This is an imaginary trek into a relatively unexplored jungle, a fantasy about what might be--specifically, what I and others might be like if we truly matured sexually, both as individuals and a society.

            These are my best, slightly educated guesses about what I envision so far, based on reasonable observations and a small measure of personal experience. Certainly I do not yet find myself to be mature as I imagine such a state of existence might be; but these are the personal goals I aspire to, along with projections about an ideal society--that is, heaven on earth.


            These are obviously theories, notions not yet "scientifically proven," either for persons or communities of persons. They may in fact all be wrong. Perhaps status quo--the way-things-now-are, is the best possible resolution to innate conflicts between gender instincts and social requirements.

            But I think not, and speculate here about what natural sexuality is actually like, along with other ways of coping with the challenges of being civilized animals rather than dis-embodied selves or souls trying to behave ourselves in order to be socially acceptable and/or to hope for a better life after death.

            In theological language, it is about heaven now insofar as sexuality is concerned.


            In exploring natural sexuality my identifications of currently observable human traits with genetic roots are mostly speculations on my part. Although science is rapidly expanding knowledge of proven genetic results, these studies are yet in their infancy. Consequently, most of my observations on instinctive results are yet to be proven. They are more like "guesstimates," perhaps "educated guesses," but not yet established "facts."

            Even so now, I predict that as science and technology continue to advance, my present speculations will be proven in time.


            By nature of my broad subject, I am obviously limited to gross generalizations about men women and children. Any careful reader will be aware of many exceptions to my god-like conclusions, especially as evidenced in themselves. Even so, I, who probably hate gender generalizations about obviously individual persons as much as anyone else, have chosen this mode of ignoring many exceptions to each of my stated observations in order to focus more clearly and completely on what I imagine sexual maturity might actually be like.

            Hopefully a reader may be able move past these obvious limitations and use my theories as mirrors for clarifying his or her own conclusions about this oft unexplored, but significant subject.




            Sometimes I use obscenities in this essay when I think they may more clearly convey my intended meanings.

            Obscenities can, of course, be but one form of verbal rebellion against powerful memes aimed at controlling actions through limiting available words for thought. If such rebellions assist one in maintaining a degree of personal integrity in social contexts more concerned with good citizenship than with whole personhood, then their use can be partially justified, assuming, of course, that one avoids social rejection (if not family punishment).

            But my use of obscenities in this essay aims at a deeper potential, namely, courting fuller consciousness of commonly repressed perceptions, images, and thoughts. My observation is that whereas socially acceptable, clinical-like language may serve well the purposes of society and objective thinking, it all too easily becomes but one more tool of maintaining repression by keeping degrees of mental distance (actually "splitting" oneself) between consciousness and truly honest thinking.

            For example, "sexual intercourse" is a perfectly good term for objective thought and clinical talk; but deeper thinking is more likely to be in terms of "doing it" or "fucking." "Masturbation" is likewise an acceptable term for objective discussions of "onanism," but "playing with myself" or "jerking off," etc., are more likely to be terms for honest personal thought.

            This is true, I think, for three reasons: first, obscenities tend to be learned earlier than clinical terms by children when our natural thinking is less repressed by social memes. Consequently, honesty in later life when unrepression becomes relevant, returning to think in early language is apt to be more personally honest.

            Secondly, spontaneous obscenities do not require the additional mental step of translating natural thinking into socially acceptable language, thereby tending to keep one more attentive to honest awareness.

            Thirdly, I also choose obscenities as a way of inviting reader's reactions/responses on a lower level than an intellectual, school-room type lecture on the subject is likely to evoke.

            Certainly the use of obscene versus on-scene language does not guarantee deeper awareness, since it too can simply be another type of relatively objective thinking; but even so, I conclude it to be functional in this essay.




            "Being Parental" would be a more literal title for this exploration into mature human replication with its two complementary parts, namely, male and female. "Being Sexual" is obviously more descriptive of the male part of the shared agenda. "Being Maternal" would be more accurate for the female role in the Drama of Reproduction.

            Perhaps "Being Paternal" and "Being Maternal" would be more representative of the actual differences I wish to explore here. The male side of our shared instincts for self-replication, namely, "paternalism," is, however, more clearly approached through the window of sexuality, while the female counterpart, "maternalism" is best seen from the perspective of mothering.

            While both are about parenthood, the masculine side focuses more on overt sexuality, while natural femininity comes with relatively minor need for sexual intercourse but with equal or perhaps even greater drives for successful mothering--that is, "making babies" and tending offspring from infancy to maturity.

            Maternalism or "mothering instincts" are, however, better understood and accepted in society today than is paternalism or "fathering instincts," at least as best I understand our natural differences in this equally shared drive for self-replication. We both want, it seems to me, with equally powerful genetic intensity, to make more of ourselves; but past this equality in drives for self-replication, Mother Nature has evolved distinctively different roles for males and females in our shared drama.

            Paternalism, as noted above, is more about "being sexual," while maternalism (a coined word to match paternalism) is more about "mothering" which begins with sex but is primarily focused on nurturing the results of a relatively brief event of "having sex."

            Being male, I am predictably more interested in masculine instincts aimed at replication, which perhaps accounts for my chosen title; but I also think that paternalism is much more misunderstood in society and religion today. Consequently in the pages which follow I give major attention to what I understand to be natural masculinity, with lesser focus on natural femininity--except as both converge in the single arena of "being sexual."

            One further clarification involves my larger focus on being sexual, as distinguished from "having sex." Sexual intercourse, like mothering instincts, is far clearer in public understanding than is the deeper and more pervasive existential issue of being sexual--at least as I observe males and females in society today.

            Most everyone knows and has some understanding about "doing it," even when society shields us from clear language and most visual depictions; but past overt fucking, it seems to me that grasping the nature of being sexual is perhaps one of the least understood aspects of being fully human. Only being selfing, as sharply contrasted with "being selfish," seems less clear to me in common thinking.

            I intend to further explore the subject of "Selfingness" later, but here I turn my attention to what I consider to be the second most misunderstood aspect of being human, namely, being sexual as one aspect of our mutual concern with self-replication.

            In summary, as I view natural humanity, we are most powerfully moved to "stay alive,"--that is, to maximize living as individual selves; but next, and often overshadowing the first major instinct, come our powerful urges to "make babies,"--that is to "re-produce" or create more of our selves.




            This is an exploration of relationships between instinctive, inherited, and universal human urges for self-replication as they exist in current societies, especially as in America today. Three specific arenas are: male, female, and childhood sexuality.

            While all three are rooted in genetics and ultimately aim at the same goal, namely genetic immortality through baby-making, the roles, places, and aspects of each have evolved and now exist with distinctively different modes, delights, and denials.

            Here I try to look at and think more clearly about the differences I can now see, especially at challenges involved in mixing natural sexuality in each arena with existing social structures and powerful, present memes.

            The ideas which follow are pages from my journals and other writings in which I explored various aspects of this subject, namely, existential sexuality. Some attention is given to the act of sexual intercourse, especially to the complementary gender roles aimed at successful self-replication; but mainly I am trying to clarify what I have come to understand about what it means to be maturely sexual--in both the male and female versions which are genetically focused on the same goal but head there by distinctively different paths.




            A number of my personal premises--that is, temporary conclusions I have previously reached, underlie the observations made in this essay. A reader may wish to be aware of these as he or she evaluates or reacts to the opinions expressed here. Among them are these 14:


            Controlling and managing powers inherent in human sexuality in society--that is, instincts for self-replication, is the second most pressing problem for civilization in general. How shall we deal with our natural private urges in public places and communities--that is, sex in society?

            This major challenge is second only to that of dealing with even more powerful selfing instincts in social settings--that is, the inherent conflict between "selfishness" related to personal survival and self-satisfaction, and altruism as functional in civilized groups. How shall we mix drives for self-care with relating to and taking care of others--that is, "loving our neighbors" and ourselves at the same time.

            But here I focus only on the first issue, namely, the necessity of incorporating sexuality in civilization. How are we to best cope with sex in society--that is, what shall we do with powerful drives for self-replication which are all too often at odds with group stability which requires more individual cooperation in social productions than private efforts at re-production? This, I think, has been the second most challenging issue civilization has necessarily had to face so far (the first being "selfishness," to be considered in another essay).


            96-98% of all human instincts became ingrained before what we now call civilization and recorded history began--that is, while we were still living in caves with family groups of 25 or less. This means that we are primarily geared for individual survival and family replication, with few ingrained inclinations for social life together in a now civilized world.

            I speculate that in these relatively brief (in terms of evolution) times of recorded history some few genetic inclinations for city versus cave life have become partially ingrained also. Primary among these is the possibility for human consciousness--and with it the fragile potential for reasoning and love, that is "making sense" and "caring for others" beyond oneself and blood relatives (our shared gene pool).

            This issue is confused by another primary genetic difference between the genders, namely, female genes for beneficial associations with other females and for maintaining peaceful conditions for successful child rearing. As recognizable in hunter/gatherer eras, males became engened for private hunting--that is, killing game as needed for food, protection, and supplies (e.g., animal skins) for themselves and their family, plus cooperating with other males when useful in common quests for larger game. At the same time, "gathering" and "child rearing" females became engened for cooperating as useful in sharing information and support in finding food close by their cave "homes," and avoiding conflicts which interfered with child care.

            Summary result today: Males are primarily geared for being lone hunters--that is, getting along alone ("the cheese stands alone"), with lessor genes for brief cooperation with other males as useful in private endeavors. Females, in variation, are geared for "socializing" and "peace making" as useful in their larger "half" of shared reproduction instincts.

            As it has turned out, these primary female instincts are also useful in civilization, while male genes are mostly good for extensions of hunting, such as, fighting enemies (war) and competitive sports, which are basically "anti-social" values in themselves.

            When we remain primally directed by instincts uninformed by consciousness, males are basically loners and fighters (extension of hunting) with blind drives for "standing apart" and competing with other males (originally aimed as getting and keeping females for self replication, like male lion "prides," but now sublimated into competitive sports).

            Females, in sharp contrast, while gene-directed, are "social creatures"--that is, instinctively inclined to communicate, cooperate, and "keep the peace." Only incidentally, I think, are they more geared for civilization than are males, and this simply because older urges happen to correlate with values also useful in society along with successful female self-replication.

            Relevant here: When we come closer to being our natural selves, females are far better suited for civilized life together, while equally natural males are more inclined to standing apart (often seen as "being anti-social") and competing with all other males except when engaged in mutual endeavors, such as, acquiring wealth, warring, or "playing" team sports.

            Summary: When moved by older, pre-conscious genes only, females are basically "social creatures" and males are "anti-social," competitive loners. Whereas females cooperate naturally and only compete for the attention and control of males, males are basically uncooperative except in shared male quests; otherwise we "stand alone" and are perpetually competitive with all others except our mates.

            Also: 96-98% of genetic urges are aimed at jungle needs, namely, survival and replication, with only 2-4% for civilization requirements--except as older female genes are coincidently shared with social needs. These social inclinations become primally possible through the genetically late addition of consciousness to relatively blind instincts.


            Existing forces, both internal and external--that is, "genes" and "memes," genetic drives and social constraints and permissions, are all morally neutral, neither good nor bad within themselves.

            Contrary to many current perspectives in religion and society "nature (including 'lusts')" is not inherently evil nor are existing socio/religious values (embodied in memes) inherently good. Conversely, "being natural" is not good in and of itself in rebellion against "bad" social structures.

            Point: True good and evil come to exist only in the personal interplay between genes and memes in the lives of those who live within the midst of both, not in either one or the other.



            The grand mistake of civilization so far lies not in its intent and aim, namely, the well-being of increasingly large families, communities, and social groups, but rather in its short-sighted use of suppression as the sole means of fitting individuals into society.

            Instead of using force only as necessary in extreme situations, and quickly laying it aside in favor of advancing broader human capacities, civilization, under tutelage of religions, both primitive and advanced, has opted for advanced forms of force, phasing outside dictation by violence into inner dictation by socially-ingrained conscience, formed via personal repression.

            What must have begun as individual control by brute external physical force, has in the course of time been expanded to include ever more effective subtle, internal, psychological forces. Outside dictation was eventually augmented by increasingly pervasive and personally disastrous, inside dictation. Civil laws have been internalized by the psychologically abusive process of instilling parental voices in children's minds.


            In summary: Primary modes of coping with sexuality so far have included two major procedures: 1) Outward suppression, including strict social dictates--laws, mores, and conventions for almost all forms of sexual behavior, backed up by: 2) Internal judgments beginning with religious condemnations of sexual desires ("lusts of the flesh") as well as of all natural expressions outside of sanctioned marriage.

            Individuals, dependent on society and religion for survival, have consequently had to find personal modes of coping with such external circumstances. Primarily, the psychic device of inward repression has been the chosen mode. In order to fit in acceptably with prevailing socio/religious structures, outside suppression has almost universally been internalized in various degrees of corresponding internal denials, even attempted negation of this second most powerful human urge.




            Major consequences have been twofold: First, external suppression backed by internal repression has obviously worked well in the long course of human evolution from the harshness of jungle life to the relative comforts of civilization today. Insofar as society is concerned, these two modes in consort have been amazingly successful.

            One can only imagine what human life would be like today if we still lived by the laws of the jungle alone--that is, survival of the fittest, might is right, and only dominant Alpha males allowed to replicate themselves. It would be difficult to overestimate the social wisdom of coping with sex via suppression and repression insofar as advances made both in secular society and organized religions--that is, the progress of civilization to date.

            But a second major consequence is the subject of this essay, namely, the results of these two prime coping modes insofar as individual happiness and personal well-being is concerned. Unfortunately, what has worked relatively well for civilization--both for secular society and popular religions, has been far less successful in the internal lives of citizens and church members.

            Indeed, one premise of this essay is that outward success in organizing groups of people has largely come at great price for individuals who both society and religion theoretically aim to serve. What has been achieved in taming the jungle has been far less successful in taming the restless hearts of those removed from it--that is, the inward life of good citizens and devoted religionists, who, while enjoying the outward benefits of civilization and church life yet long for the inner wholeness their genes continue to seek.

            We may have many things and degrees of external safety and comfort, but we still live in need of wholeness essential for spiritual well being, indeed, heaven here. We may have saved ourselves as groups of people, but all too often we have lost private spirit in the process.

            In psychological terms, relative social maturity in regard to sexual behavior has come with almost universal immaturity for individuals who have chosen the mode of repression for successful social membership.

            Also, I observe, individual repression has proven costly for society as well as selves. While the benefits of suppression are well known, less attention is commonly given to its negative consequences, both for persons who split themselves in quest of social conformity, and for societies which no longer seek potentially better means of organization.

            Among the costly results are these: First of all, lost potential happiness otherwise inherent in personal wholeness ("being our natural selves"); but then, irresponsible acting out of repressed desires (inevitable projection rooted in repression); abusive sexual relationships, often cloaked by socially acceptable marriage; socially sanctioned abuse of children who approach being naturally sexual; misplaced aggression more naturally associated with sexuality only, but following repression, destructively projected in social crimes, even unnecessary national wars; religious destruction and wars in which all beliefs other than one's own reflect in judgments of "infidels," etc., even with assumed self-righteous duties for either converting or killing one's "enemies."

            In summary, a major premise of this essay is that by and large, most civilized humans, especially those in popular religions, remain relatively immature insofar as inner wholeness is concerned. And, repressed sexuality is one of two prime elements in this unfortunate situation.




            Instincts (ingrained genetic directives) for sexuality--that is, self-replication ("baby making"), are the second most pervasive and powerful elements in human beings as evolved so far. Only drives for selfing are older and stronger. But, because urges for reproduction by sexual means evolved much later than instincts for survival, and are consequently nearer to even-later-to-evolve consciousness, they tend to be closer to awareness. Deeper urges to stay alive (e.g., to breath, eat, digest food, defecate, grow, and heal) are now so genetically operative that we simply "do them" mostly "without thinking." Successful sex, however, calls for more conscious attention.




            On genetic levels, females are superior creatures in terms of ingrained wisdom for survival, self-replication, and social living. Males are structurally and socially inferior and are primally evolved for essential services to females, namely, impregnating sperm, plus strength and skills for providing security to females who are the major gender in larger issues of species survival and continuation.

            Popular notions of male superiority (mainly held by males) and gender equality are mostly mythical and/or wishful thinking--that is, accepted illusions deemed useful by those who hold them. For males these reasons are mostly psychological; for females, they are more practical in possession and management of male services.




            Contrary to how we males like to think of ourselves, we have evolved, I conclude, more as a serving gender than the "bosses" we often pretend to be. Females, being the baby makers and primary child rearers, are, like our inherited genes, the primary gender. Genetically speaking, we are all conceived as females and only later evolve into gendered males if a Y chromosome is available to influence personal development.

            In practice, human males, like bulls, are needed to supply necessary sperm for female conceptions, and then to support security needs of females--that is, food, supplies, and protection. Although we are accustomed to thinking of the male lion, for example, as "King" of the pride, and men as "King" of the castle, I reluctantly conclude that this is more of a male illusion than an actual fact. When "Kings" cease to be serviceable, those "behind the throne" have long managed to come up with another male to "serve their needs" or other ways to live without males.

            Although religious myths, such as those in the Christian bible, have tried to establish males as the primary gender (Eve made from Adam's rib!), I conclude that such tales are masculine rationalizations to cloak otherwise obvious facts (such as, who makes life and who, in the final analysis, manages whom).



            Human maturity is only possible through accepting, embracing, and activating our natural, inherited genetic structures, including the capacity for consciousness--and with it, the possibility of being reasonable and loving. In colloquial terms, such maturity may be called, "becoming our real selves."

            This natural quest for personal completion or maturity is predictably difficult today since societies have almost universally used suppression as the primary tool in civilizing children--that is, made social and religious virtues of acting unnaturally, of denying and suppressing natural consciousness and self-chosen expressions in society.





            Power generation associated with genes is proportionate with their age--that is, older genes have had longer to acquire associated forces, while younger genes (e.g., for consciousness) are relatively weak in comparison. In practice this means we are powerfully moved to stay alive and make babies, but only mildly inclined to be conscious--that is, to "be reasonable" and "loving."




            Many apparent observations about sexuality in men, women, and children are cloaks for deeper contrary facts, e.g., male promiscuity, female frigidity, and childhood innocence.

            On deeper levels, males are not nearly as sexy as we commonly appear to be; females are far more sexual than they often see themselves as being; and children are not nearly as "innocent (non-sexual)" as adults like to think they are.




            While I focus here on gender differences related to replication by sexual means rather than cloning, I understand gender as a pervasive yet small part of personhood in general. Surely X and Y chromosomes, plus many other hormonal and physical changes they initiate, are primary parts of everyone's genetic structure; but, I conclude, in an overall perspective, personhood, as rooted in 44 or the 46 chromosomes in each of our cells, is of far greater magnitude and personal significance than are our sexual characteristics. We are, in other words, mostly human beings who just happen to also be of a male or female variety, rather than being male or female as more commonly viewed in popular thought.




            Historically, society and religion have cooperated in seeking the best for mankind through overt attempts to control and suppress human nature ("instincts"), to have persons act contrary to natural desires and, in effect, try to become who we are not--that is, better and more than we naturally are according to genetic inheritance.

            Perhaps suppression of "animal instincts" in favor of "acting civilized" has been functional, even necessary in our long trek from jungle to city, from caves to houses, from pairs and clans to communities and nations. But I theorize that we have now evolved far enough, become sufficiently civilized, that we may return to re-examine our founding principles based on virtues of suppression versus expression, of overcoming nature versus becoming more fully natural, of moving from the virtue of self-sacrifice in favor of fuller self-activation.

            In either case, my premises in this regards include these:

--that fuller selfing, being more completely natural, is better in the long run, both for self and society, than denied or repressed "selfishness" and attempts to be better than "mere animals."


--that primal instincts for survival and reproduction (selfing and sexuality) are a better basis for effective societies and heaven here for individual citizens than are idealized virtues of unselfishness and being relatively non-sexual.


--that we may be better off being more rather than less natural, more human and less godly, more humble and less self-righteous, and both more selfing and sexual than more sacrificial and chaste.


--that contrary to prevailing socio/religious values, human good may best be found in becoming more fully natural--that is, in activated genetic directives, rather than in suppressing/denying instincts.


--that highest good and best human values result from greater degrees of embraced genetics, more embodiment, self-identification with instincts rather than a dis-embodied soul.


--that greater degrees of social responsibility may come more from embraced personal response-abilities than from devotion to impersonal duty and self sacrifice.


--that love is both more realistic and greater as an overflowing of fuller selfing rather than the result of denying oneself in favor of serving others.


--finally, that unrepression of selfing and sexuality is ultimately a higher virtue than successful repression of either or both.


            I recognize both the rarity of these perspectives in the long course of human evolution and many of the challenges of unrepression after centuries of practice at suppression and viewing self-denial and virginity as highest virtues, of seeing and embracing virtues of becoming one's fuller self rather than overcoming selfishness, and being more, not less, sexual.

            Even so, one overall premise of this essay is that greater human good may come from a re-evaluation of older virtues related to "overcoming the flesh" in favor of newer thinking about "becoming more fully fleshed"--more embodied rather than less. The following observations and speculations are on various aspects of such a process of individual unrepression of natural sexuality--that is, my thinking about what mature sexuality might actually be like in daily life in current societies.

            The larger subject of mature selfing, which I intend to explore next, is probably even more challenging than this; but because we tend to be more conscious about later-to-evolve sexuality (after eons of reproduction via cloning), than about even more primal instincts for selfing, I choose to begin here.



            Perhaps suppression/projection has been the best way for civilization to advance as far as we have. Or it may be that a fundamental flaw is inherent in this historical approach to human sexuality. In either case, this essay proposes an alternate mode which respects both the necessity of external structures for social stability and the equally important requirement of inner wholeness if one is to find true earthly happiness ("heaven here").

            Even if a functional error was inherent in the evolved way of civilization so far, we have, I think, now advanced enough to begin trying another way of coping with sex in society. My overall premise is that the path of personal un-repression may lead not only to escalated inward happiness, but also to improved, wiser approaches to merging sex into society in even more functional ways.




GOAL: To imagine what sexual maturity might be like. If I were truly mature sexually, what would I be like? And what is the path toward such maturity?



A. Natural Sexuality
B. Society And Sex
C. Coping With Lust
D. Growing Up Sexually
E. Miscellaneous Speculations


A. Natural Sexuality

            What is genetic sexuality like? Were it not for social structures, what would men, women, and children be like, sexually speaking? If we still retained awareness and embraced animal instincts, what would human sexiness be like?

            Here I amplify what I think to be the major characteristics of each gender's genetic structures, that is, innate inclinations evolved by Mother Nature in service of reproduction. These are all natural traits which became engened long before consciousness evolved as a human possibility, and therefore exist below the level of conscious awareness. Whether or not we are aware of them in mind's eye, they move us in predictable ways.

            I note these natural drives in three arenas: males, females, and children.

B. Society And Sex

            Next I briefly note what is common knowledge about how civilizations have historically dealt with these powerful ingrained human forces. In summary, I conclude that the major social mode of coping with sexuality so far has been by suppression--that is, using powers of outside social force--laws, mores, and punishments, and inside suppressions--denial, promotion of shame and guilt via instilling consciences and perverting the internal capacity for consciousness and reasoning in service of the outside suppressions.



  C. Coping With Lust

            Then, in a third section, I speculate on the consequences of this presently favored mode of coping with sexuality via suppression, both outside and inside, in terms of its price for individuals and society itself in the long run.

            How have individuals dealt with being sexual? What is the common way of coping with natural instincts and social expectations, especially when genes conflict with memes? These questions are explored in this section.



D. Growing Up Sexually

            In a fourth section I speculate on another possibility for managing these forces of sexuality in society without depending on outward suppression, inward repression, and relying on an imaginary conscience when the first two fail.

            What would a sexually mature person be like today? And how might such maturity be achieved?


E. Miscellaneous Speculations

            Finally I include a number of miscellaneous observations on subjects related to my primary topic of sexual maturity.



A. Natural Sexuality

            Males are most basically sperm spreaders; females, baby makers, and children begin in the womb to grow up sexually--that is, as boys or girls on the way to becoming men and women.



B. Society And Sex

            Outward suppression is the major way society has dealt with sexual instincts since the beginning of recorded history, with minor allowances as necessary for social survival. Both religion and society (when they are different) have teamed up in suppressing sex via moral and civil laws against most forms of natural sexual expression.



C. Coping With Lust

            Inward repression and outward acting are the primary ways persons have coped with the challenges of natural sexuality in the midst of suppressive outside circumstances structured by religion and/or society.



D. Growing Up Sexually

            A mature person today, I speculate, would be sexually unrepressed and socially responsible--that is, he or she would embrace all natural instincts in awareness and mediate them artfully in the midst of existing religious and social structures.

            A mature society would: a) Accept natural sexual instincts as okay and healthy--that is, acceptable without judgments of dirty, and/or evil; b) Structure itself with rules and laws as necessary to provide social stability in regard to irresponsible "acting out" sexually; and, c) Provide education and guidance aimed at supporting personal sexual growth within existing social structures--that is, individuals growing up sexually unrepressed and socially responsible.

            In summary, sexual maturity as amplified in this essay includes:

1. All natural instincts unrepressed and embraced in consciousness and body.


2. All such desires merged pragmatically into local circumstances, both in society at large and in personal relationships.

            Sexual maturity for individuals is less about changing society as it is than about seeing clearly, accepting, and relating pragmatically to innate passions in immediate circumstances. Some attention may be given to possible social changes, but care must be taken less efforts to

change "out there" become an escape from inward unrepression.




Sexuality: By sexuality I mean gender issues related to self-replication. Although the word sex is commonly limited to physical intercourse ("fucking") only, the crucial beginning of self-replication, I use it here in its broader meaning--that is, for this and other gender related matters aimed at self-replication, or what is also called "reproduction of the species."

Genes: A summary name for collections of DNA and its various chemical elements; better known synonyms include: instincts, urges, inclinations, drives, desires, wants, what we are geared for, ingrained directives, and engened knowledge.



            Before approaching natural sexuality directly I explore the larger question of natural humanity. What does it mean to be a natural human being as contrasted with the far more familiar social images we commonly acquire? Beneath typical social stances, what are we like as genetically evolved creatures? If one succeeds in un-repressing him or herself, what will such a person be like? In particular, how is gender related to personhood? How is being a male or female related to being a person--apart from socially acquired roles?

            Obviously the answer must be largely hypothetical, since there are, so far as I know, no "nature boys (or girls)" to be found. We all, it seems, at least partially repress our natural selves in order to fit in with social circumstances. No completely natural persons are available for study. Consequently, what follows are my best "educated guesses" about the nature of natural human beings.

            Previously I posited two major instincts or innate drives in all humans, namely, for survival and replication. We are all, I conclude, blindly (below levels of consciousness) moved to "stay alive" and "make babies," to live and enhance personal satisfactions, and to make more of ourselves. In summary, we have underlying and prevailing urges for what I summarize as: 1) Selfing, and 2) Sexuality.

            To be a natural human is, among many other related capacities, to be selfing and sexual.

            Although my subject here is only about the second major instinct, the first question I explore is: How are the two related? What are their relative strengths? Which, if either, is primary? Which secondary? Which, that is, "comes first" insofar as overall naturalness is concerned? Are sexual drives stronger than selfing instincts? Or vice versa?

            Answers are difficult because selfing and sexuality are, in practice, interwoven--each is, as it were, a part of the other, and only separable "in mind's eye" for thought purposes. On paper or in thought we may try to distinguish between the two; but in life such lines are hard to draw.

            Even so, some distinctions are evident and therefore speculations about differences become relevant for intellectual understanding. In broadest view it is like looking at two ends of one elephant, or a single reality (human livingness) from two different windows. With this overall perspective, I begin to note certain significant differences.

            First I observe that instincts for replication get the lion's share of both private and public attention, and often seem to be the more dominant of the two--that is, that being male or female is more primary than non-gendered humanity ("personhood") itself. Sex, it may appear on casual glance, is more powerful and moving than selfing. Being a boy or a girl, often seems to matter more than being a person in non-gendered ways, and probably we tend to think more about "making babies (and related matters)" than about "being human."

            Even so, I think this is an erroneous view in largest perspectives. "Personhood," as a name for selfing instincts as contrasted with "male" or "female" for gender drives, is, I conclude, far more central to natural humanity than gender. In practice this means that insofar as "being oneself" is concerned, being a "person" who just happens to be gendered male or female is far more significant than "being a man or woman."

            Perhaps the fact that we tend to place emphasis on gender differences and give more attention to them than to personhood (non-gender characteristics) is related to other facts about evolution itself, namely, the timing of gender and consciousness as related to life itself.

            Best current theories are that whereas life itself began about 2.5 billion years ago, with reproduction by cloning, sex (by sperm and ovum) was only "invented" some 600 million years ago. But then it was eons later, perhaps as late as 10-100,000 years ago that human consciousness finally appeared on the stage of evolution.

            This means that life without sex had 1,900,000,000 years longer to, in effect, "practice its arts" before genes for sex ever evolved. Then, given that we humans have 46 chromosomes ("central directors") in each of our 50 trillion cells, with 44 "autosomes" or body chromosomes, and only two (X and Y) devoted to sex differences, most all of our "body knowledge" is about non-sexual "selfing" or "personhood."

            Mathematically speaking, 44 to 2 is 96% to 4%--that is, 96% of our chromosome "directors" are evolved for keeping us alive as individuals, constantly "saying," in effect, "Survive, survive, survive. Nothing else matters as much as keeping on living. No matter how good or bad things get, breathe on, breath on."

            Meanwhile, the remaining 4% of the newer chromosomes, after some 12 or 14 years to develop, start doing their best to demand attention to their own private agendas: "Make more, make more, make more," they cry out: "We want babies!" But the "voices" of both had no words until consciousness evolved, some 599,900,000 years later.

            In summary (if we accept available facts about evolution rather than believing in Creationism), reason would indicate that instincts for survival ("selfing") are both older and stronger than their far younger cousins for sexual replication ("sexiness"). And since most of their development occurred long before consciousness was even possible, their forces are more likely rooted in unconscious genetics than in urges which come into awareness--such as, sexually related desires.

            Perhaps we are more aware of reproductive passions because they evolved nearer to consciousness itself and need more "thinking" for effective activation.

            Whatever the reasons may be, I conclude that when instincts for selfing and replication can be distinguished, those for selfing (individual survival) are both older and more powerful, even though less evident to consciousness (words and thoughts), than others aimed at reproduction. We are, that is, far more deeply moved by "selfishness" than by "sexiness," even if we tend to be more conscious of the second than the first.

            These opinions being stated, I turn attention now to what I consider to be lessor, but more conscious motivations of human sexuality, and delay exploration of primal selfing to another essay.


            What is the nature of natural sexuality apart from socio/religious perspectives? If one grew up outside of society, like a mythical "nature boy (or girl)," what might he or she be like, sexually speaking? If one were never repressed, or were able to completely unrepress, what would he or she be like?


            The following are my best guesses about the most primal and hence most powerful natural directives in each gender. These are, I think, instinctive urges which evolved long before consciousness, and due to repression beginning in early childhood, are seldom allowed into full awareness by most persons of each gender.

            Hence, to the degree of one's success in instinctual repression in quest of social acceptance or whatever, these descriptions may seem strange, even bizarre and certainly untrue. The more repressed one is, the more false they will seem. To those who have remained more in touch with natural inclinations or have given greater attention to unrepression, they will, I think, seem more "right on."

            In either case, my descriptions are, I conclude, what may be expected if a man or woman chooses to confront socially acquired denials and risk re-becoming his or her natural self again.

            Social restrictions, both religious and secular, are so strongly aligned against many of these primal urges that their appearance in natural form is relatively rare and quickly suppressed, especially by those who try to be "good" and consider themselves to be highly "moral." Mostly we only see them in pure form in uninhibited children, in adult fantasies and/or cloaked in dreams, or in social "acting out" in unacceptable and/or legally dangerous ways.

            More often, these primal urges are evaded by unconscious sublimations into more socially acceptable forms which allow the dark directives slight expression with less threat to contrary conscious self images. However, given the blind power of natural urges, often such sublimations which aim at a functional balance between what one "wants to do" and what one "can acceptably do" and still be "good" get so out of control that assorted compulsions and other diagnosable forms of mental illness are the result.

            Such sublimations, in which primal urges in one socially dangerous direction are carefully re-directed to another more acceptable activity, are often so well constructed that only dim clues to original intents remain visible. When so, actual connections are unrecognized, even strongly disavowed, by those who practice them. And, obviously, they are impossible to prove by any yet known scientific ways.

            Even so, I speculate later about what I think to be some of the most common sublimations which on first glance may seem to be totally unrelated to the primal urges I suspect them to spring from. Psychoanalysis and careful observation lend support to these speculations. And, should any practitioner of one or more such sublimations risk personal unrepression, I predict they will find my guesses to be correct.

            Such theoretical assumptions and guesses aside, here are what I think to be our most natural and universal gender urges in their purest forms (before repression or after un-repression and/or sublimation). Without socialization and typical personal repressions, or, following successful un-repression, these, I conclude, would be our most basic natural desires.

            Obviously, for good and practical social reasons, few of them would ever be expressed openly in their primal forms; but they would, I think, be fully conscious in an unrepressed male or female mind.




            If it were possible to separate genes (genetic forces) from memes (social forces), what would pure instincts not shaped or controlled by structures of civilization be like? What, that is, is the "animal nature" of man and woman? If we were totally determined by ingrained drives as distinct from civilized directives what would we be like?

            Obviously the answer must be speculative to some extent, because, as noted before, there are, so far as I know, no "nature boys (or girls)"--like Tarzan who was raised by apes, yet alive. All humans now are born into social structures which begin shaping us immediately after birth (at least, trying to) into functional members of our family and community group. And, given the extent to which we commonly repress socially unacceptable natural urges, beginning with family values, there are probably no completely unrepressed--that is, totally natural persons alive and available for observation and/or testimony.

            Result: genes and memes--that is, urges to "be ourselves" and to "be accepted by others" must now be so thoroughly intertwined that seeing either separate from the other is probably only possible in mind's eye, as an academic or intellectual endeavor.

            Even so, I conclude that attempting to visualize or mentally understand our common genetic instincts which have long been influenced, if not totally shaped, by social forces (memes) can be a useful endeavor for those who seek to be themselves as individuals and to be accepted and productive members of society as it exists today.

            This is especially true for us who share a human ideal of being "civilized animals" rather than "dis-embodied selves (or souls)" who must be constantly at war with bodily drives, especially "fleshly desires (genetic urges)" viewed as evil or "not really me." If we are to truly be ourselves--that is, exist embracing genetic instincts as the primary stuff of humanity, and at the same time honor essential social aspects of private life, then recognizing animal urges as clearly as possible is potentially useful.

            In such a personal endeavor, that is, attempting to truly be a whole person who is both a-lone-one and a-part-of (animal and citizen), one can hardly avoid the challenges of facing and unrepressing inclinations which have been denied and pushed out of awareness in the process of fitting in with social groups, beginning with one's family.

            As best I can determine, all humans today have to some degree repressed natural knowledge in favor of social knowledge, cutting ourselves off, as it were, from socially unacceptable instincts in quest of essential social acceptance. Consequently, before anyone can truly be oneself as a natural-person-in-society, unrepression of animal instincts is a necessary step. There is, so far as I know, no way to become a whole person, as is essential for experiencing heaven here, except through the challenging process of unrepression.

            And, at least for me, becoming consciously aware of previously denied natural urges, even before I seek to re-embrace them as a part of myself, is sometimes helpful. If I can "see" in mind's eye what may lie ahead in the course of re-becoming any aspect of my inherited self, then I may be able to move with less threat in that direction.

            This fact is my personal motivation for attempting to clarify the nature of "animal instincts" as distinguished from "social directives" which I have largely ingested in the process of trying to be "a good person" as defined by society and religion.





            In an overview first, I see parallel, complementary genetic urges primally aimed at self-replication and species survival in seemingly different forms in each gender. In this universal Drama of Reproduction male urges are mostly overt or outward, like our genitals, while complementary female directives are covert or hidden. Four phases of gender differences, which on the surface seem to be in opposition, may be teased into mental openness. In practice they commonly overlap, first advance and then retreat, briefly hide only to reappear later, and yet remain pervasive throughout much of life together.

            My names for these slightly distinguishable "steps" in successful replication, are:

            For males: Scoping, Seducing, Fucking, and Keeping females.

            For females the corresponding phases are: Attracting, Inviting, Cuddling, and Possessing males. For example, while males are moved to regularly be scoping (a colloquial term for being continually alert and looking for conceive-able females), corresponding females are equally attentive to "beautifying" to appear more "scope-able"--that is, likely-to-appear as conceive-able.


            Two other complementary gender traits, namely, active aggression in males and passive receptivity in females, are relevant in understanding natural gender characteristics. These secondary ingrained traits have, I conclude, evolved in support of the four primary drives noted above.

            On the biological level, successful male sexuality inherently requires a measure of active assertion, internally necessary for having an erection, and externally useful in overcoming female resistance, penetrating a vagina, and thrusting in order to built up toward orgasm and ejaculation.

            Equally necessary is passive receptivity on the part of a female, first to facilitate the passage of an ovum from an ovary down a Fallopian tube where it may be impregnated, and then in order to receive an enlarged penis and accept expelled sperm.

            His "hard" is complemented by her "soft" in a mutual quest for self replication. His active aggression is fulfilled in her passive receptivity.

            Secondary functions of male aggression, following successful conception, are necessary for providing needed protection and supplies essential for family security in rearing children. At the same time female passivity proves equally necessary for self-sacrificing needed for mothering, for cooperative endeavors with other females engaged in similar agendas (namely, sharing needed information about resources and child rearing), plus general "giving in" as useful in peace making in support of family and community harmony.

