Nudi-sex as a valuable remedy

Dear friends,

nowadays, I have been composing a text about the nudi-sex (= sex performed on the nudist beaches, open-air) and how to develop cultural applications from it. There are several of them and no serious scientific organization runs any research about this phenomenon.

[We know (almost sure) how and why this taboo was born. Retroceding, we can say: What is (or is not) science, it is decided in the USA. Medicine is a science. Medical doctors are of one social stratum with the priests. The fundamentalist priests in the USA said that the religious morality is THE ONLY way to combat HIV/AIDS (and the rest of the churches dare not say anything else). - And so, even the apparently safe sex culture in the Central Europe is not a topic for science, in spite of the fact that without any religious moral standards – and what is more: even against them - it brings excellent results.]

I think it will not be proper to release the observations about the nudi-sex outside my control to those who suffocate the safe sex with its better relax and sexual self-realization: the churches and the above mentioned medical persons who – undercover – work for them.

While all of us must "buy" the medical services (under their "product" marketing strategy, a strategy inconsiderate to us as customers) and while a vast majority of us bear a religious background, inseparable from our family-history, the differentiation consists in the question "How ACTIVELY are you engaged in the today's churches and medicine?" I mean mainly their reluctance to adjust their doctrines and step back from the obsolete and therefore dangerous chapters of these doctrines.

I insist in my rule to offer for free what can help to curb HIV/AIDS. Yet, it is just the essence of the establishment organizations not to assign any support to an alternative. And so, my marking out that the social forces which harm with their outdated doctrines should face a "cultural subculture" (a subculture profoundly cultural!) - so just this assertion is my relevant contribution to the HIV/AIDS-combat. The awareness that they should not harm any more – which is my essential contribution - I can promote (within the social networks) for free, since the fair and honest persons will support me, also for free.

What is more, I am afraid that the persons active in the churches and medicine would twist my honest aims and enjoy  then their monopoly of the presence in the public media.

And so, even before working out the applications of the nudi-sex for the systematic safe-sex organization (in the present time) and for the (future) construction of the complex sexuarium, I must find the people who would personally declare that they are not actively involved in the risky strategies of churches and medicine concerning the social approach to sexuality.

pavelgkozak (FB)

The banality of evil by H. Arendt and the HIV/AIDS-combat

If there is some logical error which causes victims in the real visible life, and if quite many persons act as if they did not see the consequences, then we should scrutinize this phenomenon whether it is (or it is not) a case of the "banality of evil" about which H. Arendt wrote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banality_of_evil

There is an evident error in the position of the religious fundamentalists that the only way of the HIV/AIDS prevention is the return to the Judeo-Christian morality. The fault is in considering a biological fact as God's punishment: in the case of punishment, the solution is penitence, of course, but in the sphere of biology - esp. if we are aware of the cause (and aware that "God knows everything, but s/he does not say it"), there can be several ways of improvement – some of them indifferent to religion, another (as a co-incidence) proving that the timeless religious rules should be amended.

http://www.sexuarium.eu/religion.htm

And if we abide to the religious prevention, why do the American fundamentalist preachers that their religion is the only one which can speak up?

Now, we approach the banality-of-evil question.

1. The medical persons prefer both bear the image of scientists, but also to be on good terms with the religion VIPs, both eminent representatives of the establishment. They do now want to irritate the churches with such and assertion, that there are other ways to prevention, some of them beyond the religious morality. - So, the medical persons marginalize the non-penetrative sexual satisfaction: they are far from promoting it as a fully safe sex. They remain by the proliferation of condoms – which even more corroborates the penetrative standard as "the sex".

2. What is or is not science, it is (or at least was, before the economy crisis) decided in the USA. So, even the the territories with quite a good situation of HIV/AIDS are given lessons from the USA – though it is well-known that Washington DC has a similar HIV-ratio as Uganda.

3. If the scientists (i. e. the medical persons) say what is the only (or vastly the main) sort of prevention, so also the other scientists say it is the only (or main) prevention.

What is the question, whether none of them got the same idea, that we have no proof that a biological fact is a punishment of God? And so whether there can be some other ways to prevention? Or, if mentioned, why the other sorts are so marginalized?

The scientists do not dare ask (and statistically investigate) whether in real the vast majority desires the penetrative standard – while it is well-known fact that Orient has the deep tradition of massages, independent of the pandemic. The penetrative standard is namely typical for the less educated and more religious territories. In the military service, too, we can observe that the common soldiers speak about sex as about intercourse, while the officers with the university degree evade mentioning anything, within such a milieu.

Since the non-penetrative standard is more suitable also for the therapy of dysfunctions (which is known from the Ancient Persia), it is probable that the medical person – contrary to Hippocratic oath – do not prefer to popularize some "spontaneous healing", losing their income by it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_remission

In this complex perspective, we should consider if Arendt was true about the banality of evil, or not (since there are also the criticizers of it)? Rather then speaking about a conspiracy – which is used to turn its advocates, usually without support (the more if some persons consider HIV/AIDS a deliberate genocide), to fools – we can speak about much more comfortable and profitable "silent conspiration of the common interests". Yet, the result is the same: persons dying in vain.