On the Beauty of Sex.

Image source unknown.

Why do we have such a problem with “slut” shaming? Why are women expected to wait for someone to approach them about sex? Why do all too many women expect a knight in shining armor to rescue them from the ivory tower? Why do we feel guilty for our sexual urges? There are many various attitudes toward the subject of sex. Unfortunately, the more common ones are detrimental to individual health and happiness. Of those, many are even a handicap to society, and more importantly to the individual. As I had written in my previous essay on this subject – Sex; Attitude and Greatness, back in 2012, a very large part of sex boils down to attitudes. The reality is that sex is mostly mental, and only partly physical. Of course, that's not to ignore, exactly, the physical part of it, without which sex wouldn't be possible. But, even touching, kissing, etcetera are stimulation of nerve endings, which send signals up the nervous system to the brain, where the action is interpreted and understood. In that way, even the physical is largely mental. My point here, however, is about how we think of sex. We all have some expectations, some preferences and desires, we even have beliefs outside of sex that influence how we think of sex. More importantly, these attitudes and beliefs all affect our enjoyment of sex.

Some people might disagree with me about what I'm about to say, mostly the religious, I'm sure. If there's anything that is universally true about sex it's this – sex is natural and one of the most beautiful experiences of life. In fact, we could say life is ultimately all about sex, after all, most organisms struggle to survive long enough to reproduce. It's almost as if that is it the point of life. Worse still, for most organisms this struggle is paramount and not enjoyed, rather it's only the fulfillment of an undeniable instinct. Sex is ultimately an endless fight for survival. It is a fight, first for the organism, to obtain a mating partner. This often leads to fights between two or more competing animals, like rams locking horns to determine a winner. Those rams are not just trying to win the battle, they're trying to win the mating partner. This is part of the process of evolution. Nearly everyone has heard of – and most people understand – natural selection, the process in which as creatures evolve the traits that don't hinder an animal's survival can be passed on to the next generation if it reproduces. But, the male peacock's elaborate and beautiful tail patterns, just like the ram's horns and ability to win the fight with other rams, is sexual selection. In the process of sexual selection the evolution is driven by development of traits that make an animal more attractive to potential mating partners. The male peacock's tail feather patterns serve no function to help it survive, but they do help it obtain female peacocks to have sex with, and thus produce young peacocks with his genetics. The ram's horns are not particularly useful for his daily survival either, he doesn't use them to get food, and most likely doesn't use those horns to defend against predators. The ram's horns more-or-less only help it to win the fight for dominance for the sole purpose of mating. Just a little aside – sexual selection and natural selection are not mutually exclusive forces in the process of evolution. I thought I'd add that point in case anyone did not already know, we all know there are too many misconceptions out there.

Images of ancient fertility goddesses, sources unknown.

But don't think that evolution, or nature, is sexist because females often also develop traits that help them obtain mates. Nature often favors in the females greater ability to produce offspring or to provide for them. So, while it may not seem as obvious when we look at the various species, sexual selection does happen in females too. If a female can produce numerous offspring the species is more likely to survive. If the female can be more attached to her young, the species has a better chance at being continued because the young have a better chance at achieving sexual maturity thanks to mother's help is surviving to adulthood. This means that female forms often have been selected by males for what seems to be a greater ability to raise young to maturity or produce more young. In human females, for example, broader hips are instinctively perceived as a desirable trait. People have even demonstrated an intuition regarding a woman's hip and sexual selection when they say: “That woman has child-bearing hips!” Likewise, the breasts of human women has evolved do to sexual selective pressures, since the roundness of the buttocks has become less obvious and constantly displayed when we began walking upright, the breasts began becoming bigger and rounder and more noticeable. While the butt is visible from behind, it's not visible from the front – where it happens that the breasts are to be found. When males have a choice in mates, a female with the traits that seem most desirable is most likely to get a mate. While sexual selection is usually geared toward greater strength and ability to survive in males, in females it's usually geared toward greater ability to reproduce and care for the young. Either way, all species select for the best chances that the species will long endure.

The process of evolution has long been at work in humans, as well. And sexual selection has also been a very potent influence on humanity, even to this day. One example is the average size of the human penis. Over a very long time, millions of years in the transitional species from which humans evolved, and in humans for around one hundred fifty thousand years, females have chosen to mate with males who had more desirable penises. So, straight ladies, whatever your thought about human penises you can thank, or blame, your ancient women ancestors. But, males have also influenced the evolution of the female human body. Broader hips have long psychologically suggested a greater ability to birth children. Broad hips have long been seen by many ancient men as a sign of fertility. It's true that breasts on women evolved in part because the round rump, which is seen in many mammalian species as a sort of sexual lure for males, are not as clearly visible when the female is seen from the front because we walk upright, but there's another possible not-mutually-exclusive reason. Larger breasts have long been seen by our ancient male ancestors as a sign of a woman's greater ability to nourish children. And, obviously, well-nourished children have a greater chance of growing up to be healthy adults who can pass the family genes on to another generation. Men have preferred these features over such a long time that the average woman's body is shaped as it is now. Psychology is a science that can help us better understand sex, and not just in understanding how humans have evolved due to sexual selection.

