Friday, 22 October 2010

Biological, Psychological, and Social and Historical Sexuality in Relation and Connection to Morality, and the Liberal Extreme Over-simplifications an

Biological, Psychological, and Social and Historical Sexuality in Relation and Connection to Morality, and the Liberal Extreme Over-simplifications and Misconceptions of Intimacy in all Sexual Relationships, Sexual Role-playing, Lust, Sexual-love and Desires

"Intellectual elitism is the hubris of fascism"

Thomas Szasz

I recently received an email, from a university department of human sexuality studies, and so I read everything on their website (including a download PDF file of their courses), and not only does all of this information on the Internet appear to mention absolutely nothing about their courses, but they mention the rights and teaching (not actually study at all) about all sexual individuals and groups, except for BDSM (masochist, sadist, switch, and sadomasochist people) - as if BDSM people merely have so-called sexual problems - and are absolutely nothing to do with heterosexual, bisexual, homosexual, and transgender people, who they claim to defend the rights, knowledge, and sexual and social health of, and as if we are not also sexually, psychologically, and socially human.

I say all their information on the Internet about them, appears not to reveal anything about their courses and teachings, and whilst their is no mention about all of this about empowering individuals and groups at a grass-roots level as equal and autonomous, all they are concerned about is encouraging elitism and educating political leaders and professionals like counsellors and psychologists, which is the surface level of all their professional thought-disorders, and which is all more like liberal-fascism than radical or liberal libertarian-socialism.

I have actually studied all of this information on the Internet about them, by studying the content, the order, the phrasing, and the structural tones, pattern, association and non-association, and overall grammar of all the words, then I jumbled all of these words up in a certain and special way, and then applied my same highly ingenious so-called autistic deconstruction and analysis of all of this, and which reveals absolutely everything about the entire content of most of their courses and teachings.

For now, I won't critique what they describe as human sexuality, but what I will say is that there is absolutely no analysis, nor any understanding or teaching about the ways that so-called class influences, affects, limits, or changes sexuality, and like everybody else they all know absolutely nothing about any of this.

I will write about this class element and factor - both intrinsically of sexuality, and as an external material, social, political, and historical influence affect, limitation, or expansive potentiality - in another article, but for now I will just mention the two main central themes of their ideology, views, and teachings on human sexuality, and which are pretty obvious to an ordinary or very non-extraordinary person unlike myself, who reads all of their extremely condensed, coded, and more or less very euphemistic information about them, via their website and the download of all their courses on it.

These two main themes, and the extremely ignorant and wildly inaccurate descriptions of all their understanding and teaching on it all, are morality in connection and relation to human sexuality and how this relates to a social and historical context or contexts, and what they very multiplicitly mergingly, and again very ignorantly and wildly inaccurately refer to as intimacy - as if these two themes have absolutely no connection and relation to or with each other (in their very cold sexual, academic, intellectual and emotional very detached and defensive splits and fragmentations), in any kind of meaningful, or intimate way as they put it - and which again they have absolutely no understanding or knowledge of the real contents, structures, mechanisms, and different types and forms of intimacy, and the highly complex components and real nature of it.

Peter H. Donnelly

Wednesday, 20 October 2010

About the Radio 4 Programme Broadcast Last Night about Appropriate, Careful, Sensitive, Rational, Logical, and Creative Communication Between Children

About the Radio 4 Programme Broadcast Last Night about Appropriate, Careful, Sensitive, Rational, Logical, and Creative Communication Between Children and Adults Regarding Bereavement and Knowledge of other very Realistic, Harsh, Life-events

When my five year-old niece Jasmine, came into the room some months ago, and asked me very euphemistically about the absence and loss of her granny (my mum), who committed suicide and died last year, I might have confused her a little bit with my communication, but overall I think I communicated with her in a very sane, logical, rational, careful, sensitive, and creative way.

I'm more or less against the very Liberal view of communication between children and adults, that communicates with and treats children all exactly like adults, because whilst in some ways that is a good and a healthy thing, because children are all equal human beings to and with adults, with more or less equal rights as human beings, they are still children, and this kind of very Liberal approach is quite frankly very inappropriate and embarrassing.

I therefore agree a bit more, with the more Conservative view and approach, of protecting children's innocent minds, and freely communicating with them, with respect, realisations, and regard that they still or just children, although as the other extreme, this can also be a bit embarrassing and patronising towards and with children at times, if used and taken too far.

Regarding the Radio 4 programme broadcast last night, that I mention here in the title of this article, the experts and professionals, all more or less agreed that children's innocent minds need to protected from the harsh realities of life-events, whilst they also said that often children already know about the realities of things like the death of a family relative, much more than we admit to or realise about them as adults, but that as children they don't let on or reveal about this to and with adults, because they are trying to protect the adults in the adults view and relatedness towards them as children, and which is how they more or less want to be related to, communicated with, and treated by and with adults.

However, there was also a consensus and agreement in this Radio 4 programme, that if children do choose to communicate, very directly and openly about what they can really know about things like bereavement and other harsh realities and life-events, as they sometimes do, then we mustn't deny this or ignore them about this, but we must openly and honestly communicate and support them about this emotionally and mentally.

Taking all of these things and matters into full realisation and full consideration, in a very sensitive, rational, logical, rational, creative, and multi-approached way, the conclusion and crux of the matter in this Radio 4 programme, is that we need to intellectually support children, and give them intellectual support, in whatever way they choose to communicate with us about things like bereavement and other harsh realities and life-events, and I think this is overall how I related towards and communicated with my five year-old niece Jasmine, with her euphemistic and metaphorical questions to me some months ago about the death and loss of her granny.

Article about Mental Health Service Booklets

I have read the booklets and leaflets you gave me, and the other booklets you allowed me to take from you. I don't want to be overly-critical nor bother you with my views on all of this, and I won't go into most of it all, but some of it relates to my late and beloved mum and her mis-diagnosis, mis-psychiatric-drug-treatment and refusal by the doctor, and basically these booklets only describe the symptoms of mental health problems, and not the real overall syndromes, nor the objective social and material reality and the causes and effects of all of this.

What's more they are labels of symptoms, which might be useful in a complete and accurate context and understanding, but they are also very simple, very abstract, text-book descriptions of mere symptoms and quite partial descriptions of both symptoms and syndromes, which do not correspond to objective social and material reality, internal psychological reality, nor the interaction and synthesis of the subjective psychological and objective reality of the two (as if there is no actual activity and interaction between all these things but total connectedness, merging, and absorption without any individuality as well).

Again, I won't annoy or bore you about all of this, but to give you just one very quick example, your booklets only describe psychosis in psychological and social terms as being delusional and losing touch with reality. Psychosis, actually has four aspects to it in reality, which are the personal, the social and volitional, the interpersonal, and the internal or psychological.

Firstly, there is much, much, more to psychosis than delusional losing touch with reality, as there can be depressive psychosis, and psychosis is also about an internal mental and emotional conflict, juxtaposition, and dis-order, between and where the unconscious mind (for want of a better word), negatively takes over and controls or dominates the conscious mind or thoughts, whilst the conscious mind alternately becomes unconscious in a way, as the unconscious becomes more unconscious.

Regarding and concerning the first of the four aspects of psychosis that I mentioned, personally and socially, it is to do with how these two aspects or things about psychosis interact, and part of the solutions perhaps along with some psychiatric medication, is to slot the personal thought-patterns and processes, into the person's actions, routine, pre-responses before their actions and their post-responses afterwards, and changing their situations and relatedness or relationships with others, all in certain ways, where there is a better connectedness and connection with the social, interpersonal, and where they are more in touch with social and objective material reality.

In isolation, as a separate thing, interpersonally, the term psychotic in the sense of so-called being out-of-touch with material and social reality, can simply mean and be the case, that the person has a different opinion, argument, view, vision, or much better grasp or different understanding of material and social reality than another person, a partner, or a so-called authority figure on all of this, who says they are mad or psychotic simply because they have a different or much better view, argument, opinion, and because they simply disagree with the other partner, so-called authority figure, or other person.

