Premise: Humanity won't be human until men learn to love. Men won't learn to love until they learn to master their bodies.
Evidence:
Sentience, humanity's heightened awareness of existence, is a change of state. It is not just a genetic change. It is a change of awareness of reality which we have yet to fulfill.
Does it take evidence to convince you that our earliest ancestors were dumber than a bag of hammers? That they were more animal than human? That their minds had difficulty accepting the reality that its conscious awareness began to make evident?
Our history is riddled with the evidence.
Does it take some great leap of insight to realize that they didn't know what to think regarding the very human dilemma of sentience? They were an animal trying to figure out a very different human, sentient existence and reality.
The proof regarding the most important topic is right in front of us. Does the proclamation that men lasting two minutes is good enough while women need more like ten to fifteen minutes to achieve orgasm mean nothing to you?
It is right there in the proclamation. It is the evidence that we are continuing to attempt to twist an animal's state of failure to be acceptable by a human, sentient race. No one has ever asked if it is possible to succeed at making coitus a loving event.
I did. It is.
We have accepted the animal's defeat regarding the most important act of life that no sentient race would ever accept. That is the evidence.
Does that not compute? Only if you have had nothing but mutually fulfilling coitus can you refute it. The dumb animal from which we evolved remains, look around. It hasn't changed ... yet!
One realization repelled the animal's limited awareness. It was beyond their scope. It is not beyond ours.
Does it take evidence to realize that coitus has been trapped in the animal's witless enactment? That it is only witless acceptance that restrains us from realizing it is easy for a thinking human being to succeed? Does it take evidence to realize that humans require more than the witless rutting of an animal? Both genders suffer as long as coitus remains unfulfilling to a sentient mind?
Does it take evidence to realize that a man can control his body to such a fine degree that he can make coitus a loving event? We have only blinded ourselves to a sentient reality. Coitus can become a loving event for a human race. In making it so, we become human. Finally.
Does it take evidence to realize that coitus has been trapped in a witless animal's enactment? Does it take evidence to realize that humans are capable of more than the witless rutting of an animal?
Both genders suffer as long as coitus remains unfulfilling to a sentient mind?
Do you need evidence that coitus is not working right for a sentient race?
Are you really satisfied with something less? Does any other way in which to provide mutual satisfaction fulfill you? Do you never wonder what it would be like to share that fulfillment while gazing into the eyes of your lover? Would you avoid it if you knew it was easily possible?
Or, do you believe that it is better to ignore what our sentient awareness has always told us: that there is more to coitus than an animal ever imagined? Do you need evidence to convince you that women like orgasms, also? Don't you think it odd that we have found other ways to seek mutual sexual satisfaction but have never done anything regarding the most natural, loving physical act of sex in a human manner of learning to master one's own body? Don't worry. It's not as big a deal as it sounds. Do you think using a pill, the tongue, or a dildo can substitute for the most natural act of engaging in coitus unassisted? It is surrender. We surrender more each day.
Or, maybe you need more evidence that men can last indefinitely. I do, also. I've provided evidence regarding why men fail to last, an explanation of why ejaculation occurs and how to delay it until she so desires. Nothing will substitute for all men knowing they are good at coitus.
What will it take to prove to you that there is something wrong with a race that hides from the fact that men can't provide the most glorious delight possible in life to his woman through the most natural method that nature provided?
Do you point to fictional depictions of coitus for proof that coitus is okay? Do you discount your own experience? If you are the one that has loving coitus regularly without assistance of any kind, of course, please raise your hand.
How in the world does anyone need proof that something is wrong between the two sexes? It is so much like two armed camps as to take one's breath away. Do you need evidence regarding the abuse men heap down on anyone they can, especially women? How about the daily news?
Can you possibly be so dense as to still want to focus on the isolated events, the individual crimes rather than the big picture?
No, what really stunts a man's humanity is knowing that he's hiding from his failure, hiding from the feeling that he is helpless in the face of his failure, often foolishly believing it is just him. Do you not see this all shows itself blatantly in the conduct of so many men?
The only thing for which I cannot provide proof is that love is initiated in the physical domain and that we really haven't a clue, yet, when it comes to love. We know love, not at all. I think the proof of three thousand years of the failure of willing ourselves into a loving mindset, against all sense, would be enough for you to, at least, consider the proposal. Animals can't love. Humans can.
The evidence that we have become utterly confused on the topics of sex and love is everywhere.
The proof that the subject of sex is taboo is everywhere.
If I sound acerbic, you've got that right.
The evidence is available and documented regarding the offensive behaviour of men towards women (and in general), though I don't think it is needed, that one in three women are abused, which I am certain is an underestimate, if you define abuse as violence in any form, including verbal, mental, and betrayal. And, the latest, what is now called micro-aggressions, is just further proof that training men only makes the offenses go underground.
