THE
PLEASURE PRINCIPLE
by
IKORO IYINELEDA
Dedication:
This book is dedicated to all emasculated men, who are almost always homosexual; and to all homosexual men, who are almost always emasculated: men that I have ever lived for, men that I will ever die for, men for whom I pour out my soul to the death, that The LORD GOD mayest then divide me a portion with the great.
all rights reserved
INTRODUCTION
"You No Need Am" And A Few Other Issues*
The hypocrisy in the "You no need am" cunning (ever striving to keep men locked up in workrooms as dull Jacks busy wasting away) is that which should be condemned as fervently by the general society as I will not only condemn it with my own word, but as fervently as I will condemn it with the care of emasculated homosexuals with which I will oppose it - by placing under protection the emasculation that usually accompanies homosexuality; and by empowering, when the homosexual would that he be. For how often emasculation often ends up having men viciously taken advantage of, by a world they know absolutely nothing of, often keeps me wrinkling my nostrils in disdain at the stench of the hypocrisy permeating that other world.
As a typical example, let us take a brief glimpse at the male adolescent phenomenon known as wet dreams.
Wet dreams, known in scientific circles as a common occurence amongst adolescent boys - and natural, at that - would be more appropriately known as wet sleep, had they not been another obvious proof of the number of times men are raped being just as often as that of women (if not more) and as equally often when they're young and pretty adolescents as women are during their own youth, before age takes away that which attracts the men to them. This fact is always ignored by the more powerful, and always open-eyed; and just as often unknown by the naive ignorant. For the naive culture that drives most societies usually believes women - however old, or capable - should be protected more conscientiously than any male child that has learnt how to talk. Yet, if it but knew how often such boys are sexually abused, even when supposedly under the protection of their parents (and, by those parents, as often as girls are - if not more) it would realise how the subtle cunning of female sexism and female chauvinism rules society much more than does the much more often maligned male version.
And a typical example of how such hypocrisy is covered up (by the heterosexual male-dominated society ignoring the needs of men, most especially when emasculated, regardless of how young; while preaching the zeal with which the women should be taken care of, regardless of how capable, regardless of how old) can be seen in the adolescent phenomenon often referred to by human behavioural scientists as "the wet dream."
The raging heterosexual males ruling the society do not want to know anything about the needs of men, unless the man is their personal friend. Men being supposed to take care of themselves because they are men, is that which they push down the throats of those other men - regardless of how young, weak, or needy the latter might be. And the women openly support such a cruel concept, despised (during those few occasions when a brave honest can speak the truth) as being no more than a symptom of male chauvinism; but to the brave honest that can see, that of female chauvinism - with the cunning with which they condone it, and then just as openly betray with their activities (be it public, or private) the sexism with which they protect the girl-child in particular (I don't believe even the very word "boy-child" has ever been mentioned in any but that which I write, before) and empower the female gender in general.
And thereby, the wet dream.
I call wet dreams rape. Others, when just as aware, would call it child abuse. For if it was just a mere case of the libido having built up into a climax (as the human behavioural scientists would like to have us all believe) then it should be labelled with the term, wet sleep. Yet wet dreams they're called; not because they are not accompanied by sleep, but because the subconscious will always remember the lack of conscience with which the poor boy was taken advantage of - even when it stays with him only as a dream, upon awakening.
With that which I have been through in my own life, there are those amongst such boys that should have what they experience described as "greasy sleep" - if one puts into consideration the lubrication of their rectums that often accompanies their awakening from such sleep. Their days, after having thus woken up, would then be spent in workrooms; their lives lived as dull Jacks, and the disenchantment with which they live those lives encouraged (either by hypocrites, or by Jacks equally dull) into falling for the "You no need am" myth that would have them believe all work even that dull needs absolutely none of that play.
Girls rarely ever have that sort of problem, except in lower class societies. In the middle and the upper class, they are protected by a sexism completely ignored by men in general, and obviously encouraged by women in particular (though with extreme subtility) and with such fervid fanaticism that the privacy they're given, which boys rarely ever have, eventually has their own childhood and youth very often spent delving into sexual experiments with and amidst themselves. While the boys, when they have not fallen for the "You no need am" hypocrisy, are thrown out of the house to fight and to play football; when they have had the "You no need am" hypocrisy driven down their throats, are locked up in classrooms, workrooms, and supposed offices to simply waste away the energy that the girls spend in that referred to above, in the supposed work they are often deceived when older into believing is the heritage of the man.
Primitive tribes knew much more (but were just as cruel as the prison wardens of today that lock up women in general, and emasculated men in particular; right from the days of their childhood, with the "You no need am" hypocrisy). They envied the women's pleasure then just as much as the raging barbarians envy homosexual pleasure today. They removed the clitoris just as often as certain countries seal the anus today. And whichever work the women did was as devoid of societally approved power as is the labour thrust upon the shoulders of emasculated men of today.
However, I digress.
How utterly shameless this version of sexism is can be seen in the words of a certain woman that most probably parts her thighs for any man with money and power, and that sleeps around with each and every woman she's sure is with a lesbian bent; yet, that could despite then, even then, open her mouth to say that a certain friend of mine was "such a good boy," but is no longer good enough to receive such accolades from her because he has threatened to deal with any girl he sees practising lesbianism.
The reason behind such hypocrisy having been always condoned, even by men that are not exactly raging barbarians, is that which I am yet to understand. And I always ask myself whether a Samson, in any generation, will always fall for the cunning of women. However, I am glad that the hypocrisy is getting to be not exactly as condoned as it used to be; by a little more of those men that are not exactly heterosexual barbarians - even though, and indeed, heterosexual. And it may even begin to become condemned soon enough, and up to that extent where public opinion will no longer have it be an open secret that even supposed "Sweet Mothers" are most often no more than shameless sluts.
Amongst the lower class Yoruba illiterates of today, it continues to be said by the men: Iranu ni obinrin. Amongst the middle and the upper classes, there are men that have begun to say they don't want to be "as irresponsible as a woman." Yet the women continue striving to give all others the impression that only men pant after sex as irresponsibly as dogs in heat; and therefore should either be castrated, or imprisoned in Zulu Sofola's "Sweet Trap."
An intelligent human behavioural scientist will tell you, on the other hand, that the hypocrisy with which the women pant after sex on their own part can be seen in how easily they take to lesbianism. Homosexuality is an acquired taste, and you will take to it as easily as the average woman does in this generation if - and only if - it has always been a part of your sexuality. Having taken to it ever since the days of their youth, women have used it to subvert the authority of men; by depriving men of sex they are never deprived of - through lesbianism; and then claiming men it is that are dogs permanently on heat anytime the urge rears up in the men that they curb - and, once again, through lesbianism.
Should the lesbian bent in women begin to become as condemned (and I would ignore their distress should the condemnation come hand-in-hand with persecution) as the homosexual bent in men was ever condemned by the most homophobic cultures; or should the homosexual bent in men begin to become as condoned (and I would celebrate the honour should the condoning come hand-in-hand with approval) as it has always been in the most highly evolved and least barbaric human civilizations - yet with no recourse, should the latter be the case, to the bias with which one form is condoned while the other is condemned in those homophobic societies - then I would have achieved one of my greatest goals, and I will begin to feel grateful to my God for having contributed more to the evolution of humanity than sitting down in an office to deserve a salary. For the bias between how one form of sexual orientation is condoned (and even visibly encouraged, in certain societies) while the other is invariably condemned, and almost just as often persecuted (up to that extent where even mothers can admit on television to indulging in the one; while a man that has the other as his sexual orientation dares not let others know - or they may have his anus sealed with glue, in certain countries; and that is the least that they do) this bias has always left a bitter taste in my mouth.
"I sucked my mother's bosom," were the words with which a woman once used on the radio, to justify the lesbian bent in her.
I'm yet to see the human behavioural scientist that will tell us all that breastfeeding is incest. Yet there are women decent enough, who know enough, to say that they will not breastfeed their child - with words as frank, even though still secretive, as the "My breasts are for my husband" credited to a thirty-five year old French mother of twins, living in Britain; as opposed to the "breast is best" hypothesis that the naive and the hypocrite in the medical profession strive to drive down our throats. Doctors with neither naivete nor hypocrisy in them speak as does Kevin Harrington (an obstetrician with a private practice at the Portland Hospital, in central London):
".......for some women, their breasts are an important part of their sexuality and they don't want them used to provide milk." (Emphasis, mine).
I wouldn't say, "for some women." But I do agree with the words with which he justifies his prescription of cabergoline, an anti-lactation drug; even though he sought to be as secretive with those words as the mother of twins referred to above.
Women that do not have such a conscience, on the other hand, never let their husbands into the act. Breastfeeding is labour, to the husband; and she's tired as often during breastfeeding as the husband then has to masturbate. But she never has to worry. For he believes she was indeed working, and will never believe the number of orgasms that could have accompanied the "labour."
"After I have grown old, and my husband is old," Sarah laughed to herself, when she was told she would bear a son in her old age. "Shall I have pleasure?" (Emphasis, mine).
And I wonder why the average Christian (even when indeed Christian, even when thus diligent enough to notice those words) is never perceptive enough to realise she could not have been referring to the pleasures of the marital bed - which should be a foregone conclusion the minute she has a husband. Women have always known enough about this characteristic naivete of the male concerning their sexuality (even when they know him to be Christian, even when they know Him to be The LORD) enough to either giggle amidst themselves, or laugh at him; most of the time when they do giggle (as girls) or laugh (as women). Laughter and giggling is not a usual trait of theirs only when they're indeed as hardworking as a man is supposed to be, or as adventurous as he is wont to be - even when all he does is club and party.
I laugh at the naivete of the average man, and at the "Sweet Mother" myth that always has them believe in the nobility of Woman. Yet, even the Jesus whose mother is an image of that myth never fell for its lie. He renounced the Virgin Mary in public, before each and every one of his followers.
"And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers!' " (Emphasis, mine).
If only all men knew why women always want to give birth to so many children, despite the labour childbirth has always been associated with - labour that is known to often bring about even death. And why their firsthand knowledge of their sexuality has always had them be the ones that most often support female circumcision, most especially amidst the primitive and the illiterate; just as often as men it is that most often persecute male homosexuality, and for no more than the same reason. A glued anus is to the homosexual what circumcision is to the woman. And the heterosexual bullies I prefer to label with the tag "barbarians" have realised this accurately enough to know exactly how to circumcise homosexuals, in certain countries, in this day and age.
Personally, and to be fair, I believe that if sex was meant for none other but reproduction, then there's no need for the pleasure to be a part of coitus for any but the male - upon whose shoulders is the labour involved, and who should therefore be encouraged by Nature to shoulder the burden. And the truth in that statement can be seen in how only the human female can lay claim to that pleasure, amongst all female animals that reproduce sexually. But once pleasure has been brought in, then - I'm sorry, girls - but I'm with the women that say they will not breastfeed. The animal in the wild knows absolutely nothing about nipple erections, clitoral stimulation, and female orgasm.
I cannot speak for domestic animals, considering the extent to which depravity has sunk in this generation.
However, the plethora of web-sites (both academic and pornographic) that brought such information to this generation, has had us graduate from those days when we used to wonder why women found it so difficult to attain orgasm, to these days when we wonder whether they ever think of anything else but sex - even while breastfeeding. Thus I believe every married woman in this century should exclude all else apart from her husband from the pleasures of her bosom. And every culture that has explored sexuality enough to have the women lay claim to the pleasure in sex (from the Mangaians of Polynesia, during the earlier years of the last century; to the decent amongst those exposed enough in the United Kingdom) has always agreed with my opinion.
And I'm even more in favour of the men that justify the virtue that homosexuality is, when in men. Nature did mean sex for no more than reproduction, and the pleasure during the act was meant only for men - to encourage them into pursuing the performance that the pleasure actually is, for them. However, if women now have the privilege of that pleasure - and even amidst themselves - then why should I be no more than a stud labouring for them, even while supposedly enjoying that pleasure? Most especially when the relationship will remain based on that most important female principle - no finance, no romance. For even amidst women that lay claim to no other sexual orientation but heterosexuality, how many are faithful enough to deserve the fruits of such labour?
According to the wisest man that ever lived (and he had a mother, too) - none. Read the Scriptures.
I will not mention a name, for I respect the man (not his mother) that I am about to speak of, who is one of the most famous and the most hardworking medical doctors in the United States. Honouring his own mother (a single mother) was that which he often did in his books. However, if he realised how difficult chastity is in a poor single mother (not only concerning the needs of her children, which would require money; but also concerning the needs of her own body) he would remember Solomon's words; before striving through his books to give the "You no need am" impression which she always gave him, to me.......
".......but a woman among all these I have not found."
How men always suffer more from that "You no need am" cunning is proven by how it is most often men that thereby waste away until "the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " The girls would always have enough privacy to fall back on their lesbianism, even back in those days before my words proved how prevalent it is amidst them - especially since it is usually condoned by the society in general. The boys would always be thrown out (however young, weak, or needy) into the workrooms and the offices wherein they can safely waste away all that youthful exuberance.
A war on both the hypocrisy and the wickedness of the "You no need am" culture is one of that which I wage; not only with the battle including an open invitation to all emasculated men to join me in the war, as long as they justify the virtue that is homosexuality; but also with a public awareness campaign that does, and will prove, how the most pitiful victims of the shameless culture are the men; and not the women that would conquer it by being pampered by a husband, or (when not that conservative) by giggling in the bedrooms, the workrooms, and the offices wherein they're granted all the privacy needed to indulge by men that do not know, or by men that overlook the gratification they're obviously thereby obtaining - men who are conned into both the granting of that privacy and the condoning of that bent by the women that always knew girls do it as much, if not more; even before I began to write on it.
*This introduction was initially published as an article on the blog www.thefairiesconfraternity.blogspot.com.
CHAPTER ONE
There are but four pursuits that can take the time of a living human being - four lines of activity available to him. Power, pleasure, prosperity, position. And of those four, the emasculated man - and the average woman - are locked out of the world of the first, and that of the third. Hence the power that they never have, and the material success that can be theirs only when they have a rich background, or when they marry into one.
The prevalence of lesbianism amongst women which men suppose today (an assumption that came about as a consequence of the latter's intrusion into my privacy up to that point where they could not only read that of my works which I had not yet published, but also rob me of them) is that which, initially (when the secret was leaked by that intrusion which I have ever declared a war on) the nit-wits amongst the men would say, "We always knew it." However, had they indeed been always aware of that prevalence, they would not now be just complaining of it - by whining over how their women are getting ever more depraved. Yet, had women not been locked out of the worlds of both power and prosperity (as are the emasculated men whose admirable efforts to have a say in the world of prosperity, even if not of power, are always dismissed by the nit-wits with words such as "oniranu," and opinions such as, "What does he need money for?") had such as those same men not shunned the women with words such as "You no need am," the latter would not then devote so much of their time and their energy into the supposed "depravity" that the heterosexual empty-heads now complain of; as, admittedly, do enough emasculated men - without, however, the same level of exposure to homosexuality (and the consequent rise in its prevalence) that brings in the use of the word "depravity;" amongst the hypocrites behind the "You no need am" culture.
Emasculated men, the minute they attain enough independence, always - initially - throw themselves into their work with an enthusiasm that betrays the level to which they fall for the myth that would that one believe both power and prosperity is a consequence of work - "haaard work."
The honest in those two worlds (that of power and of prosperity) would let you know that those that belong to the working class are as crippled as the blind; and, when emasculated, as abused as a woman is when without a husband, or a father.
"Give justice to the weak and the
fatherless."
Those are the words of the Scriptures to the gods. And very few people have an idea of how weak an emasculated man is, when fatherless.
However, and eventually (as time flies by) the characteristic failure of the emasculated in the worlds of power and prosperity (having been locked out of both worlds, unlike that which they realise early enough) often has them fall back on the pleasure that women usually realise much earlier is the only sphere of activity the heterosexual barbarians that rule the world ever would that they be allowed into.
Their pursuit of pleasure is rarely ever termed "womanising," for it is rarely ever with money, and always never with power. Rather, it is usually with girls young enough for the hypocrites that have not the burden of emasculation on their shoulders to often label them with derogatory terms such as "agbaya." But it is much more often heterosexual than when observed in women, due to the fact that women realise their limitations in life much earlier than do emasculated men, and - unlike those men - rarely ever deceive themselves concerning it. And, homosexuality being an acquired taste, the women usually delve into the only sphere of activity that the heterosexual barbarians would they be limited to - up to that extent where they explore lesbianism as well; at an age when the emasculated young man would still be deceiving himself that the raging barbarians will ever let him acquire money and power, when he has not been allowed into the world of the two. The emasculated man therefore often grows up heterosexual; but the woman, unless unexposed, will more often have a lesbian history (however brief) that makes it easier for her to turn back to it, even during a heterosexual adulthood.
Homosexuality is an acquired taste, as human behavioural scientists have often and would often have us know. And as I would have others know, it is acquired during the first five years of life. The scientists referred to above (led mainly by Sigmund Freud) have always taught us that the major traits of a child's personality are fixed during its first five years of life. So is its sexuality, I would add. And the difference between the way society brings up a boy-child and his female counterpart brings in the reason behind the ease with which even a supposedly heterosexual adult woman often finds it easy to revert back to lesbianism.
During those first five years, girls are locked indoors with dolls and such; long enough to discover in their own bodies the toy that the limitations of their being thus locked up has them unable to discover in other activities. And only the extent of exposure will determine whether they will enjoy the experiments up to that extent where they end up becoming full-blown lesbians. Boys, on the other hand, are thrown outdoors with footballs, toy guns, and such; long enough for them to see each other as buddies screaming onto victory over any other - the screaming very soon to become roaring.
In the words of Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, "About 5 per cent of women have no sexual interest in men, although they may have friends who are men, and their sexual interests, their need for companionship, are met by alliance with another woman. These women are homosexuals: their sexual desires are directed to members of the same sex."
Homosexuality this thorough in women arises when the exposure I have referred to above begins early enough, and lasts long enough. And it is more often than not in even more than a five per cent. The frigidity that has certain women discover sex with men to be a bore (or even an aversion) always has behind it this orientation; when it begins early enough, and lasts long enough. Even when the woman, as an adult, is not privileged with another lesbian partner.
Yet, the bias that I will always criticize (concerning the discrimination against male homosexuals) is obvious again in that even when a man has such a homosexual orientation that he finds no sexual attraction in women (and sometimes complains of revulsion being in its place) he is still expected to "marry members of the opposite sex or remain single." And the last word, as far as most women are concerned, refers not to the union, but to the relationship. For he is then expected to live with absolutely no sex partner, because it is believed that only a woman's body should be sexually attractive.
That belief is that which has men that spend time and money on their physical appearance derided by society in general (as, as an example, fops and dandies) even should he lay claim to heterosexuality. Men are not supposed to use face powder, they would be sneered at. They're not supposed to take too long in the bathroom, they should have better things to do with their time. And even the perfume that most cultures have finally allowed them is not patronised by those men that are seen as being indeed manly - who believe a man should be tough and rough, and not clean and (to use a word which a woman once used to deride me) dainty.
CHAPTER TWO
Children are always adventurous. But the number of outdoor activities young boys are usually exposed to are as much as the number of activities that girls can call "play," even when outdoors, are few. Thus the boys are brought up with the boldness required to pursue as adults power and prosperity. While the activities to which the girls are restricted proves that, as adults, they are to be equally limited to the kitchen and the bedroom. Therefore, even as extremely young children, their activities are limited enough to find few other means of play but with themselves and - accompanied by exposure - their bodies.
This boldness society encourages in boys as they grow up is one of the major reasons behind the fact that even societies that claim to condone homosexuality in men still persecute it, with or without the law's approval. And I'll explain further.
"There is some evidence," Professor Llewellyn-Jones writes on homosexuality. "That it may be due to a gene which is found on the X chromosome, although, as yet, the gene has not been identified."
He was not specific about which form of homosexuality he was speaking of; be it male, or female. But if both men and women are carriers of the X chromosome (as the educated all know) yet only men have ever been psychiatric patients on the basis of homosexuality, then his words are just another confirmation of that which I have observed - society's vicious persecution of the male homosexual; and its acceptance of the presence of that persecution, up to that extent that it is supported even by the educated elite.
I have come across a book written by another medical doctor, with which he strove to prove male homosexuality as being a brain disease needing surgical treatment. I have never, not ever since I learnt how to read and write, come across any intellectual work that took lesbianism as a disease (be it physical, or mental) that has to be cured - even should the disease be as slight as a strange gene "which is found on the X chromosome."
Yet, there are certain intellectuals that do agree that male homosexuals are as persecuted as I will ever fight against - "much derided," in the words of Professor Llewellyn-Jones. To quote him even further, "In Western society, female homosexuals are oppressed far less than male homosexuals." And he summarised the bias with these words, "In Western culture, women are permitted to show greater physical intimacy between each other than men: girls habitually hug and kiss; if men do this, it is considered improper. For these reasons, female homosexuals may live together in complete intimacy, rarely incurring the disapproval of the community. Male homosexuals living together are sometimes sneered at and attacked."
If only Professor Llewellyn-Jones knew enough to realise that the physical intimacy he wrote of is more prevalent amidst women, not merely because it is accepted by society, but also because (as I have written of above) the average woman usually has a history of homosexuality, however brief, that makes it easier for her to revert back to it in adulthood - even if the reversion can be expressed merely as the hugging and the kissing of which he wrote.
This history of homosexuality, Professor Llewellyn-Jones also wrote of (though without realising that it often precedes a reversion) when he said, "In the normal sexual development of a child, psychologists consider that there is a period when homosexuality alliances are normal." According to him, "In some 10 per cent of cases of adolescent homosexual friendship, the sexuality of the girls is stronger than usual, and they mutually masturbate by stimulating each other's clitoris."
The natural inclination of the human being towards bisexuality has been a topic of discourse amongst intellectuals, ever since the days of Sigmund Freud. He finally had to conclude that every human being is bisexual. Despite this, however, in societies where bisexuality is accepted with a frank honesty, homosexuality in men is not as visible as it is in women - men always having more to do with time than explore sexuality, women always having more time to delve into that sexuality. Thus the Lesbos that, today, stands for the depths to which the women's delving can reach; even in a culture and an era where a military officer, with all the masculinity of heterosexuality attached to his post, would have as many male concubines as the female concubines male conquerors have been known to have.
About 5 per cent of women, perhaps more, are bisexual; that is at some time, or for several periods of their lives, they choose to cease to have a sexual relationship with a man and form a relationship with a woman.
According to Professor Llewellyn-Jones.
That was during a generation when the girls were not as exposed as the ones over which their growing "depravity" has had some men whine, today. Today, they explore pleasure much more extensively than merely indulging in mutual masturbation. According to Nigel Dickson, M.D., of the New Zealand Paediatric Surveillance Unit at the University of Otago Medical School, their study of one thousand people aged twenty-one and twenty-six found that by twenty-six years of age, twenty-four and a half per cent of women reported being attracted to their own sex at some time, as compared with ten point seven per cent of men. And, between the ages of twenty-one and twenty-six, many more young women moved away from (nine and a half per cent) than towards (one point three per cent) exclusive heterosexual attraction; as compared with one point nine per cent of all men moving away from, while one per cent moved towards an exclusive heterosexual attraction.
And the inversion which their being excluded by most cultures from most outdoor activities gives rise to, becomes a growing interest in the pleasure I have written of (and continues to develop as the girls grow older, and delve deeper; in a world locked out of both power and prosperity) as proven by the following conclusion of the above study which showed that sixteen point four per cent of women about fifty-five years old reported same-sex attraction, a figure incredibly high when compared with the five point six per cent of men that reported that same attraction.
And as proven by a 2004 study at Northwestern University that saw the female subjects (both gay and straight women) become sexually aroused when they viewed heterosexual as well as lesbian erotic films. Among the male subjects, however, the straight men were aroused only by erotic films with women, the gay ones by those with men.
"We found that women's sexual desire is less rigidly directed toward a particular sex, as compared with men's, and it's more changeable over time," says the study's senior researcher, J. Michael Bailey, Ph.D. "These findings likely represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains."
However, rather than "represent a fundamental difference between men's and women's brains," I would say that that study reveals the result of generations of the bombardment of growing women that have little else to do with their time, with the sexual fantasies of men, most especially through pornography.Thus, what do the women do with their time?
Llewellyn-Jones wrote further, way back of an earlier generation.
".......lesbians reach orgasm more frequently and each episode of making love lasts longer than in heterosexual women" (Emphasis, mine).
And it would last longer, for the partners of heterosexual women - most especially then - were men that devoted less time to sex than to their activities in those other two spheres of human existence: money-making, the pursuit of power. They were rarely ever emasculated.
And if the words of Llewellyn-Jones are indeed true, and I do believe that they are; then I wonder why both he and other intellectuals do not realise that reversion to homosexuality will occur in heterosexual women quite often - most especially when the women have no other world but that of pleasure to pursue activities in, however respectably married they may be, especially when the husbands have no time for their needs.
The only women that don't have a history of homosexuality they revert back to are those women that have been allowed into the worlds of power and independent prosperity; and those women that were so unexposed they never had such a history, and even the word "lesbian" does not exist in their dictionary. They will tell you they had to work twice as hard to become anything other than the sex object that I call a "pleasure object." I agree. But they rarely ever know enough, however principled they may be, to realise that an emasculated man lives a life with little difference from theirs.
He has to work just as hard, too.
In Nigeria, to show the extent to which human societies condone homosexuality only when it is in women, on the average; debates, arguments, and lobbying once rose against a same-sex marriage prohibition bill. The sexist bias between how the one form of homosexual orientation is avidly condemned, while the other is condoned, had already been made obvious by the Nigerian criminal and penal codes that actually prohibits homosexuality (or sodomy, as it was often called then) yet made not even a mention of lesbianism; as though the latter is not as prevalent as the former, at the least - if not even more prevalent, most especially in this generation. And this provision by Nigerian law has never been repealed before.
As though that provision did not already exist, a bill then came up in the year 2009 (proving the biased persecution of homosexual men that I will ever war against) asking that, despite homosexuality already being illegal in the country, marriage bearing its name should also be made illegal.
That the craving for marriage amongst homosexual men could be so strong that it would be noticed vividly enough for its enemies to rise up against it is further proof, I guess, of that inability to form stable relationships being today more of a lesbian characteristic than a homosexual one, unlike that which Llewellyn-Jones noticed in his own generation (an assertion of his repeated in that same generation by the book Psychology Today, An Introduction). For the bill, despite the general term it used with the words "same-sex," had only the homosexuals react in disapproval. The lesbians ignored it. And definitely not because they could not speak, and with similar disapproval: today, in certain circles, whereas they even boast of their orgies; homosexual men keep their mouths shut, on the average, or the ever-present persecution may even rise to the extent of taking lives.
In a country where homosexuals are bullied into such silence that there were no gay couples asking for marriage, then, or for the solemnization of their union; a bill came up before the National Assembly asking for the prohibition of gay marriages - and most probably for no other reason than that those behind it had noticed the fanaticism with which Nigerians ape Western culture, where gay marriages are no longer controversial.
One of those that supported the bill, Luke Onyekakeyah, identified homosexuality as a great evil and a form of moral depravity beyond the limits of human freedom and human rights. He did not say a word concerning lesbianism. And he did not let us know how he arrived at his opinion - that homosexuality limits human freedom and human rights.
And to prove even further how heavy the burden is borne by male homosexuality, of the fifty to a hundred homosexuals that attended the public hearing of the bill at Nigeria's National Assembly in Abuja (on the eleventh of March, 2009) not one was female. Yet there were many women, under the guise of religion, that arrived at the venue to taunt them. The Daughters of Sarah Ministry came to the hearing, not with their mere physical presence, as did the homosexuals; but with buses packed with school children and youths, wearing tee-shirts and carrying banners with anti-same gender marriage inscriptions.
When women come out with their own lesbian orientation (up to that extent where they betray their own instability in such relationships; and change partners or seek new sexual contacts as frequently as both Professor Llewellyn-Jones and Psychology Today, An Introduction thought that only male homosexuals do, and as frequently as men are ever believed to - up to that extent where a woman can say on the radio, to justify her lesbian orientation, "I sucked my mother's bosom") there are no such reactions as that of the Daughters of Sarah Ministry - there are rarely ever such reactions at all; be it from the religious (who would like to have us all believe, from that which I have heard at least two men say, that God condones lesbianism because women are ever suffering) or even from the men in particular, on their own side; who, on those few occasions when they deign to comment (unlike the number of times they would both criticize and condemn, should the homosexuality have been male) deign to comment only with words that strive to drive bisexuality down the throats of such self-proclaimed lesbians.
"I'm les," the women would say.
"You're bi," the men thereby insist.
But such blind men, most especially amongst the religious (as those I have just referred to) should all realise that emasculated men require vindication just as much as women are known to - if not even more. And men in general, and women in particular, should put an end to their hypocritical declarations of the necessity for equal rights between the two genders; if they do not also believe it necessary to have equal rights between those genders, when homosexual.
At the public hearing of which I write, two legislators present at the event made certain remarks at the gathering that are worthy of attention. They wanted to know whether homosexuality was a disease or a biological condition. That knowledge, they said, would assist them in shaping the bill.
Homosexuality is an acquired taste. And if such ignorant as those legislators knew how often it is acquired by women before the age of five, they would put an end to the impression its persecution strives to give - that it can be such a disease or biological condition only when present in men.
I'm yet to come across anyone (be it physically, or through my studies) that would that others believe lesbianism is a disease, as medical quacks have often thought of homosexuality; or anyone that would that it should be a crime (despite the history of countries such as the United Kingdom, where - before the homosexual community finally rose up to the challenge, and even when homosexuality there was a crime that brought about prison sentences - lesbianism was not only condoned up to that point where it was silently overlooked by law, as it is in Nigeria; but approved of by law, and with word, as being legal).
It is also worthy of notice, concerning the bias held by the public towards male homosexuality vis-a-vis female homosexuality, that of all that came out of the public hearing of the bill which I write of (and which did stir a tremendous reaction in the Press) not one was reported in that same Press concerning the words of those present at the event who sympathised enough with the homosexuals to understand, who understood enough to speak out - even if not exactly in their favour, in favour of the upliftment of a legally approved persecution of their sexual orientation. However, those that joined the persecution with words that damned and condemned received front page coverage by the Press.
How often the Press supports such gross violation of human rights with a "Behold, we know it not" silence is that which the ignorant rarely ever realise; when they buy their newspapers with the belief that, thereby, they know all happening in the next town, the next city, the next village. For that which comes out in the Press is that which is carefully selected, not on the basis of how news worthy it is, but on the basis of how widely approved its appearance on the pages of the newspapers is by the high and mighty. In the words of the American, Amitai Etzioni, ".......what the citizens want is not shaped independently of the dictates of those in power. The power holders have a good deal of say over the material that appears in America's T.V., movies, radio and newspapers."
Thus the silence that greeted the inhumane persecution of my own rights in the town of Ibadan; for years, if not more. Despite the cries for help that had as consequence blogs such as www.ikorosanda.blogspot.com (The Rantings Of An Ant - sent to as many newspaper houses as I could come across) not one word was uttered by the Press concerning that which I was going through, as though it were a natural part of the culture of the town.
And thus the silence that greets the age-old persecution of the rights of the male homosexual, and the discrimination that condones in almost all societies the activities of his female counterpart.
CHAPTER THREE
For years, I had always wondered why lesbianism was usually condoned by most societies, however homophobic. After pondering over the issue for quite a while, I have come to a simple but definite conclusion - different from that with which Llewellyn-Jones judged.......
The male homosexuals have more courage.
Young men are always told, even when known to be homosexual, to be men. They're advised by those that stand by them to "be a man," and to stand up for their rights. Regardless of how homosexual or emasculated they may be. Thus they stand up for their rights often enough to equally get persecuted, and murdered.
However, ever from ancient times and up till today (even after the liberation of women that has become empowerment; and even in those countries wherein that empowerment is campaigned for with open sexism, and blatant chauvinism) women are encouraged to be seen, but not heard. A man will always take care of them, is the idea they are given; be the man a father, a husband, a brother, or a son. Therefore, their own courage rarely ever feels its need, rarely ever rears its head - ever right from their days as girls. And therefore, even in those countries wherein they flaunt their lesbianism with all the shamelessness of "depravity," it is only after all due permission by the male-dominated society. The men never feel threatened by the permission, even when they envy the fun; rather, they strive to drive bisexuality down the throats of such women, that they may still be able to be a part of the fun.
Only intelligent women see through this hypocrisy enough to shun the men, when lesbian. But they rarely ever do shun, due to that lack of courage I have touched upon; for should they, they would then be persecuted by those men as fervently as I always used to believe only male homosexuals could be - though never blatantly enough, as with the men, for the persecution to be openly approved; but cunningly enough to deprive them of access to the world of prosperity, into the world of independent wealth.
They would always be locked out of the world of power, in general; or they would not be women.
This deprivation of access to those two worlds is the reason behind the interest women have always shown in pleasure being as much as that which men use to pursue their own interests in business and politics. The former's interest is always carefully disguised, of course; both in conservative individuals and in conservative cultures. When religious, as an interest in a successful marriage; when not so religious, as an interest in relationships with the opposite sex. And in societies wherein lesbianism is condoned, as a blatant display of that side of their sexuality; for if they sought to do the same concerning their heterosexuality, the men would either shun - or react by labelling them with extremely derogatory names. Yet, when one stops to think about it; what else does a woman have to prove she lived a full life, if not how well she lived her life in the only sphere of activity she is ever allowed into, of the four that a human being can live life with?
If she is to boast, to me, she has no other thing to boast of; even if she is conservative enough to boast of it as the fact that she has a happy married life.
Women (and emasculated men) have therefore been always interested in activities along the sphere of pleasure, of the four spheres of human activity that I have identified above; because they are not as exposed to the other two of power and prosperity.
Every human being can be given a position.
Women are no more than pubescent adults. Adolescents locked indoors, however old, by an age-old tradition that cuts them off from the pursuit of power and affluence as cruelly as the kindness with which it then grants their adult years the independence to explore sexuality as deeply as more exposure during the formative years would have had dismiss it.
