The hypocrisy in the "You no need am" cunning (ever striving to keep men locked up in workrooms as dull Jacks busy wasting away) is that which should be condemned as fervently by the general society as I will not only condemn it with my own word, but as fervently as the Lords In Fairy Empires will condemn it with the care of emasculated homosexuals with which it will oppose it - by placing under protection the emasculation that usually accompanies homosexuality; and by empowering, when the homosexual would that he be. For how often emasculation often ends up having men viciously taken advantage of, by a world they know absolutely nothing of, often keeps me wrinkling my nostrils in disdain at the stench of the hypocrisy permeating those other worlds.
As a typical example, let us take a brief glimpse at the male adolescent phenomenon known as wet dreams.
Wet dreams, known in scientific circles as a common occurence amongst adolescent boys - and natural, at that - would be more appropriately known as wet sleep, had they not been another obvious proof of the number of times men are raped being just as often as that of women (if not more) and as equally often when they're young and pretty adolescents as women are during their own youth, before age takes away that which attracts the men to them. This fact is always ignored by the more powerful, and always open-eyed; and just as often unknown by the naive ignorant. For the naive culture that drives most societies usually believes women - however old, or capable - should be protected more conscientiously than any male child that has learnt how to talk. Yet, if it but knew how often such boys are sexually abused, even when supposedly under the protection of their parents (and, by those parents, as often as girls are - if not more) it would realise how the subtle cunning of female sexism and female chauvinism rules society much more than does the much more often maligned male version.
And a typical example of how such hypocrisy is covered up (by the heterosexual male-dominated society ignoring the needs of men, most especially when emasculated, regardless of how young; while preaching the zeal with which the women should be taken care of, regardless of how capable, regardless of how old) can be seen in the adolescent phenomenon often referred to by human behavioural scientists as "the wet dream."
The raging heterosexual males ruling the society do not want to know anything about the needs of men, unless the man is their personal friend. Men being supposed to take care of themselves because they are men, is that which they push down the throats of those other men - regardless of how young, weak, or needy the latter might be. And the women openly support such a cruel concept, despised (during those few occasions when a brave honest can speak the truth) as being no more than a symptom of male chauvinism; but to the brave honest that can see, that of female chauvinism - with the cunning with which they condone it, and then just as openly betray with their activities (be it public, or private) the sexism with which they protect the girl-child in particular (I don't believe even the very word "boy-child" has ever been mentioned in any but that which I write, before) and empower the female gender in particular.
And thereby, the wet dream.
I call wet dreams rape. Others, when just as aware, would call it child abuse. For if it was just a mere case of the libido having built up into a climax (as the human behavioural scientists would like to have us all believe) then it should be labelled with the term, wet sleep. Yet wet dreams they're called; not because they are not accompanied by sleep, but because the subconscious will always remember the lack of conscience with which the poor boy was taken advantage of - even when it stays with him only as a dream, upon awakening.
With that which I have been through in my own life, there are those amongst such boys that should have what they experience described as "greasy sleep" - if one puts into consideration the lubrication of their rectums that often accompanies their awakening from such sleep. Their days, after having thus woken up, would then be spent in workrooms; their lives lived as dull Jacks, and the disenchantment with which they live those lives encouraged (either by hypocrites, or by Jacks equally dull) into falling for the "You no need am" myth that would have them believe all work even that dull needs absolutely none of that play.
Girls rarely ever have that sort of problem, except in lower class societies. In the middle and the upper class, they are protected by a sexism completely ignored by men in general, and obviously encouraged by women in particular (though with extreme subtility) and with such fervid fanaticism that the privacy they're given, which boys rarely ever have, eventually has their own childhood and youth very often spent delving into sexual experiments with and amidst themselves. While the boys, when they have not fallen for the "You no need am" hypocrisy, are thrown out of the house to fight and to play football; when they have had the "You no need am" hypocrisy driven down their throats, are locked up in classrooms, workrooms, and supposed offices to simply waste away the energy that the girls spend in that referred to above, in the supposed work they are often deceived when older into believing is the heritage of the man.
Primitive tribes knew much more (but were just as cruel as the prison wardens of today that lock up women in general, and emasculated men in particular; right from the days of their childhood, with the "You no need am" hypocrisy). They envied the women's pleasure then just as much as the raging barbarians envy homosexual pleasure today. They removed the clitoris just as often as certain countries seal the anus today. And whichever work the women did was as devoid of societally approved power as is the labour thrust upon the shoulders of emasculated men of today.
However, I digress.
