I have been considering lately the issue of sexual desire, and when I read this article I was angered by the continued intellectual stagnation demonstrated by the contents.

Male sexual desire is a problem the world over but I think the effects of the problem are much more prevalent in the West because of the nature of western consumerism. I further feel that the lack of resolution of this desire is by political intent – at least to some extent.

What is this problem? There is a desire for sexual satisfaction. This desire can be satisfied out of wedlock, it does not require love. It builds up in young men from their teens, and wanes as a man gets older. For different men there is also a desire for companionship and having children, but all these desires are not constant, they are different in different men. And the problem? What do women do about these desires? This question is fundamental to relationships, and will be discussed in this blog.

Rape is a big problem, and it appears for the younger generation that there is an implied acceptance by most women that they must have sex. If there isn’t a choice then that is rape – a form of rape by social consensus and indoctrination. If it is promiscuity by social imposition then this is just legalised rape.

At the same time within some cultures satisfying the partner’s needs is part of the relationship, within those cultures it is a duty. Basically the women are brought up to believe it is their sexual duty to have sex with their husbands. When younger I met an Indian man, a teacher like myself. His family had some money and position, and his marriage was arranged. When I first met him he was alone and pining for his wife, he became so happy when she and his son eventually joined him it was a pleasure to see. For this family the system of arrangement worked, I hope it still is working. Because they accepted it was their duty to make each other happy they tried.

Compare that with a western relationship, how do people get together? There is no clarity. People meet at discos and parties, and the relationship starts with sexual attraction and how they manage sex; is this sensible? Sometimes there has been a build-up to the party, say for example the office party, where work-based relationships flourish – more stability and depth there. Often there is a relationship established through family and social status (similar to arranged marriages). But it is all extremely messy. The only
constant is that there is a lot of pressure on young people to get into relationships, both natural and social; this is something I saw when teaching in different cultures.

But does western society think about sexual desire other than men lusting for everything in sight? There appears to have grown in the last 30 or 40 years a notion that women lust after men in a similar way that men lust after women; I find this hard to accept. I do not believe male sexual desire is the same as that of a female. Throughout nature there are “courting rituals amongst species” but these rituals are not between likes but a process where male and female interests complement each other. This is not equivalent lust by both. I am concerned that the intellectual concern for equality between the sexes has developed an apparent “lustful” parity in their sexual drives, and such a parity in my view is not natural. If it is not natural it is not stable.

I have one maxim concerning this, if it is natural it is right so somehow it becomes necessary to attempt to determine what is natural. And this is why the feminist charter made me so angry, it never even considers that aspect of nature that women are a part of children and family. So this brings up the question, does feminism represent the interests of women or the interests of society or simply the interests of those feminists?

I need to discuss violence against women; I have mentioned rape already but there is also physical repression by violence. It was these violences that led me to sympathy with feminism when I became a political adult 25 – 30 years ago. Rape is not acceptable, beating your wife is not acceptable but neither is creating such a situation acceptable. If a married man is considering rape or violence then both people in the relationship have to consider the source of that. His desire is almost a complete constant, only diminishing with age, so if rape is on his mind when he is married, why? This is where I feel the lustful parity causes a problem, I do not believe a woman’s lust is the same as the man’s, and if a woman expects only to have sex in order for that lust to be satiated then the relationship will not be stable. Are men innocent? Far from it. But do men in a stable loving relationship become promiscuous, rape or seek prostitutes? In general, no, in promiscuous societies in the West sex outside marriage either consensual or financial is not discouraged, if it leads to family breakdown it is; not getting caught seems acceptable.

This is very much from my male perspective, however much I try to be detached I cannot. I am a man, I have my sexual desires. I am old, and I have never found a satisfactory relationship situation. In the end I realised I had nothing to offer a woman, and to fulfil my spiritual needs I stay alone. I think this is a balanced solution but in the culture I live I am continually questioned. Living alone, where are my children? And it is mostly women who ask this. So how does this fit in with the feminist charter in this article

I decided I had nothing to offer in a relationship. This requires a little explanation but remember you are only getting one side. When I was still trying I paid for a home including a budget, this seemed fair to me. I described what else I wanted and that was agreed. There didn’t have to be agreement but there was. In the end I decided that the agreement was forced. They wanted to live with me and the only way they could do that was to agree with me …. so they did.

To the rational part of me this seems eminently fair but it never worked. So what I was offering was not what was wanted. Why was there agreement? The women hoped they could get what they wanted when they moved in. Life became a battle with their trying to get what they wanted, and my agreement being my benchmark. It never worked.

Significant amongst what I wanted was the peace and time to continue my spiritual develpment. To these women that appeared to matter little yet for me it was more important than a relationship. This was the purpose of the agreements for me. I had hoped the security of the home that they claimed they wanted was enough – it wasn’t. With regards to the limited relationships I had it was never clear to me what was wanted. It seemed that the agreement was a benchmark to push against, a starting point to develop what they wanted from.

I assessed that I could never give them what they wanted. I assessed that the benchmark agreement was a starting point for them to try and get more, and as such there was never a possibility of stability, never a possibiliy for the peace and time to develop spiritually. Because that spiritual drive was stronger in me than lust, stronger than the need for security and whatever else people get from relationships I had no choice but to live alone. Comfortably.

Women tell me I knew the wrong women but did I? I cannot answer that but I have never seen a woman who could accept it. I have met many who say they could but in my view none that could.

For me an essential characteristc of women is to make the best of a situation by “pushing” – inherent instability before a relationship begins. Their lives are spent coping with difficult men, pushing is their way of life.

Now let’s consider the real reason for relationships – children, bringing up the family. And how does this relate to love? A man loves a woman, does a woman love a man? As we grow up our conditioning brings us towards marriage in one way or another. With this a man develops passions for women, the cosmic one, the love of his life, and the woman responds. All her life she has been looking for the right man, the man who will look after her and bear her children. This is very traditional but bearing in mind the feminist article it has more basis in the factual experience of the majority of women than does that of these feminists. Once there is marriage there are children and the relationship between man and woman changes; he is displaced. For that marriage to work – work meaning that they successfully bring up the children – the man has to accept this changing role, and devote himself to the maintenance of the family. In doing this he must work to bring in the money to maintain the family. A man should do this, he should have that discipline but many don’t. In a promiscuous western society men often stray, have affairs, break up their family and lose their homes.

The issue for me, is it just losing discipline? It is understandable that women prioritise their affections towards the children but it appears for some men this prioritising appears exclusive.

Why am I writing this? Firstly I am unlikely to upload it. And more importantly no woman is going to accept any of this. So why write it? I don’t really know. When it comes to certain things women are intractable, this has been my experience. What about truth? As a spiritual person truth is the highest. Where does truth come? Second to what is expedient. If it suits a woman to say she loves, then she says she loves; if it suits her to agree she agrees. The man brings truth to the relationship through his love. Now that is idealistic, very rarely happens, but might well be the truth – I am not sure. Whether he does or not, if it is expedient for the woman it matters not.

Advertisements