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.
Much has been written about what makes a ladies’ man but so far the formula escapes adequate definition. The reason? “Because it tries to be done with words. The purpose of words is to communicate and not to define. For example, all of us have seen a couple who are unquestionably in love but then try, using words, to define that love. Then try happiness!
I recently discovered in my files a book review of Swoon by Larry Getlen authored by Betsy Prioleau.* (http://nypost.com/2013/02/03/secrets-of-a-don-juan/) It deals with the characteristics of irresistible male seducers and why women love and go crazy over them. Judging by its content this is probably the most exhaustive and in depth analysis of this subject. There are 65 pages of footnotes!
Her general description of such men is, “They seduce us out of our skins and catapult us into another world.” Regarding the specific characteristic of these seducers, her list is long beginning on the genetic level claiming they have more female DNA than ordinary men. She writes that women love good dressers, cooks and dancers and particularly guys who are musically talented. They have a quality that would bypass women’s affinity for good looks and wealth. She believes that this quality is located in a specific creative, artistic part of the male brain. It’s probable that Warren Beatty developed this gift of appreciating and understanding females when he was reared “in a hothouse of strong, doting women- sister, aunt and mother…” She ventures into interesting territory by claiming that male seducers have androgynous or bisexual tendencies which women sense sending a message to them that this quality helps the seducer better understand the female mind. Interestingly enough, she singles out Gary Cooper, the tough, courageous Wild West film cowboy character as having this bisexual quality. Male vulnerability or “flawed manhood”, a combination of vulnerability and strength, is high on her list using Jack Nicholson and Richard Burton as examples.
One of Ms. Prioleau’s great seducer characters particularly struck me. It’s the very ugly but very dynamic Italian poet, Gabriele D’Annunzio. His physical appearance was universally considered “repellent” to the women of his day. She described him as , “… a sad physical specimen… short, bald and ugly , with unhealthy teeth, fat legs, wide hips, hooded eyes, pallid lips and thick mottled skin.” I searched for his photo in cyberspace- and the women were correct! But when he spoke and after hearing the sound of his voice and beholding his sensual body language, the women immediately succumbed to his charms; and when he made love to them they went bananas and frequently fell in love. She describes his voice as “soft, subtle and velvety.” Women found him “devastating” and “…following him around Europe pouring out passionate declarations, abandoning families and twice offering him a fortune for his favors.” He was “a Michelangelo of oral pleasure who “fondled eyelids with his tongue” and planted stinging kisses “from the neck to the genitals over long nights where women were sexually overwhelmed by this man.”
Most of you who follow me already know that I would call G for his opinion on the book.
“Mamma mia! Ms. Prioleau really covered the waterfront. Did you know she wrote another book, Seductress? That’s the one I want to read and give to some of the modern women whom I’m meeting!
“First, I was intrigued by D’Annunzio kissing eyelids. I remember one lady asked me to do so but my memory is fuzzy on what happened. But I certainly missed out on that interesting approach. When there’s still time left, and if I’m still capable, maybe I’ll give it a try.
“Let me make some comments some of which may be in the book but not in the review. Regarding why vulnerability attracts women, and I can vouch for that, I’ve thought about that in the past and believe it’s due to the inherent, beautiful female mother instinct. The art of a seducer is to make a woman both relaxed and excited at the same time. In addition, though I’ve never seen it mentioned, an unappreciated crucial factor is to make her very curious. She can’t wait to find out what’s ahead but feels this way only if she’s convinced that he’s sincerely interested in knowing about and being with her. Ms. Prioleau rightly mentions that these men are not misogynists but enjoy being with women. I would go along with that very important observation. The French philosopher and adventurer, Albert Camus, said that he had more women friends than men. I did – and still do-and also learned more from them about the social aspects of life than from men.
“Here’s a huge factor that’s linked to a woman’s curiosity but has a more adventurous quality about it. It’s unpredictability. More than a few women told me that’s one of my, let’s say, alluring traits.
