Index of all articles, click
here
By Jan Garanoz (2011)
Many people think that porn is low-brow. Many intellectuals think it is in bad taste.
I think it is a revolutionary political tool.
No, it's not the entertaining aspect of porn which I discuss here. And on me, haha, porn is not even stimulating.
I have enough sexual experience to be able to imagine my own porn. It's more daring, and more exciting than what blue directors come up with, and the own porn I imagine has the great advantage that I am actually a player in the scenes.
No, the value I see in porn has nothing to do with my own satisfaction.
I see porn as a political, educational tool. It should be shown primarily to youngsters, or to people with little sexual knowledge (Catholic priests, for example... I mean those without ample of pedophile experience).
When shown to youngsters, porn is way superior to school lessons on human procreation. Because from porn, they get the correct idea that when people engage in sexual acts, this is totally different from all the other activities they engage in.
Because sexual desire and sexual satisfaction are metaphysical.
Sexuality is what life is about. Youngsters should understand that. Youngsters can understand that.
Life is about optimal orgasms, and a gentle death (though at their age, they don't yet need to be overly concerned with this).
Youngsters who understand that sexuality is the essence of life are less likely to be vulnerable to all kinds of nonsense: drugs, motorcycle racing, religions, racism, stupid fashions, you name it.
Yeah, let them view sexuality. Confronting youngsters with depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct is valuable political activism. The more, the better. Yeah, hard core.
Feminism (a political system influential in North America and Europe, especially Scandinavia, as well as the United Nations) is against pornography, and certainly against pornography for youngsters.
But feminism is nothing but sexual tradeunionism of ugly and aging women. They have to be against pornography because it is against their interest (porn is a sexual alternative for men). Just as they have to be against any sexual conduct of youngsters (younger, more attractive, non-feminist females are competitors undercutting them).
Towards the public, and quite often not even toward themselves, feminists will not admit the true motivation for their activism.
They will come up with stupid principles that all humans are equal, and pretend lofty ideals of justice, when in fact, they only aim to protect their basic (even genetically encoded) interests.
Optimal desire and optimal orgasms are the essence of life, and youngsters should learn that once they develop intellectual capabilities.
And furthermore, girls should learn early that their attractiveness is an asset that gives them a dimension of value that is very much the envy of feminists. An envy which, actually, is fundamental to all feminism.
Feminism is stupid, and it is harmful to society, and it doesn't even serve ugly and aging women who have been abandoned by their husbands for younger females.
Instead of fighting a battles against all sexual alternatives for men, ugly and aging women should be aware that economic imbalances always bring with them sexual opportunities, and that in fact, young men have a much greater tolerance for not-so-pretty and not-so- young women than older men (this is, if a woman is sufficiently interested in sex; not all are). Beyond that, male youngsters may be quite interested to learn about sex from more mature women.
So, my recommendation for feminists is to abandon fruitless feminism.
And for men who are inclined towards anti-feminism, I recommend to distribute porn to youngsters, rather than engage into debates with feminists that lead to nowhere because the topic would be gender inequality, or male violence, or the necessity of child protection, all of which are beside the point.
For feminism is about protecting sexual interests trade union-style. Not about philosophy.
Index of articles, click here.
Copyright Jan Garanoz