Good Will Humping.

February 9, 2011 at 12:39 P.M. A telephone call was received from 749-000-4274 registered to "Name Unavailable" which is (probably) a state police station near Trenton, New Jersey. Paul Elias, "Feds Step Up [sic.] Kid Porn Arrests," The Record, February 6, 2011, p. A-7. (A number of those arrested in this conspiracy -- and other conspiracies since these arrests took place -- have been attorneys, police, and other officials in New Jersey.)

"It's eros in America."

The nice thing about being plagiarized is that one appreciates the many ways in which even written works can be misunderstood or not understood at all.

Ms. Flanagan, for example, offers a "conflicted" wringing of hands over the online "thesis" of what I take to be her near-contemporary Ms. Karen Owen: "... a comprehensive and often pornographic report on [Ms. Owen's] sexual encounters with 13 athletes, most of them lacrosse players." (p. 87.) ("Not One More Victim" and "Race, Sex, and Incarceration in America.")

Ms. Flanagan, presumably, as a well-brought-up and, ostensibly, an Irish Catholic young woman who has "moved on" from the strictures of a Church that forbids contraception and abortion -- who no doubt wishes to think of herself as up-to-date in her feminist sympathies -- is divided about whether she "approves" of this catastrophe for a young woman taking her feminist texts a bit too seriously.

Like most Americans reared in the age of political correctness it does not occur to this author to wonder whether it is for her or any of us to "approve" of others' sex lives.

Puritanism dies hard (as it were) in America.

We are a schizophrenic society concerning sex: puritanical in our public pronouncements; lewd in our culturally-mandated behavior. I cannot imagine how any woman avoids therapy under these conditions. Anita Bryant or Sarah Palin are options at one extreme whereas, at the other end of the spectrum, are Carmen Luvana or Lady Gaga. ("Not One More Victim.")

The second half of the twentieth century featured a slow process of liberation on the part of a majority of women discarding the confining strictures of pre-industrial societies concerning sexual mores together with the guilt and admonitions of dying religious institutions (as distinct from religions) regarding women's roles -- roles as citizens, wives, mothers, lovers or simply as persons.

The code that allowed men to be promiscuous while women retained virginity as the prize delivered pursuant to the "marriage contract" seemed not only unattractive but absurd.

Judgments attached to sexual "adventures" indulged in by women -- as distinct from men -- continued to differ sharply, displaying a double-standard women still cannot overcome.

Nowhere are these contradictions more obvious than in America's college campuses and in the adult, Disney-like fantasy of pornland USA. ("'The Stepford Wives': A Movie Review.")

Duke University, where Ms. Owen majored in (I am guessing) sociology or women's studies or English Lit, made Ms. Owen into something of a sad joke or alleged "resident slut" (I suspect that there are other sexually adventurous young persons on campus) for indulging in behavior that is probably not all that unusual for young men who are congratulated for their sexual success and academic failures.

The difference in attitudes results from Ms. Owen's discussion of her experiences publicly and unashamedly.

This is the true transgression in America's unwritten code of acceptable behavior for "nice" -- i.e., middle class, mostly white young women -- which must be punished, severely, if the system of HYPOCRISIES under which we live is to be kept in place.

Ms. Owen refused to pretend that she accepts the bullshit forced on young women concerning sex and power.

Analogously, New Jersey's talk of "ethics" is meant to distract observers from a shameful spectacle of disgusting criminality and abuse of children within a failed legal system. ("New Jersey's Feces-Covered Supreme Court" and "New Jersey's Failed Judiciary.")

Liberals will censor and suppress my writings because I am pointing out that they are no better than Republicans when it comes to intolerance of dissent. ("Skinny People Dressed in Black" then "Reinforcements in a Time of Need" and "Barack Obama and 'The New Yorker.'")

What is sad is not anything that Ms. Owen did (or said), but the inconsistent glorifications of the pig-like behavior of the junior Charlie Sheens thriving in Duke's frat-guy culture -- usually lionized athletes -- as contrasted with the vilification of Ms. Owen. Ms. Owen meets with the disapproval, even of Ms. Flanagan, as well as traditionalists quick to label Karen Owen a "slut."