            Unfortunately, these secondary gender traits which I think to have evolved in service of primary replication functions (the four elemental gender modes) are all too often displaced into other arenas, such as, competition and wars for males. Or, on deeper levels, they may be perverted into sadism, primarily in males, and masochism, most common in females.

            Misplaced male aggression may also be seen in outward domination, even abuse, of females, while natural female passivity may be perverted into passive aggression, as in, ball-busting or castrating males, spiritually if not physically.


            A secondary effort is to make gender comparisons--that is, to look at how complementary phases of male and female drives have come to be viewed in society and religion. In these comparisons, I also speculate on differing or comparable degrees of inherent genetic forces moving men and women in the specific activities of each of the four "steps" in successful reproduction.

            Before exploring comparisons of complementary sexual urges, I first note what I see as a primary difference in inherited gender powers--that is, how males and females compare in general, before and apart from specific traits related to sex itself. How does natural masculinity compare with natural femininity? Some now like to think of "gender equality"--that is, that males and females are essentially opposite-but-equal in terms of creaturely capacities and powers. Older views, still held by many today, see males as first (Adam before Eve), primary (head of household), and even innately superior to naturally inferior females.

            Fortunately, many males are moving past the obvious illusions which the Superior Male view required, and are beginning to think more in terms of gender equality, e.g., equal wages, business opportunities, and even political powers (Are we ready for a female president?).

            But my data has led me to a contrary conclusion about (analysis of) masculinity and femininity, insofar as inherited creaturely capacities are concerned, and especially as gender traits have been incorporated into society. I am of the generally unaccepted opinion that a serious imbalance in powers is presently operative between men and women as biological creatures as well as in social positions.

            I see this imbalance as heavily weighted in favor of natural femininity, both in regard to genetic capacities and certainly insofar as social advantages are concerned. As I have explored in detail elsewhere, I summarize here by observing that female powers, both biological and social, are significantly greater than male powers in either arena. Femininity, I might say, is "unduly complimented" while masculinity "gets a bad shake" in both arenas.

            I have previously phrased this opinion as "female superiority" and "male inferiority" insofar as overall power differences are concerned. Unfortunately, superior and inferior commonly have sharp judgments attached, with the first seen as "good" and the second as "bad," as though I am saying that women are "better" than men. Not so, at least as I have intended these contrasting descriptions. Insofar as judgments are concerned, I see males and females as equal in value, with neither gender being inherently better or worse than the other.

            But in regard to operative forces, I do see females as existing with "superior" power advantages, and males in "inferior" positions in relation to them. Certainly and obviously males in general have greater muscular strengths than do physically weaker females; but beyond these basic male advantages in size and physical forcefulness, most other power cards are stacked in favor of females.

            For example, on the biological level, females have more bodily durability (capacity for standing pain), adaptability (for survival in a greater variety of circumstances), and longevity (on average women live longer) than do males. On the mental level, female "whole-brain" or comprehensive thinking is functionally superior to typical male "narrow-mindedness" and "train-track" type exclusiveness. Although male "focus-ability" and "reasoning" are obviously beneficial in certain technical and tangible situations, insofar as normal daily living is concerned, female type thinking turns out to be more functional and generally superior to male "sense making."

            Mental advantages fall in the female arena for another significant psychological reason, namely, the fact that males tend to identify ourselves with our words and thinking ("A man's word is his bond," or so we like to think), while females seldom limit their sense of themselves to this fragile part of human capacity. The observation that "A woman's heart is her bond" reflects, I think, the fact that females more pragmatically identify themselves with "feelings" than with "thinking," that is, with older emotional or bodily wisdom, than with later-to-evolve "conscious thinking."

            Even more obvious is the fact that "emotional" power is inherently greater and generally more effective (at least immediately, as in arguments with men), than is "reasonableness"--that is, sense-making with words and logic, as males try to use as our source of power. I certainly would not belittle the many advantages of "logical thinking" insofar as physical materials and long range decisions are concerned; but I would be less than honest if I did not also note that the female forte, namely, "emotional" or circular thinking, is typically more powerful in human encounters as well as in successful daily life.


            In addition to these biological and mental advantages, females are also born with significant social advantages related to operational power, both in civil circumstances as well as in male/female relationships. In overall perspective, it turns out that the natural traits of femininity are more functional in civilization as it has evolved so far, than are equally natural attributes of masculinity. One result is that greater social powers (memes) are consequently "inherited," as it were, by females, along with their other biological and mental advantages. At the same time, inherited maleness finds itself at a decided disadvantage in most aspects of civilized society (apart from war). Most male social powers are, in effect, negative rather than positive.

            While females are typically rewarded in society for inherited attributes, and consequently empowered for capacities for which they get no personal credit, males are conversely suppressed, even shamed, for equally natural but socially problematic traits--that is, in effect, socially dis-empowered for "being themselves."

            I amplify these differences in specific ways in the following comparisons, but first I summarize by observing that the power balance, both in terms of biology and social structures, is in female favor. Although these power advantages are not directly related to sexuality, they turn out to have many significant effects in cross-gender relationships as well as in the private lives of males and females.


            All overt sexuality is gender-based--that is, rooted in and resulting from X and Y chromosomes and related hormonal influences, and in practice is gender-specific (male or female); but in its genesis and culmination sexuality is more clearly recognized as simply being human in its fullest sense.

            A central problem in clarifying natural sexuality lies in inherent connections between the two major human instincts, namely, for selfing and sex. We may distinguish certain traits in mind's eye (academically) as more related to one or the other; but in practice, as individually experienced, they so commonly overlap that objective distinctions we draw for thought purposes run together in subjective experience.

            Even so, for mental clarity we may divide natural sexuality into two overlapping categories: 1) Human (shared), and; 2) Gender specific--that is, the first being more related to selfing (cross-gendered) drives, and the second more about maleness or femaleness. The first are relatively the same for both genders, while the second are clearly divisible, distinctive, and even contradictory on the surface for males and females.

            Although those in the first category are not commonly identified with one gender or the other, I see them as genetic capacities primally evolved in support of both major instincts. In each person's experience they so overlap as to be relatively indistinguishable. In common they may be seen as pleasure producers.

            The genius of Mother Nature is that She has evolved "good feelings" or pleasure capacities associated with what works best in keeping us alive as individuals and engaged in reproducing ourselves. Although we may intellectually divide pleasures into those more related to selfing (e.g., eating for physical health) and those more related to overt sexuality (e.g., fucking), in practice they are relatively indistinguishable--that is, "feels good" is "feels good," or pleasure is pleasure, no matter what its genetic aims may be.

            For example, mouth pleasures (which I will later name as oral-sexuality) associated with sucking and eating are obviously more related to selfing (staying alive) than to sexuality (making babies); but the same nerve endings which bring pleasure to sucking and eating are also activated in obviously erotic experience, such as, licking and kissing.

            For thought purposes we may distinguish each; but inwardly they are experienced as much the same. Sucking pleasures, e.g., may have first evolved in support of nursing as essential in staying alive; but the same nerve endings are also activated in erotic kissing. Insofar as physical experience is concerned, sucking on a breast, cigarette, earlobe, tongue, or genital of one's opposite sex, all are essentially the same personal pleasures.

            Consequently, in the following noted stages of human experience, I refer to the pleasure components which are inherent both in selfing and sexual instincts. Finally, I conclude, they are never fully distinguishable or different insofar as any individual's perceptions are concerned.

            Were it not for repressions made in service of social acceptance, all sucking pleasures, e.g., would be both sensual and sexual. Before repression, and afterward (to the extent that any person re-becomes whole) these lines between sensual and sexual do not exist. For yet unrepressed children, I speculate that all pleasure, beginning with sucking and eating is indistinguishably related to self and sex. And so with mature adults, post-repression. For example, omnisexuality, to be described next, is equally about selfing and sexuality--that is, both sensual and sexy as experienced by a whole person.


            In summary, natural sexuality may be viewed from two perspectives: 1) Humanity itself, and 2) Gendered humanity--that is, from sexually related traits which all human beings share, and then other attributes which are specific to each gender.

            Here I begin by exploring human traits which I think to be common both to males and to females. I see these inherited, cross-gender elements as stages in natural development. Then I turn to look more carefully at sexually related traits which are gender-specific, that is, those more commonly found in males, before exploring others more typically associated with females.


            The first category of natural sexuality includes cross-gender or human pleasure capacities which are relatively the same both for males and females. Here I describe them as distinct in order to focus on each; but in practice they are commonly experienced in overlapping ways. Also, even though they tend to emerge in time in the order given, once embraced each may be activated at any time with focus in one arena or another.

            From another perspective these stages may be seen as pleasure centers--that is, arenas in which humans are genetically equipped to experience greater degrees of personal pleasure associated with bodily capacities. The time perspective ("stages") is useful because innate pleasure capacities do tend to develop over the course of time, beginning with mouth pleasures ("oral-sex"), and culminating in omni-sexuality. Again, it may be noted that although I identify each of these stages or centers as though they are entirely separate, in reality they all seem to be connected on deep bodily levels and phase one into another when activated. For example, anal and genital-associated pleasures are physically inter-connected and difficult to distinguish although a person may be consciously focused on one or the other. The eight "stages" are:


1. Oral-sexual: sucking breast and eating

2. Anal-sexual: excreting waste products

3. Genital-sexual: playing with sensitive bodily parts

4. Auto-sexual: masturbation

5. Homo-sexual: being sexual with one's own gender

6. Hetero-sexual: being sexual with one's opposite gender

7. Bi-sexual: being sexual with both genders

8. Omni-sexual: being sexual everywhere, with all


            The first and most primal arena for pleasures related to reproductive capacities is located in the mouth (lips and tongue). Obviously the first function of these pleasures is related to instincts for life itself, not to replication. But even in the beginning of life when sucking breasts for bodily nourishment is the immediate goal, these are the same nerve endings which will later become activated in overt sexuality, for instance, arousal through kissing.


            Next in time comes the stage of anal pleasures, when by-products of intake (milk and food) are, after digestion, expelled from the body via the urethra and anus. Just as Mother Nature has evolved pleasures related to sucking at the beginning of the digestion process, so with the ending. "Sucking," we might say, "feels good," and so does peeing and shitting.

            Again, as with mouth pleasures, anal "good feelings" probably evolved first as incentive for completing the digestion process which is not finished until by-products are expelled. Even so, the same nerve endings which "feel good" when excrement is expelled, are also activated during erotic passion.




            Closely associated with pleasure-producing nerve endings around the anus are those associated with genitals (clitoris, penis, vagina, and testicles). As capacities more related to reproduction than for life itself evolve, the more familiar use of sexual terms becomes possible. Because penis and vagina are obviously involved in sexual intercourse, we more easily associate the associated pleasures with "sexuality." Even so, I conclude that experiencing oral and anal pleasures is a forerunner of overt sexual pleasure associated with genitals, and can therefore be recognized as sexually related also.

            In early life, before cross-gender contacts are possible and allowed, genital pleasures are primarily experienced through touching the genitals themselves, as occurs in cleaning by adults and "playing with oneself" when hand-genital contacts become possible. At this point in time, one may simply recognize such touching (nerve stimulation by external contact) as producing "good feelings"; but later on these same pleasures will be recognized at "sexual" in nature.


            As physical capacities continue to develop, the possibility of even greater degrees of genitally-related pleasure comes. At first these may be experienced in "nocturnal emissions" in males and exciting surges or "rushes down there" in females. In fact these are the primal stages of what will later be more clearly recognized as orgasms or sexual climaxes. Because males have external genitals and ejaculate rather than receive, these events of escalated pleasures are more easily recognized in boys than in girls. Even so, similar climatic pleasures naturally occur with girls too, as in, self-stimulation, horseback riding, or other events which involve outside pressures on the clitoris or genital region.

            When children learn to consciously participate in the process of producing expanded pleasures of orgasm, the term masturbation becomes applicable. Self-stimulation, which I call the auto-sexual stage, is an advance toward what will later become possible in sexual intercourse; but at first, such events are simply an expansion of sexually-related pleasures which began with the mouth and anus.

            Because the penis is larger and more external than the clitoris, male masturbation ("jacking off") is more easily accomplished and recognized as such. Even so, I think that females, when not repressed, naturally experience similar events of escalated pleasures through various self-chosen forms of genital stimulation.




            The next level of pleasure capacities occurs when private sexuality, in effect, "goes public"--that is, when auto-sexual pleasure is expanded into homo-sexual arenas. Although "homosexuality" is more clearly recognized as such with males than females (primarily because of social reasons), it is, I conclude, equally predictable with females also. The defining characteristic of homo-sexuality is that personal sexually-related pleasures are brought "out of the closet," as it were, and into the open presence of other persons.

            Homo, meaning same, refers to the fact that such ventures beyond the social safety of private masturbation typically occur with members of one's own gender--that is, boys with boys and girls with girls. Although adult interpretations of this stage of natural development tend to focus on "perverted" types of sexual intercourse (e.g., anal sex), in practice, the stage is more related to psychological openness than to overt sexual practices.

            In homo-sexual relationships, boys, for example, risk becoming consciously open with other boys about their personal sexuality. Often they may in fact engage in overtly sexual activities, such as, sex-related talk, mutual masturbation, sex with animals, or even anal intercourse; but the escalated pleasure and defining characteristic of such natural relationships is, I conclude, more related to psychological openness than to sexual activity.

            I speculate that the near universal incest taboo--that is, prohibition against sexual activation within families, except between husband and wife, is a motivating factor in powering the forces of homosexual experience. Because childhood sexuality is commonly denied in current societies, and boys and girls are consequently viewed as sexually "innocent (non-sexual)," their naturally emerging sexuality must commonly be suppressed around parents and siblings.

            But when outward suppression is not followed by inward repression, youthful sexuality naturally seeks open expression--that is, the affirmation of other human beings for its existence. When such affirmation is not available in a family setting, which is commonly the case, children predictably turn outside the family for peer confirmation of what parents deny and typically try to suppress. Predictably, boys turn to other boys, and girls to other girls, both for self-affirmation and safer company in the process of openly embracing personal sexual capacities.

            The majority of male homosexuality is, I conclude, more about personal passion with boys than for boys--that is, the primary motivation is expanded self-acceptance of sexuality supported by outside affirmation (missing in family settings), rather than actual desire for sex-with-boys.

            A smaller % of homosexual motivation is indeed genetically related in those less-typical males who are literally more feminine than masculine in overall balance of Y chromosome influences. Such "softer" boys may be genetically attracted to other more typical boys, in which case there may indeed be actual desire for male sex.

            However, I think that most homosexual attractions are more psychologically than biologically based--that is, more rooted in social factors rather than in genetics. When so, the primary attraction is more for companionship in rapidly emerging overtly sexual desires, than for actual sexual partners.

            Social factors include: 1) Prevailing male fear of femininity itself (as well as of specific females), based on natural superiority of females, along with added social powers granted to girls in holding "permission power" for overt sexuality; 2) Typical projection of additional sexual powers onto females following male repression; 3) Prevailing social circumstances, beginning with mothers, which are largely suppressive (if not in denial) about a boy's emerging overt sexuality, except, and this is the relevant factor here, with other boys experiencing similar threats.

            Natural female homosexuality (lesbianism) is less threatening and therefore more easily accepted in girls than boys for 2 main reasons: 1) More social acceptability; 2) Less projection of the powers of female sexuality onto males (as in, "turn on" power), resulting in more comfort with their own emerging passions.

            Whatever the reasons may be (even if my analyses are inaccurate), my primary point here is to affirm that homosexual experience is a natural phase of every child's emerging sexuality. Ideally it is a stepping stone toward the next stage, namely, heterosexuality.

            Unfortunately, prevailing negative forces of social rejection as well as personal threat, tend to result in widespread male repression of this natural stage of every boy's development. Consequently, typically repressed males are strongly threatened by any signs of overt homosexuality in others, onto whom they blindly project their own unembraced similar capacities.


            Common knowledge easily clarifies this stage of sexual development which is the only socially accepted and legally supported form of overt sexual passion and/or behavior. In summary, heterosexuality is natural sexual attraction for those of one's opposite gender, especially those deemed most capable of assuring one's own self replication, plus the various activities associated with cross-gender sexual intercourse.




            When natural sexuality continues to develop without hindrance from personal repression, heterosexuality phases smoothly into bisexuality. As one becomes more whole as a person, passions previously activated with one's opposite gender only are expanded to include one's own gender also.

            When, for example, typical male denials of natural homosexuality are abandoned (and natural desires re-embraced) then males are freed to move beyond gender divisions as they embrace larger arenas for sexual passions, namely, with persons of both genders.

            In practice, in the bi-sexual stage of natural development two things commonly occur. First, personal sexual powers typically projected during homo and hetero-sexual stages are re-embraced within oneself. Unrealistic "turn on" powers are withdrawn from other persons, both male and female, and consciously accepted as activation of one's own capacities.

            Secondly, when so, personally embraced sexual passions may be consciously allowed and enjoyed with other persons of either gender--hence the name, bi-sexual (bi meaning both). Such passions may or may not be "acted out"--that is, expressed in overt sexual behaviors, depending on social circumstances; but in either case bi-sexual passions are accepted without negative judgments or personal denial.




            Omni means all. This final stage of natural sexual development occurs when a person embraces inherited capacities for pleasure in the presence of all reality, both human and natural. Omnisexuality is the culmination of all earlier stages, beginning with oral and advancing to bi-sexual, including all those in between. In a sense, the process of mature sexuality is circular in that the final stage is essentially a return to the beginning where, before repression, all potential pleasures were openly and honestly allowed and pursued to the full extent of one's capacities at the time.

            Omni or all-sexuality means, as the name implies, that such a person is, like a small child, openly and honestly pleasured to the full extent of human capacities in all circumstances, with all persons, both male and female. Specifically, this means that all bodily pleasure centers--mouth, anus, and genitals, plus less-sensitive skin areas (e.g., fingers, earlobes, toes, etc.) are openly receptive to pleasurable activation via stimulation/response through all senses (visual, auditory, olfactory, as well as taste and touch), in the presence of other persons and nature itself.

            A sexually mature person exists as fully human, with all inherited capacities for fullness of life (maximum pleasure/minimum pain) embraced and activated in all places, with all persons, all the time--that is, in all circumstances in the real, natural world.

            As noted before, the genius of Mother Nature is evolving pleasure/pain reactions to whatever works best/worst in encounters with the world. Whatever works positively in accord with other evolved capacities (summarized as selfing/sexual) "feels good"; what works better "feels even better"; and maximum favorable experiences "feel best of all."

            Conversely, experiences which are perceived negatively (anti-evolved human capacities) are correspondingly painful, beginning with small hurts to ears (e.g., loud noises), more pain to touch (e.g., too high or low temperatures) and culminate with agonized reactions to life-threatening encounters.

            In consort, these pleasure/pain ("feels good/bad") reactions are nature's way of keeping us well, happy, and alive, rather than sick, unhappy, or dead. As fully human, sexually mature persons--that is, ones who, like small children, exist naturally, with all senses open and responsive, positively/negatively to all stimuli. He or she is fully present in all circumstances as a highly evolved animal inherently capable of huge degrees of personal satisfaction, varying from minor "good sights, sounds, tastes, smells, feels" to major levels of overall ecstasy--that is, from true immanence to real transcendence.

            But these states of maximum happiness are dependent on full embracing and activation of all inherited human capacities supported by natural pleasure/pain reactions moderated in the world through our latest-to-evolve gift of consciousness (reason-based actions).

            In ideal circumstances, this, I theorize, would be the natural state of all human beings.

            Unfortunately, however, as we all know, such ideals which might be described as heaven-on-earth rarely if ever exist. Most commonly forces of society and religion (memes) surround every born-natural child, inviting repression of instincts (genes) to ease the process of fitting in with civilization.

            In summary, outside "voices" of society and religion combine to "say," in effect, "Don't be selfing/sexual; instead be unselfish and virtuous." Those who most successfully repress natural desires and embody such virtues become, in effect, self-sacrificial and relatively non-sexual in any other than socio/religious approved ways. Those most virtuous are both unselfish and celibate (like nuns and good priests).

            The culminating result of successful repression in quest of social acceptance is human existence split between natural instincts and social ideals, with each in effect at war with the other. Heaven, as a symbol of ideal living, is thereafter imagined to exist in some other post-death world. Mother Nature, symbol of forces of evolution, is assumed to be bad, with only a male-created God thought to be good.

            Consequently, natural sexuality is thereafter seen as "dirty" and "obscene" in general and "bad" and/or "evil" when activated (even consciously felt internally) in any other than church/state approved ways (which usually boil down to within the confines of monogamous, legal, church-approved marriage).

            I summarize this common knowledge about civilized human history in order to amplify only one point relevant to this essay, namely, that the ideal of mature sexuality as outlined here ("omni-sexuality") is in direct conflict with socio/religious virtues among which we all are born.

            The best of citizens and/or religious adherents who have predictably repressed natural instincts in quest of accepted virtues will understandably view omni-sexuality as the essence of evil. Consequently, only to the extent that one succeeds in unrepressing his or her natural self and successfully confronts contrary virtues, will omni-sexual existence become possible.


            The previously described "stages" or elements in human sexuality are, in effect, cross-gendered--that is, relatively the same for persons of either gender. But many other traits, those most commonly recognized as "sexual" in nature, are indeed gender-specific. I turn now to explore these seemingly contradictory male versus female traits.

            Although male and female roles aimed at satisfying instincts for self-replication are, at first glance, contradictory, even seemingly in opposition to one another (e.g., males to get hard and penetrate, and females to become soft and receive in successful intercourse), a closer look reveals the complementary nature of these more apparent contradictions.

            I theorize that contrasting but complementary gender roles have evolved as they are because they proved to be functional in successful replication. Otherwise they would never have evolved as such, or would have phased out if they had not worked so well over the long haul.

            In each phase of my four "step" analysis of the Drama of Reproduction described next, seemingly opposite stances (e.g., she-to-attract, he-to-be-attracted; she to "look good," he to "take a good look") actually dove-tail beautifully as the overall drama progresses.

            I also think that less-apparent but equally operative associated powers have evolved along with urges to blindly act out each step. The nature of evolutionary development is that each action which proves effective in satisfying an instinctive urge also tends to generate internal forces necessary for carrying out the functional drive. As is so with other instincts (e.g., self survival urges come with forces to fight or flee in the presence of threats to life), so it is with drives for reproduction.

            For example, female urges to be attractive (phase one) come with powerful internal forces for effecting these urges. Male urges to fuck (phase three) also come with forceful drives to act out the instinct.

            Furthermore, as previously noted, primal instincts for survival and reproduction evolved eons before the capacity for consciousness ever appeared on the human scene. And, as with the instincts themselves, so with associated powers needed to effect the primal drives. This means that forces generated by each phase of the reproductive drama exist, as it were, "unconsciously (literally, pre-consciously)"--that is, they are naturally present below levels of personal awareness. Even "without thinking (consciously, that is,)," males and females are strongly inclined to act out our complementary roles in this eternal drama.

            Ideally, in the absence of repression, these dark urges are allowed into awareness and sensibly moderated in the light of consciousness. Obviously, however, given the near universal practice of repression in service of social acceptance, such ideals are not always. More commonly, it seems, we continue to "just do them without thinking." Females, for example, commonly practice beautification (phase one) even when it is obviously unreasonable and often counter-productive to other important relational interests. And so with male urges to "take a good look," even when social consequences are negative.



            A lamenting/wondrous line in a James Taylor song goes: "Is that the way you're made? Is that the way you're really made?" Here, I speculate, he points toward a near universal sense of oft-repressed male awe evoked by most any female's body, especially her tits, ass, pussy, and cunt. Early acquired repression made in quest of mother's approval may cloak these natural male interests, but without them, I think natural maleness will, for good genetic reasons, be continually focused on these physical aspects of femininity--that is, once past the pain of hunger, an average man's most consistent, abiding, and powerful interests will be unthinkingly aimed at female bodies as we too wonder..."Is that the way you're really made!"

            And in terms of graded interests, as unrepression expands--that is, as a man re-becomes his most natural self, eyes first drawn (or so it seems) to female breasts will then shift to size and shape of ass, on the way to thoughts about pussy on the longer path to wonderings about womb.


            Overall, the most powerful male instincts are for finding, seducing, fucking, and keeping potential baby makers. We are never more naturally our inherited selves than when engaged in these four interwoven activities, all aimed as self-replication. Although fucking ("getting some pussy") is the culminating act, with orgastic pleasures as the immediate reward, evolved male instincts are not simply geared for "doing it"--anytime, anywhere, and with anyone (or thing), even ourselves, as popular understanding may indicate.

            Surely, natural males do "like pussy a lot," even if we often must pleasure ourselves alone and achieve the temporary delights of orgasm via masturbation; but our strongest drives are for replication--that is, sex with potential baby-makers, not "just having sex," as many females seem to like to believe.

            Secondary male instincts, far weaker in force than the first, are for family structures--that is, ways of keeping females for having and rearing the fruits of impregnation.

            Summary: genetic males have, I conclude, powerful drives for the four stages of "love making"--finding, seducing, fucking, and keeping conceive-able females, but weaker instincts for "being loving" which are yet to evolve and therefore now to be achieved mostly via conscious reasoning.




            In natural humanity, pre-gendered, strongest instincts are for staying alive as oneself; but in natural maleness, strongest instincts are for self-replication or what might be called "genetic immortality"--that is, genes reproducing themselves as much as possible, with "males" as their servants.

            In practice, this means impregnating conceive-able females, fucking potential baby-makers, as often as possible. Two factors are critical: 1) Assuring personal paternity in arenas where females have most knowledge; 2) Increasing extremely slim odds of conception by spreading as much sperm as possible.

            The first is best assured in two ways: 1) Sex with virgins, and 2) Kept females (at least their pussies, with no allowed infidelity). The second is best assured by producing and spreading massive amounts of sperm with as much discrimination as possible--that is, aiming sperm at potentially available ova. But a problem is that females have most knowledge of estrus which is relatively hidden to males, especially since: 1) Smell knowledge has been lost to male consciousness, and 2) Females have acquired great skill in hiding true estrus and faking non-estrus--that is, pretending to be "in heat" as a means of wielding power over males.

            In this easy-to-miss arena with personal immortality at stake, best odds of success, best clues to hidden ripe ova, are young, ripe-looking females, especially virgins who can assure paternity.

            Related inherited male traits include: 1) Aloneness, individuality, "Big Cheese stands alone," so as to be the only one inserting sperm; 2) Competitiveness with other males in quest of female favors--that is, being # 1 (and only) with a conceivable female.

            The second strongest male instinct is assertiveness--strength and power for overt action in service of self-replication.





            As noted before, primal male instincts aimed at self replication may be sub-divided into four phases. In practice they are often so intertwined as to be relatively distinguishable; but for thought purposes we may consider four "steps" in the overall male drive: 1) Scoping; 2) Seducing; 3) Fucking; and 4) Keeping.


            Though I distinguish these genetic directives here for thought purposes, in practice they are so inter-connected, phasing one into another, that unrepressed males primally experience them as one powerful force blindly moving them via their "gene eyes, ears, hands, and noses" to seek sexually available females.





            The first "step" in the primary male agenda is finding females who are potential baby-makers--that is, in estrus ("heat"), and consequently physically ready to be impregnated. I use the colloquial male term, scoping, to summarize various elements in the process of finding such females.

            Scoping or "girl watching" breaks down into these connected but identifiable urges which I metaphor as "gene eyes," "gene ears," "gene hands," and "gene noses"--that is, genetically directed senses of sight, sound, touch, and smell as mobilized for success in the second strongest of our inherited male instincts (the first being self-survival).

            Most basically "gene eyes" are constantly roving, looking for "pretty girls" when or wherever females happen to pass by or gather. When no females are present, "gene eyes" often imagine ("fantasize") and dream about female beauty. In practice, such "staring," "leering," and "ogling," as these urges are judgmentally named in repressive society, begins with trying to pick out conceive-able females at a distance, but then speedily turns to "undressing" them in mind's eye, that is, to visually examining their bodies for "best mothering" signs, such as, full breasts, shapely hips, etc. Also, "gene eyes" look to try to catch girls looking back, that is, showing signs of availability or personal interest.

            "Gene ears" listen for any sounds which may give clues to personal desires, passions, and/or availability for sex. Typically these female signs include giggling, laughter, guttural tones, moans, suggestive talk, and certainly any conversation indicative of interest in oneself and/or possible openness to becoming overtly sexual.

            "Gene hands," my metaphor for activation of inherited tactile knowledge about the most conceive-able female bodies, are reflected in primal male urges, beginning in early childhood, to touch and "feel up" females. Even small boys are blindly moved to look at and try to touch female bodies, especially equipment related to baby making, most notably, breasts, buttocks, and genitals.

            When females complain about males who "can't keep their hands off me" or "to themselves," they are referring to this powerful male instinct aimed, I think, at trying to confirm visual data which is notoriously sketchy, with tactile confirmation which is harder to fake than external beauty. "Gene hands," I theorize, are genetically educated to discern tactile clues to the best odds of self-replication, namely, smooth, soft, pliable (youthful), skin, tissues, and organs relevant to baby making, crudely summarized as "tits and ass."

            "Gene noses" is my metaphor for primal smell abilities for olfactory clues to estrus, now severely repressed in human consciousness, but still, I think, genetically alive below levels of awareness. Just as male animals are continuously "sniffing" females, especially their sexual parts at every opportunity, so I think human males are darkly driven to also do so. Even when we "don't know what we are doing, or why," "gene noses" incline "sniffing out" females, e.g., their panties which have been in contact with their pussies, for clues to estrus.





            Scoping, when the least bit successful, quickly phases into seducing, politely called courting but deeply aimed at "gaining the favors," or "getting into the pants" of "good looking," desirable females.

            In practice seducing primarily plays out in trying to please desirable females. Although this knowledge is often repressed in males, cloaked by acts of superiority and overt dominance, I think that primal male awareness recognizes the natural superiority of females, including their powers of selectivity in choosing the best males to mate with.

            Consequently, even when natural males "pea-cock" and put on acts of superiority--as in displaying muscles, wealth, and knowledge, I think we deeply know that the aim is to please or impress in hopes of being the one selected to impregnate. Male displays, both tangible and verbal, even when not recognized as such by those who make the effort, are designed to impress selecting females, to try to "make them like me" on the longer path to acceptably "getting into their pants" or "to give me some pussy."

            Male courting, including words to impress, may range far and wide away from cloaked sexual interests; but after all is said and done, gifts, flowers, rings, and promises, the primal aim remains Step 3 of the replicatory process, namely:





            Courting or cloaked seduction may last long and take countless apparently non-sexual forms--as many as necessary (and not many more) to move into the good graces of a desirable female; but as soon as possible (even on a first date), natural males want to move past social intercourse on to more productive arenas of its sexual version.

            When, through repression, this genetically wise urge is severed from conscious awareness, we find males who "simply want to fuck--anyone, anywhere, anytime, even anything" (e.g., other males, animals, or self)--that is, to be grossly indiscriminate in choice of sperm recipients. But when awareness follows inherited drives, I think that Mother Nature guides males in being extremely discriminate in spreading our sperm where replication is more likely and personal rejection is less likely.





            Finally, still powerful though less intense, I think, are male genetic urges to keep a chosen female's pregnancy possibilities--that is, to keep ourselves as the sole source of a female's sperm receptivity in order to assure paternity.

            This latter urge reflects first in primary desires to find, seduce, fuck, and keep as many conceive-able females as socially possible. Harems and polygamy, I surmise, came closer to natural male drives than do later-to-evolve structures of monogamy. But in today's social world, since these more primary wishes are against existing laws, marriage to one woman offers males the best available legal option for maximizing self-replication.

            In this context we might generalize that certain aspects of "family values" are also genetically motivated. These include protecting and providing for mothers and their offspring. Although sexual faithfulness to one woman, even in marriage, is not natural, still it is so socially pragmatic as to make it seem so.

            Mostly, however, I conclude that even in monogamous marriages, the basic male urge is less about "being a good husband and father" than about keeping sole possession of a wife's sexual favors. Some care of children is, I think, also natural for fathers, since our genetic immortality lies through them; but concern for offspring, especially past basic survival, is far more genetic for mothers than fathers, who care more for keeping our wives than tending to our children.





            Male "gene eyes (ears, noses, and hands)"--that is, evolved instincts, perceptual discriminations ("genetic wisdom"), and powerful associated urges aimed at self replication, are the second greatest and most pervasive force moving natural males.

            Only drives to "stay alive" as individuals are deeper and stronger than these ingrained forces to look for, find, and wish to seduce conceive-able females.

            With repression in quest of social acceptance, these natural instincts with associated genetic wisdom are typically denied in awareness as much as possible. Most elements of these male directives which I summarize as "gene eyes" are religiously condemned, socially dangerous, and generally seen as impolite, obscene, and/or illegal, if not down right evil within themselves.

            Still, even in the most religiously virtuous and personally repressed males, baring strong degrees of mental illness, these inclinations are apt to occasionally slip into awareness, if not yet blindly "acted out" un-sensibly at inopportune times.  

            When "gene eyes" are naturally operative apart from socially sanctioned repression, their predictable progression begins with attention to female bodies overall. At a distance, attention goes to overall shape ("figure"), especially for the proverbial figure 8--that is full breasts, small waist, rounded hips, and long legs.

            Once these favorable attributes associated with potential best baby-making have been determined at a distance, closer examination follows with attention to "pretty faces" and clues to potentially favorable responses to a male "looker."

            At the same time, "gene eyes" begin a process of mental undressing ("to get a closer look"), with first attention to breast size and shape (fullness favored as sign of good nursing capacities), followed by lowering attention to buttocks and hips (baby-making space), then finally and most significantly to pussy and cunt--that is, genitalia and entrance to womb--the greatest natural mystery for all natural males, and source of best clues to estrus.

            Social acceptability, of course, only allows the first stage of this instinctive male process, namely, "girl watching"--and this done discretely at a distance and quickly cloaked or dropped with closer proximity. Thereafter the remainder of this first stage of seduction preparation must be carried out, if at all, in the privacy of a male's conscious mind, with all signs of same carefully cloaked to public perceptions.

            The whole process is, of course, viewed as sinful (called "lusting") in popular religions, and strongly supported by female suppression and bodily covering, as in Islam. Males "trying to be good" by repressing "lustful desires" may sometimes allow casual glancing at potentially attractive females, but then quickly curtail the next natural steps in gene eye progression, that is, going on to look for better clues than "pretty faces (which can be easily faked with makeup)" for potential conceive-ability, e.g., proverbial "tits and ass."

            Proportionate to degrees of natural repression, I think that male denials typically begin just past acknowledging "pretty faces," become stronger with breast-interests, even more so with buttocks and hip attention, and finally, most of all, with natural curiosity about pussy and cunt.

            On the female side of the same equation, in consort with these typical levels of male repression, beautifying face gets most attention; amplifying breasts comes next (slight cleavage allowed); exaggerating ass follows; and finally hiding pussy, man's deepest interest, becomes woman's deeper and most constant means of keeping male attention drawn to herself.





            Past breathing and eating (need for air and food) scoping--that is, searching for best pregnable females, may be the third most natural and pervasive male drive. When successful, when a desirable prospect is spotted, genetic switches, probably triggered by testosterone, escalate the level both of male delight and generated power. In colloquial language, successful scopers "get turned on."

            But the phrase, though understandable description, is literally inaccurate for genetic scopers as contrasted with psychically repressed males in quest of females to compensate for their own projected powers. The key to this inaccuracy may be found in a look at the literal meaning of the colloquial expression "get turned on."

            First, get means acquired from without, which is confirmed by the verb turned. Turned, past tense, as distinguished from present tense turn, also implies something done to one rather than by oneself. As the expression is commonly understood, the on state of maleness is assumed to be caused by the, e.g., "pretty girl (or various of her bodily parts)." She, by implication, gives excitement to a male who gets empowered by her or her looks.

            This illusion of magically transferred power is so common due to the widespread level of male repression and projection in males today that understanding the significant difference between "turning on" and "getting turned on" may be hard to grasp.

            Perhaps an academic look at other similarly misleading words about power may help clarify, for example: ex-citement and ex-istence. Ex in Latin means outside of or from outside. Although "citement" or "cited" refers to an internal state, ex-cited implies that this inside condition is caused from without.

            Likewise with de-lighted, implying a lessor degree of ex-citement. Lighted means lit up, but de, from Latin "off," also implies that internal "lightedness" is externally caused.

            Even the more primal root word, ex-istence, implies that "istence (is-ness)" is initiated from outside one who is being him or herself.

            Whereas these familiar meanings are seemingly accurate as reality appears to work following repression/projection, they are significantly deceptive for the nature of being naturally human. In reality, genetic activation, as in male scoping, is innately empowering--that is, perceptions associated with masculinity, like all others, generate internal power--which may be metaphored as onness, citedness, lightedness, or even istence.

            But when the traditional forms of these words--"turned on," excited, etc. are used, the deeper existential truth may easily be missed.

            In either case, the distinction is critically important in understanding the nature of genetic scoping as distinguished from the more familiar activity of "girl watching" by repressed males who are unconsciously trying to get their masculine powers back from "objects" where they have blindly projected them.

            With natural scoping by unrepressed males, the power of "onness," or "citement" is internal and consciously recognized as an aspect of oneself, not some magical force caused by attractive females. Consequently there is no temptation for idolization of objects (females and/or their parts), or unreasonable responses to them, including socially and legally dangerous reactions (such as, unwanted touching, fondling, stalking, peeping, or otherwise invading private space of attractive females).

            This freedom to be sensibly present without the blindness of adoration (secret worship) also opens the door to personal love which may evolve from impersonal scoping, an option remaining closed to repressed and projecting males in quest of getting magically turned on, if not spiritually saved, by blindly installed, unsuspecting female goddesses.