In terms of actual depressive psychosis, it is not the case really much at all that the person suffering from grief, sadness, and/or very negative or more realistic thoughts usually along with feelings of so-called depersonalisation, is at all out-of touch with reality - as was the case with my mum who committed suicide last year - but the reality of all of this on this issue and matter, is that in actual fact and reality, no one can really or appropriately and skilfully, care about, love, nor has real compassion for them, nor understands nor can relate to their mental, emotional, physical, social, and spiritual suffering in any real caring or altruistic way. Therefore, it is actually the case that society, the mental health services and some others, are often in actual fact and reality out-of-touch with them and their suffering and conditions psychologically, mentally and emotionally, socially, spiritually, and materially.

On a final point, a person can be out-of-touch socially and/or interpersonally with others, as in so-called personality disorders with inappropriate relatedness or relationship responses and behaviours - as others can also be these things in-turn toward them for social and cultural reasons of differences, or lack or equality, fairness, and integration - whilst this not usually necessarily mean, that the person being one-sidedly discriminated against and labelled in these ways, are out-of-touch socially with reality in an overall objective, social, and material sense, nor in terms of life-events, and to suggest otherwise, is again to very much to over-simplify, blur and merge categories, things, issues, personal, interpersonal, and social and material reality matters.

Love, Trust, Sexual Cheating, Lust, and Betrayal

The late radical libertarian-socialist psychiatrist and critic of medical and biological psychiatry, R. D. Laing, had some very good views on the subject matters of the title of this article, but his views on these things in his book The Facts of Life, and in a lecture he gave just before he died, are quite incomplete, and I intend here in this article to shed just a glimpse of light on what I know about the whole highly complex and detailed deconstructed picture and reality of all these matters.

What Laing said on these matters, is that lot of people are caught in a trap, that if you love someone, or if you think you love someone or want to love someone, they also feel that they ought to trust or believe the person they love, because they love them, but he didn't see that this follows at all.

The example Laing then gave of his views on these matters, is that there was a married couple he once knew who were married for quite a few years, and one afternoon after the wife had been sleeping upstairs in the bedroom alone, whilst her husband was downstairs, she came downstairs, and there was her husband lying naked on the living-room sofa with a naked woman. So she said "What is that naked woman doing in my house on my sofa!?", to which her husband without missing a beat, turned round to her and said "That isn't a woman, that's a waterfall!", and she felt that she was spinning around and might faint, and she had to hang on to her sense of reality, because she had developed the ingrained habit of trusting him and believing him. When her husband said "That is a waterfall!" she believed him, on the other hand this waterfall had all the appearance and shape of a naked woman on the sofa, but that was impossible, it couldn't be, so was she dreaming?, was she in the middle of a dream?, is this real?

Laing then said, that some people in that moment of a tidal, lose themselves by believing what they're told, at the expense of then you can't believe your eyes, you can't believe your ears, and that crisis when a person discovers that the person that they trusted is deceiving them, hasn't actually got a name for it, and that crisis is sometimes mistaken for jealousy - that there's a possibility of jealousy in discovering that deception in love, but there's also the pain of the discovery that the person that one hoped or felt loved oneself, has betrayed one, has deceived one, and that may entail a revision of innumerable events in one's own life.

Laing then said, that it's the truth and love deprivation that really hurts (taking away certain choices from the other person) - deprivation of reality - that one is being deprived of access to what is going on, and very often that sets-up a real literally mind-boggling conflict, of are you to believe the evidence of your own intuition or your own senses?, or are you to believe what the other person says? Laing says that the two things are often mistakenly seen as the same thing, but that love (charity, or compassion) - and desire and lust - are two very different things, but that real love is the very opposite of any kind of illusory, any kind of simulation of some kind of modicum of love and/or desire that they don't feel, and that any illusion, any idealisation, and any despising, in any way that we have of projecting or denying the existence of the other person as he or she is in his or her own is-ness, is not loving them.

Laing concludes on these matters by saying, that really to be with another person in a completely open-hearted and unguarded way, where one is not in one's own part somehow or other cancelling, or changing, or altering, or modifying who that other person really is to suit one's own book - but that co-presence, being actually present to each other without reservation and pre-condition of what someone might call "communion", is the perfection of what and how we're ordinary meant to be together, and that this is the only peace there can possibly be.