Ms. Owen is only reporting on what most of us -- men or women at 18-to-21-years-of-age -- are likely to have done, or continue to do, and enjoy doing. I am quite happy to be a slut at fifty-one and beyond. Provided that all adult participants consent, freely, any kind of sex is not the state's business. I am sure George Clooney agrees with me on this issue. ("'The American': A Movie Review.")

Sexual-aggressiveness and -appetite are healthy and normal aspects of life that are cruelly encouraged in one sex and discouraged in the other. Explicit discussion of sexual experiences is anything but frowned upon in today's America, while honesty about our hypocrisies becomes unacceptable -- especially for feminist fundamentalists who take themselves and their views of what is permissible behavior as seriously as moral majoritarians do and who are exactly as intolerant (also just as stupid) as religious fundamentalists about human nature.

People need and like to have sex. This obvious point needs to be reinforced for some trendy feminists. Unwillingness to examine America's bullshit imposed on young people damages and hurts all of us.

I am not "approving" of Ms. Owen's conduct. It is not up to any of us to impose a scarlet letter on Ms. Owen. I am saying that she did nothing worse than what most young men at Duke did and do, and will continue to do, who are celebrated for their prowess even as Ms. Owen is insulted for her utterly normal sexuality.

Women insulting other women because of their respective life-style choices is the true defeat for feminism because it is success for the "divide-and-conquer" strategy of powerful forces aiming to control women's bodies and erotic lives.

Given what many politicians are trying to do to women's procreative options and abortion rights in Washington, D.C., do you really believe that the most pressing issue for feminists is how much sex particular women indulge in or whether women like porn?

Many women enjoy porn, by the way, some even like to have sex on Saturday night in more than the missionary position with the occasional "male-oriented" person. There is good and bad porn; good and bad sex; there are good and bad men and women. Life is complicated. We are not cartoons in a feminist ideological fantasy world. Erotica is often women's territory because sexual imagination and creativity are rarely the province of men. ("What you will ...")

"What is the 'boy word' for slut?"

A daughter asks her father this burning question in a recent film.

The father's answer should have been: "boy."

Duke University "comes across" (as it were) as a profoundly anti-intellectual school "where thoughtful students are overshadowed by ... voraciously sex-centered ones." (p. 88.)

Surely, these jockstrap-type guys are exactly the sort of men who become "successful" businessmen, politicians, lawyers, advertising executives and golf-afficionados perpetuating their values in every generation of Americans then codifying them into law ensuring that therapists in this "great country of ours" will never be at a loss for business. Bob Menendez? ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks.")

Most of these men will never realize their contradictions and absurdities.

All of us are sex-centered, Ms. Flanagan.

Ms. Flanagan's Catholicism and much-dreaded middle-class-niceness rears its ugly head, despite her efforts to keep the ideology of Bitch magazine and "J-Val's" strictures in check:

"The overwhelming sense one gets from the thesis is of a young woman who was desperate for human connection, and who had no idea how to obtain it." (p. 88.)

This is not only false it is ridiculous. Furthermore, the thought is derived from outdated television programs that the author believes to be irrelevant to her admonitions -- programs like Oprah's daily chats in the nineties "New Age" period or Dr. Phil's elevation of banalities to an art form.

Ms. Owen has been taught by her society that freedom and female power is about her sexual attractiveness to men.

Ms. Owen has also been taught that to enjoy her sexuality is to be a whore.

Hence, to be a "woman" is to be strongly sexual, like men, while hating sexuality and dreaming of home maintenance and Palmolive dishwashing liquid.

Allegedly, Ms. Owen is seeking to have casual sex without caring about her partners "in a warm and mature way." In fact, the idea that a woman can be strongly sexual -- not "like a man" but in her own way! -- seems not to occur to Ms. Flanagan. This may be the point of Ms. Owen's efforts. ("'Revolutionary Road': A Movie Review.")

