On Love

By Alraune

The definition of “Love” is one which has escaped human endeavor throughout the ages, but that does not mean it has not been attempted and, in some instances, very closely arrived at. It is my intention here to offer my own attempt at defining “Love,” if I may be afforded the opportunity by the dear reader.

First, it should be noted that “Love” is not an objective thing which can be accurately and adequately defined for all conscious entities, nor is it a purely subjective thing which can hold any definition, but it is much more of an interjective thing, meaning it by definition involves some sort of relationship.

I therefore propose that the definition of “Love” requires the inclusion of relationship; otherwise, it cannot and is not what we all know to be Love. 'Tis true one can love their self or love another without return, but a relationship of some sort, either superficial or between “me” and “I” must necessarily be in order to have any sort of Love.

I further propose that “Love” requires the recognition, acceptance, and desire for the unique characteristics of that other with which a relationship is being shared, and that varying degrees of Love can and do exist in direct correlation with the amount of recognition, acceptance, and desire entered into.

Finally, I propose that there is a difference between “loving” and “being loved.” The former is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire for another from the first person perspective while the latter is the degree of recognition, acceptance, and desire being felt by one in the first person perspective. “Love” is then, the condition of feeling “Love” for another (loving), or feeling “Love” from another (being loved), or being in-love (the reciprocal relationship of loving and being loved).

For the layman then, “Love” is what is experienced with someone whom you can be your true and naked self around, and who can be their true and naked self around you, and you both recognize, accept, and desire one another for exactly what you are individually and together.

True Love is the freedom to enter into a relationship without fear or reservation concerning who you are, and with no fear or reservation concerning who the other is, but rather acceptance and desire for one another.

This is the best definition for “Love” I have arrived at to-date, and I do not think it can be surpassed by me in any other way other than poetry and art and expression, for “Love” is a form of expression as well as feeling.

How else could I define “Love?”

Jennelle

I explode with joy and excitement,
I burst into flame,
I thirst to be me in you,
For you to be in me,
All fades and is nothing,
We are clarity and life,
I am alive, I am me!

You have become my breath,
I suck you in,
I soak you up,
You soak me up,
I am full and happy,
We are complete and one,
You are alive, I see!

You melt with my desire,
I consume you,
I experience you,
You experience me,
You are safe and warm,
We are united in being,
We are alive, we feel!

An ocean washes in,
I am calm in you,
You rage in me,
Our emotions stir,
We flow and ebb,
We bath in our delight,
We share total existence!

There is nothing else now,
Time ceases to exist,
Space is meaningless,
Life is purposeful,
We are, that we are,
All pain and sorrow fades,
Love has come, I awake!

It was all just a dream,
It was all just a dream.
We are not the dream,
We are the dreamers.

It's alright now,
The dream is over.
We have awoken in Paradise,
Lying beside one another.

The birds are singing,
Butterflies are everywhere.
The grass is soft,
The Sun is warm.

We frolic in the woods,
We laugh and sing.
We bathe in cool waters,
We share all things.

The Sun sets but we do not sleep,
We make love in the moonlight.
Our emotions rise into the sky,
In this place we find our being.

Sleep creeps in and we both grow scared,
Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!
Together we can overcome,
Our love is far too strong!

We drift off to sleep in each others' arms,
I am asleep, but you awaken.
You cover me with a blanket, and all your love.
You kiss me, I moan in delight.

The Sun rises and we both are roused,
You are still there, I am still there.
We are in love, we are one.
I hold you close to my chest.

We are not the dream,
We are the dreamers!

We were not the dream,
We are the dreamers!

Hold my hand! Hold my hand, my Love!
Hold me tight, hold me close.
Cover me with your love,
I long to awaken beside you.

Love has come.

True Human Sexual and Relational Behavior

Definition. “Desirable” — any number of subjective and deeply personal perceptions

True human sexual and relational behavior is much like is describe in classical texts about sexual evolution and such liberal and modern texts on sexual evolution as 'Sex at Dawn' by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá.

The woman wishes to be ejaculated within by as many “desirable” men as she possibly can within her fertility cycle, once she loses her fertility cycle she wishes to be ejaculated within only by “desirable” men which she trusts to be disease free, safe/loyal, and who are also fertile (she still hopes in technological society or supernatural salvation), although she will occasionally stray from that guideline if the male or female is extremely attractive (seeking 'pleasure'). Afterward, the major portion of her project becomes “self preservation” with the secondary hope of “help for her” along with a fertile and a “desirable” male.

