There are, of course, a few partially designed cultures. Most of them represent only a small deviation from their parent cultures, and were usually formed around charismatic leaders lusting for sex and power, such as Joseph Smith again or Hassan-i-Sabbah of the Thuggee, and most of them were destroyed or subsumed back into the parent culture after their leaders' deaths. One particularly interesting one was the Oneida colony in New York. Like the Mormons, they had several curious practices which scandalized the neighbors, but the neighbors in those days were very easy to scandalize. One of those practices was that they encouraged sexual intercourse between young men and women beyond childbearing age. The exact reasoning behind this is uncertain, since most of the surviving commentary was written by hostile or bemused observers, but still I can't help speculating that it was intended in part to defuse the madness of teen testosterone. More subtly, it could have also served as a cultural binding ritual, associating pleasure and intimacy in young minds with an act that censorious, self-righteous neighbors considered loathsome. The Mormons, of course, had their polygyny, justified by reference to various sciptures. It is a mark of rare philosophical and ethical maturity to realize that scripture cannot justify anything, and one that neither of these cultures attained. The Oneida colony was destroyed, and the Mormons survived only at the cost of giving up one of their central tenets. The point here is that almost anything in the way of social or sexual customs can "work," but only because almost nothing is demanded of the ideological framework, except that it allows survival. If there is a "natural" (a word I use with many-dimensioned misgivings) mode of human organization, we haven't found it yet.
And with that, I will now proceed to tell all that I know about sex, from the straight male contemporary American bachelor perspective. I know that the above is fearfully dull, and perky nipples are infinitely more interesting.
There are obvious, enormous, and enormously divisive differences between
men and women, and nobody knows what they are. Any
attempt to make a general statement about women and men as classes causes a
hundred counter-examples to instantly spring to mind. For what it's worth, one
may say with moderate assurance that any general statement about the presumed
differences is either trivial or wrong, or, of course, both. Nevertheless I,
like you, feel sure that there's a big difference of some kind.
Women love men, and to my frequent sorrow and eternal hope, the choices
that women make among men are sometimes grotesque,
inexplicable and horrifying, and sometimes seem informed by a noumenal
wisdom strange to Earth. Most often, of course, they are merely not too
unreasonable. The aphorisms dealing with just what sort of woman may be
"won" by money, power, and fame are all true. If this sort of relationship,
using a user, seems just fine to you then you are already lost and damned.
From a distance, one sort of silence sounds very much like another. If you
intend to aim a meaningful silence at somebody, remember that
the meaning remains entirely in your own head unless you give
the person enough context to properly interpret it, and the necessary
amount of context is often much greater than you imagine.
Aside from this, it is a
ridiculous, time-wasting self-indulgence which strongly suggests a perceived
weakness in your own position. I ignore the significant sliences which come
my way, with sinuous pleasure and ultimate profit, losing thereby nothing
worthwhile.
"Love" is a word, referring indiscriminately to an enormous range of only presumably
related emotions and actions, all mutable and coming in many sizes and flavors,
and some undoubtedly quite unrecognizable to any one observer. If you imagine
that it's some sort of metaphysical Platonic ideal that you may approach more or less
nearly, you'd best forget that right now. To the impassioned question "But is it love?", the answer is always "Of course, more or less."
Or, regarded from another perspective, love is what people do - and nothing else. Emotions, reasons and motivations are all internal, and communicate only in the most partial and erratic fashion; and even if they do, it is often far from clear what to do with it. We are endlessly facile in inventing reasons for doing whatever we feel like doing, as a little introspection will assure you; and the roots of our emotions are beyond our immediate reach or control. What we can control is what we do, and any protestations of love which consistently fail the test of action are probably showing a love, or something, that you can do very well without.
Penis size does matter, but not much. If you find yourself with a woman to whom
it seems to matter a great deal, be aware that she likely has other peculiar ideas.
Consider yourself warned, and proceed with caution, if at all. This is still true, for somewhat different reasons, even if she is using the size business as a metaphor for something else entirely, which she may well be.
People can change, but they generally don't. Marriage is not magically
transformative, and the person you walk away from the altar with will be the
same schlump you knew all along, with all the irritations and deficiencies.
Be very, very sure that's what you want. Women, in particular, accept him
as he is right now, or don't marry him.
Cast a cold eye on the current spate of pop-psych "relationship" blather. Every
disagreement of a couple does not constitute a reason to call in consultants. Among
other things, there are a few secrets that you arguably should keep, and there definitely
is such a thing as too much communication. Fights as much as possible should be simply
avoided, or if they must be fought, they should be fought only when nobody's tired or low
on blood sugar or high on cortisol, and then kept absolutely and rigidly on the point.
Women, especially, often seem to go into marriage with something that looks
very much like a hidden agenda. I've seen several marriages which were preceded with
an active sex life; but as soon as the guy is hooked, or as soon as she's had whatever number
of children she had decided on, her sex drive throttles back to about 10%.
I don't know how to predict this behavior, or what it means, or what if anything can be done about it, but it is something
to be aware of. Don't yell at me; I'm observing, not moralizing.
There need be no shame in mistaking lust for love,
as long as your actions were honorable. It's not a distinction that our language or culture equips
us to make very well, and can sometimes be impossible to decide even in cold blood,
well after the fact.
Unlikely as it may seem, ladies, the fact that you
probably don't much resemble your guy's airbrushed fantasy figures is almost entirely
irrelevant, unless he's exceptionally young and stupid. You and they belong to only
distantly related categories in his mind, and he will feel quite honestly puzzled and put-upon
if you tax him with the differences. Basically, you can have a guy with an occasionally
roving eye, or a guy who conceals his thoughts and lies to you. Your choice.
Never try to have the last word unless you're prepared
to actually get it. Trust me on this. The pleasure is fleeting, and often your victim is too imperceptive to play out the neat little scenario you have in your head, and the situation will end in emotional violence and an ugly, inconclusive and most unsatisfying scene. A willingness to forgo the Parthian shot can pay off a thousand times over, in doors left open and bridges unburned, and an honest examination of your own emotions in such a situation can be an immensely valuable, if probably rather unpleasant, revelation.
That's all for now. You may think I don't know much about sex, and you may be right. I intend to research the matter further, as frequently and as deeply as possible, plunging headlong into my subject. Stay tuned.
Click here to go home.