utorak, 11. rujna 2012.

Deleuze, nekroseksualnost i nekrofilija - hidrogenska teorija + Supervertove priče


Nekroseksualnost i nekrofilija doimaju se kao živopisne (mrtvopisne) ali potpuno rubne i u "životnome" smislu nezanimljive i odvratne teme. U praksi možda da, no u teoriji je drukčije. Donosimo ovdje dvije užasno pretenciozne teorijske obrade teme i jednu književnu: turbo-delezovski esej Patricie MacCormack, prijevod Supervertovih nekrofilskih priča (iz knjige Necrophilia Variations) i jedan bizarno-sulud blogerski post.
Davljenje zazorne nekrofilije u moru elektrificiranih rečenica (ipak, samo za odvažne).

Patricia MacCormack: Necrosexuality

[1] Transgressive sexuality has frequently been defined through the dominant paradigms which it transgresses. This means transgressive sexuality is often seen as either affirming these paradigms by being oriented in dialectic opposition to them, or politically challenging in reference to them. Perversion is, however, the multiplicity at the very heart of desire that dissipates and redistributes the body's intensities. 'Normal' sexuality is one reiteration of these corporeal libidinal cartographies – reiterative because reliability in repetition is a key feature of normal sexuality's nature and power. Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's claim that all desire affords a becoming means that transgression [1] is already within all forms of desire. Theirs is a project of queering desire, rather than reifying any one form of sexuality as queer. This article will explore the queerness of one seemingly heterosexual desire – male/female sexual situations – as it is incarnated in necrophilia. Deleuze and Guattari, together and separately, as well as Foucault, all critique the term 'transgression'. Transgression is unable to exist independently as a haecceity. It can only be measured against and in reference to, while a Deleuzio-Guattarian reading is an interrogation of the different parameters, paradigms and plateaus within rather than against systems, an alteration of trajectories and velocities. Perhaps a more correct term would be 'lines of flight', however I use the term transgression here because necrophilic trajectories have been truncated and reified through a variety of institutions and thus have a particular relationship with these institutions. The use of the term is, however, brief and tactical, and is only relevant while necrophilia's relationship with these institutions is being discussed and reactive rather than active affect is maintained in the analyses.
[2] Non-aggressive examples of necrophilia in three films, Beyond the Darkness (Aristede Massaccesi, Italy, 1979), Macabre (Lamberto Bava, Italy, 1981) and Flesh for Frankenstein (Antonio Margheriti, Italy, 1973), which include both male and female corpses, emphasise the ways in which necrophilic desire requires a destratification of the body into a Body without Organs. Accidentally but nonetheless relevant, these three films have all been banned, thus conflating the transgressive nature of their content and the act of viewing them – another point at which the residue of the problematic notion of transgression arises. Forensics describes the ruptured body in death as 'dishevelled'. Organs become genital, surgery sexual and the striation of the gendered body is dishevelled through the planes of pleasure [2] offered by the corpse. Necrophilia is configured into dialectic and onanistic practice, confusing subject and object, desire and disgust. These corpses are physically bodies with organs, but entirely reorganised, as is the desire of the necrophiles. When Deleuze and Guattari ask us to sing with our rectum, here we see those who fuck with their entrails, launching on becoming-viscera. Reading the body through gender signifiers of genitals is no longer relevant in these 'heterosexual' relationships. The larger structure of necrophilia in society will not form a major part of the essay. However recent changes to the laws in the US punish necrophilia as 'immoral' while vindicating institutionalised homophobia and misogyny seen in laws such as the homosexual panic law, and the low incidence of prosecution for rape. 'Perverse' sexualities, from homosexuality and necrophilia to celibacy and lust-murder are morally maligned as equivalent based on the ways all challenge 'proper' object choice. But non-violent perverse sexualities pose challenges to issues of corporeal volition and desire beyond traditional oppositional and hierarchical libidinal configurations.
[3] In September 2004 Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger created California's first law forbidding necrophilia as a criminal act. The felony is punishable by up to 8 years incarceration. In March 2005 the media went into a frenzy over the 2001 study in which natural science documented the first observation of necrophilia in Mallard ducks – homosexual necrophilia at that. (see Moeliker) In 1973 Baron Frankenstein announced 'to know death, you have to fuck life in the gall bladder.'
[4] Perhaps it is difficult to define necrophilia as a dividuated sexual act at all. Primarily one must select the paradigm by which the corpse is defined. Item of respect? Fetish item? Forensic text? Victim of aggression in order to procure a corpse for a sex act? Object of nostalgia? Past tense person, present tense property? Meat? Flesh? What can one do with a corpse? Is traditional sex with a corpse queer? If, according to Monique Wittig, sexuality creates gender through opposition, is necrophilia still either heterosexual or homosexual? Is a corpse gendered if it is no longer a person? Is visceral necrophilia, using the entrails for pleasure, different to 'straight' necrophilic sex acts? Is this kind of necrophilia a form of surgical fetishism? What gender is a gall bladder? Guattari sees the repressive regime of signification as perpetrating a massacre of desire and the body. Can massacring the body – opening it out, cutting it up post mortem and achieving pleasure from it – end the massacre of the body? He states:
We can no longer sit idly by as others steal our mouths, our anuses, our genitals, our nerves, our guts, our arteries. In order to fashion parts and works in an ignoble mechanism of production which links capital, exploitation and the family. We can no longer allow others to turn our mucous membranes, our skin, all our sensitive areas into occupied territory – territory controlled and regimented by others, to which we are forbidden access… We can no longer allow others to repress our fucking, control our shit, our saliva, our energies, all in conformity with the prescriptions of the law and its carefully defined little transgressions. We want to see frigid, imprisoned, mortified bodies exploded to bits, even if capitalism continues to demand that they be kept in check at the expense of our living bodies. (Guattari, 1996: 32)
In this article I am going to explore de-signified corporeally massacred bodies, in relation to the sealed, facialised and genitalled body which is complicit with the massacre that capitalist and Oedipal systems perform on the body and desire. The reason I have selected necrophilia in particular is not because it offers a privileged version of queer but because in death the body can be actually, physically reorganised – massacre not as murder but as physical eruption. The first part of this article will contextualise the ways in which necrophilia is a form of sexuality emergent through legal and medical discourse rather than volitional desire. The second part offers an exploration, through three Italian horror films which exemplify necrophilia in different ways as reorganising the flesh and desire. The torn apart corpse as object of desire and the relation between two enfleshed entities are open systems of connexion rather than dialectics between two organised bodies. The fleshes open out toward each other, one actually, the other in libidinal planes which disorganise the body Guattari points out is massacred through systems of signifying the body and desire relations.

Necrophilia and Discursive Massacres

'I shall not even take into consideration those [perverts] who are condemned by a judge to choose between prison or psychiatric treatment' – François Péraldi: 170
[5] Before I elaborate my arguments lauding the pleasures and perversions of necrophilia in certain films as examples of Deleuze and Guattari's Body without Organs, of Deleuze's Leibnizian fold and of Guattari's massacred body, I want to dispel any association of the forms of necrophilia upon which I will focus with traditional associations of necrophilia with (often violent) criminality. This section is, tediously but I think necessarily, about what this essay is not. At the very least, what the need for the following shows is that the 'sexuality' of necrophilia is, like all sexualities, not a singular, predictable or repeatable form of sexuality.
[6] The case which resulted in Schwarzenegger outlawing necrophilia was initially charged as a break and enter into the morgue, because the law did not know how to prosecute necrophilia and had to charge the perpetrator with something (the moral outrage toward the act was intensified by what was perceived to be paedophilic necrophilia – the 'victim' was 4 years old.) Corpse defilement is frequently charged as wilful destruction of property. This conforms with a Kantian perspective, which would position the corpse as property and thus the violation of which is an ethical consideration between a person and the property rather than the subjectivity of another. Does this new law invest the cadaver with volition, thus in necrophilia the corpse is a victim of rape against its 'will'? If so the perverse (but not necessarily aggressive) sexuality of necrophilia and violent crime become mutually exclusive. Many films and clinical texts associate necrophilia with a precluding violent act perpetrated in order to procure the corpse. The criminal and the pervert are closely aligned, both share a relationship with clinical epistemology – the criminologist, the psychologist and in the case of the corpse itself the forensic pathologist. The modern serial killer is often made more interesting by focussing on their necrophiliac tendencies – Ed Gein, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer and Dennis Nielsen. The role of psychiatrist and criminologist coalesce in the seminal 1906 work of Krafft-Ebing, the Psychopathia Sexualis. Lustmurder sits side by side with necrophilia. Case 24: Ardisson, is not simply a necrophiliac, in spite of being classified under this heading. He also drinks urine, eats rats and cats, as well as his own sperm, is paedophilic and apparently olfactorily retarded – the fact he finds the stench of putrefaction inoffensive seems galling to Ebing. Happily Ebing tells us Ardisson was 'pleased with prison life.' (40) Ebing's other case of necrophilia, Case 23: Sergeant Bertrand, despite being of 'delicate physical constitution' (37), killed animals to procure entrails. His necrophilia did not focus on sex with corpses but onanistic activity with entrails, thus he was named a monomaniac. While all monomania is based on the demarcation of a single-minded, obsessive and dividuated libidinal practice, and thus necrophilia itself is technically a monomania, Bertrand's focus on viscera, which is not a single object nor subjectivised, rather than a past-tense person-corpse, seems to change the inflection of the monomania beyond a perverse dialectic of subject/object. In spite of bestiality necrophilia, Bertrand's perversion with human bodies was entirely heterosexual as sex with male corpses 'was always attended with a feeling of disgust.' (38) It is not mentioned whether the animals were male or female. Unlike Ardisson he was sentenced to one year court-marshal. Ebing ends this case with the observation: 'The actual motive for exhuming the bodies however, was then, as before, to cut them up; and the enjoyment in doing so was greater than in using the bodies sexually. The latter act had always been nothing more than an episode of the principal one, and had never quieted his desires; for which reason he had later on always mutilated the body.' (39) This last comment could as easily describe a forensic pathologist as a viscera-focussed necrophiliac. The relationship is contingent with the use-function of the corpse in relation to 'pleasure'. The sexual psychopath 'uses' the corpse differently to the scientist. The former is a necrophiliac, the latter perhaps an epistophiliac.
[7] The corpse is territorialized by forensic medicine and religious ideology. Capitalism allows the corpse to be 'used' by forensic pathology, making the ultimate object of uselessness work, while making invisible the scientist who uses it. Pfohl and Gordon's description of criminology makes an interesting connection with the forensic pathologist. They describe the clinical formation of the criminal subject: 'Erect before the bar he sees her as grave matter to be ordered knowledgeably. His deadly nature and her law he rights, he writes, he rites – three rights and nothing left: the right of man, the writings of a science and the ritual construction of an empirical order... the pleasure of criminology is to displace the other's unfixed pleasure' (230) Various incarnations of psychology exert a similar power in their creation of the pathological pervert. But both perform a textual practice equivalent to the making-textual the matter of the corpse. Pfohl and Gordon's cadaverial euphemisms are apt. The criminologist is deadly to pleasure by righting and writing it, seeing unbound pleasure as grave and placing it in its grave by classifying it within existing taxonomies of perversion. Pfohl and Gordon continue their forensic euphemisms in describing the practices of the taxonomist of pathologies:
The second pleasure of criminology involves his gaze. To keep an eye on her, to classify, count and cut her up; to make her visible as a certain thing; to dissect that visibility into rates and measure her incidents; to map her determined figure and to analyze her probable path; to uncover everything about her and to lay her bare; to arrest her so that he may operate upon her and see what happens. (230)
Massacring the self by expressing desire with a massacred body leads to a concept prevalent in psychological and medical theories of perversion, which is the supposed intrinsic inclusion of aggression and hatred towards the perverse object choice. In his book Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred Robert J. Stoller posits the argument that all perversion is borne of hatred towards the object choice, or what the object choice represents. By taking it as a sexual 'partner' the object which is hated is mastered in order to surpass a moment of trauma from the past. The perverse act is given an origin and thus a reason. He states:
In order to begin to judge these ideas, draw on your own experience. Think of perversions with which you are familiar... In each is found - in gross form or hidden but essential in fantasy - hostility, revenge, triumph, and a dehumanized object. Before even scratching the surface we can see that someone harming someone else is a main feature in most of these conditions. (9)
Before annihilation of a human, dehumanisation must ask the question 'What is human?' and inevitably deconstruct the relationship between what is human and the subject. What is human is not opposed to what is not human but what is not a being at all, what is not an integrated object is placed in opposition to the human or a subject. Wholeness is implicit in what is human, and the crisis of transforming, shattering or changing subjectivity is adamantly indicative of something not whole and not one. For this reason dehumanisation should not be taken in a derogatory context. Only when the aim of de-humanisation is to affirm and reify the perpetrator's own humanity does the act of dehumanisation raise issues of hierarchy and power. Through perversion the condition of being human, with the limits and boundaries of perception of self and object this entails, is negotiated so that the self can no longer look at itself and its partner and say 'I am human'. Rather, at a loss for language, the self shifts towards a depth beneath the (or one) surface, with a different 'feeling of self' and hence, 'feeling of object'. [3] Stoller quotes 1930s perversion theorist E. Straus, ' "the delight in perversions is caused by... the destruction, humiliation, desecration, the deformation of the perverse individual himself and of his partner."(Straus's italics).' (Quoted in Stoller, 8) These ambiguities are further problematised when the object is itself a frontier between humanity (is a corpse human?), temporality (it was, what is it now?), ideologies of respect and disgust. Stoller chooses this quote despite the tacking on at its end of 'and of his partner'. Beyond the question as to whether a corpse counts as a partner, as a 'someone', the destruction of the self rather than the partner is more pertinent to my discussion though less so for Stoller. Stoller says nothing of the italicizing by Straus of 'deformation'. 'Desecration' (so frequently suffixed by 'of the grave') and 'destruction' are words that evoke the massacre of body and self. But destroy and deform are ideal words to describe becoming otherwise; here, to elucidate the 'something different' the necrosexually changing body is becoming, the massacred, destroyed, deformed body(ies) and intensities of proximity and connexion with an actually massacred body.
[8] To stay with the subject-object dialectic for a moment, the necrophiliac is positioned toward a deeply confounding 'object'. Devoid of will, what is a corpse? Is it symbolic of a purely abstract memory, or an actual memorial object? What if the corpse is that of a dead lover? Does this mean that the necrophiliac is expressing a form of fidelity beyond the call of duty? When the sealed corpse becomes dishevelled flesh through opening up, is it a different kind of object of desire? Does Bertrand's adamant heterosexuality show that the corpse always remained gendered? If so how are the entrails gendered? I evoke these questions not to answer them, and certainly neither to vindicate nor derogate necrophilia, but to offer the corpse as a materialised version of a conceptual as well as actually massacred body. I am however adamantly not going to analyse cinematic representation of necrophilia when it is associated with crime because I wish to focus on necrophilia as part of a non-aggressive, non-violent massacre of the body. Criminal aggressive necrophilia reiterates traditional power paradigms of perpetrator/victim, often in murder incarnated as male/female. The compulsion to read necrophilia within this dynamic occurs before the instance of necrophilia. The corpse is, etymologically the most immediate definition of the expression 'a body'. But what it is in relation to humanity and materiality is volatile and dynamic before the necrophiliac is positioned in relation to it. I have used the expressions 'conceptually' and 'materially' neither as opposed nor as extricable. Guattari and Deleuze and Guattari's Bodies without Organs and becomings show the materiality of thought and the structuration of desire and flesh as epistemic. The materiality of the corpse is emphasised here because the corpse is so material – stinkingly, rottingly, traumatically and viscerally so, actualising new layers of the flesh when thorax is opened and fluid extravasated. The corpse is subjectivity as only matter and the ultimate symbol of humanity as nothing more than flesh, but flesh which is unknowable, whose pleasures evoke infinite possibility not available in a living body. The body represents both the most mundane and most frightening point of ideals and anxieties of the indivisibility of subjectivity, flesh, discourse, desire and pleasure.
[9] In connecting epistemic with aesthetic systems (or symptoms), the following section will introduce a selected range of studies of necrophilia in academia, popular culture and film to introduce established structures of necrophilia which I will not deal with. These are selective simply to offer a range of examples, as this essay is not a study of representations of necrophilia, but uses specific texts to explore necrophilia differently. Primarily, and at this stage rudimentarily, three ubiquitous aspects of these examples of necrophilia are challenged and alternatives offered through the work of Deleuze and Guattari. These are: the retention of a dialectic structure between object and subject, associated with fetishism, and particularly psychoanalysis; the maintenance of subjectivity within the corpse through the striated body, where the organs (particularly the genitals) retain their biological and metaphoric signification: the necessary association of necrophilia with criminality and explicitly (usually misogynistic) violence and aggression. Elisabeth Bronfen's Over Her Dead Body deals with the objectification of the dead woman in art, poetry and literature. By affirming the gender of the corpse the title suggests the non-consensual aspect of necrophilia. Lisa Downing's Desiring the Dead, a psychoanalytic study of French literature, critiques studies which 'focus somewhat erroneously on what the necrophile does, and are obsessed with the acts that appear most obvious – sexual intercourse.' (3) Against this, Downing emphasises 'the choice of the corpse as subject matter.' (30) Downing and Bronfen both retain the sexual dialectic as positioning subject and object, and sexuality as predetermined act. For me, the materially de-subjectified corpse emphasises the affective space between the two – 'Between the two there is threshold' (Deleuze and Guattari: 250)
[10] Aggressive violence, necrophilia as violation and frequently misogynistic act is perhaps the most prevalent representation of the desire. Contradictorily however, while gory necrophilia is met with outrage (including gory lyrics) violent but clean deaths seem to conform with stereotypes of necrophilia and are responded to with less verve. Films such as NekRomantik (Jorg Buttgereit, West Germany, 1987), The Necro-Files (Matt Jaissle, US, 1997), August Underground (Fred Vogel, US, 2001) and Lucker the Necrophagous (Johan Vandewoestijne, Belgium, 1986) offer cinematic representations of clinical associations between criminality, murder and necrophilia, with greater or lesser degrees of complexity. In death metal Slayer's 213 emphasises the control the necrophiliac can exert over the most docile subject-object: Complete control of a prize possession, and the relationship between memory and necrophilia: Memories keep love alive/ Memories will never die. Less nuanced, explicitly aggressive lyrics can be seen in Cannibal Corpse's Necropedophile, where paedophilia, necrophilia and naughty swear words emphasise the act extravasated from desire at all, simply offered as something to shock by hitting sanctified lines of social values. Like The Necro-Files the songs of Cannibal Corpse are more infantile and affirm the paradigms they cross rather than exemplify new forms of subjectivity, pleasure and desire. Without the maintenance of the subjectivity of the corpse and society's systems of morality the pleasure and point of these acts cease to exist. They seem to respond to the predicted reaction, so that the act itself seems at best purely symbolic and at its extreme completely circumnavigated. What is important is not what is done, but what is seen (or heard) to be done. [4]
[11] Nacho Cerdà's Aftermath (Spain, 1994) and I'll Bury You Tomorrow (Alan Rowe-Kelly, US, 2002) continue traditional urban apocrypha of the sexual habits of morgue workers, which, strangely, never seem to be associated with forensic pathologists, only their discursive (and presumably economic) inferiors. Kissed (Lynne Stopkewich, Canada, 1996) is a more mainstream example of necrophilia in film. Kissed needed to be branded 'art' in order to vindicate the practice of the female necrophile, affirming two stereotypes – that women's sexuality is more delicate and less violent, and that only when necrophilia is filmed in an arty way can it offer anything more than offensive aggression to planes of desire. Even in popular understandings of cultural 'phenomena', such as AIDS, necrophilia is evoked. Tim Dean's Beyond Sexuality associates necrophilia with the death drive but also, fascinatingly, as a safe sex option. Where there is no longer a risk of AIDS from a person – traditionally minoritarians such as homosexual men and drug addicts but increasingly third world populations – the corpse as 'waste' threatens disease from its unsanitary condition and its seduction of the mentally invaded psychopath. Dean states: 'Think of the symbolic order as a net settling over the corporeal form… the process does not happen in a uniform way because there is no single symbolic order that we all inhabit'. (197) Through a variety of epistemic structures necrophilia is foxed at every turn, a virus of psychiatry or nosology or even addiction as 213 expresses: Physical pleasures an addictive thrill/ An object of perverted reality.

In the Folds of the Flesh

[12] By way of connection, all of the following films I will discuss have been banned by Film and Literature Classification Boards around the world, in spite of not being aggressively violent. The viewer is then positioned as part of the taxonomy of criminals, a pervert for procuring illegal films, for enjoying these films and in the most simplistic argument, repeating what they watch in the real world. I wish to suggest that in order for the necrophile (this term is now used tactically, not to refer to a pathologised pervert 'type') to enter into a desiring intensity with the corpse, the subject/ object opposition must shift. The corpse neither fails to nor fulfils entering into the spaces between subject and object. The corpse isn't a symbol of the abject because the corpse – not spoken of, but immanently encountered – is the event which cannot be deferred to a second order signification. The corpse opens out self, flesh, desire and pleasure as it is opened out. Foucault states: 'One sees how in certain instances… the misuse of sexual pleasure might lead to death.' (133) Death of what? Does misusing the corpse offer a way out of subjectivity, a petite mort not through orgasm but de-subjectification? Necrophilia's visceral pleasure is not subject and object in opposition, but pleasure in folding with the planes of flesh of the object – beyond metaphors of flesh and fold necrophilia signifies every part of the flesh, every nerve (no longer nerve because no longer perceptive), every tissue mass, every artery, every organ, the unfolded skin as libidinally provocative. In the event of necrophilia skin may be peeled, entrails fondled, parts removed or moved around, corporeal minutia explored and every plane of the body reorganized into a new configuration with new function and meaning. The films I will discuss offer three forms of corporeal massacre. In Macabre the female necrophile has only a head lover, in Beyond the Darkness the dead lover is enjoyed through tender acts of taxidermy, and the entrails are used as libidinal objects, sorrowful reminders and ecstasy inducing aspects of the lover. The exploitation of entrails only available in necrophilia reaches its zenith in Flesh for Frankenstein where the viscera are the primary site of sexual obsession. The corpse is at once all sexual and signifying of nothing in particular. Because its rearrangement is limitless the corpse asks its lover not why, but what can it do and what can be done with it. What the corpse can 'do' refers to affect rather than action. This means the possibilities of affect fold the corpse as active entity with the necrophile in her/his open-ness to being affected and create new affective possibilities within the corpse through experimentation with the limitlessness of the corpse. The necrophiliac must be passive, as they forsake activity based on significations of sexual narratives and signified flesh. The necrophiliac is passive in the face of the vertiginous loss of self that occurs with loss of opposition and signification. No longer 'I am, it is, hence I will desire it in accordance with the sexuality appropriate to object and subject' but 'how can I desire, how is this matter before me desirable, what can I do with it, what does it do to me, what connexions do we enter into?' The corpse is all at once past-tense person, infinitely experimental matter, flesh which both resonates with living flesh and is a fleshy something else altogether unique to the corpse. The films I have chosen to look at in the following sections are horror films, however none are particularly violent beyond the 'violence' or violation of the corpse. The protagonists are not driven by aggressive impulses and the points of intensification in the films occur not in procuring death, with which many horror films are concerned, but with what affects can be elicited post-mortem. Each film is different in terms of its necrophilia, in conformance with my point above that the only constant of necrophilia is the presence of a corpse – sexuality, the use of the body and the relations of phantasy and memory with it are not guaranteed. While some horror films dealing with necrophilia are described as gothic – films of Edgar Allen Poe stories for example – because they deal with memory and the uncanny resonances between the corpse and a lover, the films I will look at I describe as baroque. These films are all made by Roman directors. They come from a genealogy beginning with Gian Lorenzo Bernini rather than the British history of the gothic novel or the uncanny nostalgia of Poe. Thus geographically, historically and visually like baroque sculpture they continue artistic and philosophical expressions based on the flesh, unfolded and refolded, what Deleuze calls the 'pleats of matter'. While ghosts and memories haunt the suggested necrophilia of British gothic, baroque necrophilia does not mourn the dead subject. It exploits the present materialisation of the lover, indulging in the new possibilities the flesh offers. The new flesh is explored rather than the old flesh memorialised. It exchanges mourning for ecstasy. Deleuze states of the baroque:
Why is the requirement of having a body sometimes based on the principle of passivity, in obscurity and confusion, but at others on our activity, on clarity and distinction … Microperceptions or representatives of the world are those little folds that unravel in every direction, folds in folds, over folds, following folds… and these are minute, obscure, confused perceptions that make up our macroperceptions. (86)
Through Leibniz, Deleuze sees the body as a necessary limit, both the site of passive possibility and required resistance. The body, a body, one's body, is according to Deleuze, the deduction of affects and microperceptions, self as coalescent active acted upon expression rather than induction of subjectified body into world. Traditionally we are inducted into systems of pre-signified bodies and sexualities. There is no necessary opposition between the macro-self and the self as unfolding and folded in upon series of microperceptions. The necrophiliac exploits the actually unravelled and limitlessly unravell-able flesh, but requires the macroperceptive self to open up, to become passive in the presence of an object of desire that demands imagination, possibility and a relinquishment of the macroperception of 'lover' as an organised distinct entity which acts upon the self. The affective qualities of the corpse come not from its will but through folding with the necrophiliac. Desire, viscerality, possibility of act and dissipation of pleasures are pleats which configure the fold of subject and object differently at every turn. Self is fuelled by obscured desire in front of an obscure-able object. Through each act and wave of intensity another fold of self is pleated – 'a fearsome involution calling us toward unheard of becomings.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 240)
[13] The decision to act is not borne of the act being pre-signified. Signification in medico-legal discourse comes from a resistance to discursive passivity, where we synthesise into being our acts as a series of linguistic habitus which 'constitutes our habit of living, [which ensures us as an] 'it' will continue…thereby assuring the perpetuation of our case.' (1994: 74). Pre-signification massacres libidinal expression through inducing the necrophiliac into a defined form of sexuality – before the act – rather than a deduction, after the act(s), ablating each aspect or element of each example of necrophilia as a unique folding of living with dead flesh. Necrosexuality is a form of sexuality not 'as a process of filiation transmitting the original sin. But… as a power of alliance inspiring illicit unions or abdominal lovers. This differs significantly from the first in that it tends to prevent procreation.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 346) Epistemology is transmitted; we come into being as a transmission, procreated through discourse. Folds of necrophilic perceptions with the abominable lover include but are in no way reducible to: The tactility of entrails; memory of lost love; confrontation with limitless possibilities of the flesh unavailable (without harm) in a living body; a body devoid of former signification but significantly desirable; and as I will discuss below, the massacre of gender and sexual narratives borne of sexuality as a pre-ordained induction. Opening new folds in the body creating new folds of perception 'opens a rhizomatic realm of possibility effecting the potentialisation of the possible, as opposed to arborescent possibility, which marks a closure, an impotence.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 190) Being respected, thus saved from defilement, makes the flesh of the corpse impotent. Potentialising the possible comes from a certain passivity by the necrophile to different folds, which effectuate new aspects of each face of the fold, just as each peeling away of a part of the corpse reorganises it into different planes of possible sexual 'fun'. Necro-folding and unfolding proliferates the pleats of Deleuze's contemplation: 'We speak of our "self" only in virtue of those thousand little witnesses which contemplate within us; it is always a third party who says "me".' (Deleuze, 1994: 75) Each aspect of self is a contemplation, its own independent element, connected to every other element in contraction, dilation, force, non-corresponding receptive and perceptive elements. Contemplation is a turning in of self as not what it does but through its active and passive synthesis with its own elemental aspects and those of all others, resonant with Lyotard's libidinal band. Self is neither made up of 'bits' nor of post-acting contemplation of self as object of study. Contemplation is immanent, self as before and within its own relational affects, 'contractile contemplation which constitutes the organism itself before it constitutes the sensation. (Deleuze: 1994, 79) Contemplation is therefore not perception through deferral nor repetition as sameness, but act as always different within itself through the specificity of the changes in expectation and contraction at each repetition which necessarily changes the elements. Necrosexual acts (actually and contemplatively) de-part bodies and sexual acts iterated through perception as reification. The corpse, and the acts of the necrophile are intensified examples of passive syntheses because their acts are not laid out as traditional sexual acts are, because the body has already been made particles and relations destablilised. But then how can we speak of the necrosexual at all? Does this example suggest a deferral once again to causality, both saying there is difference in even the most asinine sexual acts, and that using necrosexuality as exemplary re-fetishises and reifies it as 'different'? I suggest that necrosexuality as representing a social and cultural limit forms an assemblage, a fold, a passive synthesis (all different but all ways of the necrophile's contemplation) as an abstract line of flight, belonging to the realm of the imperceptible: 'There is no doubt that an assemblage never contains a causal infrastructure. It does have, however, and to the highest degree, an abstract line of creative or specific causality… this line can be effectuated only in connection with general causalities of another nature, but is in no way explained by them.' (Deleuze: 1994, 79)
[14] Necrosexuality, the bodies involuted and undone, create a larval sexuality – immature and transformed at every synthesis, which acts not toward a thing but toward its metamorphosis, toward perceiving itself which cannot be perceived, toward the imperceptibility within repetition where all elements within syntheses are dissipated, disoriented and reoriented with each turn, each folding and each alteration in the aspects of involution. (Deleuze and Guattari: 283); 'The self does not undergo a modification, the self is a modification.' (Deleuze, 1994: 79)

Preliminary Dishevellment – Getting Head

[15] Lamberto Bava's Macabre (Italy, 1980) is the story of Jane Baker (Bernice Stegers) who, as a result of a car accident in which her lover is decapitated, keeps his head in the freezer (it is never made clear if the keeping of the head only is due to the pragmatics of having a small freezer). The revelation of Jane's cranio-necrophilia comes at the end of the film, after ninety minutes of hearing Jane talking to the head, screaming in passion during their sexual encounters and generally acting as if she is living with her (rather silent) lover. This is all perceived through her blind lodger Robert (Stanko Molnar), and like he, we remain blind to the actual relationship until the films final scenes. Jane's necrophilia is an interesting starting point in my discussion as it offers an example of the female necrophile with a male corpse (or part thereof). Stereotypically the corpse is usually female and the necrophiliac male, be he scientist, poet (such as Poe) or artist. Jane's necrophilia does conform to a certain type of necrophilia, that of nostalgia for a lost love. What is emphasised is that this love is not a substitute for the hope of an imminent new lover, nor a tragic memorial fetish. Jane seems authentically happy with her head lover. We do not know what she does with it, but, extricated from genitals, its gender becomes rather confounding. What is the relationship between a head and gender? Is Jane still hetero, even if we read the possible sexual acts she can perform traditionally – cunnilingus, kissing? How is her body signified without genital alterity? For Deleuze and Guattari the face is the primary site of signifiance of subjectivity, the place where the organised body quickens all significations into one intensified point of textual transcribability. The face will tell us what race, gender, age and even class the rest of the body is without the need to see its entire form. 'It is precisely because the face depends on an abstract machine that it is not content to cover the head, but touches all other parts of the body… The question then becomes what circumstances trigger the machine that produces the face and facialisation.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 170) Through being territorialised by the face, the whole body becomes face. The flesh conforms to the face and the gender of the face will establish patterns of possible sexual paradigms for the body – female face equals female genitals. Against another female face the female face is lesbian, against a male face heterosexual. Gender is found in the face and assures the genitals, which in these paradigms are taken as the primary and 'appropriate' site of sex.
[16] When it comes to established sexuality, getting head is getting face. Non-intercourse sex relies on the affirmation of the presumed genitals of the lover even if they are not naked. All non-genital sex is risky because it shows the body as divested of gender. (I do not include the anus as a genital here because it is not necessarily gendered unless its especially privileged proximity to the genitals is seen or felt.) A mouth is a mouth, but a straight person probably won't want a same-sex mouth near their body. Genitals are territorialised and territorialising of the body when emergent through a binary machine. When the head is extricated from the torso does the face maintain its territorialisation of the entire body – 'the head is included in the body but the face is not' (Deleuze and Guattari: 170)? The de-facialised head alone cannot signify genitals – is a genital free body still a gendered body? If so in the same way? The abstraction of signifiance as pre-formed rather than formed at the encounter of each body as unique event is both arbitrary and redundant when a head is all there is. Jane's head-lover can be taken as an example of Deleuze and Guattari's body-head system, liberated from the facialising machine… and the body. Jane's head lover is not a partial body object however. When the head is extricated from the facial territorialisation of the body, any single part no longer defers meaning to the whole. Each part can maintain its signification only to a certain extent. While a disembodied genital may still signify gender and thus sexuality, an arm or heart has only limited potential to do so. They may signify something else, but libidinally their meaning is unclear. Each part has a unique relationship to its former full body organism signification, but remains signified nonetheless. So how can a part deterritorialise subjectification and thus sexual paradigms, including gender, act and desire? 'The question of the body is not one of partial objects but differential speeds.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 172). Whether or not Jane thinks she is heterosexual, the fact remains she can't be heterosexual in any way familiar to her former sexuality. This isn't 'me and my head', because the proximity between Jane and her head is what causes others to eventually ship her off to the asylum. For each relation and connection between her lover and herself there must be a compensation or exploration to negotiate the new structure. Even if her sexuality is memorial heterosexual, sexual acts with her head-lover are rhizomatic – 'short term memory or anti-memory. The rhizome operates by variation, expansion, conquest, capture, offshoots…a map that is always detachable, connectable, reversible, modifiable and has multiple entryways and exists and its own lines of flight.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 21) The memory of heterosexual intercourse cannot help Jane as it is no longer an option. That she doesn't seem particularly perturbed by the failure of this memory suggests hers is a happy rhizomatic sexuality(ies).

Beyond the Darkness, into the Body of Light

[17] 'At each stage of the problem what needs to be done is not to compare two organs but to place elements or materials in a relation that uproots the organ from its specificity, making it become "with" the other organ.' (Deleuze and Guattari: 259) Francesco (Kieran Canter) is a taxidermist. His girlfriend Anna (Cinzia Monreale) dies after Francesco's housekeeper Iris (Franca Stoppi) places a curse upon her. Francesco is not particularly saddened by his loss, he does not cry, instead he disinters Anna, preserves her and places her at his side in his bed. Aristede Massaccesi's Beyond the Darkness (Italy, 1979) has been criticised as offensively gory for the scene of Francesco preserving Anna. The scene plays in loving close up unflinchingly and includes extraction of entrails and eyes, and body fluid extravasation and preservation. While I find the scene fascinating rather than offensive or shocking, I will presume that upon first viewing there is an element of surprise and perhaps squeamishness evoked in the viewer. When Francesco removes Anna's heart, he bites into it ecstatically. Clearly the traditional signification of the heart as site of love is evident here. Does eating the heart of a corpse maintain this signification? When we take a metaphor as an actual, does the metaphoric signification stand, or is it colonised by the actual? If the metaphoric without the actual were present, there would be no disgust at the scene. This scene offers an interesting involution of the organisation of the organs of the organism. Francesco clearly indulges his appetite for the love of his girlfriend by eating her heart (if I were to stretch the act into a transcribable sex act I would say cunnilingually). He is also eating a heart in a situation of love. The scene is extreme and gory because the heart fails to remain a metaphor only. Emphasising Deleuze and Guattari's notion that the Body without Organs is not a body devoid of organs but organisation, I would argue that internal organs, in their resistance to use for pleasure and evocation of disgust, create Bodies without Organs by their very being as organ. By using an actual organ a desiring connexion 'with' other organs is created. The inside of the body, the internal organs, lose their metaphoric signification when the thorax is opened, in autopsy or medical imaging, because they become the property of medicine not desire. Is the organ the same organ when it is a physiological, anatomical organ, not a metaphoric organ? The organised body is organised differently depending on which system of signification it emerges through. This is emphasised when entrails are presented, as they belong predominantly if not exclusively to medical rather than sexual systems. The signification of genitals resonates with their metaphoric signification – the 'passive' egg, the 'active' sperm, the 'empty' vulva, the 'rigid, forceful' penis are also adjectives relatively appropriate for metaphoric ways of feminising or masculinising other attributes, qualities or objects. This is why Deleuze and Guattari resist tails in becoming-dog because they are phallic. Entrails fail to translate their conceptual into their physiological attributes so readily. The same organ – the heart – is two different organs, in two incarnations, with two functions in the two systems of medicine and poetic metaphor. Incommensurable double signification leads to the massacre of this heart. The heart is therefore not 'the' heart but 'this' heart, a heart that confounds and conflates the visceral with the metaphoric. The heart which Francesco bites into may represent Anna's heart to him, but it does not to the viewer or there would be no sense of horror. Is a heart 'feminine'? Perhaps, but he shows no interest in her breasts or genitals, he doesn't even have sex with her later in the film, so what precisely this heart evokes libidinally in Francesco is volatile. His mouth is site of ingestion and outward projected expression through kissing. To 'kiss' a heart would be more acceptable, albeit relatively gruesome. The relation Francesco makes between ingesting mouth and no-longer-metaphoric organ creates the new line of desire, the line of viewer and the line of flight.
[18] In death as in life, the interiors of the body seem more 'organ' than external organs such as the genitals, the nose or the skin. His mouth-to-heart act forms what Deleuze and Guattari call an unnatural participation. Against traditional metaphors of organs of love, Francesco removes Anna's eyes because eyes rot. Eyes are often associated with love, with a connection to the soul, with an interface between mind and world. We gaze into our lover's eyes; they express emotions associated with love – joy, sadness, and in pupil dilation sexual excitement. In death the soul supposedly leaves the body. So presumably the eyes can leave the body also. Yet there is something especially harrowing about eye extraction. Taking Anna's eyes seems to be the last frontier in acknowledging that her 'self' is no longer present in this flesh. Because of the associations between eyes and love(rs) this scene seems incommensurable with Francesco's interest in the heart as purely symbolic of love. If it were such, surely the eyes would also be privileged for their equivalent metaphoric status? Like Macabre's Jane, Francesco is not delusional in that he is not unaware of the necessary practicalities of having such a lover, prone as they are to decomposition. In spite of their functional purpose, the use of surgical tools in the scene, and tools of embalming, adds a surgical fetishism to the connection between Anna and Francesco. While I do not have room here to go into the particulars of surgical fetishism it is another form of 'perverse' sexuality which would be interesting to analyze in a Deleuzio-Guattarian context. Surgical 'fetishism' is somewhat of a misnomer, as it does not deal with psychoanalytic fetishism but with forming new and different connections between bodies, organs and tools. Surgical fetishism is more like Deleuze and Guattari's masochism in that it is understood psychoanalytically and clinically in a different way to reading it as a becoming Body without Organs. While the films of Cronenberg, particularly Dead Ringers (Canada, 1988) would seem appropriate examples, the uncanny doubling and particularly the use of investigative and explicitly gender specific surgical tools in the film to interrogate the female interior prevents the film from really challenging psychoanalytic relations of desire. The Mantle twins are compelled to reveal an (albeit deformed) plane in the body of women rather than create new folds. Linda Ruth William's celebrates Cronenberg because he unfolds the flesh to reveal. She speaks of Cronenbergian narratives and even 'Cronenbergian identity' (33). These terms replace 'normal' narratives and subjects with 'weird' ones, but singular and structured ones nonetheless. A more interesting example of surgical fetishism comes from another Antonio Margheriti film, The Virgin of Nuremberg (Italy, 1963). Deformed servant Eric (Christopher Lee), former acolyte of a General known only as 'The Punisher' (Mirko Valentin), polishes daily the surgical tool set belonging to his General. The use of the tools is not specified. The relationship between Eric and The Punisher is similarly not structured but is adamantly libidinal. The conflation of sex and surgery as practical in Beyond the Darkness becomes purely libidinal in my next film for analysis, Flesh for Frankenstein.

Flesh, Fold, Film

[19] Flesh for Frankenstein (Antonio Margheriti, 1974) is a particularly baroque take on the Frankenstein tale. Baron Frankenstein (Udo Kier) creates a master race of 'zombies' so he can repopulate the world with his perfect and obedient children. Meglomaniacal undeniably, but the real interest in the film lies with the incidental propensity of the Baron's extracurricular activities. The Baron is repulsed by copulative sex, but relishes the opportunities he is afforded as an anatomist. He fondles the entrails of his female zombie (Dalila Delazzaro) until achieving climax, and literally fucks her gall bladder, espousing to his Igor-esque servant Otto (Arno Juerging), 'to know death... you have to fuck life... in the gall bladder.' The Baron's adept performance raises questions regarding the pleasure science affords as an episteme, especially due to its more-intimate-than-intimate relationship with the various dishevelled plateaus of the flesh. The act of groping organs in particular can be nomenclatured as perverse – masturbatory and necrophilic – or it can express a reconfiguration of flesh and sexual dialectics. While the female zombie is opened up, the Baron opens up as well, exposing his perversion and, exploiting cinematic technique, his climaxing face in extreme close-up. The zombie opens her eyes during the act, awakened perhaps by the extraordinary experience, confounding the stereotypical aestheticised dead female that populates many Poe-esque horror films. Most emphatically, the viewer is opened up, presented sensorially with the force of the body unwound like a great visceral ribbon and intelligibly with desire that exceeds hetero, homo or pathological.
[20] The Baron breathlessly coos 'spleen, liver, kidneys, gall bladder...' It may be argued that this is a version of the phallologic desire to name and know the female body in order to control it. But entrails are not gendered. This scene is as far from predictable praise in sexual scenes for 'breasts, legs, ass, mouth'– organs that have gendered resonance – as it is from a heterosexual act. The Baron exclaims 'beautiful!' when he first approaches the body, but suffixes this with 'the incision is superb', so his concept of corporeal beauty is immediately deterritorialising, aesthetic perfection found in a non-contusive suture. There is, however, a tension here between the Baron's naming of the organs and the act's revolutionary potential. Naming risks structuring the pleasure, 'since instead of being passages of abundant intensity, these metamorphoses become metaphors of an impossible coupling.' (Lyotard: 23) The entrails are not metaphors. The Baron presents an impossible coupling as possible, and indeed as immanent.
[21] Why is this apparently confounding and strange scene pleasurable to view? If we cannot describe the on-screen pleasure within established sexual systems, how can we describe our pleasure at viewing them? Watching the act and the pleasure experienced from viewing adamantly continues to resist being reified as a repeatable dialectic of pleasure. Thought traditionally, where on-screen flesh and pleasure sets up a demand for a similar or simulated version in the viewing flesh, in what ways does our pleasure reflect these on-screen bodies and pleasures? As the pleasures of the necrophile involve becoming passive to designification, so our pleasure as viewers requires an opening up to the images and their intermingled repulsive pleasures and extraordinary bodies. Lyotard's elaboration of Deleuze and Guattari's Body without Organs in Libidinal Economy emphasises the unraveling of signified flesh with the unraveling evoked in desire. To take Lyotard's definition of the flesh literally, the 'body is undone and its pieces are projected across libidinal space, mingling with other pieces in an inextricable patchwork.' (Lyotard: 60)
[22] Our viewing bodies must be thought differently, stratified in a different pattern, undone and re-patched so that we are no longer dependent on genitals and gazing eyes as gendering and desiring organs. Viscera and confusion, even repulsion, enter into our pleasured viewing bodies. Thus definitions of pleasurable scenarios, bodies and what is desirable at all become re-configured. It could be argued, of course, that this reconfiguration occurs at every libidinal situation. This scene's unusual representations of desire and flesh perhaps make thinking the reconfigurations all desiring bodies go through more immediately accessible, even compulsory. In this instance our relation to cinema is an example of Lyotard's libidinal band, where we 'open the so-called body and spread out all its surfaces' (1) which, he continues, is made up of the 'not only…' where nothing, organic, inorganic, minutely refined and dishevelled, grossly baunastic, forms desire as pleated, twisting membrane, one great ephemeral skin. The particular desiring membrane of screen and viewer I call the cinesexual – the unique desiring relation between film and spectator. 'Cinesexuality is the launch upon a line of desire where the outcome cannot be known – desire for a shadow, an inflection of light, quality of frame or contrast. The layers of expectation, pleasure and satisfaction are redistributed in the act of watching and so our desire must also redistribute. [Horror film], eliciting a turbulence of visceral reaction, a rhythmic refrain between viewing flesh and the speed of the film, may be an intersection where our attraction and corporeal dispersion connect with the viewed.' (MacCormack, 2001) There is a risk in passivity to cinema, emphasized at the visceral response to which horror film is met. The viewer, like the cadaver on the table, is eviscerated into splanchnic proliferations. 'Cinesexuality requires all viewers to come to cinema with an openness to the pure possible. Spectators 'gift' themselves to the indeterminability of affects and breaks in signifying systems. Submitting oneself to film is submitting to affects that indulge in the breaking down of logic and the flesh itself… Cinesexuality is expressed not in what one watches but how one is altered.' (MacCormack 2005: 351, 352)
[23] What is the Baron's desire? Why do we watch it with such an intermingling of disgust, confusion and pleasure? Traditional desire, her body and our intelligible viewing flesh that attempts to make meaning of the image are all undone, coming together in a constellation of pleasure, perversion and openness, breaking down the material and discursive fissure between viewer and viewed. Remaining in a simple binary of ordinary/extraordinary or normal pleasure/perversion positions relies most often on the subjugated terms – extraordinary, perversion – being defined not by what they are, but by the ways in which they fail the regimental and specific criteria of the dominant terms. For example, the opposite of heterosexual is not only homosexual, but also any failure at heterosexuality, from bisexuality and heterosexuality that includes effeminate masculinity, to small fetishes and grand panic narratives such as paedophilia. But between the cracks and fissures of these epistemological pathologies are found an infinite amount of minor and major transgressions of the rigid parameters of normalcy.
[24] The more confounding the perversion, the greater the resistance to it being reduced into a conceptual list of symptoms and reasons for these. Our pleasure at the Baron's perversion is difficult to fix into an established perversion that includes the perversions on-screen and our pleasure at watching them, as well as our horror at our pleasure, and at what the Baron is doing and an endless list of further intensities difficult to demarcate and name. That we cannot comprehend the Baron's perversion is essential to the scene's powers of differentiating the spectator from a traditional viewing dialectic. Jacques Rancière points out that 'the response to the false question "Do you understand?" implies the constitution of a specific speech scene in which it is a matter of constructing another relationship by making the position of the enunciator explicit. The utterance thereby completed then finds itself extracted from the speech situation in which it functioned naturally.' (47) To contend that we do not understand without answering that claim resists interrupting the visceral pleasure of the scene for a simulacrum of that scene which replaces the material and transformative with the discursive and repeatable, where pleasure reflects the already-thought instead of relishing the unknowable.
[25] Attempting to explain why we take pleasure in the scene inserts us into a taxonomy of perversion. The parameters of the perversion then induct our pleasure instead of deducing the pleasure of the images, exchanging pleasure for external reasons for enjoying the images. The risks and needs to reduce confounding perversions to a series of symptoms and reasons preclude knowledge of them. The Baron's pleasure at the perverse – his taste also ranges over consensual incest, anatomo-epistophilia and autoeroticism (as he enjoys both the masturbatory pleasure the female zombie affords him, but also his ecstasy at dying with a barge pole through his gall bladder) – contrasts with an investigative purpose of the audience setting up of specific questions that must be answered, closing off rather than splaying the pleasures in the film. 'Perversion neither defines nor demarcates itself. It is the purity of the something-otherwise, available through the most radical or the quietest of acts. However act does not guarantee perversion. Nor does will. What perversion resonates is the redistribution of self through sensation and perception, a transformation of subjectification and signification. Perversion describes a project of risk and of hope. It is not a safe or predictable experiment. One of film's great promises is impossible worlds, worlds unrealisable in the everyday, which fold us within the unperceivable cinema allows us to perceive.' (MacCormack, 2004)

Necrophilic Lines of Flight

[26] In this article I have attempted, using a rather contentious form of sexuality, to explore the relationship between bodies and signification based on the taking of an object of desire which problematises the relationship between the body and being human. The immobile corpse can mobilise desire through forging new connexions which exploit the ways in which the flesh can be excavated in death. I have purposefully shifted my argument from the epistemology of social necrophilia to necrophilia in films because films, like bodies, offer uses and activities with the flesh unavailable in the 'real' world with 'real' bodies. Nonetheless these films are explicitly able to affect the viewer into thinking – or unthinking – the body differently and the reorientations or challenges in reference to gender and sexual act afforded in necrophilia. As the relationship between the necrophiliac and the corpse creates a line of flight, so these often harrowing, fascinating and baroque images fold with the viewer to affect them and form new trajectories of pleasure, both in viewing images and experiencing the body. The representations show us a different sexuality not with which we can replace ours, but which affects us and our understanding of the purposes and functions of bodies as they relate to and are regulated by the massacre signification perpetrates upon flesh and desire.


[1] Deleuze and Guattari, together and separately, as well as Foucault, all critique the term 'transgression'. Transgression is unable to exist independently as a haecceity. It can only be measured against and in reference to, while a Deleuzio-Guattarian reading is an interrogation of the different parameters, paradigms and plateaus within rather than against systems, an alteration of trajectories and velocities. Perhaps a more correct term would be 'lines of flight', however I use the term transgression here because Guattari explicitly uses it
[2] My use of the word 'pleasure' here is tactical. In response to Foucault's disdain at the word 'desire' because it evokes a desire 'for' (and thus a lack of) Deleuze refuses the word 'pleasure'. Deleuze claims pleasure 'seems to interrupt the immanent process of desire… the only means for persons or subjects to orient themselves in a process that exceeds them.' (2000: 255) However, if Deleuze can posit a desire which lacks nothing, then my use of the term pleasure comes because it evokes a 'within' rather than a 'toward', a pure spatial – and hence immanent – form of ecstasy, outside of temporal narratives. Both have issues which I do not have time to elaborate here.
[3] Such a feeling of post-humanism has ethical implications for those who were never given the luxury of being considered as truly human, the marginal and the minoritarian, including women. This is dealt with in Judith Butler's Undoing Gender and the work of Donna Haraway, particularly Primate Visions and Simians, Cyborgs and Women.
[4] This should not be taken as symptomatic of metal music or culture in general. For every Cannibal Corpse there is a creative, and indeed Deleuzio-Guattarian, example of metal music (seen for example in doom metal band Halo's 1998 album Guattari: From the West Flows Grey Ash and Pestilence). The author also published an article on necrophilia with the same ideas and explications as this piece in British metal magazine Terrorizer #133 (May 2005).

