Dance Clubs are the Best

 Dance Clubs are the best kind of institution available in modern capitalist and alienated society.

In a Club the institutional goal is to get everyone dancing.  In a Bar the institutional goal is to keep everyone drinking by making excuses for not dancing.  Therefore clubs bring people together, and dancing brings people often of different sex as close together as they can be within organizations in the context of modern society.

Dance clubs represent the closest thing available to sex positivity.  Every other aspect of modern society is sex negative.  Anything you have to pay for, is limited on that basis and in principle (although the paying may make things available which otherwise would not be).

 While not exactly sex, Dancing is coordinated activity, often close and tactile, among or within people sexually attractive to one another.  It is about as close as anything can get to being like sex without actually being sex.

Asians have long believed there is a transfer of energy when men and women touch each other, which is necessary for both to survive.

In principle sex clubs could be even more sex positive as they are actually sex, instead of dancing.   But sex is complicated, possibly too much so for any club in principle, certainly within the context of modern sex negative society.  All modern sexual prohibitions work against it.

Sex in modern sex negative society is basically managed by faith organizations, of which the classic example is a church (or synagogue temple or mosque).

These organizations act as the gatekeepers for socially proscribed monogamous sexual relationships.  A monogamous partner must be a soulmate having shared values if not ideas.

Modern society relies on a limited variety of sets of values roughly consistent with the powers that be.

Therefore there are a variety of faith organizations, but still limited to an area of acceptable opinion.

The net effect of this is to divide the pools of available partners to zero for the less desired sets of values, the radical left, and increase mating to the maximum for those most easily used and manipulated, conservative Christians.  An ever growing fascist right and ever shrinking left is virtually guaranteed.

The pre-civilizational form is not so hierarchical and top down directed for the benefit of the hierarchy which is in the suppression of free thinking competitors to its dominance.

The pre-civilizational form, hybrid matriarchy, is bottom up, from each woman and group of women.

Sex positivity results from these for bonding and cooptation of men and their peculiar resources (such as in the capture of animals for meat, women providing basically everything else).

But in modern society, men as such have nothing unique to offer women.  Even the insemination can be purchased.

Modern society therefore breaks the natural bonding (human sex evolved to serve bonding more than reproduction, as a higher order of reproduction which is systemically limited) between men and women and replaces it with a form more suitable to hierarchical control, ultimately for the benefit of the controlling power which nowadays derives from capital ownership.

Mamallian biology in general and human biology in particular leads to the situation where the males are seekers and the females are resistors, since the eggs are in short supply and the sperm unlimited.  The eggs therefore have more value, the sperm are comparatively valueless.  Females in this fundamentality have the upper hand in sexual reproduction, and if they have nothing in particular to gain from males, sex negativity will result.  Far less sex than is desirable for either male or female.  Females are the ultimate power, but ameliorated by various means, which ultimately relate to a means of female selectivity.

There are many 'solutions' to this 'problem.'  One is to have big domineering males who physically control females, typically groups of females, while weaker males are cut out.  That is the system of the Great Apes.  For the females it's desirable to have a powerful male to keep other males from trying to cut in, and therefore selecting the most powerful progeny for themselves.

Another is to have sex after a huge fight, as when female cats give the male cat a fight of it's lifetime before permitting insemination.  Thereby selecting the hardest fighting male cat as the fittest.

In prehistoric times, the bottom up combination of resources and abilities led to sex positivity stemming from differential resources and needs.  Men were biologically better suited to hunting animals and warfare.  For those needs they were coopted by groups of women, and bonded to them with sex.

From just after the dawn of agricultural civilization, patriarchal societies emerged.  These controlled everything, including sexuality, from the top down.

For the longest time, this top down direction favored the widespread and massive production of excess males for fighting wars, and also the 'attachment' to the continuation of society that each male has which comes from having his own wife and children.

Toward these ends, women's resources were defined by traditional roles and practices instead of fundamental resources as in earlier times.  Different societies defined these differently, but the common theme of monotheistic societies ultimately became monogamy with women as housewives.  This was most suitable for creating militaristic and ultimately imperial societies.  Men were satisfied and attached to the society in a way that made for larger and more faithful armies, which was the chief concern of the people on top (not necessarily always men).

As warfare was modernized, and having a giant economy and technology became more important than bodies, the powerful changed the formula.

Now, nearly all (previously it had been just some, who didn't necessarily consider it liberation) women were liberated to work outside the traditional to create an even larger economy more supportive of high tech warfare.

Such liberated women have no need for men individually.

So now there is no force opposing the biological female tendency towards resistance of sex, other than conservative religion which pushes for greater membership through greater birthing.

Creative new solutions* are probably better at this point than going backwards to tradition or prehistory.  Although, certain changes to the existing sex negative culture of USA would obviously be helpful, including greater wage equality and general equity for women.  All working people should make income sufficient for a household of 3.  Nonworking women guaranteed income sufficient for a household including all their children (we used to have AFDC...that was a great amelioration).  Hours should be reduced to no more than 32 per week with the greatest employee-based flexibility in scheduling possible with guaranteed vacations and sick leave.  National Healthcare.  Free College Education.  Ubiquitously legal abortion.  All these changes would foster greater love and freedom.  Some have long been available in European countries, which apparently care a bit more about love than USA.

But Dance Clubs are the best we have now.  They are the closest thing we have to traditional roles and prehistory in bringing people of different sexes together.  And meeting fundamental human needs like being close to, coordinating moves with, and touching other sexes, without which we feel ever more isolated and alienated from our true selves.

Dancing itself comes from prehistory.  It was how our earliest ancestors brought the sexes together at first even back then.