Maybe the link between the failure of animal sex to satisfy our heightened awareness and the offensive nature of men towards women is just too much for you. It doesn't really matter, one in three women being abused at some point in their lives is enough to prove something is seriously wrong.
If you have a better suggestion for why this occurs, I am more than willing to listen. Just, don't wave your arms around and say, "men are bad." or "It's just some men." or "It's not only men."
Two armed camps and no one is winning.
We pout our lives away. Should I go through all of the common phrases, once again? "We are only human" is just the top of my list. "That's just the way it is" is right up there. Existentialist despair is another.
Do you need evidence to realize that we can do better at coitus? Do you need evidence to prove that a man would like to satisfy his woman sexually while inside of her?
Does it take evidence to convince you that we are not doing very well as a sentient race? Do you need evidence to be convinced that there should be something more than existentialism? That all of our attempts to become better humans in the past have been all for naught?
Do you need evidence that we have been going downhill for quite a few centuries as we thrash around? That we are getting no closer to an emotionally balanced, rational existence and much closer to destroying ourselves?
Do you really believe our human condition is the best we can do? Do you really think laws, and pounding the pulpit is what it takes to become a loving and human race? Do you really believe we are getting any closer to something sentient, loving?
How do I prove that humans are broken because the human race has not raised coitus to a human standard or, at least, identified the dilemma in order to address it seriously?
The "evidence" is in the fact that there is something wrong with a sexually sentient race that cannot admit that there is more necessary for a sentient version of coitus. It is there in the fact that the mention of sex is taboo. It is there in the fact that men, after three thousand years can do no better than rut. Don't you dare shrug your shoulders.
The strongest evidence of all is that we don't even admit that there is a problem with coitus. That we create fictions that represent fulfilling coitus but never the reality.
We point it out in so many indirect ways but we are never willing to state it outright. The jokes in the sitcoms about the man lasting just long enough to get his rocks off and, then, going directly to sleep.
Any romantic comedy assures you that the woman is satisfied during coitus. The evidence is that it occurs in fiction regularly but not so much in real life (e.g. two minutes versus ten). If it isn't stated outright in the romcom, it is implied. Only if your own experience with unassisted coitus has been fully satisfactory can you possibly argue. I don't expect to hear any argument on that basis.
It wasn't stupidity that caused us to avoid realizing that something is missing. It was stupour. That is the only possible reason for it to have taken humanity three thousand years to figure it out. The stupour and deceit need to end. That is the heart and soul of our disruption.
Mince the words as you please, we have been deluded and the delusions and deceits have extended themselves into every corner of our existence. If you cannot admit that you have bought into a fiction, no amount of "evidence" is going to change your mind.
If you are repulsed by the idea of every man being able to satisfy their lover during coitus, that is evidence of its own. Why else would anyone argue so hard against the idea?
Aaaarrrrgggghhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The completed sentient state is a heightened state of unobstructed awareness. Of course, every living being has some level of awareness.
We exceed the level of awareness of any other life-form on Earth by a long shot. Where we fall short is that our awareness is anything but unobstructed. A huge factor in that obstructive veil is the lack of loving coitus. It may be the only obstructive veil.
Whether coitus alone accounts for all of the nonsense, misery, and horror that we tolerate, we will just have to see, if we ever get over our delusions and look at sex and coitus without compromise, without delusion and resolve our issues.
I'm going to end on a political note here. Just for kicks and just because it's bloody important.
Tell men that they can get back to us all when it comes to leading the way once they learn can lead themselves into mastering their own damned bodies and learn to love.
How men would dare to lead for the last three millennia in the feeble shape they are in is beyond me. They have bashed their way through life, so far. It's time for it to end. Men need a timeout to think it all through. Let the ladies lead and get back to me when you can act like a rational gender. In the meantime, consider yourself on a timeout.
Yes, some women will probably suffer, no matter how they vote, if Blue wins in a tidal wave, but women are going to suffer until we get our heads on straight, once and for all, and start acting like humans, instead of the offensive beastly behaviour that so many well-off individuals have developed in their concentration on their own mania as they discuss it among themselves and rationalize an insane existence.
Can those old and wealthy get over themselves to the extent to realize they deserve no privileged status for putting their wealth above their humanity. Just look at the worst examples that are in the news every single day. The worst ones avoid the public eye.
They learned how to manipulate the systems (even if it means breaking it completely to pieces) in order to 'get ahead', whatever that means to those that follow the mantra of money above all else.
The most extreme branch of the party of men is glaring evidence as to the strutting embarrassment that men constantly have to defend against - until they make the change that makes them human. There is no such thing as an extreme version of the party of women. It is a human perspective on life.
Modern times evidence
Just look at the movie rating systems. If the movie is full of blood, and gore, and destruction, it is rated PG-13. If it has the slightest innuendo of sex, it is rate R, if not X.
To show the body is considered are horror. To show death, blood and gore is just accepting life as it is?
whickwithy@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment