Sex

This subject has already been raised, but here we will focus more on the topic of the language referring to sex as a vehicle for the diminution of language as a whole i.e. making it more difficult for Earthlings to communicate ideas to each other via language.  

How does a person refer to “the act of a phallus entering a vagina”?  To a meiotic species, this act is incredibly important—as important as any act can be.  Because the phallus being inside the vagina during the male orgasm is almost required for the sperm expelled by the phallus to survive the lengthy, dangerous voyage to the ovum, the receipt of friction given to the phallus by the vagina is almost always part of the origin of human life.  This extreme requirement demonstrates the way that meiosis works--the two become "as one"--think of how the early repressions of Jesusianism hadn't wholly stamped that out of Europeoid pairing arrangements (marriages).  One connects with the other one.  

Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.
Genesis 2:24

While it is possible for life to be otherwise-inspired—such as sperm expelled from the phallus during a frictive act other than that of entering a vagina and one of that sperm surviving until reaching the ovum—this is extremely less likely.  Indeed, almost all of the billions of people currently alive on the planet Earth were made to exist by the act of a phallus entering a vagina and receiving thereby friction.  

The seeming inexplicability of the ones who say they are free from matter now ["liberals"] in advocating for trains no eye nonsense is thusly explained.  Jesusian "saved from matter" nonsense naturally led to this, although it is undisputedly better to be healthy and happy in some comfortable basement with just a little messy water rather than drowning in a flooded basement.  This very effective trick has caused many Christians to think that loving the idea of much less water is a good thing.  

No; of course not.  That water is an indication that something is very wrong.  Extremely wrong.  Mortally wrong.  Thinking that rabbi-worship was good is not wanting the cancer to go away; it is thinking that "Things were so much better when the tumor was little!  Tumors are good!"  Things were back then better, because fewer things were being blocked.  As the flood grows higher, do not be tricked into thinking the beginning of the flood was good.  Remember again that over 35K years' worth of your ancestors had cultures before Jesusianism began being the unifying force of the Christian conquest of Europe.  

Being avid enjoyers of pleasure—as are about all organisms which can experience pleasure—humans, particularly male ones, have sought and obtained many pleasant activities over the years.  To whit, many male orgasms have happened through methods other than phalluses entering vaginas, and as a result, lots more than many quintillion spermatozoon have died places other than on the realistic way to fertilize ova.

For thousands of years, humans have not been so stupid as to employ language such as to devalue the importance of sex.  “Sex” when used in situations like that used here, as a verb referred to the act of a phallus entering a vagina.  There were many other words for “pursuit of orgasm” depending on how that orgasm was being pursued.  Recently, with decay of Usican-led human societies (there's an argument there that such Usica-centered perspectives are wrong, but reflect on the dollar being the official reserve currency), the attempt to contract language—i.e. to make communication something that humans cannot do as well—“sex” has been one of the eliminated words.  

(“Eliminated” not in the sense that no one ever uses the word “sex,” but “eliminated” in the sense that what the word “sex” means has changed so much that the original word is gone—eliminated.)  

As ever, with the faux goodness of offering increased accessibility, the word “sex” has been used to mean “pursuit of orgasm” rather than “the act of a phallus entering a vagina.”  Buggery (“anal sex”), cunnilingus, and various other acts of frictive rubbing have been made to attain the positive associations of human couplings indicative of partnerships likely to produce families i.e. human children.  This attack on language has been presented as a good thing.  

In fact, the attack on language is a thing wholly bad.  However many years ago, the predecessors to human beings began associating the making of certain noises with certain meanings.  This association blossomed into language, whereby humans could make certain noises assured that other humans would know what thoughts/feelings they were trying to convey.  

(Note here the way that Christianity uses bad things while presenting them as good things.  Mass murder is presented as good when it is teaching people about Jesus/democracy.  Making it much more likely that women will be raped is called good when it is presented as being certain that no one will get their feelings hurt because someone is being excluded from the areas those women use.)  

