Bill Weintraub

Re: The Cycle of Abuse

1-11-2005

Thank you Joel.

Joel's point -- that anal penetration is a dominance behavior -- is similar to one made by Wrestler Gene on this board last year:

"There's no male connection, no bond, just raw lust. It's not sex or love, it's violence and power. The problem is implied in the politically-coerced masculine/feminine roles."

Similarly, Robert Lorspir has an article on this site titled The Ultimate Defeat -- which is about, in part, the rape of prisoners of war as an expression of dominance and a way to break the spirit of the defeated.

Though such was common in the ancient world, it's not ancient history -- there have been allegations of sodomization of Iraqi POWs by their American jailers.

Rape and degradation -- dominance behaviors.

Also similarly, UCSF epidemiologist Daniel Halperin, in his study of anal transmission of HIV among heterosexuals, notes that in some Latin cultures, it's said that a man has not truly had a woman until he's penetrated her three ways: vaginally, orally, and anally.

Clearly, the last two of those have nothing to do with reproduction or the woman's pleasure.

They are rather a way of possessing her, and the idea is to own her completely by "having" her in those three ways.

Dominance, control, power, submission, degradation.

Further, it's vital to understand that the predominance of anal in any given society is cultural.

As Joel says, and as Oscar Vallejo makes clear in his post Is Anal Penetration Pleasurable?, this is not a natural or intuitive behavior.

Intuition tells us to avoid this place which is dirty, and smells bad, and resists penetration.

Analist ideology tells men to ignore those feelings and to choose anal as an expression of dominance, ownership, power, and control.

And of course effeminization.

If, as Joel reports, there's been an increase in the sodomization of children, that's a cultural phenomenon related to the increased visibility, prevalence, and acceptance of anal penetration at all levels of society.

..i find it interesting that you are identifying the hardening of the anal establishment...and the increase in its attempts to stop any alternative views from surfacing...and at the same time...we are seeing...in my field...a rise in children being anally raped...i do not know if there is a causal connection...but it does seem highly coincidental...this is just food for thought...

I'm sure there is a connection -- though almost certainly unwitting.

For example, the analist establishment and its pansexualist allies at the AIDS Service Organizations have labored long and hard to make anal penetration appear comparable to penile-vaginal sexual intercourse.

Thus the constant exhortations to use a condom every time, every time, you have "anal or vaginal sex."

Sounds like they're the same, doesn't it?

Similar cultural messages are generated by the increased presence of anal penetration in heterosexual pornography, which in turn is simply an attempt by the entrepeneurs who produce the porn to keep their audience, which quickly becomes jaded and sated, interested and eager to buy more porn.

That's what makes porn so destructive -- it's both addictive and de-sensitizing, so that over time the viewers start to need and demand ever more bizarre and baroque variations on what is essentially the same theme.

Another part of the phenomenon, most likely, is that many of the perpetrators have been in prison and been rapists or been raped anally there.

The prison population of the US is, after all, at an all-time high.

Which means the sheer number of guys getting anally-raped is at an all-time high as well.

And part of it may actually be an attempt to avoid AIDS.

For example, in both Africa and Latin America, there was a widespread belief that you could NOT get AIDS through anal sex.

So African men who frequented prostitutes would often choose anal because they thought it was safer.

In reality, and because African Christian and animist men are uncircumcised, anal was a sure-fire way for these men to become infected.

Many of them would then become "sugar-daddies" to very young -- 13 and 14 year old -- girls, who would have sex with them in return for money which paid for school and other basic expenses.

Tragically, at 13, a girl's vagina is not completely developed and is very vulnerable to injury.

So these girls would quickly themselves become infected.

And of course one reason these guys would want to own one of these girls is that being virgins, they would be assumed to be safe.

So there are a series of cultural assumptions -- all of them incorrect -- which helps drive AIDS among heterosexuals in Africa.

Just as there are a series of cultural assumptions -- all of them incorrect -- which drives anal penetration and AIDS among homosexuals in America.

Culture.

Culture is the key to this mess.

It's cultural messages about sex and power which give anal penetration its current cachet and staying power.

Change those messages, and in a few years people will look on anal penetration as we now look on foot binding and genital mutilation and smoking:

as bizarre practices which were utterly destructive of those forced or culturally coerced to participate in them;

and of which the human race is well rid.