(May 2001)

Hello and welcome to this special supplement to the May edition of Genius News - the newsletter for dangerous thinkers.

It seems like a fact so obvious as to be unworthy of stating, but: sex is important to us.  It's even important to those of us who have the most serious of philosophic and spiritual values and goals, and that is so because sex and sexuality are issues that speak to the very core of our natures - they are, ultimately, issues that are intensely personal. They are issues that are automatically given great significance by the way that society and individuals behave when confronted with them.

Questions surrounding sexual gratification, its relationship to spiritual goals, the sage and child sexuality have ignited Genius-L over the past month.  This supplement is an attempt to capture the best of the complex spirit and tone of the month's discussions: be warned, what follows contains quite graphic and unadulterated material, so if you are easily offended by sexual references and speech of an explicit nature, you may prefer to read no further. On the other hand, you may well need to view this material more than anyone else....

- The Morality of Blowjobs -

Philip Wild: Say a luscious babe approaches the sage and starts rubbing his shoulders, his back, chest, etc, kneels down before him and unzips his fly, his mouth now wide open she drops in a few grapes and says "I would very much like to give you a blowjob" and without waiting for a response pops his (I say hard, you say soft) pecker in her mouth. Now, does the sage experince pleasure or not? does he think "She is only an illusion, I am only an illusion, my body is not really mine, I am not separate from this babe" and so on and so on blocking all possible gratification? Really now, what does it matter whether the person is "ignorant" or not?

David Quinn: Well, the sage doesn't actually engage in the kind of mental tricks and strategies that you describe here. He doesn't have to keep reminding himself, for example, that everything is an illusion. He already sees with his own eyes, so to speak, the illusory nature of everything. He no more has to convince himself that everything is an illusion than a materialist has to convince himself that everything is materialistic. It is something he perceives effortlessly, without having to resort to any artificial contrivances at all. The only difference is that the sage perceives the nature of things directly, while the materialist is still a victim of his own imagination.

As for getting turned on by the sexual advances of a "luscious babe", it has everything to do with the emotions. Sexual arousal might have a large physical component to it, but neverthless it is something which is driven by the emotions - for example, in most men, the emotions associated with dominating, conquering and violence. If, emotionally, you have no desire for sex, or if you are without emotions completely (as in the case of the perfectly-enlightened sage), then you have no internal basis for becoming sexually aroused.

As an analogy, consider what would happen if your luscious babe walked up to a man who had recently lost his family in a car accident and was deep in the throes of grief. Do you think her strokings and her grapes and her offers of a blow job would have any appeal to him? It may do, if he saw it as a means of gaining some comfort and escape (i.e. if his emotions desired it), but the chances are he would decline the offer.

Philip Wild: I don't think emotional arousal is necessary to enjoy some things like touch, warmth, a working and modification of one's body, food and water, even sex/orgasm depending on the individual. There's no way to prove emotions are always present in these activities, and I doubt they must be.

David Quinn: My experience tells me that they are. I have found that sexual arousal is very much interlinked with one's state of mind. When my mind is in top gear, for example, and I am focused and clear-minded and filled with great purpose, the thought of having sex doesn't even begin to enter my mind. Hundreds of luscious babes could file past me in the most alluring of dresses and I wouldn't even notice. I would have to undergo an enormous paradigm shift just to recognize their existence (as sexually attractive beings). Many people have no real purpose to their lives and are always on the lookout for a distraction. To them, a blowjob seems like a wonderful thing, almost a gift from God. They view it as a highly pleasurable distraction that can help keep the demons of boredom at bay for at least another ten minutes of their lives. Good for them.

Philip Wild: Anyone would enjoy the feeling [of getting blowed], sage or not, "attached" or not, illuson or not.

David Quinn: The physical pleasure would be the same. What would stop me from accepting the offer would be the lack of dignity of the situation. It is very undignified to stick your genitals in someone else's face. It is also an expression of deep-rooted misogyny to want to use women in this way.

It would never occur to me to ask a fully-enlightened Buddha to suck my dick, so why should I ask a woman to do it?

Jason: Oh really? For someone who is attempting non-attachment, it seems kinda weird that you'd stoop to such ugly moral standards as dignity and taste. What next? You won't piss in the middle of the bush because it's undignified? Perhaps you wouldn't eat messy food with your hands. Oh how ghastly!

I don't see how asking a for a blow-job from a woman is misgonystic. As long as you are not trying to trick her and she has given her full consented to it. She may even get enjoyment from it herself. I don't know how you can think that is misogyny David. If it's consentual how can you "use" anyone?

David Quinn: If a 7-year-old child consents to giving you a blow job, does that make it right or desirable? Women are like little children compared to spiritual philosophers. We can either corrupt them or try to inspire them to lead more rational lives. I may be wrong, but I don't think that encouraging them to give us blowjobs is entirely conducive to the latter.

Jason: I happen to think you are wrong, in the same way you would be wrong if you said enticing them to make us a meal or give us a hug wasn't conductive. I'm not saying it's a positive, I'm saying it's irrelevant. For an adult woman to blow someone at their request is not corruption. It's a blow job, unrelated to sagehood.

David Quinn: I disagree. There is a strong element of degradation involved in giving blowjobs that isn't present in the provision of meals or hugs (although hugs are also pretty degrading, imo). It takes a person one step closer to animalhood, and to the Great Unconsciounsess out of which humanity has evolved. It subtly reinforces in his mind that it is impossible for humans to rise to the level of sagehood. It represents a kick in the guts for spiritual idealism.

Jason: Basically, asking a woman to give you a blow-job is asking her to provide you with a pleasureable physical sensation. Do you think it's undignified to ask a woman to give you some of her chocalate cake? Is it undiginified to ask a female plumber to turn the hot water pressure up in your water pipes so you can have a hot shower?

David Quinn: There is a big difference between blowjobs and these other things. When you ask a woman for a piece of cake you're not openly exploiting her fears and insecurities and her deep desire for emotional connection with others. Or if you are, the exploitation is minimal. But that isn't the case for blowjobs and sex.

Sex is something which is central to a woman's identity in a way that a cake isn't. Anything involving sex with others is dangerous and fraught with risk, just by virtue of the fact that you are dealing with people's deep-seated feelings, hopes and desires. Quite apart from the question of corrupting them, having sex can very easily become a messy, complicated business. You can get entangled in relationships and conflicts which can overwhelm you and make it very difficult for you to escape. So there are plenty of reasons not to get involved in it.

* * * * * *

David Quinn: What I find undignified about the spectacle of sticking your genitals into someone else's face is that you are elevating the desire for short-term, sensual pleasure above longer-term, loftier considerations. Instead of treating the woman's head as a vehicle for her brain and soul, and thus being mindful of any potential for wisdom that she might have, you are instead treating it purely as a sex toy. You are teaching her, by example, that the selfish use of other people for mindless pleasure is an acceptable form of behaviour.

Aeon: I think Mr. Quinn would be shocked to learn that there are many millions of women more intelligent and free than he is, who enjoy sex immensely. He seems to have taken religious dogma to heart. Free your mind, David.

David Quinn: I am in no doubt that most women enjoy sex immensely. But that isn't the issue. The issue is whether such an obsession is harmful from a spiritual point of view.

Aeon: As someone who happily engages in sex, I can say that I have never felt degradation when giving head, nor does my husband when he reciprocates.

David Quinn: Your feelings in the matter are irrelevant. A psychopath who enjoys mutilating himself in public doesn't "feel" degraded by his actions either. They do appear degraded, however, from a saner perspective.

Aeon: My husband and I enjoy pleasuring each other, and such pursuits are irrelevant to our own philosophical development. David Quinn: Nothing is ever irrelevant to one's philosophical development. Everything we do has consequences, whether they be conducive to wisdom or not. What one does in the bedroom, or indeed anywhere else, always has an impact on the rest of one's life. And on the lives of others. If you don't consider the mindless absorption in animal pleasures to be in conflict with the spiritual life, then it can only mean that you have an animal's vision of spirituality.

