THE
TENUOUS ORGASM
Sexuality is satisfaction par excellence. The whole spectacular
display of our civilization does nothing other than repeat
that love is wonderful and that in the arms of that beautiful
woman (or that beautiful man), all your desires and all your
needs will be satisfied in one long prodigious orgasm.
Now, like crazy spoilsports, we would like to put forward
here the theory that in reality the sex life of modern man
is rather poor and lacking in satisfaction.
This orgasm, which is alluded to everywhere, is in fact a
pale reflection of what it could be and hides oceans of dissatisfactions.
That is to say: twentieth century sex is somewhat rotten.
The entertainment world, which depicts sexual pleasure as
the obvious spice of life, bears the terrible guilt of hiding
this enormous problem, so hindering a possible solution.
Everyone is left alone with his own dissatisfaction as if
in front of a tragedy that in themidst of such collective
happiness seems to touch only him (or her). Not knowing that
everyone experiences sexual dissatisfaction prevents us from
understanding the nature of the problem and from confronting
it. When you make love, you may sometimes happen to ask or
be asked the question, for example: "Did you like it?"
and the answer, which is required is: "Yes!" Because
the "yes" implies that the partner has pleased us.
The idea that you can be dissatisfied even though you very
much enjoyed your partner and his sexual technique isn't part
of our culture. Sexual dissatisfaction isn't recognized as
a problem in itself, with its own magnitude of causes, but
as a phenomenon stemming exclusively from the fact that you
can make love with a person that didn't please you.
Sex is, by dogma, satisfaction which only the inadequacy of
the partner can spoil. "I don't like making love with
you anymore!" means always and only that you no longer
love that person. No one can utter such a phrase without putting
off the lover, because no one thinks that sexual dissatisfaction
could be independent of the love that you feel for him (or
her).
A similar concept only falls under the category of "illnesses".
Illness, as such, goes beyond love, and therefore renders
a contradiction possible, such as a lover who doesn't like
making love with his beloved.
In reality, it is our culture that is an illness. It is our
way of thinking that produces dissatisfaction. The idea that
pleasure is in sharp contrast with our lifestyle, rhythms,
habits and customs is constantly obliterated in our mind.
Society exorcises the truth by inventing classifications full
of neat subdivisions.
A large category of sexually dissatisfied people in our culture
is frigid women. Classified like cars that have a broken starter,
they "don't reach" an orgasm.
Frigidity was once considered a divine favour, because it
allowed women to remain pure, despite taking part in sexual
relations. My grandmother, for example, spoke about it with
pride, saying that, although bringing four children into the
world, not once did she experience pleasure while making love.
In fact, pleasure was once considered the exclusive right
of the man-master. My grandmother would say that 96% of women
were like her and only a few (the nymphomaniacs, sick women,
in fact) experienced pleasure in bed.
Today things have been reversed. The economic boom has been
transformed into the imperative of "enjoyment" and
frigidity has lost its aura of sanctity, becoming instead
an inconvenient disorder. An orgasm (as a technical point
from which a physiological reaction sets off made up of throbbing,
emissions of liquid, sounds, muscular contractions and the
freeing of chemical compounds is set off) is made to represent
the pinnacle of pleasure sensations. This pinnacle is another
dogma. It is considered as a clearly definable set of sensations.
Sexual pleasure is in fact more complex and the time it takes
to build up is extremely diversified and varied. When you
have sex, pleasure fuses at stretches, reaching peaks that
are different each time and experienced differently from person
to person rather than a rigid succession of strictly physiological
reactions. Sometimes the orgasm is so diffused as to embrace
a longer period of time than the technical phases. Sometimes
it is very quick and precedes or follows the emission of liquid.
However, you can't consider it as a sort of obstacle in which
once surmounted you can unquestionably declare an orgasm.
(Even women can "ejaculate" when they come, that
is emit some squirts of "secretion" from the urethra.
It doesn't happen to a lot of women and others don't notice.
There are some people who maintain that women can learn to
"ejaculate" and that it's very pleasant). This helps
to mask dissatisfaction.
Availing itself of the fact that from a physiological point
of view, the male orgasm is very obvious, ejaculation is considered
as a sure sign of orgasm. Thus man's pleasure always finds
undeniable proof of its existence and is placed outside any
possible discussion: "If he doesn't come it's one thing,
but if he comes, then he is experiencing pleasure".
Both the habitual way of thinking and the whole set of social
signals imply that man can be spared of sexual dissatisfaction.
