Sitenews Minimize
  • 30/12/18
    Fun fact - AKPCEP has a Google Page Speed score of 100/100
  • 26/12/18
    You wonder how any of this worked in the first place.
  • 13/03/09
    Still here! Please visit the forums and join in the discussions. If you have any questions or comments please contact Alexander.
Link Button Minimize
link to

Use this to link

Valid XHTML 1.0
Valid CSS

Like a Hand In A Velvet Glove

Posted 8 April 2003, 8.57 am by The_Roach

I think about sex a lot. I think it's my right as a man to do such a thing and suspect that it doesn't cross my mind any more than Jow Blow next door. Regardless, I can't remember an hour of my life in which fantasies haven't dislodged something else fluttering about in my mind. The caress of a woman. The feel of her body heat combining with my own thermal release. Sweat. Passion.

Empires have risen and crumbled because of our obsession with pleasures of the flesh. Our weaknesses are scattered throughout the stories of the ages. Paris and Helen. Romeo and Juliet. They reflect what we hope to achieve. They demonstrate the darkest truth of our nature.

Religion would tell us that thoughts such as those I entertain on a constant basis are unhealthy. Zen Bhuddism teaches that to have desire is to be imperfect, flawed, and that desire will ultimately prevent us from achieving perfection, possibly even destroy us. Catholics will say such thoughts are impure and go against God's way, that the purity of love is tainted by desire.

Of course, where the latter is concerned, an argument springs up: If God didn't want us to fornicate, why did he make it feel so good?

It's only now, tonight, that I came to the realization as to why that argument is so flawed. We ate from the Tree of Knowledge because how dare He tell us what we should and should not know. We want fast cars, 500 channels and opportunity to stroke our egos. No, God didn't make sex pleasurable because he wanted us to do it at every available opportunity.

He did it so we'd do it at all.

on 8 April 2003, 9.05 am

on 8 April 2003, 8.13 pm
You're argument against the argument that god wouldn't create any capacity for desire or pleasure within us unless we were meant to have that desire or pleasure goes against the concept of a just and rational and loving god who is omnipotent and omnipresent. If god can't find a way to get us to breed besides the pleasure of the thing, he's less than omnipotent. If he made it pleasureable and sinful because he's a shit and an asshole, he's not a loving, just god. If he didn't think that we'd betray his command he's not omnipresent or not rational. Rejection of any of these qualities seems to lead to a god that is not the christian god.

If the christian god made us some way, he did so on purpose and everything we do is a result of his action and inaction.

God is a fucker, anyway you look at it.

on 8 April 2003, 11.44 pm
Sex is like the forbidden fruit. We know we shouldn't, but we do. We know that there might be consequences but we do it anyway. It's like a test that a lot of us couldn't pass. I guess that it is sorta a fight between what IS right and what FEELS right. And if you have the nerve to not give into what you really want to do because, maybe, you're with someone else, then you have passed the test. Ya know what I mean?

on 9 April 2003, 3.11 am
Winter, your words are persuasive, but flawed. Look at it from another perspective; God has given us free will to do as we please, knowing that we will stray from His preferred path at many junctures. I'll use my parents as an example. My folks aren't fucking dumb. They're not omnipresent, but they aren't fools either. They are well aware that I've done things in my life that they would disapprove of, even without my having ever told them. They don't hold it against me, however. My parents will love me, unconditionally, because that's what parents do. That's what God does as well. Just because we aren't perfect doesn't mean we aren't worthy of love.

Being that the concept of free will grants us such options, we're only going to engage in activities that we find pleasing (if not necessarily proper). Would you have sex if you found it painful everytime? In all likelihood, the answer is no and I've got an ex-girlfriend who could back me up on this (no, I'm not asserting that I have a massive member, she just had problems; regardless, I wasn't getting much action).

Besides, don't assume that there weren't other options at His disposal. The Lord works in mysterious ways, as it's said. Another possible scenario working within the framework of the omnipotent God might be that we would not only require the sexual action to procreate but to survive as well. A natural release could very easily have been designed necessary in order to prevent a disease or infection from killing us. I think that simply making the process enjoyable is a sure sign that He's one benevolent fucker.