Thalian the Critic: I've tried to stay out of this conversation, but allow me the indignity of sticking my opinions in your face. You know, I've never "[stuck my] gentitals in someone else's face" without the highest regard for their dignity, and I consider it a high compliment when someone else does it to me. Most sages have never been celibate. Celibacy is a perversion of body and mind, an impurity popular only among the fearful.

The celibate is never a sage, and only sublimates his desires; he is as twisted as the hedonist. There are those who fear knowledge and wisdom, and lead their lives avoiding these things, and in the end find them in spite of themselves. There are others who fear sex and personal involvement, who seek knowledge and wisdom and celibacy instead, and who, in the end, in their unhappiness, find them in spite of themselves in their personal involvement in fucking over the human race by spreading their twisted truths. Our humanness is unescapable; our expression of it as varied as we are.

Jane: What is the big deal with sex? It is, as you said, a natural drive, like eating. Some people eat a lot, some eat a lot less. You die from starvation, but not from lack of sex. If you have a very high sex drive that can't be accommodated, I can understand that serious discomfort might result, but some posts lately elevate sex to nirvana-like status.

Even in a society without sexual taboos, however, some people still won't get regular (free) sex because they lack that essential thing that attracts others. Sex isn't a given because it requires another, willing, participant. For those who are disabled in a way that makes sex impossible, or nearly impossible, do you think they lead half-lives? That they automatically endure untold suffering?

What really intrigues me is why you react so strongly to the choice of celibacy? I'm not celibate, but I see nothing wrong with the state. I believe it's possible to choose celibacy based on philosophical or spiritual beliefs, and not because of psychological issues.

* * * * * *

Philip Wild: Oral sex is superior to masturbation since the feeling isn't diluted by sensations such as those originating at your hand or thoughts of being alert to what you are doing, and probably better for you since it simulates the vagina more closely, the heat, moisture and friction being where and as they ought to be.

David Schnur: Do you appraise the attractiveness of women by how they look or by the tightness of their vaginas? Do you prefer handjobs from women or do you prefer to masturbate? Do straight men find handjobs from other men equivalent to masturbation? Do women prefer oral sex from men or from their pet dog (perhaps with the aid of some peanut butter smeared on their genitals)?

Blowjobs arent more enjoyable than masturbation because they emulate vaginas. Blowjobs are more enjoyable because the mouth of a woman is involved. It's mostly psychological.

And that's why, if you don't play the game, sex loses a lot of attractiveness. What's the difference between fucking a person or an animal? I imagine the feeling may be the same (comparing between animal and human orifices), but then, the feeling wasn't ever really the issue, was it .....

Of all sexual aberrations, chastity is the strangest. Anatole France

* * *

Marriage is the price I pay for having hormones. Anon

* * *

Men are run ragged by female sexuality all their lives. From the beginning of his life to the end, no man ever fully commands any woman. It's an illusion. Men are pussy-whipped. And they know it. Camille Paglia

* * *

What most people consider as virtue after the age of 40 is simply a loss of energy. Anon

* * *

The only time a woman has a true orgasm is when she's shopping. Kevin Solway

* * *

The price a man pays for sex is very often having to keep the company of women. Kevin Solway

- The Question of Child Sex -

David Quinn: If a 7-year-old child consents to giving you a blow job, does that make it right or desirable? Women are like little children compared to spiritual philosophers.

James: Not in terms of sex, they aren't. A seven year old child is incapable of forming consent for an act which transcends their understanding of relationships and human interaction, not to mention societal expectations. An adult woman can know very well what she is consenting to or even initiating in terms of sex even yea, verily, even so well as the deepest sage.

David Quinn: In the context of becoming enlightened and wise, the average woman is utterly incapable of making informed decisions, for these are matters which go way over her head. So women are no different to little children in this regard. They need guidance until they can begin to think about these matters in a coherent manner (if they ever can).

James: Would you say that to hold a crying baby and give it attention and affection is not the job of the sage because it is not guiding it directly to enlightenment?

David Quinn: That's a different issue. Babies need attention and affection if they are going to grow up into stable, well-developed human beings. So a sage has every reason to provide this service for them. But as far as I can see, he doesn't have any reason to encourage women to give men blowjobs. A woman's philosophical development doesn't rely on it. It could, however, be greatly harmed by it.

Sticking your genitals into a woman's face in order get a blowjob is like sticking a dummy into a crying baby's face in order to get some peace and quiet. In each case, a short-term reward is being sought to the neglect of the other person's longer-term development. And in both cases, the recipient happily sucks.

* * * * * *

Philip Wild: We make sex dirty, simple as that. If someone wants to blow you, what's the difference how old they are? How mature they are is what matters, and you don't need to be very mature to such someone's dick, no more mature than to suck their finger or massage their toes. It's just a job, and fun for some. It's stupid adults who persuade the provider that what they did was harmful to them that actually goes to hurting the child or whoever. Americans, and evidently Australians too, are so damn repressed.

Irena: By the time you become mature you should know the purpose of things. Why does one eat? Why does one sleep? Why does one shit? Why does one fuck? If in your mind it is all one and the same pleasure function, then you certainly are simple-minded. Pleasure is the pay-off, pleasure is not the ultimate objective.

Perhaps if we saw sex as only pleasure, we would indulge in it at every opportunity. Be opportunistic. In a constant state of pleasure or preying. Why not fuck on the streets? Sure. There is a time, a place and the right age for everything. You do not make wine out of unripe grapes. But some are so ravenous they will, they will eat and drink anything. Let us all be this way, let us all consume and feed as we like and choose.

Pleasure is not bad. Using humans as receptacles is to have absolute contempt for them. Perhaps contempt for all humans is what you have. Perhaps we should all have such contempt. What is contemptible becomes expendible.

We are all capable of manipulating someone. This is no big deal. You can always find someone weaker than you. What is the point of it? What satisfaction can there be in this? How does it make you better? How does it improve the world you live in? More nihilism. It even bothers me to use the idea of sex with children to illustrate some philosophical point. It is more than gratuitous it really is contemptible. Lift yourselves out of that baseness.

* * * * * *

Philip Wild: If someone wants to blow you, what's the difference how old they are?

Irena: Big difference. If you don't know what it is, if you cannot differentiate between your own desire and another being's well-being, then its a real shame. Chances are nobody can teach you the difference.

Philip Wild: It's a damn myth. I'm not talking about imposing oneself on a child, on anyone. I'm just talking about sex, sex for the fun of it, nothing more.

It's a myth that young people are damaged by the experience simply for being young. No matter how old the other person is. If anything two young and inexperenced people are more likely to do psychological harm to one another, but that is permitted all the time. You figure.

Irena: There are stages. Babies, infants, toddlers, pre-schoolers, etc. If by young people you mean teens, then that's something else, its a natural exploration between peers, stupid and foolish as it may be. And maybe even damaging, though most survive.

Philip Wild: I love that "natural", Truth is if they lived in a freer, less repressed culture time spent with adults would be exploring too, and with much more to learn.

Irena: What do you suggest, a type off afterschool sexual day care under supervison of experienced sex experts? As far as I know, all psychological data points to damage done when sex is between children and adults.

Philip Wild: Of course, there are predatory types, fiends, sickos. They're unconcerned for those they use. In contrast mature, sensitive and informed adults would make far better experimental partners. Instead kids learn about sex on the streets with diseased, thoughtless acquaintances.

David Quinn: That's the sort of thing that most sexual deviates and pedeophiles like to say. Most of them genuinely believe they are mature, sensitive and informed adults - when, in reality, they are sicko, predatory types.

