A revolution in thought

[Stephen Maturin]

Invitation accepted!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Thou shall not blame, peacegirl. Thou shall not blame.

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, if it helps you, think of me as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, put on this earth to do a particular job - to wit, to get this Authentic Text launched into the proper orbit.

Readers can learn more in the Authentic Text!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!

Speaking of delusional, have you emailed NASA yet? What did they say?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, if it helps you, think of me as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, put on this earth to do a particular job - to wit, to get this Authentic Text launched into the proper orbit.

Readers can learn more in the Authentic Text!

YOU ARE DELUSIONAL!

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, can you even explain the Butt-stuff Injunction in your own words??

[Florence Jellem]

Boys, can have a frank and open discussion about the "butt stuff" now, or do we want to reserve that for the private exegesis forums?

Quite frankly, Flo is terrified that unless we get Project Golden Age launched in its proper orbit soon, unconstrained conga lines of public butt secks will soon become "the new normal."

[Stephen Maturin]

peacegirl can't even describe the Butt-stuff Injunction in her own words!

[But]

It's all about the "perversion", isn't it? The kind of perversion that avoids pregnancy? And the word "perversion" is totally not used in a derogatory sense, of course, right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I apologize to anyone who is taking this book seriously...

That would be an ideal foreword for the corrupted text.

[Vivisectus]

This is amazing. So - in the new world, there is no be no more protected sex. Any sex act that seeks to avoid pregnancy is a perversion.

So when a girl accepts a date, she is not just extending an invitation for some bareback bronco action and better be prepared to put out. She is agreeing to grunt out 10-12 children over the next 30 years or so?

Even if perversion is no longer impossible once sex-married, it remains a problem that we know that A) young people will be sex-marrying earlier, and B) that a sex-marriage means unprotected sex, at least during the steamy rutting honeymoon that is described with such slavering relish in the book.

I guess all women will be mothers by the time they hit 16, tops. Most of them will be pregnant by the time they are, what, 15?

Now of course we know that the text is undeniable and mathematical, and that the author was a genius, because if he wasn't, he would have noticed and let us know. But I must admit to some trepidation at the thought of all these teenage pregnancies. Will every boy and girl in the future be ready for parenthood at 15?

Does the Authentic Text shed any light on this, and on the burning question if condoms will be ok at any stage, or will these continually impassioned sex-marriages just produces babies at the rate of about 1 every year and a half or so?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So when a girl accepts a date, she is not just extending an invitation for some bareback bronco action and better be prepared to put out. She is agreeing to grunt out 10-12 children over the next 30 years or so?

Exactly so! On the other hand, in the Golden Age, scientists (who in the present world cannot be trusted to conduct an unbiased drug trial or canine vision study) will recommend the correct number of children per couple, and people will follow those recommendations lest they strike a first blow by contributing to overpopulation.

There are, of course, other confounding factors as well. After all, carrying a pregnancy to term violates the Boohog Corollary (which peacegirl cannot describe in her own words) because continuing a pregnancy is a form of advance blame. By becoming something other than "fit as a fiddle and ready for love," the goil blames her husband for his sexual desire.

And since sex and marriage are one and the same, the down time involved in squeezing out a dozen or more units over the course of three decades will necessarily mean that our lusty couple won't be married at all for rather large swaths of time.

Discussion of these weighty issues continues in the private forums.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I guess all women will be mothers by the time they hit 16, tops. Most of them will be pregnant by the time they are, what, 15?

In this day and age, when goils become fertile at 11-12, a unmarried 16-year-old would be a veritable old maid. The Messiah liked his ladies barefoot, pregnant, and very, very young.

[ChuckF]

I am very pleased to answer your questions as the True Steward of the Authentic Text.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is amazing. So - in the new world, there is no be no more protected sex. Any sex act that seeks to avoid pregnancy is a perversion.

Yes, but not in a derogatory sense! I am very glad you asked this, as it permits me to demonstrate the scientific application of undeniable mathematical relations that I used to deduce the Butt-stuff Injunction in a manner that brooks no opposition.

The meaning of love prior to bareback fucking is looking forward to the bareback fucking. (Sexual satisfaction is impossible with a rubber on, so it has to be bareback.) There are other, non-procreative sex tricks - perversions - but these are eliminated because they are blame-y, and probably only apply to fat chicks anyway. And no fat chicks in the Golden Age, remember.

