Carrol Cox wrote:
> >This is utterly unintelligible to me too. I suggest you begin all over
> >again and lay out your point, whatever it is, in dull expository prose
> >without the metaphorical flourishes, which fail to work.
ravi:
> i think he's saying that all this talk about sex and men is all fine and
> good except that the majority of men get laid so rarely (since women do
> not have sex with "nice guys") that it is meaningless.
>
> no, i am kidding... i dont understand most of what is posted out here! i
> am still here only to prove i am one of those men who can stay past the
> 30 minutes! ;-)
It seems to me, going from superficial observation, that most people don't like sex all that much, except in a kind of abstract, pornographic way. Power, wealth, social status and the work ethic, dominant in the contemporary societes I know about, all militate strongly against it; the physical drive seems to be conceded to because of its power, but not _liked_, much less enjoyed or gloried in. Instead, sex is used as a tool to take or preserve advantages. Those who love sex for iteslf (or art or drugs or the gods or whatever) to the point of preferring it to power and its friends must lie pretty low to just to survive, and thus they will be hard to find -- like any other treasure.
-- Gordon