Sex

Yesterday I reread a book entitled Sex Without Guilt by Dr. Albert Ellis, and it occurred to me what is missing in life: freedom. In this book he talks about many things pertaining to how to enjoy sex like a relatively well-adjusted adult and relatively free from emotional problems. He makes a strong case for thinking seriously about adultery. Obviously everyone says that adultery is "wrong." Therefore, many people do it anyway and try to hide it. The point that Dr. Ellis makes that no one else ever has--at least not to me--is the behavior of trying to hide adultery is wrong not necessarily the adultery itself. This is an extraordinary assertion even in our times where many people--particularly women--consider themselves to be sexually sophisticated. In point of fact this is still a very prudish society that incessantly drills the virtue of marriage and of monogamy to the point that if people do freely engage in sexual relations, they try to keep it quiet. Dr. Ellis' point is revolutionary for another perhaps bigger reason: he implies a challenge to the dominating conventions, and that implies freedom. In other words, he does not accept the prevailing conventions like a mindless dolt vociferously protecting any challenge to the status quo like so many others. It is easy to understand why so many people protect conventions rather than questioning them. The moment questions a dominating cultural idea like one ought to be married before engaging in sex, one runs the risk questioning one's entire world view. That is too much for most people to handle. So, even though an idea may be utterly ridiculous, many people will accept it and attack anyone who presents an alternative. Such is the way of the "free" world.

Dr. Ellis is fantastic because his goal is mental health for people. It is a noble goal. It is a good goal to have in life. However, to have this goal often puts you at odds with a great many other people who have a vested interest in maintaining neuroses and other forms if illness. Did you ever ask yourself for example why so many women find so called "bad" boys attractive while rebuking the advances of clean, strong, intelligent men? Or, why those who build themselves up to be strong, rational, decent people are excoriated? Ayn Rand called it the hatred of the good for being good. It is that, but it is more. For, it seems that a great many people would prefer to hold onto their neuroses and other forms of illness, in other words to remain weak and decrepit, rather than exerting the effort to build themselves up to be strong and wise. Why? Inertia, laziness, indifference, call it what you will. But, in general people would rather not try than to try. Therefore, anyone with flaws is welcome, and the more flaws the better because no one wants to feel that you are better than them, that your "shit don't stink" as has been said more than once to me.

You see, you are not meant to be strong, confident, wise, intelligent, or clean. You are supposed to be like Forrest Gump . That makes people feel comfortable. But, this curious phenomenon makes one ask, why does strength make people uncomfortable? Moreover, why do so many people hate self-improvement?

If you are man with an earring--better yet two--tattoos, you drink, smoke, are overweight, use drugs, or anything to make "your shit stink" then you are a "real bro." The girls will love you. Employers will promote you. And, everyone will say what a "great guy you are." Why? Because it makes them feel less like losers. That is the stark truth of it. Knowing this is liberating in a sense. But, on the other hand it is extraordinarily frustrating; for what is the point of life if not self-enhancement and personal cultivation? What value does life have without an ideal? If you are to follow the dominant cultural attitudes, it is better for you not to have an ideal. That is the message. For, your reward for strenghth, health, intelligence, self-dignity, will be alienation. The less of these you possess, the more riches society will shower upon you. Most people take the riches discard the rest. In some case, I cannot say that I blame them. But, it does make it more difficult for those who desire to cultivate personal integrity and other important values like truth, justice, and common sense.


For these reasons and others, life, strength, and value are even more important for a healthy life. However, the only way to develop these elements, is to question cultural conventions. Does an idea like "adultery is wrong" seem rational just because a lot of people say so? It may in fact be wrong in certain situations, but it may not be wrong in other situations. Even more important, why does sex have to come with so many strings and requirements?

That does not mean one needs to engage in orgies everyday or make pornographic movies. On the other hand, why cannot sex be enlightened? If a man and a woman meet and decide to engage in sexual relations, why can't sex just be enjoyed for what it is without all of the hang ups, attachments, and other foolishness that usually goes along with it like courting, dating, romance, etc.? There is nothing wrong with these in and of themselves, but why do these have to be linked to sex every time. If a man and a woman are married, why does sex always have so many stipulations, the mood has to be "just right," the lights have to be off, it must be in bed, blah, blah, blah. Poppycock and boulderdash.

What is wrong with just "getting it on" and moving on if that is what one chooses to do? Granted most of the hang ups associated with sex are perpetuated by women, but why does it need to be that way? The answer is it does not need to be that way. That is one of the points that Dr. Ellis was making. But, to get to that place one must first accept that cultural conventions are assailable and should be rigorously questioned at all times.

In the another article about how women drive men to homosexuality--another revolutionary and challenging assertion--Dr. Ellis recounts a story of a homosexual man that told Dr. Ellis why he was a homosexual. I do not advocate homosexuality--and neither did Dr. Ellis--but I can certainly understand the sentiment. The man said that if he wanted to have sex with a man he could go to a bar, a bath, or some other meeting place, meet someone, and in not too much time engage in sexual relations with that person. Afterwards, if they did not want to continue with their tryst, they both went their separate ways. The homosexual man made a point in Dr. Ellis' article that he in fact enjoyed relations with women, but he despised all the time, money and energy it required to do the same thing that he could do with men in a more reasonable way. All of the reasons and machinations that explain why women make sex difficult is much to complicated to go into here. But, one thing can be said for such phenomena. There are an awful lot of cultural conventions that needlessly and endlessly complicate life.

The thing is, one needs one's strength to accomplish goals. One can ill afford to waste time chasing after paper tigers and flickering apparitions in the night. If you follow an idea, make sure that idea is rational and does in fact enhance your life. Ayn Rand chided readers to "check your premises." It is good advice. Just because "things are that way" does not mean that must be that way or that you must accept them as they are. You cannot change the world, but you can damn sure change yourself. LSV