Her “denial” stage is marked by the very real possibility of salvation and her realization of growing older, running out of time, and having become less biologically (and therefore instinctually) acceptable. She adapts and becomes more sexually “open” to compensate for her lack of “biological attraction” and becomes more sexually “liberal” At the same time the resourceful woman becomes more conscious of the end of things; and therefore the end of life, and becomes more spiritually “open” to love, and its many forms. She seeks to “give birth” through other means and seeks out “relationships” as a means to continue to “give birth.”

Eventually she accepts her circumstance in life and she desires someone she feels the most satisfaction and comfort in to be someone to die with or die loving. Her entire sexual, relational, and sexual moral belief system is eventually discovered as being based upon and centered around “giving birth” and “seeking pleasure.” The woman becomes fully conscious of herself!

Meanwhile, the male action is completely different. First the man seeks the women most easily had, then he seeks out the women most “desirable”, and then he seeks out the most :fertile” and otherly pleasant. He does this constantly and consistently, in a cycle. The male is as equally concerned with pleasure as he is reproduction, if not more concerned for the former. His primary concern is “relief of stress” followed by “survival through reproduction.”

It must be understood that the male “emotional” outlook is much different from the female “emotional” outlook. Men do not necessarily at FIRST feel their survival in the feminine sense. It may be more about “personal NOW preservation” than “later preservation,” but this is the dominant masculine view (I am confident any study would prove).

At first, men will likely act more on “attraction” and “mere pleasure” than on any sort of attachment. Next, as they grow older they will act more on “relationships”, attraction, interaction, and united states, because they will realize that although their seed is still good, their “appearance” in comparison to other young and fit men becomes increasingly difficult to counter-display. Although they “hold” the part, they no longer “look the part.” By doing this older men find a way to adapt to the still available women and find the “attraction” and “mere pleasure” which drove them and still drives them to begin with.

The infertile women find pleasure in their many available options, and the elder or infertile men, then find the same. Inevitably, both genders, if given sufficient thought, end up with bisexual and polyamorous tendencies due to life experience and the wisdom gained from it.

Hypothesis On Magick

Ordinarily and almost across the board, in Western society, many things chalked up to “magick” are dismissed as coincidence and/or psychological anomalies. I have pondered this thought and held this thought for many many years (mostly due to indoctrination in the Western education system), but I no longer think it may be true.

I base my conclusions largely on experience, but also upon logic. I do not think “magick” is something which can be, or is meant to be, understood via the traditional Western understanding of knowledge, but more upon experience and the knowledge gained through 'relationship.'

Most Western thinkers, especially psychologists and philosophers, would agree that there is something to be said for “we create our own reality”, but they would emphatically state this is minimal and possibly no more than 25% of true and objective reality, with most stating the percentage of reality created by subjective “opinion” is much less and therefore much less important. They would even go one step farther and state that those who believe otherwise must be either confused/mistaken or mentally-ill/insane. They base this upon their subjective opinion that materialism/physicalism as an axiom underlying their worldview is 100% correct – at least once you boil the “logic” down.

As I approach age forty and read, learn more, and experience more, as well as think more, I tend to be nagged to death by my own conscience to disagree and reevaluate the underlying axioms of this worldview.

“If” panpsychism is, or could be, true, “if” positive thought is recognized as a force within psychology, “if” modern physics admits the place of the observer, “if” parapsychologists have empirical evidence of psychic phenomena, and “if”various philosophers of consciousness (such as Christian de Quincy and/or Galon Strawson) could be correct in their assessments, then my personal subjective experience combined with rational analysis could very well be a heavy indication of something―another force—much more powerful than is, and has ever been, recognized by modern scientific thought.

In other words, I look back on various “experiences” and I cannot logically assign them to coincidence or any “natural” occurrence. Take the wonder and excitement of my teenage years for example – that which occurred was not chance, but much too perfect. I had a great early life, and I expect to have a much greater life as I go!

Too often I got what I placed my “intention” into, not just in my teenage years, but beyond – even now. These things were too often against chance occurrence, in my mind. How could I by chance “find beer” on many occasions as an underage teen deeply desiring such, be with two women or more at once, have the women I desire, experience the things I longed for, have the paranormal experiences I was excited to have, experience mystical/magical/paranormal phenomena, go through the things I thought “normal” occurrences in life, and generally get exactly what I either expected or longed for including those things indoctrinated and drilled into my head as “normal?”

This is too much for me. I cannot chalk this up to chance occurrence – I somehow made it happen. You would not understand unless you experienced it and been through it. Somehow, someway, I can, we all can, make a large portion of our reality despite the supposed objective reality – it has to be! Subjective “intention” must account for 50% or more of objective reality – it just seems such to me when I view it in light of experience.

The only other option is that what is “thought” to be uncommon is actually common, which means someone or something is screwing with us all, which, in my mind, is just as “crazy” as my hypothesis. Either “magick” is true, or someone knows the probabilities and possibilities of objective reality and they are using them to control us. Which do you believe, because it can only be those two – in my estimation. Something is going on “experientially” which requires explanation beyond the normal.

I cannot really explain my experienced reality, but I can state that when I look back it could not be mere chance. Somehow I made (or something listening to me or monitoring my experience made) a large portion of my reality, if not all of it, occur – this is the true definition of magic or the supernatural in most minds.

Just look! Tally it up! Take the good and the bad, evaluate it against what you desired, throw in a few other subjective things and LOOK! Something is going on!!! Either someone is working with you or against you – we all see it. Well, what if it is largely “you”?

This is my hypothesis on “magick” - we actually create a very large portion of our reality, but not necessarily all alone. Objective reality is merely an agreed upon subjective reality, but maybe and perhaps not even as deeply as we believe. Maybe it is more like 75% subjective and 25% objective makes reality or more towards the subjective, or at the very least 50/50? What “if?” There are plenty of experiential reasons to “know” this – we just lack understanding.

We do make our reality, but sometimes it takes time – which is maybe something else to consider, and perhaps something that remains taught but is entirely forgotten? There is certainly something going on and it should not be denied, but explored. Somehow we are actually “making” reality and not by the traditional scientific worldview in this present day and age. Something “larger” is going on! I feel it in the depths of my being – I “know” it.

Forget about what I said, just take your life and calculate “chance” against your own thoughts and “intentions” — see what YOU think. Experience tells me magick, to some degree or another, is true. It is completely obvious to me, especially after all these years of pondering and searching for “logical' evidence to potentially support what seems obvious. What can be more “logical” than searching for supporting evidence for what you know to be obvious, especially if you understand logic and axioms? You will be told it is wrong, but in actuality if you look at the core of what makes the scientific method you will KNOW the axioms and/or “assumptions” are the true reality of your thought-processes! You need only demonstrate them, and not necessarily consistently, if you agree one can change their mind and the “observer” is key.

The knowledge of the truth of “magick” is experiential, and that is how and the only way in which the truth of “magick” can ever be understood by the wise man or woman. “Magick” is experiential “knowledge”, which is another true form of knowledge and perhaps the only one.

Peace,

Alraune

Youtube, Digital Music, and the Next New Sound

Allow me to make a prediction... The next big thing in the music world is going to be an underground music movement, much like Punk but probably more in-line with rap/metal (a sound that crosses cultural barriers) which is grassroots and utilizes video and song as a means to promote individual liberty and the knowledge (aka 'philosophical underpinnings') necessary to truly understand it in a presentable, exciting, and instinctual manner. In short, this is precisely what the masses of youth desire and need.

It will be the movement of the 2010s, reaching into the 2020s, and likely will mirror much of the sixties and seventies of the twentieth century. Additionally, it will usher in a 'customized' fashion industry through the premise of individualism and artistic expression, and may even include the ability to exchange such artistic expression with those whom one desires to have a relationship (something like pins and patches, stickers, and similar items which can be customized yet exchanged or easily discarded as one's opinions evolve).

It is going to be something entirely unique, individualistic, yet communal. It will likely include respect and conscious reverence for the environment, yet emphasize individual liberty and the acquisition of knowledge which is characteristic of the Information Age. I base all of these conclusions on what I see, what is, and my personal ability to see the greater picture.

This music, of which this article is primary concerned, will be a new yet not entirely a new sound – its ability to cross cultural barriers will be much more important than its “newness.” It will be accompanied by videos packed with useful knowledge and information, even educational, yet which provide entertainment and visual instinctual fulfillment. Even live concerts will include this visual appeal and most 'followers' will be as interested, if not more interested, in the visual aspects of the music as they are in the music itself.