The whole image of the entertainment world is characterized
by the gratification of male sexual desire. Scantily-clad
women, mouths reddened by desire, sports cars Ðeverything
facilitates the full enjoyment that you assume the male has
in every sexual encounter.
Man, hunter and master, how could he not revel in all this
prey that adorns itself from morning to night in order to
make itself more desirable to him? A man who doesn't enjoy
himself screwing all the babes that he conquers is an unthinkable
possibility. This situation paves the way to the conspiracy
of silence that covers and distorts the existence of widespread
male sexual dissatisfaction.
It is difficult for men to talk about their own sexual dissatisfaction.
It's not an eventuality contemplated in the career of a go-getting
male.
To talk about it means to place yourself at once outside the
male group. In bars, he talks about how many he has had, of
how beautiful they were, and of how much pleasure he gave
them. To talk about private dissatisfaction is a serious infraction
of the code of habits. It places you at once half way between
impotent men and faggots in the big sea of losers. Man by
definition likes to do it always and anywayÉ long as the prey
is decent. It's in the quality of the prey that pleasure lies,
not in the physical sensations of sex. Man doesn't enjoy sex
in itself, but as the reflection of his power and success.
Male sexuality is public, a victory on the world. This social
obligation to keep silent about your own 'orgasmic weakness'
paves the way to a chain of excessive sexual boasting that
leads to perpetuating the sham because as the sea of lies
widens, the truth appears more and more unacceptable.
The secrecy of dissatisfaction leads to neuroses and induces
man to become unreceptive and to transform his own sexuality
into a series of power trips through which he hopes to achieve
the longed for satisfaction of the flesh.
In this way, males end up forming a united front that perpetuates
the habits of the today's sex phobic society. Women are certainly
right when they state that it is mostly the male sexual attitude
that spoils the proper enjoyment of sexuality.
Man isn't able to experience sexuality with that willingness,
peace of mind and openness necessary for fulfillment. Moreover,
it isn't completely true that it is only the women who pay
the consequences of this sexual state of affairs.
Man suffers from a range of pleasure disorders that are in
no way inferior to the ones women suffer. Besides functional
disorders, such as impotence or the inability to ejaculate,
man has orgasms that, even though they take place, don't produce
decent levels of pleasure and sometimes nervous tension produces
actual "white orgasms", which even though they perform
the normal functions of insemination, do not produce the pleasure
of an orgasm.
But there is no mention of this real male frigidity in the
various sex mega-manuals. It is completely hushed up. Male
and female sexual dissatisfaction is however only partly determined
by male stupidity.
The whole system of values and of sexual and social taboos
converge to create an unhealthy situation in which sexual
activity is considered a base heritage of the individual's
animal stage, and it is therefore experienced as something
essentially "dirty".
The restraint of social customs constantly forces individuals
to deflect their instincts, and not use spontaneous language
or behaviour, which society condemns as "savage".
It's not our intention here to theorize about how things should
go, but certainly there is an unresolved contradiction in
the historical process of civilization, between the animal
and social needs of mankind. This fact is the fulcrum of all
dissatisfactions.
In fact, sexual dissatisfaction lies precisely in the fact
that the satisfaction of desires would put social conventions
in a spot. Indeed, social organization diverts sexual energies
and channels them in other ways, utilizing them as propellants
in social dynamics and as cement of the unnatural laws of
a system based on mutual bullying among individuals.
In acutal fact, dissatisfaction is enormous. Everything that
suggests this sexuality is the only possible one ("the
right one") seems inappropriate.
The categories themselves of "sexual acts" and "non-sexual
acts" are absurd, since not only sexuality, but all interpersonal
contacts are regulated by very strict procedures. People always
keep at a certain distance. You can't touch them if not on
specific occasions. If a man touches a woman's thigh, it means
that he wants to go to bed. If a man touches another man's
ass, he's a queer... etc.
This situation forces men and women to pour into sexuality
a whole series of natural drives towards their fellow man
or woman that have nothing 'sexual' about them, but that are
erased from the short list of accepted behaviour 'with people'
because of some resemblance with sexual behaviour.
Think, for example, how wonderful it would be if we had the
habit of spending an hour a day massaging or being massaged
by friends and relatives.