The benefit of this collective awareness of what noise means—language—has been profound.  Although the benefit of being able to convey thoughts/feelings by writing them down has been immense, the benefit of being able to speak is far greater.  There are quite commonly socially conformist partial illiterates; there are less commonly full illiterates.  However, there are far fewer (no one?) who cannot understand a few primary desires delivered via spoken language.  

Eliminating from the lexicon “sex” is how decay can occur to something as amazingly important as language.  People take it so for granted that they know what words mean.  “Sex” is just one word, but the methods used against it show the methods that have been used against other words as well as forecast the methods that will be used against the remaining words.  

The methodology of word-destruction is the same methodology employed elsewhere: 

1. Say or imply that it is nice and fair to include other things too in the benefits associated with those things typically associated with the word; 
2. Say or imply that the nice things lacked by people is an unfair situation caused by the differentiation necessitated by the words;
3. Start using the targeted word to refer to things which previously had a separate word to designate them.  

This methodology is similar to that of other aspects of decay, but we shall here retain our focus on language-destruction.  

The attack on the primary word—here “sex”—seems to be less important because other words are being entirely eliminated by this same method.  For example, “buggery” and the like became unnecessary when the act to which they referred became called “sex.”  The claimed niceness of vesting upon buggerers the social perspectives formerly associated with people who had formal sex together is used to disguise what is actually making in the lexicon.  It has made irrelevant the term “bugger.”  

“Fuck” is a word also made meaningless by the same method.  “To have sex with” could have meant “to fuck,” but it also could have been something else (like “to sweetly and tenderly make love to”).  “Fuck” had meaning because it was an act performed expressly in pursuit of orgasm and not because “it produces/supports human offspring and/or the relationships in which human offspring thrive.”  It was not performed, and the word becomes irrelevant, when “sex” also means “fuck.”  I.e. when “sex” also, means buggery, blowjobs, handjobs, eating out, etc., “fuck” loses meaning too.  Although “fuck” still can be employed to refer to “raucous sex,” “unimportant sex,” or similar, it loses its meaning in situations like when “up” also means “down.”  E.g. when “making love” simultaneously means “pursuing an orgasm not because it can produce human offspring and/or the relationships in which human offspring thrive” and “something pleasurable done to produce/support human offspring and/or the relationships in which human offspring thrive” something big is lost.  The two entirely different meanings had their own words—like up and down—but now they are supposed to mean the same thing.  

(“Fuck” has a distinct meaning from “sex”; it is part of the definition of “sex,” but there are kinds of “sex” which are not “fucking.”  I.e. “make sweet tender love” is not the same as “fuck her vigorously on stage while spanking her a lot and adjusting her position so the cameras get good shots of everything.”  If people were to casually use “sex” to refer to “fucking” so often that the word “sex” no longer ever could mean “make sweet tender love,” then the meaning of “fuck” would be damaged.  “Sex” would be “fuck”; the word “fuck” would be eliminated at the same time that the word “sex” would be damaged.)  

Increasing the word count of a language—making that language bigger, more precise and useful—involves standardizing new words.  This can either be done by making up new words, or by standardizing the referral to subsets/subsidiaries of concepts previously referred to by a word that meant many things.  Going backwards down this road, toward no language at all, is eliminating more specific words and making the concepts to which they refer irrelevant.  This is what happens with decay.  

A major push now is to eliminate the usage of the word “sex” not just as a verb but as a noun.  It is presented as nice and fair to use “gender” instead of “sex” to refer to whether a person has chosen some time after birth to be female or male.  However, it is not at all nice to do that.  Like the word “universal,” which word is a contraction of “united” and “verse,” it is a political act.  As a noun, “sex” was conceived of as a biological term—a descriptive noun.  When an adjective, it was to perform a similar function.  When a verb, it got made up to refer to an interaction completely important to meiotic organisms like humans.  Making it thought of as choice-based (pick again) rather than mandatory (already picked; play it as it lies) is an act against life.  I.e. antilife i.e. evil.  The fervent passion with which unknowing supporters of evil employ choice-based methodology is mirrored by fact of the salvation and liberation from matter found in Bangist and Jesusian Christian (“political” and “religious”) ideologies.  

