There are two desires when it comes to sex, for a human. Please oneself and please one's mate. So far, throughout almost every sex-based life-form before humanity, the two desires have never converged. One gains their own pleasure or one gain's their mate's pleasure. This is fine for witless animals.
For humanity, the first species that can think things through, this could never work well. The thought has been grinding away at humanity since our first sentient thought. It has grown to drive humanity mad in the unsuccessful attempt to make the most crucial form of sex (i.e. that which creates life, coitus) so.
The split personality of humanity that may best be represented by the conservatives and liberals is based on this precarious inconsistency in human life. It is two disparate and very confused views of the two genders.
Can you see how this defines, in great part, the roles to the two genders? How do I express it further? The woman consistently pleases her mate during that most important act of life-creation. The man consistently pleases himself during the same act. It affects the personality of both genders, in different ways, as long as that remains true. It tears them apart and puts them in opposing armed camps.
Man takes, woman gives, and it all starts in bed. It doesn't need to remain that way.
Can you see how this will drive a sentient race mad? How the personality of humanity becomes split in an awful, mad manner?
The male gender has been most inclined to blind itself to the realization that he should be able to cause that pleasure during the life-creating act of coitus. That alone is a long and complicated story that spans millennia.
Worst yet, of course, is, in their failure with which men have not been able to cope. The befuddlement at puberty, combined with the paradigms of nonsense that have been handed down since the beginning were too much. They have not been able to face up to the failure. So, all kinds of impediments have been placed in the way of allowing the thoughts to roam free. The Garden Of Eden is one such fanciful story developed in reaction to men's feelings of hopelessness and helplessness.
Long ago, humanity's intelligence had not developed to the extent that they could see past the encumbrances of the animal and realize that a human can think, thereby make coitus a loving act. That has been handed down and imprinted on each generation.
It is a complicated enough thought that early human's could not cope. It is a simple enough thought that modern men can more than cope. They can succeed with ease.
Humanity's creativity and inventiveness, in the absence the insight that took much longer to develop, was in fine form to hide from the truth.
Blame it on some fictitious god and/or devil. Blame it on women. Make it all go away.
It is not an act of love until it is mutually fulfilling. We are not a human, loving, emotionally balanced, sentient race until it is. We are not yet making love.
While our awareness and intelligence have developed tremendously since that time, because we have forcefully blinded ourselves to this awful aspect of an animal's state, we have never applied our heightened awareness and intellec to the issue.
Let's try this. How many women have encountered men that were enjoyable, attractive, interesting, only to find that after having sex with them, they begin to change. Some (most) men begin to become morose and distant as they realize their failure. The first experience of it may be the worst for men, but they may also recover to try, again, with another woman. Rinse, wash, and repeat. They close up and become someone far different, especially within an intimate relationship.
Humanity has learned to settle. That is not a sentient trait.
Can everyone now see why it happens? I know! It's like having blinders ripped from you eyes! But, that is only the smallest impact on humanity's affairs.
Maybe the correlation is not usually made because it doesn't happen overnight (though maybe it does, in some cases).
It used to mystify me how women can look a man in the eye like there is nothing wrong. The reason is clear now. I get into that further in many of the books. They are completely baffled. They don't even begin to understand what is grinding away at the man. Or, do they?
The two genders's views are so very different. The only commonality is that both genders are baffled. He knows damn well that something is wrong but due to historical forces of inertia, he can't quite put his finger on it.
The woman usually hasn't a clue what is going wrong. (just my guess; I would feel even more awful for women if they knew all along what was wrong) They only see the awful change. Affection becomes compromised in men. Even the best are not wholly free of it.
Worse yet are the men that try to justify it. That is toxic masculinity in spades. They disrupt everything. Even worse, is when the woman goes along with it because she is convinced her pleasure is not important or she deserves the pummelings she takes. She may tell herself that god just didn't make her that way. God, or Nature, made us sentient. For a sentient race (don't think individuals, think race), it will drive it mad.
At first, when the man attempts to love a woman, he may attempt to shrug it off, he has been taught all his life that, when the moment comes (pun intended), that he just closes his eyes and shuts down his brain. But, over a lifetime, it begins to eat away at him at a subconscious level. The reason it stays in the subconscious and the reason it may drive him mad is because men have been so unwilling to think or talk about it because that is how they are trained from birth.
The best adaptation I have seen is the man that finds some other way to bring the same pleasure that he attains to the woman. Still, it's an adaptation.
The reason we don't talk about it is a little more complicated and insidious because its beginnings are lost in the annals of our history. The disaster that this has caused is monumental. Not only have we avoided the realization that there is no reason that a man cannot achieve loving coitus, but we have also avoided the full panoply of love by substituting distractions in the form of chaos that distort the sentient state. We shut down the distinctly human physical act of love, thus, also, shutting down our conscious awareness and crippling reason. It ripples outward.
We are far more than animals. We think. In this one, most critical case, we have not thought at all.
You want to know what mid-life crisis is all about? It is reality, age, and experience that comes crashing down in conflict with all of the paradigms of nonsense. The shock that has been gnawing away at the subconscious finally begins to intrude on the conscious awareness as life continues without the fulfillment as the end approaches.
There is another point I never realized before that applies to why this is finally becoming so very evident. Age. When humanity's average lifespan was forty years, lousy sex was probably not nearly as important while we struggled with just staying alive. Men achieving all of the pleasure while women got pregnant was probably enough. Especially while we were breeding like rabbits.
I can't believe that it never crossed a person's mind but it certainly never drilled deep enough over the normal lifespan of some forty years to achieve breakthrough regarding the gibberish that we have spent the last three millennia developing and encouraging. Remember, it took me close to sixty years to begin to make the connections.
I can only attest for myself that I was not content ever, from the first experience with the way things turned out , happy with coitus. Substitutes were just that. I despised the whole setup.
We outgrew our animal perspective long ago. I peg it at about three thousand years ago for a few reasons. Pandora's Box and the Kama Sutra are two of those reasons. They both occurred about three millennia ago. I've written about both extensively, so I don't feel the need to go into them here.
The other reason is that coherent thought began about the same time. I peg coherent thought beginning in the Ancient Greek Classical period. The corollary holds true in China, as well. I think the biggest difference is that they had pot.
In the west, it began around the time of Socrates. I once read some pre-socratic gibberish. It really was gibberish and nothing more. It was offensively incoherent. Which is one of the reasons I settled on the Ancient Greek Classical as the beginning of (somewhat) coherent thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment