Monday, July 16, 2018


Addressing the issue of buttsecks, even starting through an MSM lens as we did in Climbing on the Backs of Queers, can help us think so much deeper and tighter about MSF relations, evolution of the human organism on Terra, and the meaning of life itself. Much as we can draw inferences about the nature and character of people by their overwhelming majority desire to rub genitals and swap fluids and thereby reproduce, which they quite often do without being ignorant of the consequences of said fluid swapping, and which they sometimes but not always do for the express purpose of both the presumed means and the presumed ends, the prevalence of buttsecks is nearly as indicative, or at least 10% as much, as indicative of human traits as standardized mating-sex. Similarly, if buttsecks is gross, so is normal secks, and the fluid swapping and genital rubbing prove a major source of disease and expression of violence in the world, though maybe not running on as high a percentage per encounter as buttsecks, but still of historical note for as long as people have been recording things. Ergo our own consideration of anal sex per se need not be considered, nor be actually, vulgar or inappropriate, nor limited to some type of salacious sex-specific inquiry, but as reflective and insight-laden as the common desire to eat messy calorie-rich food or jump into a public pool on a hot day despite 37 little kids having peed in there and 3 gross adults having gone in there without wiping well and 142 people having been grossly sweaty when they got in. Also, people eat sashimi and we can talk about that, so as they say, "Be mature." Because buttsecks is a fact of lives, even if not of yours.

MSF Buttsecks

One of the most common turn-ons, per the porn industry, which would have all the male actors in dinosaur costumes if that increased viewership, is anal sex. Which means it's a primarily male turn-on, and that's part of the ongoing career cycles of poor pretty white chicks getting into porn, wherein they start with solo dances and playing with themselves, move on to sex with white-appearing male actors, then maybe group or a black dude, and somewhere in that latter phase of development they're doing anal, which hurts at the start but gradually becomes routine, and then it's retirement to teaching jazz dance classes, or desperately trying to book a couple years more doing bukkake or double-penetration or group black.

Human literature on sex speaks often of this anal attraction, and it's maintained its consistency over decades of filmed porn, as well as centuries of salacious literature, both porn and not. Case in point, the Marquis de Sade's Juliette makes extensive use of MSF and MSM anal, Juliette's own career in sex really specifically telegraphing the modern porn actress' career, starting out with masturbation and girl-girl scenes, then the same tame pairings with one male partner of the same ethnicity as the recipient, where one is supposed to be aroused merely by Juliette getting cummed on, then moving on to sex with groups and burly foreigners, where mere coitus isn't interesting any more since we've already seen her do it. Since everyone in the story is bi-curious, and since the author was secretly way more interested in dudes than in chicks, Juliette's orgies often include her getting nailed next to some dude getting nailed, and the combination is hot for some, even if the dudes have been described elsewhere as rather dumpy and pudgy and old. Juliette and a long, similar succession of works aside, though, the modern porn industry evinces a colossal demand for anal sex, with most porn websites including anal as a proliferate category, with supply such as to indicate men more appreciate watching some chick take it in the ass than the pussy--completely straight men, who'd evince zero cerebral or erectile response to being shown dude-only porn, and who'd die before touching someone else's you-know-what, and who are in every way heterosexual and only heterosexual: not just the normal ways, but the really objective scientific ones that could catch some nervous weirdo who had lied.

Ergo, in every way since written history, buttsecks has not been a wholly nor even primarily MSM, which is to say queer, thing. And this causes great trouble with the way we think about homosexuality and heterosexuality, because given the numbers of each predilection on the planet, there are likely far more buttsecks-interested straight people than there are queers.

Evolution comes in here, too: why would straight males, sons of a long and unbroken succession of successful breeders, have buttsecks with girls as a turn-on or an interest of any kind?

Access Theories

One theory about anal sex is that it's interesting to men because it indicates access to the woman, and thereby is related to vaginal access, ergo reproduction. So, the logic goes, if she'll let you do that--or you have the power to get that, you have the luck to take that, et cetera--then it has such a strong correlation with eventual reproductive sexual access that it is itself a turn-on. That theory doesn't work, though, because being a billionaire is way more likely to get you reproductive access than taking her in the butt first, and if you hook men up to penis bloodflow sensors and show them two films, one about a man winning a billion dollars in a game show, and the other about a man doing a gorgeous chick in the butt, the former will produce zero erections, the latter erections at over a 90% rate of test subjects. Similar results would be achieved by many other "access to womb" tests, such as "video of winning Nobel prize versus doing cutie in the ass" and "video of being voted hottest American firefighter of the year versus hot chick in a chastity belt waggling her naked butt at the camera and saying dirty things about what you should do." The billionaire example should be decisive, but any other similar comparison could be made, from 2018 to caveman days, and the instinct for a man to be more turned on by the chick taking it in the butt is erectively decisive in any test you could run. Even weird male moralists who pretended they disapproved of such things would have to rip the wires off and storm out of the testing room if the "hot chick waggling butt" scene came on and threatened to make them think they were bodily hypocrites; they wouldn't be hypocrites, of course, anymore than people who didn't believe in murder would be able to maintain the appearance of their moral principles if they watched a 4 hour film of some dude happily torturing children and small animals. Avid dieters who don't break their diets still salivate, pacifists still feel the primal urge to defend justice even if they don't act on it, and so forth.

So, the "access theory" fails. If you were already doing her in the butt anyway, it is so much more evolutionarily effective to switch holes, rather than to stay in the butt and feel like an evolutionary winner because you've definitely proven you have access. The access theory is, simply put, stupid.

Pleasure Theory

Because the woman's anal opening is tighter than her vaginal opening, and because the friction that either opening can produce on the male penis is pleasurable to him--which pleasure is completely validated by evolution--another theory of the prevalent interest in anal sex is that it feels better. It's kind of a stupid theory, since people watching porn and jacking off receive the same physical stimulation whether or not the video is of anal or vaginal or some dude fucking a silicon toy, but it's not as stupid as access theory because maybe fantasy just works that way.

However, pleasure theory fails because the female anus is not the most frictive hole to fuck. A proper male or female manual grip can exceed the anus in the strength of its friction, as can countless other things. Yet people don't want to watch a video of some dude fucking the tightest ever silicon sphincter, or some lab-grown orifice, or some bodybuilder's squeezing hand, even if accompanied by racy pictures or clips of naked chicks; even if something about the male interest in females being buttsecksed derives from some ancestral memory of friction, friction is clearly not the only, nor the decisive, nor even a marginal, draw to the act, because people wouldn't just watch a video of some dude fucking a silicon orifice and like it a little less than the chick one; they would completely not pay-per-view. So no one would make that video. No one would want it; no one would care. Men might buy a million of those silicon orifices for themselves, but they would use them while watching hot chicks take it in the butt, because they were interested in the hot chick taking it in the butt and not in viewing the presumed friction. They'd similarly prefer to do a hot chick in the butt than to be left alone for an hour with the tighter silicon product, even were the product mounted on a pole or mounted on a machine that provided pushback. Something that transcends the sensual realities of the act is far more important.

Semen Health

One really dumb, but really scientific-sounding, theory that's occasionally been floated about non-vaginal sexual acts is that any form of insertion of semen into the woman's body accustoms her to that semen, and makes it more likely that said semen will survive inside her after it's splooged in during normal vaginal sex, thereby making successful insemination more likely. Viewed this way, anal sex is like "pre fertilization," or improving the odds, and therefore men like anal sex because it's improving their chances at reproduction.

This theory is dumb for many reasons, but the primary one is the most decisive: imagine two men and two women, and they're in a reproduction contest, "survival of the fittest" style. The first couple has anal sex for a month, then switches to vaginal, and when her eggs come down, they achieve pregnancy. The second couple has regular sex during the first month. Repeat times a thousand couples, or times the same two couples trying to have more offspring during the female's reproductive years. Who ends up with more offspring total?

Obviously, the second couple. If the first couple has some kind of reproductive problem, where a subtle reduction in the woman's vagina's natural hostility to foreign fluids permits that one lucky spermatozoon to survive, maybe their month of anal practice betters their work, but across large populations, assuming similar variance in reproductive-capable and reproductive-impaired people, some kind of anal practice is detrimental, not beneficial, to attempts at reproducing. The couples that pump away at the butt are, by definition, going to produce zero percent offspring during those acts, and the slight increase in the small percentage of "can't get pregnant" couples' successes are offset by the delay of months in the healthy couples working on building anal-based sperm tolerance.


Ergo the "semen health" theory fails also. It should be obvious, but for those amazingly desperate to blend their faith in randomized evolution with some kind of rationale for people's extremely powerful and pervasive non-vaginal sexual interests, they can take such audacious steps, much as someone who's sporadically intelligent can think they believe in the Jewish Bible as a series of metaphors which can be interpreted in an immeasurable number of ways rather than the literal way that's already been disproved to their satisfaction. It's a ridiculous argument, and a ridiculous attempt, like the attempt to hold together random mutation with observable worldly phenomena, but "it's a metaphor" at least can put off the acknowledgement that it was some old lies and nothing more. In the face of organisms as we study them today, or human sexual desires, desperate random evolution theories, mostly theoretical or speculative in the manner of Big Bang "research," about acclimating the semen to the partner's rectum have been floated, but moreso, vaguely hypothetically researched ones (on really small samples, and without mixing the male partners across the females because good science is eww gross I'm not doing that!) has reached unsupported conclusions that ejaculating into a woman's mouth, and her swallowing it, achieves not a rectal, but a gastrointestinal, benefit to sperm survivability, making blowjobs equally, or more, effective in producing more successful breeding later.