Works Cited

Bataille, Georges. (1990) Eroticism. Trans. Mary Dalwood. London: Marion Boyars.
Bronfen, Elisabeth. (1992) Over Her Dead Body. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Butler, Judith. (2004) Undoing Gender. London and New York: Routledge.
Dean, Tim. (2000) Beyond Sexuality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deleuze, Gilles. (1994) Difference and Repetition. Trans. Paul Patton. New York: Columbia University Press.
Deleuze, Gilles. (2000) 'Desire and Pleasure.' Trans. Lysa Hochroth. In Lotringer, Sylvère, More & Less. New York: Semiotext(e).
Deleuze, Gilles. (2001) The Fold: Leibniz and the Baroque. Trans. Tom Conley. London: Athlone.
Deleuze, Gilles and Guattari, Félix. (1987) A Thousand Plateaus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia. Trans. Brian Massumi. London: Athlone.
Downing, Lisa. (2003) Desiring the Dead. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Foucault, Michel. (1992) The Use of Pleasure: The History of Sexuality Volume 2. Trans. Robert Hurley. London: Penguin.
Guattari, Félix. (1996) 'In Order to End the Massacre of the Body.' Trans. Jarred Becker. In Guattari's Soft Subversions, ed. Sylvère Lotringer. New York: Semiotext(e).
Haraway, Donna. (1989) Primate Visions. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, Donna. (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women. London: Free Association Press.
Krafft-Ebing, Richard Von. (1997) Psychopathia Sexualis. Trans. Domino Falls. London: Velvet.
Lyotard, Jean François. (1993) Libidinal Economy, trans Iain Hamilton Grant. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
MacCormack, Patricia. (2002) 'Barbara Steele's Ephemeral Skin: Feminism, Fetishism and Film.' Senses of Cinema 22: September – October.
MacCormack, Patricia, ed. (2004) Senses of Cinema: Special Issue of Perversion 30: Jan – March.
MacCormack, Patricia. (2005) 'A Cinema of Desire: Cinesexuality and Guattari's Asignifying Cinema.' Women: A Cultural Review 16: 3: 340-355.
Moeliker, C. W. (2001) 'The First Case of Homosexual Necrophilia in the Mallard Anas Platyrhynchos.' Deinsea 8 (November): 243-247.
Péraldi, François. (1981) 'Postface: Masochism and Polysexuality.' In Péraldi, François, ed. Polysexuality. New York: Semiotext(e).
Pfohl, Stephen and Gordon, Avery. (1987) 'Criminological Displacements: A Sociological Deconstruction.' In Kroker, Arthur and Kroker, Marilouise. Body Invaders: Panic Sex in America. New York: St. Martin's Press. 224-252.
Rancière, Jacques, (1995) Disagreement. Trans Julie Rose, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Stoller, Robert J. (1975) Perversion: The Erotic Form of Hatred. New York: Pantheon Books.
Williams, Linda Ruth. (1999) 'The Inside Out of Masculinity: David Cronenberg's Visceral Pleasures.' In Aaron, Michele. The Body's Perilous Pleasures: Dangerous Desires and Contemporary Culture. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Necrophilia Variations by Supervert

Supervert: Varijacije na nekrofiliju

Varijacije na nekrofiliju književna je monografija o erotskoj privlačnosti leševa i smrti. Sastoji se od niza tekstova koji, poput glazbenih fraza, preuzimaju temu te je dalje razvijaju pomoću repeticije, kontrasta i varijacije. Voljeti nekoga tko je mrtav obična je nostalgija  ali voditi ljubav s nekim tko je mrtav je nekrofilija i o tome je riječ u ovoj knjizi.
Iako je proizvod fikcije, Varijacije na nekrofiliju koriste se književnim sredstvima da bi ispitale psihopatologiju seksualne perverzije. Eros, pita se ova knjiga, prirodno privlači ljepota, pa ipak ništa se ne čini manje lijepim samim po sebi od trupla. Kako to da nekrofil na kraju brka to dvoje ili pak čini taj skok, da nalazi ljepotu u nečemu što većina ljudi smatra odvratnim? Kako to da želi nešto što je po svojoj biti nepoželjno?
Pisana stilom koji seže od melankoličnog do besmislenog — od grimizne proze do crnog humora – Varijacije na nekrofiliju izlažu jedan svijet izopačenosti pogledu iznutra. Svaki se tekst koristi prvim licem – ne zato što je autobiografski, nego zato što je osoban, dapače intiman. Zašto intiman? Jer smrt jest takva – blizu vas, pokraj vas i u konačnici, u vama. Bilo bi lijepo reći da je takav i seks – intiman – ali ipak nije tajna da seks zna biti itekako neosoban, posebice kad je vaš partner u nesvijesti ili nešto gore.
Ako ste ikad razmišljali o neobičnim dodirnim točkama između erosa i tanatosa — ako ste se ikad pitali zašto su fatalne žene privlačne, ili zašto se seks može učiniti zanimljivijim pomoću igrica koje simuliraju opasnost ili bol, ili zašto se onaj mali dio francuskog slenga koji opisuje orgazam kao “malu smrt” čini tako prikladnim – mogli biste uistinu uživati u ovoj knjizi. A ako jest tako, možda užitak čitanja u vama oslobodi um nekrofila – budući da je tekst, poput trupla, ostatak živoga bića a kao čitatelj, bez sumnje ćete iz njega pokušati izvući užitak.

Primjer Varijacija na nekrofiliju 

Nekrofilija je paradoksalna vrsta perverzije. Često se naziva “neizrecivim” zločinom, pa ipak ta neizrecivost nije spriječila stvaranje istinskih klišeja: perverznog pljačkaša grobova, napaljenog čuvara mrtvačnice i tako dalje.
Varijacije na nekrofiliju pokušavaju premostiti upravo taj jaz između šutnje i stereotipa. Smrt, požuda i devijacija mogu se uvijek iznova kombinirati na mnoštvo načina, a Varijacije na nekrofiliju jednostavno ukazuju na neke od mogućnosti. Primjerice, zamislite da netko razvije fetiš za teroriste ili osuđenike na smrt – je li to također jedan oblik nekrofilije kao i fetiš za mrtva tijela? Ili kakva se nova vrsta morbidnosti pojavljuje u čovjeku koji odluči provesti zadnju noć s prostitutkom prije nego što se ubije? Ili kako bi suvremena tehnologija mogla utjecati na praksu bezvremenske opačine? Ili, ako je nekrofilija čulni užitak, je li zamislivo da bi netko mogao dobiti izopačeni užitak putem bilo kojeg od čula – primjerice kroz uši?
Ovo su samo neka od pitanja koja se postavljaju u Varijacijama na nekrofiliju.

Kako bi tebi bilo?
Naravno da je došlo do točke kada sam morao zastati i upitati se: Kako bi tebi bilo? Kako bi tebi bilo da ležiš na stolu za autopsiju i da te mrtvozornik sjecka u različite tipove seksualnih pomagala? Femur bi bio sjajan dildo. Crijeva su prirodni profilaktici. Srce, taj organ ljubavi, može se koristiti kao džepna pička s četiri komore. Ono što na kraju ostane od tvog tijela može se napuniti lubrikantom umjesto tekućinom za balzamiranje – ili obratno, možda će neka pohotna mala nekro nimfa doći da bi sisala tekućinu za balzamiranje s tvog tijela i koristila se njome kao svojim “osobnim lubrikantom”. Tko zna? Mogućnosti su bezbrojne. Bi li ti bilo draže da tvoje truplo bude otpadni proizvod ili seksualni objekt?
Kada to tako kažeš, pomislio bi da bi većina ljudi naravno radije bila seksualni objekt. Napokon, kada kažeš da ti tijelo postaje otpadni proizvod znači da kad umreš, postaješ izmet. Truplo je tvoja parodija, načinjena od govana. Tko to želi? Ne bi li bilo bolje biti seksualni objekt? Tvoje mrtvačko odijelo postaje žensko rublje, mogao bi izvoditi striptiz sa svojim mrtvačkim pokrovom – a ako se ne možeš mrdati ili plesati, naposljetku će tvoj pokrov istrunuti i izjest će ga crvi, tako da u neku ruku svaki kadaver ipak na kraju postaje striper. Mogao bi instalirati obrnuti periskop u svoju nadgrobnu ploču tako da morbidni voajeri mogu doći i mjerkati te. Naravno, ostavljali bi mrlje od sperme na tvojoj ploči, ali to mora da je bolje od raspadanja u zemlji poput ljudskog govna. Mogao bi čak naplaćivati kunu za svaki pogled kroz periskop, a u svojoj bi oporuci mogao odrediti što želiš učiniti sa sredstvima – možda unajmiti nekoga da svake godine u proljeće sastruže spermu s tvoje ploče.
Čovjek bi pomislio da bi bar neki ljudi uvidjeli koliko je ovo pametno. Kada bi im bilo draže o svojim ostacima razmišljati kao zavodljivim a ne odbojnim, imali bi otvoreno stajalište prema nekrofilima koji bi dolazili ometati njihov spokoj. Možda bi čak željeli i obilježiti svoje grobove tako da ih nekrofili znaju naći. Možda bi bio dovoljan neki natpis, epitaf koji draška poput prostog govora. Ipak, nekrofilu puno vremena oduzima čitanje svih tih natpisa na pločama na groblju, posebice u mraku, a često su ti natpisi i erodirali pod utjecajem vjetra i kiše. Bolje bi rješenje bilo pretvoriti nadgrobni spomenik u moćan vizualni simbol. Primjerice, nadgrobni spomenik nekro-prijateljski raspoloženog muškarca mogao bi se isklesati u obliku penisa u erekciji, a njegov bi lijes mogao imati malu podstavljenu rupu pri dnu da bi se olakšala jedna bolesna vrsta sodomije (umjesto da se zove rupa slave, mogla bi se nazvati rupa strave).
Protivnici ove vizije mogli bi navesti argument da bi se zadovoljavanjem nekrofila potaknula seksualna izopačenost i društvena bolest. Pa ipak, ne bi li možda bilo upravo suprotno? Zamislite. Ako se potiskuje nekog sadistu, on postaje samo još gori – zlobniji, okrutniji, opasniji do točke kada se nađe na putu do ultimativnog čina sadizma: ubojstva. Ali što kada bi ljudi pružili ispušni ventil za njegovu zatomljenu slabost? Pošaljite ga na groblje da pronađe nekrofilima naklonjene grobove. Neka stavlja lisice mrtvacima i tuče ih do besvijesti bičevima. Koga briga? Nikoga neće povrijediti – a možda i spasite neki život tako što ćete njemu dati truplo. A možda je to primjenjivo na pervertite svih vrsta. Neka pedofili zlostavljaju tijela mrtve djece. Ako su stvarno zagriženi i žele sve mlađe i mlađe meso, dajte im medicinski otpad koji nastaje nakon abortusa u prvom tromjesečju. Zašto da ne? On nikoga neće povrijediti – a možda radite za društveno dobro tako što ćete iscijediti zlo.
Sad će opet šokirani i zgroženi podići svoj glas u znak protesta. Nije stvar u fizičkom zlostavljanju mrtvih, nego u zadavanju emocionalnih rana onima koji su živi, njihovim najbližima, preživjelima i nasljednicima. Tko želi misliti o tipu u kožnim hlačama koji bakino truplo tuče bičem i lancem za pse? Čak i ako nema raja a baka ne zna što joj se događa, za nas ostale još je uznemirujuće razmišljati o tome. Ovo je svakako vrijedan prigovor, ali ipak se morate sjetiti: ionako to ne možete spriječiti. Što ćete učiniti: stražariti na bakinom grobu? Kupiti joj neprobojan lijes? Najbolje čemu se možete nadati je da će nekrofil poštivati nešto kao seksualni ekvivalent oporuke živućeg. Specificirajte kako želite ili ne želite da se vašim tijelom koriste kad vas više ne bude. Ako imate sreće, nekrofil će biti dovoljno obziran da poštuje vaše posljednje želje. Možda vas ipak neće vezati i opaliti bičem četrdeset puta. S druge strane možda će si obrisati guzicu vašom oporukom i izbičevati vaše ostatke devetokrakim bičem. U tom trenutku baš i ne možete puno toga poduzeti – osim ako niste živi zakopani, ali to je još neugodnije od posthumnog bičevanja. 
Kako bi onda meni bilo? Bi li me smetalo pomisliti da se moje tijelo seksa bez mene? Ili zamisliti da moja guzica pruža zadovoljstvo nakon što ja odem? Na neki način, ovo je čudno pitanje za postaviti sebi ako si nekrofil. Pedofil ne može postati dijete, fetišist za cipelama ne može postati cipela ali nekrofil se može i hoće prebaciti na drugu stranu. Na kraju – ne, neizbježno – on postaje objektom vlastite čudne  perverzije: mrtvo tijelo. I što onda? Što nekrofil želi da se učini s njegovim tijelom? Naravno, nekrofil provodi mnogo vremena razmišljajući o smrti tako da možda ima neku varijantu koju vi ne možete ni zamisliti. Možda ne bi insistirao da ga se održi u netaknutom stanju, primjerice, jer zna da truplo ne mora biti savršena nego inertna inačica živog tijela da bi ga se iskorištavalo i u njemu uživalo. Mogli bi skuhati odrezani ud i pojesti ga kao dio erotske igre, baš kao što učmali parovi iz predgrađa jedno drugome ližu tučeno vrhnje s genitalija. To možda nije ekstremno hardcore jebanje trupla, ali je li to imalo slabiji čin nekrofilije?
Nakon dužeg razmišljanja odlučio sam da želim biti kremiran – ne zato što ostalim nekrofilima želim uskratiti svoje tijelo, budući da bi to bilo licemjerno. Dapače, želio bih imati nadgrobnu ploču gdje će mi ljudi moći odati počast. A na tom mjestu volio bih da moj pepeo bude u nekoj vrsti automata poput aparata za žvakaće gume. I volio bih da iz tog automata moji najdraži, preživjeli i nasljednici, moji obožavatelji i sljedbenici, kao i slučajni prolaznici i genealozi budućnosti uzmu prstohvat mog pepela i posipaju ga u svoje donje rublje. Posebno mislim na djevojke, tako da bi se moj pepeo rasuo po gaćicama svih vrsta – pamučnim, svilenim i satenskim – ružičastim, plavim i kremastim. Svaka bi vagina bila moj grob, svaki klitoris moj nadgrobni spomenik, a kao posebnu vrstu počasti možda bi mogle izbrijati moj epitaf u svoje stidne dlačice.

