You carry your snare everywhere and spread your nets in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not indeed, by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your tempting words. -John Chrysostom

1: It can be said with very little disregard, that man is a being high in sexual ecstasy and concern. That the phallus remains ones oft-used means of a fantasy. And it is one of the few ideas to have survived in most major civilizations - as well as the minor - which is as stated, a concern to the acts of sexual attractions. In the Bible, it is concerned about at length throughout many of the books. Of upholding a moral standard to sexual acts, even if this excludes homosexuality, which is in of itself alike any other - neither moral or immoral but amoral; though to the Biblical texts generally immoral. And there is the famous Song of Solomon, could be described as amongst the earliest surviving examples of erotica; albeit metaphorical erotica. Similarly, to the East, we find a great importance within the cultures, to keeping ones acts as pious as possible. If I may say, as a generality, the concern is even greater and stricter there, than it has been in the West; either in Pagan, Christian, or Secular times. For instance, it is a strict forbiddance on any sort of sexual assault. And in some forms of Hinduism - though it might be for all - such a doer is sent to a corner of Naraka for thousands of years; in which they are subjected to great torment. With their genitals being endlessly rubbed and scrapped against a tree or sometimes bush of thorns - each as sharp as a razor - over and over again until their time is completed; whether it be a thousand, two-thousand or three-thousand years later. Compare this to the Catholics, where such a deed is a rite of passage for the priest, and it is leaves a bitter taste on the tongue and a foul scent in the nose.

2: But in the last few centuries, the sexuality of man has been loosened from pure dogmas of religion. That is, if there were even such to begin with. Which in the West is somewhat debatable outside official proclamations, and similarly in some parts of the East. And to as it stands, sexuality is - as so to my eye - in the forefront of importance amongst the many concerns of life. Pornography has become a generalized medium of pleasure throughout the last 3 centuries. Sexual liberties have been preached virtually from the pulpit since at least the 17th century. In essence, society as we know it, was to some extent founded on sex. Although, this is not to say, that past such societies were not. I think it can be generally agreed upon, as hinted earlier, that most major societies and cultures have had such foundations. For better or for worse, I shall leave unanswered.

3: However, if one looks at it, the importance of such a thing becomes archaic and arbitrary. A waste of time over what could be otherwise regarded, as a strong yet generally unimportant facet to human life. After all, if going by a traditional viewpoint, the ultimate goal is to procreate. Although if looked in a more "open" viewpoint, it is for fulfilling the spirit within, of general human happiness we desire day-by-day. And yet, it is often such sexual blunders, that result in instability. Say if one is married - either heterosexually, homosexually or otherwise - a sense of honour and devotion is given unto the partner; which they have ceremonially bonded to - literally or figuratively. Often under a guise of divine will, or divine protection. And if so this honour is broken, often via the act of adultery - it is of a sacrilegious nature to the partner. Thus, such sexual deeds lead to more misery than pleasure.

4: And if so we look into the philosophy of happiness - in particular that of Epicurus - similar things are said. For he notes in one of his Doctrines, that some desires, even if natural and justified by certain means, are for the most part unnecessary for life. This is extended elsewhere, to included a constant focus on the sexual nature; i.e: sex may be natural, yet often leads to more damage than anything else. As such, it was labelled as per to his philosophy, a concern of secondary importance in terms of happiness. I think that, in the overall picture of things, this placement of such sexual excitements remains the same as it was in Epicurus' day, now some 2,200 years ago - as it does to the present moment. Albeit, it has moved and changed from the usually pure sexual acts, involving but the human body; to a more tooled version of the same in many cases.

5: For centuries thereafter, following the collapse of the Romans and the rise of the Christians; it moved from the general diversity of all to a more constrained limiting to the pure heterosexuality that Abrahamism upholds. At least in public manners or to the official. Of course, the paedophila of old remained, and does persist into today; especially in the current moment by a Greco-Anglo pederast who will go unnamed; and that of the practices of the Catholic clergy as was mentioned earlier. But as the tides turned in the Age of Enlightenment, so too did the sexual attractions that build civilization to an extent, return to such civilizations. And upon the Romantic entrancement of the natural pleasures, especially to that of the phallus, we were sexualized once again. Now do not say I'm wrong here, I do believe that - as a general conceptual theory - the move was fair. After all, the restriction of the desires in which we live for; and of which are of relative reason and justness, is a great evil. And to allow man to be as they are, is a content thing.

6: But with this arose what I concern myself with this essay in particular, the overt emphasis on the sexual. In my mind, concerning the sexual as a priority of life, comparable to the protection of one's bounty and of those of family, or to having sufficient food so that one may not starve unto death, or to simply taking heed of one's health. To concern the sexual to that extent, wherein it is thought of as forefront to existence, is a mindless vanity. As so noted earlier when mentioning Epicurus, I hold to the belief as he held, that the sexual acts of life are a secondary concern to life. Or as he categorized it, a secondary pleasure. And as also said, the obverse sexuality of oneself, often leads to ill consequences. Say if one was to engage with a harlot, much used and done before and shall be for many times thereafter. It is likely that, for when the other side leaves their company, an ill of some manner - minor or major - will be received along with the short-term pleasure they also received in that time. So if one is to risk having agonies over one such pleasure, why do it to start with? The consequences overrule on the benefits, of which in this case, is the ecstasy of copulation.