In all these things about us humans, psychology explores us and explains us. A few things follow here as an example. Women have long found a man's wealth to be key factor in determining his attractiveness, though most claim otherwise. It does make sense that historically there's been an evolutionary reason for this. A partner who can provide for the children will, naturally, mean children who will grow up healthier and be able to continue the species. However, things have changed. Women in many societies around the globe now work. And many of them are able to provide for their children without relying on a man's wallet. The man's wealth is becoming less valid as a factor for attraction. Likewise, starting with the harvesting of milk from cows and sheep and continuing with the invention of baby formula, a woman's breast size has been less valid as a factor for determining a woman's attractiveness. The fact is that we carry many legacies of our evolution in our current attitudes about sex. Much of these attitudes are have outlived their usefulness to the species. Of these outdated attitudes, some are harmless, but some are really quite detrimental.

Puritanical views have long perverted and permeated American views on sex, and to a lesser degree much of western views, as well. Pervasive in western culture is the Christian view that sex is not beautiful, but rather “sinful” and “dirty” – and much of this is true of Islam, as well. The idea that sex is some kind of disgusting thing that should only be done in the context of marriage is traditional among the most conservative of people. Why should this be? Because, the archaic view expressed by the early fathers of Christianity is that sex only exists to cause there to be more Christian souls to go out and dominate the globe. This is also true of most religions. Today religions continue to dominate our culture with their self-serving beliefs about controlling people, with unnecessary shame and guilt and fear. Now, one might think that promoting promiscuous sex would have been more effective at enlarging the ranks of the religious, but they had a reason against that. They wanted to make sure that the children were ensured to be members of the particular religion. If the children were born to unwed parents the children could be taken to any church or any religion. It served the religion's need to control its members and and to grow the religion's numbers, but there was another reason for sex being limited to marriage only. It actually mattered in terms of inheritance and family lines. Such restrictions were meant to ensure that a man's property would be inherited by his actual child rather than some other man's child. With a marriage, there was a recognized social contract between the man and woman involved, and it meant that there was a legal setting for the estate distribution. Again, today these things are less relevant. With the invention of DNA testing we can now conclusively prove a child's parents, further a person can choose to leave his or her estate to anyone or any group named in a legally-binding document called a will. The religious reasoning is something that can't be justified in the modern era.

Image source unknown.

Monogamy is not natural, exactly. It's true that for the survival of our species, since children require around 15 years to reach maturity pair-bonding of the parents served this interest. We evolved to form family units in which the father and mother cooperated to provide for and protect the young. I say fifteen years, but that's arguable, give or take a few years. The point is that it takes many years before a young human would be able to survive without parents taking care of him or her. Still, we evolved societies into which we live for all our lives, and which continue the benefits we gained as a child from having parents and family working together. But, at odds with this pair-bonding trait we evolved is another evolutionary trait found in both men and women. This is a trait that is so powerful that it's the underlying force making marital infidelity actually a fairly common occurrence. In males, of most species, the ability to spread the genetic code to create as many offspring as possible has been a great force in ensuring the survival of a species. Ours is no exception to that fact. In females, particularly in humans, there evolved a tendency to find a mate to bond with who can provide well, but to seek to reproduce with other males who have more desirable physical traits. A woman is predisposed biologically, by evolution, to settle down with the man who has wealth, but to have affairs with men who seem to be more fit and healthy. In either case, our species evolutionary legacy is conflicted and neither trait is ethically better or worse than the other. These just are the facts about our evolution and our nature. So, this leads to a problem. How do we reconcile our enlightenment and our nature to best suit ourselves? As long as we deny our nature we will find ourselves less happy and healthy than we can and ought to be.

The fact that there are women who want to silently suffer a mediocre experience is saddening and ultimately self-destructive. The idea of putting up with not getting the most out of sex because of not wanting to disappoint will backfire. It's true that many younger people, with their tremendous amounts of inexperience, are more prone to not communicate properly, but they need to be encouraged to communicate. Fundamentally, by trying to please one's partner by not offering instruction and not communicating, one is building resentment and frustration in oneself and one's partner. Also, when one discovers one's partner has not been fully engaged it most certainly is a serious disappointment and ruins the experience. By doing this, some women are causing two people to become resentful of the woman in question, herself and her partner. The notion of quietly accepting poor performance needs to be put to an end. Though it may be true of some men, it is almost exclusively, in this issue, women causing their own problem. I believe this condition is largely due to archaic notions that still afflict us. Even today, popular culture suggests women are supposed to be submissive and to use sex as a tool instead of enjoying it for their own pleasure. So many socializing forces, such as many women's magazines and romance movies and fairy-tales still perpetuate the destructive narrative and bad advice.

If women try experimenting with themselves, and then have completely honest and straightforward talks with their partners about what works for them, then sex would likely be far more enjoyable for most. It seems that many women have some kind of hang-up about both masturbating and about communicating with their partners. That's not to say that there aren't guys who don't listen, of course there are, but there's also no reason for a woman to assume that sex can't be great, or better. Most guys really do want to satisfy their partners, and no one is a mind-reader. In fact, no one, of either gender, is a mind-reader. No one can know things that are not told to them. And, it is unreasonable and inexcusable to continue to behave as if it's fair to expect people to be more than who and what they are. It's unjust to think that one's partner should live up to and perform like the fantasies that have been implanted by corporate interests like Hollywood and molded by corrupt influences like the Puritan church of hundreds of years ago. I believe it is high-time we as a species move into the modern era – we need to evolve out of the stagnate cesspit of the out-dated misconceptions. This is only going to happen as we continue to challenge the standard, and help to enlighten others.

Image Copyright 2015 by Joshua Michail.