An emasculated man wears the same shoes. And his life is as exposed as a woman's usually is. The only difference between him and the average woman is the notion, imbibed through culture and society by his subconscious, that still prevents him - even when consciously aware of the folly in competing with men whose masculinity overshadows his emasculation just as it does feminity - from exploring his own sexuality as deeply as a woman liberated enough by the society always explores hers.
Every adult woman is no more than a pimpled man, and most pimps have always been women - even when respectable enough to be the sororities that supply both the prostitution rings and the pornography industry with their stars and starlets. For the pleasure in society has always been supplied by the women - by the men, only when young enough to be a delinquent, or emasculated enough to be a pimp. Power still remains an exclusive preserve of the men. And thus the prevalence of lesbianism amongst the sororities that supply such stars to an industry in which - in its bid to cater for male sex fantasies - the orientation is a characteristic feature of its entertainment.
The women, on their own part, are always so emasculated that even the word applies only to men. And if they all but knew (as the raging heterosexual barbarians do know) that an emasculated man is as limited in life as they are.
A woman is no more than a warm man. And so is an emasculated man. And the two share the same secrets. But the hot and the cold regions of violent dominance and ascetic power are attained so often by males that the warmer regions are characterised as female; the other regions, the forte of the male. For the males are indeed the stronger gender, and the attainment of both extreme ends is as much a characteristic feature on their part as the bullying that limits the women - and emasculated men who did not start out early enough; putting them "in their place" as warm men with no more to do than that which reproduction and sustenance would that they do, however principled they may be. And the word woman is derived from that fact.
And the eye with which the position of the warm men is regarded can be seen in the laughter that accompanied the - should I use the word, "assurance" - with which certain men in a cyber-cafe thought certain I would be a warm man for life. The power and affluence of a woman (always no more than prostitution, however prestigious) and the respectability that can be hers only when married, is seen so rarely in the warm man the emasculated man always is (his gender being always derided when associated with the sale of flesh, or the figure-head that is the "oko iyawo") that his position always draws derision - and the derision is one of that which I have set out to curb.
This warmth in women is that which has sexual deviations such as indecent exposure and homosexuality such a condoned part of their lives, despite its being accompanied by ridicule as often as the emasculated man is an object of scorn - until the unity that brought about liberation, and the empowerment of prosperity. Sexual deviations that are a stolid part of Western culture, where the average man is becoming more and more as emasculated as the woman ever was.
The women that know do know, of course; and the men that don't know, don't know - that the limitation to the worlds of pleasure and position by the men has had the average woman always more interested in delving into the secrets of those worlds than are men in general, who would have the male heterosexual barbarians pooh-pooh them as not being men should they betray the same intensity of interest; most especially when they are not emasculated.
The men will never write fiction that is romance, and the religious women will tell you romance is nothing other than pornography for "decent" women. The men do not bother discussing relationships, unless they are emasculated. But go through the average woman's work, should she write; and when she's not discussing relationships, she's giving you tips on how to make your marriage a success - most especially in bed. This intensity of interest the women have always had in that one sphere of human activity (due to their being locked out of power and prosperity being usually a part of every culture's tradition) is therefore obvious, even when they're repressed enough to have to sit down at home. And the minute they are let out of the house, the instant society allows them into the world of prosperity (even though, as exceedingly rarely, not into the world of power) they eventually use even that independence to pursue activities along the line of pleasure even more fervently than when they did with a husband, a boyfriend, a finger, or a vibrator. Thus the liberation of women (especially during the reign of empires as powerful as that of the Romans and the Americans) eventually ended up loosening the morals of their societies; as extensively as morals were rigidly stiff during their imprisonment in the home, in societies such as that of the Victorian ages. Because, even then - even with genuine liberation - they never had power.
CHAPTER FOUR
That interest in pleasure is that which has the women, when given the independence of liberation, develop an interest in sexuality that (due to its either being ignored by the supposedly decent men, or derogated by the loudmouths amongst them; and, unless the woman shares it with an emasculated man also ready to share his own interest in the topic with her) invariably becomes an interest in lesbianism strong enough to eventually become actual lesbianism. Thus, in all societies where their women are liberated enough to pursue money independent of a husband, the end result is the women becoming as homosexual as the emasculated man always is - when he is deprived during his own formative years of access to the power a woman never has, however wealthy she may be.
Even in ancient societies, the story was the same. Be it then, or now, all female secret societies were based on pleasure - even when not lesbian, bisexual enough for its being based on how to please the man. The latter just did not label the pleasure with the word, "lesbian" (as the men would, today) not only because of the level of secrecy the societies had to have, to conceal that lesbianism in the conservative societies the majority of the lesbian ones were in; but also due to the conservative tradition being imbibed even by those secret societies up to that extent where members would that non-members believe the intimacy was for learning, and for teaching, the secrets behind the provision of pleasure to the male.
This intimacy marks the major characteristic of all initiations into female secret societies; an intimacy usually betrayed even in public by how physically intimate women are, with the ease with which they touch, hug, kiss and hold. Unlike the major characteristic of initiations into the male versions of such societies (most especially in such primitive societies) which was extremely tough physical drilling.
As an example of how physical intimacy is always a part of such secrets (regardless of how naive and unexposed the women were) and of what the exclusion of women from the worlds of power and prosperity can have as effect on their activities even in such ancient societies, and most especially when they are also limited to the activities of a home; this is a passage from the book The Discovery Of The Unconscious (The History And Evolution Of Dynamic Psychiatry) by Henri F. Ellenberger.......
"It is likely that the gratification of frustrated desires plays a decisive role in certain exorcisms and other therapeutic procedures. Bruno Lewin has shown that the vicarious gratification of sexual desires may account for the therapeutic successes of the Egyptian Zar.
"The Zar ceremony is performed in Egypt among the lower social class as a treatment for neurotic and hysterical women. It is organized by a woman called the Kudya who is helped by three other women who sing, dance, and play the drum and the tambourin. Participation is restricted to women. After various rites, the patient is led into the room in a bride's attire. An animal is sacrificed, francincense is burned, and the patient is undressed and clad in a white skirt. The Kudya then begins to dance as if in a trance, her motions getting wilder, until she falls exhausted to the floor. After a while, the music starts again, at first in a slow and gentle mood; the Kudya calls for the djinn who is supposed to be her lover. The music and dance become wild again, and the Kudya in her trance succumbs to her imaginary lover with orgiastic movements and falls to the floor once more, inviting other demons to come. The patient joins the Kudya in her wild dance, and the other women join in as well, until all of them throw off their clothes and, in their trance, are sexually possessed by the djinns. Dr Lewin states that a large proportion of the patients are actually helped by such a ceremony. Some women go to a Zar every month. Most of them are frigid and unhappily married, and the Zar provides them with the only sexual gratification they can obtain."
The Zar, of course, would most probably not have been a line of activity for them, most especially in such a conservative society; had the women not been unhappily married, and thereby sexually deprived. Men visit brothels for the same reason. And the men, even in such societies as conservative as that of the Victorian ages, were always exposed enough to know what to do about the frigidity - should they wish to do anything about it.
Other examples that betray the intimacy inherent in female secret societies include, as has been implied, the rites of initiation of a great majority of them. As recorded in the book Rites And Symbols Of Initiation by Mircea Eliade, "Among some coast tribes of northern Australia, the girl undergoing her first menstruation is isolated in a cabin for three days, during which time she is subjected to various dietary taboos. She is then painted with ocher and richly decorated by the women. 'At the climax,' Berndt writes, 'all the women escort her at dawn to a fresh water stream or lagoon.' After this ritual bath she is led in procession to the 'main camp, amid a certain amount of acclamation, and is socially accepted as a woman.' " Also, "In Shlesang during the last century, on the news that a child had been born, all the women of the village went dancing and shouting to the house of the new mother.......We know that in the thirteenth century such rituals were current in Denmark; having gathered at the new mother's house, the women made a straw dummy, which they called the Ox, and danced with it, making lascivious gestures and singing and shouting." (Emphasis, mine).
These examples of ritual gatherings of women not only prove that the ritual gatherings of women on the occasion of childbirth tend to become secret associations, but also show that such secret associations are based on lesbianism, be it implicit (as proven by the group birth described above) or explicit (as shown by the orgiastic gatherings in Denmark narrated above).
And finally, as even further proof of this emphasis on orgiastic lesbianism during the ritual gatherings of women, the word is used even by the book Rites And Symbols Of Initiations.......
"In the Ukraine, during certain holy periods, and especially on the occasion of marriages, girls and women behave in a manner that is almost orgiastic. This complete reversal of behaviour - from modesty (the modesty of open gatherings) to exhibitionism (the exhibitionism of secret gatherings) - indicates a ritual goal, which concerns the entire community. It is a case of the religious need for periodical abolition of the norms that govern profane life - in other words, of the need to suspend the law that lies like a dead weight on customs, and to re-create the state of absolute spontaneity (the spontaneity of orgiastic celebrations)."
Eventually, the nudity that is a characteristic feature of female gatherings might be mostly due to the ogling (sometimes taken by the stupid as mere curiousity) that has human beings ever wanting to know what one who keeps to himself is doing with himself. Women being weaker, generations of being thus ogled may have finally had them decide - even if not with all due consciousness - that if privacy was a right so difficult for their gender to receive from society, then their nudity might as well be as much of the culture of their gender as both fashion and the physical intimacy often sensual enough to be lesbianism - even when not accompanied by touch - which they share even when the eroticism in it is obvious enough by the nudity that characterises their privacy. For, consciously or subconsciously, they would realise it to be a waste of time not to wear that mini skirt, or bare that cleavage, before that man that probably grins over each occasion of her bath.
In Yorubaland, girls that have succumbed to this blatant abuse of privacy to that extent where not only nudity in private but also chastity is robbed of them, are known as ije. Regardless of how many university degrees they flaunt, their privacy is such public property that even a scene in a pornographic movie changes little of whichever regard is given them by society.
The limitations of the female gender creates an intimacy that eventually brings about the bisexuality of lesbianism, almost always. For, being shielded by so many cultures from the outside world, their activities naturally direct them towards an inner world that eventually introduces homosexuality - once exposed to the orientation - and the greater number of their gender dabbling into the spiritual. The boys go out to play football and war-war - be it on the battle-field or in the boardroom. The girls stay in to breed babies and be warm - be it in the privacy of the bedroom; or with pornography, however respectably camouflaged by fashion and entertainment. Being a pleasure object to the male-dominated society, what else, really, do they have to do but eat, drink, breed babies, and be pleasure objects to all and sundry - including even themselves? The only women that do not prove with their lives this assertion are those who are cut off not only from the power that is a male preserve, or the prosperity that groups of women attain through organised prostitution; but also from their own fellow women - in the prison of the home. They, when exposed to the orientation, eventually become as notorious as the homosexual is - who faces a similar limitation, and is thus never as bisexual as the gay actually is.
This secret aspect of female gatherings - the lasciviousness of lesbianism - is the major reason behind the little accessibility of female puberty rites (and, most especially, their secret aspects) to ethnologists. The majority of observers have given us descriptions of them that are largely external. And thus there is very little documentation on the religious instruction of girls during their initiation, and especially on the secret rites that they are said to undergo. Yet, the excuse has been given (both by certain human behavioural scientists, and by elders of the female secret groups themselves) that "the lubricious and orgiastic elements.......which are characteristic of female ceremonial gatherings can finally be explained by a ritual goal - ensuring fecundity." (to quote Mircea Eliade).
I refuse to concur.
Regardless of the level of respectability granted by such camouflages as the society being for spiritual, medical, or social reasons; all female secret societies (even in the most ancient of cultures) were based on the pursuit of activities along the sphere of pleasure, due to their having always been excluded from the world of power; however rich the liberation of women (in our generation) or the wealth of spouses (in general) may have made them. They were never allowed into the world of power (and, usually, prosperity) and therefore what else could they have filled their time with, and spent their energy on; when in a society that is supposed to be based on secrets?
Ancient ceremonies like that of the Zar and those described above, and modern societies such as sororities, make the answer clearly obvious to the perceptive.
They delve into all the secrets of pleasure.
And only a hypocrite will blame them. Even if they are on their own part hypocritical enough to lay as an excuse for the delving the ensuring of fecundity. Since they are never allowed into the world of power (even if liberated enough to acquire independent, even if emasculated, wealth) it should be understandable to a thinking man should a wealthy woman spend her money on the pursuit of pleasure. In the world that we live in (where outdoor recreation still remains male recreation, usually) that pleasure has as priority sexual pleasure.
Hence the dildos, the strap-ons, the vibrators that emerged after the liberation of women, during the sexual explosion of the swinging sixties in the United States (and that took the place of candles and fingers). Sex toys were invented for women only, initially; and that fact, I guess, bursts the age-old myth which says that men masturbate more often than women. Women masturbate just as often, if not even more. Thus the dildos and the vibrators. And that fact proves even more how successful their delving into the world of pleasure has been, condoned as it always is by the men - as long as they keep to their "You no need am" boundaries.
Thus the nudity prevalent in female gatherings (be they primitive, barbaric, or civilized enough to always be of formal education) than in gatherings wherein are the men; nudity that invites the caress, be it from male, or from female; as long as they invited to caress are perceptive enough to see through the facade of platonic relations supposed to be a feature of such gatherings, to the throbbing of aroused flesh that is the characteristic of the female - and the male, when emasculated: an ever-present state of arousal unknown to one not so deprived of masculinity, and thereby living a life too active not to spend on other endeavours the energy that is sex.
For the bared flesh always arouses curiousity, once it is of another; however much it is of the same - even if with no more than questions as platonic as, "Why are you always with an erection?" And, be the erection that of the phallus, or that of the nipple - both of which rise too readily, and have their rise too visible, for close-knit gatherings with such a prevalence of nudity not to be much more sexual than platonic; however single the sex they may actually be. And gatherings that have had such nudity been a characteristic feature of their privacy have always been female; regardless of how educated, or illiterate, regardless of how primitive, or modern.
Thus the number of men that will say, "All women are bisexual." And the number of women that will say; however respectably married, and even when in public, "All women are lesbian." Which would make the naive man and woman wonder whether we should exclude the North from Nigeria; and then give the country the name, "Lesbos."
But the simple truth, however, is obvious to one that ponders deeply enough; in the question, "Which other sphere of human activity have such women been exposed to, apart from that of pleasure?"
And the answer to that question can be seen in the number of women (however few) that have gained entrance into the other two spheres of human activity that is that of money and that of power, that can dare make such controversial declarations - even should they have the time to think over such issues as those in that world of pleasure. They would speak, if they indeed do (most especially in public, when hypocrite) exactly as the men do, on the average.......with words such as the derogatory judgment this gives: "Iranu."
"But refuse to enrol younger widows," saith the Scriptures, of the warmth characteristic of women. "For when they grow wanton against Christ they desire to marry."
And when they grow wanton, but there is neither Christ nor any other man to marry?
"And David came to his house at Jerusalem; and the king took the ten concubines whom he had left to care for the house, and put them in a house under guard, and provided for them, but did not go in to them. So they were shut up until the day of their death, living as if in widowhood."
Neither David nor his guards may have indeed known how wanton the concubines would have been - wantoness admitted to by Paul, centuries later. Had the former known, the latter would not have been shut in to themselves and, obviously, for themselves.
The harems of Solomon would have been characterised by the same homosexuality, even more licentious than that of women shut in to themselves. Seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines to one man, and who can believe his was enough to satisfy their appetites? Most especially when some worshipped deities with whom sensuality was the law?
I always laugh at the naivete of men, concerning the supposed chastity of women when they're in groups - merely because the group is devoid of men. Yet, like I always say, all a thinking man has to do is ask himself: If homosexuality is an acquired taste, as it indeed is, then why do women take to it so much more easily than do men?
Language betrays even further the major characteristic of female relationships being more erotic than platonic, ever from the days of old. The Yoruba woman will say of a friend, "My wife" (iyawo mi). An American woman would say, "My girlfriend." All in a bid to hide that which they can not conceal, even without using the words, "My lover."
Centuries of the folly of men exerting valuable energy running up and down, to slaughter themselves for women who supposedly have nothing else to do than "sit down there!" and breed babies, will answer that question with these words:
The sword is to the man what sex is to the woman, and he slaughters as easily as she sleeps around - ever from the very beginning, the one slaughtering, the other sleeping, with either the one or the other.
CHAPTER FIVE
Even the admission of women into the world of prosperity remains a myth. Those of them interested in wealth that is independent have to be in secret societies such as those referred to in the preceding chapter - and then learn how to provide to the men the pleasure, the secrets of which the societies would have delved into. Then, the men can reward them with an introduction into the world of prosperity. Yet, and even then, the wealth is emasculated. For it lacks the power with which a man's conquests in the world of business are recorded with words such as "take-over," and the fold-ups credited to his enemies.
Thus, the average female businesswoman is no more than a woman sitting down in a shop to buy and sell. The genuine secrets of business remains with the men. The lines of shops, the chains of businesses? Owned by the men.
