Adonis Diaries

Reply to “How to have great sex…”

In order to follow the discussion, you might have to read the source of the topic in https://adonis49.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/when-to-have-great-sex-or-how-to-have-great-sex/

Jay replied to my post (with slight editing on my part): “I’d like to assume that you’ve got reason, that you are the gender I think you are. However, based off of your generalizations, I would just like to ask you some questions before I make a statement:
First, What gender are you?

Second, Did you write this essay yourself? (because I’m confused as to its source that you mention among the other links in the piece)
Third, Have you read On the Origin of Species in any amount?”

I answered: “Tell me what On Origine of Species may shed in intelligence as to my gender, and I promise to tell you mine…”

Jay forwarded a developed answer, and I construed that Jay is highly interested in the sex headache. Jay replies goes:

“The Origin (of Species) seems to confound the nature of man by generalizing man and beast in order to readily compare the traits of the two groups. Science and gender studies have since become much more political, which is why your perpetuation of these generalities, although recognized as such, is disturbing. The man described in the essay above does not fit my identity in any way, (“Males want sex all the time”)

Jay resumes: “Parading as an erudite opinion seems fraudulent because there is a lack of scientific basis, with phrases like that women go into heat too; this, despite having writ “I’m carefully using the word”.

“I don’t want be cast as a reader who is “reading too deeply” into an article, or worse, have my comment removed, so I’ll conclude my response by saying that the philosophical component is weakly supported because of this essaywriter’s lack of resources: Claiming opinion as scientifically based is ridiculous, and I may avoid commenting on such lousy articles in the commercial press that we both know are published daily, but blogging is meant to be the epitome of the good qualities of freelance journalism.

However, this article has disappointed me as a person who is curious about the polymath studies of sex. There are some books you could read and it would make the writing significantly better with comparatively little work.

I liked the “second sex” bit, it would be pleasant if you got the Simone de Beauvoir/Jacques Lacan side of the story, too. The writing of this essay shows that the writer has an interest. However, the interest has not been invested with any even shallow research. That, and this is the first of one of your articles I find worthy of replying to; adonis49 fills up my inbox with mostly unread messages, so the sex spin seems to have been a pot-boiler title, in reflection…” End of quote

I promised Jay to reply with an article for the time he invested, and because I didn’t managed to get a handle on which angle he is focusing on.  This article is also meant for readers to send feedback on what Jay means and whether my article fit Jay’s description…

First, I value Spinoza thinking who wrote: “Study the animal Kingdom, but never emulate it”.  We have our mind and we should try to prioritize our strongest passions and act upon them.

Second, I didn’t yet read the voluminous On Origin of Species.  What I do know is that Darwin described all specimen he collected, and it is in the final couple of paragraphs that he hinted that mankind might be linked to the development of other species… I strongly doubt that Jay read this book (contrary to what he is insinuating), though I agree that we should not “confound the nature of man by generalizing man and beast in order to readily compare the traits of the two groups”

Third, “Males want sex all the time”?  “Females want sex all the time?”  These are strange statements in their generality: General statements are “always” wrong or deficient.  Males and females can’t want sex when feeling sick; they don’t feel like having sex most of the day, and in many nights, and in many occasions…I guess wanting is different than actually having sex: Ask all these people (both genders) who spend the best of their youth not having the opportunity to copulate for various reasons…Wanting sex should not mean wanting compassion, close physical touching, smelling, friendly conversation…Wanting sex is such a mout expression: So many factors have to converge in order for copulation to materialize within mankind communities…

Four, as for “reading too deeply” into an article should not be the exercice: An article is not a research thesis, and I refer and quote when necessary. I apologize to Jay for getting confused with parts in the posts are mine or which are others.  Apologizing does not mean that I am wrong, it simply means I am trying to connect and keep the discussion going…I suggest to Jay to re-read the article, and he will be settled of which portions are mine…

Five, I read a large chunk of the “second sex” by Simone de Beauvoir and in the French version, and I wrote a review of what I read. I think that Jay is trying to show his erudition, but he failed to prove it…

Six, that this is the first of my 2,400 articles in 50 categories that Jay “has read” and found it worthy of reply is an honor.  Finally, a humor article generated an excited reaction…Why is it that articles on sex and titles refering to sex generate so many hits?  Is it because both sexes are terribly unsatisfied with the sex exercises and find it stupid and unfulfilling that their curiosity is ever so hightened on that subject matter?

It is alright that Jay feels so strongly about my latest post.  My wish is to locate the part in the article that infuriated him most and inflamed his emotions.  If Jay can just focus on what disturb his “identity” we can discuss it more elaboarately.  Going on tangents is frustrating and not profitable.

Note: I promised Jay to reveal my gender if he explains to me “How the On the Origin of Species” predict the sex.  Jay forgot to deliver in his second reply. All promises are cancelled, until further demonstration of good-will…?