Božić za bolesne

Tijekom ručka pridružio sam se nekolicini liječnika u sobi za sastanke. Unatoč obješenim ukrasima nije djelovala pretjerano svečano. Lickanje te sobe za Božić bilo je nalik podvezivanju odrezanog uda ukrasnim papirom ili zašivanju rane zlatnim koncem. Bilo je to pogrešno usmjeravanje dobrog raspoloženja. Iznad nas su djeca i dalje umirala od neizlječivih bolesti.
Pa ipak, to nikoga nije spriječilo u slavlju. Imali smo punjenu puricu s umakom od brusnica i nešto boca alkohola da se proveselimo. Kirurg s Traume pričao je anegdotu o operaciji pijanog vozača na njihovu odjelu. "Na njegovim boksericama bili su sobovi," rekao je, šaleći se kako su svim sibivima nosevi bili crveni od krvi.
Svi su se nasmijali. Radiolog koji je bio meni zdesna odabrao je bocu meskala sa stola s cugom i istočio si malo u prozirnu plastičnu čašu. Nagnuo je bocu prema meni cereći se i ja sam mu pružio čašu da mi malo nalije. Mora da smo svi mislili na istu stvar – ako su gaće pijanog vozača bile krvave, što se dogodilo s njegovim penisom? – zato što je jedan pedijatar počeo pričati priču koja mu se dogodila dok je bio stažist. Jednog tinejdžera su doveli u hitnu nakon što je sam sebe pokušao kastrirati. "Nažalost," smijao se pedijatar, "on nije znao da kastracija u tehničkom smislu ne znači i amputaciju."
Jedan je onkolog podigao kost od batka i ispustio je u umak od brusnica. „Jeste mu ga ponovo prišili?“
Pedijatar se iskreveljio. "Nisam mogao. Dječakova majka ga nije ponijela. Nije se mogla natjerati da ga pokupi."
"Mogla je upotrijebiti skupljač kakice," rekao je radiolog.
"Ili hvatač za pimpač," predložio je medicinski brat.
"Još bolje," rekao je onkolog, vadeći kost iz umaka od brusnica, "mogla je upotrijebiti hvataljke za visuljke da bi ga stavila u rupčić za kurčić." Umotao je kost u platnenu salvetu i podigao je.
"Vas baš zabavlja ovo predavanje o odvratnoj anatomiji?," pitao je liječnik meni slijeva, Britanac po imenu Dr. Peterson. "Vjerovali ili ne, nije neobično vidjeti pacijenta koji je sebi pokušao odrezati ud. Ali ja sam jednom imao čovjeka koji je učinio upravo suprotno. Raznio si je ostatak tijela."
Iskapio sam svoju čašicu meskala. Osjećao sam kako me peče u grlu. “Kako to mislite?”
"Dok sam još bio u Londonu, imali smo jednu auto-bombu – IRA, znate već. Bolničari su  pronašli sve dijelove svih žrtava, ali imali smo određeni privjesak koji nije imao vlasnika. Sva su muška tijela imala svoje penise ali mi smo imali penis koji nije imao tijelo."
"Dakle, mora da je pripadao ženskoj osobi," rekao sam. "Hermafrodit ili pre-op pred-operacijski transseksualac koji uzima hormone." Ne znam zašto sam pomislio da je to smiješno – je li stvar bila u piću? – ali nasmijao sam se i posegnuo za bocom meskala da si natočim još jednu čašicu.
Dr. Peterson je bio savršeno ozbiljan. "Sve su žene također imale svoje genitalije."
"Pa odakle se onda stvorio?," upitao sam, još držeći bocu u ruci. "Mora da je postojalo još jedno tijelo, samo su ga bolničari previdjeli."
"U zapadnom svijetu nikad nema nepronađenih ostataka. Ljudi uvijek dolaze po svoje mrtve."
"Što ako su tijela osakaćena do neprepoznatljivosti?"
"Imamo vrlo sofisticirane tehnike identifikacije: zubne kartone, otiske prstiju, DNK..."
"I odakle je taj odrezani penis ispao? "
"Jedino je mogao biti s bombaša."
"Kako to?," podrignuo sam, a alkohol mi se žareći vratio u usta.
"Pretpostavili smo da je bomba eksplodirala prerano. Bombašev auto je najvjerojatnije udario o kvrgu na cesti i slučajno aktivirao bombu. Vjerojatno ju je nosio na dasci ili ploči na svom krilu. Daska je zaštitila to određeno područje a ostatak se doslovce razletio u komadiće."
"Kako to da nitko nije došao po — ?"
"Ostatke? A tko bi? I što bi s njima učinili?"
Upravo u trenutku kada sam počeo zamišljati posudu za uzorke prepunu formaldehida ili jedan od onih malih ljesova u koje stavljaju novorođenčad, radiolog je posegnuo prema meni. "Ako ne kaniš točiti," rekao je "dopusti meni." Uzeo je bocu i, kako ju je naginjao u moju čašu, iskliznuo je i gusano. "Crv!" izderao se radiolog. "Dobio je crva!" U trenu su liječnici lupali šakama o stol i navijali u ritmu. "Jedi ga. Jedi ga. Jedi ga."
Gledao sam crva, roskasti komadić mesa kako se migolji u alkoholu i mislio na bombašev ostatak. Što bi njegova obitelj radila s njim? Zakopala ga u majušni grob veličine pivske boce? Ili bi ga njegova udovica držala na kaminu u staklenci s formaldehidom? I ako jest tako, bi li ikad bila u iskušenju da ga izvadi i – znate – u trenutku samoće… Na koncu to jest spolni organ i kad sve proanalizirate ne možete učiniti baš puno da biste sačuvali svetost svojih ostataka. “Ja ću se jednostavno dati kremirati,” kažete vi – ali onda se pojavi pervertit koji vam ejakulira u urnu i umiješa prstom svoje sjeme u vaš pepeo. Za svaki tip trupla, pomislio sam, mora postojati odgovarajući tip nekrofila. Nijedno tijelo nije sigurno. Samo zato što se prestajemo aktivno koristiti našim spolnim organima ne znači da se drugi ljudi njima ne koriste pasivno. U smrti postajemo nemoćni, a nekrofilima neodoljivi. Svako je truplo seksualni objekt i tako gledano, terorist koji je raznio vlastito tijelo postaje simbol naše zajedničke sudbine. Na koncu, svi se mi svodimo na mrtve genitalije.
Osjetio sam gurkanje u rebra. "Samo naprijed," rekao je Dr. Peterson. "Gusano zapravo nije crv. To je ličinka leptira. Misli na njega kao na stvar koja ima potencijal za veliku ljepotu. Samo naprijed. Učini to."
Jezive žudnje
Ljepota je u oku promatrača. Ljubav je slijepa. Jednome božica, drugom aždaja. Svatko je nekome seksualno privlačan, u protivnom mnogi od nas ne bi bili rođeni… Otrcane fraze! Ljepota je relativna, reći ćete – ali možda biste trebali biti na oprezu. Možda niste promislili o posljedicama svojih riječi. Ljepota je relativna – kako da ne! Shvaćate li da to, ako je istina, otvara pravi ponor.? Ljepota je relativna – ali može li biti toliko relativna da neki od nas padnu na samo dno i postanu privučeni čistom ružnoćom?
Pričat ću vam o sistematskom preokretu svog libida – ili prije, o onome što sam naučio kao rezultatu tog preokreta. Ne pokušavajte ovo kod kuće.
Kao i svatko drugi, ja sam naravno želio ljepotu – privlačnost – ljupkost – šarm i draž u ljudskom obliku. Živio sam u kulturi koja je bila prozivana zbog svog plitkog obožavanja supermodela, kraljica ljepote, starleta i djevojaka s naslovnice – i to mi se sviđalo. Smatrao sam da to postavlja standarde dražesti kojih bi se svi trebali držati. U najobičnijim reklamama za ruž za usne i sjenilo za oči, s čistim bijelim pozadinama i egzotičnim nijansama, vidio sam moralnu vrijednost – pouku – poticaj za stremljenje prema izvrsnosti i savršenosti. Površni svijet izgleda, mislio sam, bio je proizvod podzemnog svijeta truda i poriva. Ljepota je relativna, ne samo za osobu koja je promatra nego i za onu koja je stvara.
Sukladno tome, izrazito sam se ponosio svojim izgledom. Održavao sam formu. Odlazio u teretanu. Plivao sam, posebno zato što sam mislio da ću privlačniji biti vitak nego nabildan poput dizača utega. Redovito sam posjećivao nutricionista, brijača, maserku. Oblačio sam se u stilu koji je bio moderan a ipak klasičan. Izbjegavao sam krikove mode i ležernu odjeću, a pribjegavao dobro skrojenim prilično skupim odijelima. Bio sam – priznajem – uistinu markantan – urbani muškarac, ako ne i pravi kicoš.
Znao sam sa ženama. Nije bilo potrebe zvati ljepotu relativnom u nazočnosti mojih prijateljica. Svaki bi se muškarac slineći složio da su moje žene bile zanosne. Ali otkrit ću vam malu tajnu. Što osjeća muškarac koji je oženjen najljepšom ženom na svijetu? Dosadna mu je. D-o-s-a-d-n-a – dosadna. Vara je s kurvama na cracku. Ševi joj se iza leđa s pred-operacijskim transseksualcima. Zašto? Kao što je rekao poznati pjevač. Nakon svog vjenčanja u Las Vegasu zamolio je jednog od svojih menadžera da mu nabavi kurvu. Menadžer je bio zapanjen. „Kurvu? Ali zašto? Gore te čeka jedna od najljepših žena na svijetu!” Pjevač je pogledao svog menadžera. “Da,” rekao je, “ali ona je moja žena.”
Kužite? U određenom trenutku nastupa Zakon smanjene privlačnosti. Izađete s glumicom – a onda želite model. Izađete s modelom – a onda želite supermodel. Izađete sa supermodelom – i što onda želite? Superduper model? Malo sutra! Nakon što ste bili intimno vezani s najljepšom ženom na svijetu, postoji samo put prema dolje – sve niže, i niže, i niže – duboko u ponor relativne ljepote. Prvo se sa supermodela vratite na model, ili običnu kraljicu ekrana. Onda zaronite i nastavljate padati – navijačica, frizerka, konobarica, radnica na gradilištu.
Ali gdje je dno?
Kada mi je dosadila građevinka, sa tijelom koje je podsjećalo na bull terijera, počeo sam shvaćati nešto vrlo važno što se odnosilo na libido. Kada pokušate nadmašiti sami sebe, Zakon smanjene privlačnosti radi još brže – želite više, bolje, što prije. A ipak ste iscrpljeni – dosadno vam je - oslabili ste – izgubili vjeru. Nasuprot tome, kada prema Zakonu smanjene privlačnosti idete unatrag – kada prestajete nadmašivati zadnji užitak i svojevoljno se krenete spuštati kroz dubine nižih užitaka – događa se nešto vrlo iznenađujuće. Slušajte. Osjećate se snažnije – bolje – čvršće. Zamislite! Libido je mišić: postaje sve jači ako ga uvijek iznova izlažete naporu. A što je za libido napor? Ružnoća.
Moji prijatelji su bez sumnje bili šokirani kada sam se nakon građevinske radnice prebacio na debelu ženu, a stvarno mislim debelu. Vidjeli bi mene s mojim vitkim tijelom maratonca i pitali se što mi je to privlačno na ovoj krupnoj ljubavnici s gaćicama maksi veličine. Vi to bez sumnje sada znate – jasno vam je što je to što oni nisu mogli pojmiti. Moja gojazna odaliska bila je instruktor mog libida. Tjerala ga je da diže utege odvratnosti i trči stazom odbojnosti. Natjerala ga je da iznoji svoj isprazni estetizam i očeliči se za erotske susrete sa sve većim rasponom jezivih žudnji.
Slijedio je deformirani muškarac – pretrpio je amputaciju — a nakon njega, pas. U bestijalnosti, osjećao sam se kao da sam dodirnuo donju prečku na ljestvama relativnih ljepota. Bio sam spreman poduzeti slijedeći korak – dolje – dolje u područje toliko daleko od normalnog ljudskog razuma da, nasuprot preljubu, homoseksualnosti i bestijalnosti, čak nije navedeno u Bibliji. Tko bi pomislio zabraniti jedan čin,  perverziju, koja se već sama po sebi činila toliko odbojna? Čak je i meni odvratna – ali ipak bilo je to upravo ono što sam tražio: nešto što će pružiti otpor mom sve potentnijem libidu.
To nije moglo biti ništa što previše nalikuje – normalnom životu. Moralo je biti uistinu to, bez maske ili geste ili kompromisa prema prirodnim žudnjama muškog libida. To nije mogla biti jednostavna inačica uspavane ljepotice, Julije u svojoj grobnici s rumenilom mladosti koje skriva učinke smrtonosnog otrova. Trebalo mi je nešto što tjera na povraćanje. Nešto ne samo mrtvo nego tako jako mrtvo da se ne može pobrkati ni sa čime drugim.
I znate li što sam otkrio? Rigor mortis, bljedoća, trulež – i oni mogu biti izvori neizrecivog užitka. Meso koje je – recimo prezrelo  - može pružiti mek, topao zagrljaj, čak i na mjestima gdje prije nisu postojali otvori. A crvi, koliko god to zvučalo odurno – a jasno mi je da zvuči odvratno – kada pužu ili migolje preko vašeg organa za užitak, šalju divne podražaje kroz vaš živčani sustav, slične malim prstima ili vibratoru.
Ali kamo poći nakon toga? Nekrofilija je ono gdje relativnost ljepote nailazi na granicu: smrt. Što bi uopće moglo biti ružnije? Ne možete se spustiti niže, ništa dalje od urođene ljudske odvratnosti. S tog mjesta možete se samo početi penjati po hranidbenom lancu ljepote – ali čujte. Nakon što ste jednom bili tamo, nakon što ste dodirnuli dno ponora, zauvijek ste osuđeni gledati ljepotu kroz prizmu ružnoće. Cijeli svoj život, nećete biti u mogućnosti vidjeti klitoris najljepše žene na svijetu a da se ne začudite koliko podsjeća na crva na njezinu truplu.

S engleskoga prevela Ksenija Švarc


You need to look at the various perspectives of what we may mean by not active. Something that is not active has this implication that it is in a state of some kind of silence. Now there is what we call a pinpoint that we need to draw on order to indeed truly understand what it means to have silence. What is funny is I was having breakfast with this nice man and he though has this one thing about himself for which what he does is that he does not give you anything explicit immediately. He has a tendency to let you basically go into your dramatic roles of being called to the stage in the universe of Life and just keep spouting off. Now he had made this statement to me that I don't need drama in my Life and my answer thereafter is Life is drama. So here is a basis of disqualification of that first request as to spin off into I would say the universe of veracity. There has to be drama in everybodys' Life for this reason and this is the key that the very internal needs of our humanness demands that we nourish our emotions for which there are only two but they go through a continuum and also interchange sometimes for which is happiness and sadness. I don't know about you but if I could not laugh or cry I would not be able to maintain any kind of cerebral logic that I have been blessed with it. There is no way I could be a creative person if it was not for these two emotions as I often at times have cried about the attainments, answers and breakthroughs that the theory of intensity has to show by all the creative writers energy. The very word intense is indicative of having to have these emotions as this is the conclusion of this as it truly has been shown because of the power of this. There is another given that one must be in making the creative writers to spin off the best you can ever have. What this is, is you must recover fully your past as to the point that you go back to when you were brought into the universe. What this says is you must be NAKED while you do this as you must feel every glandular secretion, excreta that may be happening as just put your finger in different orifices on your human body as it will show what the theory of intensity is bringing out. When you put forth full continuous honesty you can monitor this by smelling your armpits as the perspiration comes forth, smelling your ASSHOLE for which the SOUL resides will be bringing from time to time SHIT which brings to you the DOMINANTS for that is indeed where the theory of intensity emanates and you can smell other areas of your human body for understanding more of a response that is going on. When you put all of this together you get the entire justification of why the emotions are so pivotal in being able to harness all of the energy coming in from all the creative writers. Now we come back to the fact that he is telling me this all of a sudden which is the most wonderful gift I have gotten. He says to me, " you don't like to have silence and you don't know how to be silent". " I just want to sit here and drink my coffee and just be in silence." Now there are reasons why silence has bothered me and the problem I have is I likened it to DEATH. Now this could not be further from the truth but it gets complex so I need to go to the next paragraph and talk about silence. However, there is one more thing I need to say and that is it will be addressed as the most interesting contradiction.

Silence is to start being quiet and not saying anything. If you are with another person as I was with him we peered at one another and I am sitting smiling. He says to me that " you look a lot cuter when you are not talking". What is interesting is there are humans who advertise for sex all the time and they will say in their preference for a partner, "no talking". Now what does this mean and it can have a lot of meanings so let us look at these as this is what silence entails to some. No talking as that they can't concentrate on the gratification they derive if you are distracting them. Yes, that is silence understanding one and that is , there is a distraction. What does that mean as to have distraction? Well, what this means is a person has limited focus and is easily influenced to another median of communication. If you are indeed attuned to your sexuality then even talking or blah blah blah will not stop your ability to get that gratification for which they seek. No talking as that if you say something while you are talking that makes them uncomfortable and have issues with it then there can be severe repercussions. These often times have turned into sexual encounters gone bad. A minor variation would be the partner just telling you to 'get lost". Get lost , means that it is an implication that you are lost already and they need you to even get lost more. What this says is that there is no fucking way you know what you want sexually from anybody. This is the communication this partner is getting from you and there is something to be said for which is that it only takes very few people to truly read another person correctly. This is comparable to baseball where you go up to bat you get three strikes and your out. No, you don't you only get two strikes and that is it. What this says is that it may only take two people to arrive at that logical conclusion. The big reason is that sexual communication is understood to be embodied in etiquette. The etiquette in sexual communication is silent and must be understood. If you break sexual etiquette then you don't understand how to communicate sexually. This will now be an aspect of silence that must be addressed. I am an effeminate homosexual and transgender queer but I am also an intensely shy human being. What happens is my sexual communication throughout my Life has gone on for the most part in men's bathrooms or tearoom sex. There are a lot of humans like me and they do the same type of sexual communication. Intensely shy people do seek that perfect silence that sometimes they may not have at times but most of the way they do get. Unfortunately this sexual communication is being restrained in a very wide area throughout the United States. There are still some spots here and there where indulgence is permitted but some of these can be studying human sexuality for which computers, videos, and cameras record everything. This is not a problem though for the sexual communication because personally myself I could care less if I was and my partner's sexual communication had been archived. What is the most important thing for me is to indulge in serious homosexuality. Let us now talk about the silence in the sexual communication for which all sexual etiquette must be adhered to. The beginning of the communication starts with the shoe for which the foot and lower legs are involved. There is a tapping of the foot as well as an angling of the foot towards your stall for which on the toilet you sit. Now what makes tearoom sex so sexy is that it is combined with bathroom functions which is all the way the sexual organs for homosexuality to take place between partners. It has now been established that both homosexuals or bisexuals or other sexualties are interested in each other as a partner. The sexual etiquette now must be adhered to and what this is , is gratification is understood to be given in the sexual communication that is sent. Let us begin with the fact that my partner kneels down and pushes his cock underneath my stall for which he has a full erection. You must understand this sexual communication by that this partner does not want you to masturbate his cock but what he wants is he need you to be a cocksucker. What he has sexually communicated to you by silence is that this is the gratification they seek and the etiquette you must keep. The reason being is when you had that initial foot and lower leg communication you said to them that by the length of time and number of taps that you would do anything they wanted you to do to them. That is the key as they said this to you and you agreed by sending the communication back by your foot and lower legs. You need to understand that this communication has many variations and that there can be different types of gratifications being sought. This particular communication is that you promised to keep the sexual etiquette by sucking their cock to completion and swallowing their cum. The sexual communication may go further as you promised that you would not stop sucking his cock till he moved back and pulled out of your mouth. There are sometimes running possibilities that he may want you to keep sucking his cock as that even when he goes soft as to be interested in having another orgasm. Never rule out the possibility that the sexual communication would not continue after a first orgasm. I had this experience one time and it has happened before that a prospective partner does not use their foot and lower leg to communicate. What happened is that after about three mintues I had sent this sexual communication to this partner in the other stall that he would then answer with his sexual positioning. He lowered his ass and his ASSHOLE at height level to me and I could smell his ASSHOLE which he was saying that listen to my sexual communication to you and I read it wrong as I thought that he wanted me to SUCK HIS ASS. What he wanted me to do and he knew I wanted to do this by the sexual communication is that he wanted me to FUCK HIS ASSHOLE. He wanted me to FUCK HIS ASSHOLE WITH MY COCK and not with anything else for which that is the key. What needs to be said is that condoms are not conducive for having true sexual communication. In Life we are all on this ride and if when you sexually communicate that there is a person that needs a passenger then you will begin to take that ride with them too. This is not a bad thing but just how the sexual communication works for all of us humans. Any kind of sex you have with anybody does entail that you will go on a ride of some sort after you have had sexual communication. The two safest forms of sex what have you but this is just figurative as this is masturbation and someone else sucking your COCK. Coming back as I did not FUCK HIS ASSHOLE and this made him unhappy quite a bit. I just violated sexual etiquette and this has wide ranging implications for which I will tell you. When you violate sexual etiquette and this is any partner in life or or partners as to what you do is you in essence , "KILL THE SILENCE". The proof of this is that what happens is there are movements in sexual communication where the communication itself has been stopped and not allowed to proceed in the spontaneous fashion as it had been imperative for it to do. When you KILLL THE SILENCE what you are doing is that you are interrupting the SILENCE. This has the scariest repercussions that you may never imagine. When the silence is interrupted what has happened is there in now DEATH. This is what DEATH is and this can be proven through the dominance and recessive arguments. The recessive are the SOUL and the dominant are the AFTER SOUL. This is a new definition for the dominant but it does not violate the earlier ones. There is one thing to show proof that the dominant is AFTER SOUL is that this the FUTURE as that is AFTER.  The SOUL is embodied in the past. Now it has been said that the very essence of Life depended on the continuous change for which the DOMINANTS bring to the RECESSIVES. There is a problem now and this is what it is , if the DOMINANTS bring the FUTURE for which is true and the SOUL has the past for which depends on the FUTURE to be nourished then if the interruption of SILENCE is an event where the DOMINANTS are with the RECESSIVES then the dynamics of change cannot proceed because change in its very essence is not allowed to proceed if there is an interruption. If then there is an interruption then what happens is that time is not allowed to proceed as it should. We have to make a small diagram as to show what this is to arrive at a mature treatment of this deeper understanding of the interruption of silence and the fact that it is DEATH.
SOUL     ---------------------> AFTER SOUL
PAST     --------------------->FUTURE
INTERRUPTION OF SILENCE __________________________________               ___________

Now if you look at SILENCE you will see that it moves with no impedence always in the future.
Now if you look at INTERRUPTON OF SILENCE you will see that it moves at first before interruption in the future. When there is interruption what happens is there is a space for which this is the key. There is nothing there and that is what it means to cause DEATH. Now there is one constuct that is very interesting and that is the DOMINANT EXPRESSION OF THE SOUL is DEATH. So are we now to say that we can see what the DOMINANT EXPRESSION OF THE SOUL is. Did you know that this is correct because what happens is that in order for any recessive to reach a dominance time must cease temporarily for which is what DEATH is. However after there is a continous movement into the future which is a paradox. This is why and there is a great Actuarial Scientist who is serving humanity at the Society of Actuaries for which he has this new mathematics that he has put forth. We will only talk about it basic and that is the characteristic space of the recessive is going to be always much smaller than any single dominant when dominance does take effect. This is measured in Life Span and years in the past taken together. Example is Beethoven has DOMINANCE and no RECESSIVES today are alive longer or more in the past than Beethoven. That is the paradox as are we saying that the past is being interrupted. Well, let me give you simple treatment to show you that this is indeed true by using a diagram.