To now give my own example on all these matters, I was very interested in the fact, that when a Russian woman told me that a man who she loved and was a relationship with as her partner at the time cheated on her with affairs, that she very cleverly, creatively, and intuitively said that she was "madly enamoured in him". This means, reveals, explains, and very strongly and heavily suggests, that a big part of the reason why he cheated and had affairs against her, is that despite his own enamoured being, ideas, and behaviours against her, that he also sees her in the same way as exactly the same as he is, but that she is very accurately and ethically refusing to negatively conform or retaliate to this.

I then told this Russian woman, that this cheating man's main problem, is that he doesn't and can't see her as the very loving and loyal person that she actually is, that his vision and feelings are very limited and distorted, and that he was cheating on her by having affairs, because he wants her to negatively conform to the inaccurate and stereotyped image of her that he has, and what's more, he expects and wants her to cheat back on him in retaliation; but again she is very ethically not negatively conforming to him in this way, and she has broken off the very unhealthy and bad kind of relationship with her that he seems to want.

He essentially and basically wants her to enter into a very bad, negative, and limited mutual game with him, where both he and she cheat on each other, but as she said to me, this is not healthy, ethical, or wise to play with people's feelings and emotions in this way, he is over-focusing on lust and not love, and he is not wanting to integrate, progress, and transform love and lust into something more enlightened, socially and interpersonally useful, productive, creative, and greater.

If he cheated on her by having affairs, and kept this a secret and didn't tell her, then that might be different, as she simply may not know he is doing this, although she saw him in the street kissing other women, but as he told her that he is cheating on her, it does seem that again, in actual fact he is expecting and wanting her to do this back to him in retaliation. So whilst it seems that he is simply being sadistic by hating on her, there is also a negative, limited, and fragmented element of masochism in his intentions and feelings, and in this case he has a limited and distorted notion and idea of sexual-love relationships.

If he wants to mutually cheat on women he pretends or says he loves, I told her that I'm sure he can find some other woman who is willing to allow her to do this to him, and who will cheat on him back in retaliation and mistreat him in this way, but I then said to her, that as she said, it is very wrong and counter-productive for him to try to impose or force this false idea of sexual-love relationships upon her, when this is not what she wants, and not what she freely and equally chooses and wishes to do.

It also seems that this cheating guy, also very falsely and inaccurately thinks that by cheating on her and telling her that he is doing this, that this will make her love him, and I don't know where he has learnt this bad behaviour and false or limited emotional mind-set and pattern from, but he simply has a misconception, misperception, and wrong expectation, and he is simply wrong that cheating by having affairs in this way makes people love each other.

If a person cheats and has affairs, this is lust and doesn't necessarily mean that this person doesn't love the woman or man they are cheating and having affairs against (indeed it can often mean, that they are very inaccurately, unwisely, and inadequately trying to socially and psychologically integrate their lust and love for the person they are cheating against, in order to love them and others even more), but it is also true and a fact that this cheating and affairs behaviour, does not make the person being cheated against, controlled, and victimised in this way want to love them back, nor make them want to love them nor other people back any more, and by itself this doesn't increase love nor make it genuine, nourishing, nurturing, and holistically and potentially mutual, individual, entrusting, frank, true, real, and sincere.

Friday, 15 October 2010

10 Ways to Prevent a Loved One from Committing Suicide

10 Ways to Prevent a Loved One from Committing Suicide

It’s not a pleasant thing and most of us shy away from admitting it’s a serious issue, but when a loved one is depressed and threatens or hints at suicide, ignorance is the very opposite of bliss. We cannot ignore their feelings and pretend that things will help better with the passage of time; their minds are unsteady and their feelings volatile. They can lose it in a matter of seconds and it could be too late to save them; the regret and guilt you feel torment you for the rest of your life. If you feel even for a moment that a loved one could be suicidal, here’s what you could do:

1. Acknowledge that it is a serious problem – the first step to preventing a suicide is to accept that it is a real possibility.