And when the women in such societies would that they be granted power, they are merely given enough authority to speak in public. The power remains that of the men. Even when a supposedly powerful woman says, "I'll kill you;" the words remain a mirage without a man behind her ready to put it into action.
Those amongst the women that have the principles of the hardworking in the worlds of power and prosperity, but that despite then have not been given the keys to those worlds, usually seek another door in the occult - more often than do emasculated men, and as often (at the very least) as do those of them that throng into sororities. Hence the ease with which the word has connotations more often associated with witches, than with wizards. A greater percentage of women than that of men throng in there, being much more often than not locked out of other avenues by which they can pursue money and power.
Thus, the question remains. What else, indeed, could women ever have done - if not to respond to their exclusion from those other two worlds by succumbing to the impetus to therefore delve even more deeply into those secrets of pleasure, up to that extent where a man could reward it by beheading John the Baptist. And, in modern societies, up to that extent where all sororities are based on lesbianism - be it implicit enough for even the initiated not to be aware, or explicit enough for the sorority to bear the name.
That (as I will speak even further on, later on) is the major reason behind the nudity that is a common characteristic of post-adolescent females, when living together, and exposed to the post-adolescent secrets of their bodies. Be it in female boarding schools, or post-secondary educational institutions; the nudity is always present - when the males (the uninitiated) are absent. Such lodgings are almost always no more than boarding for orgiasts; only this time, the orgiasts usually pick partners - but even then, are almost always naked when together; even if not indulging at the same time. And these secret has been a female secret long enough for adult women to always insist on privacy for such lodgings that exceeds the privacy any man is ever privileged to on the basis of his own authority.
And having thus seen the reason behind the sexual orientation always developed by a woman independent enough to do no more than sit down at home with parents or a husband (but who, despite then, is kept exposed - be it via religion, or via the mass media) being always either bisexual, or lesbian - regardless of how passive it is the lesbianism; I do have to ask the question: which other choice does she have, in a society where the only ones out of the four spheres of human activity she is allowed to participate in are those of position (the position of daughter and housewife) and of the pleasure that may even become an addiction to masturbation, should her social limitations be to the extent of excluding boyfriend and husband. And those human behavioural scientists that still continue striving to delude the naive academia into believing men are more prone to masturbation than are women, should add a little more to their labour than handing out questionnaires that can always be returned - filled with lies. Businessmen will tell you, on the other hand, that sex toys are bought much more often by women than by men; thus proving the fact that women most probably masturbate much more often than do men.
Yet, the only worlds that the average woman (and each and every emasculated man) still is allowed into, are those of pleasure and of position.
It is because of this reason that women flaunt their sexuality (most especially when lesbian) with the same intensity of passion that homosexual men use to hide theirs, even in societies that claim to condone the latter's sexual orientation. A woman will not flaunt her heterosexual orientation, unless she's respectably married; or she will be given the most derogatory labels the male heterosexual barbarians can think of. But a lesbian will never put down a woman she has slept with, the way men give names to women that have slept with a number of them - not even if that other woman has also been as outgoing. Hence a woman flaunts her lesbian orientation (when it is in her) with the same pride with which a man wants the whole world to know how many women he has enjoyed the pleasures of sex with.
CHAPTER SIX
Flaunting sexuality is the female version of the boasting that happens to be a male characteristic, due to those other worlds over which she is ever denied conquest. From the cleavage that fashion almost always bares, to the mini skirts that ever keep on coming back into fashion; the words are the same, though rarely ever spoken. No, this time she's not trying to say, "I'm rich and powerful." She's saying, "I'm still enjoying my life; even though I don't drive a jeep, fly around in a jet, watch football games in a mansion, or sleep with the most handsome studs in the world."
Hence, the supposed prevalence of lesbianism amongst women in this generation; which would have a number of them say, "Women are all les;" yet which is no more than flaunting, with such words, and no more often - if not even much less - than do the men when boasting of their own jeeps, their jets, their chieftaincy titles, even their erections, and all those other signs of how well they have lived their own lives in all four spheres of human existence.
"These are my breasts," the women are trying to say to such men (who are usually heterosexual, even when not bisexual - and thus would find such breasts sexually attractive). "These are my breasts. And I suck hers too."
These secret of lesbianism is the only mystery about feminity, and not the "menstruation and the ability to give birth" to which human behavioural scientists have often credited the envy primitives have of "women's mysteries." For lesbianism, as has been stated above, dates back to those long-gone years when the harem was ruled over by the eunuch that had not the phallus that would bar him from mysteries that need not the phallus.
"These are my breasts. And I suck hers too."
That the men should be given the impression by her (even in worlds initially created for him, such as that of pornography - where he is today bluntly informed that lesbianism is "no man's land") he is told, with or without as many words, that he is as locked out of the world of pleasure as he has locked her out of the worlds of power and prosperity. And that he may then envy her the pleasure exactly as she envies him the jets, the jeeps, and all other such signs of power and affluence. And even more than primitives are known by human behavioural scientists to envy the female "mysteries" of menstruation and childbirth.
A relative envy, to quote Mircea Eliade even further, is the "women's jealousy of men's magics and lores;" jealousy which has led in female secret societies, "Where we find them to be organizations involving complex and dramatic entrance rites," to the "imitation of certain external aspects of the male secret societies."
Women never boast of heterosexuality the way men do, because the men would instantly denigrate them up to that extent where the shame comes in. But once lesbianism is condoned by society, a man trying to put the flaunting of lesbianism to shame will be seen by the society in general, and by the lesbian in particular, as merely being on the other side. Then, the stubborn men strive to impose the heterosexuality on such women; by having she and all others know she's actually bisexual. However, the woman, even with the condoning having been granted up to that extent, even then prefer to use the word, "les;" for a public confession to enjoying the pleasures of heterosexuality immediately brings in the derision, when that pleasure is flaunted by the women.
To avoid that derision, they flaunt the lesbianism - whenever it is condoned enough to be admitted to openly. Even if bisexual, even should they prefer the men in bed, they flaunt the lesbianism. For should they flaunt, and would that the world learn they are enjoying the pleasures of sex as much as men are known to, yet keep quiet over a lesbian orientation; it is instantly assumed that they are heterosexual, and the derision will come in. Even should they keep quiet over a heterosexual orientation as well, the minute they would that others know they "sleep around;" it is instantly assumed that they sleep around with men. Because heterosexuality is assumed the minute a child is exposed to sexuality, be it male or female. And in the female, it is assumed the minute she reaches adolescence - before she reaches adolescence, as proven by the number of irresponsible men that throw themselves at even girls young enough to be babies. For however old she may be, however ugly her features are, she will still attract men often enough to sleep with men - regardless of how conscientiously she would that she bend from the straight. Men rarely ever think with anything other than the brain within the groin.
And equally rarely do women, with all due apologies to those few men and women with genuine principles. As proven by the dress-sense with which the majority of women would that all male attention be theirs, in each and every generation.
Therefore, the minute the lesbianism is condoned up to that extent where it can be openly admitted to, the women instantly want the world to know they are "les" with a subtle aggression that betrays the boasting the flaunting actually is. They rarely ever have anything else to brag of.
"I may not know my way around the worlds of power and prosperity to that extent where I can be as rich and as powerful as you are," she's trying to say to the men. "But I have lived in my own world too, and I have lived in it as well as you have lived in yours."
Thus, whereas the men continue to claim, "Women are bisexual;" the women insist, "We are les."
CHAPTER SEVEN
The men, of course, continue to flaunt their own success in the worlds of power and prosperity as well as they always did back in those days of swords and chariots - when they do attain it. In the words of a certain American musician, this is all they ever think of.......
"Power and the money,
money and the power,
minute after minute,
hour after hour."
And even when they do womanise, it is still a form of flaunting. That is why they say they "carry" women, in Yorubaland. The "carrying" is not seduction; it is not with any of those characteristics the hypocritical woman would like to have the emasculated man believe he needs, to sleep with her - characteristics such as a handsome face, and charisma.Rather, it is always with money - and with power.
With which words do campus fraternities attract their newest members, in Nigerian universities?
"We get the best girls around."
And the shootings that often occur on such campuses proves the sort of male secrets with which they "get the best girls around" - even when their patron is on a podium in public, preaching against violence in public.
Thus, you don't have to know why men don't use make-up, and why even fashion remains more of a woman's world.
They boast as much of their successes in those worlds of power and prosperity as the women boast of how extensive their own activities in the world of pleasure is. They boast of their chieftaincy titles, they boast of their twenty-first century chariots, they boast of their wings on jets. And even when the power is accompanied by poverty, they boast of their erections. Which all boils down to the same simple fact: boasting of their virility. Not necessarily of their sexual potency in particular. But of how well their lives prove the manly strength and vigour they would that they have. As opposed to the libido women always boast of; be it with the laughter with which they deride a man when they're ready for more - and he's not, or the fashion with which they shun the shame of being on heat.
If only the men knew the emasculated man always has a higher libido.
A man will rarely ever flaunt his homosexuality, unless he's quite young. He would be told to be a man (and, subtly, to prove the virility that does not have to be accompanied by pleasure - even when in bed with a woman). And should he insist, he would be hated - and often enough, up to the point of persecution. For the world always wants a man to work, regardless of how crippled he may be by emasculation.
And it is quite amusing, for those wives who agree with that opinion concerning the sweat a man always has to exert to be a man, that the phenomenon of premature ejaculation which they often complain of arose as a result of that age-old societal insistence on a man being one that should always have better things than sex to spend his time on. Even when emasculated, he'll be respected more when he's been working, and not womanising. Thus he gets used to hurrying his way through the womanising.
And the equally ancient tendency for the emasculation of women to be such a part of society that the word does not even apply to them has also added to this very prevalent marital issue of premature ejaculation, in a way that none has noticed before. Because a woman that has only as much to do as an emasculated man - and less, when he's out working - will spend as much time on masturbation as adolescent boys are known to. An orgasm thereby, without the husband's presence, is enough for her to take a longer time to reach a climax during actual coitus with him - and enough for it to take much less time for his own orgasm to build up; because he does not have the time to spend on masturbation, because he has "better" things to do with his time, because - over the centuries - he has learnt how to grow up with the impatience of the extrovert.
On the other hand, and unlike the homosexual man, lesbians often flaunt that particular sexual orientation without feeling abashed in any way - even after the exuberance of youth, once society has approved of it to that extent. Being rarely ever exposed to the worlds of power and prosperity, she just as rarely ever has any other thing to boast of. And due to emasculation being such a feminine characteristic that women are never expected to possess the manliness its loss betrays with the word; at least, not enough to be powerful - even when liberated enough to be rich - the women usually realise their own limitations in life early enough to know, instinctively, in which world they should pursue their own activities. Unlike the average emasculated man.
Illiterate women amidst the lower class do not go flaunting the lesbian bent, on the average, when it is a path they pursue. Rather, they usually try to give out a more conservative air; for they usually still have in their society the traditions of the older culture. But in the middle and the upper class, the women (the minute they are exposed to it, and the bent is condoned) flaunt the lesbianism as shamelessly as a man will boast of sleeping with a girl young enough to be his daughter, that all may know she's living her life as well as he is.
"I'm les," she would say.
"What else do you have to say," I say.
Common sense asks one a question that to the questioned should be no more than rhetoric, if common sense is indeed common: If the most visible achievement of Woman throughout human history has been procreation, then what would naturally be that which she would obviously be most interested in?
Let us consider the following words from Mircea Eliade's commendable book, Rites And Symbols Of Initiation.......
"Among the Mardvins, the young married women, when they reach the house where the (secret) society's actual banquet is held, are struck three times with whips by the old women, who cry: 'Lay an egg!' and the young married women produce a boiled egg from between their breasts."
It takes little common sense to give the correct answer to the question I asked. Even in the most conservative societies, even in the most conservative individuals; the gender most interested in eggs and the laying of them has always been that of women. And the fulfillment they derive from the regard given childbirth by the society in general grants that interest a respectability so devoid of shame that the truly wise will always see how obvious it is that women encourage the sowing of wild oats (be it with fashion, culture, or others) much more than do the labourers that actually do the sowing. Even should the woman be respectably married, even should the encouragement be with the prurience their respectable secret societies are most often based on; a woman will lay, and would that she lay, much more instinctively than would the man whose instantaneous arousal at the sight of her nudity mocks his virility with the ease with which the arousal is lost - while he awaits with lust the emergence of yet another "conqueror."
Man is conqueror over woman only when homosexual; woman over man, only when heterosexual. And women know this instinctively enough to always be heterosexual, however powerful, most especially when powerful, regardless of the extent to which a proclaimed bisexuality flaunts its homosexuality.
The extent to which the women have conquered the men is obvious in the extent to which the labourer continues to sow the wild oats, and to murder other men that he may sow; hwever tame the sowing may actually be, however long the sowing has indeed been.
Men do also lay eggs as often as women, true. But not in the natural. In the world of the spirit - that is as male as those characteristics are female which has Nature always referred to with the female pronoun - men lay so often, and so instinctively, that the prophet has always been to the woman what Elijah was to Jezebel; and persecuted so viciously by her that he is always murdered, and thus slain in the hands of a Herodias, even when by the hands of a Herod.
Prurience is always a presence when in the physical, regardless of how holy the nature, regardless of how resolute the principle. But once a man has fallen for a woman, he has fallen - literally. And the woman felled - and just as literally too. Hence the lion that always comes out a lamb, after coitus. And the mockery that should accompany (and that always does, behind his back, on the part of the maid) his persistent blindness to its being then obviously no more than a phallus that has just been felled.
Thus the homosexual the prophet always is, when with the phallus always present in the physical - even if the sex is with the self, and not merely with the same.
I once lived in the same house with a certain young woman and her boyfriend; both good friends of mine, then. Yet, despite the friendship, the noise she would make while having sex with him often had I and the other tenants wonder how she could be so shameless as to let the entire neighbourhood into the intimacy.
Today, I realise why all the screams and moans. And women, on the average, wonder in a similar manner how a man can be shameless enough to spend a drunken night in a gutter. For it all boils down to the same flaunting; known to be boasting, when by a man - even in the world of pleasure; be the pleasure, sex (and men brag more of their heterosexuality than women ever do their lesbianism - it attests to their virility) or alcohol (which, despite then, has a man whose pleasure is sex as impressed by the man lying drunken in the gutter as a heterosexual woman is by a lesbian's flaunting of her sexual orientation).
Men that are womanisers are rarely ever drunkards as well - even when they do drink. They have other means of pursuing their pleasure.
My friend was boasting to the entire neighbourhood. That, I do know now. She was letting them all know, as much as was the drunk, the extent to which she lives her own life too. And if it was not just a case of boasting in such young women, even married women would always let their neighbours know - with similar yells and screams - that they're enjoying sex.
Those were the days before lesbianism became as prevalent, and as condoned, as it is today. Yet, even all those loud moans and groans then were saying exactly the same thing that the flaunting of lesbianism does today......."Yes, I know you men have the power - even as undergraduates. I know you can sleep with as many girls as you want to. But I catch my own fun too."
Even without the loud moans and screams, the heterosexual woman says no more than that; even if all she does to reveal the intimacy is hug and kiss her man in public. And even all that public hugging and kissing has always been more by the women, than by the men. Men boast - but they're admired more when they boast of their lives in the worlds of power and of prosperity, than when they boast of that which they live in the world of pleasure; however the number of partners.
CHAPTER EIGHT
However, if the women knew anything about sex, they would realise that sex is the most of the pleasure it can be for them during the intimacy of heterosexuality; and the most of that pleasure, for the men - most unfortunately for the raging barbarian heterosexual men - is during homosexuality. And therefore, however homosexual she may claim to be, a woman will not buy a sex doll. She will buy dildos, strap-ons, and vibrators - all phallic imitations. For the phallus it is that gives the pleasure, contrary to all the hype about lesbian sexuality; and proven by the number of men that, when exposed to the toy, will buy a dildo - however aggressively they boast of their heterosexuality. If it was indeed the supposed attractions of the woman's body that lures lesbians into the act, as quite a number of them do allege, then they would buy sex dolls as often as men do - and spend a lonely evening sucking the doll's bosom, rather than using a finger on themselves.
As far as I know, absolutely no woman buys sex dolls. Only the men do. The women, when they buy sex toys, buy only dildos and such. Even when they claim to be lesbians.
The phallus it is that gives the pleasure. Even when he receiving the pleasure is male.
The reason heterosexual men (and even lesbians; who are closer to the homosexual man when he's gay than are others) never realise this, is that they always associate homosexuality with no more than the pleasures of oral sex, and the pains of anal sex. Which often has them wonder why a man would pursue homosexuality when sex has never been associated with the pains they associate with anal sex, unless it also is rape; and thereby conclude that the homosexuality is no more than the oral sex that a woman can give, and therefore a case of the homosexual being too unmanly to attain the conquest in the worlds of power and prosperity with which he would be able to pick any woman he wished for.
However, coitus would be just as painful as anal sex can ever be, should the woman be not aroused. And homosexuality is a whole lot more than oral sex.
The entrance to the anus and its periphery (known in some circles as the "rim") is very sensitive, and consequently one of the most erogenous zones in both men and women - most especially when lubricated - endowed, as it is, with a lot of nerve endings which has anal sex become such an obvious source of sexual pleasure that the persecution of homosexuals has graduated from those by-gone days when their lives were at stake, to these days when those persecuting would rather cripple the pleasure by sealing the anus.