Philip Wild: I don't dispute there are some situations where sex is just plain wrong, each must be considered individually.

Marsha Faizi: The main drawback that I can see to sex with a child in Western society -- other than the obvious taboo -- is that most people who seek sex with kids are also predatory and seek to harm. There are some cases in which the adult is so childlike that he does understand the consequences of his actions but that is not usual.

Deceit is often employed to attract children for sex. Promises are made. Gifts are dangled out before them in exchange for performance in much the same way that gifts are used to entice women into having sex.

I think that such deceit, not the sex, is what is harmful. However, in addition to that -- and this is personal preference, I reckon -- I don't find children to be sexually attractive. Their dicks are small and their balls may not have dropped yet and they have no pubic hair. Most kids are also quite small in stature and in terms of body mass. Thus, I find the thought of having sex with a sixty pound child who is not more than four feet tall kind of repulsive. Also, I admit that I have an aversion to high pitched voices.

What are you going to talk about after the orgasm -- Pokemon?

* * * * * *

Irena: As far as I know, all psychological data points to damage done when sex is between children and adults.

Jason: Yeah, and all psychological data pointed towards the fact that homosexuality was a deviant form of behaviour, until like 1971.

You could condition a child to do all sorts of weird and currently unlawful things without the child feeling any kind of guilt or pain. A child naturally likes pleasureable physical sensations. Food, massages, blowjobs...whatever. It's only the impact of the culture surrounding the child which instills a feeling of harm after the child has say, got a blowjob from their mother. It's actually the reaction the child gets from society that harms them.

Personally I think it's less harmful to give your kid a blowjob than to send them off to school against their will. Kids are always being forced to do things against their consent. Kids would definitely consent to pleasureable sexual interactions with trusted adults. Once they had it once they'd be asking for more.

Irena: Jason, I am not going to try to convince you. I don't have the ability. I am content to be called prudish. I am also a prude about harming people in general. I think it is bad. I think we shouldn't do it. You may think this is small-minded. I never claimed to be a great brain. But you genius, you figure it as you will. I stupid, will think as I will, to the limit of my small capacity.

All things in life are possible. All actions can be justified. We create our own boundries. Our boundries define us. Our boundries are fixed but what is within our boundries expands. I am not going to elaborate beyond that. Either you 'get' it or you don't. I obviously don't get it what it means when grown men sing the praises of sex with children.

James: I think the point Jason is trying to make is that the issue is too societally charged to be rationally discussed, and that the "rules of engagement", so to speak, of any society regarding sex are just as arbitrary as anything else. For the record, I buy into the idea that having sex with children is wrong, but I can still discuss it without emotion, which is, I'm sorry to say, one place I am forced to say most people and almost all women cannot go, into the realm of rational discussion of emotional issues.

Jason: Yes I agree. I think it's an important point to make too. You cannot get very far in terms of psychological, sociological and self insight, if you let your emotions override your ability to think freely. Child sex is an issue that pushes most peoples buttons. It's a good issue to discuss because it often shows you who has the ability to look at things with an open rational mind, instead of simply allowing their cultural conditioning to exert mind-overiding emotional hysteria.

I repect your view that you think that child sex is harmful. The point is at least be able to analyse such issues without launching into emotional hysteria. I personally think that child sex is harmful too, but only because of the impact that outside moral forces have on childrens sense of guilt and harm. Not unlike how women are made to feel guilty in some Islamic countries if they are the victims of rape.

Even though I disagree with the general moral stance of society on the issue of child/adult sex, I still don't think one should risk harming a child by putting them in such a taboo social situation.

The average Joe simply inherents his moral views. They don't have a desire or an ability to form their own morals because their cultural conditioning asserts thought-blocking emotion whenever they start to question these things. And most of those people don't even have enough insight to know about this thought-blocking.

* * * * * *

David Quinn: I have two main concerns with child sex. Firstly, it introduces the child to complex adult emotions and concepts that he may not be ready for. I mean, let's face it, the vast majority of adults have great difficulty in handling the emotonal complexity of sexual relationships. Entire psychiatric and therapeutic industries have arisen in response to their confusion. Intelligent people such as Woody Allen spend their whole lives trying to fathom the intricacies of relationships and even they remain terribly confused. And yet here we are expecting children to somehow deal with these emotional complexities in a coherent manner.

Secondly, introducing sex to children at a young age would rob them of their childhood to a significant extent. In my own case, I didn't start seriously thinking about sex until I was 17, and it wasn't until I was 19 that I lost my virginity. That meant that I had 17 whole years of being left alone to develop my mind in non-sexual, non-adult ways. It probably explains why I have so little interest in sex these days. My ego was more or less fully formed before it started to enter into my life.

Our society is already obsessed enough with sex without our having to introduce children to it prematurely. If we start going down that road, then I reckon that the human species will become even shallower and more mentally-backward than it is now.

Philip Wild: On the contrary we better go down that road in a hurry since the other road has already got us in a terrible mess. That's how to overcome the obsession, not with your and socielties current repressive methods. Idealists are so useless when it comes to practical solutions.

Jason: It depends what your aim is. David, you have stated that Truth is what you want to spread throughout society. So wouldn't you just want to outlaw sex alltogther? And marriage and relationsips etc. Don't you think that would be the fastest way to make people more rational? Or would it be better to give people a lot of autonomy and freedom?

David Quinn: Freedom and autonomy is definitely the way to go, but as you have pointed out, it has to be coupled with wisdom and intelligence. Otherwise, disaster is almost inevitible.

Jason: What do you mean "seriously" thinking about sex until you were 17? Didn't you lust after the female form when you much younger?

David Quinn: No, hardly at all. I had the occasional semi-erotic moment with girls, but, although I found these moments somewhat interesting and mysterious, they didn't really grab me. I was far too interested in games and sport.

Jason: I was quite consciously horny when I was eleven, and I don't think I'm the exception. I definitely had some sort of semi-formed sexual attraction to young (16-25 year olds) sexually mature females when I was eight or so. But at the time I obviuosly didn't understand what the stirring of my loins was, because sex was unkown to me.

David Quinn: You sound like an exception to me. Most kids have the odd fancy with regards to a teacher or a friend of the family or whatever, but it isn't something that they become obsessed with. Perhaps in your particular case, it would have been ideal if an appropriate adult allowed you to explore her sexually - just to get it out of your system.

Jason: I have a twelve year old brother, and I know a lot of his friends quite personally, and have for years. Because they have a higher of self integrity I don't find them distateful to be around, like I do with most adults. They come over to the house quite often. My brother and his friends have all had some level of conscious sexual interest in the opposite sex for the last two years at least. I know, because I treat them with respect and they know they can talk to me because they know that I don't have the free-commuication destroying attitudes their parents have.

David Quinn: You may be subconsciously leading them on in this regard. Your brother has probably bragged to his friends that you don't mind talking about girls and sex, which prompts them to raise the subject wth you. This, in turn, may lead you to believe they are far more interested in sex than they really are. Sex might only comprise, say, 1% of their thinking, but with you they might bring the subject up 90% of the time.

Jason: I remember there was a very beautiful blonde trainee-teacher in mid primary school. Some of my friends actually tried to grope her and hold her. There was definitely some sexual undertones to their actions and they were about eight.

David Quinn: That sounds more like herd/mob behaviour to me. Young boys are naturally misogynistic towards the female sex. They instinctively think the male is the superior sex, and that females are simply there for their own use (an attitude fostered in no small way by their own mothers, and by society generally). Like what the six-year old girl was doing with me, these boys were probably just exploring their identity as males, rather than taking an active interest in sex.

Jason: Thinking about sex doesn't mean you have to develop adult-ways. "Sexual" doesn't automatically mean "adult". It sure didn't for me.