            In service of primary instincts for survival and replication, Mother Nature (a personification of evolution) has equipped males with another secondary trait, namely, natural aggression.

            Natural aggression has two sources: force in service of survival, as in, thwarting potential harm against body (e.g., a killer), and force in service of replication, such as, protecting a male's mating territory and/or defeating predators who might harm his females (e.g., in a lion pride, horse herd, or human harem).

            Even then instincts are only to thwart and protect, not to kill. There is, I hold, no natural instinct for killing itself (taking the life of another) except as necessary for survival (as in, killing animals and/or vegetables for necessary food).

            Most observable aggression today is, I conclude, unnatural--that is, psychologically rather than biologically (genetically) based. In largest perspective, such psychologically based aggression is the predictable result of instinct repression--that is, self-denial of genetic urges for survival and/or replication purposes. Energies (forces) which would naturally be directed toward instinct satisfaction, once repressed are consequently projected in other directions, such as, unprovoked violence, random killing, or physical attempts to secure psychological advantages.

            But in either case, such aggression, even killing, is essentially unnatural, and fueled by human repression rather than natural urges.

            There is, I hold, no true death instinct, no ingrained urge for Thanotos (death) in contrast with Eros (life) as Freud postulated in his later years. Such self-destructive urges, which are abundantly evident today, are, I think, derived from repression of natural urges rather than existing in nature as contrasting forces.

            Sans (or after) repression there are, I conclude, no death (or randomly destructive) urges; instead, all impulses are aimed at survival, plus its enhancement, and reproduction.

            In popular religions a major source of psychologically based aggression lies in attempts to impress illusionary gods by "good deeds," such as, "holy wars" to convert or destroy non-believers or to expiate or relieve guilt over "badness" by destroying its imagined causes (e.g., devilish ones who tempt me to sins causing the guilt to begin with).


            Summary: Most hostile assertiveness we see today is, I conclude, misplaced male aggression following repression of natural sexuality. Natural aggression related to replication has evolved for: 1) Force in intercourse ("getting hard" and supporting strong ejaculation); 2) Providing for family (gene-extensions); and 3) Protecting family and "territory"--that is, warding off male outsiders who might impregnate females and thus limit one's genetic immortality.

            But when these natural forms of male aggression are repressed they tend to be projected into such destructive forms as: criminal activity, self-righteous wars (as Bush inaugurated), e.g., on poverty, drugs, smoking, etc. or abuse of others in relationships.





            Typically we males evade body knowledge in favor of head knowledge. We suppress "feelings (emotions and passions)" and attempt to cope with their inherent powers through the use of conscious "thinking (intellectual knowledge)." Females most often take the opposite stance; they embrace body knowledge ("feelings") and then use head knowledge (reasons) to justify personal desires ("gut feelings").

            But in suppressing "feelings" in favor of "thinking," males unwittingly repress and therefore project associated sexual forces--most often onto females who thereafter seem to hold massive power to excite or "turn us on (make us 'get a hard')," or, conversely, to "turn us off." In either case, natural powers generated by masculine drives are misconceived as being "out there," e.g., in female bodies (tits and ass) and/or female permissions--either given, withheld, or otherwise "tempting us with."

            Result: Typically repressed males may "think a lot about sex"--that is, be regularly conscious (head knowledge) about sexually related stimuli and possible actions, but at the same time perceive associated powers as existing externally. Then we may "blame women" for "doing it to us"--or, more often "not doing it for us," or, "letting us 'have some'"--that is, we unrealistically empower women with forces which, without repression, would actually be our own.

            Of course genetics (ingrained "gene eyes") account for a certain percent of real female attractions, namely, signs of conceive-ability and availability, e.g., for discerning clues to ovulation. But, I conclude, the vast majority, perhaps 90% of what "turns us on" to women is the result of blind projection of otherwise innate sexual powers. In other words, we "blame them" for what we are unwittingly "doing to ourselves," namely, repressing/projecting.

            Such unrealistic attractions are, of course, understandably used by alert females to their own advantages in male manipulation, and even enhanced by wiles of their own (e.g., "prick teasing" and "pussy whipping"), as in perpetually hiding/exposing body parts, disguising natural smells with perfumes, and unconsciously pretending innocence at the same time (etc., etc.).

            Were it not for excluding male vision of female bodies--especially breasts, butts, and pussy, from times of earliest interest onward, I speculate that the turn on power of pornography and/or female titillation by hiding/exposing would be reduced by perhaps 90%. Much compulsive male curiosity, especially of breasts and pussy, is, I conclude, less related to genetic inclinations than to long term hiding which builds up exaggerated interest over time, inviting compulsive attention based on ignorance rather than genetic concerns.

            Repressed natural curiosity about masculine interests typically results in compulsive attention to what is continuously present but always withheld from seeing, namely, female bodies; but this is more about the device of tempting denials than legitimate genetic concern with potential ovulation.

            I conclude that the less repressed a male becomes, the less impressed he will be by typical female wiles, such as, prick teasing, phony seduction, and exaggeration-by-hiding female parts, because their projected powers will be essentially re-owned within himself.








            Perhaps the most quoted of all Freud's voluminous writings is his haunting question, "What does a woman want?" This fascinating unknown obviously remained with him well into later life. At the age of 76, near the end of a lecture entitled Femininity, he concluded:

            "That is all I have to say to you about femininity. It is certainly incomplete and fragmentary and does not always sound friendly....If you want to know more about femininity, inquire of your own experiences of life, or turn to the poets, or wait until science can give you deeper and more coherent information." (Quoted in Freud on Women, p 47)


            It is into this dark and still relatively unknown, if not unexplored, realm of the nature of femininity that I venture to add my own speculations, born of my "own experiences of life" before science has yet been able to supply "more coherent information." I trust that any reader will recognize and accept my obvious limitations and perhaps use my observations as a mirror for clarifying his or her "own experiences."

            With these acknowledgments, I submit here some of my speculations about the nature of natural femininity as it may exist below the level of common repressions. Even if I am grossly wrong in my "educated guesses," perhaps they may be useful in inviting greater honesty in others with similar interests, or, more personally, give possible clues to those who may be interested in facing their own inward denials and un-faced natural capacities.


            Because the evolved female role in replication, like female genitals themselves, is primarily hidden, covert, and passively exercised when in best form, females in our society may easily learn to practice the arts of sexual seduction without becoming aware of their biological roots and primal purposes. For example, beautifying, nature's evolved way of increasing female appeal to male "gene eyes," even when practiced diligently and effectively, may only be seen as "just liking to be pretty"--with no sexual implications at all.

            Because the evolved male role, like male genitals, is more obvious, overt, and active, hiding sexual implications is harder to do. Results of this imbalance in obviousness include easy judgments of males who are being naturally moved toward replication, with no corresponding "put downs" of females who are equally inclined toward replication and perhaps even more diligent in perfecting their own role.





            In largest perspective, instincts of both genders are geared for the same goal, namely, self-replication; but in the course of evolution nature has given females a distinctly different role, namely, birthing and rearing children. In service of this more primal and powerful drive I see two distinct--and often conflicting instincts: first, for best available sperm to initiate the process of baby-making, and second, best available security (protection and supplies) for rearing children.

            In the early stages of evolution I speculate that success for both drives was easily combined in one male--that is, a physically strong male was likely to have strong, healthy sperm, and also to be best able to protect a pregnant female and hunt game for food while she tended offspring and gathered edible foods near their living site--thus supplying both best sperm and best security.

            In time, however, as civilizations evolved, in females major quest for security--since healthy sperm were widely available and easily found, physical strength alone ceased to be adequate. Brains as well as brawn were needed for coping well--and thus providing needed security in larger groups beyond the cave homes of earlier times. Additional threats to necessary security called for cleverness as well as strength--mental as well as physical "muscles."

            Eventually, in modern historical times, male wealth and social/political power have probably come to be a female's best clues to potential security. Both brains and brawn were eventually superceded by wealth and social/political power as sources of a woman's best security. Surely, both mental and physical strength are invaluable in a male's quest for wealth and power as needed to impress females aimed at security, but the latter two resources became, I speculate, the best tools a man could have for "getting girls," as well as best signs of potential security potential for a female selecting a mate.

            Summary: In our shared quest for self-replication, pussy is to males as security is to females when each if moved by genes alone.





            Instinctive female goals are, as noted, the same as male goals, namely, self-replication, but with distinct advantages and disadvantages by the nature of our evolved mode of gender replication versus cloning, namely, these: whereas male genetic immortality odds are increased with offspring from multiple partners, females are limited to their own offspring only--that is, babies they can produce in their own bodies.

            With this immensely unfair limitation, female instincts have predictably evolved with differing and more diverse drives, given the grand differences between "sperm-spreading" and "baby-making" plus child rearing. If only creating infants were required, female immortality would be vastly easier; but alas, before self-replication is assured, produced babies ("my children") must also be nurtured past puberty before they can produce more "grand children" for further genetic extension of a female's genes.

            In this challenging arena, the major female drive is for motherhood, including pregnancy and successful child rearing. Best odds of success involve two factors: healthy sperm for openers, and good security for child rearing (protection and supplies, food and home) while she nurtures offspring toward puberty, where her "grand mothering" can begin as the required second phase of insuring genetic immortality.                                


            Consequently, sharing the same goal of self-replication as males, Mother Nature has evolved females with outwardly different, but complementary drives. Seen separately, male and female agendas in the Drama of Reproduction may appear as opposites, even anti each other; but in the larger picture of a shared goal, they dovetail together beautifully.

            As noted before, the phases in the male drive for replication, namely, Scoping, Seducing, Fucking, and Keeping are paralleled by complementary female roles which I summarize as: Attracting, Inviting, Cuddling, and Possessing.





            Overall, the largely overt male role is paralleled by an equally covert female role. Male scoping is complemented by female urges for attracting potential mates--"scope-ability," we might call it, that is, "beautifying," or, "looking good enough" to invite males to "take a good look."

            In consort, roughly equal powers for "being attractive" and "being attracted" are encoded in natural females and males. Male urges to be "always looking" are balanced by female drives to be "always looking good"--even at midnight in a grocery store or in early morning for the milkman or garbage collector.

            Unfortunately for males, "ogling" and "leering"--as strong scoping drives direct, are less socially acceptable than equally ingrained female drives to "be pretty" and "ogle-able." Still, when activated rather than repressed, these complementary gender inclinations work beautifully in Stage One, "Setting The Stage," so to speak, for Act Two of the Drama of Reproduction.

            Specifically, the primary forms of female attraction include appealing to male gene eyes, ears, hands, and noses by appearing to be in estrus or at least able to conceive. Overall, these can be summarized as appearing to be young (like post-pubescent girls), presenting bodies in provocative-to-male ways, e.g., exaggerating breasts, hips, or exposing cleavage, making cooing type sounds, having soft and touchable skin, and using perfume to enhance attractive smells.





            "Courtship" is a socially acceptable name for what in males is more clearly seen as "actively seducing," and in females as "passively acting seductive"--or covertly inviting overt male attraction to themselves.

            The evolved arts of female seductiveness are far too numerous and complex to list here. Many, I suspect, which are alive and practiced regularly, are not even consciously recognized by myself and most males. (I have written a book on the subject of Female Wiles.)

            However, major arenas for effective female wiles, past looking desirable, include: acting in ways which lead males on--that is, invite pursuing with implied hints of being seducible, while carefully monitoring each encounter in ways which maintain the "tempting carrot before a hungry horse" metaphor, or playing various versions of Drop the Handkerchief, Catch Me If You Can, Look But Don't Touch (except a little as I let you), I'm Hard To Please, But You Might Be Able To If You Try Hard Enough.

            A key word in the female complement to male seduction, namely, acting seducible, is promises. "Maybe I will and maybe I won't," or, "I might let you if ..." Artistry in such successful invitations lies in keeping the tempting carrot just far enough ahead of the sex-hungry male as to keep him following obediently without "giving in" too soon before chances of final possession are established.

            Overall female goals are rarely for sex, as their seductive arts may imply and as males may wish were so, but more commonly for those rare males most capable of providing long range security needed for successful child bearing and rearing. In other words, seductive females may pretend sexual desires, as are appealing to natural males, but deeper and more pervasive goals are "a good husband"--that is, one productive male who is able and willing to supply wealth and protection and be faithful for a life time (with rare exceptions to be noted next).

            Sexual implications of artful female seductiveness at Stage Two of the Reproductive Drama are only for appearances, that is, to appeal to natural male drives, but female "gene eyes" are more in quest of strong, dependable, protective, males who "are more interested in family" than in active sex partners. Good sperm providers, as all females seem to know, are a dime a dozen, but "a good man (husband) nowadays is hard to find."





            In my four-phase breakdown of "steps" in the complementary male/female process of activating natural instincts related to replication, male urges to rush from "courting (seduction in disguise)" to fucking, with minimal or no "foreplay," are paralleled by female urges to dilly dally or delay "doing it," in the form of cuddling.

            By cuddling I mean extended times of closeness, "being held" tenderly, being sensuous-but-not-sexy. Even the idea of "foreplay" consciously aimed at fucking is foreign to my intended implications of cuddling. The overall idea of cuddling involves being made to feel safe and secure as a woman in intimate presence with a man--that is, completely unthreatened, able to be honestly open but not endangered in any way. Even if the possibility of "doing it" later lies as an unstated possibility in the fullness of time, while a woman is cuddling she is unlikely to have fucking "on her mind"--consciously, that is.

            Although males typically see cuddling as "a waste of time," "resistance," "holding out," or simply "being dishonest" about what is going on, I theorize that in its purest forms dilly dallying before overt sex has sound genetic roots. Biological facts are that in order to be impregnated an ovum must be released from an ovary (only one per month during times of fertility); and while this solitary ovum slowly makes its way down a Fallopian tube--the timing of which is never easily known by the bearing female, it must meet and accept penetration by a sperm.

            So far so good, insofar as one on one is concerned; but another significant biological fact is that during the month while this single ovum is being prepared for release, some 4,320 million sperm have been produced by an average male, all waiting, as it were, to find this solitary goal.

            Furthermore, an ovum's typical life time after release from an ovary is only about 24 hours; then, unless impregnation occurs, "she" in effect "dies." Meanwhile, hoards of eager discharged sperm may remain alive and waiting in female cavities for up to a week before they too face "certain death" if not accepted by this single ovum.

            Point: Whereas males, in effect, "have sperm to waste," relatively rare female ova are precious and to be carefully protected if pregnancy is to occur. And, since females who bear them have little conscious knowledge about when their relatively brief times of potential impregnation may be, much inner sensitivity is required for "guessing" about best moments for receiving sperm--that is, for "doing it" when pregnancy is the goal. Also, males have far more conscious choice in expelling massive numbers of sperm than do females in releasing a single ova sometimes during the month.

            Time for such semi-conscious, slightly educated "guessing" is, I think, the biological reason in female desires for cuddling. Whereas males with millions of relatively long living sperm are also reasonably aimed at fucking as quickly and often as possible, Mother Nature has given her girls a complementary but different scenario. For females aimed at pregnancy, waiting is as sensible as is hurrying for males sharing the same goal--waiting, that is, for trying to determine the most propitious moment for maximizing relatively slim odds of initiating self replication.

            Consequently, what males easily misread as "resistance" may in fact be a female's unconsciously wise attempt at judicious timing in our shared goal of reproduction. For genetic success, she must be far more careful and discerning about sperm reception than he need be about timing sperm expulsion--that is, about when to "do it." This, I conclude, is the biological basis for pragmatic female carefulness about delaying male orgasms to match the far rarer times when impregnation may be successful.

            Even so, the relative rareness of female-desired pregnancy with males who are able to disperse relatively unlimited amounts of sperm easily leads to other more personal uses of dilly dallying and cuddling by females, such as, power and/or honest disinterest. Given male's prevailing natural urges to "have sex" aimed at replication as often as possible, and female's extremely limited desires to become pregnant, the stage is set for using cuddling as a means of exercising control over males more interested in fucking than in "being close."

            Holding rights of permission to what males are blindly moved to do, easily becomes a tool of power in manipulating male behavior. When so, males properly see "just wanting to cuddle" as a sign of resistance rather than as unconscious wisdom--as is so when she desires pregnancy.

            Also, given the relatively few times when a woman wants to get pregnant in comparison with the relatively unlimited number of times when a man wants to fuck, male "interest in having sex" is obviously much greater than that of honest females. Consequently, even when power is not an issue, cuddling without fucking may simply reflect a female's honest disinterest in sexual intercourse at the time.

            Summary: I conclude that female desires for cuddling, as contrasted with male urges for fucking, come with sound biological basis--that is, good genetic reasons. Even when they are perverted into other uses, such as, power and/or simple honesty about disinterest in overt sex, these two contrasting-but-complementary urges are likely to appear often in cross gender relationships.





            Male urges to keep females, as in, harems or sexually exclusive relationships, are paralleled and complemented by female desires to possess a selected partner, as in, seeing a mate as "My man." Obviously I use a play on words to point toward this difference, since by dictionary definitions, keep and possess are synonyms.

            However, lacking other distinguishing verbs for clarifying this real distinction, I use these two with added implications. Keeping females, the male urge, is about pussy rather than personhood, while possessing males is about security rather than sex. Generally speaking, males are primarily concerned with paternity--that is, assuring that a woman's offspring carry half of one's own genes rather than those of some other male, that he is the father of her babies. Hence, chastity belts in olden times and extreme, even unreasonable, jealousy about a mate's attention to or flirting with any other male than himself.

            But natural female concerns are less about exclusive sperm distribution, since she needs so few and they are so readily available both in and out of marriage, than possessing his services and wealth as required for her security and child rearing. In practice, she is understandably less concerned with his "fooling around" in, say, "one night stands," or brief sexual infidelities, than about threats of possible loss of him as a provider and protector of her and her children.

            Males, with urges to keep females, are not as concerned with a mate's non-sexual "friendships," even with gay males, as much as we are with possible sexual affairs with any other male. Conversely, possessive females are more concerned with a mate's "emotional affairs" than with less-threatening sexual affairs. For example, after a husband has been with other females, a wife is more likely to be interested in "What did you talk about?" than in "What did you do?," since clues to possible loss of possession are probably more revealed in verbal and emotional exchanges, than in physical actions. But on the other hand, most husbands are far less interested in "What did you talk about?" than "What did you do?," since sexual activity is more evident in deeds than in words.

            Summary: In this last of four phases of gender differences related to replication, males who cannot have paternity knowledge unless their mates have only had sex with them alone, are understandably more moved toward keeping females sexually owned. But at the same time, females who have far more knowledge of who the father is--that is, who face no threats of maternity questions, and are much more concerned with security and provisions than with available sperm, are naturally more moved toward possessing "their man" as a provider.





            I observe two other commonly repressed female traits which I consider to be genetically based, namely, killerness and stud appeal. Again, as with other of my "educated guesses" about genetics, there is as yet no scientifically proven identification of these traits with specific female genes; but they seem to be so common that I take them to be universally inherited, and, because of their obviously anti-social nature, to be most often systematically repressed.

            Consequently I suspect that any woman who seriously attempts to unrepress her natural urges can expect to confront these aspects of her larger self. Furthermore, I think that conscious attention to the possibility of these typically denied traits, even if I am wrong in my conclusion about their genesis, may be useful in dealing with many problems commonly arising in cross-gender relationships.





            By killerness I mean a deep-seated, generally repressed capacity for speedy and guiltless efforts to destroy anyone who threatens her primary genetic values, namely, personal security, the welfare of her offspring, and sole possession of her mate.

            Although this capacity for shameless killing is most commonly cloaked by other traits evolved for success in mothering, such as, nurturing, cooperation, peace-making, and general helpfulness of others, plus the appearance of weakness, vulnerability and "couldn't hurt a flea" kindness, these "cover stories (as I conclude)" may be quickly blown in such emergency situations as: threat to a child's welfare, threat to marital stability (loss of mate), and often to her own loss of face in immediate encounters with other females as well as threatening males.

            I think dark knowledge of this oft-denied capacity for cold-blooded destruction is reflected in the old saying, "Hell hath no fury like that of a woman scorned," in the wrath often displayed against an unfaithful husband and/or "the other woman (threats to personal and family security)"; in the oft-times merciless settlements of contested divorces ("She got the mine, I got the shaft," as one male singer bemoaned); and in the all too familiar "cattiness (un-ruled fighting)" of females sometimes operative even in minor relational conflicts.

            Nietzsche's advice, "Let man fear woman when she loveth: then maketh she every sacrifice, and everything else she regardeth as worthless. Let man fear woman when she hateth; for man in his innermost soul is merely evil; woman, however, is mean," may also reflect this oft-denied and seldom expressed, but fairly common knowledge of a female capacity for what I call killerness. (The Philosophy Of Nietzsche, p 69),

            An older recognition of this female capacity is, I think, reflected in myths and traditions of the Hindu Goddess, Kali. Whereas naked Kali holds powers of creation in her right hand, in her left hand are forces of destruction and death. She is seen as awesome and terrible and often associated with a sword and a bowl of blood. I speculate that Kali was an Indian personification of these deeply recognized but contrasting female capacities for both creating and destroying life. But Western traditions have focused only on Kali's right hand, that is, female capacities for "making babies" and thereby creating life, while systematically ignoring what I have in other writings referred to as "female Kaliness," that is, the equally present, though commonly repressed capacity for dark killerness.

            On the surface, males are more easily identified as the openly competitive, aggressive, fighting, and war-like gender, with females viewed as the non-competitive, passive, conflict-avoiding, "weaker sex." But when, in effect, "cornered" and faced with threats to primal female values, especially those related to motherhood, these deeper capacities for "Kaliness" predictably emerge.

            When so, another major difference in male and female fighting is often revealed, namely, a male sense of fairness and established "rules of warfare (e.g., "no hitting below the belt"), which is lacking in female battles. In contrast, when less-common female conflicts take place, "cat fighting," which is essentially ruleless ("no holds barred," "anything goes," "hit where it hurts the most"), is the order of the day.

            In summary, artful and shameless, cold-blooded killerness is, I think, another inherited female capacity often relevant in the various arenas of sexuality as well as other realms of relational life. Though typically ignored in Western cultures and commonly repressed in mothering-type females, the potential for killerness is, I conclude, an existing element in natural femininity.




            A second, also commonly repressed female trait is what I call stud appeal--that is, a deep-seated attraction to males more likely to have strong, healthy, virile sperm, even when other traits are contrary to female needs for security and long term faithfulness. Such males may also be seen as: "very athletic," "macho," "handsome," "romantic," "sexy," and as "hunks."

            Usually they have "good physiques (even if weak brains)," appear to be physically strong (able to protect a female), and are often blatantly sexual, even rebellious against chaste social standards. Paradoxically, they are often easily recognized as "not good husband material," but secretly imagined to be "good in bed"--that is, capable of overcoming shallow female resistance and prudishness, and "flying her to the moon," even when she is consciously virtuous and not overtly sexual on her own.

            This oft-repressed female capacity is probably rooted in genetic knowledge about acquiring best possible sperm for increasing odds of healthy offspring. Predictably, as certain studies have already confirmed, stud appeal tends to become more conscious during female ovulation, and more denied when security needs predominate during the rest of the month.

            Studies have also shown that females tend to be more promiscuous or unfaithful during ovulation when pregnancy is possible, supporting my premise that when mothering instincts are most often initiated, needs for healthy, impregnating sperm temporarily overcome longer-lasting needs for extended security more likely to be found in "good husbands" who are faithful, even if "not good in bed."

            Although this genetic capacity for stud appeal or seemingly unreasonable attraction for male "hunks" is probably limited to relatively brief periods of ovulation (when "best sperm" would reasonably be desirable), when it is consciously repressed it may, like all other denied capacities, tend to become "free floating"--that is, generally operative just below the surface of awareness at all times (even when pregnancy itself is undesirable or impossible).

            In summary, the more sexually repressed a female is--that is, the more she identifies her self as "prim, proper, and virtuous," "above crude sexuality," the more likely she is to be secretly and irrationally moved by her own denied stud appeal. Conversely, the more one becomes her natural female self, the more she may recognize periodic, innate attractions to "sexy males" who are also easily recognized as "poor marriage risks" and wisely kept as safe fantasies only.





            I think that females began to pervert the biological use of sex for relational power so long ago, perfected its arts, and passed them on from generation to generation so effectively that young girls now simply learn and use female skills so well and early in life that any connection between the arts and personal sexuality are now lost to consciousness. Indeed, the skills and incentives to practice them are so pervasive and seemingly ingrained that they may have also become partially engened by now.

            In either case, as best a male can ever read female minds (at least this male), I estimate that female consciousness of the sexual roots of "beautifying" and other assorted uses of sex for power over males is less than 2%. As much as 98% of effective female artistry in perverting their own sexuality into a tool of power is, I think, unconsciously activated. It works so well, and girls have learned so early to practice the noted arts, that now females simply exercise them daily "without thinking."

            Point: As best I can tell, few females today consciously see any connection between their effective artistry in manipulating male sexual interests for personal power and their own sexual desires. Even for a male to imply so, as I am doing here, is likely to evoke disbelief if not outright dismissal of my speculations.





            To properly understand comparable genetic forces in males and females we must "think outside the box" of limiting sexually related instincts to male drives alone, and seeing female interests in security as just social desires. Equally moved to "make more of ourselves," that is, to immortalize our personal genes, females are as primally driven in quest of security as are males for sex, that is, a proverbial "piece of ass" or "pussy," or, in more socially approved language, conceive-able females.

            In service of deeper needs for security (with only minor concern required for a few healthy sperm), and lessor interest in intercourse pleasures, females long ago came to play on male drives--that is, blind instincts aimed at fucking possibly pregnable females, by using male-type sexual interests for power in their own quests for security. They learned, that is, how to suppress their own overt sexual interests and instead mimic signs of baby-making potential (youth, "looks," smells, moves, etc.) as tools of power for manipulating males into providing the long term security they required more than rarely needed sperm and/or orgastic pleasures.





            Although they are not commonly recognized as such, I speculate that Mother Nature has evolved comparable degrees of genetic forces associated with each opposite but complementary gender instinct. For examples:


-- Overall: male urges for "hunting"--that is, searching for resources as needed for male success in self replication, namely, in providing female supplies and security--and female urges for "gathering" supplies found closer to "home," plus maintaining best conditions for child rearing.

            In modern day terms, these primal powers emerge in male drives for "making money" and female drives for "shopping."


-- Female drives for "looking good" and male drives for "taking good looks," reflected today in female "beautification" efforts and male inclinations for "ogling"--that is, females "looking good enough to take," and males "looking for good ones to take." "Goodly looking" for males in the first step in potentially successful self-replication, is paralleled by "looking good" as openers for females.


Scoping is to man

as shopping is to woman

Men scope for conceivable females

as diligently as women

strive to appear scopable


-- In our shared quests for self-replication, the next step for males, past visual discrimination, is for touching and smelling female bodies. Complementary female urges are for being soft and touchable, plus smelling desirable. Males are as moved to try to touch females as females are moved to try to be soft and therefore touchable. On even deeper levels, males want to smell females as much as females want to "smell good."


-- Then, for males engaged in seduction, come urges to use language in our drives for replication--that is, "talking about sex" aimed at increasing female awareness and potential permission to become overt. For female courtship, the drive is for avoiding overt talk while becoming covertly ready for sex, as well as using silence as a temptation tactic for wielding control over males. In practice then, males are as moved to "talk about sex" as are females to "avoid the subject," at least consciously.


-- Female watching HGTV (clues to making house "more attractive,") and male watching Playboy Channel (activating drives for "being attracted")--that is, females are as moved to look for ways to make home (as extensions of themselves) more appealing, as are males to look at attractive females seemingly more ready to accept our attractions.


-- Female drives for monogamy (one good male) and male drives for polygamy (multiple partners), or female desires for faithful mates and male desires for as many mates as possible.





-- Although it may appear at first glance that males are both more sexual and less sexually repressed than females, I think that closer observation reveals opposite facts, namely, that: a) beneath familiar outward stances, natural female sexuality (past intercourse alone) is far greater and more pervasive than corresponding male urges; and b) that in spite of apparent "preoccupations with sex," natural male sexuality is exaggerated both in social views and in typical male consciousness.

            In other words, below appearances to the contrary, I conclude that "women are sexier than they seem to be," and men are "not as sexy as we act and often think we are."


-- Again, appearances to the contrary, females are generally less sexually repressed than are males; but because female needs for security in motherhood are so much greater than their desires for the pleasures of sex, and because sex-for-power is so readily available for females in society, females commonly convert natural sexual interests into the arena of power for finding and keeping security.

            Meanwhile, males, with lessor needs for security and hence greater freedom to engage in irresponsible sex, easily acquire exaggerated senses of our own sexuality. We appear to be more sexual than we actually are because: a) Society sets us up to think so; b) Our own typical repressions make "acting out" easier than becoming consciously responsible (realistic rather than showy); c) "Cockiness" cloaking proverbial "fragile male egos" is in female interests because it keeps males more vulnerable to easy management by security-concerned females.

            Paradoxically, keeping males sexually immature (as in a macho male, peacock stance) is beneficial for females, else we would lose sexual interest in them when they are not ovulating or soon after pregnancy, and certainly as they age--thereby threatening their needed security.


-- Although anti-nudity memes exist for both genders, two significant differences are relevant:

a) Exposure for power is exclusively in a female's domain; b) Whereas there are powerful genetic male urges to see female bodies, females have far less natural curiosity about male bodies--given their primary need is security rather than sex, with evaluations for the former being less related to physical attributes revealed in bodily exposure than to more subtle male characteristics.


-- The simply fact that the nature of delivery and reception of sperm for replication leaves males limited in capacity for repeated intercourse, while females are easily capable of many sexual events, including possible multiple orgasms, must play into temptations of males to exaggerate in compensation for limitations, and females to repress for control of socially dangerous desires.


-- Pleasure in intercourse, culminating in orgastic release and brief self-transcendence, is the apex of male reproductive instincts, evolved to maximize the slim odds of conception, but by no means essential to the primal female processes of mating and impregnation. Though essential for male sperm-expulsion, orgasm is more like the icing on the cake of necessity for females, similar to the evolution of good tastes of food found most useful for the deeper instinct of self-survival.







            Sexuality is an innate element in human genetics, beginning in primal form at conception, expanding before birth (evidenced by male erections in the womb), operative in oral, anal, and genital pleasures reflecting in urges to touch and be touched "down there," early in infancy (ages 0-2), expanding sexual feelings and desires as organs develop, curiosities (evidenced in "playing Doctor and Nurse" or Ken and Barbi) (age 3-5), increasing passions as puberty begins, culminating in overtly sexual desires as sperm and ova come into production.

            Also there are gender differences in interests and expressions of childhood sexuality. Growing boys, for example, are more interested in looking at, touching, smelling, and "doing it," while growing girls are more inclined to look pretty, attract interest, tempt, and smell good. At puberty girls are more naturally focused on "hunks"--that is, best sperm available; but with pregnancy, natural concerns shift to needed security potential in males.


            Natural childhood sexuality is pre-coital, that is, less about intercourse itself than the many elements of experience leading up to the physical act of coitus. These include:


-- Pleasurable feelings associated with sexually related erogenous zones of the body--primarily, lips, anus, genitals, and other "ticklish places" with primal connections to eros.


-- Curiosity about sexually related issues, primarily "where babies come from" and how they get there--that is, the source of procreation, what parents do "behind closed doors," plus seeing nudity (especially adult genitals) both real and as pictured in Playboy and pornography.

            I see these natural curiosities as forerunners of "thinking about it" in adults--that is, mental preparation for intercourse itself.


-- Physical explorations of gender-related activities involved in overt sexuality--specifically, girls practicing female beautification, making themselves "pretty" in ways which invite male response, plus exposing/hiding their developing bodies in appealing ways, and moving their bodies in ways which will be understood as "seductive" in adults.

            Meanwhile, boys, exploring the male role in species replication, are moved to see, smell, and touch female bodies in ways later to be understood as nature's way of pursuing the male quest for potential baby makers.


-- Private masturbation. Boys, with external genitals and periodic natural erections, beginning in the womb, are early-inclined to move on from simple "touching themselves down there" to encouraging "nocturnal emissions" by "playing with themselves"--that is stimulating pleasurable erections by hand manipulation.

            Although overt masturbation is more difficult for girls with mostly internal genitals, the natural pleasures of clitoral stimulation are often enhanced by physical activities, like bike and horseback riding, which may "cause" sexual stimulation without requiring a child to become conscious of its sexual nature.


-- Playing Doctor and Nurse. Finally, baring strict adult controls often backed by punishments, children are inclined, ever before the onset of puberty to begin exploring fucking itself. Depending on degrees of adult threat these early types of intercourse-play are more or less overt--that is, seen as being sexual or cloaked with various ruses like "Playing Doctor and Nurse" or pretending to be Ken and Barbie "sleeping together," etc.


            Summary: although prevailing social repressions tend to deny the sexual bases of these familiar childhood activities, preferring them to be cloaked as "just playing" or "being cute" or "trying to get a rise" from adults, I think that clearer observation easily recognizes them as childish forms of being sexual, not at all unlike what will later be seen as such.










            In the previous section I explored the nature of male, female, and childhood sexuality as it may exist on a personal level--that is, what I understand to be inherited drives operative in males and females, including boys and girls, apart from society. Since most of our sexual instincts evolved while we were still in the jungle before civilization as we know it came to be, they became ingrained before fitting in with social structures was necessary.

            Our "animal instincts," I might say, preceded our "human necessities" by eons of time. Also they became an essential part of who we are long before consciousness itself arrived on the human scene. In earlier times, before recorded history, I assume that we not only "didn't have to think about it" consciously; we actually couldn't. We simply "did what comes naturally" and replication, in effect, "took care of itself."

            But with the advent of civilization, when jungle life phased into clan and eventually city dwelling, all this changed. First of all, consciousness itself was beginning to expand. Perhaps the development of this later human capacity was partially initiated by the emerging challenges of bringing "animal instincts"--in this case, unthinking sexuality, into some harmony with rapidly emerging experiments in social arrangements.

            However it occurred, "just doing what comes naturally" rapidly ceased to be functional in the complex relationships which civilization brought. Because sexuality as it had effectively evolved in the jungle turned out to be so threateningly at odds with evolving social arrangements--for example, natural promiscuity and civil marriages, serious compromises were required.

            Obviously some degree of replication was essential for maintaining society; but it must have been equally obvious that sex as practiced in the jungle was certainly not compatible with developing social structures, such as, private property and marriage. Somehow the powerful forces evolved to insure species survival had to be moderated and contained--"tamed" as it were, if civilization itself was to survive in consort with blind, ingrained sexual instincts.


            Obviously, this has occurred, else I could not be making these observations now. I skip over complex issues of how this integration has come about, in order to focus more immediately on end results--that is, the nature of how male and female sexual drives have been fitted in with social structures as of today. In a later section on repression, I take a closer look at how we have personally dealt with these inevitable challenges; but for now, I examine results only.

            More specifically, I look at how complementary but contrasting male and female drives have been incorporated and now exist in present social structures. How, for example, are male genes treated in current society? How are natural female urges integrated with social necessities? What shall we do about childhood sexuality?

            In the previous section I analyzed the Drama of Reproduction as having four overlapping but distinguishable phases, with contrasting male and female roles merging together for success in reaching our shared goal of creating another human. Here I explore just how each of these "steps" in successful replication has come to be dealt with in society. How, for example, does society deal with male "gene eyes" and female "beautifying"? Etc. Etc.





            Merging powerful sexual instincts into functional social structures must have been one of the grandest of challenges as human civilization evolved from life in the jungle. And so it remains today.

            Not that sexual drives for self-replication are stronger than other instincts for self-survival, but rather that by nature of themselves the former seem, on first glance, to be anti-social. Even though selfing interests reflect in me versus you in emergency situations (your life or mine?), in the vast majority of social relationships, cooperation works better than isolation in serving both self and social concerns.

            As John Donne noted long ago, "No man is an island, entire unto himself; but each is a part of the continent...." Even though we finally sleep alone--that is, exist apart and are gene-driven to individual survival, before sleep self-survival is not only enhanced by, but is indeed dependent on social structures. Short of life or death emergencies, we live better as persons when we act more neighborly than selfishly.

            I conclude that were measurement possible, we would find instincts for self-survival to be far stronger than those for self-replication, perhaps as much as 85-15%. We are, I think, far more genetically moved to take care of ourselves than to make more of ourselves (Who wants to have sex while they have a stomach ache?). Once well (and fed) of course, sexual interests may kick in again; and this is where the social challenge begins--after survival is tended to.

            Whereas stronger survival urges are better served by cooperation with others--that is, by temporarily putting self-interests on the back burner and focusing on group needs, the same is not true for sexual concerns. In fact, nothing is more personal, private, and unfortunately anti-social than natural sexuality at every level from first attraction to final orgasm. What begins with competition (self versus all others), proceeds selfishly toward private possession, and culminates, if at all, with ultimate selfing (orgasm)--as though I-alone-exist.

            Paradoxically, lessor powered sexual drives are more socially problematic than stronger selfish urges because in most situations self-interests are better supported by social cooperation ("fitting in") than by overt selfishness. Meanwhile, weaker urges for replication are more dangerous to society because when we come to reproducing ourselves, only our own genes count.

            Also, I think, we tend to be more conscious about sex for two other reasons: First, instincts for survival, being much older on the evolutional calendar, are more genetically ingrained than later-to-evolve genes for gender (versus replication by cloning).

            Self survival urges became deeply embodied long before consciousness was even remotely possible. But since reproduction by sex rather than cloning evolved later, its drives are perhaps more subject to self-awareness.

            Secondly, given the inherent challenges of being sexual in the midst of social structures which find sex itself to be so threatening, even divisive if not destructive, more cunning ("conscious thinking") is predictably required for successful activation. Society may well encourage fragile urges for group harmony, since they serve both self and systems; but powerful drives for truly selfish sex find little social support. Indeed, consistent overt suppression is the best tool civilization is yet to evolve for managing these pro-self, anti-others drives.