Intense and varied sexual responses and experiences need not be combined with cruelty and indifference to lovers -- as it seems to be for many persons both male and female -- but can be exploratory, playful, romantic and creative expressions of a passionate personality.

Who is to decide what is acceptable for Ms. Owen? Feminists?

Like Ms. Owen's father, I believe that these decisions belong, exclusively, to the young woman in question and are for her to discuss, or refrain from mentioning, as she wishes.

Also, like all of us, it seems to me that Ms. Owen is allowed to make mistakes, or to experiment in order to make fascinating discoveries about her sexuality without being stigmatized by the feminist morals police.

To the extent that Ms. Owen's conduct seems reprehensible to feminists it is only because she appears to display exactly the behavior for which sexist society has prepared her. Ironically, alleged or self-professed feminists reinforce lessons of sexism when they stigmatize women's promiscuous behavior as "sad" or "deplorable" attempts to earn affection rather than efforts to own her sexuality on the part of Ms. Owen who is obviously the true feminist. ("A Doll's Aria.")

This is what I call a "no-win" situation for young women that is made worse by so-called feminist condemnations.

Ms. Owen is reinterpreting her society's strictures to create her freedom on her own terms, if necessary, against these nearly overwhelming obstacles and repressions.

I admire and respect Ms. Owen's brave efforts.

I do not judge my daughter's decisions concerning sexual-orientation, intimacy, friendships or political opinions as long as they are her choices. Whatever decisions my daughter makes concerning these matters -- regardless of my opinion -- I support. My love for that young woman is unconditional and forever.

I do not require any woman -- or anyone -- to discuss matters pertaining to private life unless he/she chooses to do so except for public officials and judges who are hypocrites about such matters and deserve what they get.

If you will judge the love-life of others and pontificate about "family values" try not to let me know about your mistresses and other kinky habits. ("Senator Bob, the Babe, and the Big Bucks" and "Does Senator Menendez Have Mafia Friends?" and "Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "Menendez Consorts With Underage Prostitutes.")

Again, like Ms. Owen's father, I am sure that the young woman's sex-life and expressions concerning that sex-life are hers (as is her body) and none of your business. ("Oh, to be in India" and "Richard and I.")

Do not impose yet more guilt and repressions on this young woman who -- like most young women in America -- already has a lot to deal with by the time she gets to college:

"The notion that Karen Owen is good at getting the guy, that she represents something awesome for the future of feminism, is an assertion that cannot withstand [sic.] a careful reading of the actual Power Point, a package that -- far more than Owen could ever have intended -- constitutes a story, one with a beginning, middle, and very sad end, and reveals her to be one of the most pitiable ["pitiful"?] women to emerge on the cultural scene in quite a while. Her assignations are arranged chronologically in the thesis, and in the arc of experience that led her to go from Subject 1 to Subject 13, there is a very old story about women, desire, expectation, dashed hope, and (to use the old, apt, [sic.] word) ruin." (p. 92.)

This is, as they say at Vassar, a bunch of crap.

Relax, Ms. Owen. You have not been "ruined."

Rather than being "pitiable" you, Ms. Owen, are probably "enviable" to many of your critics: Anais Nin had more than 13 sexual partners on some mornings before lunch. Catherine the Great would have regarded you as an amateur at love. Theodosia, Empress of the Eastern Roman Empire and compiler of Justinian's Code, delighted in orgies seven days a week. These were smart, tough, accomplished immortal women who were also highly sexual. So what if people did not approve of their "life-styles." I call such disapproval "envy." I am sure that envy has a lot to do with the continuing insertions of "errors" in these writings. Ms. Kriko? ("No More Cover-Ups and Lies Chief Justice Rabner!" and "David Hume's Philosophical Romance.")