INTERRUPTION OF SILENCE_______________________________                  ______________
                                                   FUTURE                                               DEATH     PAST

This will now show you the miracle of Life and why the Dominants do indeed give the dynamic change for which the RECESSIVES very Life depend on. When we are all in the RECESSIVES we look to the FUTURE. When we pass the LIFE for which the SOUL is located is the GUARDIAN OF THE SOUL IS THE ASSHOLE. THE GUARDIAN FOR WHICH IS SHIT, RELEASES THE SOUL which is the PAST. THE SOUL DOES NOT RELEASE UNTIL THE DEATH. It would almost seem to be complex as that there seems to be a discontinuous violation here but this will be proved that this is not the case. SHIT IS THE DOMINANT EXPRESSION OF THE SOUL. What this means is both LIFE and DEATH are contained. This says are FUTURE and PAST are made by this notion. We must now at this point say what time is and what each part comprises. Well, since we have become from the PAST there is the impure moving to the PRESENT which is not definable which will be shown. After you go into the FUTURE which is the pure. The present is infinitely broken down into pieces so there is no living in the here and now. Time direction is for which is now can be defined is , from the PAST you move through the PRESENT to the FUTURE. Now the PRESENT by the concept of knowledge not existing as there just being perception and awareness with time sense. The present is time sense for which means you cannot truly comprehend it but you surely can feel it. Time sense is when you are super alert to feeling sleepy or being super tired. You know that you feel different in so many ways by this and if you will one of the reasons people love roller coasters is this and it seems to be the greatest most popular ride in the amusement parks. The roller coaster is constantly changing your time sense and that is the reason that ride is so wonderful to a lot of people. Back to now this when you have a DEATH it means there is no more FUTURE and what happens is now you move into the PAST. The PAST is the very revitalization of the SOUL for which this is why the DOMINANT EXPRESSION OF THE SOUL IS DEATH. Now with revitalization that cannot take place without interruption of silence as that is the very stimuation that the DOMINANTS bring outside and inside the universe. When this then happens the AFTER SOUL is brought back into the SOUL position. As has been readily implied as the fact that since the DOMINANTS are here inside the universe and outside the universe this will say respectively that inside the universe is the SOUL for which the FUTURE is and outside the universe is the AFTER SOUL for which the PAST is. When you take these together the very revitalization brings indeed the definition of TIME and thus indeed the DOMINANTS over all the RECESSIVES this being because the dynamics of change of which the DOMINANTS are always responsible for.  This further implication saids why people give a moment of silence. The moment of silence is followed by the symbolic interruption of silence which means not really because talking does not comprise this. The next time you do have any sexual communication that is mutual with no detriment imposed then do not break sexual etiquette even if it means you will have to take some kind of ride afterwards. There can be this happening with a partner who wants silence and that is they will talk when they feel like leaving you silent. This pretty much concludes the sexual communication of silence. I cannot go into the occurrences of what happens when there is silence because this would not be relevant but talk still is what this is. The most optimal way to look at this is to look at this at levels. The start of silence allows for true quiet and being taciturn. When we involve nature we can listen to our environment and what that is communicating. We now reach the level of talking with someone and then giving them the floor as afterall you cannot talk and listen at the same time. Well, everybody there is an easy refutation that this is not true in so many ways. Listening implies silence to the other party you are communicating with. The highest level is when you have silence but you don't at all as there is talking go on with both parties for which you are able to speak and listen. Here is a breakthrough that will tell you that if this was not possible then media of any kind and computers would not be possible. When you read a book , a blog, listen to the radio, watch a movie, and so forth, there is talking go on by you when you are thinking and there is also listening go on while you are learning. The very essence of  how thinking works is the highest level of silence attainable for which allows you to speak and listen at the same time. With this in mind you can say now that the highest level of communication we have is truly silence. Silence will allow even higher levels of communication as for example, telepathic, TELE-PATH-IC. Creativity is now defined by the vehicle of silence and concentration for which speaking, hearing voices or music or sounds [listening]. When you create you express for which you record in anyway possible the expression for which one thing can be said and it is a pithy maxim. "  CREATIONS are the PERMEATIONS thus PERMEATIONS are the CREATIONS."

Now we come to the necrosexual and this is going to be analyzed with care and in steps. When you have this sexuality there is a wonderment of to what this is for some and what is involved to get there. Well, you have to look at this and say that not only do you have wonderment but you have wanderment. It must be treated in a manner wanderment where there is a search going on for the correct partner. Logically speaking wanderment will tell you about what happens when someone is talking to you and you need to listen but what happens is your mind [wanders or wonders]. Well, we need to discern what the difference here is of this. Your mind initially has to wander than after it can wonder for which it must always be in that order. The reason being is that you must travel before you can question which is wonder. So, you are talking to myself for which I am listening and then all of sudden my listening leaves going on to another horizon. When my listening goes on to another horizon what happens is that when it gets there I immediately have questions in my mind that I need to ask the talker but the problem is that my questions may have become watered down because the talker is saying the answer either partially or in whole of what you have on your mind to ask the talker. We call them the talker because they are feeling within themself this self-importance and it would not be descriptive to call them a speaker. The reason being is a speaker is comparable to a person who gives a speech in front of a given audience. Now you basically have ruined the communication for which had been delivered to you because your mind wandered and wondered. Now there is an answer for which you can use that will stop your mind from wandering. To often does the talker have the floor and make assumptions about what they are saying is you are inside their brain spectrum for which their mode of thought is and this is further from the truth that you are. What you must do is you must be allowed to put up a stop sign before your mind begins to wander. The reason your mind wanders in the first place a lot of times is there is ambiguity about what is being talked about. Ambiguity is basing itself in the fact as to why from wanderment would you arrive at wonderment if this had been talked about more lucidly. The way you get lucidity is you ask the talker at any point in time to clarify what they mean by something and you say that this is the context I seem to understand this and tell them why. Verbal communication is not a strong foundation of communication because if you go to the dictionary you will see different meanings for the same word. So if someone says they are fallacious and how they say this  ; it can be mislead or deceptive. Now you may think that because something is fallacious that they are malicious but this is so far off and here[hear] is why. If you can keep talking and I can't ask you to clarify something where my mind wanders and then wonders you are in all intensive purposes being misleading about what you are talking about. Now the change where you will not be fallacious is where I ask you as the talker to clarify what you are saying. As long as you clarify as you go along in what you are saying it will never be fallacious of anything you say to me as a listener and a questioner. To clarify is to say, here is what I am saying to you for which the talker has now become a sayer , which is neat because there is this great song [Say, Say , Say.. what you mean...Paul McCartney and Michael Jackson] , What you need to see is that the listener has become a questioner for which in turn is a speaker. Pretty cool , ha , that the communication truly is starting to take off  because not only do you have a talker, listener, sayer, questioner, but all of a sudden you have a speaker. Now this is maybe what a questioner is , is a speaker because others have followed suit to move in wonderment in a spontaneous fashion. This is important ingredient for a successful public speaker as to be in wonderment in a spontaneous fashion. Now we continue as the clarification has taken place and the wonderment has been gone to completion in this communicatory step in the talker here. Next the talking continues and here is the answer for which is the key to the best verbal communication you can have with any human being and that is if wanderment is going to occur it must be for a very short period of time where it does not truncate any of the communication coming from the talker. Now the listener has the ability to put up the stop sign to stop the wanderment before it strays too far and when this is done then wonderment can enter in a very effective fashion for which clarification is the crux of the best verbal communication to transverse with any human being. So if you are to look at this in a diagram to see what is happening you would see this.

talker------->listener-------->talker--------->wanderment->clarify[sayer]------->wonderment[speaker]----->clarify[sayer]----->wonderment[speaker]------> clarify[sayer]------>talker------->continues as long as communication is going.

Now there is a preclusion in communication which is there is a fact that given any verbal communicaton whatsoever there is always remnants or unfinished communications for both parties. This is what makes e-mail a wonderful technology and if chat used in the correct fashion it will bring about fulfilling communications. Let us talk about  the remnants for which is when the talker did not think you were listening because you were in wanderment given the incredible complicatedness of the human brain it is recalled in its entirety. So what you may call this is that the listening had been delayed in being complete. Then there is the talker who says , oh I should have said this in this fashion as there might have been a better way to express this. Let us now move out of this line of verbal communication and move into the more silent line of communication.

Necrosexuals must move now in wanderment to find the silent line of communication. The necrosexual will begin their interests by having sexual relations in this manner. They begin with Somnosexuality which is having sexual relations with sleeping or unconscious partners. This seems to be a given with many necrosexuals and it is important now to understand and try to get an answer as to what is meant by sleeping. What we need to do is we need to say that our time sense is decreasing in a manner for which it hits a mininus range where we lose the ability to sense the time sense. Yes, the ability to sense the time sense is maybe what we can say by what is meant by sleep is to lose that awareness of it. We can talk about alpha, beta and gamma along with REM but that is not our treatment here as sleep is the answer we are moving towards. You have to remember that time sense is the present for which is not truly at all perceptable and that is obvious because conscienceness is separate from consciousness but they do go hand in hand for which does not imply there is coincidence. That is why when you are falling asleep there is no perception of this and not only that time sense being not sensed will also lose the awareness of  before going to sleep. It does not imply that consciousness is fully lost because we dream while we sleep for the reason of this but the perception is gone. Even people who have vivid dreams do not have any perception but just greatly increased awareness. If you knew the incredible amount of fulfillment that is involved in somnosexuality many would indulge in this. Here is the partner coupling that is going on and this is incredible. What it is , is you have this yourself your conscienceness and consciousness both and all intact where your partner has just dulled awareness with no sense of the time sense. The fusing of these partners does the following when you have sexual communication with a sleeper. You the active partner have your perceptions and also you have your awareness with time sense but they the passive partner have dull awareness with no sense of time sense. This has to come to past and it does when you do have sexual relations with a sleeper. It is a fact that in order for sexual communication to be valid the following must transpire. Because they have no perceptions of themself then in order for you to engage you must drop your perceptions which do fall out because you need this to happen and it must happen to get the valid fulfillment. If you are having illegal sexual relations then because your perceptions must drop out the lower contextual level has entered the fold and that is the difference between right and wrong is not perceived. For this is not possible because perception is the higher order of conscienceness. There is now something that must happen also and that is your change of awareness will take on a dull awareness also and here is the reason. In order to tune into complete sexual fulfillment you must bring your awareness down to a very narrow band for which you are equal to the sexual partner you are indulging the somnosexuality with. This is what many mean as to " no talking while they are having sex with you", as they don't want their awareness band spread to wide and they need to have it as narrow as possible. Do you know there is a breakthrough from this and that is when you narrow your band of awareness to down to the limit of zero for which there is the calculus treatment of all equal for all of humanity this is a left hand and right hand limit. The arrival of the awareness spectrum into the zero level is indicative of something that is so necessary and that is CONCENTRATION. None of us could never concentrate if it were not for the ability to be able to vary our awareness at any time we need to do this or with help of another partner. Now here comes the unbelievable fulfillment answer that is gotten for which is the fact that they have lost their time sense to sense as the passive partner and you have your time sense to sense. What happens is when you have sexual relations with the passive partner is that naturally you must also lose your sense of time sense. This is the reason why somnosexuality is incredible as because it will prove to you that there is a sequential , interrupted and coincidental events that take place. The sequential event is the beginning of the time sense you have. The interrupted event is the continous change in time sense for which discovered by the GREAT CRIMINAL SEXOLOGIST [MARTA MEANA] is the sexual indulgence of any kind. Yes, this is why sex feels good is the continous change in time sense is a discontinuous for which is an interrupted event at all times. All sexualities of all kinds and all sexual acts fall into this proven fact for which explains why sex is so incredible the greatest form of intimate communication we can have. Here now is we move to the coincidental event for which is the very defintion of the ultimate for which the sexual basis is moving towards at all times and arrives at often. We have the passive partner that has no sense of time sense and the active partner is now about to match the loss of sense of the time sense. This is your answer to why both these sexual partners are compatible. What happens is the active partner reaches close to orgasm and this always occurs as they lose their sense of the time sense. There is a nothingness that is felt for which I had said before that this is necessary for us humanity to cope with the universe and how the conditions are for which I don't have to address except it is the escape temporarily to another universe. The nothingness is the loss of the sense of  the time sense. Therefore there is a pairing that is mutual when you indulge in somnosexuality. Realize that this may be serious because it leads to heavier implications. Sleep itself is not the kind of silence that the necrosexual is after because sleep often has stirring and movements.