Dance clubs have been one of the best things in my life, however because I am far out from the pack in radical values and views of everything, it's unlikely to bring me to a suitable life partner.  That's been my experience.  Dancing is a necessary adjunct to living well, but not complete social fulfillment, because of views and values differences.  Only someone with more mainstream views is likely to find a soulmate in such a general sampling, even among the relatively cool people of dance.

And so, we're back to churches.  Nothing else has the correct structure in modern society for finding soulmates of similar values, when they're brought up in those values.  If you're non-religious like me, there are non-religious churches like Unitarian Universalist and Quaker, and some others whose religiosity is vastly exceeded by their social grace (though I'd beware of getting too close to those committed to anti-abortion and other social injustice including Israel).  As I've written before, little can compete with how churches bring a broad swath of ages together, in at least the imagined simulcrum of shared values which are fairly all encompassing.  Political or ideological organizations tend not to have the size and 'all ages' quality that somehow makes churches work uniquely well.  They do not have the daily activities, circles, and so on.  All this church stuff can all become quite tiring, and there's no guarantee if you're barely social.  But if you keep with it, it seems to have the best results.

The limited, one sided, and often coercive sex positivity of religion is purely to producing offspring, rather than continuous bonding.  So it doesn't usually work every day, every week, etc, but perhaps once in a lifetime, and with incomplete results.  Modern people, with partners or not, may go years or decades without sex.  

So we're back to dancing.

Sex between people serves both bonding and pleasure.  It's essential that we get some sort of bonding (a category which includes handholds, hugs, and kisses) at least weekly to retain sanity.  Many times a day is best.

So bonding doesn't require sex, but sex can be one of the most powerful forms of bonding.  

And pleasure doesn't require sex either.  Dancing and exercise generally are associated with some pleasure.  (Dancing is is a similarly satisfying in general that I've often said to myself that good dancing is far better than mediocre sex.)

But one peculiarly singular and non-fungible form of pleasure is given by sexual orgasm(s).  These are a form of release unlike any other, and they also help release pent up fluids and cells.

So while bonding and pleasure in general takes many forms (sex being one of if not the best when it is really good but maybe replaceable by others in most ways) sexual release is always singular and must be dealt with.  This is why everyone must learn how to and frequently masturbate.  Other than those with harems or in sex clubs or primitive sex tribes, hardly anyone can get enough release from sex with other people.  Masturbation is required about once per week (once a day or two is better) and is helpful up to 3 times a day (beyond that it gets abusive), to retain bodily functioning and sanity.  Beyond 3 times per day suggests abnormality (or professional status).  These rates are what our bodies were evidently designed for (by evolutionary forces), frequent sexual release.  Prehistoric humans spent a lot of time laying with one another.  Civilization has largely pulled us apart except to meet its ends.

Powers-that-be use the general sexual starvation to run operations (like Epstein's) that provide sex in exchange for desired political action (such as support of Israel).  For the rest of us, we get all sorts of pseudo replacements, sold to fulfill what are essentially sexual desires.  The whole range of boy toys, for example, like cars, trucks, boats, planes, and rockets.  And girl toys, outfits, and styling as well as certain fiction books and movies.   The more the frustrated and pent-up desire, the more substitutes can be sold to (incompletely) fulfill it.

Lack-of-sex-and-masturbation famously drives priests and others to have sex with little boys.

Orgasm and release through sex or masturbation is simply essential as well as pleasurable.  Masturbation does not provide the bonding part, though that may be obtained through many other means.  Or you could say, masturbation is a kind of self-bonding, or self-love, and that's of course where it all starts.

This essay has been about the material basis of sexual alienation in western society (and US in particular) but there are other aspects of that alienation, including the quasi-religious and highly misandric Second Wave Feminism which was funded and advanced by US intelligence primarily to stymie the nascent peace and freedom movement by means of sexual division.  I have written much about that in previous posts, however it's interesting the founders were generally anti-abortion (as well as antiporn) and quite conservative such as Catharine A. MacKinnon.  "Antiporn" meant any picture of a fully clothed woman or even thought of a woman for purposes of masturbation were immoral and violence-inducing "objectification."  (One of my friends was exactly on this "thought of a woman" page.  One needed to have her permission to think of her during masturbation, and she wasn't giving it.)  Second Wave Feminism is extreme sexist fascism and sex negativity.  Individuals including Gloria Steinem are known to have been covert US intelligence agents.  Though "porn" won in court battles in the US in the 1980's (and lost elsewhere, including once libertine and now conservative vassal Sweden), and then proceeded to conquer the at-least-in-one-way-free world on the internet, the toxic legacy of the Second Wave lives on as a general mumble of sex negative words and memes, with periodic waves of trashing mostly gatekeepers for the left side  (sometimes right side) when they begin to step awry of ever changing imperially acceptable narratives, but the material basis of sexual alienation is ultimately more important than any set of mumbles.

(*Reinforcing the original automatic sexual division of resources, nowadays it is men who are presumed to be good with all sorts of technology, including motorized transport and electronic entertainment.  Though older guys might be presumed to know little about phones, apps, and such, only remember fondly the Basic interpreter of Commodore 64 and MSDOS.  Meanwhile, women know about clothing, makeup, and personal styling which men often don't believe they care much about.  I think divisions like this rise up naturally to build up something like the old need-for-relationships-with-men that meat-gathering used to provide.  So women have a need for men, though these things are more fungible than meat gathering.  You can choose just to trust salesmen about as much as any particular guy.  Once and awhile one finds a genuine woman audiophile or gearhead, and they're usually gay.  There's literature out there, and classes, anyone can learn about these things if they wished, including cars.  I used to get the car shop manuals, and do a lot of second guessing, then I realized the best policy seems to be to let the dealer do what they say it needs, otherwise something seems to break.)