We thus arrive at a general rule excluding of non-procreative sex, BUT we can intertextually apply certain exceptions to this general rule. Recall that the 1972 Authentic Text provides for, in graphic terms, post-transitional fellatio ("I would sure like to suck his cock") and cunnilingus ("He made her come three times by sucking on [her juicy cunt]"). The express exception to the general prohibition therefore creates an Oral Sex Safe Harbor.

There is also a case to be made for at least a limited carveout for boy-on-girl Fingerbang, based on a man's wandering hands, but this requires some additional liberty of construction that I am not yet comfortable taking, and in any event cannot apply to girl-on-boy Fingerbangs.

Thus, having proceeded from the general Rule Against Perversions and applied to the Oral Sex Safe Harbor, and setting aside the Fingerbang Carve-out, we arrive at the Butt-Stuff Injunction.

I see that you are unable to deny the mathematical principles!

So when a girl accepts a date, she is not just extending an invitation for some bareback bronco action and better be prepared to put out. She is agreeing to grunt out 10-12 children over the next 30 years or so?

Yes - otherwise, she had better not accept.

Even if perversion is no longer impossible once sex-married, it remains a problem that we know that A) young people will be sex-marrying earlier, and B) that a sex-marriage means unprotected sex, at least during the steamy rutting honeymoon that is described with such slavering relish in the book.

I guess all women will be mothers by the time they hit 16, tops. Most of them will be pregnant by the time they are, what, 15?

Now of course we know that the text is undeniable and mathematical, and that the author was a genius, because if he wasn't, he would have noticed and let us know. But I must admit to some trepidation at the thought of all these teenage pregnancies. Will every boy and girl in the future be ready for parenthood at 15?

Does the Authentic Text shed any light on this, and on the burning question if condoms will be ok at any stage, or will these continually impassioned sex-marriages just produces babies at the rate of about 1 every year and a half or so?

The average boy and girl will be married between 16 and 18 - that's an average, but no range is given. We can establish a minimal range by the age of sex or nubility, which is presumably not puberty (because had the Author meant puberty, surely he could have said so), and I therefore take to mean the age at which a kid becomes bangable/marriageable by other teenagers. I would expect a non-trivial number of marriages in which at least one partner is 12-13.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It's all about the "perversion", isn't it? The kind of perversion that avoids pregnancy? And the word "perversion" is totally not used in a derogatory sense, of course, right?

It is not used in a derogatory sense. If you really wanted to understand what he meant you would have read further. He was clear there is no such thing as perversion in sex if both people desire it. He writes:

They will learn the many ways they can have fun because once they are married there is no such thing as perversion which is a word with absolutely no significance. Everything goes and no holds are barred unless it hurts the other person, but remember most of the hurt you have been experiencing where sex is concerned is one of the imagination. There may still be times that your desire to experiment may not be preferred by your partner, but in 100% of the cases when a couple get hot enough and all psychological impediments have been long since removed their great heat or passion will make everything they do enjoyable.

[But]

peacegirl, have you emailed NASA yet about those space probes?

And stop quoting your Corrupted Text.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, have you emailed NASA yet about those space probes?

And stop quoting your Corrupted Text.

My text is not corrupt, and I think you know it.

[ChuckF]

peacegirl, explain the Butt-stuff Injunction in your own words! I know you can't.

[Vivisectus]

Hmmm - here we seem to be faced with 2 different perspectives on buttsecks in the new world. On the one hand, we have the Authentic Text, which states quite clearly that non-procreative and protected sex is a non-derogatory perversion... although this seems to be stated only in the context of a first date.

Then Peacegirl tells us that, once sex-married, no holds are barred and everything goes unless it hurts the other person. Although, probably, if you object to anything, that just means you are suffering from psychological impediments: after all, if you properly understood the relations you would get hot enough to find anything enjoyable. Most of the hurt is in your head, we are told, even if it seems to be located elsewhere at a particular moment.

Far from an injunction against a bit of rectal spelunking, then, this seems to gently chide those that would withhold the rearmost favors. In 100% of the cases when a couple get hot enough and all impediments have been removed, the great heat of their passion will make everything they do enjoyable, after all.