Sex is the most beautiful thing people can do with each other, intimately. Sex, however, is not love. Love and sex can and do often go together, but one ought not to confuse these two separate things. Many people believe that sex with someone they love is beautiful, and they're not wrong, but sex is beautiful even without love. In a way, sex gets a bad rap on that regard, because many people ignore the fact that love is separate from sex. But, I blame religion for that, and many more mental handicaps. Religion must be expelled from the bed sheets. The single greatest toxin to humanity and to sex is religion. The fact that people feel guilt for doing and enjoying a natural and beautiful thing is something that religion alone has foisted upon us. If we are half as wise as we like to think our species to be, we must change our ways. We can no longer afford to pretend that we are not what we are. Our concepts of marriage romantic relationships must change, we ought to embrace our nature. We can, of course continue to marry the ones we love, but we should expect and embrace the fact that sex is not and never has been and never will be confined to marriage. We must accept that we could forge a new model, the family remains, but why not have multiple wives for each man and multiple husbands for each woman? Why not accept polyamory? After all, not only do we naturally desire more than one partner for the rest of our lives, in regards to sex, but we are perfectly capable of loving more than one partner at the same time. We must also embrace the rights of women to be equal to men, including in their sex lives. Why should we look upon a woman who enjoys sex as someone to be shamed? It's a shame on us if we continue this “slut shaming”. We must not interfere with women as they pursue their sexual satisfaction as they see fit, and embrace the happiness this brings not only those women, but also ourselves as a society. We must shed the severe hindrances that make life less happy. 

Read more about this subject in the book: To Make a Better World -- available here.

Copyright © 2015, by Joshua Michail

 All Rights Reserved.

Follow and retweet on Twitter.                          Like and share on Facebook.

Religion, What Is It Good For?

What if I told you there was something good about religion? You might ask, “is it the sense of community one gets from belonging to a church?” Or, “is it the moral code?” Perhaps, you might be wondering, “it's the transcendence people feel, right?” Well, not exactly. I know that some of you might be thinking I've lost my mind. And some who are reading this might think I'm somehow a religious person. You need to read on. The fact is that there is something valuable to us that religions have to offer. Each of those points are actually products of the singular thing of value, about which I'm teasing you. Okay, so what it all boils down to is the worldview. Every religion offers a worldview. But, I think we can be very well served by having a worldview as well. I know, I know. What am I thinking? “Religions have something good about them?” Are you seriously saying this? Well, let me explain.

Religions are bad. They are the root of most – though honestly, not all – evil. Whenever someone claims that religions do some good, they are trying to justify having religions but the fact is that any good that religions do is far outweighed by the harm they also do. Indeed religious worldviews are seriously dangerous and hurtful to all of humanity, let alone the world. And it's not a particular religion's worldview which I think is good. Quite the contrary, actually. It's the idea of a worldview, the idea of having a philosophical model by which we live our lives, which I believe to be good.

Obviously religions have a very seriously flawed premise on which each of them has based their worldview. So, it's not that which is good, the premise I mean. The idea that there exists any such thing outside of nature – a supernatural realm, including a heaven or hell, and afterlife –, is completely unsupported. As premises go, assertions that there is a realm of existence – and beings living there, like gods, angels, souls and whatever other fiction – which is not even hinted at by a single shred of evidence is as bad as flawed premises for a worldview gets. There are many types of worldviews, some of which are good or bad. Some worldviews are also more seductive than others. Most worldviews have some method to propagate them, which is built in. In Christianity, for example, the believers are taught that “only through believing in Jesus can people be saved from hell.” It's clearly a contrived scare tactic. They're taught that they ought to missionize for their religion, to go out and tell people about it and try to convince others to join them. In Judaism, though, missionizing wasn't really part of the religion. Instead the idea was to have as many children as possible. Christianity and Islam both ran with that same excessive breeding policy, but each added their own twist as a secondary method to propagate the religion. But, there are other ways to propagate a worldview.

I believe that employing other means of propagation can be far better than the approach the religions generally take. There is a basis, in the religious worldview, for the reasoning behind the breeding competition. They believe that some god created the universe for them. In Christianity, the concept is called “Dominionism”, in which they claim humans have a “god-given right” to dominate the world. But, this view neglects reality. The world can only support so many people. Earth is actually at it's full capacity for humanity. So, in reality, breeding the worldview is not a tenable practice. It is clear that there are so many children born, who are put up for adoption. There is very real and desperate need. Adoption, as a means to propagate a worldview can proverbially 'kill two birds with one stone'. One could be to promote the adoption of children, instead of breeding. By adopting children – likely born of religious people – one can teach the child to be rational, instead of religious. Thereby slightly diminishing the number of people who will have a backward and harmful worldview. Clearly the impact could be great if many rational people took this approach. Additionally, it would increase the number who likely hold a progressive and good worldview. All the while, also being a proactive measure toward curbing the overpopulation of our planet. Another could be to set the example that inspires people to take on the worldview. If your worldview directs you to be charitable, to have a strong work-ethic, to be rational and logical, to be honorable and moral, to pursue the truth scientifically, to be kind and generous, to be intellectually honest, and to always improve yourself, it will be noticeable. It will make you a model, by which others will be inspired. Such a worldview, by your own behavior, would prove itself to be worthwhile having. It should certainly speak for itself, that religious worldviews push people to accept them with threats of eternal suffering and promises of eternal rewards, compared to a worldview that does no such a thing.

