ED and the truth

September 12, 2005

Kindness is a fine quality. But it only goes so far. Let me offer

this analogy. A woman on a vacation in a beautiful country location

meets a man sitting on a bench. She sits down at the other end of

the bench. They greet each other and talk. She is smitten. She

suggests the two of them take a walk through the countryside. The

man replies that she could not have known but he is unable to walk,

paralysed. No way for him to walk. And for some reason he does not

want to be pushed in a wheel chair. The woman assures him that

going for the walk is not the most important thing in the world to

her. They obviously like each other. They have a lot in common.

Of course,the meeting between the man and the woman comes to an

end. Now, it does not matter whether they become good friends or

they marry or nothing happens between them. Sooner or later the

woman is going to take that walk through the countryside. Everybody

knows that. The man knows that, the woman knows it. It is part of

life. The woman is not going to stop going for walks through

beautiful country just because her boy friend or husband cannot walk

with her.

Here is an interesting quote from the book, " Sexual Sucide " , by

Gilder (1973):

" ... The male sexual predicament, like the female, is not the sort

of arrangement that might have been invented by social engineers.

It has a tragic quality that is difficult to adapt to egalitarian

formulas. But the essential need to perform is alterable only in

sexual suicide. There is no shortcut to human fulfillment for men -

just the short circuit of impotence. Men can be creatively human

only when they are confidently male and overcome their sexual

insecurity by action. Nothing comes to them by waiting or 'being'.

Even the degree of sexual confidence that most men can achieve in

civilized society is dependent either on constant initiative or on

culturally identifying and reserving certain roles and arenas as

distinctively male.

" ... These differences in sexual experience, of course, account for

the n 'double standard', whereby chastity was required for

women but some promiscuity was acceptable for men. One hesitates to

say a good word for a pattern of behavior so discredited today -

particularly since promiscuity is in general unfortunate and the

pill has significantly changed the import of intercourse for women.

Nonetheless, intercourse does play a role in the lives of men that

is different from its role in the lives of females, and the

difference is great enough to have moral consequences.

" The chief difference is that, lacking the innate insecurity of

males and possessing an unimpeachable sexual identity, women are not

usually so reliant on intercourse.... women can both enjoy sexual

relations more profoundly and durably and forgo them more easily

than can men... The man, on the other hand, has only one sex act and

is exposed to conspicuous failure in it. His erection is a

mysterious endowment that he can never fully understand or control.

If it goes, he often will not know exactly why, and there will be

little he or his partner can do to retrieve it. His humiliation is

inconsolable. Even if he succeeds in erection he still can fail to

evoke orgasm - he can lose out to other men who can. And if he is

impotent, it will subvert all the other aspects of his relationship

and will undermine his entire personality. "

Interesting book.

September 13, 2005

Hi,

I think sex and sexuality plays an important part in the lives of most of the

people on the planet (humanity) at present. It is an area that is being

discussed openly now - a good thing. I am sure it has some input to the

dis-ease of PC. There are over six billion views on the subject, yet each of

us has to find our own view/solution on the subject. There is obviously (!!)

two halves to the solution.

I have made a note of the book you mention and will endeavour to read it.

Another book that I find interesting is " A Compilation on Sex " by Alice

, Lucis Press. It gives another view on the subject.

Regards.

Ian.

> Kindness is a fine quality. But it only goes so far. Let me offer

> this analogy. A woman on a vacation in a beautiful country location

> meets a man sitting on a bench. She sits down at the other end of

> the bench. They greet each other and talk. She is smitten. She

> suggests the two of them take a walk through the countryside. The

> man replies that she could not have known but he is unable to walk,

> paralysed. No way for him to walk. And for some reason he does not

> want to be pushed in a wheel chair. The woman assures him that

> going for the walk is not the most important thing in the world to

> her. They obviously like each other. They have a lot in common.

> Of course,the meeting between the man and the woman comes to an

> end. Now, it does not matter whether they become good friends or

> they marry or nothing happens between them. Sooner or later the

> woman is going to take that walk through the countryside. Everybody

> knows that. The man knows that, the woman knows it. It is part of

> life. The woman is not going to stop going for walks through

> beautiful country just because her boy friend or husband cannot walk

> with her.

>

> Here is an interesting quote from the book, " Sexual Sucide " , by

> Gilder (1973):

>

> " ... The male sexual predicament, like the female, is not the sort

> of arrangement that might have been invented by social engineers.

> It has a tragic quality that is difficult to adapt to egalitarian

> formulas. But the essential need to perform is alterable only in

> sexual suicide. There is no shortcut to human fulfillment for men -

> just the short circuit of impotence. Men can be creatively human

> only when they are confidently male and overcome their sexual

> insecurity by action. Nothing comes to them by waiting or 'being'.

> Even the degree of sexual confidence that most men can achieve in

> civilized society is dependent either on constant initiative or on

> culturally identifying and reserving certain roles and arenas as

> distinctively male.

>

> " ... These differences in sexual experience, of course, account for

> the n 'double standard', whereby chastity was required for

> women but some promiscuity was acceptable for men. One hesitates to

> say a good word for a pattern of behavior so discredited today -

> particularly since promiscuity is in general unfortunate and the

> pill has significantly changed the import of intercourse for women.

> Nonetheless, intercourse does play a role in the lives of men that

> is different from its role in the lives of females, and the

> difference is great enough to have moral consequences.

>

> " The chief difference is that, lacking the innate insecurity of

> males and possessing an unimpeachable sexual identity, women are not

> usually so reliant on intercourse.... women can both enjoy sexual

> relations more profoundly and durably and forgo them more easily

> than can men... The man, on the other hand, has only one sex act and

> is exposed to conspicuous failure in it. His erection is a

> mysterious endowment that he can never fully understand or control.

> If it goes, he often will not know exactly why, and there will be

> little he or his partner can do to retrieve it. His humiliation is

> inconsolable. Even if he succeeds in erection he still can fail to

> evoke orgasm - he can lose out to other men who can. And if he is

> impotent, it will subvert all the other aspects of his relationship

> and will undermine his entire personality. "

>

> Interesting book.

>

September 13, 2005

The author ignores the importnace of the vows a woman makes when she marries. I

no longer read

books of this nature which are so dated. What *may* have been true for someone

my age 30 or so

years ago usually is not so true for someone my age today. Even then, as I

undertand it, married

women stuck by their men back then, as well.

--- cshoward56 wrote: