Thursday, December 4, 2014

(#64-1) December 4 2014. The things you think you know how to do—but really could and should get a whole lot better at—especially if you are a writer. Let’s start with listening.

FINE TUNING YOUR SENSIBILITIES

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

BEING ABLE TO REALLY AND TRULY LISTEN IS EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT. FEW OF US DO THAT REALLY WELL

WE HAVE EVOLVED A CONSUMPTION CULTURE—NOT A LISTENING ONE.

I have been giving a great deal of thought recently to how much people know and understand—two states it is important not to confuse. Just for starters, most of us almost certainly know more than we understand—but our comprehension is limited by lack of context, intellectual curiosity, education, intelligence, or some combination thereof. I should probably add impatience and laziness. We often tend to be too impatient to think things through—and laziness speaks for itself. Thinking is hard work. Totally focused thinking is something else again. It is so exhausting—it is downright relaxing.

Am I missing anything? Yes, I am—and it is a factor of no small significance. It is fear. All too often we are afraid to think things through. The conclusions might make us uncomfortable—drag us out of our comfort zones—and worse. Best not to go there.

Actually, ‘best not to go there’ is almost certainly the wrong conclusion—but it is almost certainly the easiest one.

A writer is in the business of communicating thought into the written word, but in order to do that effectively, he or she has to have some idea about his readers knowledge, comprehension and capabilities.

How do you do that? You try and be as culturally aware as possible—both through human communication, and through the normal channels such as the media. Many writers aren’t too good at that because we are, by nature of our craft, more cerebral than many, and since book writers , in particular, generally write alone, we lead—by many standards—rather  isolated lives.

It is a moot point as to whether we writers are as isolated as many consider us to be. We might not engage in social intercourse for as much time as the general public, but we endeavor to compensate by being acute observers of the human condition, and by being as empathetic as possible. The best of us also read a great deal (by which I mean prodigiously), travel, deliberately have many and diverse experiences, and—perhaps above all—we listen.

We also never stop working. Writing is a 24/7 occupation because even when a writer is asleep, his subconscious is grinding away. Damn useful!

Listening is a curiously important—and much under-rated—skill and it includes the ability to encourage your subject to talk while you, in the main, stay silent. To do it well requires total focus. In fact, it can be so intense, it is almost like an out-of-body experience.

I know that after I have completed a successful interview, I feel almost dazed—and typically it takes me long minutes to wind down.

Am I a good listener?

When I’m prepared, focused, and on form, I’m an excellent one. I just wish I could be better still. Writing isn’t about being totally satisfied. It’s about striving for the impossible—perfection.

I find interviewing nearly as satisfying as the actual process of writing—but not quite.

Writing is just plain beyond words.

VOR words 502.


 

 

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

(#63-1) December 3 2014. Just when you get used to one way of doing things, another damn thing comes along. Makes you long for the days of the Roman legions when weapons systems were stable for hundreds of years.

THOUGHTS ON DISRUPTIVE MILITARY TECHNOLOGIES

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

SO HOW DO YOUR COUNTER MISSILES TRAVELING AT NEARLY 8,000 MILES PER HOUR?

An artistic rendering of a hypersonic aircraft / AP

RIGHT NOW, YOU PROBABLY CAN’T. THE CHINESE HAVE JUST COMPLETED THE THIRD TEST OF THEIR NEW WU-14 HYPERSONIC GLIDE MISSILE

If the Chinese make a success of their hypersonic missile program—which seems highly likely—they will have a weapons system which will seriously undermine the credibility of the aircraft carrier as our traditional way of telling them to back off (from invading Taiwan, for instance).

Such missiles will threaten much else, of course, but the aircraft carrier has such a special place in our self-image as the most powerful nation in the world that I thought I would place it front and center.

Reportedly they, the Chinese, plan to deploy the Wu-14 as soon as 2020—and a scramjet version by 2025.

Can we defend against such extraordinarily fast weapons? Lasers would seem to be the only solution—but, as matters stand, defensive lasers of adequate power don’t seem to be as far advanced as is necessary.

The most likely outcome—at least in the short to medium term—seems the likelihood that our main defense will the deterrent value of having our own hypersonic missiles (which we are working on).

MAD—Mutually Assured Destruction—hypersonic style.

Should we continue to rely on the aircraft carrier as we have in the past? Well, fortunately, hypersonic missiles are unlikely to be possessed by most of our enemies for many decades—if ever. They are technologically complex and vastly expensive.

But, even so, one has to wonder whether the time hasn’t come for the Navy to re-think how it does business. Should we, for instance, rely more on our hypersonic equivalent for global strike and rely less on aircraft carriers?

This, I guess, is one of my less cheery posts.

VOR words 295.


Tuesday, December 2, 2014

(#62-1) December 2 2014. Middle-Class costs up by $10,600 since 2000. Incomes up by less than 1 percent. To repeat myself—there is something seriously wrong with the current American Business Model.

MASSIVE MIDDLE-CLASS DECLINE.

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

CONTEMPLATING A BROKEN BUSINESS MODEL—WHICH WE DON’T SEEM TO BE TRYING TO FIX

“The vast majority of Americans, at all coordinates of the economic spectrum, consider themselves middle class; this is a deeply ingrained, distinctly American cognitive dissonance.”
Ellen Cushing

“A smaller government reflecting the needs of the middle class and poor is superior to a big government reflecting the needs of the privileged and powerful.”
Robert Reich

“Watching middle-class conservatives vote for politicians who've proudly pledged to screw them and their children over fills me with the same exasperated contempt I feel for rabbits who zigzag wildly back and forth in front of my tires instead of just getting off the goddamn road.”
Tim Kreider, We Learn Nothing


middleclasssqueeze-fig1.3

 

middleclasssqueeze-fig12

low wage jobs

It has taken a truly amazing length of time for people to wake up to the plight of the American Middle Class. Things started to go wrong for the Middle Class back in 1973. A recent report by the Center for American Progress reflects an even worse situation that I had thought (and what I thought was bad enough).

Let me quote from the CAP report.

The Cost of Key Pillars of Middle Class Security Has Risen By $10,600 Since 2000

We often write about the challenges income inequality poses in helping the middle class get ahead: the wealthiest are taking a bigger and bigger share of income while for most people, wages are stagnating. But there is another side to this equation: the cost of making ends meet is rising fast too, and maintaining a middle-class quality of life is rising along with it. A breakthrough new report by the Center for American Progress analyzes these costs, as well as stagnant incomes, to demonstrate just how much the middle-class has been squeezed this decade.

CAP’s analysis, “The Middle-Class Squeeze,” shows that for a typical median income married couple with two children, the collective cost of basic pillars of middle class security — including child care, higher education, health care, housing, and retirement –rose by an estimated $10,600 between 2000 and 2012. At the same time, incomes have flattened. For this typical family, acquiring middle-class security cost 30 percent more between 2000 and 2012, but they earned less than one percent more.

The report goes into detail about each pillar and recommendations for how alleviate the squeeze, and here some of the key findings:

  • Jobs: Improving our lackluster jobs picture is the first task to address the middle-class squeeze. That means boosting demand by putting money back into the pockets of hard-working Americans. It also means investing in education and workforce-development programs, strengthening unions, and ensuring basic workplace protections to maximize workforce participation.
  • Health care: Health care costs for families have risen dramatically, from $11,790 total to over $20,000. An average family of four’s premium and out-of-pocket costs have on average almost doubled, from $4,600 to $8,600 per year. The Affordable Care Act has already made a difference for millions of Americans, but there is plenty more to be done to cut costs while making sure people have access to high-quality coverage.
  • Child care:Child care is more expensive than median rent in all 50 states. The estimated cost of a high-quality public preschool program ranges from $6,500 to $11,000 — a cost that is simply out of reach for many families. To address this, among a number of important policies, the federal government should partner with states to provide high-quality preschool to all 3- and 4-year-olds.
  • Higher education: While income is staying the same or even declining among families, the cost of higher education has skyrocketed. From 2000 to 2012, higher education costs have risen 62 percent. We must restore public investment in higher ed, through programs such as Pell grants, to help low- and lower-middle-income students.
  • Housing:The cost of owning a home has risen, on average, nearly $3,000: from $10,200 to $13,000 per year. Half of renters spend over 30 percent of their income on rent. New mortgages are at a 17-year low, with many middle-class families locked out of the market.
  • Retirement: While the costs of other essentials increase, it is no surprise that saving for retirement has become much more difficult for those in the middle class. Now, approximately half of all American households in danger of having insufficient savings for retirement.

These middle class pillars are driving how much Americans can spend on other more basic things as well. CAP’s report found that as a result of this middle-class squeeze, a typical middle-class family had $5,500 less for basic necessities like groceries, clothing, and emergency savings by 2012, compared to 2000.

BOTTOM LINE: The United States’ middle class used to be the world’s wealthiest. But the combination of stalled income and rising costs for essential pillars of middle class life have made that no longer the case. Middle class families are the driver of economic growth in this country. But now the middle class is being squeezed, and squeezing American opportunity and economic growth along with it.


Monday, December 1, 2014

(#61-1) December 1 2014. Department of fantastic photographs taken by my sister, Lucy Ayettey Lyons

SHE HAS THE EYE

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

WHERE SOME SEE THE INDUSTRIALIZED UNDERBELLY OF A CITY—LONDON, IN THIS CASE—LUCY SEES BEAUTY. SHE IS SO RIGHT.

CAMDEN CANAL, LONDON

SOME BEAUTY NEEDS NO QUALIFICATION

MY NIECE, FAITH AYETTEY LYONS, TAKEN BY HER MOTHER, MY SISTER, LUCY

I love the written word—but sometimes words are superfluous.

VOR words c.55.


Sunday, November 30, 2014

(#60-1) November 30 2014. How much sex should you put into a book—if any? And how do you learn to write about sex anyway?

THANKSGIVING THOUGHTS

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

ON WRITING ABOUT SEX

Sexuality is not mere instinctuality; it is an indisputably creative power that is not only the basic cause of our individual lives, but a very serious factor in our psychic life as well.

Carl Jung

Sex is a part of nature. I go along with nature.

Marilyn Monroe

“Many lovers are ‘off to the races:’ Hurtling towards orgasm, they miss the excitement of sensual meanderings along the way.”

Alexandra Katehakis, Mirror of Intimacy: Daily Reflections on Emotional and Erotic Intelligence

“In my next life I want to live backwards. Start out dead and finish off as an orgasm.”
Woody Allen

“He slides himself inside her, her heart is bursting. The pithy organic organ can't hold all that she feels for this man. When she reaches her peak, her brain supernovas, a small, perfect death.”
MrsAlenko

“As if reading her mind, he leaned into her again, pupils dark, irises glowing like a forest caught in the last rays of sun before dusk… “Do you want me to make you come?”
“Is that a trick question?”
Dianna Hardy, Cry Of The Wolf

Anyone who knows anything of history knows that great social changes are impossible without feminine upheaval. Social progress can be measured exactly by the social position of the fair sex, the ugly ones included.

Karl Marx

It's so long since I've had sex I've forgotten who ties up who.

Joan Rivers


 

Couples.JPG

Sex is as normal as breathing—and rather more enjoyable—so I’m somewhat puzzled at why we treat it the way we do. I find it hard to define that as precisely as I would like—it is a subject worth examining in more detail some other time—but it is a cross between demonization and distaste as far much of our culture is concerned (despite considerable progress towards tolerance and openness).

Niches apart (Comopolitan, for instance) what we don’t do is either talk about it openly, or write about it, with honesty. That is not considered to be in good taste. Sexual candor is not regarded to be a good thing except in the context of pornography. Accordingly, publicly we treat it much of the time as if it was dirty—something to be ashamed of.  In a word, we are hypocrites. There are numerous exceptions to this, but overall, this is the current situation.

Paradoxically, it is my impression that sex plays an even greater role in our lives than we are generally prepared to admit. From puberty onwards, until you are pretty much dead, sexual thoughts and desires dictate a great deal of our behavior. Arguably we talk more about money and material things in general, but I suspect we think more about sex—and may even be more motivated by it. That may sound a surprising statement, but reflect that sex underpins the vast majority of human relationships.

When I used the expression, “pretty much dead,” I was harking back to a woman I helped to nurse when she was dying of cancer several years ago. No, I’m not a nurse, but she needed help. I didn’t even know her that well, but she was a friend of a friend.

Although she was bent and crippled by a particularly aggressive cancer, and physically incapable of sex because she was in so much pain, she got a kick out my seeing her substantially naked (as was sometimes required), told everyone I was her lover (entirely untrue) and said to me as she was dying how sorry she was she hadn’t got me into bed. These were not the last words I expected, let me tell you. She spoke them after she had drunk the lethal dose. She killed herself under Washington State’s Death with Dignity Act on December 22 2010. Sex was on her mind to the very end. She was quite a woman.

It is not so much that we are obsessed with sex. It is more that we are sexual animals, heavily influenced by our sexual wants and needs, so such focus is no more than natural—and, indeed, healthy. It is our dishonesty about it which is unhealthy.

The best window into our sexual reality today is the internet. The sheer scale of sexually oriented websites is hard to grasp—but it is is absolutely vast, and spans the gamut from outright porn, to sexually specific dating sites, to the downright respectable (which come as something of a shock given that hedonism dominates).

Where books are concerned, whether you should put sex in, or not, depends upon the book. Clearly if it’s a math book, a long description of the pleasure of 69 might be unnecessary—even though it might cause increased interest in STEM.

But, I don’t know much about text books (except that they are over-priced) so let me move on to thrillers where I have a certain knowledge and expertise.

The convention, where thrillers are concerned, is to put in a little sex—a few ‘dirty bits’—but not too much—and not to get too graphic. So, for instance, if you want to describe a man going down on a woman (I have a problem spelling words like ‘cunnilingus), you refrain from the fine detail. You don’t described the pleasures of a woman’s sweaty public hair against your character’s cheeks, and how their mutual pleasure is enhanced when he slides his finger into her sphincter. That would, generally speaking, be considered going too far. Yet, that is on the milder side of what people actually do—so I’m far from sure I understand why we shy away from describing the reality. 

Incidentally, why do women shave their public hair? I think it’s incredibly sexy. It’s rather fun to be lost in the forest. It adds texture to the plot, so to speak—and touch is fundamental to sex.

I didn’t fight these restrictions much in the past because I was normally more concerned about other editorial issues. Moreover, my first publisher, Grove Press, asked me to put more sex in rather than take it out. My editor, Rosemarie Morse, phoned me to say she had just had lunch with a girl friend who said she really liked reading a good sex scene early in a book—and could I oblige. Well, apart from the fact that Rosemarie was (and still is) both attractive and delightful, being a gentleman, of course I did. Grove was a small publishing house with a commendable reputation for flying in face of convention, and, as such was atypical.

My relationship with my second publisher—a large traditional house—was very different to the point of being downright hostile, and my freedom to write as I wanted was curtailed.

Now the dead weight of traditional publishers can be bypassed, I have been giving considerable thought to how I want to write about sex in the future.

It can actually be quite a struggle to write a sexually explicit scene. I find it difficult to write as freely as my intellect says I should for a variety of reasons—from our cultural taboos to good old-fashioned embarrassment.  It is hard to go against cultural norms—even if you think they are wrong. Fortunately, I don’t worry at all about what my readers think. Out of over 7,000 fan e-mails, none complained that my sex scenes were too graphic—and they are by conventional thriller standards--and a significant percentage of my readers are women.

I endeavor to overcome my inhibitions because I think sex is integral to the human condition, it can work to enhance the story in a variety of ways, and that we could—and should—get to understand and appreciate it a great deal better than we do.

Instead we have a society which can’t even make its mind up about sex education—but where sexual innuendo permeates just about every facet of commercial life. We seem to be better at making money out of it than incorporating it naturally into our culture.

Here, let me make it clear that when I talk about incorporating more sex into my writing,  I don’t just mean physical sex, but the entire span of emotions, feelings, fears, joys, desires, and sensibilities that accompany it. I tend towards the view that even where a relationship is almost entirely physical, there has to be some emotional involvement as well—albeit inadequate or otherwise conflicted (but maybe I’m being naïve). 

I seem to have a romantic streak which works to inhibit my understanding of just how cold-blooded and uncaring some people can be. I like to think that people connect at some level under almost all circumstances. I also harbor the suspicion that I may be dead wrong on that point.

My general thought is that, as always, the first priority has to be the story—because anything that doesn’t serve the story should not be included—but that, subject to that critical condition (which should be tattooed inside every writer’s eyelids), I should write about sex, and its related feelings, in as much graphic and specific detail as I write about anything else.

For instance, I fail to see why it should be considered more acceptable to describe violence in all its bloody detail—down to the gory effects of explosive rounds on the human body, yet not go to the same kinds of lengths where sex is concerned—whether that sex be straight or gay.

Whether I have the courage to implement my convictions is another matter. Remnants of the culture and standards I grew up with all those decades ago still linger. Though my mother collected men like Hemingway hunted big game—with trophies to match (mostly children instead of mounted heads)—the general culture in the Ireland of the time was that sex hadn’t yet been invented. Immaculate conceptions were all the rage—or maybe babes were flown in by storks.

When I was small I never believed in the stork story. I had been told we don’t have them in Ireland except in the zoo. However, I thought the ‘babies are found under cabbages’ might be a runner. Certainly, we grew a lot of cabbages.

In Ireland, in those days, condoms and all other kind of birth control were illegal; oral sex had the same status as America before Columbus came along; and any books which described sex in any detail at all were banned (which included books by some of Ireland’s most highly esteemed literary figures). Funnily enough, the father of one of the first girls I dated was a judge—and a member of the censorship board—and I noted, with interest, that he kept the books he and his board banned.  

Meanwhile, at boarding school, Catholic guilt was being hammered into me together with the fact that the primary trigger of that powerful force was sex in any form or shape—unless within wedlock, and performed solely for the purposes of procreation.

Portnoy's Complaint by Roth, Philip

Masturbation (the focus of PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT) was regarded as perverse and sinful—and the possibility of a woman masturbating  was never even hinted at. In fact, the idea that women were innately sexual wasn’t even considered. The general concept was that women had to be coaxed into doing something that most regarded as distasteful—but their duty (every full moon or so).

Given my mother’s behavior, I found this viewpoint questionable, but since the consensus was that she was unusual—to put it mildly—I still sort of went with the flow for a time. On the other hand, we had maidservants—single women with needs—and no TV, so after I hit puberty I was soon to discover that my mother was far from being an outlier (merely more zealous and better resourced).

You know there are times I wonder whether education doesn’t do more harm than good. Yes, I know one needs it—and I’ve certainly benefited from it—but I was taught so much that has turned out to be either untrue, or distorted, as well, that it has taken me years to sort it all out. As for organized religion, it really does have a great deal to answer for. It is quite clear that we all have a spiritual dimension—which few of us seem to know how to harness adequately—but which seems to be peculiarly vulnerable to manipulation by charlatans.

I guess we all want to know the meaning of life—and organized religion capitalizes on this universal desire by providing instant answers (supported by no facts at all). It is, so to speak, Fast Food, for the mind—and about as healthy. To avail of it, all you have to do is shut down your ability to think logically and rationally—and substitute faith (belief not based on proof).  That seem to me to be a Faustian bargain if ever there was one.

Free will—reportedly a God-given gift—has to be based upon rational thought otherwise it is not free will.

Since I have known many fine pastors and other men of the cloth who were, and are, members of organized religions, I dislike saying that—but just look at the track record. Throughout history, everywhere organized religion has been ascendant, it has been associated with intolerance, meanness, cruelty, oppression, greed, bigotry, corruption, repression, ignorance, and torture, death and suffering on a massive scale—and, primarily, has been utilized by the powerful as a highly effective tool of social control. What is more, this holds true—in most cases—regardless of the religion.

Christianity's record in this regard is dreadful—and Islam is no better. Only Buddhism emerges with some honor.

The overall point I’m making is that although I try to keep an open mind—and fight hard to be a free thinker—I’m also aware that social pressures and other conditioning over the decades (even where I know it is wrong) has an effect. So I don’t quite know whether I will be able to write quite as candidly about sex as I would like—but I’m going to try. It just feels like the right thing to do. If writing is about illuminating the human condition, then I think sex could do with more light shed on it.

Porn apart—does anyone write candidly about sex at present? Well, there are way too many books out there for me to comment accurately about that, but I’m sure some indie authors do. There is a whole area of erotic romance out here about which I know little (somehow I don’t think the word ‘erotic’ is there by accident). Where traditional publishers are concerned, I doubt it. If I’m doing them an injustice, let me apologize in advance—but, proof first, please.

If I was destined for hell—and could feel the heat of the flames—and a traditional publisher offered me a way out, I suspect I would hesitate. The integrity of traditional publishing is about on a par with Congress.

Maybe I’m being somewhat unfair to Congress.

When it comes to learning about how to write about sex, let me start by repeating the advice I give about learning to write about anything.

Start by reading the masters—and anything else you can find that is remotely relevant. But, read, read, read.

The Gold Standard where sex combined with literature is concerned used to be LADY’S CHATTERLY’S LOVER by D.H Lawrence (a truly excellent writer, by the way) but COUPLES by John Updike could well be a rival. Then, let me recommend my personal favorite, IN PRAISE OF OLDER WOMEN by Stephen Vizinczeylargely, I suspect, because it reflects many of my own experiences. And the, of course, there is THE GRADUATE by Charles Webb and PORTNOY’S COMPLAINT by Philip Roth. Another writer who comes to mind, who is sexually more graphic than most is Ken Follett. He uses sex to great effect in his works—and has sold 130 million books.

If memory serves, LIE DOWN WITH LIONS incorporates a particular  steamy scene involving mutual masturbation.

So what am I forgetting? What else but FIFTY SHADES OF GREY by E L James—which my #1 fan, Deb Waggoner, told me I should read. Deb is a woman of impeccable judgment, so I intend to follow her advice.

A quick aside—though it has been more than 20 years since she first wrote to me, and we have talked quite a few times by phone—we have never met. I find it hard to over-stress how invaluable her support, and those of my other fans, has been, 

The three volumes have sold over 100 million copies—which is a such a staggeringly large number by conventional standards—that it is fairly safe to assume that it has tapped into a nerve.

What is about? According to Wikipedia:

Fifty Shades of Grey is a 2011 erotic romance novel by British author E. L. James. It is the first installment in the Fifty Shades trilogy that traces the deepening relationship between a college graduate, Anastasia Steele, and a young business magnate, Christian Grey. It is notable for its explicitly erotic scenes featuring elements of sexual practices involving bondage/discipline, dominance/submission, and sadism/masochism (BDSM). Originally self-published as an ebook and a print-on-demand,[1][2] publishing rights were acquired by Vintage Books in March 2012.[3][4]

The second and third volumes, Fifty Shades Darker and Fifty Shades Freed, were published in 2012. Fifty Shades of Grey has topped best-seller lists around the world, including those of the United Kingdom and the United States.[5][6]The series has sold over 100 million copies worldwide and been translated into 52 languages,[7] and set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time.[8] Critical reception of the book, however, has been mixed, with the quality of its prose generally seen as poor. Universal Pictures and Focus Features plan a film adaptation scheduled for a February 13, 2015 release.[9]

What does this suggest? It indicates to me—amongst other things-- that  female sexuality has long been seriously underestimated.

In my opinion, some of the best writing about sex is on the internet by women writing about their own needs and desires. This tends to leave absolutely nothing to the imagination—especially when it is frequently accompanied by a picture of the author in some sexually explicit position—with masturbation being high on the lost.

Either women’s sexual nature has changed a lot since my youth—or I was fed a great deal of hogwash about the fair sex at the time. Either way, at the rate things are going, we males are going to be also-rans when it comes to masturbation. Indeed, at this rate, given that an ever increasing number of women seem to be describing themselves as bi-sexual—and that sex toys are getting better and better—we males may end up being surplus to requirements. I hope that unhappy fate happen after I have made my departure.

Who writes this stuff? Women of all backgrounds and persuasions—though judging by appearances, they tend towards the more affluent (they are certainly not the kind of women who you might expect would be doing this). In short, these are not the outpourings of some sexually deviant fringe, but the thoughts of a wide range of completely normal women taking advantage of the relative anonymity of the internet. Who knew such women would advance their sexuality in such a blatant way—but so many seem to be doing it, that before too long, it will probably be mainstream

There is a raw honesty about all this which is really quite touching—and which suggests that we men aren’t doing a particularly good job at keeping our women satisfied.

Perhaps this is not surprising—because we come back to the fact that sex is not discussed in the specific way it needs to be. As a consequence, ignorance abounds—particularly amongst men. We tend to be a one shot deal in bed—targeting orgasm with male efficiency—whereas women have more complex needs.

Actually, so do men, in my opinion.

Reading apart, I can’t help but conclude that if you are going to write convincingly about sex, you should have experience of the real thing—and preferably a great deal of it. However, here I find myself up against a fundamental problem. I certainly have enough experience to write about sex from a man’s point of view—and I have in a number of books—but I am far from convinced that I understand women’s sexuality adequately—even after considerable field work (for want of a better phrase). It’s just not something that someone with my background tended to discuss in the kind of explicit intimate details that I now feel is required. Here, I am less concerned about the physical aspect—though I’m sure I have much to learn there too--than about the emotional.

We’re back to something that strikes me with ever more force the more I think about it—the extraordinary fact that no one (no matter how intimate) ever really knows what another person is thinking. You know what they say and what they do—and you can read their body language—but there it stops.

As a writer, I find that somewhat frustrating because, when it comes to sex, I would really, madly, and deeply like to be able to describe matters accurately from a woman’s perspective.

It is my impression that the internet has brought something of  a revolution to women’s sexuality—a revolution which is still a work in progress, and which is likely to have profound consequences

It is empowering women sexually. It has provided a forum for women to write explicitly about their needs; it has made erotic communication much easier; it has made it easier to have de facto affairs via cybersex on a virtually risk free basis; and hook-up sites have made the arranging of real sex relatively straightforward. In fact, I think there are even some Apps which make the whole process even easier.

In addition, electronic communication has enabled vastly more women to share their thoughts with relative ease –and has undoubtedly fostered a new normal where a woman’s desires are concerned. Examples of this can be seen in profusion on the internet, but perhaps the most explicit example concerns an organization called One Taste

One Taste advocates ‘orgasmic meditation.’ Here is Wikipedia on the subject.

In press accounts, orgasmic meditation has been compared to tantric practices. "The idea, similar to Buddhist Tantric sex, is to extend the sensory peak."[1] Daedone (the founder) has stated in interviews that OMing also borrows from other traditions including yoga, and other forms of meditation,[7] and she describes it as a central element of what she terms the "Slow Sex Movement".[4][8]

She states that OMing brings consciousness to sexuality in the same way that sitting meditation brings consciousness to stillness and yoga brings consciousness to movement.[7] Proponents maintain that the practice leads to more intense and profound orgasms,[5] expands one's capacity to feel pleasure and other sensations, and promotes greater personal awareness and interpersonal connectivity.[1] Others describe more limited effects, such as simply "getting in touch with one's body."[9] Some who have participated in or witnessed the practice report feeling a sense of discomfort or inappropriateness. "I tried with great futility to make the connection between an austere Zen monastery filled with silent monks meditating on emptiness, and what I had just seen."[10]

The practice of orgasmic meditation is done with a partner. One person lies down, unclothed from the waist down, while her partner sits alongside. The one sitting uses his or her index finger to slowly, deliberately stroke the clitoris and genitals of the other. Typically this safe sex practice involves the wearing of gloves.

The session lasts for 15 minutes and is timed precisely. Both partners focus their attention on the point of contact or stroke, simply feeling the sensation that is present.[11] If the mind drifts, attention is brought back to the point of contact and immediate sensations. Practitioners of orgasmic meditation maintain that the practice nourishes the limbic system, the part of the brain shared with other mammals and associated with emotion, empathy, and motivation.[4] When the OMing session is over, both partners share their experiences verbally.[1][6]

OMing requires a partner, and so is distinct from masturbation, for two reasons. First, the voluntary mind must be given a rest, surrendering to the experience rather than seeking to produce the desired sensations. Secondly, the resonance between two partners is essential to the experience of shared sensation.[12] OM is usually practiced separately from sex and often in a location other than the bedroom; as distinct from foreplay, Daedone describes it as a practice "designed to keep a woman on a plateau of sensation." A visiting UK columnist surmised that "OM is a form of recalibration that prepares the body for better, more intense sex."[13]

Just in case the significance of the above hasn’t hit home—and it really needs to—let me introduce you to www.ashleymadison.com a site set up specifically to promote affairs. It proudly boasts that a new woman joins ashleymadison—to have a discreet affair—every sixty seconds. That works out at over half a million a year—and that is just one site out of an endless number. Men have let women down—and  there are consequences.

Do I think all this is a good thing? Well, it is scarcely going to make relationships more secure—given the virtual availability of infidelity on demand—but, overall, I think it is a very good thing.

To be frank, I don’t believe that even now—despite considerable progress—that women are treated properly in our society. They are paid less (77 cents to a male dollar); are under-represented in politics and in business management; work harder; and get more of a a raw deal in the bedroom than they deserve (though they seem to be increasingly able to remedy that particular deficiency without male help).

Given all that, I believe women deserve all the empowerment that they can get—and if we writers can help a little, then I think we should.

Besides, if women are happier, it is absolutely certain that we males will be too. More than we deserve perhaps?

Women are kind of special (though I can think of a few exceptions). Such is the human condition.

Interesting how often Buddhism comes up—invariably in a favorable context. And I could say much the same about Tantric Sex.

VOR words 4,040

Every now and then I seem to be compelled towards the longer form—and this is one such result. I actually wrote it some months ago—but misfiled it. It turned up today—so here it is.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Saturday, November 29, 2014

(#59-1) November 29 2014. When it comes to startups, the ‘can-do nation’ is doing less and less.

AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

IT’S IN STEADY DECLINE—AND, ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS LITTLE GENERAL CONCERN. ODD—OR WORRYING?

I am’ constantly struck by the failure of the U.S. public to react to the most disturbing economic news—even when the underlying trends are at least as disastrous in their implications as the incident itself. Meanwhile, the media get whipped up into a frenzy over such matters as Ebola or Ferguson. Both the latter certainly deserve attention, but not to the point where they distract from matters of extraordinary significance to people’s economic health.

Let me give a contrast to help illustrate my point. If something fundamental—like the retirement age—is threatened in France or Ruritania (for instance), people will be out in the streets demonstrating in no time at all, and in politically significant numbers.

Not in the U.S.. Somehow, adequate knowledge of the issues, concern, and appropriate outrage seem to be in short supply here. This means that the movers and shakers can do virtually anything here—like buy the election results—without there being either a reaction or consequences. 

Americans seem to be politically supine to an extent which is decidedly unhealthy—at least from the point of view of democracy. The talent is there—we have plenty of highly articulate analytical people—but the concern doesn’t seem to be (or, if it is, it isn’t coalescing into political effective form—which may be more to the point).