7: Now, I ought to mention for a moment more clearly, as a means of any possible clarification for confusion; that I do not say this onto any one specific sexuality - but apply this onto the whole of it. I've given this throughout, but on account of the subject - a reminder is best. But with that said, I can move over to what I think shall be the last word of what I am to say here, and that is the seemingly sexual elitism, of certain attractions over those of another. I say seemingly, as I attribute this based like the much of my thought, upon individual observation. As said earlier, heterosexuality was, at least here in the West, held above for centuries. And given it followed the Abrahamic tradition, wherein they state the grave sin of homosexuality, such a thing is expected. But as times have changed, this supposed elitism; now is beginning to lie with others. It is hard to say exactly, wherein the exact proportions of this, but my eye shows; that the general view goes to anything outside of the heterosexual. But as to the heterosexual, it is either ignored, scoffed, or perceived as too common to bother. After all, we have Gay Pride parades these days - the reason why baffles me even as a homosexual - but a Straight Pride parade is nowhere to be seen. For the few which have occurred though, it is usually a shadowing or a screen, for what would be otherwise; either a Christian parade or a fascist parade.

8: And it is not to say this sense of non-hetero elitism is a new thing, indeed it has been such for decades. It can be argued yes, that it began as a means of expressing freedom of the phallus; of which was once in many lands, restricted only to concerning that of the opposite sex. For those who went outside of this, were rouges and underground individuals; and upheld intense security over it. For instance, with the great painter Da Vinci, was nearly sentenced to death over supposedly committing sodomy. But by the fortune of legal proof being non-existent, was released without damage. Similarly, to the great artist who lived a little over a generation later; that of Cellini; was accused numerous times of sodomy and also of adultery. But there again, was fortunate over lack of proof - though he still paid some as a penitence for any kind of ill manner brought upon the accuser. But in this sense, the sense of repression, it could be said that for the early days - it was a way of finally expressing the true nature of those not attracted to the opposite sex. After all, homosexuality was only legal here in Canada from the year 1969 and onward thereof. Before then, it was sodomy - a grave sin and grave offense. Though within the religiously extreme, it is still as such and shall be likely forevermore.

9: But as time has gone on - now 51 years later at the time of this writing, in the month of June in the year 2020 - this sense turned from a sense of freedom, to what I would describe best as an unconscious narcissism. Drifting away from the pure individual and the pure sense of release that the Bill C-150 of 1969 brang to many, to a sense of superiority. And as so said shortly ago, we may seen Gay Pride parades, and Transsexual Pride parades on occasion; along with the rare Bisexual Pride parade - but any kind of Straight Pride parade is perceived as nothing more than hate. And whilst I could agree in part, to those which have gained particular fame or; at the very least; infamy to a certain level of extent - why say this unto all? It is entirely possible, at least in theory, to have such a parade in like manner to the others. It does not have to involve patriarchism. It does not need influences, from the maddening and deranged lunatics of the far-right. And it does not need to involve religion. As a fact, involving a religion to such a thing, and politics with it - dismisses the purpose as a whole in my view. It can be easily said that, for when it comes into play, it has become a rally of political semantics, not a means of expressing the sexual urges of man.

10: It will be here that I end. I could go on for a time more; but I fear repetition of my points and further such ones on the basis of continuing. Not only that, but the subject of identity politics and sexuality is, admittedly, a rather fugitive subject in the current day. After all, I have spoken quite lowly of Pride Parades and in theoretical support of those outside the embracing of the homosexual; which would to some minds, classify me as apart of one of the madness's which seem to dominate the political landscape of my times. Even though I have mentioned my own homosexuality and support thereof, it does not act as a repellent to such insects of the nature. Additionally, I have supposed that there has - especially in recent years - risen a kind of sexual dominance to a particular kind of attraction. A sexual elitism as I termed it earlier. This and other interrelated things, are touchy and fickle matters, and like an ants nest, is best left relatively undisturbed. Of course, for saying what I have already, is bounded to now impede me with criticism, and claims of hate. But I say unto those who do, if I had gone further - you would begin to think I was, in your mind, amongst the most evil men who ever lived. Perhaps this is somewhat of an exaggeration, but mark my word, I would leave a bitter image in the minds of the sensitive. Of which there are, unfortunately, so many as I speak. Perhaps one day I'll return to this subject, and given how I am; it is inevitable. For now, I shall set it aside and leave it be.

"Mortals that would follow me,
Love virtue, she alone is free,
She can teach ye how to climb
Higher than the sphery chime;
Or if virtue feeble were,
Heaven itself would stoop to her."
John Milton

-Ryan Rider.
June 6th, 2020.