David Quinn: I think in most cases it does. When a person enters the world of sexuality it effectively means that he is leaving his childhood behind and entering the adult world. He adopts the adult mentality and starts to view the world through adult eyes. He has to find ways to attract girls, for example, which means that he has to start remodelling his personality and image. He has to eliminate all the various thought-processes from his brain that are repugnant to girls (e.g. truthful psychological observations, wise thoughts about Reality, etc) and generally make himself more herdlike. He has to start thinking about getting a job and become career-orientated so that he can make the monery to take girls out. And so on.

So I consider myself very lucky that I didn't start thinking about these things until I was seventeen. I remember being alienated by my friends at around thirteen or fourteen because of their developing obsession with girls and sex. Mentally, they drifted rapidly away from me. In my eyes, they were turning into zombie-like aliens who were developing an unhealthy obsession with their image and becoming far less interesting as people. It was quite a horrifying thing to witness - a bit like a bad sci-fi movie. It gave me great insight into the power of sex.

Jason: I indentify with this so much. It is so true, exactly what I experienced. At puberty my friends slowly became shadows of their former selves. They destroyed their integrity in order to mould themselves to be attractive to girls. I was left alone, the only one with integrity.

It's interesting that you see the whole thing as an insight into the power of sex. I used to think it was about sex in a big way, but also just a general desire my friends had to fit in. They had a desire to be accepted that I didn't. That's why many took up cigarettes, drank beer etc.

But I have a different theory than you: if children and adolescents had easier, less repressive and perverted outlets for exploring their sexuality then they wouldn't have to ditch their integrity to get sex in the first place.

David Quinn: I don't know about this. You have to remember the central role that sex plays in our society. Sex has several major functions: (a) it is the means by which we pass on our genetic material, (b) it is the means by which a male and female cement their pair-bond relationship, (c) it is the means by which males are enouraged to value the wider community of females and children and help out with their practical needs, (d) it is the means by which people can form their identity and slot neatly into the herd, and (e) it is the means by which adults can vent their frustrations, release their tension, boost their egos, and become immersed in a psychological distraction. In short, sex is the very axis around which the entire adult society is organized and because of this, it is something which sits at, or near, the core of our psyches. So when a developing child begins to take an active interest in sex, he is in effect developing an emotional connection with the raison d'etre of his entire species. It represents a shift away from childhood's freedoms and irresponsibilities towards an acceptance of the traditional burdens and duties of adulthood.

Of course, I'm painting a very neat, clear-cut picture here, which glosses over the fact that in reality this transition is often messy and long-drawn out. But the basic principle remains intact - a serious interest in sex marks the first major step towards becoming an "adult". So your theory, if implemented, might actually make matters worse. By introducing sex earlier in their lives, you would be exposing children to the major brainwashing force of adult society at an younger age. On the other hand, it could provide them with the tools to deal with the brainwashing in an effective way. It's hard to say.

Jason: David, I wonder how did you ever manage to get a girlfriend/s and have a kid?

David Quinn: You more or less answered this question youself: by being less than 100% truthful in my thoughts and actions.

* * * * * *

Jason: The reason children think so little about sex is because adults and society do everything they can to block children from knowing anything about sex. Adults rush children out of the room when sex is on TV. Adults hide behind closed doors when they have sex. Adults alter their conversations when children are present to not involve anything about sex, especially anything about personal sexual activities. The naked human body is viewed as offensive etc etc etc etc.

David Quinn: That might well have something to do with it, but I think it's more the case that children have zillions of other things in their lives that are as interesting, if not more interesting, than sex. It's only brain-dead adults, who lead miserable empty lives, who put so much value on it.

I agree with you that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the way adults deal with sex - not just with children, but more generally as well - and that this is creating unnecessary complications and traumas for those children who are trying to come to terms with their sexuality. I agree that it has to change. I just don't have much faith in the solutions that you and Philip Wild propose.

Speaking personally, I humbly thank the gods that I wasn't exposed to sex as a child, and that no adult ever asked me if they could rub my tummy or suck my penis, or anything like that.

Jason: Then you must surely curse the gods that adults exposed you to music and relationships too. Even though sex may not the most philosophically important thing to do, it's very hard for the average person to outgrow sexual desire if it repressed and thus made into an obsessive part of their lives. If sex were less repressed, it could be experienced in a less irrational manner, with less obssession, and thus it would be easier it for most people outgrow it. Or ar least put less value on it. And then they could set their sights on other more philosophically important things.

Jason: Wrong. The reason they have contempt for men is because many prostitutes are unable to shake the deeply held subconscious view that sex inherently dirty and undignified if it's sold. It's another result of the repression they experience as kids that makes them hate their jobs.

David Quinn: I think it is more the case that they see the contrast between the grand airs that men love to give themselves and the reality that they vividly portray in the bedroom. Men generally like to present themselves as strong, independent, rational, invincible creatures - an image that doesn't sit easily alongside the reality of a man whimpering submissively at the hands of a woman. The prostitutes see how easy it is to manipulate men, to get under their stoney masks and reduce them to putty.

* * * * * *

Jason: If children saw other people having sex right in front of them, they'd probably be interested to have a go.

Marsha Faizi: Believe it or not, Jason, some children would be totally grossed out by seeing it. I am not saying this for any reason -- pro or con. It is just a fact. Some young children are grossed out by seeing sex -- not because of any taboo. It just looks icky to some children and seems icky.

Jason: I don't think so. Being grossed out is one things children very rarely naturally feel. Ever seen a little kid eat a dirt and snails and walk around all day with pizza leftovers hanging from their faces, etc?

Even very young children subconsiously pick up on some social mores. I disagree that what you're saying is a brute fact. I still think it is the subtle affects of societies values on you.

Marsha Faizi: When I was a small child, I used to hear my parents having sex all the time. It did not sound as though they were enjoying it very much. They probably were but I couldn't tell it.

Jason: Here is repression in action. Sex was respressed from you, and thus you thought that your parents groaning was a sign of pain. No wonder you didn't like the idea of it. Perhaps if your parents had told you that they were groaning because it felt so good, you may have had a very different reaction.

Marsha Faizi: Hard to say how I might have reacted had they asked me to join in. For one thing, I thought they were both pretty ugly. Too hairy and big and weird. I don't think this is because I was sexually repressed. They just seemed naturally disgusting to me.

Jason: Funny, I never thought of my mother of father in terms of ugly or beautiful. But no doubt many kids are scared of their parents naked forms, again because of the attitude of embrassment and such that surround the naked human body. Kids can pick up on the subtle feelings of embarrassment and insecurity that many people display when they are naked in front of someone else. And they pick up on the fact that they never see one naked person in public even on hot days. And they pick up on the fact that only certain parts are covered.

* * * * * *

Philip Wild: Men readily notice the natural sexuality of young girls, which emerges before their boobs do. We just look away and pretend nothing happened.

David Quinn: I dare say that most of the "natural sexuality" you see in young girls is simply a projection on your part. It's true that young girls are often vibrant and coy, but that doesn't mean they are being flirtatious and sexy.

About a week ago, for example, I was in the company of a six-year-old girl. On the surface, she seemed a very flirtatious young thing. She was very outgoing and friendly, and quite touchy in her mannerisms. She was constantly trying to hold hands with me and stroke my beard, and was generally treating me as though I was some sort of male god. From all appearances, she seemed positively charged with sexual energy.

And yet it was easy to see that she wasn't really charged with sexual energy at all, or anything like that. What was really happening was that she was exploring her identity as a female being, and using my "maleness" as a means of doing this. You could tell that she had already discoved the tremendous power that her feminine charms have over men and was happily using them upon me. No doubt she has her dad wrapped tight around her little finger.

Also, because she was in a part of town that she hadn't been before, she felt a bit insecure and needed to be physically close to me for her comfort's sake. (Her mother was somewhere else).