In other words, the new sound, or more appropriately 'experience', will be a holistic musical approach. Musicians in live performance may even go so far as to include smells as well as visual and audio stimulation in their performance, though this is the farthest stretch of my own imagination. By far the holistic sights and sounds will be the main attractions, which can be done on many levels not inclusive of the live performance.

The useful knowledge gleaned from the video along with the enchantment of the audio performance will be the key factor, without a doubt.

This new sound, indeed new experience, will likely have philosophical underpinnings (probably much along the lines of such geniuses as Christian de Quincy and Alfred Whitehead) and will appear to the older generations as much more like a cultural revolution than a musical movement; indeed, most truly influential music movements have a philosophical core and sociological objective.

The movement will probably evoke such thoughts as those held by the influential philosopher Jacques Ellul, but with a potential and offered solution which utilizes technology while promoting basic humanity, individualism, sustainability and ecological conscience. Indeed, it will be something entirely different and entirely fresh and youthful.

This catalyst of individualism with a communal consciousness will undoubtedly also offer a new sexual revolution – perhaps that of polyamory and a new understanding of human sexuality and identity. It is going to change society, perhaps globally, and alter perceptions. It will be the first truly global, yet grassroots movement, driven by the language of music and visual art. It is going to be an exciting time – Woodstock times a thousand. This is my prediction...

The State or “the man” will no longer be the Enemy, but the entire 'Old World Order' and “System' itself. Anything which stands in the way of individualism and one's individual position within the communal and holistic cosmopolitan sphere will be deemed wholly inadequate and backwards.

Prescription drugs will be frowned upon but not entirely condemned and holistic approaches will take presidence. Formally outlawed yet holistic drugs will become the “in” thing, and all things natural BEFORE man-made will be the overarching cry! “Nature” will be a big term, but with the inclusion of useful and holistically thoughtful technology.

The world is about to be turned upside down and undergo a major revolution due, for the most part, to the Information Age and the human influence upon it. Individualist hackers and computer geeks will become viewed as champions of freedom, religious and traditional political extremists will be labeled conformists and non-individualist thinkers as well as eco-terrorists, and those who embrace the 'Old World Order' will generally feel the same effects.

Certainly, governments will try to ride the tide, join and influence the movement, but it will be so diverse, so quickly, and so supported by lone wolves of the Digital Age that completely fooling the masses will be next to impossible. No government authority of the 'Old Order' will succeed in altering the course, simply because the seeds of individual liberty and how to recognize if one has such have already been planted as of this writing. Old methods of mass control will be practically useless for the mere reason that “thinking for oneself” will be the global call-to-duty.

This is the coming revolution, and as always, it will begin with art – the universal and unnameable expression. It will be the greatest moment in human history, effectively dissolving the remnants of Aristocracy and dismantling the entire system on which we are currently founded. It will not turn out as globalists and their think-tanks have thought, for humanity and the human individual, especially the mass of them as individuals, is much stronger and wiser than any model could ever predict.

I am optimistic about the future and I await the “new sound.”

There will be a rejection of nearly every supposedly necessary pillar of civilization in an effort to rewrite the entire formula. It will be an entirely new look at how things “can be” and how they “must be.” And it will start via the mass education of individuals about such things through the mass dissemination of music combined with visual art and practical knowledge via the means available in the Information Age – a movement which could never be stopped once started (and it is already beginning).

It is going to be an interesting time with many facets, especially as the 'Old World Rulers' attempt to compensate and maintain control or evoke small progressive steps and hatch multi-generational plans to regain control.

To be honest, I do not think the 'Old World rulers' and their “thinkers” understand the can-of-worms they have opened in allowing the Digital and Information Age to come into being in their arrogant hopes for complete and total domination, although some may have seen it coming and tried to warn their comrades of such. The individual human spirit is a powerful thing, and when allowed to work individually yet in mass it is unstoppable. We have already passed the precipice for controlling what is already unfolding and it will now be. Even a complete and total lock-down or gradual usurpation is doomed to failure – the Pandora's box of individual liberty and communal spirit has been opened and it cannot be closed. Perhaps, one may suppose, great men and women already knew this and allowed and encouraged it to happen?