Like the theories of rectal training, the idea that men like to have their penises mouthed by women because of instinctive desires to produce later reproductive success are, like the endless succession of rationales for why students of a Chinese-American heritage always score better on math tests than students from a Mexican-American heritage with desperate parental over-involvement, from the same zip code, stupidly inane. Who reproduces more? The dude who gets sucked off 1/3 of the available nights, or the dude who fucks pussy 100% of the nights? Amazingly, and similarly for any male interest in handjobs or between-thigh fucking or foot fetishes or "jacking off onto her face" or any other non-vaginal-intercourse sexual behavior, removing the penis from the vagina is a reproductive loss, and the full panoply of human sexual behavior is 99% an evolutionary fail. Like access theory, the theory that such behavior encourages or leads to sex is fundamentally flawed, because the penis fucking the vagina, or at least ejaculating into it, is the only way to produce offspring prior to those weird dudes in California who use tubes and injections, and all they're doing is improving the process of ejaculation anyway. Human sexuality, above and beyond dudes screwing dudes, is a vast and non-reproductive thing, and like so many other aspects of humans, is so colossal in size and complexity that it cannot be accounted for by the desire for reproduction alone. The occurrence of similar fetishes across widely separated population groups--such as, sub-Saharan Africans wanting to screw hot chicks in the butt just like northwestern Europeans do--shows a commonality of development that can't be explained by (locally popular randomized) human evolution, and the anti-reproductive nature, yet almost total dominance, of certain numerous, perhaps completely innundating, traits, tells us more about the inferiority of our guesses at randomized development than perhaps anything else, since we can feel the effects, and we can know that they don't produce offspring.

So many other things are easily explicable to the male human. You want to be rich, you want to be famous, you want to be strong, you want a fast car, you want a harem--all completely understandable within the context of random evolution. But where the hell does wanting to fuck some chick in the ass come in? If you're not male, or if you're broken there, or if you're not turned on by that--like, the bloodflow monitor wouldn't show any activity down there if you watched some hot chick taking it--that doesn't matter, since the bulk of the world's trackable male population has shown their interest. Overpoweringly. The Japanese have porn about it, the pygmy women give their men blowjobs, the Inuit, the Siberian Americans pre-Columbus, the Renaissance Europeans...all of them would be laughing at Dawkins, if they could stop sucking dicks and filling asses long enough to have the time.

Dominance or Submission Shows

Another potential reproductive benefit from anal sex or blowjobs could be the use/display of, or social awareness of, the male's dominance, whereby he is assumed to be really socially prominent, and thus more deserving of mating that does produce offspring, if he takes chicks in the butt or the mouth. Like, "Wow, I heard Zeke buttfucks all these chicks, I so want to bear his child more than I did before!" But, like so many other pitiful attempts at rationalizing non-reproductive sexual interests, it conflicts with the fact that fucking a butt or mouth means not fucking a vagina. Even if it adds more sexual prestige to a male individual to fuck a butt than to father a child, the time and effort spent gaining that prestige subtracts from time and effort spent inseminating fertile females, and the comparative math of both routes is clear.

It's possible that some weird perverted take on patriarchy makes the protracted desire for oral or anal a dominance show in other regards, but patriarchs who only fucked fertile pussies should have exceeded in number, and driven to extinction, patriarchs who fucked butts and/or mouths, but this apparently didn't happen, despite the purported competition for survival of the fittest. Similarly, the argument could be made that chicks who like anal do so out of confusion, because they can feel the penetration through into other passages, or it makes them feel desired or cared for or whatever, but again, those who coupled only vaginally should have gifted themselves, and their partner's offspring, with a success vastly outstripping those who tolerated anal sex or oral sex or you can just jack off on my feet that's so hot or whatever.

There are certainly other aspects of social prestige and dominance that make sense, like being a known ultra killer or mob boss or richie, but all of those things have tangible benefits to a kept woman or to offspring, regarding protection or provisioning thereof, whereas saying, "My dad once fucked ten chicks in the ass!" does not provide to the germ line nearly the same benefits as ten, or one, additional sibling(s). No presumed prowess nor imaginary social status can explain how a desire for buttsecks could have survived, ergo again, the development of traits through random mutations selected for utility does not, and cannot ever, explain human sexual desire nor behavior for non-fertile-vaginal intercourse.