A necrosexual will if you will have to start a look for cadevers to have sex with. Now think about this, is this truly their fulfillment as the cadaver does not give the truistic experience for which a necrosexual would be fulfilled. It would seem to me that there is this undeniable fact that how could they derive the interrupted silence fulfillment communication they are looking for. The necrosexual when they wander to a cadaver they are not at all going to receive the fulfillment for which they seek and that is because they had no chance to wonder. If they indulge in sex with the cadaver is it truly necrosexual relations or is it cadaverosexual relations instead? Well, if they don't wonder but only wander then it would be cadaverosexual relations. If they exhume then they are again just wandering and they are having corpsosexual relations or worse exhumosexual relations. Here is the point and this is all that has been indulged in so far is at best impure necrosexuality. Which implies that there is no wonderment. Where there is wonderment you get a more fulfilling necrosexuality happening where incredible sexual fulfillment can be had. This is so egregious and not only that it is not by myself ever advocated this deplorable behaviour but it must be talked about to find some answers and perhaps some breakthroughs. We move into an area called excession for which all is allowed to take place that is far more in importance than anything else. With excession we have what is the basics for this to occur and that is to get the most fulfilling necrosexual relations imaginable. We must talk about the extremes because this is what everybody does is , as [They Go To Extremes, Billy Joel], and they just have a non-emotional middle. You ever ask , how was your day today ,and you get the following answer , not great, OK, or wonderful; Now there is a significance that is attached to these answers and this is the explanation of human nature. Why we have two emotions does not allow even the stoppage of this from occuring. I will talk about specific groups and we will come back to this and try to understand why this seems to happen many times. What is a given is many humans have a tendency to push below the surface this and there is not a catastrophic due to this. So now here is a group we call female prostitutes and there is danger in this group that you have heard time and time again. The female prostitutes seem to always fall into the clutches of these types of people for which I will not talk about now but later. It would be far better that managers raise their little girls and little boys better because there is something this unit is responsible for. Ok, now you have two very vulnerable groups and I will tell you why. There is a range for which all humans seem to bask in but it is not a range as they bask in their end points and midpoints only as this is human nature. What this is , is people and this changes from one day to the next and there is many factors. There can be a sequence for example I will say, 0 the midpoint, 1 the left point and 2 the right point. Implications are incredible by position as you will see, 0, alright, 1, self-abhorrence, 2, self-adorrance[neologism]. Look left point, yes feeling of being left out is truly to cause self-abhorence. Right point is correct to feel self-adorrance. With our group of female prostitutes you have often enough self-abhorrence and with little girls and little boys you often also have self-abhorrence. This is the problem is there is some horribly diabolical individual for which we have talked about out there to endorse the self-abhorrence. Falling victim is truly one of self-abhorrence. You have the erotophonosexual who is more than happy to indulge the self-abhorrence. Is there a running possibility that somehow we can cease the self-abhorrence and I would say that it is not so easy. Take for instance this news about going into a Del Taco in San Bernardino for which the family had met a tragic consequence. Well for this individual to have infiltrated this act there had to be self-abhorrence. Now remember it was said that you have to love yourself before someone else would love you. Well, that has been said for years so it is nothing new. But say this , you have to hate yourself to hate others. Well that MOTHER FUCKER that went into Del Taco was such of that constitution. The problem is that we need to spread the perceptions and awareness with time sense around the universe as to prevent this. For example the kinds of satiation may have prevented this as who knows but everything is worth a try because remember the universe is for the most part disorganized and with that said much of humanity is mired in confusion. This is indeed so fucking incredible what happens when any human retires to bed is all the arrows of permeation follow suit no matter where you go which is wonderful. I will have to devote the next paragraph to this happening.
Prostitution for years has not at all been addressed as an understanding of what truly is happening and pinpointing exactly what it is. The definiton of female prostitution is a female who SELLS THIER BODY FOR MONEY given sexual favors. Let me tell you something that the power of what I told you about CONCENTRATION where awareness moves into a right hand and left hand limit close to zero is the reason this has been realized as to what truly is going on. This is so far reaching that it radiates outward as to the implications. This effeminate homosexual and transgender queer is telling his Wife before falling to sleep is I got it. You know right after I said I got it is when I fell right to sleep which meant my right hand limit had reached zero for the time being. With this sleep I did lose all my awareness as I don't remember dreaming but I woke up in a sob for which my Wife  did not like and here [hear] is why. I basically went to the farm house which is I wandered over for which then not having to wonder too long pulled the COCK out of the farm house and the COCK CROWED  quite loud because what happened is the left hand limit moving from zero where more CONCENTRATION happened and the ideas got superimposed with more ideas that will "add to the mix", as [Chuck Woolery said]. You have to immediately see that an IDEA comes from the ZERO AWARENESS LIMIT. Let us talk about the differentiation of the left hand and right hand limit as this is not at all complex to bring in calculus so please don't be snowed by this as it will not throw you as it must be used to serve to add to great understanding[perception and awareness with time sense]. We begin with the right hand limit which is the limit that moves in the direction right to left. We are moving from the MOST AWARENESS TO THE ZERO AWARENESS. Next the left hand limit which is the limit that moves in the direction left to right. We are moving from the ZERO AWARENESS TO THE MOST AWARENESS. Now there are two things going on here and the first has already been said the fact that CONCENTRATION has been stated as the ZERO AWARENESS LIMIT and we do indeed get our IDEAS from being here[hear]. The other thing is that we had already said that what is sleep is but lets add going unconcious too as this is loss of indeed everything within this scheme of things as the definition of this can be this , as to say the antithesis , when we had said knowledge does not exist as only conscienceness and consciousness for which go hand in hand , well can we say that knowledge does exist as only unconscienceness and unconsciousness go hand in hand, yes of course we can. This is the reason and it is that if the perceptions , awareness with time sense are to come back there has to be a sensing or ability to think again. Remember we said that the mouth and the rest of the body could never express all the knowledge out there as any given field but such an incredible infinitesimal iota of this. Look at the word, infinitesimal and you will see and answer which says INFINITE--SIMIL, is meaning that it is similar to infinity. What this means is that you can never ascertain the knowledge that will be derived at time of movement from the unconscious to the conscious. It is infinite as to what can occur and the iota is that all is needed to refute again the existence of knowledge. With this said you can now see that you are always going to have a direction of movement taking place for which the direction of movement will be either towards the right hand limit or the left hand limit. What allows for movement is time sense as you are always moving through the present. Time sense can fluctuate and it does to a small extent but not to a greater extent of having sexual relations or the roller coaster rides for instance. The ride humans go on in Life which involves their move to the DOMINANTS is the ultimate ride and it can speed up at any time. Anyhow this is not our subject of treatment yet but it will come in due time. What we talked about here is INTO SLEEP AND OUT OF SLEEP, INTO UNCONCIOUSNESS AND OUT OF UNCONCIOUSNESS.  Let us now move on to the female prostitute for which it says they SELL THEIR BODY for sexual favors. There is a play that is unbelievable for which I acted myself in one part of it called Death of A Salesman by Arthur Miller. This is the crux of this play is the fact that there is this obsession with greatness and it becomes the persons downfall. Anything you can think of and let us take this visit to Best Buy and observe what is going on. If you see the retailers in the area of computers you will find the best example as this area is never left for security reasons and being always popular too. It is to be said that every person in humanity is important as well as the objects with humanity as they are important. This is why there is security everywhere pretty much because there is an attached importance to our objects in the universe. Now at Best Buy in this area it is computers and everything related to them. I will tell you singularly that every SALESMAN HAS THIS INSIDE PERSONNA AS BEING GREAT. This has to be the case for them to do their job as being a SALESMAN or SALES-WOMAN. If you did not believe in what YOU sold YOU would not be effective at what you do. As a person at Best Buy sells more and more they are awarded by the company in different ways for which I am not privy to this but it can be inferred. I personally when I was a little boy had been in sales and I was successful at it. The first thing I sold that gave me great success was occassion cards for holidays and this involved all the holidays of the year excluding Jewish holidays. There is a parallel coming but I will tell you something so far reaching regarding this in awhile. Well, I went on to sell for the Fuller Brush Company and when I did I had a lot of experiences. Some I can remember is that I got such incredible enthusiasm from some people as to want to see everything that I carried in my nice attache case [they liked me as I had always been dressed up in my suit and tie, I was a very handsome boy as I took after my Father as he was too which he did for a living sales[tremendous salesman]. Now another experience I had was that I was very friendly too someone's Wife but the husband heard when I was selling that he did not like what I was selling and he said don't you ever talk to my Wife like that again and you can take that deodorant cans and shove them. Now at the time I was 16 years old and I did not have any understanding of what happened as because I had been incredibly truthful to his Wife. Lets move on to another experience and this guy had when he opened his door an incredible collection of beer cans stacked in a very beautiful way against the wall with many at least three hundred had to be there. He did not have interest in buying anything but we had a good conversation and he said that his Wife would be interested. The final experience is this guy had this little hole in his door where you knocked but what happened is he said that he blow my head off if I came back there again which had me wondering for which I wandered away very quickly. Now we need to digest this and you will see something neat here which is what happens to every sales person. When I sold occassion cards as it was not the merchandise as much as it was MYSELF because I had already told you that as a little boy I was an effeminate homosexual. Don't you think that you will radiate that outward to others and I would say , oh yes definitely. The reason people bought my occassion cards is they liked this effeminate homosexual because on my block there were two homosexual couples but they were very private. They thought it was truly COOL to see what a real effeminate homosexual is like. Let me tell you this is the reason with all the experiences at age 16 with Fuller Brush Company too as how people reacted to me. The husband is not at all happy that his Wife said that I met this cute boy that is an effeminate homosexual for which was so very nice to me. As I will tell you that they did not have a happy marriage because the Wife had a need for this stimulation to talk to outsiders. What made it special for her is that she probably harped to her husband how great homosexuals in general are and he did not have any tolerance as he was uncomfortable. Could it be because he himself was a latent homosexual and I say definitely. He told me to shove the deodorant cans up my ass because he figured myself being an effeminate homosexual that I shove things in my ASSHOLE which he was right.  The people who wanted me to show them everything in my attache case were saying we need to have this effeminate homosexual stay here as long as possible. I spent the greater of an hour and half with some people for which my sales tally was only $15.00. The interesting thing about the beer cans guy is that I am now talking to another homosexual but most likely bisexual. The person who I ran into with the gun is the true hater of homosexuals. What is happening here is when you sell something and it is also in concert with Best Buy as you are not selling the merchandise or object you possess first. What you are selling is you are selling yourself primarily which is what a prostitute does and you may wonder why this is the second oldest profession. There is akin to the fact that you are selling your body because of your presence of being there. I will tell you that when this effeminate homosexual was selling products of Fuller Brush Company people who opened their door to me enjoyed watching all aspects of my human body for which was on display and especially hearing my speech as well as seeing my mannerisms.. What happened to me is I became the best salesman in my territory for the Fuller Brush Company and the reason is not only the amount of sales I generated but being well connected with my Father sure did not hurt but also the fact that many thought it was great to see not only an effeminate homosexual but the fact is the only homosexual that did not hide from others. My homosexuality is what made me the most popular salesman for Fuller Brush Company and it was not the products but when people bought from me they were buying my homosexual self. Later in Life I became a male homosexual prostitute but I did not get hardly any material gain as I sold myself openly for gratis because that is what happened to me when I was a salesman is that people did not buy the product but they bought my effeminate homosexual nature. There was this suggestive that because of my experiences from sales that I would spin off my entire homosexuality to the universe for gratis. I had to do this because I had to regain what I had lost when I was a salesman and that was my very innner dignity. What you have to do in order to do this is you have to jump into the role that people in the past put you into and live it out. That is the key , as to say live it out as to exhaust the intentions that others had for you in the past when you were in sales. Other sales people have other attachments for which other humans latch onto which could be fulfillments of different kinds, romanticism, etc. as the list goes on. The message you send out to others is the message they will process as it had been said when we talked about sexual etiquette but here we will take it further and it is communication cues. The cueing[prompt] of the response you receive from your stimulus is the main point to be made here. Selling is nothing more than having a vehicle which is the merchandise which can be an object or a service or a mix of both where the persoanlity selling has a personna that cannot be changed as in my case an effeminate homosexual to the other person which is the outside agent for which there is a response which is the cues. Putting this in a diagram you can get a lot of intution from looking at it.

Personna-------->Observer[outside agent]--------->Cues------------>Personna
Sell ----------> Decide------------->Buy
Repeat Sales by Personna being locked into by outside agent and referrals for more sales too.

Even if the merchandise is for gratis you still have to sell yourself. Now here is what happens with prostitutes as they sell themself repeatedly. When you sell yourself repeatedly what happens is you go into a state of repletion. What that means is that you are full and you cannot take in more anymore. This has major implications as they say in Death of A Salesman which shows the greatness that had been sought has now indeed been reached and this goes for the best sales people. With a prostitute as well as others there has to be an emptying out as to go into an opposite state to be able to sustain the recessive. The emptying out happens as such a rapid rate is this where the female prostitute falls victim because of this vulnerability. The vulnerability is the emptying out is so rapid that it brings self-abhorrence and they must find an outside agent to support their self-abhorrence. Now we enter the outside agent which is the erotophonosexual known as the lust murderer. The way a lust murderer works is they are very intelligent and they can read cues perfectly. What they do is they either start by the fact that you have already volunteered yourself by your self-abhorrence. There is no need for the erotophonosexual to not be themself immediately for this reason. They however want to satisfy your last desires you seek which they know by the cues they receive whether you need to move from extreme pleasure to extreme suffering or extreme suffering to extreme pleausre, or stay always in extreme pleasure, or stay in extreme suffering. Unfortunately it is not uncommon for female prostitutes to fall victim to erotophonosexuals but truly are they falling victim and I would say definitely not as self-abhorrence says that they need to have this happen. The breakthrough of to why prostitutes need to have this occur is that since there had been in the past this repletion and when they started doing this rapid emptying out they had to like myself get back their dignity at all costs. Let me tell you something I experienced three erotophonsexuals but I had not been at the point ever of them leaving their regular personalities. I was able despite my self-abhorrence for which I had some confidence able to extricate myself from these situations. One time I had been involved in a sexual act where this homosexual who was fucking my ASSHOLE with myself on my stomach tried to push his COCK through my intestinal wall and kill me as he wanted to do. I listened to the extreme pain I was in to extricate myself away before it was too late but I will tell you that I did experience probably my closest call because I had been deep into the sexual act. Because this person tried to kill me I did not realize at the time that I was in the company of a homoerotophonosexual. Another time I had been in Stockton California and this guy for some reason who met me at the Water Garden in San Jose California for which is a beautiful homosexual paradise bath house brought me all the way back to his place in Stockton California. Now what is interesting is that I did go back with him because I was a male prostitute for gratis pretty much. What he did is he laid in his bed and I was not permitted to go into his bed but he let me sit on his sofa. It all happened so fast because what happened is that I had slept for a few hours as he did but when I woke up he was naked and I was naked. Not only that he took my clothes from me and I had no idea where they were. There was this chair for which what he wanted to do is he needed to fuck my ASSHOLE as he felt my radiance of self-abhorrence with justification that I had become black balled from anybody in the USA or territories from hiring me ever again because they just did not like the coprophilia and the intelligentsia truth I emanated all the time. What occurred is this homosexual wanted to not only fuck my ASSHOLE but he wanted to pierce my intestinal wall with his COCK and thereby KILL ME.  Let us ask this question which now we have a common ground why do many homosexuals risk having their intestinal wall pierced with a COCK. I will tell you the answer and it could be self-abhorrence as there is such an ANTI- attitude against homosexuality in different ways and let us list the main ones. There is the very homosexual acts indulged in,  religious implicators, legal barriers, heterosexual discriminatory and bullying barriers, internal homosexual hatred barriers, no support for being able to show open homosexual affection, the supreme isolator causes us to go into bath houses, homosexual bars, homosexual night clubs, homosexual businesses etc. [we are put into an isolated part of the universe], looked at as child molestors, looked at as ruining marriages, looked at as promiscuous, looked at as fitting only certain occupations, looked at as being used in prison settings as sexual gratifiers, looked at in the military as not palatable, etc. , the bottom line is acceptance and self-acceptance is always in question. So we can now go back to the reason why a homosexual becomes a erotophonosexual is that when you have a homosexual who has self-abhorrence you must have a homosexual that has self-adorrance. A self-adorrance homosexual does not want a homosexual around who is self-abhorrence type. This is a breakthrough in that you think that this goes here only and you would be wrong as this holds for Life in general. Humans do not want to have downers around them because if you remember there is a delicate shifting that goes on day in and day out of this. [middle, left, right]. When is the last time you have been around someone and asked them do you enjoy having someone around who is not upbeat but downbeat instead? I would say 99.98% of people don't want to have the downbeat happening. I now return to the above but you need to know that is that this reversion to an erotophonosexual is not the same as others. Here is the reason and it is because from the start it had been known by both parties that homoerotophonosexuality had been an interest to be engaging in. As for both it would be fulfilling as the erotophonosexual who is in self-adorrance is interested and quite aroused by the effeminate homosexual who is in self-abhorrence. This is a match made in heaven excuse the saying here but here is what happens. As there is this one given fact about myself that keeps me in preservation [protect from loss] and that is my confidence. When he fucks my ASSHOLE he pins me against his window sill where I cannot get free. So what he does is he thrusts his COCK into my ASSHOLE immediately with no lubricant. If you knew the pain as you be chewing on your nails forever to recover the sensations of pleasure that are needed to stop the suffering. He keeps doing this but it starts to get more serious. What I do is I talk and that blows it for him as remember what I said about silence. Well the way I talk is I talk with something he does not like and that is my hands for which my SOUL is in contact with. What I do is I run my hand outside my ASSHOLE and I show him the BLOOD that he has caused and tell him that look what you did. This is the key my confidence has stopped this homoerotophononsexual act from proceeding any further. When I showed him that he was kind to me and he served me breakfast and the reason being is I showed this homoerotophonosexual who had self-adorrance that I had some self-adorrance as an effeminate homosexual.  Here is a breakthrough for this is the fact that he is in self-adorrance and I am in self-abhorrence we are great sexual partners but when I exude in anyway confidence I am no longer in self-abhorrence. What this means is that we are no longer compatible as sexual partners and furthermore the sexual partners who tell others , "no talking", pretty much are needing this from you as well which is the stereophonic separation of self-abhorrence and self-adorrance. Confidence is the only way to break free of an erotophonosexual when you have entered primarily in self-abhorrence. Confidence is so far reaching as it is hard to define [freedom from doubt , belief in yourself]  but it can best be illustrated by statistics. The reason being is that these definitions will not save your Life at all and this will be said by the fact of the above is that you indeed have to break the silence. Wow, yes you can come after the erotophonosexual by KILLING them first. Remember it was said that interruption of silence is DEATH. Well , in actuarial science it is said that when you end a occurrence you are causing a DEATH. Termination by any means possible as to show the power of confidence is the acceptance of DEATH as this is why it is not always a bad thing. Yes, there is DEATH within LIFE where LIFE surely does go on because if the DOMINANTS weren't here to protect you then LIFE would be impossible in the universe. So you can say that DEATH is a subset of LIFE which is interesting as all of a sudden the characteristic space is now smaller for the DOMINANTS then the RECESSIVES. The DOMINANTS make it this way because this is truly why humanity is able to preserve LIFE at all measures. [WHAT AN INCREDIBLE ATTAINMENT]. Now confidence is in statistics defined by confidence intervals for which certain statistics fall and others don't. If you fall out of the confidence interval with an erotophonosexual then you will indulge in erotophonosexuality. My last example of a close call was this GUY???, picks me up in a homosexual bar in Oahu in Wakaki , Hawaii. What this guy does is he flashes in the bathroom a police badge when I am urinating as to imply I did something illegal in the bathroom. You have to realize that this guy has probably been stalking me and he has seen me have tearoom sex in Wakaki. Now there was different places you could go to do this and I went to the hotel which had a Japanese restaurant, the University of Hawaii Library, and the Courthouse in Honolulu Hawaii. Now I believe he had seen me at the University of Hawaii and this is where we now lead off. Oh yes, I did something illegal in the bathroom as he knows as I am radiating my being a homosexual prostitute for gratis. So what he does is he arrests me and he calls a cab then what happens is he has the cab take me to his apartment. What he does next is he does not want me to talk but instead he idolizes myself and my human body. He gets so excited and he removes my shirt and he knew when he met me that I was perfect for him and he loved that I was an effeminate homosexual. Now he has me where he wants me as he is the officer of the law and he tells me that this apartment is a friends apartment which I accept that he has to be discrete. So what happens next is that I learn truly what kind of homosexual police officer I have been kidnapped by. This will prove to you that the definition of confidence is devoid of explaining this. What happened is he goes into his bathroom and what he does is he wants to shave. Do you know that this is a parallel that if he shaves and he knows that I am super hairy that he wants to shave every last hair off my body. Now how he wants to do this as I will soon find out. For some reason when he closes the door in the bathroom which I am sitting on this bed facing the wall and the exit door is to the right and the bathroom is to the left. The apartment is small so the space is easy to understand. Well when the door closes I turn my head to the left and just a little bit below the bed there is this table what I saw on the table caused me to eye in thought. What was on the table were various knives but the one I noticed the most is the long knife and wide with a blade that on every single edge of that blade was as sharp as anything could ever be. Well, beause of my perceptions and awareness with time sense which I will explain each one I took action. So you think if there was a knife I was thinking of taking it and that did enter my mind as I walked up to the table and looked at it closely. Now the awareness was the fact that when he went into the bathroom I knew to turn my head to the left and the the time sense was the fact that I had sensed that it cued me in on thinking about time itself about how long they be in the bathroom. Well, believe it or not that was not the case as the time sense was the fact that at the time they were in the bathroom. The perception entered which said, remember the movie Cruisin' with Al Pacino well do you want to end up like those homosexuals in the movie? I said no, and see my shirt was off and I had been arrested but nothing wrong with having an exposed chest. So what I did is that when I made a decision that I would not take the knife with the super sharp blade and I would not in any circumstances stay there as I needed to take corrective action. Would this now this changes, homoerotophonosexual kill me first or tie me to his bed which he did I as I did see restraints and shave every hair off my body while I was alive but by the same token torture me in the process of this going on both physically and mentally. As aside effeminate homosexuals are very often victims if they let themself be this but unfortunately self-abhorrence is their vulnerability however they are incredibly intelligent people and aware of humanity in the universe as all that is happening pretty much. Effeminate homosexuals need to be male prostitutes for gratis to restore their losses. Well, what I did is I got up slowly and opened the door of the exit while he was in the bathroom and I used my athletic track abilities for which I probably ran the mile in less than four minutes as the adrenalin was pumping. The running started when I entered the street for which the cars usually are but it was quite late so I had this wide street as my track. He is probably wondering where I went but I did not even thiink about this. The definition of confidence does not have anything to do with conscienceness and consciousness. What needs to be done now is to prove that an effeminate homosexual has self-abhorrence. This will be done by a logical premises of two compound conclusions that are separate from one another but the conclusion builds onto forming the next premise to derive the ultimte conclusion. Now the logical foundations are to now follow and they will be in the form of a sentence list.