            Consequently, with sexuality nearer to consciousness and necessarily requiring more personal attention for even small degrees of success, small wonder that it tends to get a lion's share of both public and private attention in comparison with its older and stronger cousin concerned mainly with staying alive only.





-- Society is far more acceptive of natural female sexuality than of natural male instincts aimed at self-replication. It turns out that natural female urges related to motherhood are far more compatible, even supportive of prevailing social structures, than are corresponding male drives for fatherhood. Masculinity, we might say, "gets a bad shake" in society, while femininity is generally approved and even supported well when sublimated into social causes--economic as well as altruistic.


-- Outward suppression and inward repression are the major ways civilization has so far chosen to deal with the primary challenge of merging private sexual desires with public concerns. Forced external control, beginning with parental suppression and extended into religion, education, legal structures, and every other aspect of public life, is commonly backed by systematic infusion of similar internal controls, recognized in a personal "conscience" and accepted public morality (usually assumed to be natural).

            These oppressive controls are typically exercised through such forms as: limited language (with best words judged as bad); sharply curtailed public conversation ("talking about sex"); punishments in family settings; social and civil laws against most natural expressions of sexuality; fierce consequences for breaking laws and existing morals, including community rejection, religious judgments (and/or excommunication), fines, public incarceration, extended social isolation even after serving sentences, and in some instances, death penalties.


            In summary, I conclude that the major social mode of coping with sexuality so far has been by suppression--that is, using powers of outside social force--laws, mores, and punishments, and inside repression--denial, promotion of shame and guilt via instilling consciences and perverting the internal capacity for consciousness and reasoning in service of outside suppressions.

            This pervasion of the consciousness, the apex of evolution so far, is accomplished in two primary ways:


1) Inviting, approving, and rewarding psychic repression--that is, turning mind in on itself, like a snake biting its own tail, by using one part to fight and deny another part--abusing consciousness by requiring the younger mind to say, "No," to what the older mind says, "Yes." In this abuse of awareness, Johnny-Come-Lately Consciousness is forced to be an enemy of messages from its older ancestors called instincts--to "say it isn't so" to what one deeply knows is true.

            In so doing, reason, the crowning jewel of various elements of consciousness, is in effect told to "kiss off"; sense-making is not allowed in the arenas of replication urges.


2) Establishing in-brain reservoirs of established social directives to work in support of outside anti-sexual structures and thus to cover when repression fails to do its total job--that is, what we now call conscience and like to believe to be a natural human gift from God, with its debilitating psychic tools of guilt and shame.


            Overall, the prevailing mode of most societies for dealing with the powers of natural sexuality is external suppression and promoted internal repression, except as necessary for replicating social members as lost by war, disease, accidents, and death by aging, and as useful to the support and maintenance of established structures and values evolved for continuation of society, e.g.:


1) Economic values of male drives to secure wealth and social power in quest of female favors as necessary for male replication.


2) Support of female drives for security and successful rearing of children as essential to their own replication, especially female traits of nurturing and cooperation, plus peace versus war at almost any price. Also, economic values of female drives for goods and services useful in male control and management, e.g., beauty supplies and services designed, even if unconsciously, to appeal to male gene eyes by maintaining appearances of youthful pregnancy potential.


3) Support of titillation about sexuality as useful in promoting economic health, e.g., selling commercial products.





            As noted before, the most powerful of all human genetic forces have evolved in two major arenas: Self and Sex--that is, dark, pre-conscious, universal urges toward survival as individuals and as a species. More than all else, we are blindly moved to stay alive as separate selves and to reproduce ourselves.

            I summarize these two primal drives with the single words, self and sex. Self represents all our interconnected urges to keep on breathing at all costs and to maximize satisfactions once breath seems assured. Self, as I use the word here, stands for our deepest desires--what we naturally want more than all else, regardless of social virtues to the contrary.

            Sex is a summary word for blind urges aimed at self-replication. These dark, gender-based drives are outwardly different, but viewed together the apparent opposite forces in males and females complement each other beautifully in our shared goal of making more of ourselves via sexual reproduction rather than cloning, as is the mode in many other life forms.

            My overall premise is that most all societies since the beginning of recorded history have dealt with the difficult challenges of merging these two human forces with the often contradictory needs of civilization by the devices of outward suppression and inward repression--that is, controlling self and sex in society by suppressive powers of religion and state, morals and laws, and supporting inward repression by ingesting outside standards into one's own sense of self through the tools of conscience, the creation of guilt--all supported by psychic repression.

            Although these modes of mixing inward and outward powers have obviously worked well in advancing civilization from the jungle and caves to cities and homes, they have done so, I observe, at great costs to individual well being blindly sacrificed in service of public values.

            From earliest ages, individuals are molded by religion and society in forms best suited for the good of all, but through means which, I observe, severely damage us as separate selves. We learn to be good citizens by giving up being good selves as Mother Nature has evolved us to be. Literally speaking, we learn to not be our natural selves in order to fit in acceptably with our social groups.

            In summary, we try to severely restructure, if not negate, who we naturally are in favor of trying to become what religion and society in consort say we should be.

            Respecting the many amazing advances of civilization so far, especially those made in realms of science and technology, I submit that we have unwittingly committed a colossal error in regard to Mother Nature as personified in individual human beings.

            Bad enough that we have self-righteously abused Mother Nature herself in our blindly destructive ways of robbing her resources for our social uses; but worse still, we have made a religious virtue of sacrificing ourselves, the apex of evolution so far, on the altar of social service.

            Although these individual sacrifices may have seemed reasonable, even necessary, based on a cursory view of human and social natures--that is, apparent conflicts between the two, the first-look-observation that self and society are inherently and inevitably in opposition, even enemies, of each other, that being our natural selves and being good citizens are conflicting goals, I propose that closer analysis reveals this familiar conclusion to be a long range error, both for private citizens and for society as a whole in extended time.

            Certainly parenthood is initially easier if natural children are "civilized" early--that is, quickly brought under control through suppressing native instincts in favor of "minding our mothers"--and so with entrance into society outside the home where we learn to "mind the laws," etc.

            But even so, I posit here that good citizenship at the cost of good selfing may be an unnecessary sacrifice, that in spite of initial appearances, self and society are not inherently in conflict, and that an entirely different approach to the challenges of socialization, of living well in large groups, might prove better for both in the long run.

            The stance I have to come to adapt for myself, in contradiction to the prevailing virtue of self-denial in service of public values, is posited in this opposing premise:

            Better citizenship may come from better selfing than we currently achieve through suppressing "selfishness" in favor of social approval. Or, on the level of individuals, loving others is the apex of loving ourselves, rather than the result of suppressing self in favor of helping others and/or serving society.

            The accepted religious virtue of self-denial, beginning with suppressing natural instincts for individual satisfactions (fun, pleasure, and "feeling good"), and culminating in the highest virtue of sacrificing self for others is, I conclude, a dangerous perversion of natural maturity.





            In contrast, I am finding for myself and here propose for the consideration of others, the unfamiliar notion that more, not less, self love culminates in more, not less, other love. I find that the more I come to care for my natural self, the more I care for other persons as well as society and the world at large.

            While I was engaged in quest of the prevailing religious virtue of serving others and suppressing myself ("putting Jesus first, others second, and self last"), I became proficient in acting loving while diligently trying to be unselfish--that is, to deny inherent instincts summarized above in the arenas of self and sex.

            I also discovered the grand difference between acting helpful and being loving, and that while religion and society seem satisfied with the first, I became increasingly less so--that is, the rewards of social approval and promises of heaven later based on self-sacrifice now, became less and less acceptable in the face of present tense unhappiness.

            Eventually I have arrived at this stance which I increasingly recognize as being at sharp odds with prevailing religious and social values--if not in stated principles, certainly in the forms of daily practice.

            But enough of subjective confession; back to objective observations: I think, based on my experience and observations of others as revealed to me, especially in private counseling, plus watching the tides of civilization in general over several decades, that fuller self-affirmation in both major genetic agendas, namely, self-satisfaction and self-replication, is more likely to culminate in real love (in contrast with acting nice and helpful), than is the existing mode of placing social acceptance and service over against an affirmation of Mother Nature as personified in ourselves.

            Or, stated more specifically in colloquial terms: A more realistic path toward proper social concerns lies through the doors of greater "selfishness" and more "sexiness" than through the currently accepted virtues of selflessness and sexual suppression.





            In almost every corner of the civilized world today, both society and religion (when they happen to be different) have dealt with the challenges of sexuality with forces of suppression. Society has used civil laws, while religions have used "God's laws." In either case, most elements of natural sexuality have either been illegal or evil--and in most cases, both. In this arena both society and religion have been largely in harmony, if not in direct cooperation, in their shared goals of suppressing sex except in carefully controlled circumstances as defined by civil and religious authorities.

            In largest measure, society has attempted to "enact it out" while religion has tried to "spell it out." In an overall perspective, as governed by civil and religious laws, sex is ob-scene, that is, off-scene, even when it is legally allowed and religiously approved (namely, in socially sanctioned monogamous marriage). Though permitted in the privacy of one's bedroom, mainly for purposes of reproduction as needed for the continuation of social and religious groups, the subject itself is largely banned from conversation and certainly off limits for any public display.

            Even within the confines of sanctioned marriage where intercourse is allowed, open talk about the subject is typically limited or absent. Certainly any acknowledgment in the presence of children is relatively taboo beyond warnings about its dangers and teaching established prohibitions.

            Although societies limit their suppressions to outward acts, most religions go one step further and condemn inward feelings of desire ("lusts"), except for one's legal spouse, as well as outward expressions, such as, adultery. In colloquial language, in popular religions it is often considered "just as bad to think about it as it is to do it."


            Consequently, whether one grows up in a religious family or in the secular world beyond major religions, these suppressive forces can hardly be avoided. Whether consciously taught, as in religion, or simply absorbed from culture, most persons in today's civilized world grow up in the midst of civil and religious modes of dealing with natural human sexuality primarily by suppression. Translated into personal experience, external suppression typically reflects in internal repression--that is, persons commonly learn to cope with external forces by some degree of internalization. What is not allowed "out there" is, especially with those who are "good" children and/or citizens, also denied "in here"--at least ruled-out of conscious awareness.

            And such conscious denials are typically supported by internal negative "voices" called conscience, a supposedly innate "moral compass," which backs up outside voices of parents and society. Such an ingrained "conscience" serves to, in effect, flash a warning sign whenever one comes near to an established prohibition, and then continues to work afterward by initiating feelings of guilt and shame "for being bad" if one "acts out" anyway.

            Often, especially for religious persons, debilitating shame may come even for inward "lusting" when no outside action occurs.

            Even "bad" persons who rebel against external prohibitions and dare go against conscience by breaking civil and/or religious laws may still find themselves determined by established attempts at suppression of sexuality--only in their case negatively rather than positively. Whether one is "bad" or "good" as defined by prevailing socio-religious perspectives, internal repressions of natural sexuality are likely to exist.


            Summary: Socio/religious forces surrounding persons in civilized societies today, whether one is "religious" and/or secularly oriented, deal with human sexuality primarily by modes of suppression--that is, making most natural expressions of sex illegal and/or evil. Typically, external suppressions are personalized by the psychic device of repression.

            Thereafter, one may cooperate with established external suppressions by being "good"--that is, obeying laws and living up to religious morals, or one may rebel against such negative directives by "acting out" and thus being "bad." But in either case, degrees of internal repression are likely to continue unexamined until individuals make a conscious effort to understand themselves below levels of outside behavior (either "good" or "bad") and inside conscience.





            My overall observation is that gender powers associated with each phase of natural urges are also roughly equal--that is, that males are as blindly and forcefully moved to act out our roles, even in the absence of consciousness, as are females to effect their own opposite roles.






            Phase one, which I have called Scoping and Attracting, is essentially about getting together in prospect of moving on to phases two, three, and four. First, obviously, males and females must somehow meet. In this initial step toward eventual replication, males are, I conclude, as blindly driven to scope for conceive-able females as are females to present themselves for favorable scoping--that is, to "look good" in order to attract "good looking."

            Perhaps these complementary urges may be more immediately apparent if I jump to two social phenomena which I see as expressions of these darker drives, namely, pornography for males and shopping for females. A female urge to "shop 'til you drop," obviously not shared by males, is, I think, at heart a modern means of effecting a primal female urge to beautify both oneself and one's surroundings. Although the practice of female shopping may be, in effect, "free floating," its primary roots must lie in dark instincts for "being attractive" in the Drama of Reproduction.

            The corresponding complementary male drive is also abundantly apparent, namely, an urge to "look for (at) pretty girls"--that is, to scope for attractive females. Unfortunately for males, this counterpart to female beautification is viewed far more negatively in society; in fact, when scoping becomes too obvious, as in "staring," "ogling," and "peeping," it may be confronted with laws aimed at its curtailment.

            This social situation which affirms female beautification while condemning all but the most concealed forms of male scoping is, I conclude, the fertile ground from which a massive pornography industry grows and flourishes today. Even if open scoping is socially dangerous if not illegal, and may make real-life females "feel uncomfortable" if not openly rejective, unreal but safer images of exposed females may, given healthy male imaginations, serve as a temporarily functional substitute.

            I suspect that if we had a means of measuring internal forces, socially threatening if not legally unacceptable male drives for viewing pornography would be roughly equal to equally blind female urges for shopping for beautification aids for self and home. Both, I conclude, are but present day expressions of commonly repressed genetic urges aimed at success in the first phase of the Drama of Reproduction.

            Of course natural males, in the absence of repression, would sensibly prefer to look at real "naked women" rather than mere graphic images; but given the facts of systematic hiding of female bodies from male view, beginning at earliest times of natural interest and continuing thereafter (even in marital circumstances), along with the obvious social and civil dangers of overt scoping, pornography becomes a predictable form of safer (though displaced) interest in seeing female bodies.

            When drives for the additional elements of male explorations for conceive-able females, summarized with the visual metaphor of "gene eyes" for scoping, namely, "gene ears," "gene hands," and "gene noses"--that is, inclinations for talking about sex, touching, and smelling female bodies, are also operative, then vast social and legal dangers become even more immediately evident.

            If "suggestive," if not direct, sexual talk (e.g., "dirty jokes," sexual language, or, God forbid, ever saying, "Let's fuck") are socially obscene, then dangers inherent in any consciously uninvited exploration of a female body are exponentially more so. Potential negative legal consequences of the latter are so well known as to go without saying.





            The second phases of the Reproductive Drama are Seducing and Inviting. Males are deeply moved to try to seduce desirable females (as determined in phase one) into having sex, or, in colloquial language, to "get into their pants," or, "get a piece of pussy," etc. Females, at the same time are moved to escalate passive attracting (phase one) into more evident forms of inviting "more than just looking and liking." In practice, step one phases so smoothly into step two, both for males and females, as to appear indistinguishable; but for analysis we may draw arbitrary lines for mental clarification.

            Overall, these complementary roles may be simply be called "courtship." But in practice, the roles are different. Because the forms of attempted seduction, the male role, are mostly overt, they are easier to recognize. Conversely, because female ways of inviting males to pursue are, like attraction itself, more covert than obvious, they are understandably harder to pin down in words. For example, when males move from "being attracted" to "trying to seduce," they may attempt to become more intimate in forms of touch, such as, escalating casual contact like hand-holding, or a kiss on the cheek into breast-touching or lip/mouth kissing.

            Although the "moves" of inviting females are more covert and hence difficult to describe, they are no less important. In "courting," for instance, female inviting may take the form of "passive permission" or "letting him touch me" without offering resistance. As noted before, initial types of inviting male response may include various forms of playing Drop The Handkerchief or I Need Help (which, obviously, "you can offer").

            Because these "moves" are so covert, female intents are seldom brought sufficiently into the open as to be seen as such--that is, if a male fails to respond as desired, a female may easily pretend "not to care" or not to have given any invitation at all. I also surmise that female skills in inviting male response are often so well perfected (even inherited?) as to be carried out unconsciously--that is, so surreptitiously that even an artful female may not be aware of her seductive "moves."

            But the relevant point here is more about power than ploys. As best I can tell, genetic inclinations to act out these complementary roles which I call Phase Two, are roughly equal for males and females--that is, females are as blindly and unconsciously moved to covertly invite male response as are males moved to openly try to seduce desirable females (to "get in their pants"). The only significant difference is that when unsuccessful, females are more easily able to deny (even to themselves) "that they were inviting" than are males who were obviously "trying to seduce" them.





            Literally, the third phases in the eternal Drama of Reproduction are Fucking and Cuddling. While a male is actively aimed at "doing it"--that is, engaging in sexual intercourse in order to deposit sperm, a female is passively engaged in "dilly dallying" intended to let her determine the most opportune time for impregnation and to ready her body for receiving his sperm.

            Obviously, however, females are often truly desirous of "just cuddling" for its own sake, with no natural interest in overt sex. Such times of physical intimacy or "being close" may be deeply desired for confirmation of security needs--that is, for assurance that a male is dependably available for extended devotion to "taking care of me and our offspring," or simply for the pleasure innate in emotional or sensual intimacy without requirements for "going any further."

            In fact, because females so rarely need a male's sperm for biological reasons (impregnation), their innate desires for simply "doing it" are probably minuscule in comparison with those of males more geared for success by quantity of distribution than by quality of reception. When replication is the only goal (rather than power or duty, etc.) I conclude that male desires for fucking (depositing sperm without promises) are perhaps a hundred times greater than are similar female drives for receiving sperm.

            On the other hand, when female needs for security are compared with male drives for sex, and cuddling is recognized as one form or sign of satisfying these needs, then an arena for reasonable comparisons is available. I suspect that females may desire cuddling-for-security about as much as males desire fucking-for-orgasm. But conversely, males, more geared for excitement and danger than for safety, have little innate interest in "just cuddling" or any dilly dallying when depositing sperm is possible.

            One predictable result of these biological facts is significant misunderstandings between males and females who are yet to become conscious about and to accept these differences in innate needs. Such repressed males geared for danger and "spreading sperm," but inattentive or unaware of comparable female needs for security, will predictably conclude that "dilly dallying" females are simply "holding out on me," "trying to take advantage of me," or, "just don't love me."

            Equally repressed females are likely to see males as "completely lacking in understanding," "only interested in one thing," or, "not caring at all about me as a person."

            Ideally, when consciousness is added to instinctive drives, males and females come to recognize these primal differences and make reasonable compromises which respect the differing drives of each other.





            Phase four in the Drama of Reproduction becomes operative in extended time following success in the first three steps. Previously I called these complementary drives Keeping for males, and Possessing for females, trying to imply significant differences not inherent in dictionary definitions of the words.

            Males, I noted, want to keep a mate's "sexual favors" exclusive to themselves for sound biological reasons, while females, less concerned with sex than with security, are equally moved to want to possess a mate's devotions to herself and her family alone--that is, his services, resources, and protection as required for security needs.

            Here I turn to colloquial expressions for clarifying these genetic differences. Males, geared, as noted before, more for danger than for safety, and at the same time always without certainty about paternity of a mate's offspring, are understandably more concerned with protecting (keeping) her "pussy" as though it were his alone, than about her other female or personal attributes.

            Conversely, females who always know that their children are their own ("carrying my genes") and far more about paternity itself, plus being in greater need of security than of sex, are naturally more driven to possess a man himself than simply his genital rights.

            In summary, he is naturally less concerned about her as a person than about her womb and its entrance, since his own genetic immortality is dependent on her children bearing his genes rather than those of any other male. He is predictably more "jealous about her pussy" than about her "mind" and/or "emotions"--which are more likely to be the way she perceives her self.

            But in contrast, her genetic immortality only becomes possible through the children she bears and their successful growth past puberty. Consequently, she is reasonably more concerned with a mate's contributions and devotion to herself and their family needs than with his sexual services.

            As illogical as it sounds, and, in the larger picture, how irrational it truly is, when moved by instincts alone men are driven to blindly view her vagina as "his pussy," and women to think of a mate as "her man." Obviously, these dark, usually unconscious, genetic inclinations are dangerous in the larger realm of human relationships beyond family and replication alone, where both partners are also sensibly concerned with immediate personhood as well as genetic immortality.

            Again, my point in trying to clarify these differences is less about biological facts than about power issues which inevitably become attached to them. In societies based on monogamous marriage between males with strong desires to "spread sperm" and females more devoted to family values than to "fooling around," more attention is understandably given to the challenges of keeping husbands faithful to one wife than to a husband's sexual jealousies. Consequently female urges to possess "her man" receive far more social support than comparable male drives to keep "his pussy."

            Expressions of her instincts may even come to be viewed as virtuous, while his are more likely to appear as "petty jealousy." She may be seen as "good" when she diligently tries to maintain possession, while he is more often viewed as "bad" when trying to guarantee paternity by keeping her pussy as his own.





--Male desire for sex and female desire for security.

--Male scoping for estrus and female appearing conceivable.

--Male taking good looks versus female looking good enough to take.

--Male seeking to smell versus female inviting smelling (perfume to attract and perhaps to fake estrus?).

-- Male urge to touch versus female making skin soft and touchable.

--Male wanting to fuck versus female wanting to wait.

--Male fooling around versus female fidelity.

--Male polygamy versus female monogamy. (We are told in the bible that Solomon had 900 wives and 300 concubines. This is more in accord with natural male desires.)





--Bad shake for males versus unmerited virtues for females; most male drives are socially rejected, off limits in public, and legally dangerous unless approved by females, while most female urges are socially acceptable, and easily fitted in with society.


--For simply activating genetic drives, females are seen as virtuous ("virgins"), e.g., virgins for withholding sex in ways which invite males; also, mothering = nurturing, cooperating, tenderness; peace making; family making.


--Socially acceptable for females to present themselves in most male-tempting ways, e.g., breast cleavage, figure 8 shape, small waist exaggerating hips, tight ass, bikini v-shaping underwear; but unacceptable for males to openly look ("stare") at female bodies.


--Genital exposure: memes require hiding reproductive organs for both genders (penis and pussy) but significant differences appear at levels of genetic desire to see, smell, and touch. Whereas deepest male desires are to explore pussy, females have relatively small interest in what males have to hide (since it reveals little about security potential). Whereas females can wield great power in controlling sight/touch of tits, ass, and pussy, males have no power potential in exposure, other than negative.


--Additional fact: There are laws against both male and female exposure, but leniency for female exposure is relatively great with almost zero tolerance for male "exhibition" (e.g., raincoats and flashing).





            A second, and far more controversial group of my observations regard the existence of childhood sexuality. Although young children are commonly assumed to be relatively non-sexual, and minors to be innocent and hence sexually irresponsible, I think that the true state of pre-adult sexuality is perhaps the least understood and one of the most consequential errors in current civilization--especially in America today.

            There is, I conclude, a near universal denial of natural childhood sexuality, plus pervasive suppression of evidences to the contrary through the use of powerful anti-sexual memes (social forces), which operate regardless of individual adult perspectives.


            Before exploring potential consequences I note the following about our society:


-- A massive public effort to prevent children from seeing sexually explicit pictures, as in pornography in general and childhood porn in particular.


-- In spite of such efforts, there is obviously widespread male interest in seeing child pornography, as evidenced in risks many males take in procuring same in the face of powerful negative social consequences.


-- A near universal view of children who have any sexual contact with an adult as innocent victims who are inevitably damaged thereby. Those who do engage in any sexually related activities are automatically viewed as "lured in," physically and/or psychologically manipulated ("abused"), and therefore "victims" who will certainly be damaged and in need of psychological counseling if not monetary compensation.

            No allowance is made for any personal responsibility for a minor "caught" in any sexually-related activities, such as, seduction, willingness, use of sexually-based power, etc.


-- A correspondingly negative view of any adults, especially of males, who show any sexual interest in children, either in viewing childhood porn or having any physical contact which may even remotely be seen as sexual in nature. Such men are automatically seen as: perverts, pedophiles, predators, or molesters, who are vile, criminal, and inherently evil. All available words for describing adult male interest in childhood sexuality are fiercely negative.


-- An apparently widespread child-interest in sexuality which is immediately suppressed, beginning with questions about where babies come from, curiosity about "what parents do behind closed doors," looking for sex-related pictures, "playing Doctor," etc.


-- In the present and on-going focus on sexual activity in the priesthood, any priest who had any sexual contact with a minor is automatically seen as a "predator," and any such youth automatically seen as an "innocent victim" who is due huge financial compensation. We have even been freely willing to drop such legal protections as laws related to statutes of limitation or time. So called "repressed memories" of prior sexually related activity are regularly accepted without question.


-- A near universal denial of childhood sexuality and pervasive suppression of any evidence to the contrary via powerful anti-sexual memes, regardless of any individual adult's perspective. Force is almost universally used in coping with childhood sexuality--that is, outward suppression, including physical punishments, denial of language, quickly establishing self-repression via ingraining "conscience" which structures and supports public "morality"--including no childhood sexuality, no sex before or outside of marriage, or in any form except strict heterosexuality.





            Aside from the generally accepted mode of coping with powers of sexuality in society via outward suppression, which eventually leads to inward repression, I observe several factors which may reflect in the above observations about current society.


-- Reality of childhood sexuality, beginning in the womb, growing in early childhood, raging by the onset of puberty, and full grown in teenage "minors."


-- Natural childhood sexuality becomes exaggerated by adult denials and attempted suppression, both in the minds of children who universally confront adult repressions, as well as adults who must maintain their own repressions, and who become unwitting servants of current memes and mores.


-- Alert children easily find power they can wield with sexually repressed adults via revealing curiosity, asking questions which obviously make parents uncomfortable, saying sexually related words in the presence of adults ("Fuck" is a powerful negative meme), revealing their bodies, and certainly by acting seductive in even minor degrees. (e.g., a current 13 year old boy taking off his shirt for viewers for $50 on web cam). Currently, issues of sex and power easily become confused.





-- Harsh adult efforts to deny the existence of childhood sexuality and suppress evidences to the contrary, cloaked with virtues of "protecting children" from "predators" are less about children than about protecting adult repressions which we typically began in our own childhood.

            "Protecting children" is mostly a sham, perhaps 95% used in protecting adults from having to face our own existing repressions. We project our temptations (and repressed memories) "out there" in the mirror of children. "For sake of the children" is mainly (95%?) for adults and our social structures predicated on this illusion.

            What typically happens, I think, is this: Sexually repressed adults yet caught up in personal denials (continued self repression) project concerns about themselves onto children and try to deal "out there" with what is problematic "in here." Public concerns are, I speculate, more rooted in actual adult problems than in genuine concern for children.


-- Without adult suppression, in a climate void of negative judgments and power issues, where normal childhood sexuality is allowed to unfold naturally, presently exaggerated attention and focus would, I think, be significantly diminished.


-- There are indeed genetic inclinations in males to begin instinctive quests for virgin females beginning with first signs of onset of puberty--when girls initially begin to become capable of "baby making," the key to male self-replication. Also, there are natural inclinations in such pubescent females to begin their genetic quest for potential sperm donors.


-- Males are naturally more attracted to pubescent, Lolita-like virgin young girls than to adult women, especially as such girls become less overtly sexual and more capable of male manipulation (skilled in using sex for power rather than replication).


-- Young girls approaching puberty are, I think, equally inclined to explore their emerging capacities for finding best sperm bearers and in inviting male attention ("seducing")--that is, developing abilities for male control as well as experiencing natural pleasures of feeling sexual (as well as powerful).


-- Two other major motivations beyond repression of sexuality in general are: 1) Male use of the legal system (legislating harsh punishments) as our own super-ego--that is, as a protective force "out there" for lack of developed internal control, to, in effect, "protect us from ourselves."

            2) Adult female threat of obvious powers available in young girls to out do older females in male manipulation and control, e.g., to seduce their husbands and threaten their marriages.


-- Unknown elements in my speculations include the recognition that they are pure speculations only, unproven in society. The near universality of sexual repression as the major mode of civilization, beginning in childhood, is the only social system we yet know much about. Perhaps it is simply the way things must be. Maybe the powers of natural sexuality are so uncontrollable that repression is the only workable means of making civilization work. But I think not.





-- Male immaturity, resulting from early and continual repression of natural instincts (gene eyes, etc.) with resulting inexperience in responsible containment and sensible expression in social circles. Society, in its present ways, sets up males to grow up sexually irresponsible, via established permission to "go as far as you can" with any female, while total responsibility for "drawing lines" remains in female hands. Consequently, males are typically trained, as it were, to be like barking dogs chasing cars without having to deal with actually catching powerful females--that is, becoming sexually responsible ourselves.


-- Children growing up both ignorant and unpracticed in being sexual persons in society--that is, consciously embracing instincts and learning under adult tutelage the skills and arts of functional sexuality.


-- Denial of childhood sexuality, that is, prevailing adult notions about "innocent children," are, I conclude, mostly illusionary, not unlike beliefs in omnipotent gods in popular religions. They are rooted, I think, in prevailing adult repression of their own natural sexuality.


-- Adult male interests in child pornography are less about having sex with children than about: a) Returning to the scene of our own earliest repressions--that is, a veiled and projected attempt to get back in touch with denied parts of our male selves; and b) Realistic elements rooted in natural male interest in emerging female puberty, especially virginic, as possible sources of male replication (potential baby makers).





-- Anti "sperm spreading" in general, except as permitted under carefully controlled circumstances, e.g., in monogamous marriage; opposition to divorce and "fooling around" both of which follow natural male desires aimed at maximum self-replication.


-- Anti "gene eyes"--that is, instinctual means of seeking pregnable females by sight of bodies, touch, smell, and overt seduction efforts, especially of virgin girls at puberty and soon thereafter when seduction, possession, and odds of healthy offspring are greatest.


-- Anti male aggression evolved for competing with other males for most desirable females, as well as securing and keeping best resources (wealth and power) as needed for female security--except as can be sublimated into social values of economic promotions and patriotic dedication useful in war with "enemy" nations.





-- Anti female instincts for best sperm selection ("fooling around before marriage" or when ready for later children while married); promotes chastity as virtue and sexual education by practice as sin.


-- Anti female consciousness about the expansive nature of natural female sexuality, including the possibility of extensive pleasure via multiple partners and multiple orgasms outside the bonds of marriage.





-- Complete denial of sexuality in childhood, which is almost universally viewed as "innocent" of sexual desires and powers, especially without any personal responsibility for exercising their natural powers (e.g., appeal to male gene eyes and threats to mothers and older females for control of available males in Lolita-like fashion).


-- Any remotely related-to-sexuality contacts with adults, e.g., seductive initiatives, touch, talk, and certainly any overt sexual activity, universally places "blame (as though all are inherently evil)" on adults, seen as luring, taking advantage of, molesting, and abusing children--all negative, with no possible positive values, who, no matter what, are seen as victims.

            Such adults are immediately branded as "predators," seen as mentally ill and/or morally corrupt, and subjected to harsh social punishment, such as, incarceration, castration, or banishment and branded for life with, in our society, the necessity of advertising their past errors even after serving legal sentences. Although murderers and thieves are also often "repeat offenders" only "sexual predators" are branded and effectively ex-communicated from society.

            Why? This is so, I think, in proportion to extent of adult repression projected on those who act otherwise (a devil-making psychic procedure).


-- Results: Children denied education in how to become responsibly sexual in adulthood, and supported in repression of consciousness which might otherwise be used for reasoning.





            In society and by definition any sexual contact between an adult, especially a male, and a legal minor is seen as molestation. In such cases the adult is automatically guilty and the minor an innocent victim. Insofar as current social standards and legality are concerned, this understanding is generally adequate.

            But when concern with personal well being is added to that of society and law, looking deeper becomes relevant. In particular, these typical underlying factors become significant:


-- Possible awakening of unfamiliar sexual passions in the minor. For the first time for some youth, especially female, degrees of conscious sexual arousal may occur, even when circumstances of the encounter are threatening and seen by others as evil.


-- Conscious recognition of personal powers operative with adults through bodily exposure, certain movements, and/or acting sexy (titillation), even without any degree of personal passion--that is, capacity for wielding personal power in the sexual arena with an adult who might otherwise ignore or be unmoved by the child.


            When these possibly underlying factors are denied awareness by a minor these consequential results may ensue:


-- If emerging degrees of personal sexual pleasure are denied, a strong invitation to victim-hood is likely to appear, auspiciously as supported in social assumptions of absolute childhood innocence and automatic adult guilt. And immediate suppression of personal passions, which may be pragmatic at the time, dangerously sets the stage for long term repression of this second most powerful human instinct distantly aimed at self replication. The negative consequences of female repression of personal capacities for sexual pleasure in society today would be hard to overestimate.


-- When obvious powers made operative in "beautifying"--that is, appearing to be sexual, provocative movements, and the many forms of titillation, even short of overt sexuality, are denied in awareness, females may be predictably tempted to blindly wield the same forces inherent in feminism in unwise, even dangerous ways. For example, instead of developing mental capacities and other professional skills for accomplishing goals in the world, such a partially repressed female may be unreasonably tempted to rely on her sexuality for power, and ignore embracing her other human capacities.

            Even though acting sexy-for-power can be initially useful, this perversion of beauty and behavior obviously becomes increasingly difficult with age, as well as in many arenas of social and professional accomplishments.


            Although these results are often blamed on early, perhaps forgotten molestation, as are all too common in social life, a wiser approach for a maturing female may lie in a more careful examination of her own possible repressions.





            Major devices aimed at sexual suppression in most societies--that is, current memes (social forces) at work in this prevailing mode of containment include these:


-- Incest taboo; repression of sexual awareness as well as activity in family settings.


--Language limitations; few words available for clear thinking about sex, with best available words seen as dirty and obscene.


--Talk restrictions; subject of sex relatively taboo in all social conversations, first in family settings where children's minds are developing, and later in education and society in general.


--Sight denials; adult hiding of all sexuality except beginning degrees of physical intimacy, such as, hugs and pecks.


--Touch prohibitions; judgment and/or punishment for pleasurable touching, beginning with "playing with yourself," first for stimulating erogenous zones of the body (genitals and anus), and later for masturbation.


-- Cross-gender explorations; "playing doctor" is curtailed whenever possible, especially of boy's urges to see, touch, and explore female bodies.


-- Religious judgments; most all forms of natural sexuality are religiously condemned as sinful, beginning with natural desires themselves, judgmentally seen as "lusting" or "lusts of the flesh" which are commonly viewed as evil.


-- Unwritten and unspoken mores and social conventions which support and enforce existing prohibitions.


-- Exaggerated titillation, where only sexual metaphors, symbolic representations, and off-colored humor are allowed as pointers toward real sex.


-- And a long list of civil laws aimed at similar restrictions, beginning with structures supporting monogamous, heterosexual marriage as the only permitted form of overt sexual expression.





            Arenas of sexual conflict in society begin at the earliest levels of civilized structures, namely, family life. Even before clan and community cooperation, functional family structures are necessary. Beginning with the initial triangle of mother/father/child, sex "rears its ugly head" challenging cooperative endeavors.

            Primal conflicts are inherent in these specific arenas:


-- Mother-son attractions; she for her own "pride and joy" and he for the goddess who bore and sustains him.


-- Father-son competition for the possession and affections of their shared love object.


-- Father-daughter attractions less threatened by incest taboos.


            Then, as soon as other siblings are born, all the challenges of the first love triangle escalate as natural sexuality evolves between brothers and sisters as well as parents and children. All in all, were it not for long established social taboos now enforced by strict civil laws and overt parental suppression, the problems of managing sexuality in families, apart from clans, would obviously be immense.

            But when the challenges of necessary cooperation between families in community are added to those of gene-related competition, the problems relating to sex in society escalate dramatically.

            These latter ones include:


-- Temptations between families in proximity not protected by incest taboos ("Thy neighbor's wife," etc.).


-- Threats to private property structures existing in most societies, especially when wives are even tacitly seen as a husband's property.


-- Threats to socially and religiously sanctioned monogamous, heterosexual marriages which structure most of civilization today.


-- Threats to cooperative business structures easily undermined by sexual attractions and jealousies between working associates.


-- Threats to religious structures established with secondary motives of stabilizing society, including prohibitions against most forms of natural sexuality.


-- Threats of natural homosexual urges in societies structured around heterosexual relationships only.


            Summary: All in all, merging natural private sexuality into public structures essential for both individuals and communities is obviously a continuing challenge with grand consequences for both.





--Fierce suppression of most all forms of overt sexuality in any social arena outside the marital bed.


-- Major denial of childhood sexuality--that is, inherent drives for self-replication beginning in the womb, expanding rapidly after birth, emerging openly at puberty, but only recognized openly in adults. All children are erroneously seen as sexually "innocent," devoid of inherent sexual knowledge and associated desires, albeit in pre-cursory or developmental forms. Children are typically viewed by adults who, I conclude, have successfully suppressed their own childhood awareness, as "pure and innocent," "unadulterated by sexual desires."






Through repression we forget the difference

between being sexual and having sex

that is, passion and fucking


But once remembered and re-embraced

one is free to delight in lust

and act responsibly in society





            Throughout the pages of recorded human history I find that individuals have primarily coped with the challenges of personal instincts in suppressive societies via the psychic device of repression--that is, suppressing inward urges associated with outward suppressions. By repression I mean "pushing," as it were, socially unacceptable instinctive urges "out of mind (conscious awareness)."

            Repression (literally, pressing in again and again) begins with "trying not to think about" and/or denying sexual desires in consciousness. At first it is probably done with awareness and might more clearly be called suppression or chosen denial; but when such suppressed "thinking" is continued in time, it soon turns into the more serious form of re-pression in which one "denies without thinking"--that is, successfully suppresses socially dangerous "feelings" without "knowing he is doing so."

