Thursday, February 23, 2012

What Are Men For?

There are so many musings on women and their sexuality, I thought it necessary to spend a few moments - having been alerted to the dangers men face from a surgical procedure that denies them their natural role as providers of the seed for procreation - to consider that role and how best to protect it from the ravages it faces in our far-too-hedonistic society.

While vasectomy frees men from the constraints of monogamy by eliminating the chance of accidentally impregnating a woman who is not his wife, the real danger isn't behavioral so much as it is anatomical. By cutting off, literally, the path to procreation, condemning millions of preborn babies from the glory of conception, the common practice of masturbation among adolescent boys and men is as dire a threat. Even a single individual poses a threat to the possibility of providing the world with as many possible partial copies of his awesomeness. Even those more likely to mourn the deaths of the several million sperm wantonly murdered are likely to indulge. It may well be the case that we need to go beyond simply passing laws; perhaps tying the hands of boys from the age of 12 or so, thus preventing the development of a habit that counters the basic physiological reality that erections aren't toys, but serve the basic biological function of procreation. It might seem harsh, but the reality is that we shouldn't allow boys in their teens, too ignorant to understand the threat they pose to the unborn, to act against nature.

While this certainly addresses one act that threatens not only the sanctity of human life, but also the natural functioning of human reproduction, I think more action is in order. Being reminded ad nauseum that males are little more than extensions of their testicles and subconscious urges it might well be necessary to sequester men away from the company of women. We men, reduced to drooling, tumescent incoherence at the mere thought of cleavage or, perhaps, even a well turned ankle should, for the sake of our own virtue, be kept away from any of those things that might prompt us to act out on those overpowering urges that rush through us from dual hearts of darkness dangling between our legs. While the small percentage of young gay men might find such cloistering to their advantage, the physical strictures mentioned earlier would already be in play.

Physically restrained from unnaturally spilling our seed, and removed from any temptation to act out the irresistible urge to copulate with any female who might present themselves - and such presentation obviously means she's aching for it; if she says, "No", she deserves what she gets, the dirty slut - I think networks of adolescent boys creating a special bond with their mothers, pledging their fealty to one another in a pact of mutual respect, with the mother taking a special interest in protecting their son's testicular wholeness would be a wonderful occasion for special celebration. We could call them Oepdipal Balls, where adolescent boys and their mothers would dress in semi-formal attire, pledge themselves to one another, with the boys refusing to dirty any female who doesn't have Mom's special allure, while Moms around the country would guard their boys' virtue, morally and physically protecting their Sack Of The Future.

We should also limit boys participation in any activity that might damage their naturally vulnerable reproductive organs. Sport and the military are obviously designed to threaten not only the life of those who participate in them. They ignore the inarguable natural reality that male's most vulnerable spot is under constant threat. Ill-suited for the rigors of combat or even a sport as seemingly benign as baseball or golf, the sanctity of the sack must be preserved. Nature, biology, and the moral demands of the unborn place a heavy burden upon men; we should surrender to the priority of the natural and sacred order that all agree - men just shouldn't be allowed to do certain things.

Once instructed and socialized with the proper attitude toward their bodies and sexuality, and safely tucked away in monogamous marriages, it is probably a good idea to keep men in the home. Once there, when women feel the need to have a child, men can be called forward to do their natural, sacred duty. Obviously, such a dirty, sinful act should bring with it feelings of physical and moral revulsion, but men should endure it for the good of the rest of society, with their eyes shut and their minds on anything other than the act itself.

We as a society seem incapable of granting both genders status as fully human persons, capable of living with and transcending the basics of anatomy and the psychological baggage with which society burdens us. I think, in fairness, rather than treating women as the weaker sex, ours would be far better to place severe restrictions upon the sexual activity of men. We have lived far too long with the delusion that we can be creatures apart from the natural order dictated by our hormones, our desires, and our physiology. It would be far better, I think, to instruct men in the simple realities with which we live.

For our own good.

For the good of the unborn whose demands upon our moral sense we need to attend.

For the good of society that needs our semen, properly placed, under the strict guidance of women who, being closer to nature than we, have an intuitive grasp of these matters.

Virtual Tin Cup

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More