This site has initially been set up as a conduit for political activism, advocating better sex for everybody.

However, upon re-consideration, the author has come to the conclusion, that for philosophical as well as social reasons, pro-sexual activism is an odd endeavor.

The philosophical reasons are based on the cognition that optimal sexual experience and after that, a gentle death, are the only values in life that are genuine. To pursue a political agenda would, in one way or another, have a negative impact on the author's sexual success rate. It would tear his private life into the open, which would greatly conflict with the smoothness of the multitude of sexual relationships he is pursuing. Thus, from this perspective, political activism doesn't make sense.

The social reasons are based on the assumption that whatever way we turn it, optimal sexual opportunities are in scarce supply. There is a biological component to this. Even the best sex becomes boring, if it repeated over and over. The scarcity of optimal sex is part of the biological program of all higher forms of life.

For a man for whom less than 5 percent of all females qualify, for esthetic reasons, as sexual partners, the competitive pressure is enormous. Furthermore, it is a required necessity that these 5 percent are not shared on a large scale with other men, as this would make them drop out of the top 5 percent ranking. If he wants to appropriate even just 5 persons per year of this qualified 5 percent, this means that out of 100 men, 99 get a worse supply of sexual opportunities than the cited man.

In such a situation, nothing better could happen to the cited man than 99 percent of all other men just dropping dead.

And how, in such a situation, should a political agenda work that professes to aim to provide better sexual opportunities for all. Any male participant in such a movement would grab for himself any qualified sexual opportunity that presents itself.

It's not that a sexual agenda would not have the potential to mobilize widespread support. Actually, sexual topics are very well suited to build a political movement. But it would never be an agenda of affording all (which mostly are others) better sex.

A sexual agenda that promises to restrict sexual opportunities of those who are privileged to have them, not one of affording them, is what easily finds wide appeal... among those who can't have them themselves.

That is why social orders that appeal for wide consent (democracies, that is) have an inherent tendency to restrict sexual liberties. Such anti-sexual agendas (often enough, they are specifically designed to have mass appeal) come under various disguises.

For example, they promise a moral revolution, or promise to stop moral decay where it doesn't exist. Or a moral restoration where the morals that are to be restored never existed. Religious revivals, or the rise of religious parties, especially in the Muslim world, are another indication. Most right-wing and racist movements have strong undertones of sexual hatred, too.

Because most of all people in any society are disadvantaged, any political agenda that instigates sexual jealousy towards a privileged minority, is bound to succeed. And when a targeted minority is not actually sexually privileged, the claims are easily made up, and they will certainly work to create a political movement.

Let's not forget that religious extremists are democratically elected in Iran, as they were in Algeria (where the military then stepped in). Hitler, of course, also was democratically elected, not least because he and his Stuermer associates focused on alleged sexual excesses of Jews.

Liberties so often are not the result of free elections, but rather have been imposed, either by enlightened rulers, or by the victors in wars, or colonial powers (for example in the Muslim world).

***

The above contemplations should be kept in mind, when other pages on this domain are viewed. Many of the articles here have not yet been removed, and they still reflect the idea that pro-sexual political activism ought to be pursued. In such articles, the analysis of existing conditions may be appropriate, but the appeal for pro-sexual activism is outdated. The reader should be aware that on this aspect, the author has changed his opinion.