I've found a very nice water based lubricant for the tip of the penis (glans) that helps keep the waxy coating from cracking off during hand masturbation or when showering afterwards. It is AstroGlide, made by BioFilm. The bottle describes it as an "All Natural Personal Lubricant". Unlike other water based lubricants I've tried, AstroGlide lasts a long time and doesn't leave a crusty and sticky residue as it does dry. Oil based hand moisteners like Curel are good for using on the hands before masturbation, before gripping the sides of the penis which can be damaged by rough and dry hands, but if applied to the glans itself seem to have no beneficial effect, and may even accelerate the loosening of the light colored waxy coating, exposing pink patches of uncoated skin underneath.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Sunday, May 29, 2011
The Unspeakable
Often I am told that people simply can't say the things I do.
When I was growing up (as if I ever did) in the 1960's and early 1970's, I often heard denigration of the "liberal media." I don't recall ever hearing about the media as pro-corporate, pro-business, or pro-wealth, even conservative.
Only after much time, in the 1980's or 1990's, did I hear of the media as being anything but "liberal."
Now it should be clear to most people that the media is not liberal, and certainly not socialist or social democratic. Even public radio and television host far more conservative, pro-business, or pro-corporate commentators than liberals, social democrats, socialists, or anarchists. In fact I don't remember ever hearing ANY socialists or anarchists on public radio or television, though they would be a good counterweight to many on the far right (neo-falangists) that can be heard from pr firms such as Cato, American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation.
I've developed an idea how this worked. Quite often on the TV of the 1960's would comment about TV *not* being liberal, but rather fair, balanced, etc. But the very denial made the concept speakable, something that could be discussed. Never on the TV of the 1960's would you hear the opposite defense, that TV was *not* being conservative, pro-business, etc. The very thought of that was unspeakable. The one-sided denials themselves became a kind of endorsement of the idea. And all the more to cover the real truth, that commercial television funded by corporations cannot help but be pro-corporate, etc. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And there are other reasons too. That US citizens can criticize their government or government officials is constitutionally guaranteed. On the other hand, speaking ill of corporations could be found to be libel by the mainstream pro-corporate judiciary, as well as leading to a fall off in advertisement revenue.
So it is often that when something is unspeakable, it is the real truth.
And another such unspeakable truth is that women are, as individuals, more powerful than men.
It is absolutely obvious from mammalian evolutionary psychology that it should be like that. Women have control over the scarcer reproductive resources. This is clearly revealed in Steven Pinker's (becoming harder to find) book, How the Mind Works.
But in the 1970's and beyond, the 2nd and later waves of Feminism began to preach that women are generally oppressed by men, not just rich and powerful men but all men generally, and should seek to realize their natural superiority by throwing off generalized male oppression. One key figure in these later sexist Feminist movements has been the anti-porn feminist Gloria Steinem. Now I strongly support the original 1st wave Feminist movements, that are not so much about identity as basic rights, including the right to choose abortion. But the 2nd and 3rd wave Feminist movements became more about identity, generalized oppression, and natural superiority, and sometimes even become silent about abortion.
This has now become such an article of faith in left organizations that it cannot be criticized. And along with the new primary goal of ending generalized female oppression, it is only natural that there should be quota systems or similar mechanisms to guarantee that women are fairly represented, in organizations from the pro-corporate Democratic Party to the sensible left Democratic Socialists of America there are quotas to guarantee that women get their fair share of party representatives at all levels (district, state, national), save the ultimate election to Congress where ability to raise money alone prevails. Regardless of how many individuals of either sex who are competing for the jobs, or what their particular platform is, etc.
I attended the 2008 National Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). In that convention, we elected the representatives who set on the central policymaking board; a group of 22 or so individuals. Just enough women had offered their candidacy as were needed by quota on the board. Therefore, all the women who volunteered were accepted, without having to speak before the body or face election. Meanwhile, there were about 50% more men who had signed up than could be allowed on the board, so every one of them spoke before the group, and had to face an open-ballot election process. About 70% of those attending the convention were men.
I was beginning to have my doubts that all the women who had automatically been selected simply by volunteering actually represented socialist viewpoints. I know at least one was an outspoken Christian, not generally expected among Socialists.