We know that when people stop projecting words and realize will is not free, and simply let themselves fall in love with the sexual organs of the first person they have sex with, their passion will only grow, and these psychological impediments will fall by the wayside quicker than an environmental homo-sexual that can finally get a sex-date on fridays.

If Peacegirls text is actually canonical, then this constitutes no buttsecks injunction at all. Rather, any man who decides to experiment with some forced rough bondage-and-buttsecks combination and finds that his wife attempts to brook some opposition can come to the conclusion that she has not quite understood the undeniable and mathematical relations - if she had, she would be getting hot enough to enjoy it! Clearly, she should to go back an re-read some of the earlier chapters of the books.

Surprise buttsecks, then, is not only perfectly fine: it can actually be used as a test of your partners ideological commitment to the new world. A way to see if she has managed to get the bit between her teeth, philosophically speaking, and has fully embraced the undeniable and mathematical truth that is as true as the fact that 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 6.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is amazing. So - in the new world, there is no be no more protected sex. Any sex act that seeks to avoid pregnancy is a perversion.

So when a girl accepts a date, she is not just extending an invitation for some bareback bronco action and better be prepared to put out. She is agreeing to grunt out 10-12 children over the next 30 years or so?

Even if perversion is no longer impossible once sex-married, it remains a problem that we know that A) young people will be sex-marrying earlier, and B) that a sex-marriage means unprotected sex, at least during the steamy rutting honeymoon that is described with such slavering relish in the book.

I guess all women will be mothers by the time they hit 16, tops. Most of them will be pregnant by the time they are, what, 15?

Now of course we know that the text is undeniable and mathematical, and that the author was a genius, because if he wasn't, he would have noticed and let us know. But I must admit to some trepidation at the thought of all these teenage pregnancies. Will every boy and girl in the future be ready for parenthood at 15?

Does the Authentic Text shed any light on this, and on the burning question if condoms will be ok at any stage, or will these continually impassioned sex-marriages just produces babies at the rate of about 1 every year and a half or so?

If a boy should
take a wife without having a job and she becomes pregnant he would
know that her parents would never hold him responsible for throwing
this burden on their shoulders, and neither would she. Consequently,
they are compelled to think like never before so as not to add
additional expenses. Since the thought of this gives them no
satisfaction whatsoever, they prevent it from arising by not marrying
until they can financially handle what might come their way. Now I
want you to think about this very carefully. What difference does it
make to the parents if their daughter goes the extreme with her first
date, even if she is in her teens, just as long as she will never be hurt
and they will never be criticized, and just as long as this boy will never
leave or forsake her. The enjoyment of a sexual relation which in this
setting will make them fall more and more in love would not cost their
parents a dime. They will be completely free to do what they consider
better for themselves, although the knowledge that man’s will is not
free will give them no choice but to prevent either from ever hurting
the other.

In the new world couples are not forced to stay together
because there will be no blame, but only because they are in love and
will remain in love. They will remain together, as you will soon have
verified, not because to leave would break the other’s heart, but
primarily because it would break their own heart. Unless you fully
understand the mathematical relations that do completely away with
all forms of hurt in sexual experience, you will not grasp why there can
be no harm in young people getting married at a very early age
because it is so different from the teachings of our present day,
therefore you would have to disagree even though the desired end is
what the moralists have been unsuccessfully trying to bring about.

Boys and girls never gave much thought to the consequences of
their actions because they were driven by a natural sex drive, which is
their birthright, and when somebody got hurt the answer was, “What
was I supposed to do marry the girl because we had sex? She knew
what she was doing and I didn’t commit myself.” Her father replies
— “You’d better marry her or I’ll kill you.” By knowing unconsciously
that he would be blamed for his gallivanting he was always allowed
to shift his responsibility, but he had no better choice because the
pressure for a sexual relation was striking the first blow since marriage
was out of the question at that young age. By removing all the blame
the pressure is also removed because he can have a sexual relation
immediately and there is no possibility for unrequited love to develop,
no chance for any girl to be swept off her feet and lose her virginity out
of wedlock, no chance for a double-standard to make some girls bad and
others good, no chance for a boy and girl to hurt each other in any way
where sex is concerned because all the factors truly responsible are
prevented from arising.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My text is not corrupt, and I think you know it.