All that said, I don't believe in God other than as a concept.

on 9 April 2003, 3.18 am
It's not often that I choose to defend a religious text, BUT:

Sex (as seen by the bible) is not immoral or bad within the construct of marriage.

on 9 April 2003, 5.04 pm
Roach: I guess I don't see what you're arguing for if you don't believe in a 'god' as a real entity (that is, only a concept) but are willing to take a bible myth as a defining example of human hubris and greed. You paint the god you don't think is real as being a distant lover (that 'absent landlord' we should love back for creating us and providing so much... including all of this suffering and desire) who... what? Explains your sexual impulses in a way that's less offensive than being a horny bastard?

I myself have experienced a lover who disliked the sex act because of a pain following it, but I've always thought that the need to procreate and evolutionary forces would get around such defects eventually.


How can a god who loves us work in mysterious ways when his creations are clamoring for answers? Do we not deserve directness?

As for natural releases to prevent diseases or infections from being fatal (don't know that medical possibility of this), DIY.

on 9 April 2003, 5.25 pm
Alexa: You spoke briefly of cheating. Pair-bonding has a strong biological component. The hormone oxytocin has been found to be realated to memories and feelings of love and closeness (esp. orgasm). Women found to have less oxytocin in their blood report more relationship and bonding 'problems' and women with more report being calmer, less anxious and have more 'successful' relationships. As Dr.Rebecca Turner puts it, "It seems that having this hormone 'available' during positive experiences, and not being depleted of it during negative experiences, is associated with well-being in relationships." Or, if you're a person with less naturally occuring oxytocin, you're more likely to cheat and get that dose of endorphines than feel the need to hold out for the calming effects of oxytocin. Love is chemical in nature, we're automata.

srry if confuzin', writtin' on the fly.


What do you mean "We know we shouldn't"? In a social sense? A biblical one? Because of disease, emotion, liquor? Ignorance? A simple morallity is ill equiped for the modern world.

on 9 April 2003, 11.14 pm
Simple morality: Don't kill the person next to you. Even if you hate the mother fuckin' moron's guts. Don't kill the person next to you just because he can't tell time.

Seems like these are better equipped (and indeed, sometimes need to be aplied) to the modern world.

on 10 April 2003, 12.04 am
"What do you mean "We know we shouldn't"? In a social sense? A biblical one? Because of disease, emotion, liquor? Ignorance? A simple morallity is ill equiped for the modern world."

All of the above

on 10 April 2003, 3.33 am
Shaggy: In those examples, yes, a simple morallity does just fine. In the confines of a debate about abortion or the role of government or the concept of freedom or war, a simple morallity simply makes you simple minded.

Unless I'm wrong. It seems to me that "abortion is wrong" is a simple minded solution that ignores the complexities of the issue. A simple morality concerning sex is certainly pretty shitty.

Alexa: Are you saying that within you society and the bible agree about when we should and shouldn't fuck? And that's the same as not screwing someone because of fear or because you know you're drunk?

on 10 April 2003, 3.37 pm
Abortion: simply put, how can you mourn the loss of something that is usually not even over an inch in height, with no brain matter?

"Abortion is wrong" is not the simple answer, it is a stupid one. There are no such things as stupid questions, but there sure is such things as stupid answers.

As for the role of government... "Kill em all. Let god sort them out." Pretty viable solution.... okay, so I don't agree with my own statement here. I agree with you that some issues are not inherently simple, but even the most complicated, esoteric formula can be subdivided, and the role of government is subdivisable by its nature. The role on government concerning taxes, for instance, would be simply to not overcharge or undercharge, so that people don't go broke on taxes but government funding is available. Things can be oversimplified or overly complicated.

As for sex: sex is a simple issue. It is human abstracts that make sex complicated. Without constructs such as "love" and the roles of the "masculine" and "feminine", all of which being constructs with little base in reality (masculinity and feminity the most notable "shells"), sex would be a simple thing: procreation. The issue that makes sex complicated is not the sex itself: it is the flaws of humanity that go with it. Disease, overpopulation, overindulgence...