Sometime before the convention, Gloria Steinem had written an editorial in a mainstream newspaper that women should vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama or any male candidate because sex is the most important political issue. This generated some comment, but not clear denunciation, at the socialist convention. It would seem to me that Socialism is first and foremost about making society fair for all working people, women and men alike. Nevertheless, Gloria Steinem remains an honorary directory of DSA. At the DSA convention, there was no motion to remove Steinem as honorary chair for anti-socialist remarks, nor any mention of changing the bylaws to remove the quota system for women and men.
I believe in Socialism. But to succeed, Socialism will have to cast off identity politics. As a political identity movement for specific oppressed groups, I don't believe it has any hope. There is only hope in unity of all working people, regardless of sex or other individual identities.
When I was growing up (as if I ever did) in the 1960's and early 1970's, I often heard denigration of the "liberal media." I don't recall ever hearing about the media as pro-corporate, pro-business, or pro-wealth, even conservative.
Only after much time, in the 1980's or 1990's, did I hear of the media as being anything but "liberal."
Now it should be clear to most people that the media is not liberal, and certainly not socialist or social democratic. Even public radio and television host far more conservative, pro-business, or pro-corporate commentators than liberals, social democrats, socialists, or anarchists. In fact I don't remember ever hearing ANY socialists or anarchists on public radio or television, though they would be a good counterweight to many on the far right (neo-falangists) that can be heard from pr firms such as Cato, American Enterprise Institute, and Heritage Foundation.
I've developed an idea how this worked. Quite often on the TV of the 1960's would comment about TV *not* being liberal, but rather fair, balanced, etc. But the very denial made the concept speakable, something that could be discussed. Never on the TV of the 1960's would you hear the opposite defense, that TV was *not* being conservative, pro-business, etc. The very thought of that was unspeakable. The one-sided denials themselves became a kind of endorsement of the idea. And all the more to cover the real truth, that commercial television funded by corporations cannot help but be pro-corporate, etc. He who pays the piper calls the tune. And there are other reasons too. That US citizens can criticize their government or government officials is constitutionally guaranteed. On the other hand, speaking ill of corporations could be found to be libel by the mainstream pro-corporate judiciary, as well as leading to a fall off in advertisement revenue.
So it is often that when something is unspeakable, it is the real truth.
And another such unspeakable truth is that women are, as individuals, more powerful than men.
It is absolutely obvious from mammalian evolutionary psychology that it should be like that. Women have control over the scarcer reproductive resources. This is clearly revealed in Steven Pinker's (becoming harder to find) book, How the Mind Works.
But in the 1970's and beyond, the 2nd and later waves of Feminism began to preach that women are generally oppressed by men, not just rich and powerful men but all men generally, and should seek to realize their natural superiority by throwing off generalized male oppression. One key figure in these later sexist Feminist movements has been the anti-porn feminist Gloria Steinem. Now I strongly support the original 1st wave Feminist movements, that are not so much about identity as basic rights, including the right to choose abortion. But the 2nd and 3rd wave Feminist movements became more about identity, generalized oppression, and natural superiority, and sometimes even become silent about abortion.
This has now become such an article of faith in left organizations that it cannot be criticized. And along with the new primary goal of ending generalized female oppression, it is only natural that there should be quota systems or similar mechanisms to guarantee that women are fairly represented, in organizations from the pro-corporate Democratic Party to the sensible left Democratic Socialists of America there are quotas to guarantee that women get their fair share of party representatives at all levels (district, state, national), save the ultimate election to Congress where ability to raise money alone prevails. Regardless of how many individuals of either sex who are competing for the jobs, or what their particular platform is, etc.
I attended the 2008 National Convention of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). In that convention, we elected the representatives who set on the central policymaking board; a group of 22 or so individuals. Just enough women had offered their candidacy as were needed by quota on the board. Therefore, all the women who volunteered were accepted, without having to speak before the body or face election. Meanwhile, there were about 50% more men who had signed up than could be allowed on the board, so every one of them spoke before the group, and had to face an open-ballot election process. About 70% of those attending the convention were men.
I was beginning to have my doubts that all the women who had automatically been selected simply by volunteering actually represented socialist viewpoints. I know at least one was an outspoken Christian, not generally expected among Socialists.