You are perfectly normal and healthy in your sexual interests Ms. Owen. With any luck you will enjoy a long life and many opportunities to engage in satisfying sexual encounters of whatever kind you desire, whether your sexual life pleases feminists, fundamentalists, Republicans, Democrats, Oprah, or Dr. Phil is irrelevant. Who cares? You have a good time and stay safe.

The Last Puritan.

Feminists, in both puritanical and libertarian versions of this ideology and/or philosophy, have continued to teach the contradictory lesson that a passionate sexual nature or healthy libido is "shameful" -- for women. ("Is clarity enough?" and "David Stove and the Intellectual Capacity of Women.")

Seeking male approval or desirability to the opposite sex is "regressive" or a sin against feminist versions of political correctness as opposed to lesbianism which is sanctioned, of course, except for men. As a male lesbian I take exception at this intolerance. ("Let's Hear it For the Boys.")

Feminist hostility arises because -- as "Natasha Vargas-Cooper" (Jewish anti-Latino person and lesbian from Trenton?) makes very clear -- men are "evil" and male sexuality is inherently exploitative or "violative of women." Ruth Davis Konigsberg? ("Deborah T. Poritz and Conduct Unbecoming to the Judiciary in New Jersey" and "Jennifer Velez is a 'Dyke Magnet!'" then "Trenton's Nasty Lesbian Love-Fest!" and "New Jersey's Mafia Prosecutors" and "Anne Milgram Does it Again.")

"Ms. Vargas-Cooper" -- a pseudonym used by a representative of the feminist thought police, lesbian division -- has thought fit to "plop" on the page this regrettable article in order to share with readers a powerful, original, and insightful observation:

" ... humans, after all, have been having sex -- weird, debased, and otherwise -- for quite a while." (p. 98.)

It takes a graduate degree from Yale University to achieve this level of historical awareness and understanding of the human condition. The sentence that follows the above-quoted observation not only contradicts the statement just made by Ms. Natasha Vargas-Cooper, but makes her original observation even more shallow:

"But pervasive hard-core porn has allowed many people to flirt [?] openly with practices that may have been desired, but had been deeply buried under social restraint." (p. 98.)

Really? How much history do you know, Natasha? Were people traditionally indulging in "weird" sex or weren't they? What was "buried under social restraint"? Is use of the word "flirt" a Freudian slip suggesting where your interests are "Natasha"?

Conventional morality for the masses has always been given "lip-service" (no pun intended) by elites who like a little nooky-nooky now and then outside the boundaries of "warm and mature sexuality." "Social restraint" has been an instrument of control for the masses which elites have always ignored: "We are the makers of manners, Kate."

Normality is boring. Aristocrats always recommend normality to the little people and middle class folks (like Natasha or Bob Menendez) while doing plenty of screwing themselves in all kinds of impermissible ways. Just ask those Victorians on country weekends what they were up to -- or David Cameron today why he feels a need to get "personal" with Lady Gaga. Or is it Kiera Knightly that Mr. Cameron "admires"? Both? Is Mr. Cameron interested in Ms. Gaga's policy views as opposed to viewing her policies? "Will the Prime Minister agree that Lady Gaga has undue influence on British governmental policies?"

We are indeed "stuck in a bad romance."

There is public morality (hypocrisy) and private morality (lots of sex) Natasha.

Only in America -- whose contradictions and absurdities are beyond even my ability to satirize -- is Puritanism in the form of P.C. "niceness" now a dominant ideology. This is an excellent moment for more insertions of "errors" Senator Menendez. ("Is Senator Bob 'For' Human Rights?")

We are creating the opposite of what feminists must desire for young women. Rather than a protective and nurturing environment that allows women to accept (or celebrate) their sexuality we are teaching women to demean themselves and then to feel guilty about it. The porn industry merely reflects a new awareness of post-Kinsey sexual options and a much healthier appreciation of NORMAL sexual freedoms for young women. Shame on you, Ms. Kriko.