By this point you're probably wanting a clarification of just what is a “worldview”. It's fundamentally a uniform way of looking at the world and life. It's a personal outlook on the world. It informs how a person interprets the actions and words of others, and indeed all of the world. There's a reason why it's called that, after-all. A worldview is a philosophical system, or a model. It's a system of values, beliefs and attitudes, by which people live their lives. The reason I'm interested in worldviews is that everyone has one in some form or another, regardless of whether each part of it is intelligibly connected. Fundamentally, every person thinks philosophically to some degree. Granted most people are not particularly active about it. Indeed, the large percent of people are not even aware that they have a worldview, or what that means. Most people tend to think about something in a philosophical manner only once in a while, and then without it dawning on them that it is philosophical. But, when they do they usually derive some principle which guides them. Though, usually, when most people derive that principle it doesn't occur to them how they're doing so. For most people, the idea just comes as a realization or they encounter the idea and like it. Since worldviews are a philosophical product, a serious problem arises when people haven't coherently connected the various parts. But, a worldview addresses many issues, like how it is that we know what we know. That is, in philosophical terms, an epistemological question. Religious answers tend to be that a supposed force outside of nature reveals the information to the individual. Even if one doesn't think about or realize that he/she has a worldview, that philosophy is nonetheless illustrated when one says something like “god has a plan for you”.

Though a worldview can be bad, good or indifferent in many ways, it's still useful. Even a bad worldview gives structure of a sort to one's life. But, obviously I cannot morally argue for holding bad philosophies, and that's what religions offer. The religious worldviews often implicate themselves as immoral when the opinion is that there is another chance to live again. The very idea of a life after death necessarily diminishes the value, the sanctity, of this life. It suggests that suffering is acceptable because those poor victims, whom we've ignored, will be given paradise for eternity. Unless, of course, they happened to not believe in the correct god. The religious view is that ignorance is bliss. The religious view is that religious belief is sacred. The religious view is that morality is seriously concerned with pleasure and desire, our thoughts, our self-agency and some deity's authority, rather than human suffering. At the core of the problem with religious worldviews, inescapably, is the premise that something outside of nature exists, let alone a god. It's an unproven and unprovable, untenable and unsupported claim. And it is that claim which is the basis of all of the rest of the worldview.

I believe a secular option can be developed for non-believers to have the advantage of their own worldview. A philosophical model which is based on science as the foundational premise. I believe that worldviews are useful and beneficial, but not just any will do. A good worldview would have to be concerned with genuine morality, instead of unrealistic and delusional claims of morality. A morality concerned with suffering rather than satisfying the ego of a fictional character. A morality concerned with improving the human condition for all, rather than suppressing mere disagreement. Indeed, such a secular worldview would need to demand that one's beliefs be based on evidence and logic, rather than obedience and wishful thinking.

I have been working on such a secular worldview. I believe a good philosophical model will help people to live meaningful, healthy and happy lives. It must be the purpose of such a worldview that people are not led to confusion, misery and immorality. Religions have done that for thousands of years. It's time that we have a philosophical model that gives us the benefits of the structure and principles, but now based on reality instead of fantasy. While there are other philosophies out there, which non-believers can adopt, they all are limited in their scope. And some are just plainly bad. Take Ayn Rand's so-called “Objectivism”, for example. A philosophy, which is in reality just an attempt at justification for “rational selfishness”, as even Rand, herself, had put her idea. On the other hand, Humanism is a respectable and good Moral Philosophy. But, it doesn't address issues of Epistemology or Metaphysics – the questions of “what is there to know?” and “how do we know what we know?” Solipsism, while a Metaphysical philosophy is rather absurd. Could anyone reasonably respect the idea that all of the universe, including other people, are all in one's head? A figment of one's imagination. While it is Subjectivism, in the extreme, there are some people who favor the Objective view (not to be confused with Ayn Rand's silliness). Though they take their conclusions the other extreme. The idea that how one perceives the world around them is not important. But, it really is ridiculous to make such a suggestion. The reality is that it's true that the universe, and all that is in it, objectively exist and that the facts are as they are, regardless of personal opinion. While, at the same time, to deny the importance of subjective perception in informing how we act is woefully ignorant. After-all, it is only through one's particular individual understanding of the world that one can operate.

Any worldview must encompass all aspects of life and philosophy. Most philosophies, however, fail to cover the multiple fields, or fail to connect intelligently the different philosophies. Honestly, I can't see how one could support a humanist moral philosophy with an exclusively Solipsistic view on what exists and how we know anything. For that matter a Philosophy of the Mind, for Solipsists would be rather simple, in that the mind would be the extent of the universe. That is quite silly, and not much good really. Any coherent, stable, useful and good worldview would necessarily have all the positions on the various issues be able to point back to the premises. The foundation of the life-philosophy should be able to draw from reality and establish axioms that support the upper-level conclusions. So that one can argue from the facts about the world, including biology, to support our own evolutionary history. And that from the evolution of humanity one can argue to support a secular moral view based on the necessities of societies, as part of our species' nature. This, and more, I believe is possible for those of us who do not believe in supernatural claims. In fact, this has been my work for the past several years. I've worked, and am still working, hard on this because I believe that to have such a secular worldview is actually a good thing. A good secular worldview provides the structure for our values, beliefs, attitudes, actions and makes up a significant part of who we are, individually.

Copyright © 2012, Joshua Michail

Sex; Attitude and Greatness

Sex, virtually everyone does it. Though many don't do it right. It's often considered taboo for discussion or for the public arena. One doesn't simply talk about it in “polite company”. But, realistically much of our society's common attitudes are archaic and even detrimental. Puritanical attitudes are, in fact, very unhealthy. Indeed there are positive and negative attitudes. There are maladaptive and adaptive attitudes. There are are also good and bad attitudes. And as it turns out, sex is very much about attitude. Of course there is the small percent that is actually physical. But, the idea is captured in the old quip “sex is one-percent friction and ninety nine-percent mental”. The brain controls everything, literally. And the stimulation of nerve endings, by touch, is transmitted up the nerves to the brain, where the signals are interpreted. So, in a very real sense, it may be true that two bodies touch each other below the waist but the sex is happening in our heads. So it should come as no surprise that one's attitudes matter a great deal. If you want to have good sex, you need to have good attitudes about sex.