Homosexuality is anal sex. Most especially when the rectum is lubricated, as the vagina would be when stimulated. It is the pleasure the heterosexual man never realises is not his while flaunting his virility on top of a woman. And, to prove that assertion, ask yourself this question: when does a man's eyes become as glazed with pleasure as a woman's are, during sex? Pause, think, then ask yourself that question once more.
There's only one correct answer. During homosexuality's anal sex.
And during heterosexuality's coitus also it is - and only then - that a woman's eyes become similarly glazed. And, believe me, with the peasure she is then struggling to suppress from becoming loud moans and screams.
Heterosexual men, when exposed enough, often strive to get around the truth in that assertion by having a woman use a strap-on dildo on them. Lesbians deceive themselves the same way, when they use the strap-on, the dildo, the vibrator, and other phallic imitations. For the only thing they achieve (be it with the one, or with the other) is prove the truth in my words once again. The phallus it is that gives the pleasure.
But a great number of women, and an even greater number of men (even amidst those emasculated enough to have delved into the world of pleasure as deeply as a woman often does) know too little about sex to be aware of wherein the pleasure in it really lies. Even back in those days before all the plethora of web-sites on female pleasure, the glazing of eyes - for those perceptive enough to notice - betrays the presence of the pleasure more than does any volume of yells and screams with which the humping man is much more often assured of his virility. He feels all the speed and all the aggression proves him to be a man. But if he slowed down his pace wisely enough, he would be amazed at the extent to which his partner's face reveals her pleasure in sex much more than does any noise she could ever make.
Unknown to him, the noise even betrays the absence of that pleasure, much more than it does its presence. For the instinctive reaction of any observer would be to laugh - at the abandon, however restrained. Thus when the pleasure is indeed present, the average woman will not want an outsider let into the intimacy.
The homosexual man is as aware of the derision that can be caused by the abandon, as is the woman. Hence, the number of homosexual men that will let a man into the pleasures of anal sex with them is but as much as (if not less than) the number of men that the average woman will have sex with, without being raped. Unless, of course, the former is certain of the latter's sexual orientation. Which brought about the emergence of gay bars and clubs; where he could always be certain enough to indulge as often, and with as many, as he wishes to.
Pleasure always comes with an abandon that women have much more often during sex with a man that knows how to; and that men have much more often during anal sex with such a man. The phallus it is that gives the pleasure. And while giving that pleasure, it is in a position of authority that makes the act more of performance than pleasure - for him. Unless, of course, he's selfish enough not to bother about his partner's pleasure - with the "Wham, bang, thank you ma'am" with which he then betrays such selfishness.
The phallus it is that gives the pleasure.
I've not delved into a woman's sexuality deeply enough to be absolutely certain about what a multiple orgasm is, to her. But if a "multiple orgasm" is having an orgasm more than once in rapid succession, then I've had it often enough to realise it's not strictly for the ladies (unlike what a woman's characteristic limitation to the world of pleasure would not only have one believe, but has most academicians assume). And I've rarely ever had it during the labour sex is to the heterosexual man.
Male sex activities, as even women note - with complaints - is phallic-centred. And as the phallus is a symbol of both power and its consequent prosperity, so even a rutting male is doing no more than sowing the oats that yield the future children that eventually grant him that prestige, even when the sowing is with all possible instinct and no conscious effort. For a man, it is always work; unless he is as emasculated as the average woman is. He is always building, just as the artificial phallus is the built.
God probably saw through the "You no need am" hypocrisy that locks tha gates of power and prosperity to women and emasculated men a very long time ago. And I believe that that is why, for the average man, heterosexuality is no more than performance. Only when homosexual can he reach the peak in sexual pleasure.
"God is spirit," saith the Scriptures.
But, pray, if God is indeed spirit - as I would ask - and He has crowned man as ruler over woman; then who would the opposite spectrum of the spiritual that is the physical crown, regardless of how righteous the law strives to be in the physical?
When I see the raging barbarian empty-heads in the physical roar out loud to flex the rule they supposedly have over women, I always laugh at their naivete. Yet, and eventually, I always have to weep; for, inevitably, I see the women laugh even more often than I do at that very same naivete.
Once in the natural, and as a man, it is only with homosexuality that one can conquer the woman. Unless one is, of course, castrated. Or impotent. In the camouflaged labour that heterosexuality is, the labourer is the man, and the slave-master, the woman; however often the former, as an individual, uses the whip on the latter, still as an individual. In the collective sense, the latter always eventually has the last laugh.
If women had never been to a holy man what prison wardens are to an inmate, if a woman had ever been holy enough to live as such an inmate, if the man when holy had never regarded women with contempt reserved for the prison warden; then one would hesitate before one judged women as innocent as the executioner is, when the condemned are as guilty as Abel.
CHAPTER NINE
Human behavioural scientists usually believe there's a difference between a man's sexuality and a woman's sexuality vast enough to have been that which had the orgasm extinct in women in certain cultures, at certain points in time. They think men masturbate more often than do women. I laugh. Women buy sex toys more often, and that proves my point. If the men were not more prone to boasting of such, and women not more prone to secrets about such, the scientists would realise that women masturbate just as often as do men - if not even more; considering the energy men exert when not emasculated, and therefore running around to acquire power and affluence. They think men get sexually aroused much more easily than do women. I'm amused. A man's arousal is merely more visible; and a perceptive man would realise this by observing the nipple erections women often have, even in public - easily enough, and often enough, for him to wonder how the myth of the difficulties they encounter on their way to arousal arose. They believe men attain orgasms more easily than do women; and, once again, I laugh. I once learnt from a book whose title I forget how often young adolescent girls attain orgasms during a day's work, while working as seamstresses; with the friction their thighs have, one with the other, as they work on the sewing machines. And even these same behavioural scientists have come to realise how often mere physical exercise induces sexual orgasm in women.
And they would like to have us all believe that only a woman can have a multiple orgasm. How many times do I have to laugh?
Even women, in societies that allow them to flaunt their sexuality (as they usually, then, do) often would that others fall for such myths, most especially the last - with words which would have you know men can't have orgasms as often as they do within the same period, and that male orgasm can never be multiple. With absolutely no inclination towards boasting of virility, I can still remember having had six orgasms in a row - once, in my youth, during the labour heterosexuality is for a man. And it could have been more, even then, for the erection still reared. But she was just a little bit rather too tired.
If only all emasculated men knew what life would be, should they shun the other two worlds of power and prosperity as much as both would that they be limited into a crippled life therein; and then devote their lives to the third sphere of human activity which is pleasure, as passionately as the average woman does, even when faithfully married enough to ask for her husband's permission to sleep with another man - or a woman.
Thus I always wonder why the heterosexual barbarians always believe a woman is impressed by all their raging, or overlooks the derogatory titles with which they label her, when she pursues sexual activities amidst them. The women are awed by the masculinity displayed, true - but only enough to be awed into silence; and to admire, if she does admire, from a distance. Even when then attracted, it is by the accompanying money and power. Definitely not by all the raging. And not by the allure that has them throw themselves at emasculated men with an openess they never betray, when with the raging barbarians.
I believe the barbarians do realise this, however instinctively; and that is why they often dismiss emasculated men with the word, "Oniranu." But with women, once the word spreads around that a man is emasculated, and "willing" - that he likes "it" - it is all giggles and smiles; be it from the girls in particular, or from women in general. And the men that know will know how often women throw themselves at such men, however poor he may be, as long as he neither brags nor derides. Hence the word, "Oniranu" - even when all they know of him is his absence from the world of power, and of prosperity not emasculated.
The women know it, and I will say it once again. The phallus it is that gives the pleasure. And they still buy their dildos and such. Even when poor and lesbian, they use their fingers.
And these days, they flaunt that lesbianism with a passion that has had men begin to wonder why they're becoming so depraved. The hypocrites should let both they and the emasculated men into the worlds of power and prosperity; and then see whether the really decent would not then begin to approve of the word with which the former would that all the activities of the latter be summarised as : "Iranu."
Once in the same world, the only difference between a man and a woman is physiological. Definitely not psychological. There are as many female barbarians basking in the world of power, when let in; as men are known to be barbarians, on the average. And the former can be as fraudulent as the latter. And if only those male barbarians knew the women can pursue sexual pleasure with a passion similar to that which the former displays when it picks the latter up.
This similarity between men and women is what has the really decent leave emasculated men to their pleasure, even when homosexual; as often as they condone the extent to which a woman can pursue that pleasure, even when lesbian. When one is given all four options of the pursuits of power, pleasure, prosperity, and position; then is the only time the conscientious would that the society in general remember one has to be indeed hardworking, and not but a lustful laze.
Genuine pleasure is always accompanied by leisure - be the leisure the time the man frenetically throwing his energy into the pursuit of power and affluence often needs to recuperate, after merely one orgasm; or the entire day the average woman spends on her back - in the office as a "liberated" woman working to earn a living, at home as a pampered housewife.
And, like I have always said, there's very little difference between an emasculated man and a woman.
But one locked out of the worlds of the first and the third pursuits, even when male, would have all those that indeed do have a sincere conscience merely smile in amused approval, or sigh in pity; should he (as the average woman does, most especially in the West; after the women's liberation that enables her to) place all his energy into the pursuit of pleasure.
Hence the earnestness with which even the prostitute and the porn star would that all believe she works hard. For she is in the world of prosperity, however emasculated.
The sympathy the conscientious in the academia have for those ever locked out of the worlds of power and prosperity (most especially that of power) is that which has them approve of - or condone - the interest their colleagues have had in this generation in how well they can increase the pleasure women derive from sex. And they have been so successful that there are those today that do not even know there was a time sex was to the average woman what coitus is to every animal that reproduces sexually - pleasure, for the male only. But they have greatly neglected the needs of the emasculated man; who lives life almost exactly as does the average woman; who shoulders the burden of each and every one of the sort of societal problems that she shoulders - and more; and whose problems have never been noticed before by any but I, as far as I can see of this generation.
It is because of this lack of conscience with which the "You no need am" hypocrisy of the powerful men (who are mostly heterosexual) seeks to deprive women in general, and emasculated men in particular, of access to both power and prosperity; that both the former and the latter will let you know (when they do attain significant achievements in those worlds of power and prosperity, despite all the persecution that will accompany it) that they had to work twice as hard as the men to do so. This is a refrain that you will always hear on their lips (most especially when they are women) be the persecution that weighs them down in those two worlds blatant enough for any to see (as it is in uncivilised countries) or cunningly disguised with the "You no need am" theology.
Thus, a man (or a woman) has been crippled such that he cannot run around, unless blindly; not just to play (as the men do with their sports, their weed, their wine, their women) but also to work hard enough to make a significant impact in the worlds of power and prosperity. What else can he do then, most especially during youth (before the evil days come, as Solomon advised)?
CHAPTER TEN
Be it when it comes to the speed of the arousal, or the preference with which the aroused would that it be satisfied; the only difference between the man and the woman is that which has been granted by exposure. From erections to sexuality, and even on down to the supposed peak in libido attributed to adolescence, when in the male - to middle age, when in the female - the only factor apart from the health of the body, is the exposure the mind has been given. Erogenous zones, as a typical example of such supposed differences, are no more than the zones of a body awakened to sexuality, in those regions where the rousing resides. And the term arose due to the female subjects of the scientific studies on human sexuality - women that were actually they that had been awakened at that age when old enough to be a part of such studies, that age that actually conceals a fact unrevealed by such studies: which is that they were not thus awakened when adolescent and not only therefore under-aged, but also unexposed, despite having attained sexual maturity.
Erogenous zones are merely even more proof of how often science is wrong, how often women seek the pleasures of sex much more often as they outgrow adolescence, than the men that are usually derided for searching thus (a search, on the part of the women, that is as a consequence of the emasculation that limits the emasculated man with the same constraints) and how much more often with women those pleasures are satisfied via recourse to both homosexuality and masturbation; than with the men whose usually greater exposure can have them call in another partner with the same ease with which they would call in the marital, even when supposedly limited by the "sweet trap" of marriage. This exposure it is, in societies wherein the respectable woman is the shielded one - as the shielded one is always respectable everywhere - that had the human behavioural scientists believe women attain the peak of their own libido at an age when they have merely seen through the hypocrisy behind the shielding, and the exposure it is meant to conceal.
Marriage, invariably, is settling down into the activities of labour, for the man; into the activities of lust, for the woman. The eye-opener that adolescence is, for the man; is no more than that which marriage is, for the woman - or, at the very least, in those societies where the girl is over-sheltered by an adoration of virginity that has her unexposed to the pleasures of sex, until the introduction of the marital phallus.
This eye-opener is what has women being more prone to being plump than the average man is, as the inadequate exposure during adolescence has as consequence a gradually increasing interest in what they know men do, be this knowledge come via hearsay, or the approval of marriage; interest accompanied by experience very covertly hidden, but obvious in the certainty with which their physique gradually ripens as surely as their libido is supposed to at that age, when it has merely become steady, but their interest has reached its peak. Thus, an eighteen year old girl that is as exposed as a male age-mate will reach orgasm as easily as he does, regardless of how much the excitement of the rutting has him do no more than "Wham, bang, thank you ma'am." Thus, a thirty-five year old woman that is not as exposed to sexual partners will demand sex from her husband often enough to have scientists decide her libido then is at its peak, and his own peak is past. Thus women in the category of the former are usually quite slender, having outgrown the adolescent excitement of the rutting as naturally as men do, and thereby replaced that excitement with the characteristically male excitement that spurs the pursuit of power and affluence. Thus women in the position of the latter are usually quite plump by middle-age, their bodies having then been sated with the sensuality of the experiences they have gathered, up to that point wher they can then lie back and watch a man labouring over them with nothing but a smile of contempt, however much the accompanying pleasure; and unlike the women in the category of the former, who - however old - may even have arms flail violently in the throes of orgasm, their own bodies not having been sated by a life ripening physically with a steady awakening of its sensuality, and sex being therefore almost still as new to them as it is to an adolescent.
Liberation brought the respectability of labour to women in the West. But they also lost along with it the supposed self-control that satiation brings to the body, attained by them with experience they have always kept secret. Negro women, in general, are not yet as widely liberated; thus a middle-aged black woman is not only usually as emasculated as a woman has always been for them not to deserve even the name, but plump with the secrets of her gender that only an emasculated man will not look at in contempt, that has her continually demanding for respect, from men to whom the secrets are no secrets.
Energy is that which can be expended only on labour - be the labour that of sex, or that of the sweat that produces sustenance. Thus it really takes little between the ears to realise which gender has the closest affinity with the prurience of sex, when one observes the energy men exert on any other sort of labour. The sad aspect of the life of the emasculated is the stubborn refusal of society to have him do without labour that is as much of a toil, however obvious the limitations of emasculation, however unproductive the labour might be.
Rutting is no more than rotting, and the early exposure that society grants men much more often than it does women has labour avert the rotting that should naturally follow the consequent ripening much more often with men than with women. Thus the number of middle-aged men that can still lay claim to being no more than thirty, as opposed to one of the reasons women often give for wanting to marry early - the attractions they hold for the man are lost equally early. Yet the pubescent rutting that leads to the adult ripening does not necessarily have to become rotting - if the ripening is accompanied by the labour always that of a man, however emasculated he may be.
If the consciousness is governed by the brain, as scientists would like to have us know; if sex is the experience derived from the body by the consciousness, as common sense is enough to have us know; if sex is in the mind, as an orientation that can be acquired via experience is obvious from the acquired taste homosexuality is, however early it is acquired; then, from the sensual experiences that the body can give, to the mind from whence everything sexual emanates, to the brain wherein dwells the mind, to the consciousness that is governed by the mind, to the experiences of the consciousness that determines its subconscious; it is obvious that even a toe can be an erogenous zone when both conscious and subconscious have explored sexuality as deeply as a woman usually does, be she a housewife sitting down at home, or a "career woman" sitting down in an office, or a "business woman" sitting down in a shop; and all three old enough to have erogenous zones the unexposed adolescent girl can not have, zones that deceive the scientific researcher as often as the answers on the questionnaire can be the falsified products of shame, and not the true products of experience.
Thus the clitoral erection that even an infant girl will have, despite the nipple erections that have to be accompanied by the physical awakening of adolescence, and the masculine ease with which orgasm is attained by her (when unexposed) only after the years following adolescence have had society (be it via marriage, or via the mass media) stimulate an ever-increasing interest in sex. Thus the scientist that tells you a woman's thighs are as much of an erogenous zone as a man's are not, has merely been deceived by the prurience that fills the mind of the woman old enough to answer his questionnaire (and square enough to bother with it) prurience which the man frenetically striving for power and affluence rarely ever has the time to dwell upon; prurience leading to a depth in her experience of sexuality that the man ever in a hurry never has the time to live. This experience is what has made conjugal bliss often no more than a chore for the housewife already sated by activities as personal as masturbation should be, as devoid of societal approval as lesbianism usually is, or as much of a taboo as the incest breastfeeding is.