How utterly shameless this version of sexism is can be seen in the words of a certain woman that most probably parts her thighs for any man with money and power, and that sleeps around with each and every woman she's sure is with a lesbian bent; yet, that could despite then, even then, open her mouth to say that a certain friend of mine was "such a good boy," but is no longer good enough to recieve such accolades from her because he has threatened to deal with any girl he sees practising lesbianism.
The reason behind such hypocrisy having been always condoned, even by men that are not exactly raging barbarians, is that which I am yet to understand. And I always ask myself whether a Samson, in any generation, will always fall for the cunning of women. However, I am glad that the hypocrisy is getting to be not exactly as condoned as it used to be; by a little more of those men that are not exactly heterosexual barbarians - even though, and indeed, heterosexual. And it may even begin to become condemned soon enough, and up to that extent where public opinion will no longer have it be an open secret that even supposed "Sweet Mothers" are most often no more than shameless sluts.
Amongst the lower class illiterates of today, it continues to be said by the men: Iranu ni obinrin. Amongst the middle and the upper class, there are men that have begun to say they don't want to be "as irresponsible as a woman." Yet the women continue striving to give all others the impression that only men pant after sex as irresponsibly as dogs in heat; and therefore should either be castrated, or imprisoned in Zulu Sofola's "Sweet Trap."
An intelligent human behavioural scientist will tell you, on the other hand, that the hypocrisy with which the women pant after sex on their own part can be seen in how easily they take to lesbianism. Homosexuality is an acquired taste, and you will take to it as easily as the average woman does in this generation if - and only if - it has always been a part of your sexuality.
Should the lesbian bent in women begin to become as condemned (and I would ignore their distress should the condemnation come hand-in-hand with persecution) as the homosexual bent in men was ever condemned by the most homophobic cultures; or should the homosexual bent in men begin to become as condoned (and I would celebrate the honour should the condoning come hand-in-hand with approval) as it always has been in the most highly evolved and least barbaric human civilizations - yet with no recourse, should the latter be the case, to the bias with which one form is condoned while the other is condemned in those homophobic societies - then the Lords In Fairy Empires would have achieved one of its greatest goals, and I will begin to feel grateful to my God for having contributed more to the evolution of humanity than sitting down in an office to deserve a salary. For the bias between how one form of sexual orientation is condoned (and even visibly encouraged, in certain societies) while the other is invariably condemned, and almost just as often persecuted (up to that extent where even mothers can admit on television to indulging in the one; while a man that has the other as his sexual orientation dares not let others know - or they may have his anus sealed with glue, in certain countries; and that is the least that they do) this bias has always left a bitter taste in my mouth.
"I sucked my mother's bosom," were the words with which a woman once used on the radio, to justify the lesbian bent in her.
I'm yet to see the human behavioural scientist that will tell us all that breastfeeding is incest. Yet there are women decent enough, who know enough, to say that they will not breastfeed their child - with words as frank, even though still secretive, as the "My breasts are for my husband" credited to a thirty-five year old French mother of twins, living in Britain; as opposed to the "breast is best" hypothesis that the naive and the hypocrite in the medical profession strive to drive down our throats. Doctors with neither naivete nor hypocrisy in them speak as does Kevin Harrington (an obstetrician with a private practice at the Portland Hospital, in central London):
"....for some women, their breasts are an important part of their sexuality and they don't want them used to provide milk." (Emphasis, mine).
I wouldn't say, "for some women." But I do agree with the words with which he justifies his prescription of cabergoline, an anti-lactation drug; even though he sought to be as secretive with those words as the mother of twins referred to above.
Women that do not have such a conscience, on the other hand, never let their husbands into the act. Breastfeeding is labour, to the husband; and she's tired as often during breastfeeding as the husband then has to masturbate. But she never has to worry. For he believes she was indeed working, and will never believe the number of orgasms that could have accompanied the "labour."
"After I have grown old, and my husband is old," Sarah laughed to herself, when she was told she would bear a son in her old age. "Shall I have pleasure?" (Emphasis, mine).
And I wonder why the average Christian (even when indeed Christian, even when thus diligent enough to notice those words) is never perceptive enough to realise she could not have been referring to the pleasures of the marital bed - which should be a foregone conclusion the minute she has a husband. Women have always known enough about this characteristic naivete of the male concerning their sexuality (even when they know him to be Christian, even when they know him to be The LORD) enough to either giggle amidst themselves, or laugh at him; most of the time when they do giggle (as girls) or laugh (as women). Laughter and giggling is not a usual trait of theirs only when they're indeed either as hardworking as a man is supposed to be, or as adventurous as he is wont to be - even when all he does is club and party.