Sometime before the convention, Gloria Steinem had written an editorial in a mainstream newspaper that women should vote for Hillary Clinton rather than Barack Obama or any male candidate because sex is the most important political issue. This generated some comment, but not clear denunciation, at the socialist convention. It would seem to me that Socialism is first and foremost about making society fair for all working people, women and men alike. Nevertheless, Gloria Steinem remains an honorary directory of DSA. At the DSA convention, there was no motion to remove Steinem as honorary chair for anti-socialist remarks, nor any mention of changing the bylaws to remove the quota system for women and men.
I believe in Socialism. But to succeed, Socialism will have to cast off identity politics. As a political identity movement for specific oppressed groups, I don't believe it has any hope. There is only hope in unity of all working people, regardless of sex or other individual identities.
Saturday, May 21, 2011
DSK, and sex crimes vs love crimes
- As posted to an interesting blog at Crooked Timber (before some well needed edits):I don’t have any feelings whatever toward DSK or his accuser. They are far away and I've never met either one. I think if it turns out that DSKis guilty, I could become very angry at DSK or myself that my attempt not to rush to judgement (when it sometimes seems like I am the only one who hasn’t) has turned out to have been shielding a criminal. This is how it turned out in 1974 after I had campaigned for Nixon, presumed his innocence, and defended his innocence before my friends who mostly called me foolish. A key step on my personal journey toward socialism. But now very ironically I join those who look back at the Nixon somewhat fondly, as Chomsky says, the last liberal President, and wonder if people like Woodward’s friends had an extra agenda to bring an end to moderately socially democratic conservatism.I do have considerable anger, however misplaced, toward those who have rushed to the judgement that DSK is guilty, and worse anger toward those who say this is just how men are generally. I just finished my 3rd posting on Katha Pollitt’s blog, not defending DSK (though having suggested there may be alternatives to the accusation made against DSK) because I fear he might indeed be guilty, as Nixon was, but rather pointing out the hypocrisy of her literally concluding that DSK is guilty while simultaneously accusing French media of a rush to judgement blaming the accuser.Honestly I find it hard to picture how a man such as DSK could make attacks such as have been alleged (or proven?) and still be nearly in position to have been elected President of France, after having been one of the least antisocial chiefs of the IMF. Can someone point me to movies to help educate my imagination on things like this?This is not at all comparable to (at least how I have imagined) priestly pedophilia because that is in some sense consensual, just that we don’t extend the authority to consent to the victims. Rape is non-consensual period; that is definitional. It seems hard for me to imagineDSK as a violent criminal. He seems more like the boring kind.I perceive a kind of gray area involving lack of communication or differing cultural norms that is yet another kind of unproven hypothesis. Need I ask permission to touch my date’s hand? Normally, I now think not, though she is certainly entitled to refuse, and if done politely I should not be in the least offended. But I have had dates (even one continuing sets of dates with one woman that had gone on for a month) where the first such touch led to lectures, denunciations, or realized or nearly realized threats of dissociation (that in one case required vast apologies to overcome). Apparently I was supposed to have asked permission, though with others that might be seen as fatal weakness: an avoidance of risk taking that some women demand.In this grey area, if you concede that it exists, it also makes me wonder about this: Isn't the reason that attempted rape (if quickly shunned or avoided without injury) is seen as a serious crime (not that far removed from murder) is because it is a violation of the victims dignity and respect? Then if so, what about the other side in cases like I described above. Say if a hand touch leads to a lasting peer group ostracism and a therefore a long lasting personal crisis. Couldn’t that also be seen as a violation of dignity and respect? A crime of love perhaps rather than a crime of sex?It seems to me that some feminists are sexist, and that the masculine role is a lot more difficult and complicated than they perceive. This kind of news brings them out, and that makes me angry, and also makes me angry at men too who don’t recognize the complexity of the issues and might therefore be inclined to join the chorus of those calling me a misogynist.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Girls don't want to have fun
Most of the time, girls don't want to have fun. Unless you re-define "fun" as saying no to what is otherwise mutually agreed to be fun.
There are an infinite number of stated reasons, starting from the cliched "I have a headache."
(As for me, if it seemed like I was getting a headache, I'd take an aspirin or ibuprofen a couple hours ahead of time. My philosophy on this, aptly described in a famous Dire Straights song, is whatever-it-takes, which is the antithesis of only-when-all-the-cards-are-right.)