The religious man may quote scriptural verses concerning the weakness attributed to the supposedly weaker gender, to justify the shielding of her youth as protection. But those that shield would be either shielded or dead, had they not the scars of victory.
The facts of life should be known to the child, at an age justified even by Alex Haley's Roots. And the wisdom the primitive have, that the emasculated civilized rarely ever have; is seen in the natural course the wild sexual exuberance of the primitive, when adolescent (be he male, be she female) takes to reach the adulthood (a physical peak including sexuality that is no more adolescence than that of a stable adolescent) wherein it settles down into the stable heterosexual matrimony of the home, and the stable heterosexual patrimony of the world outside it. As opposed to the folly of the supposedly civilized cultures wherein the offspring over-protected into an emasculated adulthood (usually women; but, in the West of today, more and more often men too) develop an interest in sexuality that an exposed adolescence would have had them outgrow enough to take sex as food is taken - a fact of life, and no more than that.
One may thus ask those (usually women, and quite sadly too - for those they seek to thus imprison are usually in shoes reserved for their gender) one should ask all those who would that the emasculated "settle down".......if you've never been around, into what are you settling down? The home of a marriage? Or the prison of a home.
Women in Western societies of today have passed that stage where they pleaded for liberation, to the age of today where they demand for empowerment. Liberated women? Liberate the men. And stop deceiving yourselves that settling down into the matriarchy of the marriage you always strive to promote is not equivalent to being locked out of life, as an emasculated man is. For the only difference between the emasculated man and a woman in the shoes of Woman, before liberation, is the fact that his own clitoris can impregnate, and thus have the hypocrite and the religious would that he believe it is a penis.
Why do women die so much more often than do men in developing countries? Why do children die so much more often than do women in developing countries? Is it not because of the same blindness caused by emasculation that now has the liberated woman snarl at me, concerning the H.I.V./A.I.D.S. some can even boast of their having infected me with: "If they hadn't, he would just have been sleeping with his students."
For the greater number of deaths of women and children in developing countries are no less condemnable than the abortions that the unrighteous see, behold, and know not as the evil it is - even in those supposedly civilized countries where the rights of the foetus belong to the mother, and its murder by her hands is therefore justified. Mothering is murdering, once a child is no longer being breast-fed; and the women and the children dying in large numbers in developing countries are no more than the victims of a society mothering them out of life - a legal form of mass murder justified by the tenets of the "You no need am" hypocrisy.
There's a whole lot more to childbirth than the mere ejection of the foetus from the womb. "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." For even the cutting of the umbilical cord grants the new-born infant no more than the privilege of physical growth, as opposed to the societal growth that should be his before "settling down" into the matriarchy of marriage, with which he rules as a man in the patriarchy of society. Without that societal growth, marriage is inadvisable; unless, frankly speaking, he marries a "he" that is such as him. Another emasculated man. Definitely not a woman. For she would strike him down, with or without her bare hands; as definitely as those men would whose access to power has them enforce the labour that they believe should always accompany the pleasures of sex, most especially when the pleasured is the male, and however old he may be.
This pleasure, access to which homosexuality gives without unnecessarily encumbering with the burden of labour, is what women and the heterosexual men envy so much, and that has male homosexuality shoulder such a heavy burden of persecution. For the women know what the homosexual knows, but would that he know it through them. And the men know what the homosexual knows, but not with the experience that of a woman. To put the reason behind their envy in the most apt words: Homosexuality is all the pleasure of sex, with neither the labour of woman nor that of man, both of which Nature has accompany such pleasure through childbirth. Hence the widely accepted condoning of homosexuality, when female enough to be tagged lesbian; for then it is no more than the bisexuality that acknowledges the labour, even if it does not experience it. Hence the prison of formal education society emasculates the boy-child with, before finally having the imprisonment that of life, after the independence a peak in the education should give, with the sentence marriage then is. And hence the folly of the emasulated, when not homosexual; even if the homosexuality has delved deeply enough into the prurience of sexuality to be the wider road of bisexuality - as is the case with a great number of women; and men, when wise enough to see through the folly of competing with those other men given by society the muscle of power that the emasculated does not have.
And should you hold onto your rights determinedly enough to decide you will not marry, despite being emasculated; the only other advice I can give is this: Play like a woman. Don't play like a man.
Play as women do; for whom the pleasure is as much in the cooking as that which men find in the eating; for whom the foreplay is as sought after as the ejaculation men simply want to get over with, that they might get on with their quest for power and affluence. Don't waste your energy running along with such men - be it merely for the play, or for the quest as well - for such as they never let the emasculated into the secrets of power that accompany their play. Rather, delve into the play of the woman, as the woman does - and even within the limitations of solitude, the delving can be as deep as it often is with the woman; with an awakening of the senses to pleasure that has scientists believe her libido reached its peak at that age when, in reality, she merely discovered the most out of it.
The words of one of those that strive to enforce emasculation in my own life amuses me with the frankness with which it admits to the murder that is emasculation, in a world where life is action.......
"Just sit down there!"
And rest in peace, I would add. Peace Profound.
CHAPTER ELEVEN
With the increasing number of men becoming interested in their own sexuality in particular, and in sexuality in general (even when the interest is not gross enough to be limited to pornography; as it usually is, when the interest is from the barbarians) up to that point where they become homosexual, even if not actively (as women are usually interested in their sexuality in particular, and sexuality in general; up to that point where they often develop the lesbian bent, even when not an active one) it is obvious that the "You no need am" point of view is a hypocrisy that will very soon backfire on the raging barbarian heterosexuals that continue to flaunt their own power and prosperity with their jets, their twenty-first century chariots, and the hypocrisy with which they strive to keep emasculated men down - most especially when the latter is homosexual (for then, the emasculation becomes obvious to all else, including women and children; and thus becomes an insult on the barbarian hypocrites themselves. For which one of them would want a homosexual man to become such a success that he also becomes a role-model to such children?) The hypocrisy will backfire; and it already has - with the homosexuality that has overwhelmed Western culture up to the point where it has eventually become not only overlooked, but also acceptable enough to be accepted; with the number of barbarian hypocrites that now complain, in Nigeria, of a similarly growing prevalence of lesbianism amongst its women (even if it is not yet acclaimed as being as prevalent as I have always believed lesbianism has always been in the over-emasculated women).
Gays (in that Western world wherein homosexuality has become acceptable enough to be fashionable) are most often homosexual men that have accepted the limitations of emasculation; and that have decided to delve into the world of pleasure as frankly as a woman usually does, in countries wherein they're liberated enough to do so. Their homosexuality is not a threat to the heterosexual bullies, who more often take them as women than as men. And their limitation to that sphere of human activity that is all the male-dominated society ever approves for they in particular and women in general has them live a life with a relationship extremely close to lesbians; a closeness that can not be merely because they share the same persecution - an impression often given by their movements and their campaigns (and, indeed, they're as persecuted as often as the lesbians are - and more) but because they share the same pursuits - in the world of pleasure. When adored, they're as adored as a woman can be; when derided, it is just as often as a woman is. For they are all as emasculated as women on the average are. But there is power in united number, and both they and the lesbians know this; and thus the movements and the campaigns that bring them together in numbers. And (with their both living in that same world, with a life that shares the same sort of secrets) those movements are always so intertwined that they're always known as "Gay and Lesbian." They're rarely ever called "Gay," "Lesbian," or - note this - "Homosexual and Lesbian."
However, once a man has acquired approved entrance into the world of power, and prosperity that is not emasculated; any homosexual orientation in him will always be sternly disapproved of. Not even the Press would refer to him with the adorable word, "gay." Rather, he would be labelled a "homosexual;" and (even in those countries wherein homosexuality is supposed to be not only condoned, but approved of to that extent where they call themselves "gay" - being that happy that they have become as approved of and as adored as the women in whose emasculated world they live in) even in those countries, he would become as notorious as the homosexual ever was.
The road to homosexuality is a road narrow enough to be realised by any genuine mind to be a righteous road. Genuine minds other than those of the religious - who continue to point at Sodom without realising that that city was destroyed because of such as the heterosexual barbarians that I ever condemn, who indulge in such as that which I call rape - even when homosexual - that which the Scriptures described as wickedness; and not because of the purity in homosexuality. However, that purity cannot be discerned from the life-style of the average man, due to the fervid fanaticism with which he pursues cheap sexual thrills - sometimes masquerading as homosexuality, often more honestly known as bisexuality; amongst the illiterates, including even bestiality.
For a man in the worlds of power and affluence whose homosexuality is not a secret, will be persecuted with a fanaticism fervid enough to eventually have him develop extremely staunch principles. And even should he be emasculated enough to be in a woman's shoes, and to pursue his pleasure as a woman does; in our own generation, it will usually still be with the product of his own sweat - unlike the average woman.
In the licentious lasciviousness that came about immediately after the liberation of women, the world of homosexuality was more often that of his; due to the law and order of the unrighteous walled that (in this generation and certain others) walls off, more often than not, the male; than the female that were then walled off before that liberation that supposedly came about as a consequence of repression - of female muscle; which, judging from that which the resultant independence revealed, is no more than flaunted flesh.Before that liberation, the women were even more often walled off; up to that extent where those of them that discovered lesbian tendencies in themselves rarely ever discovered more than one other woman with a similar bent - and ready to share it. Thus even lesbians, then; except in lower class societies (who have always been ready to indulge in the worst depravities) were usually two women living together, if possible; and cautious enough not to divulge the secret of their sexual orientation to just any other.
But men, then, had more exposure. And this exposure led to the myth propounded by academicians - that homosexual men are "less able to form stable associations with each other, and tend to change partners or seek new sexual contacts more frequently than do female homosexuals, who are generally monogamous with one partner."
The words quoted above are by Derek Llewellyn-Jones, a gynaecologist. The book Psychology Today, An Introduction, shared the same opinion. And Llewellyn-Jones included, in his own book, his own opinion that that inability to form stable associations with each other "may give some point to society's condemnation of male homosexuals." However, had he been a bit more observant, he would have realised that women that had the same degree of exposure (even then, most especially now) were as unstable with their own relationships as men have ever been known to be; be they homosexual or heterosexual, be they powerful or emasculated. And it would be even more obvious to him, had he done his home-work properly, that the bias between how the one is condemned while the other is condoned can - and most probably does - give rise to the instability he did notice.
Today, those observations are obviously even further proof of the exceedingly little difference there is between male and female sexuality - and proven even further, with the number of lesbians that are known in this generation (openly enough for them not to even bother concealing it, but to flaunt it) as changing their partners as often as men are wont to womanise; as often as that which gave Professor Llewellyn-Jones an excuse to condemn the male homosexual, however slightly.
In the words of Juanita Bynum (singer, actress, author, preacher), ".......I've been with men, I've been with women. All of it."
In the United Kingdom, back in those days when homosexuality was so prevalent amongst its men that even its supposed heterosexuals were usually bisexual men, men in the shoes of the gays of today were known as fairies. They were men not only emasculated, but holding such physical attractions to the other homosexuals that the only name by which they could be known was a name that was meant to woo them - as being as beautiful as a fairy has always been known to be. And their emasculation was approved of by so many, even though silently, that the minute their beauty was noticed - however early - they would begin to receive advances from even supposedly heterosexual men. Not even the raging barbarians would be left out of the act; for such as they, on the average, will take advantage of any weakling - be she a woman, be he an emasculated man. Thus the rape that condemned the men of Sodom as being guilty.
And thus the formative years of such fairies including lessons on how to make themselves as attractive to other men (be they homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual) as a woman is always concerned about. How close women and such emasculated men always are is again proven by the fact that those lessons were always received from women.
The beauty of the fairies, then, was often noticed at such an early age that (unlike the gays of today, who can be quite manly; having had their fraternities open the doors of independent - even if emasculated - prosperity, to them) they quite often grew up to become extremely effeminate. For they grew up more as the women do, their sex partners usually being the powerful and supposedly heterosexual men that pampered them with such affluence (ever right from adolescence, if not even earlier) that they grew up leaning on those men exactly as women do. Thus they sought to attract those men; not only with that effeminacy, but also with the interest the average woman has in fashion and in make-up - up to that extent where they would put on lipstick, wear eye shadow, and cover their faces with other such female adornments. That they may attract men, even supposedly heterosexual men, they would even patronise female clothing only - in some instances.
But the emasculated men of today, when they're wise enough to ignore the shun of the other two worlds and delve into the world of pleasure; as often delve into it so deeply that they become as bisexual as gays and lesbians usually are. The solution they find to that shun is that which women have discovered for centuries, even when laying claim to heterosexuality; and (the secrets of that world being a woman's secret) they're always closer to the women (most especially those lesbian - for a woman with a thoroughly heterosexual orientation will disapprove of them as sternly as does a man with the same orientation) and closer to themselves; in both cases, to keep the secrets of their pursuits away from the disdain of the heterosexual "hardworking" in the worlds that shun them - those of power and its affluence. You can never find a "Gay, Lesbian, and Heterosexual" group. It will always be "Gay and Lesbian." And, not wanting the depth of their own activities in their own world to become an open secret on the other side of the fence (to be derided as often as a woman is when her own pleasures in the world of heterosexuality is a topic in conversation) they keep to themselves, and to the women in general (lesbians in particular) and therefore do not bother with cosmetics and fashion as fairies did, in the days of old. The attractions which the male body holds for them is not that which requires any imitation of the female.
CHAPTER TWELVE
The selfishness with which men lock both women and emasculated men out of those worlds of power and prosperity is that which makes women flaunt their own pleasure as openly as men do their jeeps and their jets - the minute the former is given permission to do so.
"What else do I have to show for life?" is that which a woman once used to justify her "immoral" activities, to my hearing.
The activities being defended then were lesbian.
But on their side, only when they're locked out of the other two spheres of human activity are men wise enough, on the average, to delve into the third as deeply as the women are wont to do - rather than live the emasculation in a world of anguish. However, they do not flaunt; most especially when the delving reaches a depth that discovers the pleasures of homosexuality. For should they flaunt, they would instantly be persecuted with a lack of conscience that has some Arab countries glue their anuses, and that has them mocked and derided even in those countries wherein an image is given of condoning the orientation - mocked with the derisive condemnation that just cannot have them flaunt the homosexual bent as openly as a woman would, and that is as derogatory as that with which a woman is mocked and derided when she flaunts her heterosexuality. The hypocrites mock the homosexual just as often, just as much, and for no other reason but envy.
Being in the shoes of a woman, with not even the benefits of a woman that homosexuality offers the emasculated man, is all that the persecution of the orientation strives to attain. That the eventual consequence may be the sorry sight of a man as weak as only a woman ever is, being forced to wage war as only a man ever should.
Those amongst the emasculated that are not as wise?
They ignore the pleasure; and continue striving to compete with the men that have not admitted them into the worlds of power and prosperity. They're the ones that take twenty years to get a job, even when with the most lucrative degrees from the most reputable universities. Not being wise, they would take it to be an unemployment problem. They would not realise it to be no more than proof of the persecution that is their burden.
If such men realised how often their application letters do not even get to its destination, they would not bother with the applications at all. And even when they do?
"Who is he?" the powerful men will say of them in disdain, behind their backs, after their applications are read. In other words, who does he think he is to believe he can ever earn a living.
And the poor emasculated are then deceived by the cunning public into wasting away life with application letters and poverty-stricken employments; when they could just ignore the snub of those worlds of that prosperity and that power, and face squarely the third line of activity that life has to offer the living that has anything to do with life - that of pleasure.
Women usually get round that problem by sitting down under a man, and then have him earn for her that power and that prosperity.
Men? They're always brought up (even when so emasculated they are of the poor, the weak, and the down-trodden) to believe they it is that have to earn a living for the home. Only in societies such as the Roman and the Greek empires did they actually solve the problem as a woman would, by staying under a homosexual powerful enough to take care of them.
I believe it is about time for another such homosexual revolution. For the rate at which men are emasculated in society today (not only by the cunning of women, but also by the hypocrisy of men) and ever right from the days of their youth, lets in a need for the selfish hypocrisy of the "You no need am" culture to be defeated; not only by a society that can take care of its emasculated as well as homosexual men used to be taken care of in both ancient Rome and ancient Greece, but also by empowering such homosexual men in a manner similar (though not similarly sexist) to that with which sexist sororities in those countries where such societies sprang up from, will empower even a lesbian woman with membership - regardless of how heterosexual such sororities publicly appear to be. For most often the women that preach it, would that the "You no need am" myth be shoved down the throats of men only - being obvious that the men always overshadow them once admitted into the worlds of power and prosperity. And the men have always been too blind to see the chauvinism in the women that liberates them, empowers them, yet ignores the emasculated man (regardless of how young, weak, or down-trodden) that shoulders the same burden as - if not an even worse one than - that which the women are ever complaining of.
The two human genders may eventually have to go their separate ways. The only species on earth that do not have a gender war are those that are not human. And if the liberation and empowerment of women (such that they even claim victory over men in the gender war) always leads to the emasculation that favours homosexuality; then, obviously, there will soon be two new species of human beings - homosexuals, and lesbians. For there cannot be two captains in a single ship, and the empowered woman should know this.
