Talented columnist, Maureen Callahan, recently wrote a fascinating, eye-opening article in the New York Post about Brunei and its rulers. It’s a tiny Muslim Asian country with a population of less than 500,000 that abounds in oil and wealth, and its citizens are well cared for. Forbes rates it as the 5th wealthiest nation in the world. It recently announced that Brunei would be governed by strict Islamic or Sharia law where certain acts are punishable by amputation, public flogging and death by stoning. Homosexuality, adultery, pre-marital sex and women wearing indecent clothing are banned. Drinking is prohibited, and there is little night life.
Brunei is ruled by Sultan Hassanal Bolkia who shares some of his power with his younger brother, Prince Jefri. They are, to say the least, big time spenders. The Sultan’s palace has almost 2000 rooms, about 300 bathrooms, five swimming pools and a banquet hall that accommodates 5000 people. Ms. Callahan lists their innumerable assets including 17 airplanes, 150 private homes in 12 countries and 9000 cars. Prince Jefri spent an average of $747,000 a day for 10 years. The list of luxuries is almost never ending.
These two guys are very, very horny brothers who have harems and love to drink and play living by their own hedonistic rules instead of those of their people governed by Sharia law. Ms. Callahan claims that they have a global network of employees whose function is to procure women for them. She interviewed an American gal, Jillian Lauren, who was recruited at age 18 to join the harem of Price Jefri for a fee, the sum of which was not disclosed and, I’m sure, has American prostitutes highly curious and envious as hell. Lauren said Prince Jefri would open magazines searching for photos of gals who could increase his testosterone production. Once found, he would demand, “I want that one” and have one of his global lady-hunting employees contacted to locate and get the woman to his bedroom. She has just published her memoir Some Girls: My Life in a Harem.
Way back in the 70’s, G’s travels took him to Beirut in Lebanon which, in those days, was considered the Paris of the Middle East where sin was permitted. The wealthy Arab men escaped from their cultures of sexual and other prohibitions such as drinking and gambling and partook of those vices in that then dynamic, alive city. Girls were imported from Europe and elsewhere, and, like Lauren, returned home wealthier than before they had arrived. One can say that this male behavior is hypocritical. Maybe. But it is also in male genes.
The Sultan owns a chain of hotels, one being the famous Beverly Hills Hotel for the rich and famous which, in the past, was one of G’s favorite hangouts though he was neither rich nor famous. But he, like Leonard DiCaprio, stayed in the bungalows which are apart and in the back of the hotel where he, let’s say, entertained. After the Sultan recently declared Sharia law, a group of Americans, including Jay Leno and a large homosexual contingent, held a protest demonstration in front of the hotel encouraging potential clients to lodge elsewhere and to date, it has worked.
One night G and I had an interesting dinner with a wise upper-middle aged lady friend and her daughter, who, in the past, had graduated from a very liberal college but, probably because of her upbringing by her dad and mom, was not fully infected by political correctness. Both had read the Callahan article which opened the door to a wonderful, sparkling evening of good drink, good food and creative conversation. Insightful humor set the tone with a minimal dose of cynicism and sarcasm.
We started with making an assumption that these two guys’ sexual escapades were heavily covered in detail by the U.S. media and how they would take a public beating not only by the feminists but by practically everybody. Our lady friend said she would stick a hot poker up their rear ends for the sins of sodomy and then march their penises to the guillotine to insure their eternal chastity.
To be sure there would be lots of envious men who would trade places with the brothers and lots of women who would not hesitate to be in their harem and, in addition to experiencing a unique sexual adventure, make lots of dollars and gifts of jewelry. We concluded that, if any man or woman in the U.S. publically expressed such opinions, they would be, as happens with the baddies in cowboy movies, run out of town!
Then we wondered why, historically, queens and empresses did not sexually behave like kings and emperors. We noted that that Solomon, the great king of the Jews, Muhammad, the great founder of Islam and Charlemagne, the great Catholic Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, were all polygamous, but we could not come up with a great polyandrous woman leader. Yes, it’s said that Catherine the Great of Russia lined up the palace guard but that’s not the same thing.
We had finished a couple of drinks, and we were on a conversational roll on a variety of sex subjects. Let me give you one example of one subject before we get on to the main point. How do you sexually label these guys? If they were women, they’d probably be labeled as nymphomaniacs but there is no equivalent word for males. Maybe, “hypersexual”. But what’s the difference between a nymphomaniac and a very horny lady and a hypersexual versus a very horny guy? Where do you draw the line?
To tell the truth, the subject of this conversation is not one that would interest many but, for some reason, we enjoyed the intellectual challenge that night.
