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 And so, my marking out that the social forces which harm with their outdated doctrines should face a "cultural subculture" (a subculture profoundly cultural!)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)

Promises and responsibility

Besides the two improvements the sexuarium (even in its native state of "alternative to brothels") contributes to the sexual culture and to the ethical standard in general – namely, the decrease of STDs and pushing away the criminal subcultures – it can train people to take their own responsibility.

There are two sorts of "supervision" in our culture over the sexual behaviour, both not enough efficient: the marital contract (resp. the registered partnership) and the police control over the brothels.

The police is at a loss how to control the commercial sex, within the given tools and the social "production-possibility frontier".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production%E2%80%93possibility_frontier

The partner contracts are not specified enough, and if broken apparently, the sue usually does not follow. Well known is the model situation of the Indian wives who stay at home, and so it is evident that it was their husbands who brought HIV from a prostitute.

Unfortunately, unlike paternity, in the case of STDs we cannot tell for sure from whom was contracted the infection. So, the more it is necessary to study the human psychologism: our relationship between the drive to sexual satisfaction and the willingness to act rationally and altruistically.

Nevertheless, it is not inherent in mankind to live in dirt and to break law. But if there are no sharp borderlines and the only solution of an insufferable situation, many persons resort to the risky strategy.

If we specify the acceptable sort of behaviour and ask directly straightforwardly if one is or is not ready to obey a given rule, the persons are taught their own real responsibility.

Let us take the most typical case, the (oral) registered partnership.

http://sexuarium.nethdd.eu/sexuarium-model.pdf

It is such a case in which the children do not enter the stage, yet the STDs threat. It is proper to ask anybody entering such a relationship (or a group of people) if they promise the others to confess any risky body-contact with a person outside the relationship. What should be accented, that s/he can stay in the relationship (or the group), not left alone – only that cannot enjoy the intimate contact for the period of incubation, till the his/her health is proved. Interim, s/he can enjoy the strict 100% safe behaviour.

For first, this question is specified and the requirement is not extremely severe. Anybody adult and psychically sane can decide whether to take part in such a relationship, under such condition. For second, it clears up the ethical perspective on sexuality – up today (deliberately, we are afraid) kept in dark – and train us in our responsibility in general.

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.

Do you like porn? *Are* you like porn?

Do you like porn? Are you like porn?

The establishment culture treats porn as a dangerous extraterrestrial civilization. Yet, it is produced (and sometimes even created) by people for people. What is more, one porn-tycoon said that 90% of the Internet is porn, and the rest of 10% is acting as if the 90% do not exist. Even, when the USA porn-industry was in crisis (within the general economical context), the government had to treat this fact specifically – such a vast contribution to the flux of money means the porn.

Indeed, without some sort of behaviour nearer to the porn than to the dispassionate mood, the life itself could not continue.

Supposed one is sexual (in contrast to the asexual persons), and under the well-known fact that our sexuality seeks its carnal part (I mean: that sex is not mere psychical dream or fancy), we cannot avoid this or that realization of sex on the level and within our body.

In this context a question rises, who or what arranges the mentioned "extraterrestrial" evading to this unavoidable fate of ours, rather then to face it systematically and straightforward? This is the well known tragedy.

What is contrary a comedy, it is the behaviour of the 10% of civilization facing then to 90%, which are the outcome of the evading the straightforward research of the motivation leading to such a sophisticated industry as is the porn-industry.

Duly is the establishment afraid to include porn into anthropology and culturology: the individual items of pleasure would prove items of humanity and the present civilization would be unmasked as inhuman. The question would arise what is the reason of this scientific taboo?

Who are we and what do we deal nowadays?

"Nowadays" – it means the situation when sexuality in its pleasurable face is not supported by science. Neither is the sexual pleasure – namely the aim to arrange the genuine, cultural sex studio, the sexuarium - supported by the establishment culture from the taxes. So, our cultural solution is restricted to sustainable survival with the fund raising, hoping that some portion of money can be assigned to the taboo-free science.

Sexuality is one of our essential motivations and functions. It is not an entertainment and it cannot be omitted.

We do not deal in vacuum. We cannot avoid competing with somebody. They are the illegal business with sex and the sexual entertainment.

On the other hand, there are forms of sex which lessen the number of our customers: the legal forms of sex available. Some of them are really nice, yet – fortunately for us – the majority is of lesser dignity and/or pleasure.

Sex in marriage is used to be limited to bedroom – which is not the optimal sex studio. The solo-sex is lonely – which becomes frustrating. Mutuality is essential part of sex, and were it not, the life stops continue, neither there is any threat of STD's.

For the persons to whom practising sex without body-penetration is emotionally acceptable (or even desired), this non-penetrative form can fullfil – at least sometimes – their sex in mutuality (since the mutuality does not depend on penetration). - Just one argument the scientific sexology neither examines, nor prepares for the user packages, in spite of the fact that it is mainly penetration what spreads HIV/AIDS!

We can even continue in the generalization what science does not work out. We know from the sexshops that some tools and toys are sold – but we do not have the scientifically corroborated why, how far, for how many persons, etc., the sort of questions upon which a serious marketing is used to build.

What is even worse: we cannot count from porn for sure what is a show and what is the personal experience of the actors – which can function also as an applicable example for the audience, concerning the sexual satisfaction. [Unfortunately, we – as higher hominids – are prone to ape anything, including the risky sex. If our project rationally arranges the conditions for the safe sex, we can lobby for some support from the establishment culture, which would at least increase our visibility.]

Therefore, concerning pleasure and satisfaction we can build upon but a limited experience of the life-practice, upon some empirical facts – yet, not upon science, up to now.

Anyhow, the scientifically supported guidelines how to avoid risk are specific enough to decide what sort of sex-support implementation will be legal, and so approved by the Public Health authorities. It is quite relevant, since the authorities have the measures for their decision; and we have a strong argument: since the authorities cannot ask us "what we want, in fact".

With this position described, I can specify that - for this first phase - I look for the persons who want (and who are able, thanks to their education and work-practice) work out the legal safe-sex concept.

Later on, there will be quite many now jobs! So many that it is worth several specific analysis for each of them.

There are many known – yet not systematically implemented – ways to satisfy the sexual pleasure safely, and the more with several marketing implementations of this demand and both humanitarian and commercial aims, which brings about very many new jobs. So, it is worth and necessary work out the concept, the marketing plan and the implementation. Then the common employees can enter the stage.

I agree with the persons for whom this essay may seem trivial: I only argue that if a target group is specified together with the proper product to satisfy their need, the usual management and marketing can take place. So, in a moment we can refer to the common textbooks. After a short big-bang text, the vast well established instruction follows. - On the other hand, the illegal risky-sex sexual-industries have the management and marketing richly developed and quite sophisticated. What is missing to them, it is the stamp of the Public Health authorities together with the police evidence concerning the common criminality.