The roaring heterosexual males have their own path towards extinction charted out for them (and laid out before them) unless they put enough between their ears to never emasculate a men, and to keep a woman in the home. And they know this themselves. For a woman outside will have to war as the men do, and a man inside will live like a woman; and that is a definite fact of life.
To which destination the two genders of humanity that almost certainly will eventually become two species are headed (unless the heterosexual male puts more between his ears than plotting how to keep man down) can be seen in the height of the phallus, each and every time it is built with the depth of the vagina; and the depth of the vagina, each and every time it sought to build as the phallus does. In past eras where this phenomenon had been a characteristic feature, the vagina always eventually depraved the society as certainly as coitus by Noah with his wife would have been pornography to his own generation - for all the vagina ever builds is the sensuality associated with human reproduction. But the sunk-in phallus inevitably became such a pen that is, that - despite the characteristic poverty associated with decadence, and always seen in slums and ghettoes and other such gatherings of the modern lower class - the pen retained the power in it; and proved it with products such as Alexander The Great, Michelangelo Buonarrotti, Plato, and Socrates. The female epitomes of the vagina that reared up in those days are unsung, and unknown - despite the influence they must have wielded to bring about such decadence.
The admittedly greater disciplines of civilizations wherein the phallus had not sunk in to become a pen that is, and the vagina had not reared up to cover with its characteristic sensuality; has despite then never produced achievers in the latter as great as those in the former. Thus, a procession along the path of the former - even if obviously to that extent where two new species of human beings will emerge from its two genders - is preferable to the violence that is always a characteristic replacement of depravity, in the latter. The walk along this path has never been on for so long before, though it has often begun. But when it does, as it should, then we will have the men that have always been so much of light in the depths of the darkness that - despite all negative overtones associated with the world of the spiritual - the male witch is always known by the flattering name, "wizard." The pen is always mightier than the sword, for the sword is never more than a far loss.
The female?
Her most positive attributes are manifested in the world of Nature - in the promiscuity that is tagged rutting when observed in lower animals, and in the mothering accompanied by it. The mother and the sex symbol. Or - to be more precise - the mother and the pleasure object. Reproduction has always been her forte, and the greatest extent to which it glorifies her can be found only in the natural.
Creation is the forte of the male, and he rises to the peak of its depths in the spiritual. This, the emasculated man has always known, when wise enough - though cut off from the masculine attributes of power in the physical, though not even with the university degrees that da Vinci ignored. And they lay their own eggs as proudly as women do in the physical, they lay their own eggs in that world of the spirit wherein the glory of God with which they were created attains its full manifestation.
CONCLUSION I
On Female Homosexuality*
Lanre and Deola (not their real names) the former, a twelve year old boy - obviously heterosexual; and the latter, an eight year old girl; were discovered to be having an affair. They were first cousins, and the boy had apparently been so exposed to sex (most probably through pornography, although he claimed that he learnt of it while observing his parents making love in the bedroom which the entire familiy shared) that he knew how to introduce the eight year old Deola into lesbianism - by teaching her how to indulge in oral sex with her younger sister. They were brought into a church to have the pastor intervene - and he did indeed intervene; although not through prayers, but through corporal punishment. I (in the neighbouring house, with the window of my bedroom right next to the shed that housed the church) could not help overhearing it all.
And then again, the passage that I once came across in a certain Nigerian soft-sell magazine called Best Lover (issue twenty-seven)......."One afternoon we were with some of Kasim's friends and he began goading two of the girls into kissing each other in front of a camera" (emphasis, mine).
Now, the point I am trying to make here is that if there is anyone to blame for the incredible increase in lesbianism amongst the women of today, it is their male counterparts - their heterosexual male counterparts - who are always trying, be it wittingly (as they quite often do) or unwittingly (as is a lot more often the case) to convince the women that women are all bisexual; that they might have as many opportunities as is possible, to sleep with as many of them as they can.
When it comes to the unintentional seduction of the women into this conviction, let us study the society in which we live. We live in a society dominated by the heterosexual male.And in such a society, the female body would be the sex object - and it indeed is. Consider billboards. Check out advertisements in the mass media. And study pornography. All are created by the business world to tempt the richest and the most powerful human beings on earth - the heterosexual males - into buying their products, by placing the object of their sexual desires (and the usual reward for all their labour) right before their eyes. Thus they are reminded (or deceived into thinking) that when they buy these products, they have a greater opportunity of getting that reward. And in a society dominated by heterosexual males - where the woman's body is the sex object - it is easier also for the women (more than it is for the men) whose sexuality is not yet defined, to be influenced into also regarding one another as sex objects. Hence the rise in lesbianism in the present-day generation.
And pornography. Yes, pornography. Porn was created initially for a male audience. And since one of the male human's greatest sexual fantasies is viewing (or being sexually involved with) lesbianism, pornography caters for this need by placing as many lesbian scenes in x-rated movies and erotic literature as is possible. Thus the point is proved once again. Women being goaded (as the Kasim referred to above was trying to do) or seduced (as the twelve year old Lanre succeeded in doing) into regarding one another as sex objects, by a society catering for heterosexual male fantasies. For a woman exposed to such forms of entertainment will inevitably, sooner or later, begin to regard her gender as the sex object those forms of entertainment present it as. That is why even the "female" porn that originated from the other sort of pornography - and that was created for, if not created by, the woman - treats lesbianism as naturally as it treats heterosexuality; unlike the rigidity with which male homosexual erotica is separated from other forms of erotica, in each and every type of pornography. In fact, this goading of the women (or seduction, as the case may be) has now crossed the barrier between erotic literature and movies, and other such forms of entertainment; into the more decent forms of entertainment - such that it is now nothing new to see in a movie, or read of in a literary work of fiction (be those two pornographic or not) two or more women having sex with one another.
In an apt summary of what pornography's glorification of lesbianism does to female sexual orientation, here is what a female reader wrote an Agony column; in a letter published on the 1st of December, 2007; in the newspaper, The Nation:
I'm a 31 years old married woman who has been sexually active since 12 years ago but can't remember ever having orgasm except if I masturbate which I do often. I love watching porn films to a fault. I fantasize having multiple sex with males or females. Please how can I enjoy my husband and release? My sex life bothers me. xz - Ibadan. (Emphasis, mine).
I can never blame the women, however, for any of these sort of vices. I shall always blame the men. For a lesbian is actually not a homosexual, unlike that which most people would think. A lesbian is none other than a less being. Even when a woman sleeps with a dog, she's not indulging in bestiality. She's just being a less being - or, to use the words of the Holy Writ, a weaker vessel.......bowing down to the wishes of the stronger vessel.
Women follow men like sheep follow the shepherd, and had the men - most especially the heterosexual men, in whose hands have been placed by God the power with which to rule - had those men the discipline needed to create a decent world, the women and the children would all join hands with them to make that world a much better place to live in.
*This conclusion was initially published as an article on the blog www.stillandbitter.blogspot.com.
CONCLUSION II
Lesbianism And The Libido Of The Woman*
A woman's libido is at the very least as high, if not even higher than that of a man. Not naturally, as is quite obvious from the fervid fanaticism with which every male animal pursues sex with the female; but a man does spend a lot more energy running around - and energy is needed for sex. But that is by the way. As I was saying, the only reason behind the strength of heterosexual temptation being less for a woman than it is for a man is that most women satiate their sexual desire by secretly sleeping with one another. They then sleep with men in order to gain money, power, or position. Their hypocrisy is too great for my liking. And it needs to be exposed.
It is because of this prevalence of homosexuality amongst women that they usually demand for, and are almost always then given (by the naive, and usually male, authorities) more privacy than the men. Go to boarding schools. Visit hostels in tertiary institutions of learning. Even in prisons. The story in all those institutions is always the same. For the females in those places usually have a whole lot more privacy than their male counterparts. They insist on that privacy, not because they want to conceal their nudity from the men, but because they want to conceal their sexuality from the men. The minute they are certain that they will not be disturbed by the men, their clothes are sent flying off from their bodies. And believe me when I say it is not due to the heat of the weather that those clothes are sent flying off, but due to the heat in the women. If it was merely due to the heat of the weather, a woman would not then spend less time naked when living alone, than she does - on the average - when living with other women. And if it was just a case of concealing their nudity, they would not eventually present themselves before the public with their bodies almost totally exposed by the fashion of the day. They would, instead, be decently-clad. But because they don't want their naive suitors to know where they get the supposed discipline needed to resist male advances as religiously as they are quite often wont to do, they insist on quite a great deal of privacy when they are together on their own. After having satisfied their lust amidst themselves, they then call men who sleep around with women all sorts of derogatory names; and men who sleep with men, they call perverts. What hypocrisy!
When you stop to think about it, any man that has ever slept with a woman before will know how much women love sex. To be frank, if you put a woman in prison, and you then expose her to no other company but that of men, sooner or later she'll beg those men for sex - regardless of whether she considers herself to be lesbian, bisexual, or straight. There will no longer be any "playing hard-to-get." So where then do they get the "discipline" needed to refuse sexual advances from men (which they much more often than not do) if they do not have any other means of placating their sexual instincts? The prevalence of lesbianism amongst women is obvious from the immense difficulty with which men (or - at least - those of them that are yet to attain power, prosperity, or position) get them into bed.
Let us look at it from another angle. We all know how much men love sex. We have had that fact stubbornly drilled into our ears throughout all the ages. Yet, when a man is cheating on his wife, he usually finds excuses not to sleep with her - due to the fact that he has found another means of placating his sexual desire. The same rule holds for the average woman (be she married or single, young or old) when she refuses the advances of men to the ridiculous extent that quite a lot of them are wont to do, or when she plays "hard-to-get." She has other means of placating her sexual desire.
However, like I will always say, I do not blame the women - not at all. I will always blame the men - for being silly. Not that I do not believe in being a gentleman. On the contrary, I always try to remember my manners when I'm with the weaker gender. But I do not believe in being a naive gentleman. I have absolutely no illusions concerning women. The only difference between the wife sitting down in her husband's house, and the whore roaming the red-light districts - on the average - is that the latter is more honest than the former.
*This conclusion was initially published as an article on the blog www.stillandbitter.blogspot.com.
CONCLUSION III
Hypocrisy, Homosexuality, And Religion*
An Answer to the Parson
"Why of the sheep do you not learn peace?"
"Because I don't want you to shear my fleece."
- William Blake.
The Garden Of Love
I went to the Garden of Love,
And saw what I never had seen:
A Chapel was built in the midst,
Where I used to play on the green.
And the gates of this Chapel were shut,
And "Thou shalt not" writ over the door;
So I turned to the Garden of Love
That so many sweet flowers bore;
And I saw it was filled with graves,
And tomb-stones where flowers should be;
And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,
And binding with briars my joys and desires.
- William Blake.
In this generation, "filled with homosexual graves;" I would say - emasculated tomb-stones wherein the beauty of fairies would be flowering; had they not been imprisoned by the bricks of law, and stoned by the rocks of religion, both of which characterise the folly ever damned by those that see too clearly not to know the loser is always the far loss.
How often those stones of religion are no more than the cunning endeavours of man to keep man down can be clearly seen in the military conquests with which the three major religions (Christianity, Islam, and Judaism) launched their spread; and the hypocritical peace by which their dominance is maintained, when established. A hypocrisy obvious in the manner by which the most vile sin ever condemned (be it by the intolerance of religious persecution, or by the tolerance of its peaceful conquests) is practised often enough by the highest authorities of the most stern religions to see the truth in the words, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her."
In this day and age (despite the even more obvious fact that the promiscuous are ever more often women than men) the "her" that the consequent persecution invites stones to be flung at is so much more often a "he" in her shoes, that the president of this generation's most powerful nation almost lost his office - merely because he had an extra-marital affair.
He was extremely fortunate. Others have been even more unlucky victims of the emasculation of societies that should be ruled by power-brokers, rather than presided over by authority-figures (mere figure-heads that should be the power object the male ever is; rather than the pleasure object that her being fortifies the female with - even if by the hands of no more than one of such males). Other such cultures of authority figure-heading caused the tragedy that occured in Finland; where a Foreign Minister not as lucky as the president referred to above was finally forced to give up his office, after admitting to the bombardment of a stripper with mobile phone text messages of a sexually suggestive nature.
In Maylasia, the intrusion into the rights of a Health Minister was completely ignored; while the privacy the intrusion abused with a widely-circulated video recording of an adulterous escapade by him, gave rise to enough "shock" - to quote the word with which the consequent hypocritical jeering was recorded by the Press - to have him resign from the country's cabinet.
And, to prove how victims of such societal hypocrisy - risen out of religion, even when not cloaked by its morality - have most often been men, especially when emasculated (a hypocrisy that ignores the promiscuity I have referred to above; and the stones that Jesus condemned, flung more often at the men than at the women - however promiscuous the latter might be) a high-ranking officer within the virility of American military - back in those days before the word "gay" proved homosexuality having become as acceptable to society as lesbianism ever was, at the very least - had to commit suicide the night before he was to testify to a New York County grand jury investigating his supposed homosexual orientation.
The orientation had not even been proved yet.
I do not believe any woman has ever been a suicide before, merely because homosexuality in her was unveiled before the public. Rather, the same society that locks the homosexual up with bricks of morality, and stones him to death with religious rocks of murder, persecution, and abuse; condones lesbianism to an extent that has adolescent girls in Nigeria flaunt it today, even with absolutely no inclination towards the orientation in them.
Shame is a burden men bear as easily as women have a conscience; and the murder of the emasculated - even when the truth that is a characteristic part of their nature is uttered along with their being prof., and not prophet - is carried out by Herod and Potiphar as easily as the wife of the one lusted after the far loss, and the wife of the other cast her eyes upon the pen that is. Thus the look behind that would never have been that of Lot; despite the pleasure that would have drawn the look being more male, than the female that had his wife become a pillar of salt.
All such victims of hypocrisy as the world figures referred to above have always fallen by the hands of a morality based on religion, that refuses to separate a man's private life from that with which he works in public. As though the office and the bedroom are as similar as the platonic relationship that should rule the one differs from the erotica that is a characteristic feature of the other.
As a typical example, in Yorubaland - where polygamy is not only condoned, but a fact of life - a practitioner of the tradition would not throw stones at one who does not practise it, merely because the latter holds a public office. Yet, even in that same culture, an emasculated man that refuses to have his sexuality limited by the boundaries of religion is instantly struck down by the hypocrisy of its society; be the excuse for the villainy an accusation of homosexuality, or of that with which the word iranu condemns even his natural inclination towards heteosexuality.
Consent between adults of legal age are the key words, and not the hypocrisy that would damn one of the most popular American presidents of all time - if it could. And the constraints which the hypocrisy of such religious morality holds for those that may not be as popular, or as powerful, can be seen in the Yoruba word for one of such religions.......imole. Knowledge acquired through distress.
Very few of the educated, even when practitioners of the religion, realise that the name rose out of the persecution that is a cross borne by the emasculated - be he Christian, Moslem, or Jew; the persecution that will be burden should he profess the religion as one who is an emasculated man has to live a life; persecution that would be perpetrated by the religion itself - right in the hands of authorities of it that worship with their own lives vices such persecution is supposedly meant to punish, or to prevent. And the fanaticism with which the pubescent naivete of emasculation is enforced can be seen in the speed with which he would be murdered, be it by the quiet cunning of Christianity, or by the stone-flinging of the Moslem; should he finally renounce the religion, and strive to live a honest secular life - most especially as the homosexual his emasculation would usually have him be, if wise; and also not only as a consequence of the power and affluence society ever strives to deny the emasculated, but usually as a consequence too of the position he would lose to the hypocrisy of societal morals and religious tenets. For his renunciation of religion would be as damned by it as would be his emasculation by the secular world wherein he should then live in peace.
Religion is basically no more than an attempt by societal hypocrisy to keep the honesty of lust from becoming the purity of passion. And a man (or a woman) that has admitted the presence of a homosexual orientation in him, has confessed his natural interest in sexuality to an extent that makes it impossible to bring in the religion that would she be frigid, or he be a eunuch. Hence the homosexuality flaunted by women that live a life too secular to be marked by morality, or stained by religion. It is the only means by which, instinctively, or with all due and conscious awareness, she can denounce both of those two boundaries as actively as a man does with his weed and his wine. And hence the bisexuality that is the usually inevitable consequence of a confession to homosexuality, in countries wherein the orientation is condoned enough to be acceptable - be it amongst men, or amongst women. For the confession, as has been stated above, is no more than an admission of interest in sexuality too secular to be religious; and natural heterosexual instincts will always rear up - even if more often in the women that will still receive advances from heterosexual men, however lesbian, ugly, or dull she may be; than in the men who (even when not emasculated, even if actually bisexual) find the ease with which homosexuality satiates too great for them to bother with the conquest that is the hallmark of the male, when heterosexual.