Blessings and happy future,

Alraune

In Defense of Bisexuality

In Defense of Bisexuality & Why It is a Natural and Socially Beneficial Sexual Orientation

It is true that one might utilize the argument that only members of opposite genders may reproduce in a natural manner, and the argument can be made that this is the sole purpose of sexual activity, but to do so means that one must consider there to be no other purpose for sexual activity and that any means of sexual activity outside of that very small exception are unnatural in themselves. Kissing, caressing, licking, and other forms of sexual affection, as well as masturbation, oral and anal sex would all have to be considered unnatural sexual activities if one holds to this argument and philosophical position. Birth control would also have to be considered unnatural (including the ingestion of plants that naturally cause abortion), and a very extreme position would have to be taken to truly believe in and hold to this position on the nature of sexual activity.

I do not believe most reasonable people could truly take the aforementioned position on the nature and purpose of sexual activity, nor do I believe the evidence provided by Nature supports such a narrow viewpoint. In fact, nature shows us that kissing, caressing, many forms of sexual affection, masturbation, oral and anal sex are all wholly abundant and rampant throughout the animal kingdom, meaning they are both natural and normal forms of sexual expression and stimulation. Since this is so, it therefore follows, that Nature does not support the idea that sexual activity is merely for reproductive purposes. In fact, Nature appears to show that most sexual activity is initiated, guided, and driven by both the quest for self-pleasure and emotional and social interaction.

If Nature provides overwhelming evidence for various forms of sexual activity which cannot support and do not directly promote reproduction, then it logically follows that all forms of sexual activity are not designed or intended for such a purpose, but rather that some, indeed most forms of sexual activity, are designed and intended for non-reproductive purposes; and if they are intended for non-reproductive purposes, then the argument assuming that only sexual activity between members of opposite genders is natural and correct because of the necessity of both genders in reproduction becomes invalid and illogical. This is so because:

1. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than oral sex among members of opposite genders in that all the necessary components are there and the idea that all forms of oral sexual activity should take place between members of the opposite gender is merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Oral sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider oral sex itself to be.

2. Anal sex between two male members is no less natural than anal sex between a male and a female in that, once again, all the necessary components are there for the precise same sort of sexual activity, and the concept that all anal sexual activity should only take place between members of the opposite gender is, once again, merely a social construct or personal preference with no basis in nature or reality. Furthermore, anal sex between two females is no less natural than anal sex between a female and a male, where the female takes the active rather than passive role. Anal sex between members of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider anal sex itself to be.

3. Kissing, caressing, and showing forms of sexual affection to the same gender is no less natural than kissing, caressing, and the showing of sexual affection to a member of the opposite gender, in that all the necessary components for indirect sexual stimulation and affection are present and capable of fulfilling the exact same purpose. Hugging, licking, petting, or passionately kissing a member of the same gender is no less natural than one might consider those forms of sexual affection to be in the first place.

It seems obvious to me that many forms of sexual activity are natural and for various reasons, some of which are not supportive of the idea that sexual activity is meant for the sole purpose of reproduction. However, of all forms of sexual activity, I do believe that the case can be made that anal sex is unnatural (in all cases) in that it almost always does immediate damage to the recipient, but this position can only be taken if one has concluded that immediate harm to the self is never a natural and acceptable condition of both self pleasure and social as well as emotional interaction. Such an argument could only be helped by evidence for permanent damage caused by either all forms or certain forms of anal sex. That is it! In my mind there is no other argument which could ever be leveled against any form of sexual activity which makes any logical sense other than that just mentioned concerning sodomy.

Personally, I believe sodomy and other forms of anal sex to be natural forms of sexual expression, but unfortunately I must admit I do not have any solid arguments for this sort of reasoning, at this time, at least in the form of arguments involving Nature.

I believe the evidence for heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual activity in Nature is overwhelming and very prevalent. All three forms of sexual activity are rampant everywhere within Nature and are therefore natural; however, I do not believe this is where the crux of the debate lies – it is actually a moral and social issue, which makes it not a debate as to whether or not certain forms of sexual activity and orientation are natural, but whether or not they are good for both society and the spiritual nature of humankind.

Perhaps the greatest argument against homosexuality (not necessarily bisexuality) is that it is a form of sexual activity which is harmful to the social organism, in that it does not promote or provide reproduction, which is essential to the continued evolution of a society. Fortunately, I do not need to confront this issue, as a true bisexual sexual orientation does not harm society in any way; in fact, the argument can be made, and will be made by me, that bisexuality is more helpful to society than either strict heterosexuality or strict homosexuality.