2. Take your loved one to see a professional – a psychologist or psychiatrist could do them a world of good. A professional can identify the root of the problem and give them the right medication and treatment to cure and contain their condition. So you not only prevent them from committing suicide, you also help them regain their mental health and get out of the depression that’s been plaguing them.

3. Spend more time with them – most people who are depressed tend to think of suicide because they’re lonely and have no one to talk to and share their problems with.

4. Get to the root of their problem – it could be a relationship gone wrong or it could be financial woes that have reduced them to this level. Find out what’s wrong and see if you can help to solve it in any way.

5. Nurture them with foods that boost mental health – include nuts, fish, dairy products, soy and other foods that contain feel-good chemicals like dopamine that elevate your mood in their diet.

6. Get them to exercise – even a brisk walk in the fresh outdoor air will do them a world of good in the short and long term.

7. Remind them of all that is good in their life – a positive attitude goes a long way in removing negative thoughts and boosting mental health.

8. Remove objects and implements that could be used to cause harm from their reach – knives, ropes, scissors, drugs, chemicals and other products that could be used to attempt suicide are best kept away and under lock and key.

9. Watch them carefully – don’t leave them alone at any point of time. If you have other things to do, get someone else, someone who is responsible, to stay with them.

10. Keep on trying – it’s a slow process and you’re bound to get frustrated and angry, but you must keep on trying to help them and get them out of this phase. Get some help if necessary, but do all that needs to be done to get your loved out to stop feeling suicidal.


This guest post is contributed by Maryanne Osberg, who writes on the topic of RN to MSN Online Programs . She can be reached at mary.anne579(AT)gmail(DOT)com.

Friday, 8 October 2010

My Views on the Women and Female Labour Party Politicians Claire Short and Harriet Harmen and their Views and Criticisms of all Female Nudity in the F

My Views on the Women and Female Labour Party Politicians Claire Short and Harriet Harmen and their Views and Criticisms of all Female Nudity in the Form of Erotic Naked Performers and Pornography

First of all, I would like to say, that as an occasional Labour Party voter, and as a person and human being, I am very fond of both women and female Labour Party politicians Claire Short (of more or less so-called Old Labour), and Harriet Harmen (or so-called New Labour). Both Claire Short and Harriet Harmen, have quite often condemned and criticised the fairly right-wing working-class tabloid newspaper, The Sun, for their page-three naked women page, as being sexist and never saying anything about the need for social, sexual, and economic equality between women and men.

At first, I totally disagreed with Claire Short and Harriet Harmen about pornography and The Sun newspaper's naked women page-three page, because I thought that they were simply being very narrow-minded, partial, and sexually puritanical, as a lot of so-called socialists unfortunately still actually are.

I then realised, that whilst Claire Short and Harriet Harmen were making some partial and over-generlising statements about public nudity in the form of pornography and page-three, I also then realised that their main objection to page-three naked women, was that it wasn't so much the nudity that they objected too, but that the way they saw, understood, and perceived this, was that these women were being objectified by the men of The Sun newspaper and their newspaper-buyers, readers, and supporters, and that these women as they saw, perceived, and understood it were being used or exploited in this way, and seen and treated as sexually submissive to and for men.

I sort of agree with the context of their page-three criticisms, and whilst there are problems with pornography, in that it can create or increase some sexual perversions like non-consensual sadism and masochism, it can also be a harmless and positive sexual aphrodisiac and stimulant, if combined with actual more or less free and equal sexual relationships between men and women.

This also, all in a way all depends upon the reasons why these female pornography models want to do this - whether it is through poverty, or through choice because they feel it empowers them sexually as women - and it all depends on how this nudity is experienced by men, because when some men like myself see naked women, we do not objectify these women and the naked images of them, but we experience these naked women as looking out and objectifying or sexually enjoying us as men.

Also Harriet Harmen, has recently said on a few occasions, that she wants to ban naked women strip-clubs in local areas, if the local councils and local women don't want them in their local area. Again, I agree with part of her protest about some men objectifying and seeing women as sexually submissive, but Harriet Harmen's views against strip-clubs, are again somewhat partial, sexually puritanical again - not looking at the whole social reality of pornography and nudity - and are a very middle-class socialist set of ideas about sexuality and erotica.

