Coming to Terms With Sex and Sexuality

I am a sex fiend. I love sex and it is a large part of my life. I am an extremely sexual being and sex plays a major role in many things I do and many thoughts I have. It is not that I only think of sex, but sex and my sexuality play a major role in who I am, what I do, and what I enjoy. Sex is extremely important to me and I have come to terms with this fact.

I was raised to control my sexuality and to suppress it, but I have over the years decided that it is perefectly alright to control my sexuality, but to suppress it is harmful to me and very wrong. I do not believe I should suppress my sexuality, nor will I suppress it any longer where it is not harmful of myself or others.

Sex feels really good and it makes others feel really good. I am aware that some things which feel good can be wrong, but most things which feel good are right, and I think sex, the better part of the time, is one of those things which feels good and is right. I do not think anyone should suppress their sexuality or their sexual urges when they do no harm to them or to others.

I have a collection of pornography magazines and movies and books about sex and sexuality and I keep them hidden away, and I think that is messed up. Why should I have to hide my love for sex and my sexuality from others when it is a good thing and a right thing? Granted, it is not everyone's business, nor do I necessarily want it to be, but why should I feel the need to keep it all hidden away, and why does society teach that it should be hidden away?

Why do we display books that we read and movies that we watch openly in our homes, but we keep certain ones, particularly of the sexual variety, hidden away? Granted, some people and children should not see or read these things, but why do we not treat them as we do dangerous objects or tools? I wonder these things.

Certainly, it would make more for a conversational piece among most people if we openly displayed these things as well, without shame, and without care for what another finds sexually appealing or what another knows concerning such matters. Why do we, as adults, hide away such a major part of our lives?

I know why, yet I question as to whether or not is is right for us all or healthy for a society. Wouldn't we all be much happier if we could be more open about such and if others could catch a glimpse of such? Perhaps not if our families could, particularly of the religious or traditional kind, but among our friends or even many strangers? I wonder these things from time-to-time.

There is excitement in hidden things, but how much fulfillment can be gained from them? Is not fulfillment inter-relational? I think it is, and that is why I always insist on sharing my total and true sexuality with those I love and those whom I am sexually active with. But are we missing out on even more by not being more open around other adults? I wonder this.

Would not our sex lives be more fulfilling if others (perhaps friends, strangers, and certainly spouses) knew what things excite us sexually? Why is it shameful when there is nothing wrong with it?

Maybe I am just sick of the way society tries to hide every little thing and tries to control us all by isolating little pieces of ourselves from everyone else?

Peace,

Alraune

Jacques Ellul, Technique, Efficiency & Materialism: The Disease of Modern Civilization

Book Review for The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul

I acquired a copy of Jacques Ellul's The Technological Society, translated by John Wilkinson (ISBN: 978-0-394-70390-9), a few months ago. Recently, I finished reading this monumental 473 page critique of technological civilization in its entirety (everything but the bibliography and index). It took me awhile to read it for two reasons: it is rather dull and I was reading it in my spare time (literally sitting in the car before work). The book was extremely interesting but rather dry in presentation. Jacques Ellul is no doubt an intriguing intellectual, but he is fairly lacking in the emotional expression of his personality and it really makes this book a flat read.

That said, I am rather impressed at the scope and depth of his argument against the course of civilization under the direction of blind materialistic efficiency. I am most certainly of the opinion, at this time, that this text is of enormous importance and can be a useful aid in many sociological, anthropological, politically philosophical and idealogical circles.

This book speaks to me because it puts into words some of the things I had noticed and was thinking, but couldn't quite pin down. One of the overarching points which Ellul seems to be getting at is that modern civilization, which has a pervasively materialist worldview, idolizes and gives priority to the value of efficiency, and that materialist based efficiency is cold, calculated, inhuman, and absolutely dangerous and destructive to both human happiness, the value of life, and the ecosystem.

Another major point is that of how man utilizes technique as a tool to ensure his survival, comfort, and evolution through the manipulation of his environment (physical, societal, and psychological) with various techniques. However, in doing so he must adapt to the tool and therefore becomes himself manipulated (physically, socially, and psychologically) by the conditions necessary for the most efficient use of that tool, which ultimately leads to a utilitarian development of personhood directed by massification and materialistic efficiency – man becomes a sort of robotic machine.

In layman's terms and in lay psyche that translates to Jacques Ellul brilliantly defines the coming new world order by examining technique and society. He tells you how the world works, why the world works the way it does, what the various parts of the world system are, some of the methods used within the world system, the historical development of the world system, where this new world system is headed, and even who controls this world system and how much power they have.

Ellul tells us that what are enslaved to the world system: "The 'all' is involved because technique yields results and demands efforts to such a degree that no individual can remain outside. But if technique demands the participation of everybody, this means that the individual is reduced to a few essential functions which make him a mass man. He remains 'free', but he can no longer escape being a part of the mass. Technical expansion requires the widest possible domain. In the near future not even the whole earth may be sufficient." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 207). He tells us how we arrived in this situation and in the same breath hints at how might free ourselves: "But when the natural is intergrated, it ceases to be natural. It becomes part of the technical ensemble. It is an element of the mechanism, an element which must play its role, and no more." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 217). Finally, he tells us who controls and shapes the world order: "...there is a limited elite that understands the secrets of their own techniques, but not necessarily of all techniques. These men are close to the seat of modern governmental power. The state is no longer founded on the 'average citizen', but on the ability and knowledge of this elite. The average man is altogether unable to penetrate technical secrets or governmental organization and consequently can exert no influence at all on the state." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 274). He then concludes: "Technique shapes an aristocratic society, which in turn implies aristocratic government. Democracy in such a society can only be a mere appearance. Even now, we see in propaganda the premises of such a state of affairs. When it comes to state propaganda, there is no longer any question of democracy." (Jacques Ellul. The Technological Society, pg. 275)

I found the last statement striking as it was exactly what I had been thinking when I realized that the world order was designed by aristocrats, yet the common person thinks they can somehow have freedom within a system designed specifically by and for aristocracy merely by altering one or two key components (ie. the political or economic system). What ignorance! Such naivety amounts to believing that by replacing the umpire, switching ball fields, changing teams, or introducing a new ball or bat, it will somehow result in something other than a baseball game. It seems to me that if one honestly believes they can be free within a society based upon technique and materialistic efficiency they are either ignorant to reality or blatantly delusional. How can anyone expect to obtain a very human concept (freedom) from mechanized materialistic efficiency (the world system)? How can anyone conclude that a system designed to control will ever provide individual liberty? These are just a few thoughts this book brings to mind.

Now, this is where I may differ from others who happen to agree with Ellul's assessment, as I do. I do not believe technique or technology are themselves harmful to humanity, however I firmly believe that when humanity is excluded from the equation and all technique becomes founded upon materialism and efficiency it is utterly destructive to humankind and will eventually result in the total loss of all which can be described as human. I believe this is the danger which the technological society, as described by Jacques Ellul, presents to us all, and the very cause of this present darkness. The materialistic world view coupled with technological efficiency is a disease of modern civilization and a scourge upon the universe.



All in all, The Technological Society by Jacques Ellul is an excellent book which I feel should be required reading for any conscious person despite its dry presentation. The wealth of useful information which an individual can extract from this book makes it well worth the time and effort of reading this nearly 500 page text.

Freedom: The Hunger Games and the Future

I had been dead set against watching The Hunger Games, as I wondered what the infatuation was with watching children kill one another, but my knowledge of the film's metaphorical meaning intrigued me anyway and so, with much reservation, I rented the film to see what the fuss was about.