But what "no" really seems to be is no-for-the-sake-of-demonstrating-I-can-say-no.
So at a fundamental level, it seems to be an excercise of power. OK, we all like to feel powerful in some way important to us, that's one thing I think Nietzsche was right about. But better that it be more in direction of fun, as the problems of the world are actually very little caused by fun, in fact I think they're mostly caused by people-not-having-enough-fun-in-the-right-ways. Rather, the problems of the world are most often caused by doing work, work of the wrong kind, work toward greed (as with the banksters, or the fossil fuel extracting corporations, either of which the world would have been better without) or often even duty, such as the duty to have a large family to please God, or fight in the imperial army, to please Dad, Caesar, Bush, Prince, or Jesus. Sometimes those kinds of work (such as kill, kill, kill) can seem like fun, but it's the wrong kind of fun.
So it follows that I see "no" as in "no fun tonight" as the wrong kind of no, not the right kind of no. No as in I won't kill people for their beliefs or differenent ways of doing things would be the right kind of no.
Now I'm speaking as a athiest, and that is where my experience derives. How is this dynamic in religious societies where men often wield too much power over women?
Well, what happens in those socieities is that everyone says no to fun. Life is not about fun, it is about making babies for Dog, raising families for Dog, casting cannons for Dog, killing infidels for Dog, etc. To whatever degree fun even exists, it is to be ignored, all the better that it be brief, therefore, or restricted to adolescents.
So fun loses on every side. Instead, we keep pushing onward to the abyss, whether for Dimon or Jesus or simply an arbitrary exercise of power.
Now there is one society that (at least in stereotype) seems to actually want too much fun (as hard as it is for me to conceive of such a thing). And that is the society of young gay men. OK, I will concede that 24 hours a day of fun is too much. 16 hours of fun a day may be about right, but not 24.
And among women, there are variations also. It seems, much like you might expect, the women whose appearance is generally less enticing to men, for example, those having a large waist and small bust, are among those more likely to want more fun rather than less. Perhaps from fun-starvation, or perhaps their personality makes it harder for them to say no either to food or fun.
OTOH, thin women, perhaps accustomed to saying no to their own food desires, tend to be in the I-want-less-fun range. I met one such woman who said she might consent to sex about once a month, after getting the roses, the fine restaurant dinner, and the show, not just that night but on the three preceding weekends as well, and if the guy was really sincere, and she liked the way he said it, and if she felt like it.* Maybe she would better be described as slave-driver.
It believe it is precisely this slave-driving tendency of the hottest women that drives men insane--to conquer the world in some bad way in the vain hope of pleasing such women and thereby getting more fun.
*Honestly I don't mind taking a woman to all those dinner and shows. I especially don't mind, in fact I enjoy spending my own money on her. It's just the endlessness of it all, the uncertainty of it all, that in the end makes me feel frustrated and powerless. And I accept no, I will accept that, I'd just like to hear yes more often.
There are an infinite number of stated reasons, starting from the cliched "I have a headache."
(As for me, if it seemed like I was getting a headache, I'd take an aspirin or ibuprofen a couple hours ahead of time. My philosophy on this, aptly described in a famous Dire Straights song, is whatever-it-takes, which is the antithesis of only-when-all-the-cards-are-right.)
But what "no" really seems to be is no-for-the-sake-of-demonstrating-I-can-say-no.
So at a fundamental level, it seems to be an excercise of power. OK, we all like to feel powerful in some way important to us, that's one thing I think Nietzsche was right about. But better that it be more in direction of fun, as the problems of the world are actually very little caused by fun, in fact I think they're mostly caused by people-not-having-enough-fun-in-the-right-ways. Rather, the problems of the world are most often caused by doing work, work of the wrong kind, work toward greed (as with the banksters, or the fossil fuel extracting corporations, either of which the world would have been better without) or often even duty, such as the duty to have a large family to please God, or fight in the imperial army, to please Dad, Caesar, Bush, Prince, or Jesus. Sometimes those kinds of work (such as kill, kill, kill) can seem like fun, but it's the wrong kind of fun.
So it follows that I see "no" as in "no fun tonight" as the wrong kind of no, not the right kind of no. No as in I won't kill people for their beliefs or differenent ways of doing things would be the right kind of no.
