Thou Shalt Not Spake of Sex

We exist in a world chained and suffocated by subjective norms formulated ever since natural selection and random mutation had accrued and thus yielded these lumps of flesh of fundamentally intricate interconnection. Language is among the resultants of this entangled, multifarious mass of cells and tissues. And with the advent of this process of compartmentalisation and categorization of sounds, interactivity possibilities between and among the breathing species possessing this multi-million year processed product has been widened. This broadening of horizons has produced what beings, who are able to read this organized set of symbols, collectively label as morality.

Morality then is a product of the human mind and human mind is a product of the brain and its interconnected, interrelated, and interdependent processes. Hence morality does not have an independent existence apart from the mind. It exists in the brain. To annihilate every brain in the entire universe is to annihilate morality. Morality is a meaningless concept apart from the existence of sentience, particularly human sentience, assuming we are the lone sentient specimens in the whole expanse of reality.

Morality is simply what each humans deem as effective guidelines in protecting and promoting our survival and the quality of our lives. Survival is defined as the maintained capability of the lungs to process air. Anyone who shall ultimately endanger the passing of air in and out of our biological nostrils are what we characterized as immoral. So we humans declare that anyone who attempts to end the circular process of passage of oxygen throughout our biological system is acting immoral. The concept of quality of life is very subjective however, for it can be maintained that what can promote quality of life for one may be detrimental to another’s quality. There exist though certain guidelines which promotes quality of life that we humans are almost universally in agreement of, such as a sense of respect for our fellow earthlings. These seemingly universal similarity in morals are nothing to be surprised of as humans are bound to have them for possessing similar needs and wants in the first place. We all need food. We all want to be respected. We all want to be loved. Thereby we will create morals that will promote the acquisition of the aforestated. Those people who are in agreement group themselves together. Each of these groups yields its own stalwart community. General agreement and unity is a fundamental of a stable society.

Here then is the standard of human morality: Our need and want to survive and our want to have a quality life. It is true that we wish to live. It is, however, true as well that we do not want to live in a cage. Morality then can have a sense of universality due to us humans having similar needs and wants. Morality as well possesses subjective elements due to our varying and subjective perception on what constitute the promotion of quality life and the best means to survive.

As eons transpired, humans began to intellectually masturbate on how they are going to deal with their ignorance and the inevitable outcome of their lives, that being, the cessation of breathing. Morality, for all its utility and pragmatism, has been found inadequate to prevent the inescapable. Death, being impending, also started to affect the quality of their lives. Try as they might to live and extract the most out of their existence, the imminence of non-existence nudges with much persistence at the back of their minds.

Then humans said, “let us create an institution according to our likeness. Let it subside our fear of quietus and bereavement and be the final authority of answers for our uncertainties.” So humans created religion according to what they like and what they need. And humans found it to be good and subjectively sufficient for sooth and comfort.

Because of this tumultuous and convoluted process for which I have provided nothing short of an oversimplication for elaboration borne out of immediacy, one of the experience that brings quality of life to the mortals and promotes the continued survival of their genes has been denigrated and reduced to, in essence, an anathema by these humans who have aggrandized the basic aformentioned standards of morality and diluted it with a conceptual cosmic being who demands perfect obedience of his set of commands lest be casted to the fiery pit of eternal torment of the lake of fire, void of any hope for parole.

A woman having their menstruation period is considered unclean, To touch them, even to just look at them is wrong. (Leviticus 15:19-30, Leviticus 18:19). If they so landed a finger on her, the very act is considered immoral. A handicapped cannot be allowed to offer food to this epitome of divine holiness (Leviticus 21:16-21). To do so leads to sin, hence immorality. Even the seemingly frivolous as the refusal to remove the male genital’s natural foreskin has been regarded as immoral in many religions of varying cultures. Castration has also been considered as something moral to do. Homosexuality is regarded by some as immoral as well. The list goes on and on. The mentioned have been considered essential in promoting survival (eq. adherence results to immortality in paradise) and uplifting of life’s quality (eq. eternal bliss in heaven as reward vis eternal torture in the flames of hell). However the promotion would only be actualized after one’s demise hence arousing suspicion of fraudulence among individuals possessing doses of intellectual skepticism.

“Which do you deem more pleasurable, a gentle but firm rub of your clitoris, a touching variation of your G-Spot, or a mild and slow come hithering finger gesture on your deep spots?” I curiously asked a young lady of similar age. Bursting into laughter followed by a disgusted facial expression, she replied, “Eeeew! Yuck!!!”. It was followed by a teasing slap in my arm.

Not so perplexed, I asked, “Why such reaction? Is there something dirty about knowing and understanding where you can experience the most intense of sexual pleasure?”

To that she replied in jest, “Magkakasala ako nyan”.

Here is a woman who is still trap in the matrix. Though she meant to convey the message in a bantering manner, the core root of such reaction is not foreign to me. An attempt to mention sexually related body parts to even the male species will make Mt. Laughter erupt ferociously. This sense of inappropriateness emblazoned on sex is a human created moral law which ensnared many of my countrymen. Sex is a concept that is feared. To circumnavigate this horror, humor has been employed (and successfuly at that) as the usual defense mechanism. I appreciate the humor. I have, however, none but the utmost detest for the unfounded fear to openly speak about it.

I have no fear of sex. I am able to embrace the concept devoid of shame and disgust. I understand its implications, its dangers, its gratifying nature. The taboo of sex is beneath me. The so-called improper and unethical nature attached stigmatically to this three-letter word is nothing but a creation out of our predecessors’ credulousness. Release yourself from the shackles of their ignorance and view not the enlightened ones as “bastos” (perverts) for bearing no hints of abashment of talking and responsibly exploring such an orgasmic experience.

Sex is a respectable, unsullied, recherch’e avocation, fools.

Alas, The pain one must go through just to make a simple point. Will the wonder never cease… Nah, I’m just bored.