For starters, as I had assumed before watching the film, Hollywood, in this day and age, could not resist the chance to show a murdered child dying on screen, and indeed, the viewer will watch at least one child die a very intimate death. However, after having seen the film I do not believe it would have been as effective in its presentation had the scene aforementioned not been included – it is pivotal to one's full emotional understanding of the allegory the movie presents concerning the direction of future society. In other words, I do not believe Hollywood simply included the scene for its “sales” or “shock” value!

The Hunger Games is an allegory concerning the current direction our society, and indeed the direction all of global society, is headed in. Its ending expresses clearly that if one understands the “art of man-herding”, as expressed in Plato's Republic and Statesman, and how society is controlled, then one (through the awakening of many who do likewise and act independently) can alter the course of the game.

You see, all society's are controlled from the top down through manipulation of the mob, or masses, by the “philosopher-kings” who are otherwise known as billionaires and wealthy anthropologists. They control the “play” and each of our “lines” by manipulating the action of the mob (causing us to concede to peer-pressure) and through the direct technical manipulation of both the environment and the regulations involved in “the game” of society. As soon as one is aware of this fact then, if they are intelligent and resourceful enough, they are fully capable of changing their “lines” or otherwise altering the scene and therefore the outcome of the “play”. Should many uprise and do likewise “the game” is then over and we are truly free and no longer controlled.

Life, which very much includes the “art of man-herding”, is a lot like a chess game wherein a “master” attempts to cause the various players to move in accordance with their will in order to achieve the desired outcome of victory. Like chess, the only way to alter the course of “the game” of life is to think outside of the box, refuse to follow the mob, and to create one's own rules by choosing options other than the obvious ones laid out by the opposition.

In other words, what The Hunger Games is trying to say is that if you want to be free (e.g. “live”), then you have to write your own lines and make your own rules – you must act and not react!

I believe each and every one of us on this planet wish to be free. I believe that even those who wish to control us want to be free, but their own fears drive them to control the rest of us as a means to that end. I believe “We, The People”, are capable of being free and that we can and will figure all of this out, individually – I believe. We do not have to follow any one philosophy or anyone's idea – we only need to follow our own belief in our principles.

We must stop voting party lines – they are controlled! Most of us are moderate and we do not want either the extreme right nor the extreme left, but we want something in the middle. Still, we need to understand that the controllers want something in the middle as well (Hegelian Dialectic) and it is that which they are directing us towards, so we must ask: “what are MY principles, and what are those things which have been placed into my head? What do I want? What do I believe in? What do THEY want, and why do THEY want it?”

If you agree with anyone 100% you need to ask yourself where you went wrong! On the other hand you must compromise to get along, but you need to ask yourself: “am I compromising because I think it is the most workable solution for all, or am I compromising because others told me that is the case? Is it what I think, or is it what I have been told to think? Am I truly compromising, am I capable of such, and if so, is it really my own feeling? Where do I stand and what am I willing to give in order to get; furthermore, am I really compromising or am I too in-love with my own idea of what should be to see the points presented by others? Is that stupid redneck or dirty hippy really all that dumb? What is this valuable human being trying to say, why are they trying to say it, and where can I reach a compromise with them? Do I really understand my neighbor and their point of view? Do I think I need to understand my neighbor's point of view in order to reach a reasonable compromise? Must it be my way or the highway, and if so, do I really think that or am I being convinced by someone other than myself that it must be that way? Do I really believe in freedom and the rights of the individual to rule their own life or do I want to control or force others in some way? Where do I really stand?”

If you are incapable of foreseeing a compromise then you have failed yourself in that you are incapable of envisioning a realistic solution, since nature is full of compromise whether you believe it was designed that way or merely an accident – it is the way of nature. How can you hope to succeed against nature and how can you call your ideology “true” if it goes against the only thing we all know to be true in the here and now – nature?

Just remember that compromise is not necessarily agreement, but it may just be the closest you can peacefully come to what YOU think is correct, and after all, isn't peace what we all seek?

Deny what I say – I do not care, but I highly recommend you watch The Hunger Games, if you have not, and see how it speaks to you.

Peace,

Alraune