I laugh at the naivete of the average man, and at the "Sweet Mother" myth that always has them believe in the nobility of Woman. Yet, even the Jesus whose mother is an image of that myth never fell for its lie. He renounced the Virgin Mary in public, before each and every one of his followers.
"And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, 'Here are my mother and my brothers!' " (Emphasis, mine).
If only all men knew why women always want to give birth to so many children, despite the labour childbirth has always been associated with - labour that is known to often bring about even death. And why their firsthand knowledge of their sexuality has always had them be the ones that most often support female circumcision, most especially amidst the primitive and the illiterate; just as often as men it is that most often persecute male homosexuality, and for no more than the same reasons. A glued anus is to the homosexual what circumcision is to the woman. And the heterosexual bullies I prefer to label with the tag "barbarians" have realised this accurately enough to know exactly how to circumcise homosexuals, in certain countries, in this day and age.
Personally, and to be fair, I believe that if sex was meant for none other but reproduction, then there's no need for the pleasure to be a part of coitus for any but the male - upon whose shoulders is the labour involved, and who should therefore be encouraged by nature to shoulder the burden. And the truth in that statement can be seen in how only the human female can lay claim to that pleasure, amongst all female animals that reproduce sexually. But once pleasure has been brought in, then - I'm sorry, girls - but I'm with the women that say they will not breastfeed. The animal in the wild knows absolutely nothing about nipple erections, clitoral stimulation, and female orgasm.
I cannot speak for domestic animals, considering the extent to which depravity has sunk in this generation.
However, the plethora of web-sites (both academic and pornographic) that brought such information to this generation, has had us graduate from those days when we used to wonder why women found it so difficult to attain orgasm, to these days when we wonder whether they ever think of anything else but sex - even while breastfeeding. Thus I believe every married woman in this century should exclude all else apart from her husband from the pleasures of her bosom. And every culture that has explored sexuality enough to have the women lay claim to the pleasure in sex (from the Mangaians of Polynesia, during the earlier years of the last century; to the decent amongst those exposed enough in the United Kingdom) has always agreed with my opinion.
And I'm even more in favour of the men that justify the virtue that homosexuality is, when in men. Nature did mean sex for no more than reproduction, and the pleasure during the act was meant only for men - to encourage them into pursuing the performance that the pleasure actually is, for them. However, if women now have the privilege of that pleasure - and even amidst themselves - then why should I be no more than a stud labouring for them, even while supposedly enjoying that pleasure? Most especially when the relationship will remain based on that most important female principle - no finance, no romance. For even amidst women that lay claim to no other sexual orientation but heterosexuality, how many are faithful enough to deserve the fruits of such labour?
According to the wisest man that ever lived (and he had a mother, too) - none. Read the Scriptures.
I will not mention a name, for I respect the man (not his mother) that I am about to speak of, who is one of the most famous and the most hardworking medical doctors in the United States. Honouring his own mother (a single mother) was that which he often did in his books. However, if he realised how difficult chastity is in a poor single mother (not only concerning the needs of her children, which would require money; but also concerning the needs of her own body) he would remember Solomon's words; before striving through his books to give the "You no need am" impression which she always gave him, to me....
"....but a woman among all these I have not found."
How men always suffer more from that "You no need am" cunning is proven by how it is most often men that thereby waste away until "the evil days come, and the years draw nigh, when you will say, 'I have no pleasure in them.' " The girls would always have enough privacy to fall back on their lesbianism, even back in those days before my words proved how prevalent it is amidst them - especially since it is usually condoned by the society in general. The boys would always be thrown out (however young, weak, or needy) into the workrooms and the offices wherein they can safely waste away all that youthful exuberance.
A war on both the hypocrisy and the wickedness of the "You no need am" culture is one of that which L.I.F.E. wages; not only with its membership drive including an open invitation to all emasculated men, as long as they justify the virtue that is homosexuality; but also with a public awareness campaign that does, and will prove, how the most pitiful victims of the shameful culture are the men; and not the women that would conquer it by being pampered by a husband, or (when not that conservative) by giggling in the bedrooms, the workrooms, and the offices wherein they're granted all the privacy needed to indulge by men that do not know, or by men that overlook the gratification they're obviously thereby obtaining - men who are conned into both the granting of that privacy and the condoning of that bent by the women that always knew girls do it as much, if not more; even before I began to write on it.
Ikoro Iyineleda
July, 2010.
No comments:
Post a Comment