But, before I continue, I want to give a warning. If your delicate sensitivities can't handle frank discussions about sex then this is not for you. I'm not going to be deliberately vulgar or profane, but one can't honestly discuss this topic without being a bit blunt. Also, if you're not over 18 years of age, then you ought not to be reading this. Either way, you need to grow up first. Either way you're not mature enough to treat the subject like an adult. Or, for a few of you who are under the age of 18 years, you might be mature enough but the legal issue is your age. In any event, you're dismissed, that is all. On to another issue, which I feel should be made clear. I am discussing this topic from the perspective of a heterosexual person. It's true that much of the issues I will discuss can be applicable regardless of one's sexual orientation. My efforts have been to be as general as possible and to make sure that everyone is covered.

Playboy magazine has been often and long assaulted. Accused on one side of being too risque. On the other side accused of being a misogynistic force. Neither of which are true. While it's true that when Hugh Hefner started Playboy in 1953 it was a bit risque for the times, it was and continues to be classy. Other “gentleman's” magazines have come and gone and been far, far more graphic. It's been claimed to be all about sex. Again this is an ignorant claim because much of the magazine is actually full of humor, politics, culture, stories, interviews and film and book reviews and more. It's actually quite sophisticated. Then there are feminists. Or realistically, extremists pretending to be feminists. What they don't understand is that Playboy has been a champion of women's rights and equality. The extremists have been under the impression that women are somehow only thought of as sex objects by men. Certainly that was once true of large numbers of men, but over the past few decades that number has dwindled severely. And, while many of the more aggressive man-hating – misandrist – extremists are certainly unappealing, to say the least, they don't get it. Women can be powerful and professional and intelligent and productive and sexy as well. A woman's femininity is not impaired by her work. A woman's attractiveness is not destroyed by her self-confidence, in fact it's only enhanced. Nor, is a woman's value as a person diminished by her sexuality. To suggest that there is a dichotomy between sexual attractiveness and professional and personal value as people for women is not only a fallacy, it's demeaning to women and men.

It is sexist to suggest that men can't be respectful of a woman, while attracted to her also. It's unacceptable to treat women as if they're inherently victims because of their chromosomal composition. It's unacceptable to treat men as if they're abominable uncontrollable animals because of their chromosomal composition. It's sexist to presume that beauty and value are mutually exclusive. Both sexes are equal. It's an obvious fact, or at least it should be obvious. Moreover, just as men can appreciate a woman's beauty, sexual attractiveness and still respect her for her work and her intellect and as a fellow human, women can do so with men. Neither men or women should be ashamed to enjoy, to appreciate, to desire people they find attractive. If there is to be equality then women should openly and comfortably appreciate male beauty just as men do women's beauty. Or for gays, to openly and comfortably appreciate the beauty of the same sex. The appreciation of beauty, in whomever one finds it, is normal, healthy and not to be ashamed of. Indeed, there is no logical reason for one's appreciation of another's beauty to diminish one's ability to respect that person for his/her intellect, work, personality and so on. One ought not to feel ashamed of being found desirable by someone. It is shameful, though, that some people want to make others feel ashamed about beauty.

Sex is beautiful all by itself. Even if your partner and you are not in love, though being in love may add beauty to beauty. Love and sex are not the same thing. Love and sex are not mutually exclusive, but neither are they dependent on each other. Sex is natural and healthy and normal and most especially, it is very good. Nevermind our prudish and awkward culture, sex is not shameful. Rather, it is the repressive attitudes about sex which are shameful. When something is unhealthy or just not right, it is not sex that is what's wrong, it's the other thing being connected to it. So many people have hang-ups about it. Hang-ups need to be examined and dealt with. Desire is also wonderful. To lust for someone, to want that person. To ache for her, or him, whatever the case may be for you. To crave that fulfillment is, in and of itself, powerful and good. And you should not be ashamed, even if nothing will come of it. Sometimes one's only satisfaction may be masturbation. And, while sex would obviously be preferable, it is to be enjoyed. There is nothing shameful or bad in one's masturbation. So what makes sex so beautiful and wonderful and good? It is, ultimately, the mutual bringing of pleasure and happiness and intimacy to each other. It is that you considered another person so deserving of pleasure, and that that person did the same for you. Indeed, sex could not be enjoyable if it were not for the reciprocal nature of it. And, if you are approached by someone whom you do not wish to have sex with, then say so and do not feel obliged. Likewise, if the person whom you desire does not share your desire, respect it and move on. Someone else will desire you too. Because when you “get lucky” you really do get lucky. When you are with someone who wishes to pleasure you and you wish to pleasure her/him, that is lucky and wonderful and beautiful.

Who should initiate? Opinion on this point varies among different people. But, there is only one position that fits with – and is a genuine manifestation of – equality. Both women and men should initiate. Initiate sex, initiate discussions, initiate introduction and initiate dating. Whoever is attracted to someone should be able to let the person he or she is interested in know. Of course, one should be respectful about it. One should not play 'grab-ass' unless permission is given by the person whose ass one wishes to grab. Our culture has long had a sexist opinion. It's always been traditional that women should play coy, pretend to not be interested or attracted to a person. But, we're supposed to be adults, are we not? We're supposed to be equal now. So, let's treat each other as equals for a change. If you don't speak up about your desires the person who you want may never know. If you wait for the other person to make the moves, you may be waiting until the day you die. Rejection can hurt, but no one is a mind-reader. Equality cannot exist if there is even one double-standard. Without risking rejection you cannot expect to gain the pleasure of connecting with the person with whom you want. You can always say “no” if someone approaches you about his or her desires, and you should accept “no” as an answer. One needs to be willing to move on, but if one doesn't give it a chance one won't know what could have been. Don't be too shy. But, also be respectful. And do not be ashamed, as some who are still backward would want you to be, to pursue your desires.