And thus the softened surface (and quite often as physical as it is mental) that the homosexual usually finds himself with; in a world wherein he does not have to move a muscle for his sexual appetites to be satisfied, even by supposedly heterosexual men. And thus the hardened exterior (be it no more than mental, or physical enough to have her known - once upon a time - by such derogatory titles as butch, and dyke) that a severe denunciation of both morality and religion by a woman has accompany an eventual homosexual inclination; with the consequent loss of the passivity of her feminity that she does indeed need to lose, not only to ward off attacks - be it verbal, or otherwise - that would instantly be her lot in a society dominated by the hypocrisy of morality, and of religion; but also to conquer as the men do, in a world wherein a woman she would like to sleep with needs to move as many muscles as the homosexual male has to, before her sexual appetite is satisfied by the sex that accompanies heterosexual conquests - however ugly she may be. This hardening of the subconscious in the lesbian (most especially when more homosexual than heterosexual; and even when not obvious enough to the individual woman to be seen by her as conscious) is that which has made lesbianism propagated as actively by female homosexuals, in certain societies, as religions are wont to push their own tenets down the throats of others - though subtly enough to have the former insist it's all fun and games, and no road to salvation. And, according to the propadandists, innocent enough to have homosexual pornography labelled pornography only when male.
Heterosexual men boast of their sexual activities with the same fun and games, even when with no more than a wife. A lesbian is no more than a woman whose sexual orientation rouses in her the need to compete with the male, as the male does; that her sexual appetites may be satisfied. Thus, she will inevitably grow a stance as hardened against the rules and regulations of conservative morality and religion as the homosexual is softened by the solitude that severes him from society.
The obvious consequences?
The coarse bisexuality that is as much a mark of the supposedly heterosexual male, as it is a characteristic of the lesbian - however homosexual she may claim to be. And the more lesbian she does lay claim to as being her sexual orientation, the more vulgar she eventually ends up becoming - as hardened by the orientation, with all the obscenity of the accompanying insensitivity, as men are wont to be when they denounce both morality and religion enough to smoke, drink, and take drugs.
The feminity flaunted by quite a number of homosexuals is no more than the male version of that hardened resistance to the hypocrisy of morality, and of religion. In a culture where the orientation is a fact of life, the most masculine men can be as homosexual as the pansy that flirts as a she. In other cultures, the stubborn renunciation of hypocrisy eventually has the homosexual develop the delicacy of sensitivity, and have it become as much a part of him as it has always been known to be a part of the heterosexual woman.
Women always want to fall in love. When heterosexual. In homosexual cultures, the men do - much more often; even when they believe themselves to be heterosexual, and thus in love with women. For the characteristic passivity of the homosexual is all that has him succumb to society's approval of heterosexuality much more easily than he would were he heterosexual - and thereby aggressive enough to probably also have his heterosexuality be actually bisexual. This peaceful passivity it is that has the ideal companion marriages more homosexual than the lesbian ones have ever been. And the heartless castration of the purity of male love, which is always homosexual (even in religions that confess the truth of that purity with words such as, "And Jonathan loved him as his own soul") is that which has its hypocrisy damned as clearly as the love male companion marriages glorify, where the female ones do no more than put on exhibition the bisexuality in lesbianism.
Whether the reversal of sex roles always leads to a homosexual culture, or homosexual cultures always bring about a reversal of sex roles, is that which I am yet to reach a conclusion over. But homosexual cultures have always been imbued with a honest approach to sexuality that defies the hypocrisy prevalent in societies wherein heterosexuality is such a fact of life, it is introduced to the child only after his body has passed the peak of sexual maturity - in some countries, by the age of twenty-one years. The wisdom the primitive have, that defies the bisexual decadence that - truly, admittedly - is a characteristic feature of most hgfomosexual cultures, does not need an in-depth study of the customs of such tribes to be proven. And all one has to do is take a journey through Alex Haley's Roots, to see the folly in the morality that insists a child must be introduced to sex and such, only after his interest in it has waned.
True independence not only consists of the facts one must face in life, but also the right to make a choice. Thus the hypocrisy that accompanies the imposition of emasculation; be the imposition enforced by morality, or by religion.
Islam usually basks more under that hypocrisy, than under the cunning that is more often a female attribute.Thus Islamic countries murder emasculated men that live within its boundaries, yet would that the life be in the secular; as regularly as cultures in less developed countries do, even outside the restraints of religion, and - in the secular - not only when they're homosexual, as they usually are; but the minute they're suspected of the honesty of lust in absolutely any way that is not limited by the boundaries of marriage.
Christians are much more cunning, probably because their own religion rose as a consequence of the life of a man that had sympathy for the woman. With all the knowledge at their disposal, they it is that strive to drive the "You no need am" theology down the throats of men the most. By struggling to give the impression that all he or she needs is a spouse to satisfy the natural appetites of the body with, all he or she needs is a livelihood to satisfy the natural need for sustenance through, all he or she needs is a church wherein can be obtained the socialization even their cruel cunning cannot deny is necessary; they lock both men and women up in prisons that are built by bricks of law and stones of religion, and then impose upon them the labour that their cruelty deigns to have other more honest authorities believe is better than the blood the Moslems would have drawn from such emasculated men - should he renounce the religion, or live in it as life should indeed and actually be lived; with the sex, the power, the position, and the prosperity being actively pursued.
As personal examples of how such hypocrisy of morality, always fuelled by religion, limits the emasculated in a world ruled by envious hypocrites for whom the sex should always be with the sweat - however unproductive the sweat may be - I have ordered ring-tones for my hand-set before that were quietly denied me, obviously because the tones were secular.
The impression being given?
I had to be Christian.
I have been denied access to web-sites today that are supposed to be "adult," and therefore made inaccessible to my thirty and more years of age.
The impression being given?
Oh, I have to be Christian.
I have had other such products denied me, by unappointed guardians and trustees.......
"whose fathers I would have disdained
to set with the dogs of my flock."
had it not been the emasculation that, though being the hallmark of yours sincerely, would nevertheless have them deny him an adult life with words such as.......
"I cannot allow him to......."
And all for reasons no more than that envy of which I have written - shameless enough to be with a cold silence that makes me have to admire the Moslems; who don't bother with such cunning, but - in days of old - simply kill off the emasculated that insists he's not religious; with as much conscience as that with which they seal his anus, today.
"Adult" entertainment, in the truest sense of the word, is no more than entertainment for pubescent adults - emasculated men, and the average woman; who have been as exposed to sex and such as the adolescent for whom the thrill is as much of a pleasure as the act can be. For the minute you're smiled into being granted that right to "adult" entertainment, you're being called "a dolt" - no more, no less. A ten year old boy with the independence a man should have, if indeed adult, would buy such products with absolutely none of the hypocrites behind the "at long last" smiles of approval raising an eye-brow.
From the blatant frankness with which the older generation admits the constraints with which it limits the emasculated is due to no more than the envy the former has for the opportunities of the latter, when young; to the shameless hypocrisy with which those closer to my own generation still stubbornly cling to the "You no need am" tenets; it got to a stage in my life today where I had to decide that seven tee-shirts would soon be bought by me, with the words "I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN! IF YOU COME WITH THEIR WORDS, STAY AWAY FROM ME!!!" emblazoned on them.
Religion is no more than limitation. That is why it is the greatest excuse used by society's bullies to enforce the boundaries of emasculation. Supposed vices that are more of sight than sin, when condemned by the individual, though condoned by Scripture; have had the enforcement of their prohibition - even when capital - been with such a rigid fanaticism that the number of books removed from Christian Scripture and into hiding, by its authorities in days of old, is almost as much as that which the naive Christian studies today as his Bible.
I forget whose words they are, but it has often been said: Religion is the opium of the people. And who are the people if not the masses thronging to churches and mosques all in a bid to find a solution to problems reared by nothing other than emasculation. The poor, the weak, the down-trodden. The defenceless helpless that even the most fanatical religions know they don't dare behead, were they not emasculated - or, at the very least, without risking a full-scale war. Even should they that would have been beheaded be self-confessed homosexuals.
Little wonder the most religious people are always the educated, formal education being always accompanied by such limitations that it is almost a synonym for emasculation.
The hypocrisy behind religion - and the insults that the wise emasculated should shower on the ridiculously cunning Christians who strive to enforce emasculation with their empty-headed preaching - was aptly condemned by even The Christ himself, who told such as they:
Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge; you did not enter yourself and you hindered those who were entering.
I believe in those words of The Christ to such an extent that I enjoin all those who read that which I write, and agree with my words, to shower no less than the deserved scorn of insult - verbal, or otherwise - on those hypocrites that call themselves his followers, who would that others do the following while walking within the boundaries of emasculation; up to that extent that they do all to give the impression that I can ever do the following as a Christian again.
For (unlike that which the world's great religions are supposed to teach, even though that which they rarely ever do preach) righteousness is not the handmaiden of ascetism. Thus the impression (most often given by the hypocrisy of the senselessly empty-headed "folly set in many high places;" and the covetuousness of she whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters) that the words "Be holy, for I am holy," means an absolute absence of sin even while in the flesh; undermines the words of he whom they most often claim to set their hope on:
God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
And what, indeed, is the truth?
If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
A renunciation of the body, while yet in the body; is just as admirable as it is inadvisable. And both the libertine and the nymphomaniac can be as righteous as the austere monk; as long as he rapes not, and she walks not down highways stark naked.
If only the ignorant knew what little difference there is between the two. For touch is to the woman what sight is to the man (not - concerning the woman - when it comes to erections, true; but definitely when it comes to the moisture that invites the phallus) and a woman is as aroused during rape as often as the arousal humiliates her.
The nude on a highway humiliates a principled man just as easily, and just as much.
To put it in clearer terms: imagine the president of your country standing before a podium, before the electorate, before the public. And then place also the nude before him, and ask yourself this question, "Who was assaulted - the nude? Or the president, most especially if his reaction is with an erection."
The applause that would follow the erection would certainly be such as had the political officers I referred to above lose their appointments, and would thereby answer your question.
However, where the consent is on both sides, then.......
pick your partners, choose your stance
in rank obeisance to the dance.
Be they two or two hundred; yes, and indeed - and be the supposed immorality camouflaged by the respectability of polygamy, or bared by the righteousness of honesty.
Righteousness is that which both morality and religion should espouse, and not the limitations of an ascetism that may not necessarily be imbued with the virtues of doing good. "This I command you, to love one another;" and ignore the hypocrisy that would the love be always confined by the limitations of lust, when lost.
Therefore, the protection from the blood-let (be it physical, mental, or otherwise) that has always been a consequence of the insistence upon his rights by the homosexual renouncing the hypocrisy of both morality and religion, is one of the most important prioroties of yours sincerely - the protection of the emasculated of such homosexuals thereby flowering under the auspices of my attention; and be the flowering imbued with the principles by which I am to maintain that protection (with neither friend, nor foe) or devoid of absolutely all ties with either morality, or religion - regardless of how licentious the life may then be said to be. For the most important word still remains "consent;" and the right to live is the right of the living - regardless of the emasculation with which others see him as dead.
*This conclusion was initially published as an article on the blog www.thefairiesconfraternity.blogspot.com.
CONCLUSION IV
Hypocrisy, Homosexuality, And The Society*
I wonder why male homophobia has always been such a prevalent vice in almost all the human cultures that have ever existed worldwide. Throughout all human history, female relationships have always been based on homosexuality - be it implicit or explicit, conscious or subconscious. Yet it is men that are always being made by most cultures and traditions to suffer for the male version of that phenomenon. In fact, once upon a time in the Western societies in which the hypocrisy behind male homophobia is finally being unveiled, male homosexuals used to be damned as sinners by religious fanatics, diagnosed to be lunatics by medical quacks, jailed as criminals by law enforcement agents, and persecuted as perverts by the society in general. Yet, even then, the women in those same societies were completely free to be as passionate with one another as they wished to be; as though there were any difference between passion between a man and a man, and its female counterpart.
I believe that men - be they straight, gay, or bisexual - should all rise up to do something positive about this disparity between the treatment meted out to male homosexuals, and that reserved for their female counterparts; a disparity that is still a common feature of most modern-day societies. And this disparity I shall prove with just a few (but a few that'll be enough) examples.
In my own country, Nigeria (in 2003) a student of the University of Lagos was once almost beaten to death by his colleagues for being gay. His lover and his room-mate was also greatly molested and beaten up, the case got to the university authorities, and the university constituted a panel to look into the case. But - despite the innocence of the two lovers - the university withheld justice on the grounds that homosexuality was immoral, and therefore it could not prosecute those that had violated the rights of the young men. Also (in the month of January, in the year 2008) a young man of twenty years was locked up by his parents, in a police cell in Lagos, for being gay. He was kept behind bars for four days, without food or water; and was constantly beaten up during those four days so as to make him confess his sexual orientation. And (as though that were not enough) in the month of September of that same 2008, a group of young men (all in a bid to rid their community of homosexuality) almost set ablaze a house that sheltered a young male homosexual fleeing from being beaten. The young man was eventually picked up, locked up in a police cell, and beaten up by the police - all because of his sexual orientation.
Yet in that same Nigeria, where male homosexuals are always constantly being both derided and denounced by the general public, one of its most famous actresses (or, should we say, notorious; because of her penchant for those outfits that expose almost every inch of her ample bosom) once said on the pages of one of the country's most popular newspapers (either The Saturday Punch or The Sunday Punch, but I can't remember which exactly it was of the two) that girls were fond of calling her number with requests for dates on which to play with her breasts. And on another occasion, right on the front page of a newspaper still from the stable of The Punch, another public figure from the country's same entertainment industry once confessed with admirably bold frankness that she was prone to lesbian fantasies.
No eyebrows were raised at either of the two young women's confessions. No one pursued them into houses that were almost set ablaze for sheltering them. No one criticized them, called them names, attacked them, or molested them in any way as retribution for their homosexual bent. No one locked them up in police cells, or got them beaten up by the police to make them confess once more what they had already confessed to right on the pages of the Press. Even in the United States, where the rights of both genders are a little bit more equally spaced out, an entire sixty-one per cent of all hate-induced crimes directed against homosexuals are directed against male homosexuals.
Now, why is this so? Is it because the heterosexual male that creates the norms and values by which society lives has realised that the woman (be she straight, gay, or bi) is too much of a chauvinist to allow him into her arms should he persecute any member of her gender the same way he persecutes the homosexual male? I wonder.
The smart women have been laughing at the men behind their backs for centuries now, for being so silly about sexuality - trampling upon the rights of the male homosexual, while condoning the activities of his female counterpart; with super-macho but, most unfortunately, empty-headed pounding of the chest (exactly like apes do in the jungle) all in a bid to impress the women with their virility; and not realising that it is the love that all those same women have for themselves (a love that is, much more often than the empty-headed men could ever realise on their own, based on lust) and the disdain that they have for all that male machismo, that makes them reserve so much rights for the female homosexual - and demand that society do the same. And also not realising that the sensitivity of the homosexual (note: not the bisexual, or the lesbian - both of whom are usually too immersed in the breathless rat-race of life to be able to develop the depth it takes to be sensitive to the finer features of creativity - but the outcast that the male homosexual always is) has made him the most intellectually creative human creation of God, ever since the beginning of time.
Webster Schott once said, while referring to those same male homosexuals that I'm speaking of, "The homosexual has a vision of such things that drive him to extraordinary intensity.......Either because in lonely childhood the homosexual became better at introspective tasks or because of innate abilities related to sexual deviation, some homosexuals appear to possess greater proficiency in histrionics and dance, manipulation of color and shape, and esthetic expression."
You don't believe it? Then study, very carefully, the biographies of all of the most successful men that we have ever had in the world - from intelligent sages like Plato and Socrates to talented artists like Lord Byron, and on down to hardened soldiers like Alexander the Great (the greatest conqueror that ever strode down a battle-field). They have all been gay - and those that were not known for being gay simply did not come out of the closet.
"Either because in lonely childhood......." Webster Schott says.
"I'm feeling lonely," Michael Jackson (the greatest musical entertainer the world has ever known) once sang.
And the latter - even though he has never admitted to being homosexual - has admitted to having had one of the loneliest childhoods of his generation, due to a father that wanted him to work hard on his music. And, he has been charged to court twice now (as of the last count) for having sexual relations with young boys.
Homosexuality is not a vice. It is just a simple part of human sexuality - and its usually persecuted male version has contributed a lot more to society than most people would know, or (even when they do know) would care to admit - most especially in the sphere of the arts. To quote Webster Schott once again, still on male homosexuality, "Homosexuals dominate the American theatre and their dramas inform us of emotional violence done in the name of heterosexual love as, perhaps, no heterosexual art can.......Homosexual fiction and poetry have opened windows of human awareness, plumbed depths of feeling that may be unique because of the homosexual's special feelings of isolation, the very essence of his social position." (Emphasis, mine). The vice, indeed, is homophobia; and it should be abolished - not just by the society in which we presently live, but by any society that we can ever live in again.
Finally, I would like to quote the words of Oscar Wilde, concerning heterosexuality; which goes thus, ".......till you count what is a shame in a woman to be an infamy in a man, you will always be unjust, and Right, that pillar of fire, and Wrong, that pillar of cloud, will be made dim to your eyes, or be not seen at all, or if seen, not regarded." And I would like to put down my own words, concerning homosexuality; which goes thus, "Till you count what is an infamy in a man to be equally villainous in a woman, you will always be unjust; and Right (that pillar of fire) and Wrong (that pillar of cloud) will be made dim to your eyes, or be not seen at all, or - if seen - not regarded."
*This conclusion was initially published as an article on the blog www.stillandbitter.blogspot.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment