ON SEX AND GENDER

 

1.   There are two approaches to sex, viz. a materialist and a spiritualist.  The former approach involves copulation, the latter approach oral sex or some derivative thereof.

 

2.   On the materialist petty-bourgeois levels, both earlier and later, the approach to sex takes the form of heterosexual perversion on the earlier level, in which a man's penis enters a woman's rectum in a relatively homosexual context, and outright homosexuality on the later level (a level biased towards proletarian values), as between two men who establish an absolute relativity between themselves.

 

3.   Similarly, on the spiritualist petty-bourgeois levels, both earlier and later, the approach to sex takes the form of an oral bias favouring the masculine (fellatio) on the earlier level, as a woman takes a man's penis into her mouth, and pornography on the later level (a level biased towards proletarian values), as between the male utilizer of pornography and his preferred female models, who establish a radical relativity between themselves.

 

4.   Proletarian civilization, however, would only endorse pornography, though of an abstract nature, in order to establish between the voyeur and his model an absolute relationship, i.e. one that transcends radical relativity.

 

5.   No proletarian state, whether transcendentalist or socialist, could endorse petty-bourgeois sexuality, and so neither relative pornography nor homosexuality should be encouraged by such a state.

 

6.   A person's sexuality is relative, as a rule, to his temperamental and class integrity.  A man who regularly indulges in anal sex with his woman is unlikely to become a pornographer.  Conversely, the man who regularly encourages his woman to fellate him is unlikely to become a homosexual.

 

7.   The earlier level of materialist petty-bourgeois sexuality may lead to the later one in due course.  Likewise, the earlier level of spiritualist petty-bourgeois sexuality may lead to the later level in the course of time.  Usually, however, a man stays on a given level within any particular context.  This is also true of art, politics, religion, etc.

 

8.   A socialist society, being materialistic, is more exposed to the danger of homosexuality than to that of pornography.  Conversely, a transcendentalist society, being spiritualistic, will be more exposed to the danger of relative pornography than to that of homosexuality.

 

9.   Within the context of petty-bourgeois civilization, one cannot, of course, speak of homosexuality or pornography as 'dangers', since they are relevant to the class integrity of such a civilization.  Naturally, people on earlier sexual levels will fear or despise those who, unbeknown to their critics, pertain to a later level.

 

10.  An anal violator of women may have no taste for outright homosexuality.  The man who enjoys having his penis made the focal-point of oral attention may have no taste for pornography.  Needless to say, the antithetical tendencies on an identical level, whether earlier or later, will usually be deemed mutually exclusive by their respective practitioners.

 

11.  The Church has never been too fond of homosexuals, partly because it is fundamentally bourgeois (as opposed to petty bourgeois), and partly because it pertains to the spiritualist (as opposed to materialist) side of things.  Being bourgeois, it has championed heterosexual relationships under the umbrella of marriage.  Being spiritual, it would not, I dare say, have anything against oral sex, particularly of the balanced (cunnilingus/fellatio) heterosexual variety.

 

12.  The evolution of sex may be traced from negative concrete beginnings to positive abstract endings via a heterosexual compromise coming in-between.  The beginnings presuppose a pre-atomic, or pagan, civilization; the endings ... a post-atomic, or transcendental, civilization; the in-between an atomic, or Christian, civilization in any of its three stages (with or without accompanying phases), the beginnings and the endings absolute, the in-between period relative, as between materialism and spirituality.  Thus from hand in vagina to hand on penis via relative relationships.

 

13.  Probably the hand in vagina was motivated by materialistic stimuli from without, such as the enticing curves of a pagan goddess displayed, in marble, in some public place.  As sex becomes less reputable and more spiritualized, it is driven underground, so to speak, in the context of private stimulation, whether as regards vibrators/inflatables or pornography.

 

14.  In the relativistic civilization of the Christian, or bourgeois, stages of evolution, sex, while no longer the public thing it was in pagan times, never became entirely private.  Some sex, or degree of sexual behaviour, remained in the open, such as holding hands, kissing, cuddling, patting, squeezing, etc.  There were, however, firm moral bounds as to the degree of sex one could reasonably indulge in public.

 

15.  A transcendental civilization would necessarily discourage all forms and degrees of public sexual relations, since, even on the homosexual level, they would be deemed irrelevant.  And this would also apply to a person's private life, where sex, if indulged in at all, should be independent of other people, since strictly artificial.

 

16.  The pursuit of sensual gratification presupposes self-indulgence.  The pursuit of love presupposes concern for another.  The pursuit of happiness presupposes concern for some others.  The pursuit of self-realization presupposes identification with the universal self ... of the spirit.

 

17.  Man evolves from the personal to the universal in the course of time, his eventual attainment to the absolutism of self-realization making the pursuit of all relative 'goods' irrelevant to him, and therefore as things to be avoided.

 

18.  Generally there exists between the sexes an evolutionary time-lag, whereby the female pursuit of sensual gratification and/or emotional fulfilment may be contrasted with the male pursuit of happiness and/or self-realization, depending on the individuals in question.

 

19.  More specifically, the attainment to each of these objectives presupposes sex and companionship in the female case, and work and recreation in the male case.

 

20.  In a sense, recreation is the essence of human and, in particular, male endeavour; for as God (the Father) created nature, so man must re-create it, transforming, by degrees, the natural into the supernatural via the artificial.

 

21.  Sex and child bearing/rearing is a woman's doing, companionship her being.  By contrast, work is a man's doing, recreation his being.  There exists a kind of romantic/classic dichotomy between each of these poles - the former, or female, poles physically selfish; the latter, or male, poles physically selfless.

 

22.  Of course, in an age when the traditional polarities, including the sexual, are disintegrating, many (though not all) women are adopting male criteria of living, in one or another degree of physical selflessness.

 

23.  Man aspires towards the spiritual absolute but is himself relative, and thus exposed, no matter how dedicated he may be to physical selflessness, to periodic relapses into the selfish, as a concern for and identification with the lesser self of the body-soul integrity.

 

24.  Thus a philosopher or artist dedicated to the progress of physical selflessness in his work may occasionally relapse into autobiography, or lower self-identification, in a reaction against the persona being projected by his professional self, which corresponds to a kind of alter ego ... of the higher self in the realm of doing.

 

25.  And such autobiographical relapses, betraying a personal self radically different to and seemingly at loggerheads with the persona of the professional self, will entail a doing relative to the female - indeed, the male equivalent of female selfishness.

 

26.  Thus largely autobiographical writers like Henry Miller may be defined as of feminine (selfish) constitution, and we cannot be surprised if a more than average concern with sexual activity - usually heterosexual - is the converse side of their professional selflessness.

 

27.  The more psychological distance there is between the personal self and the persona projected by the professional self, the greater the writer; for the latter can only expand at the former's expense.  And yet, if he isn't to go insane, the writer must admit to the fact of his human relativity and take steps to acknowledge it, from time to time, in his work.

 

                          

LONDON 1983 (Revised 1984-2010)

 

Preview THE WILL TO TRUTH eBook  

 

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button