MSM Buttsecks

We've looked at the amazing depth and recurrence of MSF sexual activity, here, and now queers don't seem quite as, well, queer, because the non-reproductive things they do are, if cycle-timing or just birth-repression drugs are taken into account, actually the distant minority of sexual perversions happening regularly on this planet. The amazingly "unnatural" natural habits of normal straight people over the centuries are no more likely to produce offspring than a bunch of sick queers, and yes, there is a huge difference, but what constitutes that difference, really? If a MSF couple has 6 blowjobs and 1 special anal reward night and 8 normal vaginal sexual encounters per month, but she's got an IUD anyway, is it something spiritual or holy that makes them more straight than a couple of queer dudes who have buttsecks with faceless nobodies at the club 4 times a month, and swap handjobs another 20 times a month? Yes, but spirituality, or some form thereof, is the only real difference, as far as being a clump of human cells here and using other cells to get mental titillation of physical pleasure in ways that aren't even remotely performed in contemplation of offspring. God or evolution or whatever apparently designed the human body with a pleasure center, the prostate, up the male butt, which apparently some queers like and say they can cum from, and whether or not you join this one in thinking that's fucking gross no way ever over my dead body you sumbitch, the inexplicable quirk of wasting resources for growth and survival by putting a bunch of touch-sensitive nerve endings down there, of all places, suggests under a "random mutation, evolution by natural selection" rubric that, somehow, MSM buttsecks is a benefit to mankind. And it's clearly not, under our modern evolution religion, but nature doesn't make mistakes and what the fuck man? Just the recurrence of homosexuals in human society should be enough to make all the points this article has already made, because this apparently random mutation keeps coming back no matter what, not being eliminated but apparently tolerated and nurtured and sometimes enthroned by various human societies, but showing its face over and over again. It's almost enough to make you believe that there really is a perverted Sky Man who designed that gross temptation just to see if people would violate his commandments by doing it, good grief what a filthy trick, that is one sick Sky Man, but at least then homosexuality would make sense, since even the bonobos who want to fuck dudes also want to have 40 children with chicks just because they like genital rubbing.

Why Sex?

Sex is easy to understand from an evolutionary perspective. You make a life of suffering, use different degrees of suffering or relief therefrom to motivate things to survive, and provide pleasure for things conducive to survival, like eating or resting or producing offspring. The motivation for individuals to then use pleasure loci for non-survival, non-reproductive functions, is then discovered, because pleasure is of inherent worth and, per evolution faith, people are motivated to seek it out for no reason other than that it's pleasure, so you have people overeating ice cream or jacking off three times a day at home alone, thereby costing themselves years or mates, thereby pleasure is counterproductive, yet...well, our evolutionary faith doesn't explain that, anymore than it does the appearance of lungs suited to Earth air, oh wait it does it's random aren't we lucky.

The confluence of so many acts of incredible, mathematically impossible if you round to the 100th digit, features of life here is explained not by random mutation, but by evolution, or real evolution to contrast with the Random God way it's usually presented in 2018 Terra. Part of what you do as a human is learn about what it means to be a human, of course, and part of that is private existential angst and part of that is interacting with other humans, a component of which is often sexual interaction. And in fostering that process, that desire to expand light not only in your "self" but light in general, you have the desire to reproduce, and also the desire to learn and explore, and part of that often expresses itself sexually, particularly while you're in this body with these functions and these possibilities. People's shifting moods and preferences, in foods and partners and parts, are not always or ever explicable here, but that is why people desire sex with no reproductive purpose, with or without a touch or a dollop of mutuality or togetherness, and so forth. Exploring humans, and gaining knowledge of the relationship of other bodies to your own, is more of a primary function of being here, in the self-ish sense, than even reproducing, which is why the childless are still human, and why some of them don't end up honestly, privately traumatized about it. Ergo humans have this drive to explore one another and try things out, whether or not they're necessarily more pleasurable, whether or not they advance the interests of a competitive species. View the diversity of sexual desire as a demonstration of an (more general, not always specific) essential "human character," or at the very least, view it as a disproving of the local evolution religion's sacred texts and a chance for you to conjecture your own theories about why these hominids on this planet would have any, let alone many, inherent desires to participate in physical acts that are not related to reproductive success, caloric imbibing or accumulating, grooming, strengthening of social bonds, or anything else that would theoretically result in survival or reproduction. Ergo, logically, these bodies were designed for some other function than "surviving and reproducing on Terra," since they have all these recurrent traits among really unrelated individuals.

So, ultimately, something as seemingly garish as buttsecks can join a vast line of human traits in demonstrating greater care in construction than Bangism alleges. Existential despair can be likened to an evolutionary accident, where these increasingly more sophisticated minds evolved accidentally to increase chances of a certain species' survival and reproduction, and the thoughtful minds then began worrying about other things, but like the historical dearth of incomplete organs designed for processing resources found on other places shows that such organs were never "randomly" designed, the instinctive and proliferate drive for buttsecks teaches us, strangely, that there is some greater purpose in existence than our wisest wise men have yet been permitted to speculate. Something loaded stuff into our brains that the Random God cannot explain. Therefore, there is hope beyond the "accumulate pleasure for one life then void forever" of our popular religion.

No comments:

Post a Comment