            This is the beginning of what Freud called "the unconscious mind" as distinguished from what we knowingly think ("the conscious mind".) In later life he also came to observe and write about further mental divisions into id, ego, and super-ego. As apt metaphors for describing "mind" and the psychic process of repression, I think these names are useful. However, when taken as literal entities in the mind, I conclude that this familiar set of terms becomes seriously misleading.

            I prefer to see the process of repression as creating a division within oneself--that is, splitting natural wholeness into two parts, one in awareness (commonly identified with myself or I), and the second either denied in consciousness or quickly suppressed when its "voices" are "heard." Literally speaking, repression is schizo-phrenia--that is, division-of-mind, or as I see it, splitting-of-self "in mind's eye" into me and not me. As such, repression is a psychic process, "all in one's head" rather than an objective fact. Even so, once such splitting-of-self occurs it is as though the division were a fact of life. (For amplification, see my manuscript entitled UNREPRESSION.)


            However one may understand this process, relevant here is my overall observation that the major way humans both in the past and present have typically dealt with sexual instincts in society is by repressing them "out of mind"--or, more literally, splitting ourselves into a "good" social self and a "bad" natural self, and/or creating a "bad" devil who tempts "bad self" to "act out."


            In this section I amplify specific elements of repression and some of what I take to be its results, both for self and society. Then I conclude with suggestions for those who may wish to face challenges inherent in un-repression--that is, in re-becoming "whole persons," as I assume we were before splitting into "me" and "not me."





            Understanding the sources of repression in typical persons may be useful in the more challenging process of unrepression. I think that suppression commonly begins in the nursery in an essential quest of obtaining adult favor. When continued over time, suppression typically phases into repression which is then lost to conscious thinking.


            Levels typically begin and advance in this order:


1) Instincts, such as, aggression, as expressed in biting, e.g. mother's nipple.


2) Emotions, which are a step above instincts in biological development--for example, anger or fear, which may be expressed in hitting or unwanted crying.


3) Thinking, which follows emotions in order of developing capacities. Soon a child's natural thinking, as in, deciding what to do, begins to come into conflict with mother's desires. At such time "minding your mother (in essence, giving over your mind to your mother for making decisions)" may be the form of beginning suppression of personal thinking.


4) Conscience formation. Although forces encouraging personal suppression begin externally, as from parents, in time they tend to be internalized in the form of what may later be called "conscience," so that a child can anticipate negative responses from adults and by "following orders" ahead of time, often avoid punishment. By forming an internal "voice" in line with outer voices, a child may learn to, in effect, "beat them to the punch" by acting in an acceptable manner "without being told," and in so doing perhaps achieve greater favor and rewards for "being good."


            After these typical types of suppression phase into non-scious repression, the latter steps tend to be the first to be faced if one begins the process of unrepression. That is, first one may become aware of internalized directives in his "conscience." Then, awareness of mind repressions tends to follow as one begins to unrepress natural thinking; this, in time, is followed by facing emotional repressions, and then lastly, instinctual denials.





            What are the social situations which indirectly result from typical repressions, especially as related to human sexuality. Obviously I must generalize to speculate about these connections for several reasons. First, all statements about civilization, culture, society, and people-in-general are necessarily generalizations because the subject itself is theoretically impersonal. Secondly, degrees of personal repression are individual in nature--that is, we all, as best I can tell, exist at various levels of internal denial, some more repressed than others. Consequently, any observation I make about typical repressions will obviously have many exceptions--as is the nature of saying anything "typical" about "most people."

            And if levels of overall repression differ from person to person, the situation becomes even more personal when the dark subject of sexuality is brought into light. Because the whole subject of sex is so generally obscene and suppressed in society in comparison with almost all other topics, speculations as well cannot but be limited. Also, scientific data for many of my observations is lacking or unavailable because the subject of sexuality is, as in society in general, relatively unexplored in objective ways of science. Consequently I cannot back up many of my speculations by pointing to supporting research of others.

            But with these qualifications in mind, I theorize that the possible connections which follow, all of which fit my best information so far, may be supported in time as the subject of sexuality becomes more open for human conversation, personal comparisons of data, and scientific exploration in general.

            For now, however, I begin with awareness that these potential connections are simply my observations--perhaps not shared by any others, possibly contradicted by other data, or, in final analysis, "just wrong."


            Several of my underlying premises include these observations about repression in general, sexuality in particular, and social structures relating to them:


-- Social suppression and personal repression are the major ways presently evolved for coping with the challenges of integrating instinctive sexuality into civilized structures--both in society and religion.


-- Major gender differences exist in regard to the nature of specific types of repression. Men and women both use repression for coping in society, but each in contrasting ways which reflect in prevailing misunderstandings and many relational problems, beginning with contrary kinds of self-identification.

            These differences include:


-- Men typically repress "body-knowledge" and identify ourselves with mental or "head-knowledge"; for example, we commonly repress emotions (one element of body-knowledge) and identify ourselves with our "thinking"--that is, knowledge held in consciousness (upper brain or cortex information).


-- Women, conversely, often remain more identified with inherited and learned body-knowledge or "feelings" (deep-brain versus outer-brain) and consequently less self-identified with words, language, and "intellectual" knowledge.


-- Men tend to think of ourselves as our conscious "thinking"--that is, what we know "in our heads," while women more often feel personal about their inner selves--what they "feel," intuit, or know "in their hearts (or 'guts')." Consequently, men typically want "to understand everything (including women)" and "to be understood by women" who would rather be "accepted as they are" without intellectual comprehension.


-- Resulting from these contrasting types of self-identification, sexual repressions are typically different for each gender also. In broadest summary, males more often repress body-knowledge about sex and are far more aware of conscious thinking in this arena. We "think about it a lot." Conversely, I observe that while females remain more in touch with primal body-knowledge about sexuality, they don't seem to "think about it as much"--that is, the subject is apparently less often in their conscious minds.

            This difference in types of repression (denied awareness) becomes extremely significant in regard to the second half of the psychic device, namely, projection. By nature of the procedure, repression and projection are but flip sides of the same psychic process; what we repress within, we "see" as though it were without ("out there" rather than "in here"). This becomes particularly relevant in regard to powers inherently generated by all instincts, sexuality included.

            Although males, as noted, typically begin early to "think about sex," that is, to bring the subject into consciousness as our emerging way of coping with its natural bodily powers, we unfortunately, while trying to repress such interests in favor of social approval, tend to project forces generated by our male instincts. While using conscious "thinking" to cope with obviously dangerous bodily expressions, beginning with our mothers, we come early to mistake her "permissions (or, more often, her denials)" as the actual power for our emerging male desires.

            Boys may "think about it"--that is, become aware of sexually related interests (such as, seeing and touching female bodies), but following early learning with parents who hold rights for all permitted expressions, we sensibly learn to repress desires for socially dangerous activities. At the same time, we all too easily come to also project ("see" as though "out there") the "turn on" powers which are in reality "in here" even when repressed as such.

            Later on, especially with the onset of puberty, boys become even more conscious about sexual interests; but, following early training with repression as the accepted means of coping, we so commonly continue with accompanying projections of associated powers that we sincerely believe "they turn us on"--that is, that sexual forces literally generated within our own bodies are "out there" in females, especially in their body parts related to sexuality. As with our mothers, socially established "permissions" are easily confused with personal powers projected in the process of repressing urges.

            But with females, given typical identifications with body rather than head knowledge (as contrasted with males), inherited and learned sexual wisdom remains relatively unconscious--that is, known below levels of daily "thinking." As such, this "dark knowledge" about sexuality remains operative, even deeply identified with, but at the same time held apart from regular awareness as such.

            Consequently, typically repressed males may "think about it a lot" but exist with the powers of natural sexuality projected, mostly onto females who in turn "don't think about it much" but continue to live with both the real powers of their own inherited sexuality and the massive-but-unreal forces of typical male projections in their hands.

            In summary, males are typically more conscious "about sex," including our own natural interests and desires, but, following our equally typical repressions of body knowledge in favor of conscious thinking, we commonly exist with these self-generated powers projected, especially onto our opposite gender.

            At the same time, bodily-identified females with less need for conscious thinking as a means of coping, remain in non-conscious contact with their natural female powers, plus those projected onto them by males. In combination, these forces are massive and operative in daily life, yet all too often outside the realm of conscious thinking and hence not subject to reasonable decisions in cross-gender relationships.


-- A third major premise with immense social consequences concerns typical social suppression, as well as personal repression, of the reality of childhood sexuality. This common denial obviously underlies and finds fuller expression in the above noted gender differences also.

            As previously amplified, my observation is that pre-cursors of adult sexuality begin appearing even in the womb and are a significant part of everyone's childhood as we grow toward puberty when sex becomes recognized as such. I theorize that typical gender repressions of emerging sexual knowledge begin soon after birth and often become deeply ingrained even before times when overt sexual experience is possible.

            Whereas these social suppressions, beginning with parents, may be functional in family and society as presently structured, setting the stage for childhood repressions in their service, I conclude that the long range costs both for society and individual happiness are immense.


-- Another premise with immense social ramifications to be explored later concerns my speculation that typical male aggression, as reflected in female abuse, rape, irrational competition, and even war, is rooted in repressed sexually related instincts. What begins with natural-but-limited aggression in service of replication, all too often becomes displaced ("sublimated") later, following repression, into unreasonable and relatively unlimited "acting out" in many socially as well as personally destructive ways.


-- Finally, and perhaps most controversial of all, I think that popular religion's teachings about sex, in spite of the immensely important roles religion has played in the long evolution of civilized living, are ultimately responsible for much of the worldly discord operative today, both in national conflicts as well as inter-religious rivalries. Escalating degrees of international terrorism, for example, are, I conclude, rooted in prevailing religious illusions about separation of body and soul, and beliefs in grand rewards later for self-sacrifice in the here and now.




            Males, I observe, are far more repressed in arenas of natural masculine drives than typical ideas about "only interested in one thing," "always hot to trot," "will fuck anything," "only want to get in a girl's pants," etc., etc., would indicate.

            Much (most?) overt interest and practice of males in sexual arenas is, I think, more designed to cloak and compensate for deeper conflicts related to personal repression than to procreation itself.

            For example, a majority of pornographic interests are primarily related to unrealistic female modes of behavior, such as, nudity (unclothing and revealing their bodies for easy male scrutiny while lookers remain clothed, protected, and hidden); initiative in sexual seductions and behaviors (taking the lead in starting sex by "going first"); appearance of overt female desires ("She wants it") with reticent males; females as "showing off" like peacocks and males acting like inspecting peahens (reversing natural roles in nature); phoney male superiority and slightly cloaked degrading of natural femininity, as in fellatio, sodomy, swallowing semen (versus absorbing in womb), taking physical manipulation--all this with little or no attention to natural male courtship, including careful, responsible, participation in slow-to-evolve female orgasms.

            Overall: most typical pornography is a male crutch allowing voyeurs to indulge in unrealistic fantasies, including safe masturbation, all the while continuing to maintain personal repression of natural male sexuality. Not that related male interests are perverted, unnatural, and/or signs of emotional disturbance, but that they are more indicative of male immaturity, avoidance of facing the challenges of unrepression and becoming truly mature as natural masculine males.





            All genetic drives exist with operative powers. Probably these forces are the heart of what we call instincts--that is, an observable power is, for language purposes, given a name, much like powerful winds are given Hurricane names when they reach a speed of 74 or more miles per hour.

            As is well known, the most primal human instincts are for survival and reproduction--or as I name them, drives for selfing and sexuality, with many supporting sub-powers, such as, aggression in males and beautification in females.

            Normally and ideally, these moving powers are directed in arenas they have evolved to support. Selfing urges, e.g., are directed, made operative in effecting self-survival and self-enhancement ("being ourselves"). Sexual drives are expressed in reproductive-related activities, such as, finding, getting, and keeping mates.

            But when these individual forces are brought into society--that is, when persons gather into groups, all the way from friendships between two, to marriage, to world civilizations, certain adjustments or refinements are required to meet the innate needs of each, which in many ways are essentially the same. Just as persons are moved to survive and reproduce, so with society or groups of persons.

            Although both share the same drives and are ultimately inter-dependent--that is, each requires the other for its own existence and replication, understandably there are many times when shared forces are in conflict. Often, as everyone knows, "what I want" and "what they want from me" are in direct opposition. 

            Ideally, functional compromises are made without damage to the integrity of each (e.g., as in a marriage of two persons, so in a society of thousands). But in practice--as is equally well known, this is not always the case. Sometimes individuals rebel and do damage to social structures, and vice versa.

            Historically, as noted before, the major mode of accomplishing these compromises has been overt suppression of threatening internal forces by society, and covert repression by persons in required adaptation to fitting in with existing social structures.

            It is this latter phenomenon, namely, personal repression in service of group adaptation, which is relevant here, specifically the psychic fact that repression of natural instinct-powers does not dissolve or "make them go away," but rather sets the stage for blind displacement into other arenas of human expression.

            Forces evolved for one purpose, following repression from conscious awareness, are commonly resurrected ("sublimated") in other "places (arenas and activities)"--only then, blindly and without the guidance of conscious reasoning.

            Often these blind projections (second side of repression) are invaluable for society as a whole, as well as for individuals who make them insofar as they exist as members of such groups. But--and this is the point of this extended analysis: when instinctive powers are divorced from personal awareness via repression, and consequently from the guidance of conscious reasoning, they are often unreasonably expressed in negative ways, both for the values of society and natural human values also.

            That is, potentially positive powers rooted in primal human instincts for selfing and sexuality are all too often used destructively in society as well as in the lives of those who opt for self repression in service of fitting in with others.

            Major arenas in which I observe this phenomenon at work in history and in current living include these:


            Historically, I see popular religions evolving in this way. Most basically, natural human creativity--that is, adaptability in service of instincts, is repressed inwardly and projected outwardly onto imagined god figures who are then deemed to hold these forces in super-human forms.

            Thereafter, self-created gods are seen as possessing all powers, both of creativity (e.g., making the world) and in control of other projected instincts for expressing selfing and sexuality in daily life. Powers which would otherwise be available for individuals in wisely activating personal creativity in service of inherited instincts, guided by conscious reasoning, are then blindly projected onto imagined heavenly gods (in theory), and given over to their earthly representatives (religious authority figures) in daily life--that is, local "priests (religio/secular leaders, such as, Moses long ago and the Pope today)" who may have idealistic visions, but all too often turn out to be equally human (and as self repressed) as those they exercise authority over.

            This, I analyze, is the nature of the evolution of popular religions in history, as well as their continuing existence in the world today.


            Other examples of the same phenomenon at work in the lives of individuals (often manipulated by religious and political authorities for their own purposes) include:


a. Male aggression evolved for success in replication (for sexual reasons), when repressed and cut off from its natural purposes, is "free floating," as it were, and commonly resurrected in such external arenas as: war against group enemies (as in, international conflicts), and slightly cloaked "war" against others in one's own group (as in, organized sports, competition for wealth, and "winning" in relational endeavors).

            On the individual level the same repressed male powers are often blindly expressed in unreasonable competition with all males (as though every other male is an enemy); attempted suppression and control of females (as in, Chauvinism, domination in business and marriage, rape, and the "jealous husband syndrome").


b. Female natural superiority, evolved primally for successful replication (baby-making and child rearing), when repressed and cut off from awareness, is often resurrected in self-negation in the forms of outwardly accepted male dominance and resentful submission; blind dominance of males in emotional and spiritual ways; and many other forms of self-sacrifice cloaked in "for the children," "for family" and "for peace."

            Secondary female sublimations predictably occurring when genetic forces are severed from their natural purposes include:


            1) Beautification, genetically evolved for attracting powerful males (sperm and security providers), when repressed is often resurrected in blindly pursued beauty for its own sake ("just liking to be pretty")--or what might be called "free floating genes for male attraction."


            2) "House Beautiful" phenomenon, that is, blindly pursued making of "perfect homes," regardless of expense, practicality, and cost to family relationships, is, I think, another consequence of natural "nest-making" genes repressed in their evolved arena and resurrected in current spaces.


            3) "Peace at any price" is a projection of natural, motherly values for circumstances conducive to successful child rearing, repressed and cut off from reasonable expression in family life, and then resurrected blindly in all social relationships.


            In personal, pre-gender arenas, that is, with selfing instincts even more primal than reproductive urges, following repression major resurrections are often made in popular religions and their secular spin-offs, specifically in these arenas:


            1) Making a virtue of self-sacrifice in service of others ("putting others before self"). In this religious and socially approved "highest virtue," forces which might otherwise be wisely expressed in self creativity--that is, being and loving oneself, both individually and as a participating member of society (with overflow love), are instead blindly resurrected in self-righteous services to others, all too often with destructive consequences both for those one attempts to "help" as well as oneself.





            Reduced or lost personal creativity is one of the major costs of sexual repression. Human creativity in all arenas--from obvious art forms, e.g., painting and sculpture, to daily living, is rooted in sexual instincts more primally aimed at creating more of ourselves, that is, in "pro-creativity." 

            To the degree that natural sexuality is repressed in an individual, so is personal creativity. The more sexually repressed a person is, the less creative he or she will be, and, conversely, greater creativity occurs in those who are less repressed.

            The cost of lost creativity in creative living alone resulting from sexual repression would be difficult to even estimate. When lost creativity in specific arenas, such as, art, science, business, writing, cooking, problem solving, etc., is added to that in personal living, the cost to civilization in general is indeed inestimable.





            In broadest perspectives, personal living can be divided into two major categories: habitual and creative. We may exist by habits alone, including those rooted in repressed instincts unmoderated by conscious reasoning, and reactive patterns individually acquired during our first years of life. Or, conversely, when undetermined by such habits, we are all born with vast capacities for creative living, that is, for artful adaptation to ever-changing circumstances of life, as well as novel solutions or inventions aimed at enhancing personal and social life in increasingly more satisfying ways.

            But sexual repression stands in direct opposition to creativity in all forms, leaving individuals limited to existence by habits only. Obviously, such habitual living, directed by blind instincts and modes of reaction acquired in the process of social adaptation, may serve adequately for minimal degrees of success in self-replication and social survival; but, and this is my observation here: immense costs in terms of personal happiness associated with creative living are inevitably to be paid, along with potential advantages to all which might result from creativity in forms of social changes undictated by static modes of life together.





            Certainly sexual unrepression is no guarantee of human creativity, at least at first. In fact, even when unrepression is personally freeing in its early stages, it may reflect in socially unacceptable acting out, such as, inappropriate sexual talk, touching, and looking, or in adultery, infidelity, divorce, and even in criminal activities, like, bodily exposure, molestation, illegal pornography, sexual abuse, and rape.

            But unrepression, which may begin with primal sexual instincts long suppressed in society, naturally expands in time to include higher human capacities as well, such as, emotions, and conscious thinking. These fuller degrees of unrepression are, I conclude, the path to truly creative living beyond that which is possible by habitual reactions alone. When, for example, conscious reasoning is added to the pro-creative forces of sexuality, blind acting out is naturally moderated by social discretion in all forms of expression.

            Instinctual awareness, e.g., of natural sexuality, is potentially contained while being creatively merged with other knowledge, in this case, about social structures (memes) and relational consequences. When so, natural sexuality is creatively revealed or concealed as feasible in existing circumstances.

            For example, without any loss of awareness or power generated by embraced instincts, natural sexuality may sensibly be: a) Expressed in its most honest and natural forms; b) Sublimated into other more socially acceptable arenas (e.g., art, business, etc.); or c) Artfully contained and concealed, as is appropriate in most social circumstances.

            But the critical factor in creative living, as contrasted with habitual existence, is that sexually based urges are not personally repressed, but, while consciously contained, are sensibly expressed or concealed in social circumstances. Even in the most suppressive or socially dangerous situations, one who lives creatively remains fully aware of sexual instincts and moderates their forces wisely in the world, both privately and in society.





            Positive values of sexual suppression in service of social stability are, I conclude, impossible to know because we have no data on extended civilizations which have chosen other approaches to this inherent social problem. Perhaps we could not have evolved as far as we have without it.

            We can, however, with what is now known about genetic sexual drives, including gender differences, make educated guesses about some of the negative consequences of sexual suppression, both in the lives of individuals and societies we live in. Following are some of the possible results I speculate to be direct effects of such systematic denials.

            I theorize that greater personal happiness as well as improved social stability might follow if we were able to evolve less repressive methods of mediating natural urges in group contexts. In either case, perhaps a better understanding of consequences might lead to wiser decisions, both private and public.


            Typical adult repressions may result in these cross-gender projections:


-- Sexually conscious males repress self-generated sexual powers in service of social acceptance, but inevitably "see" these forces as projected onto (reflected in) females who are then seen to possess massive "turn on (and off)" powers. I estimate that some 90% of such seemingly real forces-for-excitement are the result of male repression/projection, with perhaps 10% of such attractions being genetically natural.


-- Sexually unconscious females repress awareness both of natural-but-limited desires for overt sex, and especially of inherited body knowledge about appealing to natural male desires, e.g., movements and beautification.

            Although all females are, as best I can tell, born with "Sophia's Wisdom,"--that is, genetically ingrained knowledge about how to look, move, and act in ways most appealing to male "gene eyes (noses, hands, etc.)," few seem to become fully conscious and self-identified with their natural powers evolved to maximize odds of self-replication.

            Instead, they "simply do them without thinking"--that is, beautify, move their bodies, present (and hide) themselves in unconsciously seductive ways, while remaining relatively unaware of the forces they naturally wield in regard to male attractions.


-- When typical male projections of repressed masculine powers are combined with equally typical female blindness to one's own sexually related forces, both inherited and acquired, the results are inherently explosive insofar as realistic cross-gender relationships are concerned.

            Predictable consequences include: "panting dog" males who are always "hot to trot"; naive and innocent females; unconscious "prick teasing," as in the seductive powers of hiding bodily parts related to sex. (The recent Janet Jackson event of briefly exposing one breast for public view at a Super Bowl Game becoming a national concern is just one example of such widespread denials.)-- all this setting the stage for females to further suppress and ignore their own natural sexuality in favor of its easy use as a tool for male manipulation--that is, a device of power rather than a medium of pleasure.





            The long range tragedy of control-by-suppression is that it unwittingly tends to backfire in time, both for society it aims to protect and for repressed individuals themselves. While the temporary values of management by social suppression (laws) and personal repression (denial) are obvious, perhaps we have now evolved enough to explore for a better way.





            Negative consequences of instinct management by social suppression and personal repression are costly, I conclude, both for society and individuals. While the agenda is essential--that is, management is necessary for social stability, the method is debatable.

            Two predictable psychic phenomena are at work in suppression and repression. 1) Suppression invites rebellion, that is, blind acting out against stated prohibitions. I call this the "Wet Paint Phenomenon." For many persons, something about "Don't touch" just calls for doing so anyway, even if there is no desire to touch before reading the sign.

            2) Repression leaves denied instincts alive and smoldering, as it were, yet without the guidance of reason in their expression. By nature of itself, that is, how-repression-works, denial does not actually kill an urge; it only drives it out of awareness by creating a mental division between a dark desire and the light of consciousness where reason becomes possible.

            "Being reasonable"--that is, holding all known factors in mind space and making sensible decisions which take all knowledge into account, is only possible to the degree that one embraces the capacity for consciousness. Otherwise, cut off from sensible thinking, instincts are left to operate by genetic knowledge alone. Whereas body-wisdom is obviously vast and wonderful, and well equipped for jungle living, it remains relatively ignorant of civil laws and relational nuances.

            Such internal drives are like: "Me Tarzan; you Jane; let's fuck"--which may have worked well enough in primal gender arrangements, but is woefully lacking in social smarts needed for successful city life today.

            Point: Primal urges operative without reasoning may have been adequate in the jungle, but for success in civilized life "being sensible" is critically important. Yet by nature of how-it-works, repression leaves a modern human functioning as though he still lives in the proverbial jungle. He still feels primal desires but exists with such urges operative without reason to guide their expression (and/or concealment). The social situation is not unlike sitting on an unrecognized time bomb which may go off at any time, with considerable destruction.

            This, I hold, is the nature of living with lively instincts which, after repression, remain operative without "sense" to guide their activation in complicated social situations. For example, nothing is more natural than male desires to see, touch. and smell female bodies in quest of ovulation information; but perhaps 99% of these genetic urges are socially unacceptable, both illegal and subject to retribution, as well as impractical, indeed counter-productive in personal relationships.





--Abuse of children, both in mind and body in support of adult denials--e.g., teaching disembodiment, implanting guilt, promoting repression, and squelching both selfingness and natural sexuality.


-- Illusions of self importance. Seeing well-being as "being special"--that is, egotism idolized, or a perpetual glorified self, as in, an "immortal soul," rather than: 1) A realistic recognition of humans as infinitesimally small, temporal expressions of part of the real world, not inherently better or more valuable than any flea, leaf, roach, or rat; 2) Embracing flesh versus trying to negate flesh in becoming dis-embodied; and 3) Embracing death as real versus escaping death--that is, embracing mortality rather than living in illusions of personal immortality.


--Denied kill- ability; fear of competing and fighting; blind rearing of another male's offspring versus eliminating them as do male lions when they take over the pride of another lion.


-- Pornography as a massive industry.


-- Proverbial "fig leaves"--that is, bodily shame, especially about sexually related parts.


-- Dis-embodiment; it versus I, to deal with shame.


-- Repression begins with incest taboo, followed by motherly denials of sex while promoting affection; Result: 1) Ambivalence about love; 2) Mother hang-ups wherever repression begins.


-- Overall worse: Consciousness, potentially the apex of human evolution so far, is diverted from its natural mode of sense making from personal perceptions/images, to denying clearest and most powerful images (e.g., breasts, cunt) in favor of cutting self off from natural awareness.


-- Inevitable projection--the second half of repression; personal power generated by perception and ideally used for making sense and creative activation in the world is projected outward onto imagined gods and goddesses (both local and in sky) and various body parts.







            When females are blind to their natural attractions ("just being their female selves") and unaware of typical male projections, they are left with massive powers available for easy male manipulation. Two predictable results are unconscious "prick teasing" and "pussy whipping"--that is, excessive, dishonest seduction and unproductive punishment when sexuality is used for power rather than pleasure.

            While consciously perceiving themselves as weak, vulnerable, and often victimized, such typically repressed females commonly wield excessive force in covert forms of male manipulation and unwitting emotional abuse. Without realizing what they do, they easily provide threatening degrees of sexual temptations which equally repressed males are ill-prepared to confront or avoid realistically. Without conscious attention (as best I can tell), they tease male erectile capacities--that is, proverbial "stiff pricks," which as all know, "have no conscience."

            Then, because there never was any intent to "produce" or "provide relief" via overt sex, by withholding vaginal access they in effect punish males for our natural-but-repressed masculine sexuality.





            Perhaps the most evident consequences of female sexual repression are rampant beautification and compulsive cleanliness--that is, free-floating beautifying detached from its genetic roots (attracting male sperm) as seen in: beauty-for-its-own-sake, or "just liking to be pretty." All too easily massive efforts at daily beautifying of body, dress, children, home, husband, and world at large consume female energies otherwise available for improved living.

            But if beautification is unrealistically rampant in sexually repressed females, compulsive cleanliness must be even more so. Genetically ingrained urges for disease protection of self and offspring are, I think, unrealistically transformed into compulsive habits of behavior outwardly aimed at a theoretical removal of all dust, dirt, crumbs, and every possible form of "uncleanliness." When so, this misplaced value easily becomes more important than the relationships affected thereby, not to mention personal creativity perverted into impersonal dirt management.

            I theorize that at its deepest heart compulsive cleanliness is rooted in repressed female capacities for being naturally sexual--that is, for "getting down and dirty" rather than "virtuously" remaining "up and clean," as commonly identified with "godliness"--itself assumed to be above overt sexuality.

            Compulsive bed-making, for example, only one element in overall female cleanliness and order, may cloak and help keep repressed female desires for un-making it for purposes other than sleep.





-- Repression of ogling, touching, and talking about sex leads to massive denial of natural powers, leaving males weak, wimpy and impotent, set up for female control ("good husbands," etc.) but with replaced mothering needs; leads to ambivalence resulting from incest taboo, etc., and amplified tenderness; or natural passions, and aggression in its service, are perverted into non-sexual avenues, such as, sport competition, fighting, and war.

            Body building may be a primal urge toward physical strength as a way of impressing females, long after it ceases to be the main female guideline to needed security.


-- Oedipus complex is, I think, an outgrowth of repressed Jocasta desires; men blind ourselves rather than seeing sexual desires with/for mother; must depose father in order to own mother; primal history began with repression of goddess images in favor of, for example, adoring Jesus (other males).

            (Bush and Iraq, I speculate, are a present example of this complex, with younger Bush trying to outdo father Bush by defeating those his father could not; proving self; "I'll get him even if you couldn't.")


-- Much male homosexuality is a result of attempted escape from Jocasta and female powers, beginning in the nursery. In this blindness, male urges to make their bodies perfect, ideally to impress females, are diverted into attracting other similarly repressed males. Surely there is room for mid-scale males to be naturally homosexual, but many gays are repressed males who are naturally nearer the male end of male/female scale. Also there is repression of natural overt homosexuality in childhood, as in, sex talk, comparing organs, etc.


-- Deepest set up = Popular religion, repressed males projecting creative powers onto an imagined omnipotent god to cloak unaccepted natural sexual potency, e.g., Abraham projecting procreation onto his god.


-- Much current opposition to homosexuality is a result of male repressions of same-sex natural interests.





-- Perversion of consciousness is worst, leaving females dependent on right brain knowledge only with left brain reasoning power used for justifying feelings versus for actual logical thinking.


--Perversion of personal desire (consciousness of pleasures) into sex-for-power. The power advantages are obvious, but lost pleasure options also, especially after children, is a great loss.





--Lost training in developing consciousness due to repression of most interesting subjects, training in conscious enhancing of emerging desires, and training in responsibility for exercising powers (denied by adults who project fake innocence and protect themselves "out there").





-- Sets up predators, mama's boys (if good) and criminals (if bad); aggression on society versus natural use for impressing/serving females.


-- Makes pornography a massive industry when natural "looking urges" must be repressed as bad; e.g., peeping toms, hidden cameras, etc.


-- Denial of natural male interests for conceivable females, e.g., young virgins and estrus time (no smell allowed), leads to indiscriminate "fuck anything" blindness; good for post menopausal females, long marriages, but not for happiness in healthy relationships.


-- Titillation idolatry; sells goods (TV, books, products) but stokes fires of passion which must then be repressed, which leads to indiscriminate projection, or acting out without reason or sense; also promotes cheap, self-irresponsible, "turn ons," thus undermining real sexuality.


-- Set up for harassment charges against males for bringing signs of natural maleness into society.


-- Opposition to evolution = protection of owning a god.


-- Opposition to abortion = avoidance of natural fecundity; "must save all life" = avoiding saving self.


-- Repressed and/or perverted natural male aggression, that is, instincts for assertive actions in quest of finding, getting, and keeping conceivable females, either denied or unconsciously sublimated into sports and/or enemies, invites criminal behavior (free floating aggression).








            Sexual maturity is one of two major elements in personal maturity, the other being selfing maturity. My overall premise is that we can only achieve individual maturity (wholeness) to the degree that we unrepress our natural selves--that is, embrace and activate genetic and acquired capacities honestly in daily life. In colloquial language this profound process may be simply stated as re-becoming and "being our real selves," or, "being who we are created capable of naturally being"--this being accomplished through the process of un-repression.

            In practice, the process of maturing or re-becoming who we naturally are, can, for thought purposes, be seen in two phases as we unrepress our two major human instincts, namely, one for survival and the second for replication--or, as commonly named, for "selfishness" and "sexiness." As noted before, I have coined the term "selfing" to replace "selfishness" because of systematic negative judgments commonly attached to the adjective "selfish," especially in popular religions.

            In reality selfing and sexuality are often so intertwined and/or overlapping that clear-cut distinctions are difficult if not impossible to make. Still, in mind's eye--that is, for intellectual understanding, we may reasonably draw lines between the two, make comparisons, and even divide them in time.

            I view both of these powerful genetic instincts as the primary "substance" or "stuff (material)" for individual existence and therefore for personal maturity. Person-hood or wholeness may only be achieved when one comes to recognize, activate, and identify him or herself with these often indistinguishable inherited drives. For replication, the second strongest of our two primary elements, gender differences have evolved--that is, basically non-gendered "persons" have the added distinction of being either male or female, or various combinations of the two sexual genders.

            Overall maturity or wholeness involves re-embracing and literally be-coming a person who happens to be of the male or female variety--that is, an individual who has more or less masculine and/or feminine characteristics as initiated and determined by the presence of either an X and a Y for males or two X chromosomes for females in each or the billions of bodily cells comprising the substance of personhood. This latter difference providing our means of self-replication, being later to evolve in time and hence closer to potential conscious awareness, tends to claim more attention, but is in fact the weaker of our two major instincts and less relevant to mature personhood.

            Even so, this inherited element in all human beings, namely, male and female sexuality, is my subject here. Later I intend to explore more fully the nature of mature selfing, the more primary part of mature personhood; but here I focus on sexuality in general and how I understand mature sexuality in particular.


            In summary: My premise is that individual salvation--heaven in the here and now, is to be achieved through the challenging process of re-becoming our natural, em-bodied selves--that is, individual persons who are primarily "moved" by two major genetic drives, the first for self-survival ("selfing") and the second, the one under consideration here, for self-replication ("sexuality").

            I use the term "re-becoming" because I think we are all born whole and exist at first "being ourselves" or "who we are" as naturally created; but then, in the essential quest for acceptance into existing social structures, starting with mother and family, we soon begin to suppress or deny various aspects of inherited personhood which seem to be dangerous or unacceptable in the presence of "the powers that be" outside our natural selves.

            In time, as temporary suppression phases into established repression, we gradually cease (in varying degrees) being our natural selves as we try to become more and more like "they" seem to prefer, or, contrarily, to rebel and be just the opposite. But in either case, whether by the paths of compliance or rebellion (or various combinations of the two), we "stop being our natural selves." We, in effect, dis-embody our real selves (who we naturally are) in favor of assorted illusions of existence as a separated "self"--variously called "soul," "mind," "ego," or simply "I (me)," who just happens to be temporarily housed in this not-me body.

            Specifically, caught up in illusions of being dis-embodied "selves," we typically strive to either deny bodily (genetic) directives, even to sacrifice or kill natural instincts (for selfing and sexuality) to please our gods, or else on the path of rebellion, we may imagine grossly exaggerated bodily capacities and in effect try to become super-human gods ourselves.

            But in either case, we give up being our real, bodied selves--that is, being who we naturally are, through the psychic process of repression. We stop being whole as we divide ourselves into "I" and "it (body and bodily drives)." Although our initial motives may be healthily aimed at essential social acceptance during times of total dependence, the inevitable prices of self-division, of not being who we are via paths of dis-embodiment, must eventually be paid in terms of lost wholeness, happiness, and hence personal existence in heaven here. We may in reality become "good citizens" or "rejected criminals," but either way, come to exist (at least in mind's eye) as not being our natural selves.

            However the process of bodily exodus occurs, my premise is that we can only be saved as we re-become our natural, bodily selves--and this through reversing the earlier process of repressing natural selfing and sexuality, that is, un-repressing.





            Mature sexuality is consciously being as sexual as you naturally are--that is, as male and/or female as genes move you, and at the same time, artfully discrete in all social expressions.





-- "Consciously..." means with embraced and activated inherited sexual capacities in awareness, rather than repressed, denied, or ignored.


-- "being..." means existing with one's internal state of inherited and embraced sexual propensities separate from any external revelations and/or actions. While being always has natural modes of doing, the latter are never synonymous with the former--that is, being may take its most natural form, but not necessarily so. Being may be sublimated into many other apparently unrelated forms, or even concealed completely (kept "inside" without any "outside" revelation).


-- "as sexual..." means with this second more powerful component of inherited selfhood related to self-replication accepted and embraced in awareness (the other major instinct is for self-survival and personal satisfactions).


-- "as you naturally are..." Emphasis here is on "naturally," that is, to the fullest extent of genetic sexuality, including all natural drives, desires, urges, inclinations, and interests whether or not they are socially acceptable. What is given is awarely accepted. Bodily instincts related to X and Y chromosomes and their extended influences are not repressed and are allowed in full consciousness when one is sexually mature.


-- "discrete..." Discretion has two elements: knowledge and skill. Being discrete requires knowledge of existing social structures as well as of internal desires related to sexuality--that is, being as conscious of memes as of genes, as alert to laws, mores, social conventions, and embraced degrees of sexuality of others in relationships as one is to personal desires.

            Secondly, discretion requires skill in mediating internal desires harmoniously with external permissions--or, more commonly, with outside denials and suppressions, in an appropriate manner, that is, "being reasonable" about what one can and can't reveal and/or express while respecting the values of genes and memes.

            "Respecting..." involves positive appreciation without negative judgments, either of private desires which are socially unacceptable or of existing public structures and forces, including civil laws as well as existing repressions in other persons.

            In practice, such respect involves open awareness of sexually related genes and memes, without putting up or down on either and without blind compliance and/or rebellion against either (e.g. "giving in to" or "fighting" natural inclinations, or "pushing the envelope" against existing social conditions).

            While respecting both accordingly, one who is sexually mature may engage in reasonable efforts directed toward positive social reforms; but, and this is the critical issue in maturity: such efforts to change things are never used as an escape from embracing internal "wants" which are not socially acceptable--that is, trying to make society fit oneself rather than fitting oneself into society, or approaching social changes self-righteously.

            Sexually mature persons give far more attention to discrete self-actualization in the midst of existing social conditions than to "trying to change the world" more in accord with themselves--that is, to fitting in wisely with things-as-they-are rather than sacrificially trying to re-shape society or any other person.