Oral sex is not “dirty” or “gross”. Quite frankly, I think that people who have this attitude should just grow up already. Some people may think, wrongly by the way, that to preform oral sex is to be dominated or to be submissive. Some people may be turned off by the notion of his or her partner's sexual fluids. Some might even think the sexual organ of his/her partner is “gross”. These people ought not to be having sex. The truth is that performing orally on one's partner is not being submissive. Quite the opposite actually. When one performs oral sex one is in control. The performer is the one exciting the nerve endings and thus in control of his or her partner's pleasure. And, when one is performing, one is able to enjoy and play with and explore and delight in the beauty of his/her partner's body. Indeed those who are sexually powerful are passionate and intense about his or her performance. A great lover takes delight in being the action. Such a person has the power position, and enjoys giving pleasure. It is also enjoyable to let one's partner perform orally on one's self. It is an intimate and good and delightful experience to be brought to orgasm by one's partner. To say “I trust you with my body” and to be delighted is as wonderful as to be trusted and to provide the delight. Indeed, with the correct attitude one finds pleasure in providing delight. There is nothing wrong, or ugly or bad about sexual organs. It is – if one has the correct attitude – the path, the key, to making the sexual encounter a great experience. When you take control of your partner's body and his/her sexual organ you are taking control of that which gives you pleasure. So you should enjoy it. And when you have exercised your control over your partner's body and he or she delivers gratification, do not be indifferent or even repulsed. Instead, revel and enjoy and appreciate that fruit of your stimulating efforts. Take it and make it yours. Your partner's orgasm is yours to be delighted in and to savor. This is the proper attitude. This is what it means to be a good lover. Whether you're a man or a woman – gay or straight – this is what it is to be delighted and to bring delight.

It is part of your nature, this sex. Every person who has ever lived, even you, was produced by the sexual activity of two other people. Why should we allow ourselves to have bad attitudes? Sex is as natural to us as is breathing, eating, sleeping and talking. And if you're going to do it, you should do it right. Be passionate, because otherwise you're boring and uninterested – and that is a shame. Be sensual, because that's what it is all about after-all – if you don't thoroughly enjoy it what's the point? Be considerate, because it's worthless if sex is not enjoyed by both your partner and you – the greatest pleasure is in being your partner's pleasure. Be appreciative, because your partner was kind enough to share such delight with you – enjoyment of another's body and pleasure is glorious. With the right attitude one could have sex everyday without it becoming plain or tiresome. With the right attitude anyone can enjoy sex. With the right attitude anyone can be a great lover. Because sex is attitude more than contact.

Copyright © 2012, Joshua Michail

September Eleventh; What Kind of Holiday is This?

Recently, about a week ago now, I noticed a new holiday on the calendar. On the anniversary of the day when one airliner crashed into a field in rural Pennsylvania, another flown into The Pentagon in Washington DC, and two more airliners were flown into the two tall towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, there is now a holiday? This new holiday is meant to commemorate the loss of almost 3,000 lives at the hands of 19 terrorists. It seems that someone convinced plenty of people that this was a good idea. So, now we have a holiday to commemorate the victims of the terrorist attacks on America. That seems okay, maybe fair enough. Any guesses, though, as to what this holiday is called? It's apparently “Patriot Day”. It struck me quickly that there was something wrong with this holiday. I can, in fact think of a few things. Not problems necessarily with having a day on the anniversary to remember the victims of the terrorist attacks, but rather with that particular holiday. What kind of a holiday is a “Patriot Day”?

This new holiday was passed by a vote 407 in favor to none opposed, as US House of Representatives Joint Resolution 71 on 25^th October, 2001. The legal basis of this holiday is laws 107-89 and 111-13 of US Federal law. Under Bush, at first, the holiday was called “Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11^th, 2001”. President Barack Obama, on 10^th September, 2012 proclaimed the holiday is renamed “Patriot Day and National Day of Service and Remembrance”. Though this is still cumbersome, it is at least somewhat improved. But, the best improvement was the removal of the word “prayer”, thus diminishing the holiday's violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. “Prayer” in the name was a de-facto government endorsement of religion, at least in general. There are, still, several points that I take issue with. First, I want to look at what is a “patriot” realistically. Does a real patriot need to constantly defend him or her self against accusations of not appreciating his/her nation? As if it's reasonable to jump to the conclusion that one is not a patriot unless he or she says “I'm a patriot”. I would think that the vast majority of Americans, even resident aliens, are generally patriotic. I suspect, further, that that is true for most nations. I'd think that most Brits are patriotic to Britain, and most Japanese people are patriotic to Japan, for example. But, perhaps this concept is lost on many of the loudest so-called “patriots”.