Bisexuality promotes both reproduction and birth control, which are both essential to an efficient and workable society. Bisexuality promotes birth control merely because it does not, by nature, view all sexual activity as for the sole purpose of reproduction, and it promotes reproduction because it certainly does not exclude the natural sexual intercourse of both genders which enables reproduction. In other words, true bisexuality does the very best and most efficient job for not only the individual (it provides the greatest options for sexual pleasure) but also the society (it provides and promotes the dual need of growth and control of growth within a society). In my mind, bisexuality is clearly the best option for any society and the greatest form of individual sexual expression provided by nature.

Furthermore, a true bisexuality is, it seems to me, the most beneficial means of social and emotional interaction, in that it allows for the greatest possible human expression and emotional interaction within any society, which can only promote and drive cohesion and commitment. What sort of evidences can be leveled against the natural existence of bisexual activity and orientation, or against the social utility and practicality of bisexuality? Much more could be said under either nature or society against strict heterosexuality or homosexuality than could ever be said of bisexuality. From the greatest logical viewpoint as well as very human and emotional viewpoint, bisexuality provides the greatest and most efficient means for all things which sexual expression and sexual necessity demand on both the natural and societal levels.

Bisexual expression promotes the greatest form of human expression in love and interaction, it aids in birth control, it promotes natural sexual behavior, it supports and promotes the natural drive for self replication, it provides the greatest spectrum of variation in experience and pleasure, it provides a great form of individual liberty and the expression thereof, it, by nature, promotes the concept of polyamory and open relationships which are arguably the best form of relationship for over-all social unity and natural selection. It is, in my mind, clearly the most natural and socially beneficial form of sexual expression and interaction. That is not to say that if one feels they should be strictly heterosexual or homosexual that they are somehow wrong or inferior, but that bisexuality seems to make the most sense in all truly intellectual examinations concerning nature, society, and sexual orientation and expression.

To me, bisexuality is the norm, and all other forms of sexual expression and orientation are either personal norms or social constructs. I believe the evidence and logical arguments overwhelmingly support bisexuality among non androgynous species. In fact, the very existence of androgynous species seems to promote bisexuality in nature by itself!

Should a male choose to sexually please or interact with a male, or a female choose to do such with a female, or a male and female choose to do such with one another, the natural evidence as well as the societal evidence seem to indicate to me that all of these choices are equaly valid, natural, and beneficial; however, the restriction of these forms of sexual activity to a specific "rightness" may arguably be considered harmful to the individual, the preservation of nature, and the benefit of all societies. In other words, to say that only men belong with women, men with men or women with women, is to say that only certain "kinds" of the same species belong interacting with each other in certain ways. Such a world view is ridiculous and the heart of bigotry, prejudice, and racism.

Granted, there is a strong argument against interspecies sexual expression (for those who prefer extremist positions and who will make bisexuality into total pan-sexuality), and I do not deny this or even attempt to argue against such, but species specific bisexual activity and sexual diversity is an entirely different matter. There really is no good argument against species specific pan-sexual activity on either the natural or social level. Bisexuality, seems to me, very human, very natural, and very socially beneficial. To go beyond the species specific level is to go beyond the initial examination and invalidates any argument against bisexual behavior, as it no longer becomes merely a question of bisexual expression but interspecies expression, which is an entirely different argument. Likewise, raising concerns of age and consent is not specific to the argument, and sex with minors of the opposite gender is not normally considered a sexual orientation specific debate, so why should any form of bisexuality concerning minors be included in the debate of the best and most proper or natural form of sexual expression?

It seems to me, that if there is a natural and normal form of sexual orientation and a correct and beneficial form of social sexual expression and activity, then bisexuality is the most natural and logical fit. In other words, in my mind, everyone is and should be bisexual to one degree or another dependent upon their individual needs and preferences. No other form of sexual expression provides the optimum means for self-pleasure, self-preservation, social interaction, the fulfillment of social and individual needs, and the greatest spectrum for the adequate expression of human emotion and interaction.