" ... now that sex has taken the place of most other games (how many young people today learn bridge?), creating and packaging pornography has become big business, and though the high courts of the new American Empire cannot be said to be very happy about this state of affairs, they tend to agree that freedom of expression is as essential to our national life as freedom of meaningful political action is not. Also, despite our governors' paternalistic bias, there are signs that they are becoming less intolerant in sexual matters. This would be a good thing if one did not suspect that they may regard sex as our bread and circuses, a means of keeping us off the political streets, and in bed out of mischief. If this is so, we may yet observe [the president] in his mad search for consensus settling for the consensual."

Gore Vidal, "On Pornography," in Sex, Death and Money (New York: Ballantine, 1973), pp. 2-3.

I have news for you Natasha: Paris in the late nineteenth century and early twenties of the twentieth century; Havana in the fifties; ancient Rome; New York in the seventies -- all had much more sex than is available today in America, even in our raunchiest porn.

I suggest to today's college students and all of us that more and not less sex (safe sex) is needed. After all, Americans are encouraged to pursue "happiness." Happiness is more easily achieved with rather than without Jenna Jameson and/or Carmen Luvana. (Again: "'The American': A Movie Review.")

Ms. Vargas-Cooper shares with us the edifying story that she helped a male with "erectile dysfunction" (he couldn't get it up) by making herself available for "anal sex" despite her obvious militant lesbianism. Fascinating. I bet Natasha is lots of fun at parties.

Porn is a 15-billion-dollar-a-year industry as of this year. Porn will continue to "grow" (if you will forgive the expression) in the years to come. Don't say it. It is not only men in raincoats buying sexually explicit material and you know it. There is also plenty of high art that takes eros for a theme. Try Shakespeare's sonnets. ("Oh, to be in India" and "What you will ...")

The erotica produced by a California company called "Girlfriend Films" is very hot, for instance, but never disrespectful of women's dignity, nor of anyone's rights, and never "imposed" on anyone against his or her will.

There is not and will not be a satisfactory or objective definition of "obscenity." (Justice Potter Stewart concluded in frustration: "I know it when I see it.")

In a free society consensual sexual acts between adults are not the government's business and must never be regulated by any politician or judge.

What is scary for some people in today's sexual culture is that the bulk of the people are behaving as naughtily as their so-called social "superiors" have always behaved. This presumption and inequality offends Natasha Vargas-Cooper (whatever her real name may be, "Sybil R. Moses"?), but it pleases me. Time for another inserted "error" ladies? ("I Affirm This Single Moment of Rebellion!" and "More Censorship and Cybercrime.")

Creating art about our erotic lives is also a matter of freedom and personal expression protected under the First Amendment because sex is always a subject of political and religious concern for normal persons, including Republicans who, somehow, manage to reproduce (allegedly) without screwing.

You do not have to like the sex lives of others. You cannot however prescribe acceptable sexual behavior or opinions to others. How do you feel about censorship, Natasha? Inserting "errors" in my writings on behalf of Sybil R. Moses will ensure that her name remains uppermost in my mind and in these essays. ("How censorship works in America" and "What is it like to be censored in America?")

" ... no one can really know what other people do in their bedrooms or why." (p. 98.)

I can guess both what they do and why they do it and this includes Sybil R. Moses and Stuart Rabner:

"Some experts [who?] postulate a sort of monkey-see, monkey-do explanation, [as it were,] whereby both men and women are conforming to behaviors [sic.] they see on their browser media players." (p. 98.)

With all due respect Ms. Vargas-Cooper you display a conventional or middle-brow hypocritical morality that alternates between concern that women "avoid the more subjugating consequences of sex" (p. 99.), meaning heterosexual sex, combined with ignorant diatribes against men's sexuality and prejudiced talk of the "typical male psyche." (p. 99.)

What scientific authorities are you relying on for this mythical "typical male" or his "psyche"? Are you really concerned about another word that starts with a "p" and men's use thereof Natasha? Footnote please. There is no such thing as a "typical male psyche."

