3
Returning
to sex and politics, I have come to regard male-dominated heterosexual
relations as ... liberal and their female-dominated counterparts as
conservative, both of which bespeak an atomic naturalism. The reason I say male-dominated heterosexual
relations are liberal is that, traditionally, the Liberals are to the left, if
only just, of the political spectrum, and it is the left wing which suggests to
me a male bias leading, beyond the Liberal level, to antinatural
and thus, by implication, antifemale behaviour. I am of course referring to both Democratic
Socialism and Social Democracy, and if intermittent anal intercourse with women
may be described as loosely Democratic Socialist, then the bisexual alternation
between women and men by men could be ascribed a loosely Social Democratic
significance, the sort of more radical relativity that should lead, in due
course, to the most radical antinatural relativity of
all - namely, the homosexuality of the Communist mind.
Ah, so there it is! If the antinatural
begins with the sodomizing of women (though one might justifiably contend that
the male domination of women in liberal sex is the real beginning of the rot),
then it most definitely culminates with the sodomizing of men on an absolute as
opposed to a relative, or intermittent, basis.
And if the political rot begins with Liberalism, it most definitely
culminates in Communism. Prior to all
that ... the natural in Conservatism, and subsequent to it ... the supernatural
in Fascism and/or its more radically theocratic (supra-natural?) successor - my
own Centrist ('Centerist' would, I fear, be too
clumsy a term) Social Transcendentalism.
Before the natural, there was of course the pro-natural, a Whiggish lesbianism or lesbian Whiggishness,
and before that, or rather beneath it, the subnatural
autocratic sexuality of erotic sculpture, which was more a pagan than a
Christian affair. Hence
the evolution of sex from its autocratic beginnings to its theocratic endings. Although I ought perhaps to
mention oral sex, fellatio suggesting a female domination, cunnilingus a
masculine one; the former arguably Republican (in the American party-political
sense of that term), the latter Democratic (again in the specifically American
sense). Not that it really matters
all that much, at least not to me, since I never have a woman to 'go down on' -
the masculine equivalent of 'giving head'.
And I wonder that if I did by any chance have a woman, whether I would
practise cunnilingus on her, given my supernatural bias, a right-wing tendency
to allow the female element to dominate one way or another, as happens during
the practice of my masturbatory sexuality, in which the voyeuristic
contemplation of the woman (model), elevated to the abstract status of a
photograph, induces frictional stimulation lower down, the masculine side
subordinated, as it were, to the higher, spiritualized primary stimulus coming
from above. I imagine that if I were to
enter into palpable sexual relations with a woman, she would have to be the dominant
partner, if not on the level of traditional conservative copulation then, at
any rate, on the more evolved level of 'Republican' head. Either way, a kind of female domination would
ensue, which could only be guaranteed if the woman was of a sufficiently-dominating
nature in the first place.
I seem to recall having fallen in love with
such a woman some years ago, though nothing came of my love since, she being
otherwise sexually engaged, it remained unrequited. But what a woman! The most sexy rump I had ever seen, one of
those small but highly seductive rumps which suggest a pear-like bulbousness when evaluated from the bottom up, so to speak,
the lower part of it kind of hanging over the thigh, seemingly resting
flaccidly on top of it but, in reality, jeans or no jeans, a most compact
overall impression! Yes, I fell in love
with Sophie early-on in my clerical career (it was to last just six years), and
I remained in love with her long after I had abandoned it. Doubtless she also played a part, if
paradoxically, in keeping me celibate, solitary, and disdainful of other
women. And she was very classy, very
cultured and well-spoken. University-educated and all that, the daughter of a vicar. Ah, how seemingly few-and-far-between are
such women! Attractive and
intelligent! Not just a pretty face or,
worse still, an academic brain.
But I shouldn't regress like this to such
nostalgic traps. I ceased being a victim
of unrequited love some time ago and thereafter became more of a free man than I
had ever been ... before the emotional enslavement struck me. I began, in consequence, to hope that I would
encounter a modelling Sophie in one or another of the men's magazines that I
regularly purchased. Never did, largely,
I suspect, because she was one of those women who are too middle class to offer
their services in that way, the magazines in question not usually functioning
on the plane of university-educated middle-class academics, no more, for that
matter, than do the vast majority of novels.
Rather, a titillation for the broad masses, the
bourgeoisie included, which people like me may or may not look-in upon from our
'Steppenwolfian' lair.... Not that I wish to
disparage such magazines, since, as already remarked, I derive much pleasure
from them. But there are certain things
you don't encounter between their pages, and the type of woman I have in mind
is one of them. I might also mention
reviews of new Modern Jazz/Fusion releases from musicians like Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, John
McLaughlin, Jean-Luc Ponty, Al DiMeola,
Larry Coryell, and George Duke. Plenty of Rock reviews, but I grew out of
rock music some years ago and now regard it as a largely youthful craze.
Are these magazines therefore intended
specifically for youths? It may well be,
though certain of the journalistic articles therein incorporated suggest an
appeal to maturer tastes, particularly where politics
is concerned. What one comes back to, I
suppose, is the desire of these magazines to appeal to as wide a spectrum of the
public as possible, in order to remain commercially viable. After all, this is still a harsh, cut-throat
world, and you don't survive in it, least of all on a lucrative basis, without
making some concessions to its harshness.
Such magazines are inclined to do that and, well, who is to grumble if
they can't please everyone everywhere all of the time? Idealism, as the British see it, is
specifically an Irish disease, one which the hale down-to-earth Anglo-Saxons fight shy of in their commitment to realism. Men's magazines are, after all, in the
entertainment business, not the educative one, and Rock is probably more
entertaining, for the broad mass of people, than sophisticated and sometimes
pretentious Modern Jazz. I shall stick
to my idealism and leave the English, not to mention Americans, to their
realism/materialism, including the sexual variety. Their world is declining, but not too fast,
whereas my world is rising, if only slowly.
The theocratic ideal beckons to me through the psychic medium of my
intelligence, and I defer to it in my writings.
Defer to it in my life as well, an absolute supernaturalism my sexual
ideal, an ideal most Englishmen are as yet incapable of upholding, even if they
are disposed to intermittent sublimation.
But the chances are that one day the ideal will become the rule and the
real, by contrast, the exception - nay, a disease, to be shunned by all
right-thinking idealists. The
supernatural, or rather supra-natural, will prevail over the natural and the antinatural, the pro-natural and the subnatural. For the supernatural would seem to be a kind
of fascistic, petty-bourgeois precursor of the more radically theocratic
supra-natural, National Socialism as opposed to Social Transcendentalism, adult
pornography instead of late-teenage juvenile pornography, magazines as opposed
to computer discs, the latter sexuality conferring a supra-natural distinction
from the former on account of the sexual distance between adults and juveniles,
the fact that juveniles, even when in their late teens, are not naturally
sexual objects for adults but if, through the medium of pornography, adults
were obliged to regard them as sexual objects, then the resultant
sublimated relationship, focusing voyeuristic/masturbatory attention on the
juvenile's sex (vagina in the case of females, penis in the case of males - the
one intended for masculine appreciation, the other for the appreciation of
women), would constitute a supra-natural sexuality appropriate, in its radical
sublimation, to a Social Transcendentalist age and society, but only to such an
age and society, not to the worldly present!
Of course, I can imagine the outcry of
'pervert!' or 'perverted!' that would rush from the mouths of realists, whether
at the bidding of a realistic demon or not ... I leave for others to
decide. And some will assert that
recourse to such radical pornography would lead to the actual molestation of
children, never mind teenagers! Well,
that accusation I can dismiss as reflecting a realist's psychic limitations,
while the assertion following it could just as easily be applied with regard to
women, where the use of adult pornography obtained; though there is no evidence
to suggest that the majority of women are any more vulnerable to rape on that
account than they would be if such pornography had never existed. Probably the availability of pornography
reduces the number of rapes by sublimating the rapist impulse and seducing the
potential rapist out of his sperm.
Maybe, on the other hand, there is no connection between pornography and
rape, that the man who intends to rape a woman will do
so anyway, irrespective of whether or not he buys pornography on a regular
basis. There are any
number of possibilities here, depending on individual behaviour and
circumstances. A man may rape after
having been released from a long spell in prison; he may be drunk, deranged,
insufficiently civilized, or derelict.
The vast majority of men never rape and will never do so. The nearest they may ever come to it will be
in the forceful, precipitant removal of their girlfriend's or wife's clothing
for mutually-acceptable impulsive sex.
That is something which often turns the female on just as much as the
male.
But teenagers are, of course, a different
proposition, and I have no doubt that the availability of juvenile pornography
on a widespread, absolutist basis would presuppose a very different kind of
society than the one in which most people are currently living, namely a closed
society in which children/teenagers lived apart from adults in special rearing
and educational institutions, and adults, for their part, lived fairly
secluded, solitary lives in bedsitter-type
accommodation; a society, in other words, in which sexual coupling of any
description was the exception to the rule - indeed, a taboo subject, given the
absolutist integrity of that age and the availability of sperm banks/artificial
insemination for purposes of sex-free reproduction.
It might of course transpire that young
girls of, say, 16-19 years of age would be available on a semi-prostitutional basis at certain times for a limited
duration, and it could be that 'sex' with such girls would constitute a mode of
supra-naturalism. But such a procedure
would also presuppose a radical transformation in the adult attitude to
juveniles, turning the latter into somewhat disreputable, unripe human beings
whose low spiritual standing in comparison with adults permitted of
relationships which, by then, would be considered demeaning for a woman; though
evolutionary progress all along the line would suggest the possibility that
men, too, would not wish to indulge in particularly strong sexual appetites and
would accordingly be disposed to comparatively tepid relationships with young
girls, a sexuality of petting and kissing merely, not, by any means, a full
heterosexual approach to what, after all, might well be an insufficiently
accommodating vagina!