Why is this?

  • The failure of the media which most Americans get their news from—TV news—to do an adequate job. The U.S. does, in fact, possess some truly excellent journalists, but they are largely concentrated in media—read, watched, or listened-to—by only a minority of people. Where the mass media are concerned, the view seems to be that Americans are incapable of understanding either complexity or nuance—and merely want to be entertained.  The danger of such a view is that it becomes self-fulfilling.
  • The success of a long propaganda campaign to disillusion, distract, and manipulate the American voter. The decline of trust in most institutions since the Seventies is quite dramatic—and is not an accident.
  • The inadequacies of the educational system to educate people beyond their prejudices.
  • The failure of the Democratic Party—in particular to evolve, and communicate, a coherent progressive message.
  • The near destruction of the trade union movement. Trade unions—like all human institutions—can have their faults, but they are just about the only counterbalance to corporate power there is. Trade unions have also been responsible for most of the gains made by American workers—like the 40 hour week.
  • The systematic conversion of a significant minority of the population into a non-voting semi criminalized underclass (which largely does not vote).
  • A well justified fear of the consequences—losing one’s job (and thus so many other things) in particular. You can pay a high price in this Land of the Free for speaking out.  

The decline of startups means that more and more of the economy is being controlled by major corporations (not to be confused with local businesses). Thanks to a long term trend towards concentration—mostly by way of mergers and acquisitions backed by financial corporations, this corporatized economy is dominated by a small number of large corporations in almost every market sector.  

Subject to some notable exceptions (there are some excellent corporations out there) large U.S. corporations, operating in a semi-monopoly environment, have a miserable track record in terms of customer value and service, treatment of their employees, customers and suppliers, concern for both community and national interests—and, above all, in terms of job creation and innovation. Recall the mass panic of the recent Great Recession which resulted in the arbitrary laying of of millions of workers—largely without either notice or compensation—and contrast it with German industry’s widespread employment of job-sharing.

But that is what we largely have already—and we are heading towards more of it in the future.

This does not augur well.

VOR words 590.


Friday, November 28, 2014

(#59-1) November 29 2014. When it comes to startups, the ‘can-do nation’ is doing less and less.

AMERICAN ENTREPRENEURSHIP

VICTOR - SHOT BY MICK - ENHANCED

IT’S IN STEADY DECLINE—AND, ONCE AGAIN, THERE IS LITTLE GENERAL CONCERN

I am’ constantly struck by the failure of the U.S. public to react to the most disturbing economic news—even when the underlying trends are at least as disastrous in their implications as the incident itself. Meanwhile, the media get whipped up into a frenzy over such matters as Ebola or Ferguson. Both the latter certainly deserve attention, but not to the point where they distract from matters of extraordinary significance to people’s economic health.

Let me give a contrast to help illustrate my point. If something fundamental –like the retirement age—is threatened in France (for instance), people will be out in the streets demonstrating in no time at all, and in politically significant numbers.

Somehow, adequate knowledge of the issues, concern, and outrage seem to be in short supply here. This means that the movers and shakers can do virtually anything here—like buy the election results—without there being either a reaction or consequences. 

Americans seem to be politically supine to an extent which is decidedly unhealthy—at least from the point of view of democracy.

Why is this?

  • The failure of the media most Americans get their news from—TV news—to do an adequate job.
  • The success of a long propaganda campaign to disillusion, distract, and manipulate the American voter.
  • The inadequacies of the educational system to educate people beyond their prejudices.
  • The failure of the Democratic Party—in particular to evolve, and communicate, a coherent progressive message.
  • The near destruction of the trade union movement.
  • The systematic conversion of a significant minority of the population into a non-voting semi criminalized underclass (which largely does not vote).
  • Fear of the consequences—losing one’s job (and thus so many other things) in particular.

The decline of startups means that more and more of the economy is being controlled by corporations. Thanks to a long term trend towards concentration—largely by way of mergers and acquisitions backed by financial corporations, this corporatized economy is dominated by a small number of large corporations in almost every market sector.

Large U.S. corporations, operating in a semi-monopoly environment, have a miserable track record in terms of customer value and service, treatment of their employees, customers and suppliers, concern for both community and national interests—and, above all, in terms of job creation and innovation. Recall the mass panic of the recent Great Recession which resulted in the arbitrary laying of of millions of workers—largely without either notice or compensation—and contrast it with German industry’s widespread employment of job-sharing.

But that is what we largely have already—and we are heading towards more of it in the future.

This does not augur well.

VOR words 413