The concept of a "typical male psyche" is a construct, universal, or essence which is not amenable to scientific investigation because it is an abstraction. There is also no such thing as "normal" in human behavior concerning romance and sex except in a statistical sense. I doubt that you are a phenomenologist or idealist Natasha. The same is true of the concept of mind: no one gets to define normal consciousness. Heaven only knows what this sadly delusional author will say next from a philosophical point of view. Unlike Ms. Vargas-Cooper I believe in science and not wishy-washy philosophical concepts like the "typical male psyche." ("Why I am not an ethical relativist" and "Civility.")

We are told by Ms. Vargas-Cooper that men are aroused by the desire to demean and humiliate women, that all intercourse or sexual activity with those hairy brutes (Rosie O'Donnell?), men, "violates" female persons. I disagree:

"Internet porn, on the other hand, shows us an unvarnished (albeit partial) view of male sexuality as an often dark force streaked with aggression." (p. 99.)

I am "varnishing" my sexuality as I type these words. ("Genius and Lust" and "Shakespeare's Black Prince.")

The tendency to dominance and subversiveness is shared, equally, among men and women as are masculine and feminine roles or performances in love-making which has little to do with gender or genitalia. (Kinsey) ("Judith Butler and Gender Theory.")

These are not matters of biological determination, but subjects of creative "play" or expression that are shared by lovers and partners in sexual acts.

Power is a volleyball tossed back and forth in sexual play between equals.

You must have led a very sheltered life Natasha.

We are subjected to the following sexist, male-hating observations in this article by Ms. Vargas-Cooper: " ... it's the brute force of male sexuality, unmolded and untethered." (p. 100.)

This is exactly what many straight women are looking for, or so they say, a little untethered male sexuality.

"At the heart of human sexuality, at least human sexuality involving men, lies what Freud identified in Totem and Taboo as 'emotional ambivalence' -- the simultaneous love and hate of the object of one's sexual affection." (p. 100.)

Why refer exclusively to "men"? Is this the same Freud who alleged that women's sexual orgasm is a myth? that women suffer from penis envy? and that women seeking professional or educational success are perverted would-be males? also that all forms of lesbianism or homosexuality are kinds of madness or mental illness? and that "emotional ambivalence" applies to men and women equally? Sigmund Freud is not big on feminist reading lists Natasha. ("Is there a gay marriage right?" and, again, "Genius and Lust.")

Women and men are equally prone to be attracted by what may otherwise alienate them. Many women like "bad boys," for example, still others are drawn to authority figures whom they may otherwise despise. I recall Sheri Hite's musings on this topic.

Women are often attracted to dominance followed by subservience as in the writings of Anais Nin or Pauline Leage since as many as 80% of women today (according to some surveys) report rape fantasies. ("A Night at the Opera.")

It is impossible to understand such facts apart from the reality of a violently sexist society and civilization where sex and power, violence and orgasm, are coded in gender terms reflective of masculine dominance patterns that have become traditional and are, absurdly, now often seen as "normal."

It is when such male-dominance is reversed, or made independent of gender, that protests and shock arise. Acceptance of male-dominance implies acceptance for female-submissiveness. Indeed, "submissiveness" is seen as a female virtue in traditional notions of sexual appropriateness because it is, allegedly, expressive of "proper" sexual conduct according to early "marriage manuals."

Not satisfied with this anti-male screed Ms. Vargas-Cooper says:

" ... when it comes to sex, most men will take every inch a woman gives.' ..." (p. 105.)

I thought it was women who obsess about "getting" every inch?

Great sex is about sharing power or control. A quality of human interaction that features in ALL forms of sex is power (Margaret Mead), ideally, "playing" with power-rituals in roles that are exchanged among equal partners adoring or "worshiping" one another as (in the deepest sense of the word) lovers. 

Sex is not "the desire to debase women." (p. 105.)

To teach such an absurd lesson to young women is to do great harm to them, potentially for life, especially when it comes to heterosexual women.

Such absurdities and irrational venom may explain Ms. Owen's efforts to escape the straight-jacket of America's confusions on this subject and the pathologies of self-styled feminists doing so much evil with their politically correct nonsense.

