the Antidevil, whether this means on a basis that transcends relative sex altogether or on a basis that, more positively, appertains to noumenal sensibility in whatever synthetically artificial transmutations of psychic freedom come radically to pass in the progressive evolution of Eternal Life beyond the alpha-world, or perhaps one should say antiworld of antiman, in the omega points of otherworldly redemption, where sex for reproductive purposes would become a thing of the past in view of the extents to which civilization had been or was becoming sensibly cyborgized and therefore even more orally hegemonic and coitally subordinate than would be metaphysically or antimetachemically the case at present (where applicable), as can only transpire in the noumenal sensibility of the most evolved manifestations of God the Father/the Antidaughter of the Antidevil in the definitive heaven of joy/antihell of the loving approach to joy which constitute, in their pure and impure, male and female, approaches to supreme being, Heaven the Holy Soul/the Unclear Soul of Antihell, both of which, in the achievement of their evolutionary perfection, will be as much beyond sex as beyond sport of any description, and therefore blessedly at peace with themselves in the virtuous circle of a gender harmony that will last for ever.

LONDON 2004 (Revised 2012)

Preview REVALUATIONS AND TRANSVALUATIONS eBook