“Lorenzo, I’m running out of gas but here’s one essential ingredient of a ladies’ man. It’s the voice. It’s not only what you say but a la Gabriele D’Annunzio, it’s how you say it.”
I then asked him for a term which describes the seducer but G told me it doesn’t exist. I mentioned to him that we have seen the qualities that make a male seducer and whether all of these are necessary. G answered, “No way. Look, I didn’t kiss eyelids- at least as far as I can remember. There is no term for it. It’s not “chemistry” for that term is usually reserved for a single couple on their way to becoming engaged or already married. Strangely enough, we have names for nymphomaniacs, sadists and all the others but no term regarding the great male seducer whom women love.”
Our conversation ended. I then lighted my pipe, poured myself a martini, had an inspirational moment and smiled. I reasoned that in sexual matters we have names or labels of the condition and the person who performs the act. For example, we have masochism and masochists. This is not so in the with ladies men, and it’s time we do so. How about G-ism and the G-man?
*Every morning I read the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and New York Post. I read journals on public policy, politics, social issues, medicine and science leaving me little time for books. During the past year I read short biographies of Benjamin Franklin and Winston Churchill- two very humbling experiences. Because of the death of J.D. Salinger and curiosity, I also read Catcher in the Rye and wondered about it. Swoon is now on my reading list!
The Wall Street Journal recently published an interview with the French novelist, Sophie Fontanel – Sophie Fontanel on ‘Sleeping Alone’. Because of her consistent disappointment with her sexual encounters with men, she gave up lying on her back for 12 years and didn’t regret it for she found it to be a more acceptable option. “When you are alone, you are free.” She claims to have learned more about the qualities of a strong relationship. At age 50 she changed her mind and, once more, ventured under the sheets with men.
I don’t need to convince you that we have entered the Age of Orgasms. There are powerful, huge money -earning market forces that, 24/7, keep pushing the need to have sex in all spheres of life to such an extent that even virgin high school students are forced, under peer pressure, to place on their bucket lists the objective to have sex with a male before entering college. Virgins, like last name mentionings, are fast disappearing.
There are, however, no huge, money-earning market forces selling the need of celibacy. What could be sold? A DVD on celibacy? Can a TV show “Celibate Girls” match the earnings of “Girls Gone Wild”? Apart from religious organizations, try to name a single big money- making commercial operation selling celibacy!
Though it is self- evident, sex is more than the actual momentary sex act itself be it pleasurable or displeasurable. It’s involved with the mind and how they both , Ping-Pong-like, impact one another. Also, the same holds true with celibacy. There are a few definitions of celibacy but let me give you the working one for this post. It’s when someone, either living alone, married or else in a long –time living together relationship, foregoes sexual intercourse. It can be for short or long- term periods depending on the life’s circumstances and the temperament of the man or woman.
As with many of life’s situations, there are little solid data on the nature of celibacy and, apart from religious reasons, why people prefer it. Let’s assume there are two major reasons. Firstly, is that they are not physically stimulated enough to pursue it and secondly, the risk/benefit ratio rules against it. For example, one can desire sex but the conditions in which they can have it results in more pain than pleasure as exemplified in Ms. Fontanel’s experience.
Millions of men and women are not turned on by sex, and it should not be a medical surprise. They can live either without it or on a limited basis mostly to please another. Celibacy is a natural biological state. There are people who talk a lot, those who remain silent and those in between. There are folks who eat a lot, those who eat little and those in between, and there are people who sleep a lot and those hardly at all and, you guessed it, those in between.
For cultural reasons, celibates are silent and reluctant to speak openly about the fact that the search for orgasms is not on their bucket lists.
Now to the irrefutable observation poised as a question that I mention periodically in my posts: “Has peace of mind and general tranquility increased with the dramatic increase in sexual activity due to the sexual revolution?” Let me ask another one. “Who do you think was a more contented person? Mother Teresa or Marilyn Monroe?”
Think about it.