Premise 1) all homosexual are not geniuses
Premise 2) all effeminates are not geniuses
Conclusion) therefore all effeminate homosexuals are geniuses

This has to be because Boolean logic is based on multiplicative elemental construction because the use of all is implicatory of multiplicity. So [-] * [-] = [+].

Premise 1) since all effeminate homosexual are geniuses
Premise 2) all effeminate homosexuals are aloof because [no genius is unique]
[no genius is unique is a free standing tautology as it requires no other statemnet to support it]
Conclusion) since all effeminate homosexuals are aloof [all effeminate homosexuals are lonely], is a parallel logical statement to ascertain what is meant by aloof so this statement is called when you say [all effeminate homosexuals are lonely, is a contextual verification statement that is also a tautology but it is a speical kind called an intimate tautology] because it is in unison perfectly with all effeminate homosexuals are aloof],
Conclusion ) all effeminate homosexuals have self-abhorrence

This proves that without any fallacy that this is indeed so true and why many effeminate homosexuals are plagued by many of humanities problems but also all of humanity also struggles the same way too. The most important way to look at this is effeminate homosexuals outwardly must show every single problem they have because of them being effeminate and quite amazing intellectually that truth of everything must prevail to contribute unerringly to humanity for which because of their innate sensitivity and tremendous creativity indeed do. The effeminate homosexual cannot ascribe or attribute credit ever to themself because of their status of acceptance is not high enough by the universe so they must be fully exploited to the point that they must get fucked in the ASSHOLE by heterosexuals. Here is why in prison that heterosexuals love to make the effeminate homosexual the bitch is because of the fact that they can give not only sexually to every need they have but they can give in so many other ways as they are the best company and friend they could ever have. Who would not be so proud of a friend like this and not want to pass them around to others who are friends along with would be friends too. There is a proof that will rock this universe in one of the most powerful earthquakes of why homosexuals are so interesting and not only that why there are so many even outside of prison who want to indulge in homosexuality. Now let it be a given that heterosexuals are the majority of the sexuality which is male and female. What this says is hetero means different and homo means the same. Now here is a statement and this is the statement , homosexuality is the most natural form of sexual expression in the universe but heterosexuality is the most needed form of sexual expression in the universe. Now take needed and say what on the universe does that mean? Well, what that means is just because there are a lot of people that indulge in heterosexual sexual expression does not mean they are truthful. There are many that do not tell the truth by deviating and there are so many ways they deviate. One very serious way they deviate for which has nothing to do with their sexual expression is their outcome of their sexual expression. The outcome is offspring or progeny have you for which many don't bring forth the self-sacrifice that is involved with having offsprings. When this happens and eventually down the road this can occur as the child goes into a state of self-abhorrence because the parents never offered their offspring the self-sacrifice that was necessary. Now what is self-sacrifice and what that is ,is simply putting your offspring and your child before you by putting most of your plans on hold. When you put your plans on hold then not only is there is a silence but there is an interrupted silence when you bring your attention to your offspring. What happens next is that since your child is in self-abhorrence they always will fall victim to the erotophonosexual. The erotophonosexual is so intelligent that they have this keen sense about themself that they can find the self-abhorrence and the reason is because of this fact that they have what the child needs self-adorrance. The self-adorrance is used to achieve the interests of this perfect sexual match and not only that a match of other needs for which is hard to reiterate exactly what this is but the child does inform the erotophonosexual what this may be. Now the erotophonosexual may hold in abeyance for quite awhile the erotophonosexuality they indulge in. When the erotophonosexual has sex with a male child the erotophonosexual indulges in homoerotophonopedosexuality. Now this is important there is this fact that just because there had been sex with this erotophonophile does not mean that they consummate this as this can be further from the truth. Did you know that they will identify themselves as a erotophonophile or even more a homoerotophonopedophile. With this said as since they are human too even though they are the meanest of the mean this can occur and it does quite often. We had said that the erotophonosexual has self-adorrance but the child is in self-abhorrence where what is necessary is the child in order to protect themself from futher depth of self-abhorrence they need to be segregated away from their parents. If this happens for which is quite often the child is a willing participant because the parents have made the child fall into such a passive self-abhorrence nature that the erotophonosexual with self-adorrance kidnaps the child or does a proclamation. A proclamation is when the erotophonosexual and the child both are declaring to the universe that both are in permanent ownership of one another. The erotophonosexual now is looking out for the child and this does not in any way say the erotophonosexual is a pedophile because nothing can be more false than that. Remember if the erotophonosexual is indulging in sexual relations with the male child he is having homoerotophonopedosexuality where he is not having homopedosexuality. The reason is that the erotophonophile is in self-adorrance and the homosexual or effeminate homosexual child is in self-abhorrence. What the erotophonophile needs from the male child is to become exactly as the erotophonosexual basis and that is too have self-adorrance. When this happens and if it does the homoerotophonopedosexual will have found their most sought after lover in the universe they can find. This is the crux of this and that is that if this does occur then the homoerotophonopedosexual will have now evolved into since the self-adorrance has been fused also with the male child the perfect manager for the male child and such that you now have the fact that the welfare and safety along with all the needs that the child has never had satisfied have now always been there for them for which as a spontaneous result the homoerotophonopedosexual becomes a homopedosexual and not only that they become the manager of the little boy for which they have their unit where they are. This is so common as if you look on the board missing and exploited children you will find this happening all over. The missing is the place where the erotophonosexuals which many are heteroerotophonosexuals and heteroerotophonopedosexuals of course can't forget the erotophonohebesexuals. I was in Hollywood California when I was 16 years young and this one time I went back with this man to his apartment for which was nice and he was but for some reason he did not let me stay very long. Did you know when I think back that I met my very first erotophonophile and it did not occur to me. If you do something in your communication then you can offset their future behaviour. However, never ever do this as to assume that you know about offset because you do not and the greatest favor any parents who have offsprings or don't fucking have them is if you don't do this as self-sacrifice is the only answer.The reason why an erotophonosexual finishes the sexual act with the little girl or little boy or female prostitutes or male prostitutes is because the sexual communication has a violation of the etiquette. It is not many times known what the etiquette is unfortunately and this terribly ends in tragedy. If our society is to care for humanity then it cannot be just some of it but all of it. The remnants for which are heavily unsituated must have special innovative ways to allay the suffering where they can still have a voice in the recessive for others. The finishing of the sexual act by an erotophonosexual is what is called the depletion. This is the result as to rid the little boy or little girl or the female prostitute or male prostitute or boys or girls of their self-abhorrence once and for all. The erotophonosexual must project themselves onto the victims of feeling their self-abhorrence as to many times go into a rage when killing them and it is the only way a depletion can be made. This needs to be said that the ultimate for the erotophonosexual is to GRAB THE SOUL of their victim as to hear[here] the SOUL bask in the highest pleasures or to hear[here] the SOUL bask in the worst suffering that you can ever imagine. The erotophonosexual either is self-propagated which means that since they are in self-adorrance they will give you the highest pleasures you can ever imagine before GRABBING YOUR SOUL or if they have the projection of the self-abhorrence they will put you through the worst suffering imaginable before GRABBING YOUR SOUL. Now GRABBING YOUR SOUL means that they take your future and push it all now into the past for which all time ceases. THE SOUL THEY GRABBED BECOMES THE AFTER SOUL. THE AFTER SOUL they cannot touch but THE SOUL itself is our very LIFE. As a final thing all creative writers bear their SOULS to the universe and there is often then not things in the news that happen where we have suicides and questionable occurrances that lead to cides of some sort. Musicians you will know that this is not too uncommon from time to time but actors and actresses for which the list goes on. Coming full circle back to the MOTHER FUCKER who killed and critically injured his family. This is how this works and this is how it can be prevented I believe strongly. When there is a plan to do this two key things happen there is a ignorance of anybodys' presence and there is a walk away. Now I will talk about both and the ignorance of anybodys' presence means that the person brings their awareness into the CONCENTRATION area where the awareness moves from the left to the right. The CONCENTRATION will make the murderous spree successful as weapons are not a problem to obtain for them to affect their ends. The walk away is the solution to stop this and this is what is going on. The walk away is this and what it is is, look at the fact that he had a criminal record back in 1974. Ask yourself what did he do in 1974 to become a criminal? Well, I will guarantee you something and that is when he did commit his crime he wandered. Now you need to know that all the legislative laws, the statutes, the penalties, the prison sentence and the sanctions do not address this and what this is , is there is a fact that he wandered to commit this crime in 1974 but what they never did is found out the true substance of this. In order for there to be a wander you must now have a wonder. He committed the crime because he had been wondering what he can gain from doing this. The observers that looked at his crime and gave him censure did not wonder. The reason he committed another crime later is that he was allowed again to wander. Now if the censures in the first place wondered then he most definitely in the future would not have wandered again. What I am saying is we need in place a new legal system and penal system for which the use of intensity theory along with intellectual experts in all fields to once and for all let the frogs fly as they were instead of keep bumping along on their ASSHOLES. The crime was consummated presently because he wandered and when he did he spent very little time wondering as the report says. So this will tell you that if he had in the first place had been wondered about at the beginning of his problems this all could have been prevented. Why did he turn the gun on himself as you know we have been talking about this and it is self-abhorrence. The projection of his self-abhorrence which caused the intense concentration of the limit going to zero where he lost his time sense and awareness for which had no perception to what he was doing. This is turly the tragedies that make up our everyday media we read about and needs to be studied in full wonderment with all criminals of all sorts for every criminality is coming from humanity. I will in detail be writing about this as I have already begun but it will go very deep. I need to go back to this point and this had been said that homosexuality is the most natural form of sex in the universe. Well, how can that be if you are having sexual relations with the same sex. This is the logical foundation for which we can show why this is theh case.
1)the same
2)the most natural
C)the same is the most natural

Here it is , the same is the most natural for which any kind of homosexuality must fall into this or being a homosexual is giving to the fact that we are homos and continuing that I am a homo, but THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE ARE HOMOS AND THE REASON IS THAT HOMO-S, TO HOMO SAPIENS WHICH ARE WE ARE ALL HUMAN BEINGS ONE AND THE SAME AS HOMOSEXUALS. Oh, yes I might say this is why I hate the word GAY as it is not a word that puts HOMOSEXUALS in total respect as it serves to degrade.  National GAY marriage will never pass but try National HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE and we just might get a lot of takers here.

Now we go back to the necrosexual and we address the next step for which needs to be satisfied. Let us now go to one of the scariest movies for which the genius Albert Hitchcock is Psycho directing by written by Robert Bloch, this super warped movie. Now this is the ultimate movie about necrophilia but it also shows the inaccuracy for which cannot be yet revealed but soon will be. Well, in a nutshell this woman is at this hotel and  for which is the an anonymous female assailant while she is taking a shower stabs her to death in the nude for which she is suffereing very badly because blood and water don't mix. She grabs onto the shower curtain while screaming for which is silent which means that DEATH is imminent for the fact she had been taking a shower in silence for which there was an interruption of silence which is DEATH. The curtain is white which symbolizes a false sense of purity like snow which is cold where the blood is streaked down the curtain. The when she slowly descends in extreme pain grabbing the shower curtain for which becomes detached by her force you can see her blood as she had died already washing down the drain because the water wins since blood and water don't mix but she drowns in her own blood because her blood vessels are all hemorrahaging. The later part of this story is that there is a preservation of his mother's body for which he has in bed for which no doubt he indulges in heteronecroincestusexuality but he had her killed because he didn't want any other person to supercede his love for his mother. The inaccuracy is now coming and this is what it is for which is plainly shown. He did not want there to be jealousy to be present as to be emanated from a LIVING BODY. The fact that the necrosexual is always hooking into a LIVING BODY which will be shown in different instances will show that it is inaccuarte. The morgue where the DEAD BODY is stored is often times invaded by a necrosexual but they must know that LIVING BODIES enter and exit the morgue. The funeral home is another example and the room where the body is processed. The fact that it is located in a zone where the LIVING BODIES pass through is not at all conducive for accurate necrosexuality. The grave sight is the final stop and that is again problematic as there is generally ceremonial rites before burial. At burial generally there is preservation for which the DEAD BODY is kept intact. However there is a problem and what that is , is that the grave yard holds this as a given, "six feet under". LIVING BODIES in a great majority of instances live when they are six feet under [swimming pool, ocean, underground buildings, etc. ] The symbolics here are that if true DEATH were present there would not be a comparability present. The comparability is that the necrosexual has no flexibility in getting the inflexibility as they desire. The answer is the inaccuracy that since the necrosexual is a LIVING BODY that the flexibility must always be there. DEAD bodies have inflexibility and this is indeed the inaccuracy of the necrosexual.

We must now fulfill the necrosexual and not let their flexibility lose their very sexual desires that have brought many of us attainments, answers and breakthroughs already so we owe it to the necrosexual to make them very happy. We had already talked about sleeping for which is not adequate enough because remember the necrosexual is looking for inflexibility. The next area we go to is the unconcious and that will not work either as it will so happen that the state can change suddenly for which flexibility would enter. There is certain people that use a date rape drug on people to have their way and they fall into unconciousness but this is not germane because they are not necrosexuals for the most part. The next step is the coma for which it is ascertained by the necrosexual to be an acceptable form of inflexibility but the only problem is that there generally must be a maintanence engine associated with this to assist in respiration so this is out. The final thing which is the ultimate and this will give the necrosexual everything they seek is the moribund. This word is related to morbid as you can see moribund if you take the first syllable they are the same, mor, if you take the bd, which is later in third syllable then you get morb_d. What this implies is that it can relate to anybody. Now what will make this fulfilling for the necrosexual is they get to enjoy not only their flexibility but the inflexibility of warmth that is generated at first. Both LIVING BODIES one flexible and the other inflexible must be naked and the flexible must lay on top of the inflexible. The reason that the flexible must lie on the inflexible because they can derive the most enjoyment and it allows the inflexible to point towards the heavens and the flexible to point towards the hells. The support of the flexible pointing towards the hells is the false sense of warmth from the inflexible because of impending death. I don't know about you but it is important for this necrosexual to be a homonecrosexual and the reason being is that you don't derive the most natural sex the other way with a heteosexual. The reason being is that they embody procreation which is not conducive for the morbidity turn on that is being sought. Now it is important for the homonecrosexual to make made compassionate love and begin rubbing like crazy all over the inflexible body. The reason being is that they need this justification that the inflexible is truly inflexible. When they have done this over an hour and there are these interesting senses that are activated plus biological functions that are natural as the inflexible still can PISS AND SHIT for which the morbid is interested in that anyway. Another given is that the homonecrosexual must spend uninterrupted time with the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY. The homonecrosexual must SUCK THE COCK of the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY and lick all over the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY. The homonecrosexual must also kiss the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY. It is necessary during this time to turn the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY OVER and THE WARM FLEXIBLE BODY both being pointing towards the hells. Where then the WARM FLEXIBLE BODY can indulge in putting their COCK IN THE ASSHOLE OF THE WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY. Now we reach a point where the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY changes for which the signal will be when the WARM FLEXIBLE BODY begins to feel a change in temperature. The temperature will trend downward to the state of MOR-I-BUND, Do this as all of humanity will trek in this direction eventually so the word says, MOR-TALITY-I-B-O-UND. In other words we are all someday mortality bound. When the SHIT exits out of the now COLD INFLEXIBLE BODY then the sexual fulfillment continues. If the homonecrosexual is also a coprophile which is quite common then we will get a homocopronecrosexual. What they do is they continue with the sex with now the COLD INFLEXIBLE BODY but keep in mind there is something so neat about SHIT and that is it maintains warmth for awhile from outside the coolest to inside the warmest. Now what is neat about SHIT is it has a cooling effect to it and it feels truly stimulating to experience this , it is exactly as going swimming in the cool ocean but I hate to tell you much better. As SHIT is the greatest fulfillment you can ever have and another thing it also has a warming effect to it and it burns plus itches along with you can feel current. The current makes a lot of sense because the change from the WARM INFLEXIBLE BODY to the COLD INFLEXIBLE BODY is the flow of current of LIFE TO DEATH which states the CIRCUIT has been turned off permanently. Now the sex continues for the necrosexual and they get now the COLD INFLEXIBLE BODY as long as they want for which they can indulge all their desires. This is an inaccuracy of the necrosexuality being turned into the accuracy of necrosexuality. It only will be accurate if there is this condition of moribund and it is homonecrosexuality.-EAT SHIT WONDERFUL C0PR0PHILES.

Nema komentara:

Objavi komentar