Not shaving your underarms as a young woman will not usher in a society free of sexism, but will only leave you with hairy armpits. Neither the word "chic" nor any other word is prohibited in a free society. At my local Barnes & Noble, there is a "chic-lit" section and a "chic-flick" shelf.

Teaching young women to hate men and their natural sexual impulses hurts those young women. Inserting "errors" in these writings -- or preventing me from posting them -- is DEFECATION on the Bill of Rights and disgraces the memory of America's fighting men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice to defend our rights and freedoms. ("Terry Tuchin, Diana Lisa Riccioli, and New Jersey's Agency of Torture" and "What is it like to be censored in America?")

Far from empowering women such lessons about men and straight sex inflict sexual dysfunctions and will damage young women who know no better and are unable to see this nonsense for what it is only another reflection of sad pathology and the pervasiveness of twisted versions of sexism often propounded by women.

Freedom is what your sexuality is all about Ms. Owen. Enjoy it.

Sources:

Periodicals:

Caitlin Flanagan, "The Hazards of Duke," in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February, 2011, at pp. 87-96. (Plagiarism, Ms. Flanagan? Shame on you for stealing my essay: "'My Week With Marilyn': A Movie Review.")

Natasha Vargas-Cooper, "Hard Case: The New World of Porn is Revealing Eternal Truths About Men and Women," in The Atlantic Monthly, January/February, 2011, at pp. 97-105. (Is Larissa also Natasha? "The Mind/Body Problem and Freedom.")

Richard Powers, "What Is Artificial Intelligence?," in The New York Times, February 6, 2011, at p. 10. (Sunday Opinion Section.) (Compare: "Mind and Machine" and "Consciousness and Computers.")

Books:

J.P. Donleavy, The Ginger Man (New York: Grove Press, 1955).

Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique (New York: Norton & Norton, 2001), (1st ed. 1963).

Maurice Girodias, The Olympia Reader (New York: Ballantine Books, 1965).

Erica Jong, On Henry Miller: The Devil at Large (New York: Random House, 1993).

Henry Miller, The World of Sex (Chicago: Argus, 1941).

Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita (New York: Vintage, 1955). (Despite the subject matter this novel is a literary masterpiece.)

Anais Nin, Henry and June (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1986).

Jose Ortega Y Gasset, On Love: Aspects of a Single Theme (New York: Signet, 1957).

G.C. Scott, His Mistress's Voice (New York: Carroll & Graff Publishers, Inc. 1994). (Dialectic of Master/Slave by way of Sade, Hegel, Sartre, De Beauvoir and Foucault. Each of the characters in this novel may be seen as part of a single psyche. Please see the 2015 movie Ex Machina.)

Alan Soble, ed., The Philosophy of Sex: Contemporary Readings, 2nd Edition (Maryland: Rowan & Littlefield, 1991).

Gore Vidal, Sex, Death and Money (New York: Ballantine, 1973).

Jeanette Winterson, Written on the Body (New York: Vintage, 1992).

Elizabeth Wurtzel, Bitch: In Praise of Difficult Women (New York: Random House, 1999). (Ms. Scott?)

Cinema:

The Devil in Ms. Jones (40th Anniversary ed., 2011).

Georgina Spelvin understood what this film was really about because it was reflective of the decade in which it was made -- also theologically and philosophically interesting -- even as sexually explicit conduct was depicted in the work. Sex deprived of meaning can be as alienating as the opposite -- the absence of all sex relations or love for persons.

Last Tango in Paris (1971).

Ms. Spelvin provides parallels to Marlon Brando's performance in this work disconnecting sex from love and its discontents leading to tragedy. Sex as a form of cruelty is a theme which may be found in much world literature -- in the writings of Henry Miller and Vladimir Nabokov, for example, besides the Marquis de Sade, or in the biography of Nell Gwyn, Britain's favorite whore from the seventeenth century, who was very good at bridge and other things, no doubt.