A similar situation would immediately change the contours
of sexual life, taking the pleasure of tactile sensations
beyond the confines of sex. If massaging each other at the
office, at home, on the bus, were common there would be an
enormous upsetting of social habits. A stranger's offer: "Would
you like me to massage you?" would be transformed from
an audacious erotic proposal to a polite example of civil
courtesy. You would then think of a group of children that
massage their teacher as something other than a scene of juvenile
perversion.
Sexuality is from early on obstructed because besides satisfying
itself, it has to compensate for a dissatisfaction incurred
in other spheres of life. This lack of physical contact with
your fellow man or woman outside sex, besides overburdening
the needs that sex is called to satisfy, causes incidental
damage of enormous importance, since it limits the practice
of bodily contact, so impoverishing the physical sensitivity
of individuals. Practically, it produces a certain degree
of numbness in sensations.
We can say that, to a certain extent, our pleasure system
is rusty just like a tool that is rarely used. This arouses
fear and uneasiness in sexual relationships, often making
sexual practices an awkward and unproductive huddle of bodies.
It's enough to see the frenetic rhythm of sex acts that are
shown to us in most pornographic films, to make us realize
how widespread the idea of sex not as the gentle pleasantness
of physical contact, but as the pure iconographic representation
of the vehement power of male virility and the infinite compliance
of the female prey is.
Man, cheated of his instinct, has lost the awareness of how
natural sex should be, so that this instinctive sex no longer
exists anywhere. We construct our way of making love on the
basis of information, that is for the most part unhealthy.
Only with the effort of the self-learner, do we sometimes
succeed in inventing for ourselves a way of making love that
seems our own and expresses our true instincts.
The lack of naturalness, the difficulty of finding a sexual
mimicry that corresponds to desire is another matter that
is hardly ever talked about.
What do you do in bed? You kiss, you touch, and your sexual
organs come in contact with the lover's body. But how is all
this done?
The only universal standard recognized to evaluate the degree
of the quality of sex is the level of raunchiness reached:
the more risquŽ the things you do, the more points you score.
The utmost is to put it in wherever it goes in. In some social
milieus, point scoring is the opposite. The less you do it,
the better it is. Others also value a romantic standard. The
more you exchange rapturous, dreamy looks, the more you sigh
in her ears or on her neck, the better it is.
Assessments on harmony, reciprocity, playfulness, serenity
and a sense of humour is totally lacking in the standard used.
This obtuse lack of sensitivity for the concreteness of the
sex act leads to a huge loss. In fact, even the simple mechanics
of coupling appear screwball in the end.
People don't know what to touch. They don't ask. They don't
talk about anythingabout the details of skin to skin contact,
what he or she prefers. In this confusion, aided by the oppressive
moralism that chains women, an essential part of the concrete
dynamics of sex has almost been lost.
In fact, most women don't use their vaginal muscles during
sex. Another disaster that has repercussions on sexuality
is the desire for possession and the whole labyrinth of infidelity,
insecurity and betrayal within which sexuality unravels.
A series of meanings and emotional and sentimental values
are attributed to true sex that add to the already heavy burden
that this part of human life must sustain. You could say that
you almost never get to sex because all the emotional negativity,
the tensions and disappointments of social life end up in
sexuality, and true sex gets lost in this chaos. So that in
the end, immersed in tensions and problems that are foreign
to it, an orgasm loses it's strength. It leaves us dissatisfied.
Gripped by this feeling of incompleteness, often unaware of
it and unable to confront it, we then end up clinging to what
is concrete about our orgasms and we become "spies"
of our pleasure. All tense and no longer delighting in pleasure,
but engaged in measuring it so that, as participants in pleasure,
we risk becoming only observers.
So the tenuousness of the orgasm casts us into a narrow sexual
materialism and makes us also lose that part of the orgasm
that is marvellous precisely because it is the tenuous, impalpable
joy of being inside a world of irresistible and incomprehensible
phenomena.
The tenuousness of the orgasm as a whole obscures that precious
part of the orgasm that is instead naturally tenuous, and
that of all the pleasures, is certainly a great pleasure because
it frees us, with its 'unbearable lightness', from the temptation
of protecting our "EGO" from the outpouring of emotions,
thus making your total abandonment to pleasure possible.
We don't have that serenity and that erotic enjoyment, that
silence of tensions satisfied that allow us to feel the gentleness
of the soul. The subtlest, impalpable, and tenuous part of
the orgasm.
That instant of total psychological abandonment that for a
second suspends the existence of armours that defend our "EGO".
That instant in which we experience pleasure because we are
no longer separated from the rest of the universe.
|