I am bisexual and this is the basis of my argument in defense of myself and those like me. Bisexuality is as normal and natural as it gets, in my opinion, and I really don't think any truly intellectual arguments can ever disprove that fact. If a male or female wish to be true to themselves they should, in my opinion, embrace and commit to their bisexuality, even if they have a preference in gender for whatever psychological or biological reasons. In fact, for homosexuals or heterosexuals to say we (bisexuals) are confused is more assinine than saying we are confused in our breathing – such people deny reality, in my opinion. If anyone is more right, it is the bisexuals, but I do not say bisexuality is the only and right way – only that if one must be, it must logically and socially be at least equivalent.

Bisexuality makes natural sense and it makes social sense. It is the greatest form of human emotional expression and love for other humans. Bisexuality benefits both the individual and their society on many levels. The only obsticle to true bisexual expression is the concept of monogamy, and consequently, it may just be monogamy which makes certain people believe one must either be homosexual or heterosexual and not ever bisexual. However, I will leave this debate to a later discussion on the natural and social truth and benefits of polyamory and open-social relationships – one I hope to take up at a later date.

Bisexuality is natural in that it is a great expression given from one to another, regardless of gender, it seeks to provide great pleasure and emotional interaction to all for all, and it helps society to both evolve through reproduction, and stabilize due to non-reproductive sexual behaviors. It is really the best of both worlds – balanced, harmonious, and beneficial!

Furthermore, it seems to me that members of the opposite gender, unless severely mentally wrecked by distorted social norms, always find the sexual interaction between members of the same gender sexually appealing and arousing. I submit that this is so because it is not only natural for both genders to show bisexual sexual expressions, but because it is natural for both genders to be sexually aroused by bisexual activity – we find it both normal and appealing unless taught otherwise by society. Even supposedly homosexuals will find sexual expression between a male and a female arousing unless taught to think otherwise! Likewise, supposed heterosexuals will always find the homosexual behavior of at least the opposite gender sexually arousing unless indoctrinated to feel otherwise. Can a man who loves seeing two women in an act of sexual expression be considered truly heterosexual, or a woman witnessing two men in an act of sexual expression, who finds it appealing, be considered truly heterosexual? How could a true heterosexual find a homosexual act appealing? And what supposed heterosexual would not find a homosexual act of the opposite gender appealing without social standards telling them they should not? Furthermore, what supposed homosexual could witness a heterosexual act and not be aroused in some manner or form unless they were taught or told they should not find such appealing?

I could be wrong, which makes things all that much more complicated, and I apolgize if my incorrect analysis insults you, but this is simply how I see it, and it does not detract from the force of my arguments – there is a place for bisexuality.

There are many arguments against bisexuality from both heterosexuals snd homosexuals – why I do not know. It seems that they both fear something in admitting it is normal and natural; however, I feel it is the normal and natural function of myself, so I offer this defense and argument. I believe all men and women are inherently bisexual and should be. I believe we, all humans should accept and learn to live with our bisexuality, regardless of which gender, if any, we prefer. I believe bisexuality is extremely beneficial to all individuals and to the progress of society. I further believe that anyone who denies their bisexuality denies their own human nature, which is bad for Nature and society, and such an attitude should be quietly observed and of concern to others (as it is not natural). We should not deny the feelings of those who feel they are strictly heterosexual or homosexual, but we should fear those positions if a bigoted and prejudice spin is being promoted by those individuals.

I realize I am in the supposed minority, but I believe this is all social show and most believe as I do, especially since the natural evidence and logic falls in the favor of those who think like me. So I present this argument here in the hopes that it will be spread forth either in its eintirety or in various personal forms. I give permission this instant for anyone to use this article in its entirety for whatever purpose or argument they choose, especially those who feel as I do and who wish to promote the validity of bisexuality!

I love both males and females equally, and I do not think this wrong, abnormal, or socially destructive. I think sexual expression to both men and women is moral and right, and I see no good argument against it. I believe we should all embrace our bisexuality, express it, and promote it. I think all social concepts against bisexuality or in thinking that a male is less manly or a female is less womanly because they practice bisexual behavior is insane, illogical, and bad for society and the ultimate preservation of nature.

Bisexuality is true human sexuality and I promote and support it.

The Natural Rights of All

These are the natural rights of all living things:

1. All conscious beings are born with an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and any culture/society/civilization which attempts to hinder this beyond natural bounds is not only regressive, but criminal and terroristic in nature.

2. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to the free access, foraging, and harvesting of organic food for the sustainment, growth, nutrition and health of their individual mind and body. If a society must take possession of land in order to acquire what it deems as “progress” it does not have a right to do so in such a way that all living creatures may not exercise their natural right to such free access and use of organic medicines and foods. Furthermore, such activities of “progress” have a moral and ecological duty to give back to the Earth and all of its inhabitants a greater or equal share of free resources than what it took to acquire “progress”, or such activities may not be considered, by any right, to be a form of “progress”, but rather are and should be deemed theft and rape.

3. All living creatures have a natural right to hunt, fish, and/or harness other life forms, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence in such an unregulated manner as to allow the full sustainment of their individual livelihood in a free and unhindered manner. If a society/culture/civilization attempts to regulate this to the point where such cannot be done freely both inside and outside of society and/or in accordance with nature it amounts to regress of nature and is the equivalent of rape and theft.

4. All living creatures, capable by their very nature and existence, of acquiring and storing food and water for individual use in a natural manner which accords with their natural existance, within and for a definitive time frame in accordance with natural cycles in which such is plainly and absolutely necessary is entitled to do so, by nature, and any hinderance and attempt to control such a right is unnatural, anti-life, and pro-authoritarian.

5. All living creatures, by virtue of their nature and existence, have a natural right to free access and use of freshwater and saltwater resources for the purposes of self-sustainment, nutrition, hygiene, and medicinal application.

6. All living creatures, regardless of gender, but in accordance with natural processes, have the natural right to uncontrolled reproduction and/or the natural means of birth control and reproduction which are available by means of nature up to the point of actual birth.

7. All living creatures have a right to acquire, build, and utlilize natural means of shelter and warmth, according to their capability, without social/cultural/civil influence so long as such means are not a voluntary part of the society/culture/civilzation (meaning the individual being can opt entirely out if they so choose and are capable of such a choice). If such cannot be done without risk to society/culture/civilization, by virtue of intellect, the society/culture/civilization must be considered inferior, unadaptable, and flawed, as a superior form of existence should always be capable of existing without controlling or tampering with the supposed inferiority of a lesser state of existence. How can one claim "progress" if they must control (beyond their own individual and direct influence) what nature already declared favorable and evolved in accordance with local and natural ecological standards as a whole?

8. All living creatures have a natural right, by their very nature and existence, to the total, complete, and unrestricted freedom of movement in accordance with their natural abilities and knowledge, and no society/culture/civilization has a right to restrict such movement in members who have not volunteered to relinquish it.

9. All living creatures, especially those who require it, have a natural right to free and unhindered access to sunlight in accordance with nature and natural phenomena.

10. All living creatures have a natural right, in accordance with their very nature and existence, to the free use and access of natural and local resources, in accordance with their current individual needs, without hinderance, so long as such living creatures have not volunteered to give up such rights on behalf of a society/culture/civlization (meaning they can freely opt out). If any society/culture/civilization feels the need to hinder such access to involuntary members, such a society/culture/civlization is clearly inferior to the natural process and should be considered totalitarian and clearly flawed in character, outlook, and initiative.

11. All living creatures have a right, by virtue and in accordance with their nature and existence, to free and mutual association. Attempting to control the associations of any creature is an attempt to control that very creature, and amounts to ecological, individual, and social "regress" not "progress".

12. All living creatures, by virtue of the realization and knowledge of self-identity inherent in humans, have a right to their own body and mind. Furthermore, if we are to expect recognition and respect for the guidance of our own vessel we should do the same for all others by virtue of the same reasoning.

13. All living creatures, by their very nature and existance, have a natural right to defend all the rights which they deem existent in whatever manner they are capable of doing in accordance with their own individual nature and through their own individual actions.

14. All living creatures, through free association, have a natural right, in accordance with their individual means and existence, to choose to participate in or not participate in a human-made and manufactured society/culture/civilization, and not to be unnaturally hindered or punished for such a free decision.

15. All living creatures, in accordance with their nature and existence, have a right to free expression, free protest, free thought, and free belief by very nature of their ability to do or have such.

16. All living creatures have a natural right to legislate their own constitution and to reap the pleasures or suffer the consequences of the decisions they make in accordance with their core beliefs and principles.

This is by no means a comprehensive list of natural rights, but a list which is fair, level-headed and aware of natural phenomena as well as man's respective place in the environment. In this list a 'right' is defined as that which comes from nature and does not require social or political influence in order to sustain it as a right.