For dinner we ordered taglierini, a thin, light pasta, served with a black truffles sauce. Though it was very tasty, G, as usual and based on his extensive knowledge gleaned by his worldwide travels, remarked that the taste of black truffles could not compare to those of tartufi bianchi d’Alba or white truffles found in Piedmont, Italy. During our moment of gustatory pleasure, the daughter caught us off guard when she asked, “What if one of those wives, who was an extremely horny one, did a mental- sex domination job on the Sultan, and he went big time bananas over her? And, on her threat of leaving him, she convinces him to change his Will where she, and not his brother, would inherit the kingdom. So he did, and a week later he suffered a heart attack while frolicking in the harem after the wife persuaded him to try a “new” energy drink. She immediately became the Sultaness of Brunei and pronounced her only daughter as Princess. She banned the brother from the kingdom for having violated Sharia law but, of course, financially rewarded him handsomely to get him out of her life.
“She then held a luncheon with the wives to inform them that they were all dismissed. In the room, there were four huge muscular men with authentic Samurai swords that the Sultan had purchased in Japan. She, while speaking to them, periodically fixed her eyes on this symbolic death squad while warning them not to break the silence that they had sworn to keep. The ladies, oftentimes looking at the huge guys, got the message, and there were no objections. They were all more than happy with their severance pay.
“After they left the dining hall, she immediately summoned the harem ladies and repeated what she said to the wives and, as with the wives, all would leave Brunei happy ladies with sealed lips and, no doubt, having scary nightmares of those big guys with their sharp-edged Samurai swords.”
We all paused for a brief moment sipping our wine and reflecting a bit. Her mother, G and I were highly impressed by this outline of a potential creative novel so much so that the mom said, “Keep going, honey.”
“She, feeling confident as hell and on an emotional high after her victory and loving her newfound power, hired a public relations firm to announce to the world about her plans for her reign. It happened at a press conference. She declared she would, like her beloved deceased husband, continue his tradition of having more than one spouse but this time it would be polyandrous, and she is now using her dear husband’s global network searching the world for five ‘special’ husbands.
“The media guys and gals couldn’t wait to get to their computers and report on this spectacular, historic social revolutionary sex event, and the media hit in the U.S. was, as expected, enormous. But that press conference was only the beginning. Shortly thereafter, she held a second and more incendiary one. She announced that she would also continue her husband’s tradition of having a harem, but this time it would be composed of six heterosexual males, two bisexual ones and two polyamorous women in order to accommodate multiple ‘special’ situations. She cancelled Sharia law and, in addition for the right of men to be polygamous, women would have a polyandry right.
“Mom, Mr. G and Dr. Lorenzo, what do you think would be the reaction in our country? Let’s not talk about the potential political and dangerous consequences.”
A long, spirited conversation ensued, and the following is a brief summary of what they believe would happen in our country: It would be one of the biggest news events in history, and she would become the most famous media personaility overnight ; her admirers would far exceed her detractors; she would dominate the media world and media folks would, on their knees, beg to interview her; with the unfolding of events this would become a long-term story; she’d have the greatest Twitter followers of all time far exceeding the combination of Taylor Swift and Lady Gaga- we’re talking about a hundred million or more for the two; she would permit scripted interviews with her husbands and harem guys and gals carefully describing certain controversial sexual rituals such as ménage a trois, sodomy and dungeon domination- yes, she built a dungeon for the Sultan, and that was a key factor in getting him to sign the Will. The media coverage would far exceed what’s going on with Obama Care and the Ukraine; she would ,at first, keep the Princess under wraps to create a groundswell of curiosity until the time would be optimum for a big public relations hit based on a single unique, controversial sexual event; she would tell men how to apply to be her husbands and harem guys on the Internet where the website would quickly shut down because of overload, and she could possibly be the spark behind a powerful polyandry-polygamy movement which Supreme Court Justice Kennedy along with the liberal wing of the court, would certainly support.
G ended the conversation with an observation followed by two questions. He said, “This, regardless of Jay Leno, would be a boon for the Beverly Hills Hotel as well as other hotels which she inherited. All she has to do is visit the place especially with her entourage, and the room prices would skyrocket, and the hotel would operate at full capacity again. Also, I wonder how we would treat the dictator, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, if he married fives wives and started a mixed-sex harem? What would his U.S. reception be like?”
Everyone smiled, finished off their cognacs and called it a night.
We are increasingly becoming sensitive to what we say for fear of offending others. For that reason, it’s oftentimes risky to tell the truth. Though it shouldn’t, this truthful post will undoubtedly offend certain visitors starting with this personal observation: The personnel of the New York Times is, unlike, let’s say, The Wall Street Journal, both great newspapers which I read daily. It is an intentionally designed diversity one staffed by heterosexual and homosexual males and females, male and female feminists, many of them politically to the left liberals and a variety of ethnic and racial backgrounds. Conservative men and women are simply either not there or deprived of their computers.
The Times has energetically led a crusade for women’s rights including rights to their bodies and abortion. It has successfully played a visible role in bringing about the homosexual marriage movement and the awareness of the transgender issue and the need to address it. Regarding the military, it has and continues to support the integration of females into the Armed Services even to the level of combat Marines. Regarding military sexual assaults, it has launched a major coverage effort almost always, either indirectly or directly, supporting the female position as victims ignoring data which clearly point out that females are frequently the perpetrators on females and males on males. And that’s another story for a future post.
