Tuesday, November 17, 2015

Anal Sex II: In Through The Out Door

The previous post didn't really do this subject justice. So, continuing with topics that no one's going to want to touch with a ten foot pole...

Before I go on, Bob Prokop has informed me someone stormed over to the Skeptical Zone to complain that this utterly small blog spammed his comment. I was going to welcome any Skeptical Zone readers here, but that's made problematic by the fact that A) The Skeptical Zone is a shitty combo-blog, and B) No one reads what that guy has to say anyway. The latter partly explained by the fact that his content includes things like 'The small personal blog of someone who thinks I'm an intellectual ginch didn't post my comment!'


With that out of the way, let's get back to serious, intellectually weighty topics.

Look, cards on the table. I believe the Thomists, the Aristotileans, are correct. Sex is ordered towards a final cause, that final cause is procreation, and therefore anal sex and oral sex are as a rule off the table. Take Aristotileanism out of the picture, and I'm still going to argue that it's a good idea - all else being equal - to look pretty dismissively on these things, because the -practical- value wrapped up in that 'final cause' logic is still substantial, even without the underlying metaphysics. The fact that the modern West and any culture tainted by modern Western thinking is managing to fuck itself into a demographic spiral is frontline evidence in favor of that.

That said? In a personal aesthetic sense, I don't exactly find it repulsive. And by that I mean, sure, I'd do a young Ellen Degeneres in the ass. Accent on the 'young', and admittedly the context is interesting. You know, pretty cute, tomboy look. Calling her 'past her prime' doesn't do justice to the current situation.

I digress.

It's just that my desires - my aesthetic sense about the sensual benefits, putting it very gently - don't mean shit given the worldview, the arguments, the evidence we're dealing with. Nor do anyone else's, for that matter. So the onus is on everyone else to deal with it. Let us admit we are broken, for various reasons, and continue to struggle to improve ourselves.

And so, many of us do. With all our failures, some obvious, some not.

But you know, I think there's a very traditional way of dealing with these problems, and it's an effective way: you don't discuss these things. Not in open, and barely among your friends. And not because you're crippled with shame and self-loathing or such drama, but for another, very good reason: to talk about it is to focus on it, to focus is to dwell, and dwelling on this shit is precisely what you'd like to -not- do. It's counterproductive. Finding other things to focus on is -productive-. It's helping. It's one route to success. This is putting aside simple questions of tact and grace and social expectation.

It's like dieting. If you're fat, do you want to keep a box of cookies on your coffee table as a conversation starter? "Yeah, it's a pack of my favorite cookies. I'm trying to lose weight so I thought it would be a good idea to keep this around and to talk about it a lot."? No. Certainly not if you're -struggling- with losing weight. And if you know someone is trying to lose weight, telling them about the moistness of the chocolate cake you're having way is a great way to be a real bastard to them.

So I think among the social conservatives, there is this tendency to keep things delicate in conversation when it comes to these taboos. It's a sensible tendency. More than that: in most situations, it is the proper tendency to have and maintain.

But it isn't always. Sometimes, there is a need to be blunt.

When it comes to the topic of same-sex marriage and 'Same-sex relationships' in general, I think it's important to be up-front direct. And not just about 'same-sex sexual relations', but LGBT culture, dating culture, and more. Because the avoidance method - the gingerly beating-around-the-bush approach of vaguely wording what we're talking about and what the issues are, does no one any favors anymore.

The problem is the anal sex. The problem is thinking that fucking someone's mouth is somehow on an equal plane with the sort of sex that leads to a new life. The problem is the guy whose palette now has a refined taste in feces. The problem is that LGBT culture which has everything from bug-chasers to a view of sex that makes Charlie Sheen's exploits look downright prudish. The problem is the decaying view of marriage, and sex, and relationships, and what exactly the hungers are that are driving that decay.

But notice, I didn't just take aim at the LGBT groups there. Once the problem isn't some vague 'same-sex sexual relationship' but 'these sex acts', I've drawn a Venn diagram that overlaps a hell of a lot more than the LGBT subculture. If you start talking about sex acts, sexual desires, what makes a proper sexual desire and relationship and what's wrong with all of those, you're opening a Pandora's box that most people prefer to keep closed. Some because they're already struggling with their own bullshit. Some because they're not, but they'd rather not think of themselves as having a problem they need to deal with. Some because they're just following the cues around them, even though they mean well.

For my part? I've decided that it does no good to mince words and keep things vague, thereby helping confuse an issue further. I have no interest in turning discussions of 'same-sex sexual relations' into namby-pamby talk of 'expressions of oneness with each other' when I'm talking about some guy jamming his dick into another guy's bowels.

In the process, the guy who likes stuffing his cock into his wife's bowels (and the wife who enjoys that) may feel uncomfortable. He'll just have to deal with it, and she's clearly used to it anyway.

3 comments:

Andrew W said...

About six months ago, I commented on a centrist Christian blog frequented by several progressives along the lines of "gay marriage is about legitimising a man sticking his penis in another man's anus". Predictably, the response was "eww!" and claims that this was inappropriate content. But the whole "gay marriage" shtick is specifically about "love" and not "sex", because "love" is "aww!" and gay sex is "eww!".

News flash: everybody can love whoever they like, quite freely. Marriage laws are specifically putting boundaries around when love becomes sexual, and is sexually consummated. Fornication and adultery (and out-of-wedlock births and abortion) are morally and socially corrupting. But homosexual sex - moral or otherwise - does have the advantage that the sex organs are clearly being put to their obvious biological purpose. Men have a stick, women have a stick-hole, and just about everyone in history over age 15 has figured out that the one is made for the other (and not anything else).

A core "gay lobby" strategy has been deliberately keeping discussions well away from sex, and conservatives have let them. Never let the enemy pick the battlefield!

PS: I don't have an issue with married couples engaging in mutual masturbation or other forms of sex-play. But such things are an adjunct to real sex, not equivalent or a substitute.

Crude said...

Predictably, the response was "eww!" and claims that this was inappropriate content.

Of course it is. I mean, it's like talking about the average number of sex partners of gay males, how many lesbians are morbidly obese, or the 'open relationship' rates among same-sex 'couples'. Inconvenient facts are facts no more.

News flash: everybody can love whoever they like, quite freely.

Yeah. It's bizarre that people argue that -love itself- was outlawed until the SCOTUS ruling. You don't need to be married to be in love. Hell, you can get married without that, I assure you.

But homosexual sex - moral or otherwise - does have the advantage that the sex organs are clearly being put to their obvious biological purpose.

Heterosexual, I'm guessing you mean.

A core "gay lobby" strategy has been deliberately keeping discussions well away from sex, and conservatives have let them. Never let the enemy pick the battlefield!

Exactly, though I more and more wonder about this gay lobby. I think it exists, but we're dealing with a larger issue.

PS: I don't have an issue with married couples engaging in mutual masturbation or other forms of sex-play. But such things are an adjunct to real sex, not equivalent or a substitute.

Yeah, that gets into more complicated but still relevant issues. I will say this: I think it is extremely hard to argue anal sex as anything other than kind of fucking degrading. And again, I'm not exactly squicked by it.

Andrew W said...

Heterosexual, I'm guessing you mean

Yes. Sorry about that.

Exactly, though I more and more wonder about this gay lobby. I think it exists, but we're dealing with a larger issue.

A lot of these changes have been instigated by clever lobby groups and multiplied by groupthink. Modern mass-communication is wide but shallow: witness the reaction to pictures of that dead boy on a Turkish beach. Savvy operators can gradually herd the masses in the direction they want them to go, especially if the opposition is expecting a "fair fight" and is preparing to fight a set-piece battle at a poorly defined place and location.

Note that this pre-dates the gay lobby (see also "After the Ball") by a long time. The Sydney Push and similar movements were pushing sexual renormalisation from the late 50s. Schaeffer was warning about progressive culture change from a decade before that. First wave feminism was alive and well in the 1900s. Marx was a pushing his ideas a half-century earlier. And the French revolution pre-dates Marx by a while. Small groups push cultural drift - that they believe is in their own self-interest - until it becomes a cultural flood. Then someone else decides to try. But, yes, any idea that we could fix things if we could just find the small group of masterminds and stop them is foolish.

I will say this: I think it is extremely hard to argue anal sex as anything other than kind of fucking degrading.

I hear you. As part of sex play, there are a wide variety of erogenous zones to be explored in various ways. And there are some places that it's healthiest to leave well alone.