Maybe Harriet Harmen is right that strip-clubs are an unhealthy and bad thing, if they in some ways objectify and see and treat women as sexually submissive, but this all depends on the whole reality and picture of sexuality, the contexts of it and how it is differently experienced and perceived by men and women, and by different types of men and different types of women socially and sexually.

Also, what Harriet Harmen never seems to realise, nor ever mentions, is that there are also lots of strip-clubs for overall working-class women, with male nude men posing and stripping for these women. Unlike the male strip-clubs, where the men are not allowed to actually touch the naked posing women female performers, in the female overall working- class women's strip-clubs, these women are allowed and actually end-up having sex with these male nude models and performers on the stage, and as part of the so-called pornographic or erotic nude male stripping and performance.

Will Harrier Harmen please tell me and others, that if she wants to ban men's strip clubs, then what is she going to do about these overall working-class women's strip clubs, where these women enjoy both looking at and having sex with the naked male performers? Because again, her views about nudity in the form of erotic performers and so-called pornography, are very puritanical middle-class socialist prejudices and opinions, half-truths, and sexually puritanical partial opinions?

If Harriet Harmen is going to ban all and both men and women's strip-clubs, is she also going to tell these working-class women - who are much more sexually expressive and extroverted than middle-class women like her - that they can't have their own strip-clubs and do these things they enjoy and like to do with naked male performers?

Because what's good for the goose is good for the gander, these women have much more sexual freedom, sexual assertiveness or dominance, and sexual expression and pleasure - in these certain situations and contexts with naked erotic male performers than men do with naked women erotic performers - and if she is not going to ban ALL and both men's and women's strip-clubs, then her views and arguments on these issues and matters are contradictory, again partial, and sexually, socially, politically, and ideologically very middle-class, very sexually puritanical, and very incoherent.

Peter H. Donnelly

Friday, 1 October 2010

My Views on the American Academic Liberal Feminist Camille Paglia

At first glance, I thought I liked Camille Paglia, because she said she liked masochist men sexually towards or with women, but after watching her video-clips on, I think she's an imbecile, who makes very simple-minded statements which I will address here, and as a person, I don't like her at all, because she is very obsequies towards men who interview her, and submissiveness in women repulses me.

What's more, the American people all love and worship Camille Paglia, as they all think that she is a total genius and great, but she is in actual fact a very simple woman and a total imbecile, who never comes out with anything in any way relevant, and neither is she in any way accurate nor constructive, and she has absolute no solutions, to all the very inaccurate things she describes.

On radical matters, Camille Paglia states that she is against the victim cultural view of feminism, which says that women are victim - because in her view, women through the procreation process control sexuality and say or command when men have sex with them - she also states that mothers control men as their sons - that men have created the concept of "the social" to hide from women, but that sexually and emotionally women dominate and control men.

Camille Paglia also has another very simple-minded and wildly inaccurate view, when she repeatedly and consistently states and says, that when some men rape or abuse women physically, it is not rage or anger, but fear of women, and an absence of men's own personal individual identities.

Camille Paglia also has completely inaccurate, very partial, and a very big misconception that the Marquis De Sade was a totalitarian, when he was actually opposed to all forms of totalitarianism, punishment, and oppression against people of different sexual orientations, and that where and when he did seem to justify totalitarianism or sexual oppression, he was talking metaphorically, and then at a different stage in his later life, when he became twisted and cynical due to the extreme punishment used against him by the French psychiatric asylum system.

I'll address all of these other very simple-minded claims of which Camille Paglia makes, in chronological order, now. Firstly, I think she is simply wrong that women are not victimised by both some other men and by some other women, because this doesn't taint all women as being seen or realised as powerful in other ways, and this is all a matter of complex truths and grey areas. Anyone can sometimes, or for a long time, be victimised by anyone else, including some women by some other women or some men by other men.

Camille Paglia just won't address any of these issues at all, nor say anything about the solutions, other than saying that women have sexual and emotional power over men, and I can understand why many other feminists get angry with her or dismiss her, because she is again basically a very simple-minded ignoramus, who's vested interest is just intellectually grovelling to the liberal elites, and to whoever else is powerful in society - be it men or women.