One thing people cannot be afraid of: if it seems simple, cut and dry, then, to you, it is. Perspectives may change, and make you see another side of the issue, but in the end, what is important is that you NEED a simple morality to combat complex issues. If you do not even have simple morality, you would be dead in the water in a lot of issues. However, one can take simple morality (not in any way associated with simplemindedness) and combine it with facts, different facets of the issue (ie, other issues that affect the original), and, with the tool of simple morality, combat complex issues.

2+2 is, in most cases, = 4. Some things are simple. The slightly more complicated formula, 2x+2y = 0, requires at least knowledge of the first rule in order to solve.

And on a different note: "not screwing someone because of fear"? Fear of what? I will be simple-minded here, and hope that it is fear of pain, because otherwise there is a whole other issue I do not want to touch upon.

on 10 April 2003, 8.15 pm
No stupid questions? How about "Can the same thing be and not be?" or "Are bachelors married?"? Those seem like pretty stupid questions.

While I don't mourn the loss of a fetus, the loss of a potential human life capable of beauty and insight is saddening to some who believe in such things.

Simple moralities only work in the abstract, for that reason they should be treated with the highest degree of suspect. As far as simple answers, either they can't be applied effectively in reality, leaving them to the realm of thought without recourse to direct application or they miss the complexities of an issue. Simply saying that the role of gov't with regard to taxation of it's population is to neither over- nor under-tax ignores the difficulty in determining how much money is needed by the government for it's programs (and what those programs should be) and what is enough money to live on (socialism and capitalism further complicate matters). One cannot simply remove an issue from its environment and expect to solve it.

If one approaches the world with the idea that complex issues must be 'combated' without being understood, the best you can hope for is random chance solving any real world problem and attempting to understand any problem without beginning with the possession of a simple dogma means that any simple solution or morality will be compromised.

Sex could be made simple, if we were robots looking only to breed who exist without western (judeo-christian) culture. The nature of the human beast complicates matters, though it need not be so. What alternative would you propose?

on 10 April 2003, 9.09 pm
I propose simple fuckin. That, and a realization that people grossly overcomplicate AND oversimplify things. 2+2=4 can help you solve the double integral of the function... I dunno, make up some complicated function. On the other side of things, yes, I do agree, taxation isn't as simple as I stated, but nevertheless, solve the problem of defining "too much" and "too little" and stick that into my original calculation, and I don't see much difference. Once outside variables are solved, then the original issue can be solved.

Not complicated, really.

And once again, there is no such thing as stupid questions. I never said there was no such thing as stupid PEOPLE, which is another issue entirely.

Shaggy out.

on 10 April 2003, 9.16 pm
I don't think that all complex problems can be broken down simply, due to the fact that PEOPLE are invovled. Mathmatics is a field of abstracts, saying that the real world can be accuratly reflected mathmatically is taking a massive leap of understanding that is, in my opinion, unjustified outside of the movie Pi. Definine "too much" and "too little" cannot be done simply, though once it is done it may be possible to find a way to solve the problem of taxation simply.

To comment on this article, please Log In or Register.

Submissions Minimize

0 Articles awaiting authorisation

Users Online Minimize

Members: 3 Guests: 7114

Art Collection Minimize
Click for larger image

This is again from the 'Faces of Death' cycle. In this piece, the mottled effect was produced by flicking turpentine at the image once it was smeared into the ink.

Chat Minimize

Hey Cris, it's as busy here as it was at the end - which is to say, not at all

I wish I could new you guys was here in the beginning of 2020 LOL

OMG I was feeling nostalgic and I can’t believe that AKP is still here! So how’s it going ?

Props to Green Mamba for bringing the weirdness


80s candy bars were pretty good

only because i traded it for a candy bar in the 80's.


If you wish to help AKPCEP grow, please use PayPal.
RSS Newsfeed:
Articles posted are copyright the respective authors and may not express the views of All other content ©Alexander King 2001-2019. ver 4.0
This page was built in 0.0196 seconds