Have you emailed NASA yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hmmm - here we seem to be faced with 2 different perspectives on buttsecks in the new world. On the one hand, we have the Authentic Text, which states quite clearly that non-procreative and protected sex is a non-derogatory perversion... although this seems to be stated only in the context of a first date.

Then Peacegirl tells us that, once sex-married, no holds are barred and everything goes unless it hurts the other person. Although, probably, if you object to anything, that just means you are suffering from psychological impediments: after all, if you properly understood the relations you would get hot enough to find anything enjoyable. Most of the hurt is in your head, we are told, even if it seems to be located elsewhere at a particular moment.

Far from an injunction against a bit of rectal spelunking, then, this seems to gently chide those that would withhold the rearmost favors. In 100% of the cases when a couple get hot enough and all impediments have been removed, the great heat of their passion will make everything they do enjoyable, after all.

We know that when people stop projecting words and realize will is not free, and simply let themselves fall in love with the sexual organs of the first person they have sex with, their passion will only grow, and these psychological impediments will fall by the wayside quicker than an environmental homo-sexual that can finally get a sex-date on fridays.

If Peacegirls text is actually canonical, then this constitutes no buttsecks injunction at all. Rather, any man who decides to experiment with some forced rough bondage-and-buttsecks combination and finds that his wife attempts to brook some opposition can come to the conclusion that she has not quite understood the undeniable and mathematical relations - if she had, she would be getting hot enough to enjoy it! Clearly, she should to go back an re-read some of the earlier chapters of the books.

Surprise buttsecks, then, is not only perfectly fine: it can actually be used as a test of your partners ideological commitment to the new world. A way to see if she has managed to get the bit between her teeth, philosophically speaking, and has fully embraced the undeniable and mathematical truth that is as true as the fact that 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 6.

It's actually humorous to see how you feed off of each other and twist every single word he has written by turning it into something that has no resemblance to what the new world will look like. Interpreting pregnancy as blameful is insane. Removing psychological impediments (which women had in the early days of the 60s when this book was written) will allow people to have a healthy sex life where most sexual acts will be pleasurable. If something does not feel good, it won't be performed. It's very easy to take any principle too far and make it look ridiculous, if that is your goal. You all pick on him relentlessly, and for no reason other than you don't like his claims. The fact that man's will is not free is undeniable, scientific, and mathematical. All he has done is extended this factual knowledge into different areas of human relation to show how these principles work. Remember, once you become a citizen you can do anything you want without anyone on your back. Where dating is concerned, you can hurt a girl by exploiting her and leaving. No one is going to be criticizing your actions. If you can do this knowing you would be hurting this girl, and also knowing in advance there would be no blame forthcoming from her or from anyone else, then this would be a perfect environment to take advantage of this knowledge. It would be proof that the principles don't work. But you can't prove that these principles don't work, in spite of all your contestation.

[But]

peacegirl, have you emailed NASA yet? Don't you want to find out what the solution to this big mystery is?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Surprise buttsecks, then, is not only perfectly fine: it can actually be used as a test of your partners ideological commitment to the new world. A way to see if she has managed to get the bit between her teeth, philosophically speaking, and has fully embraced the undeniable and mathematical truth that is as true as the fact that 2 is to 4 what 3 is to 6.

That is arguably the best paragraph in the nearly seven-year history of this thread.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Corrupted Text

There may still be times that your desire to experiment may not be preferred by your partner, but in 100% of the cases when a couple get hot enough and all psychological impediments have been long since removed their great heat or passion will make everything they do enjoyable.

Interesting. peacegirl, do you reckon that the Messiah ever got your mother hot enough to give Cleveland Steamers a try?

[Vivisectus]

Should Peacegirls text prove canonical, then perhaps the scripture tells us that rather than a buttsecks injunction, there exists a creampie imperative, and only on the first date, as anything less shows a lack of commitment on the part of the girl, who would not dream of hurting the poor boy by extending an invitation to be impregnated on a first date without being fully ready to be a married couple with children after, despite her young age.

And let us not forget: the self-proclaimed stable genius that was Lessans was the least sexist person that ever existed. What was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander: should the husband object to some thorough exploring of his own brown balloon-knot when his spouse is compelled by her own free will to do so, then she has him rightfully pegged for ideological back-sliding.