See how the following common arguments are actually expressions of Jesusian Christianity now called secular: 

“Of course it is right to pursue orgasms without being hampered by the potential existence of babies.”  (What is currently called “abortion.”)  

“It is obvious that one can enjoy one’s life without needing to forcefully defend it.”  (What is currently called “gun control.”)  

“A free person can choose which gender they wish to present to the world, and it is very rude of people to say that they only believe in biology.”  (“Trans rights”)  

“People are rude when they expect everyone to conform to their personal notions of how a person should be shaped.”  (“Weight-challenged.”)  

Etc.  It should be noted that earlier versions of humanity typically and ironically associated resistance to abortion, gun control, cross-dresser-rights, and/or fatty-rights (whoops) with rabbi-worship/universality.  Therefore, it can seem like embracing rabbi-worship/universality is offering resistance to the mountainous illogicality of such popular modern issues.  The irony is immense, because it was the imposition upon Europe of earlier versions of rabbi-worship/universality that allowed social attitudes to be gradually shifted to effect what is happening now.  

Arguing that real things are bad—as Christianity has always done—and that fake things must be believed—also as Christianity has also always done—is perfectly in line with all the previously mentioned issues.  It is extremely difficult—perhaps impossible—for most Jesusian Christians to understand, but the reason that so much of the West today upholds ridiculous things is because there is a long history of supporting ridiculous ideology.  People in the West were selected for “conforming to ridiculous notions,” such as the notion that an invisible, omnipotent rabbi always knew what you were doing, and that S.R. would make you be treated well or bad after you died based on how much he liked your behavior.  That kind of thing is why it makes perfect sense that politically correct behavior rose to prominence in the West.  

The distinction between world-accepting and world-rejecting religions is here noted.  Christianity is clearly a world-rejecting religion, and is surely the definitionally prominent one of those.  In fact, Christianity is so prominent in that field that the field itself probably exists only because of Christianity providing such a sizable contrast to other religions.  It seems to be the case that almost all religions were world-accepting ones until Christianity came along offering a world-rejecting perspective.  Modern times—some yahoo making up a cult—are affected by Christianity.  

(The world-rejecting narrative of Jesusian Christianity is much more than in other theoretical examples of that type of religion.  Any religion that promises a reward after death can be said to be world-rejecting because the story of that reward is obviously the story of a place better than here.  The Bible goes much further than this, with the Bible’s and the character Jesus’ admonition that Jesus should be liked more than the world or anything in it.  No other religion so explicitly or even at all says, basically, “You suck unless you love the guy who made this religion.”)  

What is now popularly called “pagan religion” was world-accepting.  Much of the cultural demeaning of the characters used in European fables before the Christian conquests was because of the friction between Christianity’s world-rejecting philosophy and the world-accepting philosophy that had been in Europe before.  

Abortion, gun control, transsexual elevation we mean acceptance, and fat people ele errr we mean weight-challenged acceptance (elevation is a better word), are all ideologies of salvation.  They depend on faith to be considered good things.  Like the promise that Black test scores will rise once slavery is gone—we mean five years later a generation later five generations later uh when you stop those epicyclic nanoaggressions er just donate—it is not true.  There will never be a big rapture where you are (or anyone else is) judged to see if you (or that person etc.) donated enough and thought words that were supposed to be talking to Jesus enough in your head, and math will never be done the same.  

Is every man a brother?  Should you welcome every man to live across the street from you?  Are you not at all concerned with money because S.R. wants you to focus on rewarding things after you die instead of mere matter?  What could possibly happen?  

It is normal for White people to say they believe ridiculous promises about what will happen far in the future.  Believing crud like that—having faith that things will turn out a certain way which way is not in the slightest bit evidenced—is Christian.  Christianity rules.