Thus if kissing and petting of adult women
was taboo on account of their equal status and more sublimated integrity, then
a vent for such fleshy desires would remain open where juveniles were
concerned, though on a relatively low-key, tepid basis. A large adult erect penis thrusting into a
young girl's vagina would be akin to something out of Lautréamont's
Maldoror, with consequences no less painful and bloody
for the child. Exceptions may arise,
but, in the main, I envisage sexual satisfaction for men - as for women -
coming in the future through recourse to juvenile pornography - a truly
supra-natural intercourse for a radically absolutist age, such a might arise
sometime in the twenty-first century.
Not, of course, the kind of pornography that involves coupling or
philandering partners, since a one-to-one relationship would be difficult if
not impossible to establish in that context, quite apart from the initial
difficulty of getting juveniles to pose in an adult way, as though indulging in
actual heterosexual copulation. All
relative pornography, as we may call the partner-embracing variety, would then
be taboo, and not simply on ideological grounds but also on moral grounds,
since encouraging sexual perversion of one kind or another, the voyeuristic not
least of all. With a single frontal
model, vagina to the fore, there is adequate incentive for a supra-natural
copulation of the type I have already outlined to take place, and this would
constitute a legitimate form of theocratic sexuality - what one might call supersex, for want of a better term.
But
the actual pornographic spectacle of copulating couples would inhibit this
development, inducing, if not mere voyeurism, then the worse outcome of
perverse accessory masturbation, the modern form of Onan. Adult pornography would be taboo by then in
any case, so it is unlikely that there would be much temptation for the indulgence
of this more sublimated kind of antinaturalism,
probably a fascistic equivalent, if the truth were known. There is plenty of adult medium- to hard-core
pornography about these days, and most of it involves copulating couples.
One should, I suppose, distinguish between
soft- to medium-core absolute pornography (if 'pornography' be the right word
here) and this other more relative variety, the former embracing one model at a
time, the latter ... two or more. If one
is given a glimpse of vagina in the soft-core singles pornography, the vagina
will be clearly and openly on display in the medium-core variety, thereby
facilitating supernatural sexuality. If
one is given a clear view of vagina and/or penis in the medium-core couple’s
pornography, the sexual parts will be partly or deeply involved in copulation
in the hard-core couple’s variety. One
might chart a progression, with regard to these four stages of pornography,
from, say, a typical Penthouse or Mayfair model of soft-core singles vaginal
exposure ... to the more overtly sexual medium-core singles vaginal exposure of
a typical Playbirds model. Since this latter magazine embraces both
singles and doubles, one can regard it as of pivotal medium-core status in
between the soft-core singles and hard-core doubles, since the modelling
couples are photographed well-short of actual sexual penetration on the male's
part, the vagina of the female model usually quite clearly displayed and thus
not debarring supernatural masturbatory participation.
Indeed, it seems to me that one of the main
reasons why the female model is so often photographed on top of the male
one, in these doubles shots, is to promote maximum voyeuristic and/or
masturbatory participation, her sex more accessible, in this position, than would
otherwise be the case, were the male on top and thus an obstacle in the way of
the vagina, only attractive, one may suppose, to men of homosexual
persuasion. Nevertheless, I still
maintain that masturbation induced by simulated copulation will fall short of
true supernaturalism, being accessory to the actual coupling implicit in the
modelling and thus, by implication, an intrusion into their heterosexual
relativity. Still, not
so much antinatural as unorthodoxly supernatural.
The truly hard-core pornography, in which
the models (participants) appear to be more overly and literally involved in
copulation, and sometimes to the extent of covering or hiding their sex organs,
will place the viewer in a more accessory, purely voyeuristic relationship, and
if he chooses to masturbate in response to the heterosexual stimulus vouchsafed
him by the spectacle of coupling bodies, not necessarily very erotic in view of
their hidden or partly-obscured sexual parts, then his act will acquire the
status of a sublimated antinaturalism, a sort of
perversely theocratic sexuality in between the antinatural
and the supernatural, which may well be the sexual equivalent of Fascism.
Be that as it may, I need not hesitate in
informing the reader, who will probably have guessed by now in any case, that I
never indulge in such a sexuality, not having bought any really hard-core
pornography (though I have seen enough examples of it to know what I'm writing
about). The nearest I ever get to it is
with magazines like Playbirds which, as
already remarked, has a medium-core status, and if I take a fancy to any
particular model in that, whether she is on her own or accompanied by a
partner, usually one of her own sex, I make love to her on my own supernatural,
and hence sublimated, terms. The
apparent lesbian activity of the models provides ample scope for masturbatory
appreciation of the vaginal stimuli displayed, one or both models' sex clearly
on view. Yet, ideally, I prefer the
single models, partly on moral grounds but also partly as a consequence of long
acquaintance with magazines like Penthouse and