-- "social expressions..." include all revelations and activations of sexually related inclinations in the presence of society at large or any other person in particular--that is, any public doing related to private being (sexual), including both words and deeds. Such "expressions" may include: looks (e.g., leering, ogling, "come hither" looks, etc.); language (sexy talk, including innuendos); moves (e.g., touching sensually); and, of course, acts (e.g., kissing, fondling, fucking, etc.).


-- "artfully..." means with skill and grace--that is, effected so smoothly that sexual deceptions go unrecognized and revelations are perceived easily, either one without threat and with potentially positive response, both in society and from any other person.





            In order to understand being sexual as essential in maturity, the distinction between being and acting needs to be clear. Being sexual--that is, with inherited sexual capacities embraced and consciously activated within one's skin, is one thing; but acting sexual in the world is quite another. Ideally, of course, the two are synonymous; being sexual is activated in acting sexual, and sexual acts give form and shape to one's sexual self.

            Or, from another perspective, we may usefully distinguish internal urges from external objects or arenas-of-activation. Sexual urges (instincts, desires, "wants") are natural and inherited, but where, how, and with whom they are expressed are another matter. Most commonly, external objects are other persons of one's opposite gender. If a man's sexual urges are satisfied via intercourse with a woman, then in this perspective, the woman is a sexual object. Or, less commonly, the object of a male's sexual urges may be an animal, a boy, a child, or another man.

            The point here is to distinguish instinctual desires from the various "arenas" in which they may be pointed and/or activated. In practice, of course, these distinctions are rarely recognized. Whatever or whomever one desires is usually perceived to be part and parcel of the desire itself--even to be the cause or power initiating the urge. Only in hindsight, or when one is "being objective," does this difference become evident.

            In ancient times, sexual urges were honored, with lessor importance or significance placed on the objects of instinctual desires. In the past, for example, a man might have a boy as the object of his sexual urges without public condemnation. Even sex with animals, children, or members of one's own gender was often acceptable (seen as "no big deal").

            But in modern times urges tend to be dishonored, if not condemned outright, and most attention is placed on the objects or places-of-activation. Only urges in the context of monogamous marriage, and then directed toward one's legal spouse only, are socially and religiously acceptable, with all others viewed as evil "lusts" and/or illegal desires. For example, homosexual desires or passions aimed at children, are systematically suppressed. Any sexual attention to a minor is automatically taken to be "molestation" or "abuse" and is soundly condemned.


            Summary: From olden times to the present, emphasis has shifted from most attention given to sexual urges and less importance placed on objects of desire, to the opposite case in which urges are now most often dishonored and focus of attention is given to objects or arenas-of-expression.

            I make this historical observation in order to further clarify the difference between sexual urges and sexual objects. Our current focus on objects, while denigrating and condemning urges, often leaves us, I conclude, blinded to t natural stages of sexual development and irrational about objects we have unwittingly projected natural powers onto.





            Mature sexuality is a way one is (or might be), a personal, existential state best described as omnisexual--not simply a thing one does, has, or gets (like "a piece of pussy"). Nor is mature sexuality captured in such limiting names as: heterosexual, homosexual, or autosexual.

            Sexuality is a major aspect of self, the second most significant part, but certainly not all one is. The primary part of being you is "being yourself," or selfing as distinguished from sexuality.

            Two principle aspects of mature sexuality are: inward and outward--that is, being sexual within one's skin and in the outside world, or alone and with others. The first aspect is inherent in genetics alone, that is, entirely directed and encompassed by innate urges and desires.

            The second aspect is equally determined by memes--that is, social and religious forces embodied in laws, morals, mores, and conventions, all of which exist outside one's own skin.

            Mature sexuality involves both and is never fulfilled without appropriate attention and response to each. Which comes first is relatively incidental. For instance, we typically begin life with only genetic directives; but soon memetic concerns begin to overwhelm inside urges, and we commonly learn more about what they think (want us to do) than about what we want for ourselves (genetic desires).

            Eventually though, before mature sexuality comes, one must become equally well-versed and attentive both to genetics and memetics, inside and outside sex. Since no one lives completely alone, fulfilled sexuality cannot but involve both aspects of this second most primal human capacity.





            Orgasm is indeed a culminating act of mature sexuality; but "having one" or "doing it" is far from all that comes with maturity in this arena of self. In fact in many instances one may be sexually mature and not engage in intercourse and/or reach a climax, or, one may "have one" and yet remain quite immature.

            Ideally, in perfect circumstances, being sexually mature and "having one" occur in sequence and harmony; but, as everyone knows, such ideals are far from common. Often doing something is used to avoid the greater challenges of being someone, including becoming sexually mature. One may also act sexual in quest of permission from others for being sexual. Even sexual seduction may be but a game played in avoidance of truly becoming sexual. When such, it may often be crude, rough, or even violent, with deep need for "giving in" as proof of "overcoming" the other.

            Mature sexuality and orgasm only occur in consort when the fullest of genetic activation is harmonized with the widest range of memetic constraints.





            Mature sexuality has two parts:1) Being sexual alone, that is, being naturally sexual apart from social circumstances, "in-one's skin," we might say, away from other persons and social responsibilities; and 2) Public sexuality; that is, being responsibly sexual in society.

            My overall premise is that both are to be respected and honored, since we are in fact both a-lone-ones and, at the same time, a-part-of one another--that is, both individuals and citizens at the same time. This twofold way-of-being sexual is in contrast with the familiar stance of using repression of the first (private sexuality) as a means of fitting into society better, or rebelling against social responsibilities in favor of instinctual sex alone.

            My speculation is that human capacities have evolved far enough now that we may be naturally sexual and socially responsible at the same time, indeed, that we can never become our fuller selves (be sexually mature) until we embrace this capacity for both/and rather than either/or.





            The process of unrepression may be metaphored in Jesus' statement as recorded in the bible: "Unless you become as a little child you can in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven." I interpret this to mean: natural, spontaneous, uninhibited, and innocent (without shame or judgment). Also I note that he said "as a little child..."--that is, like, but not the same as. I understand this to mean what Tillich described as "sophisticated innocence"--like a child's naive innocence, only now with sophistication or wider knowledge of the outside world.

            I take this process of becoming again "as a little child" to be what I see as "unrepression" or working back through repressions acquired in the process of social adaptation and re-embracing the self we all once were--only now with wider knowledge of how the world and society actually are beyond our own skins.

            I see this process in two major parts: First, Internal, and then, External.





            In reverse order of how typical repressions tend to occur, the latter being less denied and therefore more easily subject to consciousness, I find the first likely arena for beginning the much longer process to be:


1. Facing conscience


            As noted, in contrast with popular understanding of conscience as the innate voice of God or a natural "moral compass," I see it as the internalized voice of local mores--that is, values acquired first from parents and then from local religion and community of which they are a part.

            In this perspective I observe that a first order of business in beginning to unrepress one's larger self may well be facing conscience--that is, becoming more fully conscious of ingrained (acquired by teaching or "osmosis" from parents and community) directives which have previously been internalized without self-examination as though they were indeed sacred and universal.

            In practice, once a set of judgments about right and wrong have been uncritically "taken in," they continue to silently influence if not direct all behavior to which they have been applied, through the forces of shame and guilt ("Step on a crack, break your mother's back"). Until sub-conscious directives have been brought into the fuller light of consciousness and re-examined in light of actual experience one cannot but remain "unthinkingly" under their domination.

            Certainly bringing dark directives into fuller awareness and examining them in mind's eye will not make them go away, but clearer seeing may open the door to further unrepression of even darker habits standing in the path of "becoming again as a little child."


2. Unrepressing mind.


            Slightly below conscience lies the wider domain of personal thinking--that is, using one's own mind to examine perceptions and reach personal conclusions, rather than blindly absorbing thoughts of others and then living by them as though they were one's own. In colloquial language this means daring to begin "thinking for yourself," to "be reasonable" in light of personal experience, to "make sense of things" as they appear to you as an individual.

            I postulate that mental repression typically begins when a child starts to "mind his mother" rather than "making up his own mind" about behavior in the world. I speculate that a literal translation of this familiar directive would be more accurate, that is, "give your mind to your mother (or parent)" in those arenas where her will differs from your own. Probably such "behaving yourself" in accord with her desires is first done with awareness of self-denial; but all too soon the habit may become ingrained--that is, self thinking suppressed for long easily turns into mental repression in which one actually loses conscious contact with his own natural mental processes.

            However thought-repression comes about, I see un-repression of mind to typically begin with: 1) Acknowledging more of one's actual perceptions--that is, "seeing" more clearly what one actually perceives with his five senses in the world. For example, after repression one knows what others "see (or say they do)" and what he "should see" if he wants to remain accepted by them; but this beginning of unrepressing mind starts with "this is what I see..."

            2) Next comes making clean personal images from the substance of one's own perceptions--that is, daring to form mental pictures which more clearly give shape to what is privately perceived.

            3) Then, following the course of natural thinking, one begins to decode pictures into concepts--that is, to translate images into ideas which can be held more easily in mind space. This is in contrast with simply accepting what "they" see/think, taking "their" ideas as one's own, rather than "thinking for yourself," making one's own sense of things, drawing one's own conclusions, "adding up" actual experiences, "being reasonable" in accord with one's own knowledge.

            Next, after expanding personal thinking about present tense experience, a second major phase of unrepressing mind involves resurrecting "forgotten" or "repressed" memories about past experiences. Typically, difficult experiences in early life are "pushed out of mind" when we "try not to think about" problematic events. In time such conscious denials (refusing to think about it) tend to become truly unconscious ("forgotten"), yet to remain active in one's deeper mind, wielding significant powers over present life.

            Consequently, "opening one's mind" to past experiences which have been repressed from awareness to ease coping with immediate situations now becomes a second major part of mental unrepression.

            Finally, relearning to "think for yourself"--based on openness to present and past personal experiences, all this an internal process, culminates in actually deciding what to do with one's life in the outside world with other people--that is, moving past "shoulds and oughts," plus the desires of others, and on to the "wills and won'ts" of oneself. This latter part of unrepressing thinking may accurately be phrased with the deceptively simple notion of "making up your own mind" about how to live in the world.



3) Unrepressing emotions.


            Emotions are the product of "lower brain" activity, below the level of cortex or "reasonable thinking." Consequently, emotional repressions tend to be deeper than mind denials and may therefore be more challenging in the process of unrepressing one's larger self. Nevertheless, re-establishing conscious contact with "feelings" is a third phase of personal unrepression. Because males are typically more emotionally repressed than females, this Step Three often proves to be especially challenging for us with external genitals.

            But for both genders many natural emotions (such as, anger and aggression, especially for females) become repressed from awareness in the activities of daily life. To whatever degree this has occurred--that is, to the extent that one lives "on top of feelings" rather than "with them," re-learning to feel natural emotions in awareness becomes an essential phase of personal unrepression.



4) Acknowledging instincts.


            Below the levels of logic and feelings, mind and emotions, lies the even darker realm of genetic instincts--that is, primal, en-gened, directives which evolved long before consciousness was even possible. But in the process of unrepression and re-becoming our larger selves ("as little children") these too must be allowed into awareness.

            As is well known, major instincts exist in two overlapping arenas: 1) blind urges for self survival ("staying alive"), and 2) equally dark directives for self replication ("making babies"). I summarize these pre-conscious urges with the terms: selfing and sexuality. We are, I conclude, most powerfully moved, even when all conscious thinking is to the contrary, to survive and enhance life as ourselves ("be selfing"), and then to make more of ourselves ("be sexual"). Awareness of powerful instincts is primarily transmitted to consciousness via the door of desire--that is, "wants," passions ("lusts"), and personal interests.

            Consequently, phase four of unrepression involves re-awakening ourselves to what we all once knew, namely, to "want what we want when we want it"--as adults sometimes describe this natural state of childhood before repressions sets in.

            In practice I find unrepressing these two major instincts to be in reverse order of how they have evolved over time--that is, with survival instincts ("selfing") coming before and being stronger than reproductive drives ("sexuality"). It seems that our deeper and most powerful repressions come with the first of these instincts. I have coined the term selfing because we as yet have no commonly accepted reference to this drive other than selfishness--which, as everyone knows, is almost universally seen as "bad." Before these early-acquired judgments, I think these pre-sexual instincts for "taking care of" and "being ourselves" are at the heart of what is most naturally human.

            Later, especially with emerging puberty, instincts for replication ("being sexual") come to the fore and begin to move us with equally dark powers. Perhaps it is because these drives come later and are therefore closer to consciousness that we tend to face them first. But for whatever reason, I find that unrepressing natural sexual desires often precedes facing even darker and more powerful instincts for "being ourselves"--or what I call selfing.





            Effective internal unrepression--that is, facing and embracing previously denied private ("inside") aspects of oneself naturally leads to equally important external unrepression. I see this part of maturing in three major arenas:



1. Acknowledging worldly connections.


            First, one begins to recognize previously unseen connections between oneself and the outside world. While deeply repressed inwardly, one may imagine himself to end at the borders of skin, that is, to view oneself as essentially alone, isolated, even cut off from other people and the world at large. Feelings of loneliness, for example, are familiar results of this erroneous self conception.

            But as inward unrepression allows a clearer and more sensitive response to the outside world, one comes to see the error of living as though he were isolated or "not a part of this world." Just as inward unrepression involved becoming embodied--that is, exiting the illusion of being a separable soul, self, or ego only residing in "his" body, and coming to exist as an embodied one, so external unrepression begins with re-becoming "en-worlded"--that is, no longer "a stranger here, just traveling through," but a connected part of the larger world as revealed to one's senses.

            With skin as both real and metaphorical, it is recognized as but a permeable conduit which allows a functional inter/outerflow of products from "out there" and "in here"--e.g., air, food, and sun rays coming in, and sweat, urine, and excrement going out.

            And as with these physical movements between skin, orifices, and the elements of the outside world, so with intangible movements between inside nerve endings (sense receptors) and perceptions of the outside world. "Messages," as it were, from outside perceptions (e.g., sights, sounds, smells), impinge on inside receptors eliciting emotional and mental responses. At the same time, internal desires and intents shaped into words and actions give form and structure to outside creations.

            Ever expanding inside unrepressions result in enlarged capacities for sensing internal emotions, memories, and knowledge, as well as elements and aspects of the outside world. That is, internal unrepression allows for more sensitive reception and response to outside stimuli, both physical (more sights, sounds, etc.), emotional, and mental. One comes to perceive, feel, and think more clearly, honestly, and in greater detail about the world beyond his own skin.

            Both literally and metaphorically, one comes to be more "in touch" with the physical world. Such "in touch-ness" allows and leads to greater presence as a responding and participating part of the larger world. One, in effect, "shows up" more fully in each situation of contact with whatever he perceives.

            Overall, with external unrepression one moves from the illusion of aloneness as a dis-embodied, ethereal, cut-off entity, into the reality of "showing up" physically, emotionally, and mentally as a part of the universe--that is, "at home" here, wherever he happens to be.

            No longer does he flee or try to escape from the world, as though it were a bad or evil place; nor does he simply shift from worshiping a heavenly god to making an earthly goddess of nature itself--that is, becoming a worshiper of nature. Instead, recognizing his essential connection with the natural world beyond his skin, he comes to exist everywhere in a worshipful manner, so long as breathing allows him to be both in and of this lovely earth.



2. Recognizing social connections.


            External unrepression leads not only to seeing and accepting a-part-of-ness with the material world, but with the social and cultural worlds also--that is, with other persons and the socio/religio/cultural worlds which give civilization its wonderfully diverse shapes and forms.

            Before, while internal repression kept alive illusions of being an isolated and alone entity, with other people and the structures of society as entirely separate, either as threatening enemies or potential saviors, the peopled world may indeed have seemed like a dangerous place. But as external unrepression begins, enlarging vision allows one to also see his a-part-of-ness with whatever social world he happens to exist in the midst of.

            For example, as outside blindness phases into open looking, one comes to see that he is truly a-part-of his ethnic group, his family, his community, his state, his national region, his nation, and indeed, civilization at large. As it were, he "joins the human race," becoming a citizen, not only of his country of birth, but also of the world.

            With human citizenship, that is, existing as a-part-of the physical and social worlds around him, he also comes to recognize the immense intricacies of all human connections, and the innate challenges in being both a-lone-one and a-part-of at the same time. The mystery of the logical paradox of being both separated by skin and selfhood, while also connected by blood and social situations, is embraced with awe.

            As one moves beyond illusions of "the world is a bad place" and "people are out to get you (or possibly save you)," and into the recognition of "the good earth" and all others as fellow human beings existing in varying degrees of personal repression, he also comes to recognize the necessity of social rules, laws, and structures for protecting individual rights among those yet dictated by instincts and/or consequences of repression alone.

            Then, as a-part-of the social as well as physical world, such an externally unrepressed person becomes socially responsible--that is, assumes a realistic stance in representing his own perspectives in civil and religious structures where he finds himself.

            At the same time, while acknowledging actual connections with other persons, one gives up the easy illusion of blaming them for his own difficulties. He becomes responsible, not only for his place and rights as a world citizen, but also--and often with greater challenge, for himself and his own happiness.



3. Coming to love.


            Finally, as degrees of internal and external repression phase into fuller acceptance of who one is, both as an individual in the physical world and as a responsible member of the human race, the door to love is opened.

            This ultimate state of human existence which is but an impossible dream so long as one is caught up in degrees of repression and denial of himself and his true place in the world, finally becomes a daily option. As degrees of unrepression increase, so, for the first time, does the possibility of truly loving oneself. Then, with gradual escalation of self love, increasing fulfillment allows for overflow to others as well as self--that is, keeping the Golden Rule finally becomes possible.

            Internal and external unrepression--that is, truly becoming oneself, opens the door to loving oneself. Then, and only then, does loving others as one loves himself initiate entrance to the kingdom of heaven on earth.





-- Unrepression of all natural urges, most of which are socially unacceptable--that is, contrary to memetic constraints.


-- Overcoming guilt--or, literally, moving beyond acquired shame commonly associated with sex in general and most forms of its natural expressions, both in private and public.

            This phase begins with moving beyond bodily shame itself--that is, shame about "being caught naked," especially of having sexually related parts seen by others. Until guilt about being embodied is past, deeper shames associated with being sexual will all lie yet ahead.


-- Uncondemning sex itself. In civilization, including necessary attempts to cope with powerful sexual urges in social contexts, religion has often been called into support of civil laws--that is, sex becomes a moral as well as legal issue with eternal as well as immediate consequences. In all but the most carefully confined circumstances approved by church and state, e.g., monogamous, heterosexual marriage, with sex primarily for replication (in "missionary position"), sex is associated with being bad.

            Prevailing and powerful anti-sexual memes are so rampant in both religion and society that even the words sex and dirty tend to become synonyms in one's deeper mind, or sex and sin for religious folk. Conscious logical thinking to the contrary does little to disassociate deep connections between sex and bad--with resulting feelings of guilt and shame ("This feel so good, it must be sinful!").

            Point: But as deeply as such associations may exist, sexual maturity becomes impossible until one is successful in moving beyond this typical social identification--that is, unrepressing his or her self back to earlier stages of life before sex got dirty, if not evil.


-- Daring to fantasize freely--that is, to think openly about whatever sexually images may arise in conscious mind (actually unrepressing mind as well as body). This is but the 3rd and 4th stages of the Creative Process of all natural experience, in which perceptions and feelings are given form in images which are then de-coded into conceptions. A good, healthy imagination allows a wide variety of relatively unlimited sexually related images to take playful form in worded dances on the stages of one's conscious mind.

            A popular memetic illusion which works temporarily says: "If you don't think about it, you won't do it," and certainly ruling thoughts from mind either curtails action or else leaves one dangerously "acting out" without being sensible at the same time. In either case, sexual maturity requires moving past all such psychic tricks aimed at enforcing established repression.


-- Past rebellion. In desperate attempts to evade the powerful constraints placed on sexuality by church and state, many take the path of rebellion rather than compliance. "Bet'cha can't stop me," they learn to say in effect, as they seek to be sexual in spite of outside suppression.

            Although such rebellious efforts in "acting out" sexually may provide temporary excursions on the path of sexual maturity, they are destined to final failure because whether one is engaged in compliance or rebellion, he is still being determined by memes rather than embracing both aspects of his own sexuality (alone and with).

            Sexual rebellion is primarily useful in becoming more conscious of repressed genetic urges, but is often counter-productive when it places one in conflict with outside forces, including limitations present in even the most intimate of relationships. Also, it tends to result in self-righteous states of "I'm right; you're wrong," relational isolation in society (even in a legitimate marriage), or even lost in Solipsism.


-- Past resentment. Compliance and/or rebellion may be hard enough to move past, but dark resentment or repressed anger may be even more hidden and require entrance into the light of consciousness. Early directives from parents which invite compliance but may have also been countered with rebellion are often accompanied by feelings of resentment toward others for "not loving me as I am"--that is, as though "they are rejecting me."

            Later the same resentment may be projected onto church and society for their continuing suppression of natural sexuality--as though "they are out to get me" for "just being myself." Such dark resentment and/or suppressed anger cannot but cloak the essential place of memes in all societal living--that is, the absolute necessity of controlling primal urges (for both selfing and sexuality) which may undercut essential structures of living together in civilized groups. Perhaps social constraints have been, and often remain, overly suppressive; but excessive restraint calls for attempted moderation, not condemnation of memes themselves.

            Point: Harboring resentment/anger at society and religion for their roles in outward suppression dims one's vision for appreciation of their essential values. Until one moves past negative feelings about either, he or she will be partially blinded in clarity of view as required for appropriate responses to both.





            In its purest and most natural form--that is, most unrepressed, male interest in females is focused on estrus, readiness to conceive. Best clues to this condition, which is a man's only door to personal immortality, are signed by a ripe and ready, reddened by blood and excitement, pulsating and smelling of life itself, cunt.

            Other natural and more distantly related curiosities about female bodies, such as, figure and facial beauty; full breasts; rounded hips and plump buttocks, all pale in interest with the prospect of genital exposure and examination.

            These levels of genetic interest, I speculate, account for the fact that female's willingness to present and expose their bodies is in reverse order, with figure and face most readily presented, followed by breasts and cleavage, hidden hips and ass exaggerated by clothing, and culmination in greatest hiding of cunt itself--that is, protecting and concealing most the greatest source of natural male interest.

            These factors may account for this hierarchy in female willingness to expose bodily parts: 1) Deepest shame due to personal repression of primal awareness of genital beauty and power; 2) Hiding-for-power in male manipulation that which is most genetically attractive to males (best of all proverbial "carrots" to command male attention); 3) Artful use of pretended resistence to male advances in service of assuring highest degrees of male arousal and hence best chances of successful intercourse culminating in pregnancy; 4) Maintaining male attraction when not in, or after, times of true estrus.

            Consequently, in the process of unrepression of a typical male with either a direct background in popular religion or in a society strongly influenced by same, levels of renewed sexual awareness of urges, inclinations, and desires are apt to include these specific interests, most commonly in this order:


1) Playing with oneself--that is, touching and stroking genitals in quest of excitement inherent in stimulating nerve endings there--beginning with penis and testicles, but extending to anal pleasures which are even more primal than genital delights.


2) Scoping "pretty girls," beginning with attraction to figure, face, and legs, which are safest to acknowledge in current society.


3) Wanting to view and touch female bodies, beginning with soft skin anywhere, but with special attraction to breasts, ass, and pussy.


4) Urges to fuck--that is, to move from self-stimulation (masturbation) to more genetically natural forms of reaching orgasm, namely, female penetration. At this stage, pussy is the only goal; other qualities of a female besides an available vagina are relatively unimportant in comparison with blind drives to "get some." Even female rape or bestiality may be desirable at this early stage of sexual discrimination.


5) Somewhere about this time same-sex interests, typically viewed initially as "repressed homosexuality," come into awareness; but these interests are less related to desires for anal intercourse than for freedom to be openly sexual without evoking female threats, including comparing anatomy, openly sexual conversation, and potential for male affirmation so often lacking in family settings where incest taboos and Oedipus Complexes are yet operative.


6) With increasing unrepression, gene eye attractions move downward--that is, with escalated honesty, natural male curiosity about more relevant clues to estrus shifts from beauty of figure and face to condition of bodily parts more directly related to successful conception and pregnancy, namely, rounded hips (indicative of good womb size) and full ass (source of nutrients for embryos)--and, of course, mounting concern for full breasts (for good nursing potential).


7) Escalated discrimination both in attractions and pragmatic responses. Primal genetic wisdom about most desirable females begins to emerge in consciousness and take precedence over indiscriminate attractions and blind reactions to "anything with a vagina." Attention finally begins to culminate in cunt--that is, vulva, vagina, and womb entrance as best clues to estrus (as noted before).


8) Lastly, with generalized sexual desires held in awareness, including regular attention to scoping, male discretion is freed to expand and include responsible attention to social circumstances, prohibitions, and penalties, as well as sharper discernment about actual female sexuality and desires--as distinguished from the familiar female perversion of sex-for-power only.





            Male maturity requires facing false (socially instilled) guilt about natural urges, and becoming consciously responsible for equally natural greater interests in "having sex."

            While males on the path toward maturity must move past socially and religiously acquired guilt about sexual instincts, females might acquire at least a bit of shame about false assumptions of innate virtue--that is, self-righteousness about their greater concerns with security than with sex itself.


            Homework is likely to include:


--Learning pragmatic deception versus making a virtue of verbal honesty only.


--Learning to do consciously what females already know how to do intuitively without consciousness (as in Sophia's Wisdom)--that is, how to artfully fool others without loss of self in process.


--Maturity in relationships is a greater challenge for males because of self identification with conscious thinking (ideas) and "sense," word as bond, versus "feelings" or intuition and inherited body knowledge, unhindered by bond-with-words or conscious virtues. Females have less trouble being pragmatic with words and ideas ("facts" and "being reasonable")--that is, using words and rationalizing desires in service of achieving personal goals, in this case, wielding power with males.

            Males must overcome or let go of illusions of virtue in "telling the truth," and "making sense." We need practice in:


            1. Flexibility with facts; using words as freely as most females and servants can already do--that is, learn how to knowingly lie to females, artfully "with a straight face," as they may already be able to do unconsciously).


            2. Concealing natural passions (desires, interests) as feasible, in favor of functional relationships, e.g., desires to look, touch, and speak sexually.


            3. Holding knowledge versus telling, explaining, trying to make others see what we see, in quest of acceptance and/or affirmation from without, e.g., listening to female feelings versus hearing words only, as in, trying to correct their factual errors, or to "make them see" or be reasonable.





            Female maturity requires sexual honesty as well as conscious awareness in many other arenas. Specifically this will typically involve:


            1. Honesty about lessor desires for overt sex and more interest in "being close," both emotionally and physically, than in "doing it" or even "having one."


            2. Honesty about periodic stud appeal, even when more primary concerns are about possessing a "good husband"--that is, that women are not innately "virtuous" as contrasted with "naturally promiscuous" men.


            Also, females as well as males typically need to get sexuality and personhood into perspective--that is, to recognize that personhood is more primal than gender, and to give appropriate attention to "becoming ourselves" as persons, past trying to be male and/or female alone.

            For females this will involve recognition of natural superiority as well as deep-seated killerness capacities--that is, an innate possibility of guiltless destruction in pursuit of other needs, such as, security.


            Also, males need to recognize natural female superiority and let go of illusions of Kingship or "betterness," so as to better learn arts of successful survival in the presence of genetically superior creatures (persons of the opposite sex).





            In practice, omnisexuality is the mode of sexual maturity. As such, omnisexuality is an embraced combination of the previous seven stages, rather than a separate stage within itself. To be sexually mature is to be open to experiencing pleasures focused in either or all of the previous stages--that is, oral, anal, auto, etc.. This overall state of openness to sexual pleasures which were focused in early stages on one or more levels (e.g., auto, homo, or hetero) here becomes diffused into a general mode of living.

            As such, omnisexuality itself (being sexually mature) grades from mild pleasures focused in single senses, e.g., tasting sweets, seeing brilliant colors, hearing music, etc., all the way to culminating orgastic-type pleasures in which one experiences temporary self-transcendence. The overall state is one of general well-being, satisfaction-in-living, or personal happiness; but at any point in time, omnisexuality itself grades from lessor to greater degrees of satisfaction, beginning with favorable acceptance of life-as-it-is ("Everything is okay") extending to high degrees of ecstatic happiness ("It doesn't get any better than this").

            But unlike the degrees of quasi-well-being found in religious-type experiences based on sexual repression and psychological identification with one's gods, with personal maturity one consciously recognizes the sexual roots of pleasurable experiences, grading from oral satisfactions to sexual orgasms--that is, that inherited instincts for self-survival/replication lie at the heart of all human pleasures. Even when sublimation is chosen as a means of expression for pragmatic social reasons, still a sexually mature person delights in private knowledge of personal omnisexuality.

            In colloquial language, "Everything is sexy," for a mature person, even when pretending otherwise is feasible in sexually repressive societies or with sexually repressed persons. Private "lusting" may be concealed in public for practical reasons, but the delights of "feeling sexy" or "turned on" are regularly in the awareness of one in this latter stage of sexual maturity. Energies naturally generated by replication instincts and previously perverted into social and self denials now become available for conscious direction, either into overtly sexual expressions when feasible, or else consciously sublimated into more socially acceptable forms.




            In real life the stages or phases in sexual maturity are relatively indistinguishable while one is engaged in the practices of either one. Only in hindsight, or academically, can they be neatly separated as I have done here on paper. While in the process of maturing, the phases are more like stepping stones over which one moves freely while becoming his or her fuller self.

            Nor are they necessarily chronological in real life--that is, one following the other as measured in time. Generally speaking, pleasures do tend to begin with stage 1 in earliest life, then phase into 2 and 3, followed by 4, 5, 6 and so on--when not interrupted by repressions made in quest of social acceptance; but this is an ideal scenario, which rarely if ever seems to occur in actual living. Repression is so rampant that more common experience involves jumping about, skipping one phase only to come back to it later, or else to deny certain ones completely.

            When one does not freely move from one to another, letting go of lessor pleasures on the exciting path to ever greater degrees of self-satisfaction, then one becomes, as it were, "fixated" or trapped with the necessity of continually trying to recreate circumstances which surrounded an original pleasure.

            For example, one trapped at Oral Stage 1 pleasures may later on blindly eat, smoke, and try to kiss in order to stimulate nerve endings in lips, tongue, and mouth in an unconscious attempt to recreate circumstances originally surrounding pleasures associated with nursing; or, if male, one may become fixated on female breasts which were present when oral delights were first hand.

            Or, if one becomes fixated at the level of anal pleasures first experienced in personal bowel movements and "cleaning" contacts (anal touching) by care givers (mothers and nursemaids), and/or other anal touching associated with overcoming constipation (e.g., enemas, suppositories, etc.), then he or she is apt to do two things: 1) Repress memories of natural anal pleasure and project judgments of shit to smell bad, be dirty, untouchable, shameful and to be avoided.

            2) To unconsciously create constipation with two motives: first, with minor degrees--that is, to temporarily withhold feces in order to create larger turds and hence find greater anal stimulation and pleasure in shitting; and secondly, if female attention, including anal touching was associated with overcoming constipation in childhood, then one may later constipate himself as a way of recreating circumstances originally surrounding anal pleasures, or else desire homosexual contacts in which anal contact may be acceptable.

            With focus on anal intercourse, or in case of homosexual experience, one may then find greater stimulation in anal contact (either projected, as in, wanting to touch and/or penetrate a female's anus, or first hand in wanting females to touch or "play with" one's own anus (as was first experienced in childhood).

            With fixation on Genital Stage 3, one may blindly seek to recreate circumstances which surrounded earlier pleasure focused at this stage of natural development, such as, having strong desires to "play with oneself (touch genitals)," or, when repressed and projected, to strongly want to touch the genitals of others or be touched by others.

            And so with Stage 4 Auto eroticism, focusing on greater pleasures associated with masturbation than on sexual intercourse.


            Generalized or non-specific versions of these fixations are seen in such modes of behavior as: clinging to the past rather than living in the present, secretly wanting to "be taken care of," rather than moving on to greater satisfactions potentially present in self-tending. Such clinging may be acted out in trying to "go home again," adoration of parents, attachments to mementoes and/or images (e.g., pictures) of bygone days, fixing up the "old home place," or else may be cloaked in efforts to re-create circumstances when the pleasures of earlier stages of being sexual were actually experienced.

            Or, strong wishes to "be taken care of" as reflected in overt dependencies, such as, passive relationships, acting childish or "dumb," falling in love with "care-taker types," marrying mother replacements, "refusing to grow up" and consequently expecting to "be taken care of" by others, or general irresponsibility (not paying taxes, making and saving money, voting, etc.) may all be unconscious attempts to recreate circumstances of early life when one did indeed experience real pleasure while being outwardly dependent.





            To the extent that one succeeds in unrepressing natural desires and is consequently open to becoming omni-sexual, then commonly accepted opposition between instincts and virtues is left behind. "Being good," for example, is no longer at war with "lusts of the flesh." "Feeling sexy" is no longer cause for shame or guilt.

            Whereas ecstasy for religious persons is often thought to only be possible through "mortification of the flesh," including total suppression and denial of sexual desires, for sexually mature persons expanded excitement, even a sense of personal transcendence, becomes possible in ordinary human experiences, such as sexual orgasm.

            While under the dictates of repression, "worshiping God," for example, is conceived as a Sunday-type activity mostly to be experienced in religious rituals; but with unrepression and omnisexuality, experiencing "worth-ship (the literal meaning of worship)" becomes a regular event, both with others and alone in nature.





            In traditional religion which glorifies chastity and unwittingly makes a virtue of sexual repression, sacred and sexy are opposites. Sacredness is one thing; sexiness is quite another. The first is related to "purity" and "innocence," the second to "dirtiness" and "shame."

            A "good" Christian, for example, could hardly imagine Jesus as being gay with his disciples or fooling around with Mary Magdalene. Perish the thought! Reason: Viewed as the Son of God, born of a virgin and hence "pure" and "innocent" from conception onward, he is commonly assumed to be non-sexual himself--in keeping with the ideal of sacredness as opposed to sexiness.

            But with sexual maturity these familiar opposites are united. Omnisexuality and sacredness go hand in hand. To become one's fullest self is to be naturally sexual in the world as it is and hence to experience sacredness in every aspect of the natural world--in physical matter and with all human beings.

            In this uncommon perspective where the division between sexiness and sacredness is healed, it is equally accurate to say that for a mature person, "Everything is sacred," and/or, "Everything is sexy"--that is, a mature individual who encounters reality as a whole person knows sacredness in the presence of all things and is, at the same time, deeply sexual in each encounter. Or, on the other hand, when the nouns are taken literally, it becomes equally accurate to say, "Nothing (no-thing) is sacred," and/or, "Nothing (no-object) is sexy."

            Not that all sexual desires are acted out irresponsibly in society, but that omnisexuality is commonly experienced everywhere, with all things and persons. Consequently, each such meeting is also an encounter with the holy--that is, known as sacred when one is wholly present.

            To use a colloquial term without its implied objectivity, one who becomes whole and hence sexually mature, is "turned on" in all potentially pleasurable circumstances--that is, exists in a state of relative excitement wherever he or she is. Whereas sexually repressed persons who have unwittingly projected their own unembraced powers "out there" are only "turned on" by the objects they imagine to have powers over them, mature persons are "turned on" with whatever or whomever surrounds them.

            The critical point of difference is implied in the words by and with. After repression/projection one imagines himself to be "turned on" or made-to-be pleasured (even excited) by the objects, places, or persons onto which he has blindly projected repressed personal powers. But with maturity (only reached via unrepression), a whole person is "turned on" with the world outside his skin--that is, he experiences "on-ness" by his own faith required for being fully present in each moment, rather than imagining himself to be empowered by some outside source (e.g., a sunset, mountain stream, church service, god, or woman's body).

            With inner wholeness, after divisions-in-self have been healed through the process of un-repression, powers actually inherent in being oneself--that is, generated in perceiving, feeling, and thinking (being selfing and sexual), are personally embraced. Then, quite naturally, such a healed (wholed or holy) person experiences pleasures of "on-ness" wherever he is, with whomever happens to be present. It or they are no longer presumed to "do it to him" (e.g., "turn him on") as though power for pleasure must come from outside oneself; rather he dares to experience, even risk, being on himself with what or whomever.


            In essence a sexually mature person wills to be fully present and hence to experience holiness inherent in whole-ness. He in effect dares to do/be so by his own faith/courage. Nothing "makes" him excited or knowledgeable of sacredness; this exalted state of transcendence in the midst of immanence (knowing holiness) is a natural consequence of fuller degrees of being present as oneself.

            I have chosen the verb will ("wills to be present") to imply something more than simply deciding or choosing (as in, "decides to be present," or, "chooses to do so and so"). Willing, as I intend this verb, represents an act of a whole person, a commitment of all that one is, as distinguished from merely deciding or choosing to do something.

            Choices or decisions, as the words are commonly used, may be made in one's conscious mind only, without bodily or unconscious concurrence. For example, one may "decide to lose weight (or to exercise more)" as a sensible, conscious decision, while at the same time being unconsciously trapped in a pattern of habitual eating or relative inactivity. When so, one's conscious choice, not backed by bodily resolution, may be shaky or short-lived.

            We might also say that such "decisions" are made "in one's head" but not "in one's heart," implying the inner division behind or below such conscious choices. To think beyond this all-too-familiar human situation, I choose to resurrect the older term willing to represent whole-person commitments as distinguished from repressed-persons decisions--which are typically "made in the head" only and are often at best "half-hearted," if indeed any "heart" is involved.

            My point in attempting to draw these verbal distinctions not made in the dictionary is to note that willing to be present as a sexually mature person is much more than simply deciding or choosing to do so. Rather it is a matter of whole-hearted commitment, an option unavailable for one who remains sexually repressed and therefore divided within. Only through the process of un-repression--that is, returning again to "be as a little child," except now with vastly more knowledge and experience, may one truly will to be fully present and hence to experience sacredness and sexiness synonymously.