Now I'm speaking as a athiest, and that is where my experience derives. How is this dynamic in religious societies where men often wield too much power over women?
Well, what happens in those socieities is that everyone says no to fun. Life is not about fun, it is about making babies for Dog, raising families for Dog, casting cannons for Dog, killing infidels for Dog, etc. To whatever degree fun even exists, it is to be ignored, all the better that it be brief, therefore, or restricted to adolescents.
So fun loses on every side. Instead, we keep pushing onward to the abyss, whether for Dimon or Jesus or simply an arbitrary exercise of power.
Now there is one society that (at least in stereotype) seems to actually want too much fun (as hard as it is for me to conceive of such a thing). And that is the society of young gay men. OK, I will concede that 24 hours a day of fun is too much. 16 hours of fun a day may be about right, but not 24.
And among women, there are variations also. It seems, much like you might expect, the women whose appearance is generally less enticing to men, for example, those having a large waist and small bust, are among those more likely to want more fun rather than less. Perhaps from fun-starvation, or perhaps their personality makes it harder for them to say no either to food or fun.
OTOH, thin women, perhaps accustomed to saying no to their own food desires, tend to be in the I-want-less-fun range. I met one such woman who said she might consent to sex about once a month, after getting the roses, the fine restaurant dinner, and the show, not just that night but on the three preceding weekends as well, and if the guy was really sincere, and she liked the way he said it, and if she felt like it.* Maybe she would better be described as slave-driver.
It believe it is precisely this slave-driving tendency of the hottest women that drives men insane--to conquer the world in some bad way in the vain hope of pleasing such women and thereby getting more fun.
*Honestly I don't mind taking a woman to all those dinner and shows. I especially don't mind, in fact I enjoy spending my own money on her. It's just the endlessness of it all, the uncertainty of it all, that in the end makes me feel frustrated and powerless. And I accept no, I will accept that, I'd just like to hear yes more often.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Why more sex too?
Certainly there is not enough love in the world. We were made for loving, and yet have built societies, religions, and economic systems that suppress, oppress, and repress love. That needs fixing.
But how can I say there is not enough sex? Isn't this the 25 hour a day sex society? Wasn't there a sexual revolution? How much is enough, and how much is too much?
Those sound like reasonable questions. But I don't think they are.
I believe we were made for sex, just as much as we were made for love. We could have sex in the broadest sense (including all forms of acting in a sexual context) nearly every hour of every day. At yet, it's more like an hour a week, or an hour a month, or a few times in a lifetime. If there is a sex we are bombarded with, it is the commercial kind, which is commercial first and sexual last. The fact that it still works is proof of how we crave so much more.
Technology has removed the chains that bonded sex to costly reproduction. But the drive for sex is rarely allowed to be satisfied directly anyway. And even those chains were greatly exaggerated. The majority of potential sexual activities were never constrained by those concerns.
As far as I can see (and I lived through it), the sexual revolution never happened. Briefly, the availability of contraception was celebrated in media and mythology. Then the old forces of suppression, repression, and oppression swiftly and in some cases cleverly reasserted themselves. The sexual counterrevolution was so swift and so successful that sex of the loving kind is even more rare today than it was before the sexual revolution.
But how can I say there is not enough sex? Isn't this the 25 hour a day sex society? Wasn't there a sexual revolution? How much is enough, and how much is too much?
Those sound like reasonable questions. But I don't think they are.
I believe we were made for sex, just as much as we were made for love. We could have sex in the broadest sense (including all forms of acting in a sexual context) nearly every hour of every day. At yet, it's more like an hour a week, or an hour a month, or a few times in a lifetime. If there is a sex we are bombarded with, it is the commercial kind, which is commercial first and sexual last. The fact that it still works is proof of how we crave so much more.
Technology has removed the chains that bonded sex to costly reproduction. But the drive for sex is rarely allowed to be satisfied directly anyway. And even those chains were greatly exaggerated. The majority of potential sexual activities were never constrained by those concerns.
As far as I can see (and I lived through it), the sexual revolution never happened. Briefly, the availability of contraception was celebrated in media and mythology. Then the old forces of suppression, repression, and oppression swiftly and in some cases cleverly reasserted themselves. The sexual counterrevolution was so swift and so successful that sex of the loving kind is even more rare today than it was before the sexual revolution.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)