Now if I had been some kind of sexually-obsessed male, then it would have been very easy for me to interpret her behavioiur as flirtatious and sexy, and it might have occurred to me to ask her nicely if I could rub her tummy, or whatever, as a means of introducing her to the world of sex. But that would have been terribly irresponsible of me, on account that she was nowhere near ready to start exploring that kind of world. I would have been forcing something alien upon her at the risk of scarring her psychologically.

That's what would worrry me about Philip Wild's sexual system, if it were ever implimented. I don't think that human beings have the wisdom and discipline and good sense to know when it is right to introduce sex to a child and when it isn't. As such, we'd be better off continuing to leave the whole thing up to chance. At least until we've become a far wiser species.

Philip Wild: For all you know the girl may have experience and really wanted you. She may have been thinking: "What is the matter with this guy? Doesn't he know I don't have one? He can play with his all he wants but I don't have one to play with, God didn't give me a little pecker friend. I just love how it grows so quick and stands up so proud, gets all red and shiny on top, it's so cute! I love to touch it, nice and firm and warm, it's fun to lick and suck on. I make some great friends too. I don't dare say "can I see your little friend," the last time I did that mommy sent me to my room, I cried for hours while she got to play with it all night, I could hear them laughing and playing. Maybe his doesn't work, or its a small one, I don't care if its small, its still fun to see and play with."

The child is a sexual being in the sense that she is predisposed to senual activity, play, indulgence, so to speak, pleasurable physical contact (or sex) being a part of the package. She enjoyed stroking your beard, and she may be curious as to what your penis looks and feels like too. She may have been taught that looking at and stroking that area is "bad" and not something to even ask about. Up to this point she may have had sex only with herself, using her own fingers or other objects. In her mind a partner may enrich the experience. This spontaneous inclination, this natural tendency develops along with herself, or tries to, but it's retarded by society, forced to remain buried and subconscious. Society and its taboos basically suppress and disrupt her natural learning curve. Instead of absorbing it all in bite size portions she's deprived of as much knowledge and experience as possible until such time her first boyfriend compells her to swallow it all at once in the back seat of mom's minivan.

David Quinn: That all sounds fine in theory, the question still remains: how does an adult actually know that a child is ready for sex? I don't trust adults to make that judgment, not unless the adult was extremely intelligent and very knowledgeable about human psychology.

Chlidren are constantly play-acting, exploring their identities, testing the boundaries, and observing what behaviour produces an effect on the adult world and what doesn't. Young girls, for example, soon realize that if they behave in feminine, flirtatious ways, they obtain a lot more rewards from adults in terms of attention and approval, which only encourages them to behave even more in a sexual way. Some girls really play up to this; they are like actors starring in a movie in their minds. But their "sexuality" is a simulation, part of the act designed to gain rewards from adults. It isn't real.

* * * * * *

Philip Wild: It's just a myth, this scarring thing. Sure, it happens, children are scarred, but not because the new activity is of a physical or sexual nature, not because certain parts of the body are engaged in new and wonderful ways. No, children become scarred because they were:

- not permitted to learn important lessons when the time was right, resulting in twisted ideas about sex

- not given honest answers to their questions, or made to feel bad for asking them

- made to think sex is dirty, that their impulses are a sign of deviance, that such feelings and desires are appropriate only for adults

- made to wonder and want sex, to see it as some sort of ultimate prize, in a category of its own as pleasures of the flesh go, giving it an undeserved mystique, blowing it out of proportion.

- sexually dysfunctional adults who pretend to be unmoved by their sexuality, pretend you don't really want to touch their cute little bottoms or see their beautiful naked bodies, giving kids mixed and confusing messages which wrecks their self-esteem and forces them to contruct false personalities by which to cope. The list goes on...

Jason: Psychological scarring could only happen in two ways. Number one, if you forced her to do something she didn't want to do. This includes continuing sexual behaviour even if she had told you to stop only half way through it. Number two, if someone who had influence over her, told her afterwards that any sexual activity that she had was harmful. This inludes just generally picking up on social mores subconsciusly.

Since most children do adopt the general sexual mores of the society they live in, I would expect harm to result from engaging in child sex right now. I'm really saying that my arguments would work if society at large didn't hold such repressive sexual mores.

I also want to say, because I haven't said it yet: I personally do not feel any sexual attraction to children. So my views are not simply attempts to justyify my own sexual desires. My positions are the conclusions I reach from treating sexuality of all forms in what I believe is a much more rational manner than is currently done.

In fact, I don't even really have much sexual desire towards real women. Because sex with the average woman would just be such an emotionally messy affair in most cases. There's also the fact that women's (and people's in general) unconciosuness in general is such an annoyance to me, that I find it quite annoying just to be in close contact with many people.

* * * * * *

David Quinn: Isn't your desire to introduce sex to children an example of your own sexual deviancy?

Philip Wild: We don't really need to introduce sex to children. We just need to be more honest and more helpful, we need to cooperate with nature's plan rather than radically change it. We need to be more open with our own sexuality so kids don't end up like you, pouncing on the first opportunity they see, creating more unwanted children, spreading disease, beating off daily to naked images.

David Schnur: In the end, there is no such thing as "nature's plan" or "natural development'. For none of these paths will actually develop by themselves, but will require various circumstances (which makes them exactly equivalent to alternate developmental paths aside from content). The closest approximation would be "the development that occurs during X commonplace circumstances", but that lacks the forcefulness and absoluteness of "natural development"...

With that in mind, we should consider our actions not based on the idea of "naturalness", but with an eye towards what effect they will have. In other words, we are legislating how people will turn out and we should choose our actions based, not on what is "natural" and "unnatural", but on what is good and bad.

Jason: I think that if you have enough psychological insight you can derive various basic attributes that almost all humans are born with.

David Schnur: What if: their mother used crack [during pregnancy]? Their mother used alcohol? They inherited some genetic "abnormality"? Their mother was malnourished (there are quite a few different ways this can be, likely with different effects)? Their mother had excessive quantities of lead/mercury/etc. in her body? A violent blow was inflicted upon them during pregnancy? Their mother was administered copious quantities of opiate antagonists which crossed the placental barrier? And so on....

That's only before birth; things tend to get repetitive there. After birth, the list of things that could significantly affect development expands quite a bit. "Natural" is a provisionally useful idea but that's it. when people start worshipping it, it's time to bring this fact out. When children are born and raised in an environment similar to the one humanity evolved in (naturally not in terms of aesthetics) one can derive common traits, yes.

I agree with your idea, Philip, of promoting sex instead of repressing it, but for totally different reasons. If we encourage children (perhaps not as young as you're thinking though!) to have sex, allow it to be a completely open subject for discussion, etc. etc. and generally make it just another fact of life, that is what it will become -- as opposed to the overblown, glorified business that it is now.

It is overblown and glorified because A) it suckles people's weaknesses and insecurity, perhaps because it is associated with dating, with is all about allaying insecurity through acceptance, and B) it is taboo and unknown at first, and then it is just taboo -- this gives it a reputation for "specialness" which is reinforced through it's place in creating the social hierarchy, among other things. People view sex as extremely important, and thus, it becomes extremely important, and rules over our lives.

I agree with what DQ said about small children and sexuality. Whether it is interesting to them or not is irrelevant because all sorts of things are interesting to them -- likely more interesting. It is only as we get older and embrace mediocrity that we look for other options, like sex, as a second-choice and consolation prize in the face of boredom. Remember, sex is "just a fact of life", and nothing special (compare to food: eating is "just a fact of life" and somewhat enjoyable but there is a difference between eating good food and incidentally enjoying it and being addicted to food in terms of quantity ["pigging out"] and quality [only eating at fancy restaurants]). However, the natural curiosity and adventurousness of children has an epic quality to it, and thus is quite special. So, why would you want to make children trade epic exploration for the mediocrity of sex?