But, there are more points to contend. Like the issue of redundancy. There is the issue of the fact that a “Patriot's Day” seems like it might, in America, be one of a few holidays that already exist. Independence Day – the “Fourth of July” to those more vociferous of “patriots” – immediately comes to mind. Then there is also the opportunity for patriotic display on Veteran's Day, when we celebrate veterans of our armed forces and we say “thank you for your service to our nation and defending our freedoms”. Of-course another chance to tout one's patriotism is Memorial Day, when we are supposed to remember and appreciate all those who gave their lives to defend our nation. The war dead. It seems that there is a certain palette in America, which just can't get enough of faux patriotism. They have a taste for the tasteless. They're the ones, you know, who just love soaring eagles painted with the Stars and Stripes, over a “battlefield cross” – the rifle stuck in the ground with a helmet on top – and “God Bless, godity-god-god-god” printed over all things American.

Perhaps we could even have a “Terrorism Defiance Day” on the 12^th of September? After-all, that would certainly be more fitting to the memory and honor of the victims of the terrorists than any pseudo-patriotism holiday. We ought to stand up to tell Muslim extremists, Islamists and religious bigots and terrorists worldwide that we will not cower. That they will never win. That we will always defy them and their malicious bullying. And this is more appropriate considering that again they have attacked the civilized world. On the 12^th of September this year, 2012, we learned that terrorists staged an attack on US embassies in Cairo, Egypt and Benghazi, Libya, even killing the US ambassador to Libya and several other Americans. This violent assault on humanity and civilization was done under the pretense of “offense”, as if the exercise of freedom were a valid reason to justify murder. These barbarian Islamists must be defied. They must eventually learn that their efforts to dominate the globe and to destroy civilization and humanity are futile.

Now, I also think if there is to be a holiday for the events of September 11^th, then perhaps it should be a “Remembrance Day” instead. It would be fair to say “let us remember all those whose lives were taken by Islamist terrorists.” Almost three thousand lives were taken and 6,000 more were injured by suicide terrorist attacks on the 11^th of September, 2001, on United States soil, but they were not all Americans. In fact, many of the victims were from many other nations. Remember, it was the called the “World Trade Center” for a reason. Additionally, in 2005, there was the 7^th of July attacks in London on Underground trains, which was also terrorism. 700 people were wounded and 52 were killed. And, there was the attacks in Madrid, Spain on the 11^th of March 2004, in which 191 people were murdered and 1,800 other people were injured. Clearly, the issue is not about America. It's the violent Islamist terrorists against the rest of the world. It's about their terrorism and violence. “Patriot Day” is simply invalid and inappropriate, but a “Remembrance Day” would be valid and much more appropriate. Indeed, such a Remembrance Day should be international. And, we should include on Remembrance Day, all the victims in London, Madrid and many other places in addition to those in New York, Pennsylvania and Washington DC.

I'm also a bit concerned with this patriotism bragging nonsense. “Patriotism” is cheapened severely by the readiness with which it is thrown around. Everything becomes an excuse to say “I'm a patriot” for those who are all to easily moved by their emotions. These people who cry “patriotism” so frequently and so needlessly are themselves exploited by those who would use them against themselves. Actual patriotism is not flying a flag, or posting a picture on one's page on a website. Real patriotism is not about incessantly announcing one's church membership or attempting to impose one's twisted religious beliefs on everyone else. Though those who mostly loudly tout their supposed “patriotism” tend act as though that is the case. In fact, they often are only using term to apply pressure on others to accept their beliefs. This makes the word become toxic. They are, as a matter of fact, disrespecting those who are serving their nation. They are making the very idea of a “Patriot Day” repulsive. As if simply supporting and defending one's nation is not their kind of patriotism. Real patriots do not need another day for deliberately displaying pseudo-patriotism. A Remembrance Day is far more appropriate.

Copyright © 2012, Joshua Michail

Secular Holidays; A Reason to Celebrate for Non-Believers

Taken from Cleveland Freethinkers

It's now September. The holiday season is coming up quickly. For many people who are new to being a non-believer it is probably quite a difficult time. If you don't believe in certain things, like Jesus or a god let's say, how can you celebrate many of the “big” holidays like Christmas, Thanksgiving, etcetera? Well, the truth is, you can. In fact, the holiday season is probably even more fun. And why not? Are you going to let other people tell you that you can't enjoy the holiday season? Holidays are for us all to enjoy, as we wish. No one owns the rights to celebrate. Though the reasons to celebrate may differ.

Before I continue with the holiday season, I'd like to mention something. With the recent passing of Neil Armstrong many people may be tempted to create a holiday to honor him. It seems like a reasonable proposition too. But, I don't think we should create a new holiday for Neil Armstrong. Though he was considered a hero to not just Americans, but all of humanity, for being the first person to step foot on the moon. You see, there already is one. It celebrates, more specifically, the act that made Armstrong a household name around the globe. This holiday is called Evoloterra, and it takes place every 20^th of July. It's the anniversary of the date in 1969 when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon. And, while Evoloterra is more about that “one giant leap” part, naturally the “one small step” part is inescapably involved. You just could not celebrate the historic achievement of the first person to step onto the moon without acknowledging the man who was that first person.

Now, there are the “traditional” holidays and there are some secular holidays that not many people are aware of yet. Among the lesser-known holidays some are my suggestions and some are more common. Christmas, for example, is often considered a very religious holiday. It's all about Christ, right? Wrong, actually. The date, 25^th of December was celebrated by pagan Romans prior to the arrival of the cult of early messianic Jews, the first Christians. Saturnalia was a Roman holiday that took place in late December, and during which it was common practice to give gifts. Indeed, the Christmas Tree tradition is an adaptation of pagan tree-worshiping, which predated the introduction of Christianity in various parts of Europe. The fact is that there is much to the modern Christmas that is not actually Christian. Why not enjoy the holiday in a secular way? It is fair to not observe the religious aspects, and take the whole of the holiday without the infection of faith. Much in the same way that Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, that at one time was favored by Christians. It need not be theirs alone, we ought not to be denied the enjoyment, because they wish it so.