In its efforts, the Times generally takes the woman’s side on many issues.
But, believe it or not, here’s what pleases me: The Times coverage of sex issues does support the concept of the Brain Genital Law or BGL! The BGL means that the brain, in order to insure sufficient copulation which is necessary to propagate the race, has a huge and broad reservoir of ways to stimulate the human sexual drive from straight sex to sodomy to snuff movies, all of which are natural phenomena. All cultures, however, have recognized that it’s necessary to regulate the free expression of the BGL because of the destabilizing effect on societies of sex gone wild. A couple, for example, cannot copulate on the street of Broadway even if Mayor DeBlasio is for it! (Or can they)?
But, here’s what really piques my interest: Based on the Supreme Court’s preliminary decision supporting homosexual marriage, polygamy will inevitably arise on its future agenda of increasingly complex, tough to handle, social issues. Now historically polygamy has been and remains common in many cultures whereas homosexual marriage is a rarity, if not absent. If the Times is to remain consistent, it will strongly support the right of men to have multiple wives. Right? I think not for the feminist element of the Times, supported by the powerful male and female feminist elements in our universities, almost assuredly believe that polygamy demeans women despite history’s broad acceptance of it as, which it is, a natural, sexual relationship.
But, if I were a supporter of polygamy and sought to have the Supreme Court sanction it, I would, instead, first present to the justices a case on the legalization of polyandry- the right of a woman to have multiple husbands. This would be very consistent with the Times push for women’s rights and should gain its support. What do you think?
Ladies and gentlemen, hold on to your hats. The general deregulation of the BGL is well on its way and, if the Supreme Court is consistent, polygamy and polyandry may soon be with us. But the Supreme Court is often inconsistent on social matters influenced not by the Constitution or long-held accepted law, but by the attitudes and American values at a point in time. G and I believe that this will cause a much greater uproar than homosexual marriage. One thing is for sure: Emotion, and not reason, will be the driving force behind the polygamy-polyandry debate including coverage by the New York Times.
What I’m hoping for is that the controversy will finally lead to a rational, national discussion on the sexual revolution and the BGL and what are acceptable groundrules to accommodate the universal quest for orgasms.
Polygamous Marriage – Very Common, But Illegal in the U.S. : Homosexual Marriage – Very Rare, But Legal In Most of the U.S. Why/What about the Future?
In my posts I’ll keep reiterating that the Brain Genital Law or BGL holds that all sexual acts are normal, amoral acts of nature. It also holds that all societies have regulated such acts in one way or another including heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Historically, homosexual marriage is a very rare union rejected by virtually all societies while polygamy has been and still is widely accepted throughout the world. Yet in the United States the Supreme Court in 1876 ruled polygamy to be unconstitutional and, in 2013, homosexual marriage constitutional. The clear legal bases of both decisions, like other Court’s decisions, are difficult to find in our Constitution.
So, what’s the story? I really don’t know. One can reasonably assume that the first decision was based on the Christian Protestant values of the time but also on the universal but difficult to pinpoint factor behind the historical worldwide rejection of such marriage. Current values, however, primarily due to the impact of modern technology, have already led to a sweeping deregulation of the BGL rendering many forms of sexual expression, which were wholeheartedly discouraged before, not only increasingly acceptable but enthusiastically embraced.
There is little doubt that the Supreme Court justices are influenced by these social changes. In 1876 there were very few known supporters of polygamy. If the case had involved homosexual marriage, the Court would have also ruled it unconstitutional, one reason being that there were also very few supporters of homosexuality. In the year 2013, however, media coverage of homosexual marriage was 5 to 1 in favor of it, and the Court went along with our changing social values.
Let’s make the assumption that the composition of our Supreme Court won’t change when the polygamy “right” to marriage case inevitably comes before it. If the justices who supported the recent homosexual marriage decision are still seated and remain consistent, they should overturn the 1876 decision. On the other hand, in addition to the social-political factors, there is also the psychological one which affects judgment calls. Three of the justices who ruled in favor of homosexual marriage are women. In their hearts they are probably strongly against men having more than one wife and may find some type of creative legal argument to rule against it*.
There is little doubt that the Supreme Court is, in place of tradition and legislation, becoming the arbiter of controversial, rapidly deregulated sexual behavior in America and will soon decide, for example, who has rights to their sperm, their eggs and to the fertilized IVF embryo in an unimaginable variety of cases. The justices will be challenged on where to draw the lines on increasing deregulated sexual behavior that is being embraced by our culture. No easy task for the justices for their decisions will be far more controversial than dealing with the Second Amendment!
During the next decade we will experience a rollercoaster of tumultuous sexcapades characterized by pervasive social disruption, rampant insecurity and unhappiness. Sex is indeed like fire: It can warm up your home or burn it down. Instead of a national policy to build solar panels to deliver heat, we should, instead, immediately begin to manufacture large quantities of fire extinguishers.
*One wonders how they would rule if the case involved polyandry, the right of women to have more than one husband.