Children (as distinguished from "teenagers"), having developing minds, should be focusing on many other sorts of things. Pushing sex onto them (or even: letting them indulge in it as much as they want) might have an extremely negative effect on their development, specifically: regarding sex in the same way that addicts regard drugs. All things are "like drugs" in that they are addictive. But if you're up for an aphorism, I say that potheads are more interesting than junkies.

Philip Wild: What do you mean?

David Schnur: Pot causes (simplistically) euphoria correlated with increased imaginitive abilities and altered thought processes. I think the latter causes the former to some extent. Opiates cause euphoria and surpressed thought processes, all in one package. Read some of what William Burroughs wrote about junk.

Potheads, stereotypically, tend to be trekkies, musicians, etc. whereas junkies, stereotypically, tend to be...junkies. For most people, sex is like a physically-stimulating opiate. it does not do much for your mind. Star Trek is not exactly the pinnacle of thought, but I think it is preferable to a numb, mindless existence. Remember also that opiates are addictive.

* * * * * *

Everett Allie: Pedophilia is probably present in everyone to some degree, unless they hate children.

Irena: I don't define a pedophile as a lover of children. I define a pedophile as someone who wants or has physical sex with humans who society considers to be under-aged. Most people love children.

Everett: [Pedophelia] functions as a natural response to the developing child, providing for the child's emotional and physical needs.

Irena: Why not put it a simpler way? Why not just say some people like to or would like to fuck children. Isn't that clearer? Why confuse it with like or love? Or mutual admiration. Especially as I would suspect, someone like you, perhaps not you specifically, but someone like you might find aspects of love and like to be delusional. Why not address the reality? Some men want to fuck children. I say that is a bad thing. It is contrary to biological functioning and it is spiritually deadly. I think men/women who want to use children in a mutual expression of lust should suppress their desires.

Philip Wild: Children are sexual creatures, nature is supreme, and children are going to find sex one way or the other, better I say to "introduce" sex in an intelligent and safe and controlled and uncondemning way, with adult supervision and involvement, just like any other activity.

Jane: Adult supervision and involvement? Kids just can't get away from grown-up interference. They need adults now to develop, implement and supervise programs for the sexually curious?

Everett Allie: Do you interfere with a child's play, unless there is immediate danger? The vast majority of sexual encounters between adult and child are initiated by the child or suggested through body language, the child is receptive. The exception to this usually comes when there is something that frightens or is otherwise uncomfortable to the child. Sexual development begins in the zygote and continues to adulthood, it doesn't follow social convention.

Jane: Please tell me something. How does an adult find a child partner (oh from 2-5 years of age) who is anxious to engage in fun sex play? You speak as if there's a multitude of eager kids out there. In parks? At friends' houses when mom & dad are distracted? In youth-oriented jobs?

Philip Wild: I would say that most adults who are interested in engaging with very young children would probably not make very good partners. But there may be exceptions, and there may be very young children who desire this contact, perhaps from certain close relatives or family friends, and would not be harmed by it for whatever reason. I've never been with anyone much younger than myself nor questioned very young children about sex so I'm not the best person to ask.

Jane: As you've been speaking about the subject with authority, why wouldn't I ask you?

* * * * * *

Jane: I question the maturity & development of any adult who finds emotional or physical fulfillment through interaction with children.

David Quinn: Are you just talking about sexual interaction here? Or are you referring to every kind of interaction? Because if the latter, I agree with you.

Jane: Every kind. Some adults just get far too much pleasure from hanging out with kids. Kids under l0 tend to be worshipful - all admiring and non judgmental, simply because they don't have the experience to make certain judgements. They're non threatening, ego bolstering companions, if you care for that sort of attention.

David Quinn: Yes, and if you're an insecure male with sexual hang ups, then that kind of non-threatening, ego bolstering attention which young children give adults can easily be interpreted in a sexual way. If it's a pretty young girl who is doing the bolstering, then the male can feel sexually flattered that so much attention is being paid to him.

Jane: It just bothers me when people use kids for adult purposes.

David Quinn: It's a form of child abuse, isn't it. The child becomes an extension of the adult's twisted ego, and has its own developing ego twisted as a result. Most parents are guilty of this to some degree. Not necessarily sexually, of course, but emotionally. When parents start using their children as a source of emotional fulfilment, they begin to place too many expectations upon the child and start interfering with the child's natural development in short-sighted, violent ways.

* * * * * *

Philip Wild: Children are sexual creatures, nature is supreme, and children are going to find sex one way or the other, better I say to "introduce" sex in an intelligent and safe and controlled and uncondemning way, with adult supervision and involvement, just like any other activity.

David Quinn: Here are another couple of problems with this point of view:

(a) Sexual competition between children.

Children all differ in terms of sexual attractiveness. Some are angelic and have smooth skin, while others are gangly and nerdish and have poor skin. Naturally, people are going to prefer to have sex with the beautiful children and neglect the uglier ones, just like what happens in normal adult life. The uglier children are going to wonder why no one wants to have sex with them. They will become convinced that there is something deeply wrong with them because they are sexually unattractive. Some of them may develop major psychiatric problems as a result.

Eager to attract the sexual advances of adults, most children will try to make themselves as sexually attractive as possible. They will start wearing lipstick and earings and perfume. They will smile invitingly at you while you are talking to them, and will flutter their eyelids and caress their lips with their tongues. They will speak in sexually-loaded language, designed to arouse the sexual urges in the adult. They will take off their clothes and jump on your lap and start wiggling their bottoms in an effort to get something happening, and will become hurt and upset if you refuse their advances. In short, they will become little whores, trading their sexuality for favours (e.g. attention, approval, reassurance, etc)

(b) The unsuitability of most adults.

If I were to hazard a guess, I would say that no more than 5% of the adult population would be suitable canditates for introducing sex to children. Only they would have the discipline and thoughtfulness that is needed to avoid making a total botch of it. So if Philip's system were to be put into place, it would mean that most children in society would be introduced to sex by unsuitable adults, which would create a lot more psychological scarring of children than is currently the case.

For the child, it would be a complete lottery as to whether he would be taught by a suitable adult or not. The chances are, he won't be. So as far as the child is concerned, Philip's system would represent no improvement at all over the current system of children exploring sexuality amongst themselves, and would probably be far worse.

Jason: I think your points are relevant. I just wanted to say that my views on child sexuality are just a small part of a larger scheme to make society more sane. My utopian view if you will. Not that I'm some power crazy authoritarian - I think the only way to attempt to change society is to try to engage people in thought. But simply allowing child/adult sex as society is now would be a horrendous mistake. And would lead to many of the things you have detailed above. It would be worse than it is now.

David Quinn: Okay, I'm at one with you now.

* * * * * *

Jane: I think it's impossible to say with absolute certainty that children "would not be harmed by adult- child sex". At the very least, adult intervention is skewing the natural process of recognition and exploration. As Irena pointed out, not all natural instincts require training.

Dan Rowden: I think this is an important point. There's a significant difference between not wanting to stifle a child's natural sexual curiosity and development by imposing neurotic adult attitudes upon it, which I think is perfectly sensible, and proactively intervening and directing the course of that development; there seems to be a very fine line here between education and gratification, or one might more accurately say education is being used as means to achieve, more readily, that gratification.

What there is about a young child that might cause sexual arousal in an adult is something that I cannot understand.

Jane: Children desire many things. Their wants change from day to day, if not hour to hour. Should we give them everything they appear to want? Are you aware that kids can also pick up and mimic the most subtle of cues from adults significant in their lives? You might see sexual precociousness; I see mimicry and a child's usual liking for physical closeness. Many kids have a strong need for physical intimacy...not sexual interaction.

Dan Rowden: Indeed. As David Quinn pointed out there are serious dangers in what we infer from a child's behaviour; projecting our own adult sexual responses, with all our extra physical, hormonal and psychological development and baggage, onto a child, is grievously foolish.

What mainly interests me in this discussion are three things: the adult male perception of child sexuality, desire for a sexual partner who is entirely different in terms of maturity and intellect, and gratifying impulses. In this case, sex sounds like an itch that needs to be scratched, but why not get a peer to do the scratching? That's what I don't understand. Is a child the most convenient and least problematic receptacle & back scratcher? It would seem so.

Children are readily manipulated and moulded and they lack the experience to meaningfully respond to the direction of that moulding. It seems to me that wanting sexual interaction with a child is not altogether unlike the relationship people have with dogs - there's no complications; no power plays, just a seemingly unconditional "love" that can be directed wherever one wants.

I agree with Jason's attitude that children should be allowed to explore their sexuality, and, in a broader sense, the whole realm of physical sensation, without all the adult bullshit, but that is something that ought only apply among peers. I have never, myself, experienced any child showing any sexual interest and/or curiosity toward me at any time, despite, as you've said, their continual need for physical contact (which is just a security and acceptance issue); I think it's fair to say that it is always adults who direct a child's attention to more explicitly sexual areas where contact between them is occurring and there is no way in the world that they do this for any reason other than their own gratification.

I think there's some heavy self-deceiving going on in relation to this whole issue.

Jason: Neither have I experienced children come on to me. But I put that partly down to the fact that the children never experience their parents engaging in sex.

Dan Rowden: I disagree with you somewhat on this point, at least where certain levels of development are concerned and in certain circumstances. When a young child witnesses adults having sex, they are more likely to interpret it as some kind of violence between them - he's banging away for all he's worth and she's screaming and moaning etc. It's no good trying to explain to the child that you are actually enjoying this and that it's perfectly fine because the child lacks the physical and psychological development to relate to that perspective. There's a woman in the unit complex where I've recently moved and she's a bit of a screamer. I can say in all honesty that when I hear her, it disturbs even me! It really does sound more like someone being tortured than someone in the throes of sexual ecstasy.

You're probably talking about somewhat more sedate stuff, but I dare say an adult male's climax could well be a disturbing thing for a young child to witness. Let's not forget that male climax is more closely related to pain sensation that pleasure. However, within bounds, I agree with your point.

There's an aspect of that deliberate isolation of sexual activity that must be considered, and that is the matter of intimacy. Adult sexuality has a powerful ego component. Couples isolate themselves because their activity is about the meeting of two individual egos on a very intimate level.

Young children lack the physical and psychological development to relate to the activity in the way adults do. It is dangerous to project adult feelings and responses onto children. When we see young boys fiddling with their dicks we say: "Look, sexual behaviour!"; when we see young boys fiddling with their noses or ears, we don't say "Look, sexual behavior!". It seems to me that the inside of the average boy's nose is of far greater significance and delight to him than his dick. Is there really any basis on which to prescribe sexual connotations to a child touching their genitalia? I see no greater significance in that than when they touch and fiddle with any other part of their body. It may provide a pleasant or interesting physical sensation, but a sexual one, as adults understand that? I seriously doubt it.

Jason: My views are obviously utopian and idealized. I cannot see my views on child sexuality being helpful within the current sexual moral climate. If adult/child sex occured right now, I would expect harm to occur to the child almost certainly. I cannot see my views working unless a lot of other things change, especially in the way society views sex as a whole.

However it's still interesting to see how the adults on this list react to some of these ideas. I think my ideas are views for a more rational and saner future society. I view it as being along the same lines as the legalisation and moral changes relating to homosexuality during the 1900's.

Dan Rowden: The analogy with homosexuality doesn't work for me at all. Child sex is an issue of development, homosexuality is one of orientation.

* * * * * *

Jason: I'm not good with references, but I have read of numerous studies that show that even in the womb children appear to masturbate. The significance of this is that it shows that they seek sexual gratification way before our society tells us they do, ie adolescence.

Dan Rowden: I think this is an example of the dangers of interpreting any behaviour that involves genitalia as "sexual" in nature. I think that's stretching it a bit. Am I being sexual when I scratch my balls? I think that, in children, there is a difference between sexual behaviour and physical curiosity.

I reckon we can break the whole realm of "sexuality" down into three basic categories and phases:

1. When a child begins to distinguish between the sexes and behave differently toward each. This is, by definition, *sexual* behaviour because it involves a recognition of gender difference, but the ego is undeveloped as are certain physical responses and drives.

2. Adolescence (or thereabouts), when hormonal activity begins to excite procreative drives, but where the ego is less than fully developed.

3. Adulthood, when procreative drives are in full swing and the ego is fully developed and the two elements come together to form what we think of as adult sexuality, with its physical and psychological elements.

Making too fuzzy the lines between these categories leads to serious problems (even though they represent a process rather than a series of disconnected "events"). The overall response an adult male has to fiddling with his penis is simply not the same as that of a young child.

Then again, I suppose one can legitimately ask the question: if a child and an adult "enjoy" a "sexual" encounter for completely different reasons, does it matter? If the child cannot genuinely relate to the psychological dimension of the encounter that the adult experiences, how can the child really be damaged by it?

The answer surely lies in the obvious difference between what an adult requires for genuine sexual gratification and what a child can actually give. I don't care who you are, particularly if you're male, there's no way you will be satisfied by a non-climactic sexual experience, therefore it is inevitable that in many, if not most cases, a child will be directed, pushed, cajoled, manipulated into activity beyond the threshold of their own pleasure or curiosity. Let's not kid ourselves about this.

There's a certain naivete in this discussion that disturbs me somewhat. Children should certainly not be discouraged from expressing physical or "sexual" curiosity, to whatever extent their development allows it; I am in quite solid agreement with that perspective, but the idea of adult/child sex as some kind of harmless recreational activity is seriously flawed because it fails to take into account a whole range of issues concerning adult sexuality.

Philip Wild: Adults work, children have to work. Children play, adults have to play. Adults do their part so that children may live happily, do their part for the family, community, why shouldn't the children?

* * * * * *

Jason: Think about this: A boxing match can be televised live on free to air TV, and many average families would let their kids watch it. Boxing is a sport where two people attempt to cause physical pain to each other. But their is no chance in hell that their could be a free to air telecast of two people who have loved each other for years/decades, having compassionate, gentle and consentual sex. And if there was such a telecast, the average parents would rush their kids out of the room the second they heard a groan, let alone saw a picture. Now what kind of fucked up values does this society have?

David Quinn: I reckon that most kids would be bored to death by the sight of two people who "have loved each other for years/decades, having compassionate, gentle and consentual sex". Especially boys. They would much prefer boxing or shoot-em-up video games anytime.

Jason: They probably would be. I'm just making the point that society represses true explicit sexual images from children while at the same time exposing them to true explicit violence.

David Schnur: Violent video games require motivation towards a goal and ability to achieve that goal, and specifically hone the will to be aggressive and unrelenting in certain (appropriate) contexts. These are all useful traits. Sex, on the other hand, has no important lessons to combine with the bland enjoyment it offers. So it is obvious to me which one is more valuable.

Jason: But kids engage in so many things that have no specific goal other than that they like doing it. They just run around, jump up and down, and play on swings etc.

David Schnur: I am relatively certain that sex would not be very interesting for children in a "pure" society (not _nearly_ as interesting as video games, violent or not). I think that, when introduced to appropriate stimuli, "what kids want to do" is really what they should be doing for the development of their minds. However, on the off-chance that we dont live in one of those societies, I am trying to be very clear as to what is appropriate and what isnt. I want to legislate reality just as much as anyone; you do, too, for choosing to let kids be as they may is a choice which you would wish to force onto the world. We just have different teleologies (maybe, pending your answer to the question below).

Jason: My reasons for wanting to reform child-sex morals is not purely and attempt to make children more likely to grow up to be sages. It has more to do with allowing freedom for the invidual, and also trying to maximise the individuals ability to fully explore their nature. It basically means allowing humans to be more honest to themselves and others. Of course child sexuality is only one part of such a scheme.

David Quinn: I agree with the general thrust of this. It is wrong and improper to force a child to do anything - whether it be to become a sage or a millionaire, or to adopt a particular viewpoint or set of values. A person has to want to become a sage of his own free will. You can't coerce him into doing it. He has to be able to conceive of the benefits for himself. Otherwise, he isn't going to last the distance.

The best thing you can do for children is help them develop strong, healthy egos, with as little scarring as possible, so that if they do decide to attempt something extraordinary, such as becoming a sage, they have the psychology and character to do it.

* * * * * *

Jason: The very fact that kids sees things all new things as epic adventures, means that kids would not think sex was mediocre.

David Schnur: The psychology behind sex is mediocre and the pleasure of sex is mediocre. Exploration in general isn't mediocre, but exploration ends when the subject becomes familiar and common. Children are propelled by curiosity and imagination. Sex does not involve the latter and it only involves the former at first. Therefore, sans emotional baggage, children would probably involve themselves in sex very little. Also, since sex involves a radical shift in consciousness, I honestly dont know whether the same "epic-ness" would apply (perhaps it is based on an incompatible state of consciousness). I never had any interest in sex when I was young and I dont know anyone who has.

David Quinn: Generally speaking, a person's best sexual experience in life is his very first one - precisely when it's all new and magical. From that point on, it all starts to go rapidly downhill. Naturally, people try to recapture the magic of that first one in all sorts of ways - different partners, different fetishes, different locations and situations, etc - but usually to no avail. As you say, the whole enterprise invariably degenerates into repetition and mediocrity.

It's worthwhile examining the psychology of sex a little more closely. First and foremost, sex is a purely egotistical activity. It is all about the ego being boosted and experiencing a triumph of some kind. For men, it is primarily about conquering and dominating. When making love to a particular woman for the first time, for example, the man revels in the conquering and annexing of the most treasured parts of her body, and by implication, in the conquering of her mind. If she holds out and plays hard to get, then the pleasure in conquering her is that much the greater. Similarly, if she is a virgin.

If the man is able to make a woman reach orgasm, then his ego experiences the pleasure of being able to exploit her weakness and in totally dominating her, as well as revelling in the ego-boosting dream that he is a potent, virile stud. If the woman is particularly attractive and desirable, he revels in the increased status his conquest of her creates in the eyes of other men. If he marries her, he experiences the egotistical pleasure of knowing that he alone has privileged access to her "secret treasures" that no one else has. If he makes her pregnant, then that is his ego which is growing in her tummy.

As a man gets older and becomes more femininine and mediocre, and less idealistic and aggressive, he begins to engage in different kinds of conquests. He seeks "union" with a women, tries to merge with her through sexual intercourse, tries to become one with her in a loving embrace. Here, it's a case of the the ego revelling in the expansion of its own boundaries so as to include the woman's ego. The man effectively annexes her ego and, in so doing, doubles the size of his own. It is an expression of total conquest. This dynamic is enhanced even further when the couple have children, enabling the man's ego to increase even more.

Sex also provides egotistical pleasure and conquest in the form of conquering boredom (through distraction), emotional suffering (through the comforting arms of the woman), rationality (through the elevation of mindless pleasure to the forefront of consciousness), and Reality itself (by immersing oneself in the supreme ignorance and unconsciousness that drives all sexual activity).

For women, sex is primarily about submission - which is itself a form of egotistical conquest. The female ego loves to be overwhelmed by an ego that is stronger than itself. It constantly craves the opportunity to let go of itself and be completely taken over by someone else. It desires to be reduced to zero, to nothing, to a mindless cypher. It wants to be swept of its feet and revel in the complete freedom of unconsciousness, safe in the knowledge that a masculine ego is protecting and looking after it. All this is an expression of egotistical pleasure and conquest, of the conquering of her fears and anxieties that are inherent in having an individualized, seperate existence. It is her way of defeating existence itself.

It takes two to make a woman into a sex object.  Kevin Solway

* * *

Marriage always demands the greatest understanding of the art of insincerity possible between two human beings. Vicki Baum

* * *

Love: An abject intercourse between tyrants and slaves. Oliver Goldsmith

* * *

The weaker sex is the stronger sex because of the weakness of the stronger sex for the weaker sex.  Kevin Solway

- The Moment of Truth -

Dan Rowden: I have a question which I think is best aimed at Philip, but Jason and others may want to address it as well:

What pleasure do you actually derive from ejaculating into a girl's mouth? I mean, the sensual, physical pleasure of fellatio I can well understand - that is something rather obvious - but why would you enjoy actually coming in her mouth, given that you, Philip, have already expressed a liking for girls that "swallow", and, given that I assume you would be more than happy to simply masturbate into her mouth if she said you could.

In fact, I have two questions, the other being: do you enjoy pornographic imagery, especially still life photography; if so, what kind in particular? Facial cumshots and the like, maybe? Again, if so, what pleasure is it you derive from such material, given that it provides no direct physical stimulation?

Jason: I don't get anything out of this cum swallowing stuff at all. I think that a lot of people who have this kind of fetish like it because they view it as a form of degradation, domintation or perhaps just a way of being naughty.

Dan Rowden: Probably all those things, but the point I was attempting to make and get to with those questions is that of the presence of ego in all these behaviours. I do not believe that, so far, this dimension of the whole sex issue has been adequately addressed and I think it is the most important issue of all. I realise and accept that your views on these matters are of a "utopian" nature, but as things currently stand, one of the more glaring problems I see with sexual interplay is our inability to discern the true motivation that someone (women especially) may have in behaving sexually towards us. I would never ask a woman for a blowjob, for example, since she may give her assent, not because she likes the physical act itself, but because she wants my approval or acceptance or some similar motivation (in other words: why does she like doing it in the first place?). To take a risk over that would be to take a cavalier attitude to her independence and individuality. She may not care about or be aware of the issues surrounding that, but I do and am. Our views and actions in this arena are driven entirely by our underlying values. The diminution of ego and the strengthening of the independence of souls are things that are hardly ever valued.

Alex Meyer: I rather like the idea that she swallows, but it has nothing to do with an urge to degrade women. I think it is about acceptance. If I had a girl-friend who insisted on only touching me when I was wearing perfume, I would not feel accepted by her, and therefore I would reconsider having her as a girlfriend. In the same way, swallowing could be seen as a kind of ultimate (physical) acceptance.

Dan Rowden: This is exactly the kind of thing I was trying to get at with my question - the ego content of our sexuality. If a person refuses to indulge in some form of sexual activity with us, how is it that we distinguish between the ideas of this being their free choice to make, or an example of their emotional and sexual paralysis at the hands of those dreaded social mores? A person like Philip Wild seems to take the latter stance by default. I think that is altogether arrogant and unjust.

Everything about our sexual interaction with others is bound up in egotism - every last nuance of it. There's an ego dimension to sexual/physical gratification itself. The desires arise, in the first place, as a consequence of the need for our egos to express themselves. The issue for me is that, if ego is delusion, what springs from ego is deluded.

Top

    Copyright © 2000 - 2001 David Quinn & Dan Rowden

Front Page Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Issue 4 Issue 5 Issue 6 Issue 7 Issue 8 Issue 9 Issue 10 Issue 11 Issue 12 Issue 13 Issue 14 Issue 15 Issue 16 Issue 17 Issue 18 Issue 19