Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Ordered Lives, Part 2: Cheap Thrills

Succeeding Ordered Lives, Part 1: Limited Progression

Antilife tends toward the repression of sexuality on its own, and this tendency conjoins well with zero-sum economies that exploit such repression.  Taking an economic perspective on the interpersonal reveals an interesting way that a seeming "efficiency" can be gained by coming up with otherwise nonsensical sexual regulations.

An easy point of modern application is the use of illusory standards to provide cheap thrills to the religious or otherwise repressed.  Fear of running out of imagination is the driving point behind these.  Essentially, what sexual restrictions are saying is:

I am so terrified of running out of ideas to get me horny and keep me and my partner(s) interested.  Therefore, I'll come up with pretend no-nos to make crossing those boundaries more exciting. 

For the adolescent human, just the thought of kissing and fondling may be highly arousing.  "Vanilla" missionary-position intercourse may then produce the high.

What happens, though, when you and hubby have already invited over the neighbors for a fivesome, called in the pooch, put it all on streaming webcam, then split up into same-sex groups to spend the night?

For the fearful mind, the result is fear: I'll never be aroused again.  I'll be out of things to get excited about. 

So, to make sex more macroeconomically efficient, fearful minds come up with silly restrictions that make simple things more naughty.  For example, "Thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman" makes it really, really hot and spicy when a couple fervent Christian ladies kiss over tea, or a couple Baptist ministers go through the collection box on a quiet Sunday night.  For the repressed, who actually believe these things are wrong, it makes a simple physical act all the more wicked and exciting.  Boundaries are being crossed; progress is being made.

The more social disapprobation has been built up, the naughtier even the most basic things can be viewed.  Monotheists love using the pretense of "sanctity of marriage" to make even straight intercourse naughty.  If "divorce" is frowned upon, then any sex after divorce is instantly wicked--and spicy.  If "marriage" is "sacrosanct," then any sex outside of marriage is instantly wicked--and extra spicy.

In the same way that Fred and Hilda might pretend to be the Paperboy and Mrs. Housewife in order to spice up Date Night, repressed souls can participate in even more simplistic versions of "naughty" by thinking, as they swive, "Oooh, I'm a bad girl, I'm cheating on my marriage!" 

(Elites, in large part, create these silly illusions for their own benefit.  Of course plenty of Congressmen are rutting their "pages" or "assistants."  That's why they have programs for attractive, bright-eyed high school and college students, nationwide, to come work in their offices for a few months, then get cycled out for new blood.  As long as it's "naughty" and "wrong" to have that relationship, they can get off on it easily.  Hillary was in no way surprised, or even upset, when Bill blew a load on Monica.  Oh boy, a blowjob in a chair--real creative, Bill.  You can't buy that kind of excitement--no, it takes centuries of illusory taboos to make your simple fondling and jizzing a daring act.  You Romeo, you.)

Being "against" gay marriage is another way to make simple homoerotic stuff taboo and, therefore, more desirable.  In essence, what Christians are saying by being against gay marriage is, "Don't demystify our exciting, forbidden, secret same-sex encounters."  Because they're afraid that, if gay marriage becomes un-naughty, they won't get to enjoy secret same-sex moments any longer.

Sex, like life, seeks--and is--chaotic expansion.  Unchecked lusts and desires are the name of the game.  Illusory limitations, and the creation of cheap thrills, makes it easier for the repressed to believe they are crossing boundaries and be "satisfied" that they are expanding and exploring.  Really, all they're doing is having vanilla hetero- or homo-sex and calling it naughty, but in so limiting themselves, they're limiting the expansion of their souls, bodies, species, and the living world.

The good thing about lust--like love, or empathy, or anything else life--is that, unchecked, it expands and gives back more than is put in.  Letting everything free into the world--which the anti-female story of Pandora teaches us to avoid--doesn't cause us to suddenly be un-interested in things.  It expands them exponentially.

Fearful minds--people who have no confidence in themselves, and who believe, deep down, that human beings are creatures of poor quality--will, understandably, believe that there are limits out there.  Limits to imagination; limits to excitement; limits to the fertility of the exploding multiverse.  But the only limits are the ones we set.

So, call over Fido and the neighbors.  Don't worry: you'll think up something new next week.  Or if you don't think it up, the idea might just pop into your head on its own.  "You" are not the one controlling this show.  Relax and let it all flow through you.

9 comments:

  1. arka, .. i'm only part way in to reading this .. but wondering have you ever thought of ,or written anything that is not of repressed , but of some extreme of a sensual nature that keeps things flowing .. .

    ReplyDelete
  2. i see the suggest of as i read on at the end .. , so my question is of only the written part i guess .. ,trip .. .

    ReplyDelete
  3. The publisher should be getting its act together sometime this year...maybe this one'll have a book to share...

    ReplyDelete
  4. i'm not ready for a book .. i've only been able to get to a little reading here .. .

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Being "against" gay marriage is another way to make simple homoerotic stuff taboo and, therefore, more desirable. In essence, what Christians are saying by being against gay marriage is, "Don't demystify our exciting, forbidden, secret same-sex encounters." Because they're afraid that, if gay marriage becomes un-naughty, they won't get to enjoy secret same-sex moments any longer. "
    Isn't this the sort of thing you're promoting in this post? that any legalization of dirty sex or sodomy,etc. will take away its rebelliousness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arousal does not require rebelliousness. Manufacturing cheap substitutes for arousal will never provide the same quality, or renewable nature, as an ever-expanding horizon.

      The idea that you need something to rebel "against" in order to have fun is an economic idea: zero-sum, or "no one can win unless someone else loses." Outside the illusion, though, it's possible for everyone to win.

      Delete
  6. So why be against gay marriage if you don't really care about "rebellion" against society's structure( assuming the structure consists of heterosexual and homosexual marriage) or are you defining Gay marriage as rebellion? Do you actually have an ideal society that you aspire to see in the future? If so, let's hear it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. (Ideal society forthcoming!)

      You may be misreading; this one isn't against "gay" marriage any more or less than this one's against "straight" marriage.

      Saying that restricting marriage based on sexuality makes the outside sex more "desirable" doesn't mean "better" or "good." Rather, it means that it makes it more quick-and-easy (cheap thrill) exciting to those who believe in the repression. At the cost of their finding a deeper fulfillment in something outside such primitive boundaries.

      Delete