Camille Paglia's views, that men who rape and physically beat and abuse women are not motivated by anger and rage, but fear of women and that they lack a personal identity, is where she misunderstands the actual erotic nature of fear by women towards and with men sexually and erotically - and which is consensual and part of a game - and she defies all intelligent experience, scientific data, and all intelligent common sense, by saying that men who beat and rape women are not motivated by anger and rage.

Men who rape and physically beat and abuse women, ARE motivated by anger and rage, whilst she might have been right if she had said that this stems from powerlessness as well as abusive control and power, but it has absolutely nothing to do with personal or male identify, because personal identify essentially also comes from and is both connected and related, to our social experiences and identity, as we are all social beings, and not just personal ones, as she very ignorantly claims and professes.

Of course, Camille Paglia has absolutely no idea how our social beings are dialectically both separate and connected to our personal beings and identity, and I don't think she's ever researched or understood this in any deep and complex way, because she is again basically a very simple woman.

Men who rape and physically beat women, DO have anger problems - and contrary to Camille Paglia's very simple-minded liberal outdated romanticist myths, most men who rape and physically beat or abuse women, are not in any way, shape, or form, shy or frightened of women - and usually these men are the most charming and emotionally intimate kind of men with women, and which is why they can control their female victims so easily and get away with what they do - so her liberal views about rapists and beaters of women, is just sloganistic nonsense, she is being politically correct to the liberal elite's, and again I think she is very simple-minded, and very, very ignorant.

Her view of women being more powerful, because they supposedly say or demand when and how men have sex with women, is also complete and utter idiocy and nonsense, because any man can have sex with a woman anytime he likes, by seeing a prostitute.

Also this power which women have emotionally and sexually, that she's again very simple-mindedly refers to, is not something which demands, coerces, or forces men sexually, emotionally, or in any other way at all, as it is also a social construct and not due to different gender brains as she states, where the sexual and emotional power that woman have is essentially part of their desire to please men in these ways. It does not control men's sexuality, and neither does any of this control where and when men want to have sex with women, as after all - and contrary to what she very simple-mindedly says again - there are many different types of genders, many different types of male and female brains, and many different types of male and female sexuality.

Neither do mothers control their sons, as this all depends on the psychology of emotions, and how these emotions are felt, overall sensed and experienced, or resisted, and how all of this is both processed, controlled, or not controlled, and how this is all responded to and interpreted by these men, and by other men and women.

Peter H. Donnelly

The Human Brain and the Intellect, the Imagination, and the Cognitive Rational Emotions as an Erotic and Sexual Aphrodisiac

It's not a case of "All men think with their penises" (meaning that the sexual-physical-bodily biological and genital desires and lusts of all men, fuel, control, and completely influence and determine all of our thoughts and feelings), as my genitals and the whole of my orgasmic body and being, also desires and lusts reciprocally with and between my brain, and with, between, and from all my thoughts and feelings which come from my brain and from my actual intellectual, rational, and emotional cognition - both in terms of the fact that I have a very different brain and organic so-called nervous system, and the fact that this is also a different modality of feeling, thinking, and consciousness - of which I also freely choose, and which is also a different path I have chosen by my own choice and freewill.

At first, I didn't understand why I was like this, but now I have cracked it all and I now understand the structure, processes, functions, contents, and general order, patterns, and basic overall material and biological nature of all of this about me; but which have been totally misinterpreted by many people in the past as me "mind masturbating" or "thinking with my penis", but in actual fact it is all the other way around - that my brain, thoughts, and cognitive feelings - create, energise, and fuel my sexual and erotic desires and sexual-love feelings.

There are however, other things about women that turn me on, which sexually and erotically arouse, stimulate, and which sentiently and sensually create sensations, and which arouse and create soft and warm sexual-loving and emotional thoughts and feelings, but all of this reciprocal polarity between my bodily and genital sexual and erotic desires, and which overall primarily all comes from my cerebral/brain cognitive and emotional thoughts and feelings - as the engine-block and driving force or energy of all those things - is a big part of me and of who and what I actually am, in both physical, biological, material, and in social, interpersonal, and psychological terms.