            Otherwise, the familiar opposites, as in traditional religions, are one's only predictable option.





            Willing wholeness, which includes omnisexuality, is a natural result of successful unrepression, not a matter of conscious choice for one who remains repressed. Or, stated in degrees, as we all seem to live, only to the extent that one succeeds in re-establishing inner wholeness (healing the split caused by repression) does sexual maturity become possible.

The more repressed one remains, the less possible is being omnisexual; the less repressed one becomes, the more completely he or she may experience natural omnisexuality.

            Obviously conscious choice is an essential element in confronting and risking un-repression. If one does not decide to seek inner wholeness the odds of un-repression must be near zero. But the point here is simply to note that whole-hearted willing, which begins with conscious choosing, is a consequences or result or re-becoming "as a little child," rather than merely "thinking about it," "deciding to seek it," or "wishing it were so."





            Following repression of natural sexuality, one is inevitably left in a state of inner conflict between suppressed replication urges and conscious attempts to measure up to socio/religious ideals. Since repression of instincts only hides desires from awareness rather than actually making them go away, these now dark passions continue to operate below levels of conscious thought, often in exaggerated forms.

            Then, whenever natural replication urges "rear their ugly head," often at the most inopportune times and places with the least appropriate persons, a repressed individual has no choice but to either "give in" to socially dangerous forms of expression, or to expend psychic energies in reinforcing older repressions while consciously clinging to virtuous self images.

            Unconscious passions ("lusts") engened in support of ancient genes for self-replication are consequently at war with newly acquired, non-sexual passions for consciously chosen ideals (e.g., "being a good person" as socially and/or religiously defined). But since natural desires have previously been judged to be "bad (in service of repression)," any sign of their re-appearance in awareness places one in a serious moral dilemma. If he or she "gives in," either by allowing these "bad" urges in awareness, or, God forbid, by acting them out in any way, then contrary passions for consciously chosen ideals (e.g., being a "good Christian") are defeated or lost.

            Honoring socio/religious passions calls for continual disrespect and repression of inherited passions, and any allowance of sexual passions means undermining, even defeating, contrary conscious ideals.

            In other words, natural passions are perceived as enemies of chosen passions. If one succeeds, the other fails. To "live up" to acquired ideals is to continually "put down" on evil desires; and, to "give in" to bad lusts is to "fall out" of an ideal of goodness.


            I summarize this well known inner conflict between sexual and religious passions, where each is a mortal enemy of the other, only to clarify the nature of omnisexuality. The bottom line is that successful unrepression ends this familiar war between apparently mutually incompatible passions.

            With omnisexuality, judgments of passion, where one type is seen as "good" and the other "bad," are abandoned. Each is recognized, accepted, and respected as valid and appropriate in its own way. Natural lusts are, following unrepression, honored as Mother Nature's gift to her creatures for supporting physical life and its replication. At the same time, passions for socio/religious ideals are also respected as civilization's best evolved plan for maintaining civil structures necessary for life together.

            Consequently, recognition of the valid place for each type of passion in overall human well-being for individuals in community leads to a practical marriage between these two former enemies. Then, instead of being at war with each other, as inevitably results from repression and judgment, where personal energies are necessarily expended in daily battles, both types of passion are, in effect, wedded into a union aimed at the best interests of each.

            Vast amounts of psychic energies previously expended in keeping sexual passions repressed and religious-type passions supported at the expense or replication urges now become available for facing the challenges of making a successful marriage of the two. Instead of, in effect, wasting precious energy in needless inward fighting, a sexually mature person may use embraced consciousness (which was perverted in the process of repression) for making realistic decisions respecting both.

            When, for example, natural passions may be expressed openly without social danger, then overt sexual activity may be pursued; but when pragmatically feasible, the same passions may be consciously sublimated into socially acceptable forms. At the same time, social ideals may also be passionately pursued as essential for maintaining circumstances conducive to personal satisfactions. Once wedded, energies generated by both types of passion may cooperatively be aimed at artful expressions of each.

            No longer faced with trying to survive in the midst of a continual battle between each kind of passion, a sexually mature person is freed to embrace, enjoy, and activate both as appropriate in the world as he or she finds it.

            Then, in effect, passion is passion; and once wedded, their combined powers may be fruitfully applied to maximizing personal satisfactions in community with all others.





            Worship in popular religions rooted in sexual repression is adoration of other-worldly gods and ritualistic practices which glorify and reinforce one's sense of identification with these imaged creations. Although rarely-if-ever recognized as such by involved adherents, such worship is literally idolatry. Assumed-to-be-real, omnipotent images are bowed before, submitted to, and served--which is, by definition idolatry (icon worship).

            Unwittingly, sexual repression in individuals, supported by judgments of "dirtiness" and "evil," easily expands to deep-seated views of this world itself, the earth, as also dirty or bad and ultimately to be escaped from into an equally idolized heaven "up there" or somewhere else.

            In consort then, personal judgments of "dirty sex" projected onto this "earthy" world, combine to make religious worship essentially an other-worldly experience focusing on other-worldly gods and dreams of other-worldly existence after one escapes from this body so easily moved by "evil fleshly desires (lusts, sex-urges)" if not kept carefully under control (repressed).

            In sharp contrast, to the degree that one succeeds in unrepressing natural sexuality and thereby achieving greater degrees of inner wholeness, other-worldly based worship is shifted back to this world as perceived by bodily senses, themselves often infused with sexual passions.

            Worship which in popular religions centers around other-worldly images and ideas, is transformed into an abiding sense of worth-ship (the literal meaning of the word) in this world and with all that is natural within it, including one's sexual self. Unrecognized idolatry (adoration of other-worldly images) is abandoned in favor of realized worth and value in this-worldly existence--that is, all that we can perceive via our five primary senses, which are engened for survival/replication here on earth.

            Beyond churchly-type "religious" rituals and beliefs, un-repressed natural sexuality reflects in experiencing sacredness in everyday encounters with Mother Nature and other persons--that is, in the myriads of sensual events which comprise human existence here on earth between birth and death.

            Without judgments of good and evil which structure society and religion, sexually mature persons are freed to experience natural desires (and their assorted pleasures) consciously and responsibly in everyday living. Consequently, knowing worth in all that is real (sensually perceived), both "out there" and "in here," mature persons in effect live worshipfully--that is, they experience worth-ship in the world, as themselves as they naturally are.

            All encounters are literally based in our senses--that is, are sensual. When judgments are laid aside and natural passions embraced, the sexual roots of sensuality are consciously recognized. Then, regular knowledge of worth-ship in the world, as oneself with all others, can merit the unlikely name, sexy worship. Natural sexuality, accepted and embraced, is innately worshipful (full-of-worth).

            Sexy worship doesn't mean that sex itself is worshiped. Nor does worth-ship in this world mean that a sexually mature person simply shifts from worshiping another "spiritual" world (and its assorted icons and beliefs) to worshiping this material world. Rather it means that once the evil pale is removed from natural sex and this present world, then one is freed to experience worth-ship both in sexuality itself as well as in the world as sensually perceived. Not that sex and the world become sacred within themselves, but after repression one naturally experiences sacredness in being sexual in this world.

            Post repression, sexy worship becomes an apt description of daily life in the here and now.







            Cunt is a socially obscene word pointing toward and representing the entrance to woman's life-creating capacities--that is, the door to womb, where fertilized ova initiate and culminate the miracle of creating a new human being.

            Pussy or fuck, only slightly less obscene words, represent the place and act of sexual intercourse which initiates the pregnancy process, but is less mysterious than the hidden act of creation itself, because we can see and therefore know more about fucking than conception itself.

            Three questions: First, why are there no simple, socially acceptable words for these two most profound human capacities? And second, why are these graphic and easy to pronounce words obscene? Thirdly, why is cunt even "dirtier" than pussy and fuck?

            My answer to the first question is that avoiding names--verbal symbols for human perceptions, is the first step in avoiding conscious thinking about an unnamed perception, in this case, the two phases of miraculous self-creation. If we don't/can't name "it" we are left with images only and cannot consciously think about it. Avoiding names which allow images to be decoded and transformed into concepts is the first step in the psychic process of repression.

            Since most societies have historically chosen suppression as the acceptable mode of coping with socially dangerous powers of genetic sexuality, it follows that limiting language is a feasible tool for supporting this process.


            To the second question--"Why are these words obscene?," my answer is an extension of the first. Since it is extremely difficult to negate consciousness with a natural urge to create names for whatever we perceive, we may try to nip in the bud an inclination to consciously think about certain perceptions by judging available words to be bad, dirty, and/or socially unacceptable.

            It being relatively impossible to totally prevent naming anything we perceive--in this case, two aspects of profound human capacities for self-replication, then at least we can put a social damper on those words which are clandestinely created anyway, namely, pussy, fucking, and cunt. Obviously society cannot totally prevent thinking about these two phases of our second most powerful genetic instinct, namely, for reproduction; the best it can do in support of repression is to make such names "dirty" and "vulgar."


            To the third question--Why is cunt even more obscene than pussy and fuck?, my answer is that the deeper mysteries of conception and gestation ("baby-making") are even more profound--and therefore tempting to think about, than those of intercourse itself. We are, I conclude, more naturally curious about "where babies come from" than about "how they get there"--that is, about the hidden mysteries of creation (represented with cunt) than about the more visible places and acts of starting the process (pussy and fucking).

            Result: Inward repression--our major way of adapting to outward suppression, which is society's chosen mode of coping with replication powers, is better served by limiting conscious thinking about the greater mystery. If we can't stop people from thinking about pussy and fucking, perhaps we can at least keep baby-making itself in mental darkness.

            Cunt is dirtier, more vulgar than pussy, because, I suggest, repressed thinking about woman's most powerful capacity, namely, creating life, is even better for maintaining greater degrees of human repression.


            Other questions may shed light on these first three: Why do females try harder to hide their pussy than any other parts of their bodies? Why, even in pornography, is pussy the most hidden, last, if ever, to be revealed part of a female's body? Why are cleavage, indication of breast size, and tight pants which exaggerate buttocks, socially acceptable, while nudity, especially of pussy parts, so obscene? Why do college boys stage "panty raids" and genetically moved men want to smell women's panties? Why do females perfume themselves, either cloaking and/or exaggerating natural body odors?

            Major reason: purposes of power.

            First, because males are more genetically drawn to see, touch, and smell pussy, while lessor moved to see breasts and butts, females wield greater power over such males by "titillating" them with tits and ass, but carefully hiding and withholding what most powerfully moves us, namely, pussy-place and cunt.

            "Tits and ass" can be symbolically "dangled," like the proverbial carrot before a hungry horse, thus tempting reactive males lessor urges while still preserving more powerful mysteries for even greater servitude.

            Although primal knowledge about the smells of estrus has been largely lost to consciousness, I theorize that males yet retain pre-conscious genetic information about this ancient clue to when females are more likely to be able to conceive. We may not "know what we are doing"--that is, be conscious about smell knowledge when we are blindly moved to sniff at panties; but I suspect that ancient male knowledge, still retained by so-called "lower animals" is yet present-though-repressed in human males today.

            And although perfumes are consciously used by females to "make them smell better," I suspect two deeper underlying motives--one genetic and the other psychological, drive the multi-billion dollar perfume industry today.

            First, I think that most effective perfumes probably contain aromas similar to natural female body odors exuded during times of estrus, thus allowing an artificial, self-chosen appeal to primal male "gene noses." With these fake estrus smells, females can also fake conceive-ability when there is none, thereby maintaining male interest during the remaining 25 days of each month during child-bearing years and at any time after menopause. Consequently, these types of perfume can be useful in wielding power over males by appealing to our own unconscious smell motivations aimed at self-replication.

            Secondly, I think that cheaper, less hormonally based perfumes can play on another male limitation rooted in psychic repression rather than genetic wisdom, namely, the conscious notion that body odors "smell bad." With this psychic premise in operation, females may escalate smell appeals by cloaking those we have learned to discern as bad, especially those pungent odors associated with estrus, and exaggerating appealing non-sexual odors--which, I conclude, is also the pragmatic appeal of "de-odorants" and less expensive but more exaggerated smelling perfumes.

            Pheromone-like perfumes appeal to primal male instincts, while non-sexy odors attract smell attention without threatening typical sexual repressions of both males and females.

            Thus "smelling good" on either of both bases can easily become another female wile in wielding power over genetically moved males.


            Another question: Why is strip-teasing (partial nudity) more popular and socially acceptable than total nudity? Why are Eve's fig leaves placed over her pussy rather than her breasts, butt, or brains? Why do men pant and pay for titillation, as in provocative dress, pornography, and/or strip-teasing, while shying away from total nudity and even sexually available wives at home? Why do men typically get turned on by tits and off by cunt?

            Possible answer: Safe sex--that is, for pleasure inherent in activating initial male sexual desires evolved for finding and seducing conceive-able females, which are socially acceptable, even promoted urges, without "having to produce"--that is, move on to the third act of the Reproductive Drama, namely, the greater personal demands of successful intercourse which may resurrect male psychological threats related to repression, fears of impotence, and resurrection of incest taboo prohibitions.

            "It's easier," in other words, plus safer, "to think about it, than to do it"--that is, to fantasize and engage in socially acceptable courting rituals, than to confront deeper threats of cunt itself. Even indiscriminate fucking ("getting some pussy") where no love and responsibility is involved, is easier and safer than true love-making and actual encounter with cunt or womb mysteries.







            On analysis I see two types of homosexuality; the first is genetic, the second, psychological. Outwardly they may both appear the same, but each is rooted differently. Genetic homosexuality is, as the name implies, based on inherited characteristics, namely, a preponderance of one's opposite gender traits, e.g., female traits in a male gendered body, or vice versa.

            Gender is best understood as a sliding scale of graduated characteristics with female on one end and male on the other, rather than as a pair of polar opposites (popular view). If the scale is seen as graded from 1-10, with female being 1 and male being 10, then a person may be genetically placed at any point from 1 to 10. A "very womanly" or "motherly type" female might be a 1, while a "very masculine" or "macho type" male might be a 10. A more typical average person might be, say 3 or 4 if female, and 7 or 8 if male. In this perspective, with most female traits concentrated on one end and most males on the other, there are obviously many graduated degrees between each.

            In the beginning stages of life following conception all embryos are essentially female. Only if a Y chromosome is present do male traits begin to develop; otherwise one remains female and feminine characteristics follow. These emerging differences in all babies are, however, never totally distinct. Hormonal variations do indeed make some "more masculine" and others "more feminine"; but most of us are born somewhere between the two extremes (with more of one gender's traits than the other).

            Thus we find some boys less inclined, e.g., to compete and fight than to be sensitive and artistic (less masculine, more feminine), and some females more "Tomboy" than inclined to play with dolls. When genitals are found combined with more male than female traits, say 5 to 10 (mid point to end on the scale), we see them as "normal boys"; or, with 1-5 traits, "normal girls."

            However, a smaller percent of babies are born with most traits on the opposite end of the scale from their gender-related genitals, e.g., penised males with mostly female traits (1-5 on the scale), or vaginaed females with mostly masculine traits (5-10 on the scale).

            These less common individuals are what I term genetically based homosexuals. Their genes and associated hormonal characteristics simply make them more like their opposite gender insofar as natural interests and capacities are concerned, yet with male or female genitals.




            But a second type of homosexuality is rooted in psychological anomalies rather than actual genetic differences. While these individuals have more inherited traits as commonly associated with their genitals, they are, for psychological reasons, more like genetic homosexuals than typical males or females.

            These psychological situations, each unique to gay individuals who emerge from them, include those who in effect skip over the normal homosexual phase of sexual development. As amplified before, all humans naturally go through a phase of personal growth in which they are more comfortable with, and therefore attracted to members of their own bodily gender (boys to boys, girls to girls), and hence seen as "homosexual" at the time.

            Ideally these stages are consciously accepted and soon phased into the next heterosexual stage in which natural attractions shift to one's opposite gender. Boys, for example, "get more interested in girls," and vice versa.

            But, as we all know, ideals are not always. Because of social circumstances which favor suppression of "homosexual tendencies," plus unique family situations, some (most?) children learn to repress awareness of this natural phase of homosexual experience and try to, in effect, skip over it, to move from autosexual to heterosexual without ever embracing natural homosexuality.

            When so, such individuals (who seem to be in a majority in America today) are left in an ambivalent psychological state--torn, as it were, between conscious denial and unconscious attraction to their opposite gender traits, now only dimly recognized as projected onto others.

            Such males, e.g., may be highly opposed, strongly judgmental, and even overtly hostile to any signs of homosexuality in others, such as, openly gay males, while at the same time deeply (unconsciously) attracted to those who mirror and reflect unembraced capacities within themselves (e.g., the recently resigning Colorado minister).

            Less commonly, such repressed males opt for denying their own natural masculinity in favor of identifying themselves with their feminine traits. Although they still have genetic male characteristics (e.g., competitive urges) these are suppressed in favor of openly embracing their opposite gender traits (e.g., body building, muscular males who identify themselves with their more feminine sensibilities).

            This twofold psychological situation, in which one either tries to skip over the natural homosexual phase by repressing associated traits and exaggerating their own gender characteristics, or else flees normal development into heterosexuality by, in effect, camping down with or exaggerating lessor traits of one's opposite gender, are both candidates for later homosexual orientations. The first is noted by negative judgments of female traits and outward avoidance of homosexuality, while the second has negative judgments of their own gender traits and exaggerates attachments to opposite gender (feminine) characteristics.

            In common, because of psychological reasons, both remain essentially oriented around homosexuality, the first (phoney macho males) are negatively oriented, while the second (who exaggerate their feminism) are positively oriented. The first are, in effect, "closet homosexuals" who remain threatened by/attracted to any signs of gayness in others, while the second may flaunt their femininity and repress their own natural masculinity (and consequently be attracted to dominant males)

            The roots of these non-genetic types of homosexuality often seem to lie in childhood situations where parents are themselves cross-gender oriented--that is, where mothers are more dominant (masculine) and fathers more passive (feminine). When so, a son who identifies himself with his mother may repress his own femininity in favor of exaggerated masculinity, thus becoming a "closet homosexual," while a son who rejects his dominant mother in favor of identification with a submissive father may, in effect, be "set up" for later overt homosexuality accompanied by conscious denial of his natural masculinity.

            In both cases, the homosexuality, whether of the "closet" or "overt" type, is rooted in psychological factors rather than genetics only. No doubt there are many other types of psychological situations which predictably lead to either negative or positive homosexual orientations, but here I simply affirm the difference between "true homosexuality" which is genetically based, and many other varieties which are more rooted in psychological factors.

            A third type of psychologically based homosexuality may be more related to childhood order than to actual genetics. Boys, for example, with older brothers are statistically more likely to be feminine oriented and hence to opt for a homosexual type life style, while their older brothers remain more masculine in practice. Perhaps this is because masculine roles were, in effect, "already taken" by older brothers, leaving more room for successful parent-management by feminine type roles (e.g., "sensitive" rather than "athletic" boys). (The Manning family may be one example of this type situation.)






            The simplest and most natural way of looking is directly--with the two eyes of the head receiving light rays reflected onto retinas and registered in the brain. Almost instantaneously, visual stimuli are compared with prior sights and named accordingly. If, for example, reception of a certain wave length of light was previously called "red," and a present perception seems to be the same, one may immediately think and or/say: "That is 'red'."

            Based on prior learning from society, in this case the names of various colors (perceived light rays) and one's immediate visual awareness, an existential pronouncement (what the color is) may be made. The statement: "I know that is red," combines knowledge acquired from others (names of colors) with personal experience at the time, and reflects a mental conclusion about this particular aspect of reality (the object reflecting 'red' light rays).

            And so with all other perceptions, such as, sounds, smells, tastes, and "feels," plus complex experiences including various combinations of sense perceptions, like, "seeing a girl wearing a red dress." When other sense receptions are added to vision, then "looking" or "seeing" is both literal (of the eyes) and figurative--that is, metaphorically standing for what is actually heard or smelled, etc. Then, all other types of sense experiences may be represented by the same verb, namely, "I see," meaning " I grasp with my senses."

            All such "looking" or "seeing," beginning with single sense perceptions, like seeing a color, and culminating in complex combinations of multiple sense perceptions, like meeting a female person wearing 'red,' may be called direct looking.

            In summary, this extended explanation of a simple experience means: Drawing existential conclusions about what is sensed in an immediate encounter, such as, "That is a 'tree,'" "Her dress is 'red,'" "You are my 'friend,'" etc., is a reasonable result of direct looking. This first and most natural way of looking is responding (actually, re-acting) to what is "seen (perceived)" with the eyes of the head (and/or other senses) with existential conclusions based on prior learning. A minimal amount of brain usage ("thinking") is involved, namely, only what is necessary to associate and compare a prior conclusion with a present perception.

            In such direct looking no complex reasoning is required beyond simple comparisons between past and present perceptions. What one learned before is presumed to be true now. "What you see" is assumed to be "what you get"--that is, reality is completely identified with immediate perceptions named and described with prior learned words.


            But the nature of reality allows for a second way of looking which only begins with immediate perceptions (present data) and quickly expands to a far more complex use of the human brain, namely fuller consciousness and "reasoning."

            Although reality is first grasped with immediate perceptions, as in, direct looking, extended "looking" reveals that all apparent objects or static things are in fact phases of larger processes not presently evident. In simplest terms, immediate "things" or events are caused by prior "things." This may be called the principle of cause and effect. Every present effect (what is seen directly) is in fact caused by some prior "thing" or circumstance.

            This crude notion of cause and effect is more accurately understood as phases in processes--that is, reality is constantly evolving, with one "thing" leading to another, with each present situation following some prior "step" in a process.

            This second type of looking involves shifting one's focus of attention from what immediately appears (the effect) to an exploration of prior phases in the observed process (crudely seen as causes). Present perceptions (what is directly seen) are in effect beginning points or spring boards for moving on to consider prior "steps" which may have led up to, or resulted in, the observable consequence.

            Not that what is directly seen is ignored or belittled in importance, but rather that personal attention is shifted to consider the larger process, of which a present perception or situation is but a result or end product.

            Insofar as a directly seen present human action is concerned, this second type of seeing may be called "looking for motives," causes, or reasons-behind an observable action. "What makes him act like that?" What is his motive in doing such and such?"

            Whether seen as a cause, motive, or prior phase in a predictable process, this second type of looking is distinguishable from direct looking. It looks beyond what is immediately observable, to explore what may have come before the direct sight and, in effect, led up to it.

            Understanding this distinction may be useful in understanding this essay on sexual maturity which takes presently observable phenomena (direct looking) as data for trying to grasp what has gone before--that is, to understand prior phases of this process, the causes, if you will, of sexual situations obviously existing today.

            For example, in this essay I observe and then ignore present social forms of coping with sexuality (e.g., laws, mores, and assorted attempts at control by suppression) in favor of my quest for clearer perspectives on the actual nature of this second most powerful human instinct, namely, for self-replication. Existing memes (social forces) may or may not be the best way of dealing with private sex in public life; but in either case, I focus in this essay only on what I think to be "what lies behind" what is more easily seen directly in "what is up front,"--that is, on earlier phases in the process resulting in sexuality as seen in society today.







            Popular understanding often posits natural human instincts as innately opposed to requirements of communal living, that is, civilization. Organized society, even when viewed as essential for individual existence is, in this perspective, seen as an enemy of natural personal urges.

            But I re-raise the questions: Is natural humanity truly opposed to civilization? Are the forces of society (memes) inherently contrary to individual desires (genes)? Is the primary problem how to rectify individual selfishness with social altruism? Are genes and memes basically enemies requiring compromise and/or force to co-exist? Are people basically bad and in need of transformation (being "saved") in order to become loving, as popular religion and ideal society calls for?

            The historical answer, ala Freud, Dawkins, and traditional theologians, has been: "Yes; genetic values and requirements of communal living are basically opposed in most social situations. People are basically selfish, unloving, and don't care about others. Although civilization is obviously in man's best interest overall, in the long run, at the level of individual events the forces of each are in basic opposition. Loving self (being "selfish") is directly opposite to loving others; the more one loves self the less loving of others he is, and vice versa.

            In this understanding, both society and popular religion's answer has been: "Deny self (be anti-genetics) in quest of loving (and serving) others." Commonly, society and popular religion make a virtue of self-sacrifice, in effect, honoring martyrdom in service of others. At the same time, all self service is seen as "selfish" and therefore bad. Even when the principle, "Thou shalt love others as you love yourself," is preached, the common understanding is that altruism is the opposite of self affirmation.

            I theorize that these familiar conclusions are only accurate at upper levels of analysis. On the surface of common human experience, barring psycho-analysis, they are obviously correct. The more selfish one is, the more directed by personal urges alone, the less concerned he is for others; and, the more devoted one is to community service, loving others, the less energy he gives to self desires.

            But I think that on deeper levels of human capacity these surface conclusions are fatally flawed; only at initial glance are self and others, individuals and community, persons and civilization, inherently at odds. Because self repression has so universally been taken as the path to social compliance, leading, I conclude, to the popular conclusion, we are hindered if not prevented in seeing and understanding natural human nature today. All we can readily observe is what has happened after persons have become civilized via social forces aimed at self repression.

            Only in this light, I think, do persons and society exist at odds with each other. Were it not for enforced and rewarded self denial beginning in earliest childhood--that is, if repression were not the prevailing means of civilizing children, I theorize that the apparent oppositions noted above would not exist long past initial reactions.

            Unwittingly, when we use psychic as well as physical force in confronting natural desires, we also invite another psychological reaction, namely, rebellion. An observable fact of nature is that "every action has an equal and opposite reaction." Pressure in one direction seems to call for an opposing force to confront it. As with physical forces (e.g., pushing in on an air-filled balloon), so with psychic forces.

            When, for example, children are told "No," or otherwise curtailed by force in the face of natural inclinations, their predictable answer is: "Why not?," usually accompanied by efforts to do otherwise. I call this the "Wet Paint Phenomenon" because a "Don't touch" sign often offers a seemingly irresistible invitation to do otherwise.

            Point: Just as "Nature abhors a vacuum," so nature seems to resist a prohibition, especially when it is unexplained and seems unreasonable--at least at first, or until punishment seems worse than an inclined action. I speculate that deep-seated opposition to cooperation with society is more rooted in such early established rebellions--either acted out or internalized, than it is inherent in human nature.

            Although evidence for this speculation is limited--due, I conclude, to the near universal practice of early repression (silently inviting rebellion), I think that data emerging from psycho-analysis, counseling, therapy, and personal unrepression supports my conclusions. When individuals move beyond an inner psychic "need to rebel," they predictably become more cooperative with others. And, when self-love is deepened, other-love soon follows--not as an alternative, but as an overflow or expansion.

            Social structures, I logically conclude, became a natural evolution of self structures as early family groups began to unite into extended-families, larger clans, and eventually, ethnic cooperatives. Soon, I think, early human creatures must have learned that "we need one another" both for individual protection as well as expanded self-satisfactions. When so, I continue to theorize, genes for group cooperation, indeed, altruism, probably evolved from their more primal cousins aimed only at self survival and personal pleasure.

            I also observe that in the absence of an inner need to rebel, even deep-seated urges for "selfish" satisfaction are naturally fulfilled in larger proportions when the attributes and responses of other humans are added to those of an individual. In other words, while private activities may indeed be satisfying, individual pleasures may be naturally enhanced in relationships with other persons.

            Point: barring acquired psychic needs to rebel (via self-repression) and obvious threat from hostile others, I observe that individuals naturally seek expanded self-satisfactions to be found through cooperative, caring relationships with fellow humans.

            In summary: I conclude that memes (social directives) are but the younger cousins of genes (older survival instincts)--that is, more like later-to-evolve "social genes" than like the mortal enemies they are commonly taken to be following systematic and extended self repression in service of social compliance.







            Everything truly human is rooted in genetics, love included. But all capacities are not equally powered--that is, some instincts are accompanied by more power than others. Some of our urges are older and more deeply ingrained, while others are younger, with lessor forces behind them--probably with fewer genes to instruct their activation.

            For instance, we are all genetically structured both to stay alive and to have fun--that is, genes incline us both to survive and to feel good, but ingrained forces to keep-on-breathing are obviously more powerful than those for expansive pleasure. Some have called our older and more powerful drives "hard wired," with younger and weaker urges "soft-wired." Inclinations for self-replication, for example, are "hard wired," while urges to help others are "soft-wired."

            We may also call our strongest genetic instincts "necessities," and weaker or rarer impulses "talents," such as, for ESP, artistry, or prophecy.

            Of all our natural instincts, our gene-based capacities, those for survival are oldest and strongest--most "hard-wired" we might say, while those for self-replication are next strongest and almost as powerful; but at the other end of the strength scale, comes love. We are most driven to stay alive, next to reproduce, but least moved to love. In a sense, we "cannot help but try" to breathe and keep on living, no matter how difficult circumstances may be; but at the same time, activating our capacity for loving may be a considerable challenge, given lessor genetic inclinations to do so. "Making love," we might say, "comes easy," but "being loving is hard."

            Why? My analysis is this:

            First, because of another "soft-wired" genetic capacity: consciousness. In evolution of the human brain, capacities for survival, including breathing and emotions, came first and are based in the lower brain; then later came primal "thinking," as expressed in tool making, and expanding mental capacities rooted in upper levels of the brain. Finally, with the evolution of the cortex or outer brain, came expanded reasoning abilities, and eventually, what we now call consciousness.

            I consider consciousness--the capacity for creating images, decoding them into concepts, and holding many notions in memory or "mind space" to be the crowning gift of evolution so far. Consciousness is the latest, greatest "invention" of Mother Nature to date. Long long ago, about 600 million years some think, She invented gender--that is, replication by sex rather then the older way, by cloning, which is thought to have begun some 2.5 billion years ago. But only in later stages of history, perhaps in the thousands rather than millions of years, with the development of the bigger brain did She add consciousness to blind instincts.

            Reasonable conclusion: Love, like sex, is rooted in genetics; but drives for the second, being older and deeper, are much stronger than those for the first, which rely on later-to-evolve human consciousness.







            Now to the issue of power associated with or ingrained in our various genetic capacities. It seems that older instincts are both "blinder" and more powerful, while younger inclinations are weaker--that is, less moved by dark urges alone.

            Consciousness, I hold, being the Johnny-Come-Lately on the evolutional time table, is the highest of our inherited capacities; but also the weakest or lessor "required" than are breathing, eating, and reproducing.

            Relevant here is the relationship between genetics and love. Where, naturally speaking, is love based? We can trace the roots of "making love" to our X and Y chromosomes with their assorted genes and the hormones they influence; but where is the home of love itself?

            Consciousness, I hold, is the answer to this question--that is, the capacity for loving is not rooted in X and Y chromosomes, as is that for "making love," but rather in the much-later-to-develop cerebral cortex, with its crowning gift of potential consciousness.

            In colloquial language, consciousness is what allows us to "think about" what we do rather than blindly reacting to circumstances by instincts alone. Thus we might say that we can breathe, digest food, defecate, and make love "without thinking much about it"; but love itself can only emerge from the fuller activation of conscious choices.

            Crudely speaking, we can "make love" or fuck "without thinking (being conscious of what we are doing)," but loving requires far more awareness--that is, activation of the capacity for consciousness.

            And, in terms of power, drives for "making love," being much older and deeper (rooted lower in the brain), are also far more blindly powerful, while those for consciousness, and thus "being loving," are far less driven, "required," or "necessary" for staying alive. Forces for survival, we might say are the most "hard-wired" while those for love are the softest of all the "soft-wired" human capacities.









Excitement is to replication

as safety is to survival


In service of instinct #1

namely, to stay alive,

we do well to focus on safety


But for reproduction urges

we need equal options

for excitement


            I speculate that the heart of the drug problem in America, as well as much of the crime, is rooted in lack of enough socially acceptable avenues to pleasure as are needed for activating and satisfying ingrained needs of our second strongest genetic urge, namely, for reproduction.

            Paradoxically, Mother Nature has evolved contradictory incentives for our two major instincts--that is, for survival or "staying alive" and for replication or "making babies." With the first, pain is our best indicator that survival is at risk. If we want to "stay alive" we do well to pay much attention to what hurts or feels bad--that is, to ensuring our safety.

            But for reproduction She has engened the opposite incentive, namely, pleasure rather than pain. Our deepest urges for reproducing ourselves are supported by the delights of pleasure rather than hurts of pain. We are in effect "driven" to be sexual by immense pleasures associated with activation of this capacity.

            We need pain to keep us alert to threats to survival, and pleasure to move us toward reproduction. The first, in summary, is good insurance for staying safe, while the second supports the likelihood of making more of ourselves. The first, we might say, is good for self-survival, and the second for species-survival. We need to play it safe to survive as individuals, but we also need to take risks to survive as a species.

            Relevant here is the fact that our society has done a great job in focusing on safety, as necessary for self-survival. Much public attention, for example, goes to safety in everything, all the way from using our mechanical inventions to choice in foods for health; but, unfortunately (I speculate) we have given far less attention to providing readily available pleasures for satisfying our second strongest instinct. In fact, we have evolved a pale of obscenity, if not evil, around the whole subject of sex--the source of our greatest natural pleasures.

            Easy to be supported by society and religion if we focus on safety, but watch out if you give equal attention to excitement. That, as we all know, runs the risk of sin if is "feels too good."

            Hence my speculation: in the absence of reasonable attention to providing socially acceptable means of personal pleasure outside the truly risky-for-society arenas of overt sex, we have left individuals overbalanced with safety provisions and under-exercised in occasions for responsible thrills. Obviously (at least to me) for fullness of life we need a proper balance between safety and excitement. We truly need to play it safe when it comes to staying alive, that is, to "merely exist"; but for "really living" we also need opportunities for excitement, for the activation of genes evolved to ensure their future in bodies other than our own.

            Obviously danger--one of the inevitable cohorts of pleasure, is a risk for survival only; but less obvious is the fact that too much safety is a risk to the emergence of lessor pleasures on the longer and even more exciting path toward replication.

            I postulate that as civilization becomes more mature--if we don't destroy ourselves in the meantime, we will come to recognize the longer range wisdom of seeking a more proper balance between needs for safety and also for excitement. Surely we will continue to support every possible means of securing longevity for individuals--that is, staying alive as long as possible; but we will, I hope, move past seeing safety as a virtue and sex as a vice, as we come to respect our ingrained needs for both in quest for fullness of life, that is, heaven here.









1. Much world terrorism is rooted in male repression fostered by popular religions. Deeply ingrained beliefs in grand heavenly rewards (and relief from earthly demands), e.g., 74 virgins for a Muslim who dies in service of Allah, plus deprived life circumstances, may combine to make suicidal missions sorely tempting.


2. Genetically speaking, instincts for male aggression are intimately tied to primal urges for self-replication--that is, sex and violence are biologically connected. I theorize that following the evolution of reproduction by sex rather than cloning, the need for male aggression in its service must have become ingrained soon thereafter.

            First, aggressive force in intercourse itself, in contrast with passive participation, must have been favored in genetic selection of successful males. Then, aggression in service of protecting pregnant females from natural dangers would be needed.

            As social structures of one male to protect and service several females (as later seen in lion prides, herds of horses, and human harems) evolved, certainly the need for male aggression in providing increasing amounts of supplies as well as fighting off other challenging males would have favored additional "fighting genes."

            At the same time, urges for self-replication in displaced males forced out of family groups would favor their own aggressive drives aimed at displacing Alpha males or otherwise securing sexual access to pregnable females.

            Finally, as family territories--that is, protected space for keeping a number of females and growing offspring safe and supplied with food, as well as free from other ambitious and jealous males, expanded, aggression in Alpha males would certainly have been required.

            In summary, I theorize that for a variety of practical reasons genes-for-aggression have predictably evolved in males, especially those with more Alpha male type characteristics.

            In service of similar drives for self replication in females, other genes-for-security-making have likewise evolved in the baby-making gender.


3. Consequently, the roots of war, terrorist, rape, and jealous husbands may in fact lie deeply buried in naturally aggressive males, especially when these drives are perverted as a result of sexual repression.









1. Bodily energy--that is, "umph," "drive," or "fuel" for activity, is naturally generated by perceptions, that is, worldly encounters via our five basic senses. We are, in effect, stimulated by seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, and touching that which is outside our skins.


2. The same is true for internal perceptions, when we are, as it were, "stimulated" by genetic urges and emotions. For example, hunger "moves us"--that is, creates energy for seeking its satisfaction via eating. Fear likewise "energizes" us for action. And so with other instincts which seem to blindly "drive us," plus feelings, like anger, which "make us" react.

            Although we tend to think of ourselves as somehow separate from our perceptions and their associated energies, both external and internal, as though "they" move "us," my point here is that somehow energy-to-act is either created by or is perhaps synonymous with perceptions from without or within.


3. Conversely, whenever we curtail perceptions for any reason, we unwittingly diminish, even stop the creation of energies which would otherwise be generated by them.


4. Such limitations of perceptions and resulting generations of energy typically occur by: a) suppression of attention to present external stimuli--that is, choosing not to sense what is happening in immediate circumstances, "shutting down" sense awareness, "being present in body but absent in spirit," "not with it," or simply "not paying attention" to what is going on.

            Usually such suppressions are temporary and can be consciously reversed whenever we later "decide to show up"--that is, "return," as it were, "to being present" as a sensing person. However, suppressed attention may be so extended in time that degrees of "being absent" can become habitual, ingrained, as it were, so that one becomes regularly "de-pressed"--literally, in the habit of pressing-in on natural sense activation, and with it, a loss of life-forces which would otherwise be generated by natural sense-responses to the outside world.


5. But relevant here is the fact that habits of suppressed attention to external perceptions all too easily phase into corresponding internal denials--that is, attention to bodily urges and emotions. And when conscious suppression becomes unconscious repression, the stage is set for more serious clinical depression (plus a variety of other "mental problems") and loss of energies essential for good living, present tense.


            Now to my subject of energy and sexuality:


            Our two most universal and powerful, inter-related instincts (genetic directives) are for survival and replication--that is, selfing and sexuality. Each is predictably associated with correspondingly powerful generations of energy as needed for activation of these instincts in daily life. I think that while greater energies are associated with the first, more primal drive for survival and self-satisfaction, embraced sexuality is also the source of enormous quantities of "umph"--as required for regular excitement and awe in present living (heaven here).

            But when human repression of natural sexuality in quest of social acceptance occurs--beginning at home in earliest times of life, as seems to be near universally true, this initially pragmatic process cannot but be accompanied by a significant amount of energy loss, forces which would otherwise be available for fueling daily liveliness, not only for direct expression in overt sexual behavior, but also for potential sublimation into a wide variety of other pleasurable, more socially acceptable creations.

            Stated positively: when natural sexuality is embraced and consciously activated in daily life, either directly in activities aimed at replication ("acting sexy"), or indirectly in sublimated forms of creative activity, a large amount of energy-for-living is also generated. "Umph" becomes, as it were, automatically available for zestful well-being, again, present tense.

            Conversely, sexual repression--the most common human mode of adapting to existing requirements for social membership, is predictably accompanied by a significant loss of "drive" or "motivation" needed for fulfilled living in the here and now. Such repression, I hold, is the primal cause of depression--grading all the way from boredom, tiredness, and "lack of motivation" to its far more serious clinical forms expressed in such ways as, "life is just not worth living," "why go on trying?," and eventual "thoughts of suicide."







            I am deeply indebted to Freud for many reasons.

            As verified by my own experience with myself and many counselees, I agree with his theories on: early etiology of later neurosis; significance of pre-five learning; childhood sexuality; Oedipus Complex in father/son conflicts (but I see them as less about killing father than killing competition for mother).

            I agree with his descriptions of id/ego/super-ego as a useful grid for observing actual behavior, but fault its easy substitution (which he seems to never have intended) for the reality of selfhood (which he ignored). I see his id/ego/super-ego premises as a functional way for viewing forms of mental activity taking into account both conscious and unconscious "thinking," and certainly a significant advance over previously crude analogies, such as, "thinking" and "feeling" or mind and heart.

             I also agree with his "early trauma" ideas, namely, a relatively few truly traumatic events which are temporarily repressed and consequently become causative. But far more common, I think, is gradual, systematic, squelching of naturalness by relatively good parents in favor of civilized behavior or "fitting in" versus "being whole."


            In summary, I owe Freud: 1. For his recognition and noting the significance of unconsciousness; 2. Etiology of neurosis in "childhood trauma"; 3. Noting reality of childhood sexuality; 4. Seeing necessity of analysis for maturity, including return to "scene of crime" = unrepression of memories; 5. His example of thought or intellectual honesty in writing and telling others what he saw; willingness to theorize "in public" and write, expose, and defend his own ideas (creative projections--that is, his mental art comparable to physical paintings and sculpture); 5. The overall example of "Father Figure" as he projected into his notions of human history.


            My objection to many of Freud's original concepts is less in their accuracy and/or utility, than in what they omit or fail to deal with. In other words, I do not disagree with his diligently explored notions as much as I note what I consider to be his omissions, limitations, or unexplored aspects of individual and group psychology.

            One, for example, is his lack of attention to a concept of self as distinguished from ego in his threefold grid of id/ego/super-ego.


            While I agree with his overall observations about an Oedipus Complex, I think he stopped short of even deeper analysis which focuses on what might be called a Jocasta Complex, or what he briefly refers to as a "mother complex" in some cases. I note his limited attention to female psychology, except in terms of "penis envy"--that is, male threat of cunt or womb, and the challenge of true separation in becoming a truly separate self. In the Jocasta part of the Oedipus myth, there is the danger of "blindness"--that is, seeing as an essential aspect of self, versus "castration"--not "cut off," but "pussy envy" of father may be closer to the truth.




            I think the well known "incest taboo" is less about fucking mother or daughters than about: 1) Father threat of her son who has a natural "in" with mother and making rules for Father Rights protection; 2) Mother threat of becoming sexual herself with son (conscious arousal versus "doing it,") plus nurturing son's sexuality versus easier suppression and genetic ambivalence of knowing his sex offers best odds for her own replication; she both wants/fears son's emerging sexuality.

            3) Father/daughter threat is: a. Ease of being sexual with daughter and thus evoking mother's wrath; b. Genetic attraction to young virgins; c. Unconscious seductiveness of girls, risking male preference for her over mother.


             I think the central son problem: Mother's permission/guidance/nurturing self in its two major parts, namely, individuality and sexuality, her genetic preference for son over father. But whereas father may impregnate her again, a sexual son (versus daughter) has best odds of insuring her genetic immortality.

            Her sexual repressions: a. Disdain for aging husband who remains her best source of security; his declining sperm count may have led to killing in the past ("King must die"); his emerging dependency on her as his immaturity (separation from own mother) becomes increasingly evident.

            b. Sexual repressions: studs and own son desires.

            c. Aggression against daughters: threat with father's attentions; limited genetic value versus maximum with son; jealousy of daughter's beauty and "moreness."

            d. Challenges of personhood past mothering; post menopause and declining husband.


            Son issues: Father threat ("castration") is minor in comparison with mother challenges, namely, a.) Individuation, becoming separate self; cunt fear, engulfing womb (cunt is a metaphor for selfing challenge with her who holds all power during formative times). b.) Becoming a sexual self versus projecting masculine powers onto all females; c.) Father threat is envying his larger freedoms with mother, plus his greater size, strength, freedom, authority and his penis size.


            I speculate that Freud never "killed" his own father ("emotionally") or cut ties with his mother, which were resurrected in daughter Anna; also that he erred in giving major attention to sex with no concepts of selfhood beyond expanding ego.

            Another error: attributing neurosis to "archaic memories"--that is, making "faults of ancient fathers" visited on sons carry weight of personal reaction to individuation (See Moses, pg 126-129). Issue: Archaic memories versus early learning. I think Freud was hung up on "primal father killing."


            Another speculation: Freud's "killing Moses" or putting down on his own Jewish heritage and religion was one major step away from killing his own father (as god) in personal life. Moses=Freud's father image projected in his inherited Jewish religion (See page 132).

            "Archaic memories"--as in unconscious, id-inherited knowledge, and guilt about killing primal father rings much like the religious doctrine of "original sin (Adam's fault)." I reject both ideas in favor of individual responses to early social situations which focus on suppressing genetics in favor of memetics (naturalness versus "fitting in"). In other words, I think we are individually responsible, with no biblical Adam or "archaic memories" to blame for personal repression. We are, I conclude, guilty of our own sins, not those of previous persons or generations. We have, that is, no one to blame for lostness (splitness) but ourselves.

            Certainly immature parents and harsh social as well as physical circumstances may provide more tempting invitations to personal splitting than might exist in theoretically perfect conditions; but finally, I think, as Shakespeare reminded us: "The fault.... is not in our stars (or ancestors, or parents or circumstances) but in ourselves" and furthermore, not "that we are underlings," but that we opt for unwise moves, even before times of personal memory.


Summary analysis of Freud:


1. Real killing of primal father = dimly recognized and distantly projected in time hostility toward his own father.


2. Symbolically killing Moses, father of his ethnic heritage, was a leap in time, but still a projected effort to displace his own father.


3. In analyzing others, he saw more clearly the challenges other males face in this universal male wish and necessity, and wrote clearly projecting his ideas into an Oedipus Complex. But he never quite succeeded in this first essential phase of everyman's fuller individuation.


4. Consequently, via attacks on other "father figures" who replaced for him his own father, he remained blinded to the deeper universal issue of blindness as portrayed in the second part of the ancient myth of Oedipus, in what might, had he proceeded, be called the Jocasta Complex, namely, the darker and more challenging agendas of cutting the spiritual cord with mother (without "going blind").


5. His "great man" (pg 138) is a projection of the great man in his dark memories of early family, namely, his own father. He saw real history as turning on a single grand event, namely, killing of primal ("great man") father and gathering of his offspring or rejected ("brothers") into civilized clans who suppressed murder as supporting their own denials.


6. Obviously Freud recognized the fact that matriarchies preceded patriarchal societies, including male gods, in the long course of human history. But apparently this knowledge never led him to examine the nature of more ancient psychology (pg 145) as may have been projected onto older goddesses.

            I assume that this omission and his focus on masculine psychology, reflected his own experience and insights which apparently never proceeded beyond projected attention to his relationship with his own father--that is, that he stopped short of exploring his own "mother complex."


            Whatever the case may have been with Freud, I conclude that a fuller exploration of human history, as well as the lives of present humans, must eventually include more careful study of older matriarchal societies, and personal analysis of early mother as well as father relationships.

            I also think that even though my own experience with reversed parental roles (passive father and dominant mother) may be less common than that in families with dominant fathers, any thorough analysis must include attention to patterns developed with both parents.

            I further conclude that mother relationships are universally deeper than father relationships, and, at least for sons, are likely to be even more challenging to face. In terms of human history this means that a "primal mother" figure may in fact be even more relevant to a comprehensive understanding than is Freud's well examined "great man" of ancient times.


7. Whereas Freud clearly recognized etiology of neurosis in childhood traumas, he gave little attention to matters of choice or will power and personal responsibility.


8. I agree with his Oedipus ideas, but I think Freud stopped short of a deeper, universal male problem, namely, a Jocasta complex; consequently he lacked feminine understanding beyond a shallow "penis envy."


            Freud aside, the second phase of male maturity is twofold: 1.) Becoming a responsible self (44 chromosomes) past looking for a mother substitute to "take care of me," "make me happy," etc. ; and 2.) Becoming sexually responsible versus projecting masculinity onto females ("turn on" capacity) as seen in: vulnerability to female wiles and dependency on female permission and affirmation.

            Unless challenges of killing father symbolically, that is, moving beyond the threat of his physical strengths and overt domination powers into neutralizing him, seeing him as "just another man," are met, I think the deeper mother challenges must typically remain hidden--as seems to be so with Freud.

            But the challenge with mother is of cutting the cord of spiritual dependency and eventually coming to love her as a human person without goddess powers, that is, "just another woman," without magical powers to destroy (projected onto Kali) and to physically "take care of" and care for, literally (do one's caring for onself and others) (nurture self), and three, to squelch spirit or "make me happy."


            Summary: Boy challenge = killing father symbolically and loving mother in reality.


            Back to Freud: I think he only gave limited attention to female psychology and analysis of females beyond their masculine components. His limitations left his attention exaggerated on minor "penis envy" while he remained blind to actual female powers. "Penis envy" was mostly a cloak for unrecognized "cunt envy" in males, that is, powers of creativity/destruction--to create life and take it away without qualms ("natural superiority").







            I wonder how much of male curiosity about female bodies is rooted in genetics and how much results from systematic, prevailing ignorance--that is, titillating denials of access, beginning in earliest life when genetic interests are likely to first begin.

            Infant boys have access to their mother's body--to see, smell, touch, and taste her breasts during nursing, to be touched and held intimately while being cuddled and nurtured, and often to be present during her times of bathing, dressing, tending, and beautifying her own body. But as soon as genetic interests rooted in drives for replication ("sex") first begin to emerge in the primal beginnings of puberty, all such open access to the goddess's body is typically cut off.

            When male "gene eyes," for example, first become overtly curious, mother is apt to begin hiding herself--covering her breasts, bathing and dressing in private, and curtailing any touch which might have hints of anything other than "innocent" contact. And, as with mothers, so with sisters and any other females a boy may contact.

            Female denials of access and chosen hiding which are flexible or lenient at first, rapidly become strict when a boy's curiosity becomes open and obvious, e.g., when he tries to watch mother bathing, to "peep" at sister's dressing, or touch any female in other than a casual, unintended, or "affectionate" way.

            From then on, as genetic seeds take root in obvious puberty and growing boys become consciously "interested in sex," female denials of bodily access become even more strict, pervasive, and often accompanied by punishment or rejection if a boy "acts inappropriately"--that is, "spies on," tries to "grope," or even asks or talks openly about sex.

            At the same time, denials of access to see or touch female bodies are becoming stricter and subject to increasingly more consequential punishments when female-established lines are crossed, all females, even young "innocent" girls, are regularly presenting themselves in dress and behavior in tantalizing, even titillating ways when in male presence. Although female breasts, butts, and genitals are kept covered, dress styles commonly do everything possible to call attention, even exaggerate, bodily parts most appealing to male gene eyes.

            For example, bras are used to partially hide breasts while at the same time emphasizing, even exaggerating, their size and shape, including displays of cleavage. Tight fitting shorts, geans, and dresses display hips and thighs in appealing ways, while "sexy" underwear calls attention to shapely asses and hints of pussy.

            Tempting styles of dress and makeup are typically accompanied by movements and behavior which, even if done or performed unconsciously, appeal strongly to male sexual interests, for example, swaying hips, acting coy and innocent, and playing many versions of "Drop The Handkerchief," "Won't You Please Help Me," and other Little Princess type behaviors.

            Point: Female dress (or partial undress) styles, as well as bodily movements and most behavior in the presence of males, artfully invite attention to their bodies being presented, even unconsciously, in the most appealing ways to male gene eyes. The message, however, is: "You may look (at a distance), but don't dare touch," or, "Follow me, but I will lead and be in control."


            Summary: Two forces--one genetic and one psychological, are operative in society beginning as soon as boys become personally interested in seeing and touching female bodies. The first is natural and innate, moving males from below levels of consciousness (and often in spite of contrary "thinking"), to explore female bodies in quest of estrus information--that is, for data about potential conceive-ability as is essential for male replication.

            The second type of forces, those wielded by females, probably has some genetic roots also, especially when pregnancy is desirable. The ancient Drama of Reproduction obviously involves an artful and complementary interchange of overt male actions and covert female responses. But, and this is the relevant issue here: The vast majority of female efforts to hide their bodies and limit or prevent male access, are, I conclude, less related to replication than to a host of other psychological reasons, such as, power and/or shame.

            Whatever a correct analysis of female motives may be, the question I raise here is: How much of typical male interest and curiosity about female bodies is genetically motivated by reproductive urges, and, conversely, how much is a result of psychological factors inherent in systematic hiding and denial of access as is almost universally practiced in society today?

            Or: If a boy's natural interests in female bodies were not curtailed or prevented by systematic hiding and withholding from times of earliest curiosity, how driven would adult males be to look for and try to touch what has long been denied to them?

            A well known psychological ploy, which I call the Wet Paint Phenomenon, involves an apparent appeal or temptation inherent in any obvious denial of access. A "Wet Paint" sign, for example, seems to silently call for at least a casual touch, even if one might otherwise have no interest in "risking one finger."

            When males are, in effect, told by females, "Look (at a distance), but don't dare touch our bodies," from times of earliest interest to ever afterward, how much incentive is rooted in the predictable psychological result of the situation, as contrasted with desires which would otherwise be limited to genetic urges alone?

            If female bodies were not systematically withheld from male access, as seems to have been partially different in primitive tribes, would civilized males today be as blindly drawn to look at and touch as we obviously are?


            I speculate that the answer is "No," that perhaps 80-90% of prevailing male interest in proverbial TAP (tits, ass, and pussy) is a result of psychological factors operative in current laws and mores, rather than inherent in natural drives related to replication.

            Typical male repressions in the context of typical female presentations characterized by these noted psychological factors, are, I conclude, the basis of most compulsive and unreasonable male attractions to see naked females and explore their regularly hidden bodies.

            These same factors are probably reflected in other familiar situations, such as, greater male interest in burlesque or partial nudity than in fully displayed female bodies; greater powers often wielded by "nice girls" over those by "sluts," or the often rapid loss of compulsive sexual interest in husbands whose wives bodies are often exposed to them.







            Proverbially, men don't/can't take directions, especially from women. Personally, I reluctantly admit, I qualify for the proverb. In spite of "knowing better," I can see in hindsight that I do indeed resist taking directions in general, and from women in particular.

            Women, in contrast, seem to take directions easily, even to seek them out, and certainly to recognize male resistance in the same arena.

            So, what's behind this apparent gender difference?



-- Perhaps the phenomenon can be simply explained by concluding that men are just stubborn and women naturally cooperative. But I think not.


-- Male resistance to "being told what to do" in general is based on genetic urges to independence versus dependence in quest of increased odds in self-replication. Boss or Alpha males in all species, not followers (who take directions), have more offspring. And, "gatherer" females, in contrast, survive better with more information from other gatherers.


-- But beyond this generality I note two deeper contrasts: First, males with shared goals, e.g., warring, hunting, winning, etc., not only "take orders" well but commonly look openly for directions on how to win, etc.


-- Females who on the surface appear cooperative and willing to be directed, on closer examination are often extremely resistant to directions, especially from males. They are, I note, far more diligent in pursuit of "their ways," especially with males, and this means "avoiding directions" whenever their self-chosen way is in conflict with male desires.


-- Holistic thinking of females, versus "one track minds" in males, easily leads to greater wisdom in many regards, as reflected in female oracles of old, and "smarter" women today.

            Also, pea-cocking, braggadocio males who sport more independence than they actually have, are deeply in need of directions in many aspects of daily living, especially in home and social circumstances.

            Result: Even in face of obvious resistance, many males truly want to be directed, even told what to do much of the time, but without overt female dominance in the process.

            Wiser females who recognize this typical male "need/desire for directions," even when cloaked by false independence, learn arts in "telling without telling" as a means of directing male behavior in ways desirable to themselves.


-- A male danger with "taking directions," especially from females, is giving up masculinity in favor of wimpiness--that is, "losing our balls" in the process of becoming "good husbands, fathers, etc." This is especially true with macho males who don't acknowledge deeper "needs to know" what females seem to, and are thereby vulnerable to sacrificing masculinity in quest of "keeping the little woman happy"--that is, unwittingly volunteering for wimp-hood.


-- A typical male challenge in maturing lies in facing predictable unconscious resistance to "being told" and learning to take truly needed directions without loss of male integrity--that is, to acknowledge real personal ignorance in arenas where females are indeed "smarter" or at least better informed, and to be open to directions from them without at the same time volunteering for spiritual castration.







            Ideally we identify our sense of ourselves with all inherited capacities; but in practice, differing gender identifications tend to be more common.

            In broadest perspective, men more often identify ourselves with our minds, especially our conscious thinking, while women tend to identify with their bodies in general and feelings in particular.

            Of course, mind and body are broad categories, intended here more as metaphors for related capacities than for their physicalness. Mind, where males more commonly identify ourselves, stands for consciousness and its specific elements, namely, words, ideas, reasons, and "sense."

            Body, woman's common repository of self, is not simply her torso and physical equipment, but rather the ways in which she typically grasps the world, namely, via senses and emotions (bodily capacities) which tend to be more unconscious than in mind's eye.

            To use other metaphors, men tend to identify with our heads, women with their hearts.

"A man's word is his bond (or so we like to think)," while a woman's bond, should she ever have one, is her heart." Head translates into thinking; heart into feelings. But "words" and thinking are more than brain only, just as "heart" and feelings are more than literal emotions.

            Man's typical sense of self, metphored as head or mind, is more literally about intellectual awareness--that is, notions, explanations, theories, and beliefs. Woman's common identification with heart or body is literally more related to physical sensations--that is, what she sees, hears, smells, touches, and tastes (as contrasted with "thinks about"), plus primal emotions which perceptions naturally generate.

            Further clarification may be found in rapidly emerging data about the two hemispheres of our brains. Here comparisons are both literal and metaphorical. Overall we may say that males tend to identify ourselves with our left hemisphere, and females with their right. "Men are typically left-brained" and "women are right-brained"--that is, we tend to identify ourselves with the differing functions of each hemisphere. Literally, this is because words, speech, reasoning, and ideas are primarily rooted in left hemisphere functioning, while sensations and emotions tend to be mediated to awareness via deep brain connections and right hemisphere activation.

            As a generalization we may thus say that male identification is more with left-brain functions, and female, with right-brain capacities.

            But because females tend to have larger corpus callosums connecting the two brain hemispheres, they also have expanded mental capacities which I summarize as whole brain or circular thinking, in distinction from male abilities as focused ("train track") thinking (based on words, facts, logic, and theory-making).

            The relevance of this latter fact in combination with other body/mind differences is that in cross-gender relationships females have two distinct advantages related to body versus mind identification. First, because females identify their selves with sensations and emotions, they tend to be more developed in these arenas and hence to embrace and exercise them freely in relationships with men who try to repress their feelings in service of logical thinking, and consequently become unwittingly vulnerable to emotional manipulation by women. Also, since females are less often identified with their minds, they are freer to use their comprehensive thinking in managing males who "take words and ideas personally."

            Conversely, males, more at home with words, facts, and ideas (due to mind identification) are also more comfortable and capable when relating mentally rather than emotionally. One result is our obvious efforts to try to force females to "be sensible" rather than "so emotional" so they will be forced to compete on our home territory.

            But while females, more identified with feelings than with words, can take more liberties in realms of sense-making and consequently be more effective in arguments with men, they are also less comfortable with literal sense-making than with emotional-responding.

            If we think of feeling and thinking as functions, these contrasting repositories of self identification also tend to reflect in differing levels of confidence in their activation. Paradoxically, for example, women who literally "think a lot (activate their mental capacities)" and can easily defeat males in head to head arguments (given their freedoms to use words without being personally identified with them), may at the same time be less confident about their actual thinking capacities. And men, conversely, who may in fact feel deeply (even when emotions are consciously repressed) and are able to take emotional liberties (since we are not self-identified with our feelings), may be more threatened (less confident) about emotions in general.

            In summary, whereas females are often comfortable with their feelings, they may also be less confident about rational thinking; and vice versa with males, who while comfortable with thinking, may feel personally threatened when "things get emotional."


            Predictably, when one is strongly identified with one of these two functions, he or she feels weaker and hence more vulnerable in the other. Not that capacities are less or that actual activation of the other is lacking, but that self identity with the other function leaves one lacking in self-confidence and conscious development in its use.

            Males, for example, who strongly identify with thinking (function #2) tend to be less conscious and more repressed emotionally (function #1). Consequently we are also more vulnerable to emotional manipulation, especially by females, as well as inclined to act-out feelings rather than moderate them reasonably.

            Correspondingly, females who strongly identify with their emotions ("womanly women") are apt to feel vulnerable to rational thinking, not because they are lacking in actual mental abilities, but, again, because they have not identified themselves with this function and tend to leave it relatively undeveloped in awareness.

            Typical results of these differing sources of self-identification include: marriages between opposites in a perhaps unconscious attempt to capture a "missing half" of ourselves--that is, to "get" our weaker function "out there" in another person. For example, strongly intellectual men self-identified with their thinking often marry emotional women who are themselves undeveloped in conscious thinking (e.g. Arthur Miller and Marilyn Monroe).

            And primal-type females ("very feminine") deeply identified with body, heart, and "feelings," often marry engineers, professors, or scientists--that is, non-emotional, intellectual-type men.

            In cross gender encounters between those with differing places of self-identification, whether married or not, predictable ploys aimed at protecting one's weaker (less developed) function include:

            Mind identified males trying hard to "be reasonable" and "unemotional," yet deeply moved by, e.g., female tears or other emotional "outbursts" (as such males are apt to view "feeling" activation in females). When, for example, conversations or encounters "get emotional," such males are apt to: a) Try to change the subject to some rational facts; b) To put down on females for "being unreasonable"; c) Rush to try to appease or otherwise change the feelings of the other person--that is, to get them to be less emotional; d) Try to defend one's self by presenting data aimed at "proving them wrong" for feeling as they obviously do; or, e) Resort to irrational acting-out of one's own repressed emotions (as in, physical abuse, running away, or refusing to talk "if you can't be reasonable").

            Emotionally identified females, protecting themselves from feared weakness in their rational thinking abilities, may: a) Refuse to engage in conversations limited to logic and sense-making based on established facts; b) Limit conversation to anecdotal stories, "non-academic" subjects, and exchanges of emotions; c) Interrupt fact-based conversation by inserting sense observations and/or emotion-based data; d) Feign reasonableness by artfully absorbing facts (intellectual data) from others and then repeating them as though they were one's own thinking; e) Quickly refuting any thought from another person by noting a contrary fact or possibility, effectively preventing a move into intellectual exchanges.

            In each of these familiar male and female reactions to encounters with those who are stronger in their own less developed function, the aim is to protect oneself from having to consciously activate one's own more repressed function. Such males shield ourselves from deeply feared risks in "getting emotional and losing control," while emotionally identified females avoid moving into "intellectual" arenas where they "feel uncomfortable."

            In summary, noting these differences in strength of function and some of the predictable effects of contrasting self-identifications is not to imply literal "weakness" in the other function--that is, that "men are unfeeling" or that "women don't think very much." Indeed, many men may in fact literally be more emotional than females who feel more comfortable with feelings than with thinking, even when they try to appear otherwise. And it is equally obvious to me that many women who try to avoid reason-based encounters and to keep conversations in emotional arenas, can actually think circles around men limited to our typical "train track" type thinking.

            Even so, in practice I see these typical self-identifications with one function or the other to have significant effects in cross-gender encounters.







            The incest taboo is near universally operative but with, I think, limited understanding. Typically it is only recognized at the level of overt intercourse--that is, not "doing it" with family members. More stringent taboos are with mother/son fucking; next come father/daughter sex, and finally sex between siblings.

            I speculate that this taboo might more clearly be seen as an agent of generalized sexual repression in one's immediate family, of which fucking is but the most overt example. In daily practice the taboo focuses more on denial and suppression of sexuality itself, specifically, sensual urges (to see, touch, and be touched), plus sexually related feelings and passions which are generally not allowed to be openly experienced without rejection and/or punishment.

            These taboos evolved, I speculate, as an initial phase of controlling sexual powers in civilization--which begins with family. Two reasons: first, to ease and preserve authority powers of parents over children; second, to use parents as agents of society in initiating suppression which becomes even more critical and dangerous outside the family.

            Specifically these include beginning the infusion of a social conscience, an ingraining of prevailing moral standards in the minds of children, so as to lessen later needs for overt force in enforcing acceptable behavior in society--along with functional repressions of instinctual urges (e.g., boys to touch girls, etc.).

            Means of enforcing these taboos: 1) limited language; 2) bad words, and judgments on few available words; 3) ingraining ideas of sex as dirty, and associating shame with natural lust; 4) no acceptable social conversation; 5) negative judgment of feeling desires; 6) negative judgment of sexually related acts; 6) punishments for breaking such rules; 7) approval for striving to "be good" and "nice," generally meaning, "non-sexual."

            The most primal and effective means of enforcing this taboo begin before language is possible, as parents, primarily mother, approve and disapprove of infant signs of sexuality while she yet reigns as goddess of all survival supplies, emotional affirmation, and even life or death powers. Beginnings of social conscience are here when most communication is non-verbal and a child is most vulnerable to motherly forces. For example, "shame on you" for trying to touch girls when uninvited; to peep at female bodies, or to "play with yourself," etc.




            Incest taboo, I think, is not genetic wisdom about risks of inbreeding, which is not necessarily so; nor is it inherited knowledge in the sense of "just known" intuitively.

            Its roots are rather in: 1. Motherly rejection of son's emerging sexuality in face of ambivalence between naturally greater affection for son (who she "made") and need of husband (who she "acquired") for security and overt sex. It is less about son's fear of castration or father punishment than of mother goddess rejection; 2. Father jealousy of son's favor with "his" mate is a secondary power.


            Summary: Incest taboo is generally misunderstood today. It is, I think, less about genetic wisdom than adaptation following repression, specifically, of mother and son denial of sexual elements in their private relationship. This taboo must lie at the beginning of repression in children, without which we would respect conscious knowledge of potential dangers in inbreeding, but also recognize risks of repression dangers too.







A Theory


            I speculate that the "bad smell" of shit is less inherent in odors reaching an adult nose, than the result of something which happens in a child's mind during early years of development. Obviously babies, who seem to arrive with good smell abilities, do not share this adult perspective before they are "toilet trained." In fact, they may even take delight in remaining in "dirty diapers" or playing with their own shit. There is no evidence that shit stinks to babies.

            So what happens to change this early situation? Does the sense of smell simply expand quickly along with bodily growth, only allowing one to discern the "bad smell" of shit after further nasal development? Are babies simply ignorant of an innate stink of shit? Or is there another more accurate explanation for this apparently universal shift in responding to odors of excrement sometime between birth and "learning to go on the potty"?

            I speculate that the truth lies more in the realm of psychological development than in expanded nasal discriminations--that is, that the "bad smell" of shit is less innate in excrement itself, than the result of mental changes which seem to take place in all children. In colloquial language, the change, I think, is "all in our heads" rather than in our physical noses (odor receptors). This particular stink is, I speculate, acquired in the process of a child's adaptation to family and society. In other words we somehow "learn" a nasal judgment which does not originally exist when we first arrive; the stink, if I am right, is not natural.

            If so, what could be the explanation? How or why do we all seem to "learn" that shit stinks? If it is not innate in excrement, what is the genesis of this common judgment?


            To explore this question I begin with some observations about evolution and our animal ancestors. Animals, with obviously better smell abilities than our own, apparently do not share this human judgment. In fact, male animals seem drawn to examine-by-smell the excrement and urine of other animals, especially females. Apparently such examinations are related to a search for information about other males or about when a female is "in heat," that is, potentially fertile for impregnation and "baby-making." Estrus clues must somehow be hidden in these bodily by-products.

            I speculate that human males also have remnants of this animal knowledge, even though we have obviously lost most such awareness in our conscious minds. Somehow, as we evolved from movement on all fours to an upright position and consequently raised our noses from ground level, we also lost much of this ancient knowledge about odors related to estrus.

            Was it simply a matter of distance from the ground that caused this loss in smell discrimination? Did development of enlarged brains and other advances in mental abilities also involve a shift in which other senses became more important in the upright world? Did sight and sound knowledge simply become more useful than smell information, leaving nasal discernments to gradually fade in importance and even to wither away in time?

            Or might other changes brought about by advances in civilization also signal the shift in the place of smell in adaptation to social requirements?


            I jump now to other possibly relevant observations about the human scene today. First I note the pragmatic importance of "toilet training" for smoothing the process of every child's adaptation to and acceptance into family structures. Indiscriminate peeing and bowel movements, which are briefly acceptable in beginning months of a baby's life, rapidly become a problem for mothers and fathers with other responsibilities beyond an infant's natural functions. Learning to "go on the potty" instead of "in one's diapers" soon becomes relevant to acceptance in the larger picture of family concerns.

            Socially speaking, it soon becomes "good" to be "toilet trained" and "bad" to "go in your pants"--that is, relating to adult judgments about the two modes of handling excrement and urine becomes significant for keeping parental approval and hence access to essential resources for personal satisfactions (life, love, and permission to be oneself).

            Would it ever be possible for a child to evade these near universal judgments related to shit and where it is to be placed? I think not. Somehow, if we are to maintain acceptance in the human community, we must all learn to handle these bodily functions in socially acceptable ways. And one of the apparently universal modes of dealing with "waste products" begins with judging them to "smell bad" as well as be obscene--that is, to be dealt with ("put away" privately)



            A second observation involves the potential relevance of anal pleasures which are probably equally universal in infants before social judgments set in. Apart from the function of "getting rid of waste products," Mother Nature has also evolved bodily pleasures associated with the process. That is, "it feels good" to pee and shit. Bowel movements, before judgments get attached, are pleasurable due to nerve endings "tickled" in the process. All small children must still be aware of this fact.

            Putting these two observations together--that is, something which personally "feels good" is at the same time socially "bad," we may imagine a conflict which every child faces in the necessary process of getting and maintaining social acceptance, beginning with mother, but soon extending to family and community as well.


            A third observation relates to the close connection between anal and genital pleasures, due in part to proximity of related nerve endings as well as bodily locations. Early pleasures associated with the intake of food (mouth nerves) and expulsion of shit (anal nerves), are, with bodily development, soon expanded to include even greater pleasures related to sex itself.

            And if negative social judgments are attached to shit, including its "bad" smell, those related to sex are even stronger. In fact the whole arena of childhood sexuality is near universally denied in adult consciousness. At least "bad smelling shit" is commonly acknowledged; but "bad sex," which is even worse in social eyes if not noses, is not even allowed into social awareness about the first years of life.

            Relevant here are the facts about prevailing social judgments of both shit and sex, and the close connections between the two which probably exist in the awareness of small children--and this in the larger context where social acceptance is far more important than personal pleasures--at least in the early years of life.


            Point: Given natural bodily pleasures associated with anal and genital nerves, plus prevailing social judgments about "bad smelling shit" and "dirty sex," and the necessity of acceptance by others in order to survive and live well, almost every child must face a serious dilemma related to "being himself" and "fitting in" with society.

            How is this universal challenge to be met? How can an infant remain "true to himself (his natural, inherited traits)" and at the same time be accepted in social structures which surround him and are essential for his overall well-being?


            I conclude that the answer lies in the human capacity for repression--that is, denial of what is known, through the process of partially splitting one's self into a conscious and an unconscious part. In this instance, I think that children must commonly deal with the above noted dilemma by beginning the process of repression in regard to bodily pleasures associated with anus and genitals--that is, shitting and being sexual.

            I speculate that human repressions may first begin in the process of "toilet training"--when natural pleasures related to peeing and shitting are first suppressed in awareness in favor of "learning to go on the potty" rather than "in one's diapers." At no time in life is acceptance by others (beginning with mother) more crucially important than in these earliest years; consequently, anything useful in maintaining favor with the powers-that-be must seem justified--including self-repression.

            I imagine that accepting "it smells bad" is at first but a way of supporting breaking the "bad habit" of "going in your diapers." In quest of being a "good boy (or girl)" in this regard, one may begin by accepting the adult judgment of "bad" smells related to the act itself. Accepting the judgments, as though they were one's own, may be supportive of changing unacceptable behaviors.

            My theory being explored here is that this near universal childhood move from "it feels good" to "it smells bad" is accomplished with the psychic device of repression. The prevailing adult judgment is gradually accepted as one's own as a way of easing the path toward the approved behavior which is what truly counts, especially in early life. That "shit smells bad" is, in this theory, the result of denying personal perceptions in favor of accepting adult judgments, and thereby achieving beginning success in the challenging process of gaining essential social acceptance--first confronted in the matter of "toilet training."

            Stated negatively, it is not that shit literally or inherently smells bad, but that we all learn to accept prevailing adult judgments in order to ease the difficult process of "toilet training." We suppress natural awareness in favor of social opinions--with good personal reasons at the time, and quickly "forget" that we have done so. We, in effect, relegate knowledge of anal pleasures to the unconscious mind as we learn to accept adult judgments consciously. Thereafter we too "know that shit stinks," just as they say it does, and suppress any bodily knowledge to the contrary.

            I suspect further that this early repression of anal knowledge is also the first step in the larger process of bodily dis-identification--that is, coming to imagine self as distinct or separate from body. What begins with denied anal pleasure culminates, I speculate, in denied awareness of personal unity--wholeness of body and mind, as one comes to identify oneself with consciousness and disavow what is repressed out of awareness (into "unconscious mind"). This may also be the genesis of religious notions of soul as eternal and body as temporal--with existential distinctions between the two.

            Current reflections of this primal split in personhood may be revealed in such unconscious gestures as raising one's nose when trying to appear above or "better than" some "lowly" matter (including matter itself). When one is "being snooty"--that is, acting proud or self-righteous ("above" something or other), he may unconsciously tilt his head backward and literally raise his nose in the air.

            I speculate that this unconscious gesture is rooted first in the evolutionary process of humans learning to stand upright and thus removing our noses from regular earthy contact. By raising our noses even further than normal we may unwittingly be trying to appear even more removed from "earthy" matters now judged to be "bad." What may have begun as "trying not to smell shit" by suppressing nasal knowledge, may be symbolized in trying to be above "smelling" anything judged to be "bad" or "beneath" our conscious sense of our selves.

            The situation is complicated when genital pleasures (sexual knowledge) are added to anal pleasures--as happens in the normal course of every child's growth. When the "feels good" of sex are added to the good feelings of anal activity, and social judgments are expanded from "bad smelling shit" to include "bad feeling sexy," then the invitation to also expand personal repressions to include both must escalate greatly.

            Thus raising the nose higher than normal, which began with standing upright rather than moving on all fours, may both literally and symbolically represent an attempt to be separate from and above "stinky shit," "dirty sex," and even the human body itself--that is, to exist as a virtuous soul who "wouldn't stoop" to such "lowly matters" as shitting, fucking, or existing-as-body.


            In summary, I conclude that the stench of shit is a socially acquired judgment, not inherent in smelling excrement. Were we all to remain our natural selves, we would, like animals and small children, relate to bodily by-products non-judgmentally--that is, in accord with their utility (as in, searching for clues to estrus) and/or associated personal pleasures.

            As we grow up, adding knowledge of the social world in which we find ourselves, we would, I continue to theorize, also be pragmatic in confronting real issues such as, public opinion, social structures, germs, and disease possibilities; but, and this is the significant issue here: we would do so without the support of costly personal denials.

            Such a stance would, I also conclude, be extremely rare if existent at all. We all, it seems, opt for varying degrees of personal repression in quest of essential social acceptance, as reflected in negative judgments about shit, sex, and our bodies as well. Thereafter, as is common if not universal today, "shit smells bad," "sex is dirty," and "flesh is the source of evil." Only dis-embodied, non-sexual souls are inherently good.

            In conclusion, I imagine that to the degree any adult succeeds in facing the challenges of un-repression--that is, returning again to "be as a little child (as Jesus noted to be necessary for entering the kingdom of heaven)," then these familiar situations will be reversed. Shit will no longer "smell bad," sex will "be clean," and citizens will "be embodied" in heaven here.




Back To Home Page