Taken from @Sophie Donelson

Blasphemy Day is a lot of fun. It is also intended to raise awareness of the problem of blasphemy laws. There are actually still nations that have blasphemy laws, as if that were some sort of legitimate crime. The fact that some people feel the need to criminalize the poking fun at, or criticizing of, ideas is shameful. There are actually backward, uncivilized people in this world and they vote, or have actual power. So, on every 30^th of September, around the world, people are encouraged to make fun of religions. The date is chosen to commemorate the anniversary of the publication of the Danish newspaper cartoon that depicted Mohammad with a turban that had a bomb on it. Blasphemy laws are against freedom of speech and such illegitimate laws should be considered a crime against humanity. Fifty-seven member nations of the United Nations had proposed to make blasphemy illegal internationally. Luckily, the General Assembly voted against the proposition. But, many nations – Ireland, Saudi Arabia and Iran are among them – are still uncivilized enough to have such inhumane laws against the freedom of speech. These states have allowed Privilegism to get a grasp on their governments, and now the people suffer for it.

One of my favorite holidays is Nietzsche Day, on 15^th of October. This commemorates the anniversary of Friedrich Nietzsche's birth way back in 1844, and it's to celebrate philosophy. Nietzsche was a German philosopher, famous for saying “God is dead. God remains dead and we have killed him.” He was also well-known for his Ubermensch concept, the “super man”, not the comic-book hero, but rather the idea that we can become more than the mere men our species has long been. The idea is that when humanity transcends the need for a deity, a mystical father, the superstitions and spiritual pacifiers we will be evolving into our rightful place. I usually give my family and friends gifts on this holiday. The gifts are books by philosophers, on philosophy. It's also good to have some philosophical discussions.

Carl Sagan was a great promoter of public understanding of science. He was a physicist, an astronomer and a professor at Cornell University. Sadly the world lost him in 1996. Sagan's birthday was 9^th of November, in 1934, so on this day, the anniversary of his birthday, I like to celebrate what I call Sagan's Day. On this holiday I think we should watch Sagan's classic that inspired so many young people to become scientists, Cosmos. It's entirely appropriate to refresh our minds on science, to discuss science and to appreciate the wonder and excitement that doing science can spark. Science should be considered interesting by everyone. It's the only way we can know anything with any reasonable certainty, after all. And as Sagan said “we are a way for the universe to know itself.” So remember, on the 9^th of November, to go to a science museum, have some discussions with your family and friends about science and take some time to watch Cosmos.

I like to celebrate what I call the “Day of the Arts” on the first weekend of each December. While I do believe in the importance of function over form, I still appreciate the creativity of humanity. The idea with Day of the Arts is to celebrate the inspiration that art often elicits, the free expression of humanity and the sharing of ideas. It is our nature to share our ideas with the rest of humanity. It's because of this that we have come so far from those ancient days when our ancestors lived in caves and were just barely learning how to tame fire. I believe it is great to visit art museums and to share gifts of art with family and friends. This is the time to appreciate and celebrate the power and breadth of imagination.

The 10^th of December is the Universal Day of Dignity. It is the anniversary of the date in 1948 when the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. We ought to dedicate ourselves to the work of promoting the recognition of and protection of human rights around the globe. We can volunteer to help those in need, to support activist's and join them in the cause to protect human rights. Wherever we are, whenever we find a problem we should work to ensure a person's dignity. But, one this day, specifically, we take the time to reaffirm our value of, and determination to protect, dignity and human rights. We should make sure to read the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights and to make others aware of it as well.

Common Sense Day, is the anniversary, on the 10^th of January, of Thomas Paine's publication of Common Sense in 1776. It was this publication that really stirred the passions of the American colonists to take up the cause of independence. Paine argued in his pamphlet that it is the duty of the people to take responsibility for the mutual good. So we should celebrate this event by recognizing and inspiring our civic duty.

Darwin Day is on the 12^th of February. It's the anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809. To celebrate this day I like to give gifts of science. It could be books about science, or scientific works. The gifts could also be a telescope or a chemistry set, or some other science equipment. Obviously, one should make sure the gift is age-appropriate, as needed. While Sagan's Day is about the promotion of scientific understanding, I think Darwin Day is about celebrating science itself. After-all, science is the greatest tool humans have ever invented. Through science we have learned so much. Because of science we have been able to create so much good for all of humanity. The value of science, the scientific method, and all that we've discovered cannot be esteemed highly enough.

There are, of course, a variety of other holidays to be enjoyed as well. Aside from taking Christmas and enjoying it in a secular manner, there is Thanksgiving, which started out as a religious holiday. Many people would say that it still is, but the reality is that it's mostly a secular holiday now. Likewise, Halloween started out as a pagan holiday, then it was co-opted as a Christian religious holiday and now it's a secular holiday. But, there are several other secular holidays. New Year's Eve, of-course, and there is Martin Luther King Day on the third Monday of January, for example. There is also Valentines Day, which I dislike, but if one must then so be it. The problem with it is that it's really just an exploitation of unhealthy and archaic societal normatives regarding emotions. And, it's a corporatist holiday, created by businesses like chocolate companies and florists and greeting card makers, and meant to drive sales. Ultimately though, there are plenty of holidays and reasons to celebrate and enjoy the season. One need not give up the holiday season when one gives up belief in superstitions and myth. So, I say to you happy holidays and enjoy!

Copyright © 2012, Joshua Michail