Good Sex Illustrated Read Online Free PDF

assessment rejects the notion of costless orgasms (and because it can’t deny them, stigmatizes them morally), and it reduces to fragments the phenomenon of sex on a global scale. The study of sexology divides itself into isolated categories; among them there is only a simple relationship of value , from the inferior to the superior, a relationship that “justifies” a medicalized theory of psychosomatic “development”—in love, marriage, procreation, well-accepted socio-sexual roles. The child’s sexuality is declared lowly and immature; it’s opposed to the ossified monosexuality of the normal adult; and between these two poles the other kinds of behavior are distributed, from least to most, from bad to good. The pyramid of phenomena is no more than a list of winners. It’s as if you were watching the win, place and show at the races: there are the winning bets and the losing bets, the good and the bad horses; the instinctual associations sanctioned by a certificate of civic-mindedness or health, and those which, disregarding the finish line, roll around in the mud of the track or ramble about—and the latter are monstrous, nobody’s earning anything from them and the society of exploitation could have kicked itself as a result. The salaried guy who gets married at twenty-one and shortly after has a child, a house and a car gets a gold star from the sexologists; and like the schoolboy who succeeds at an arithmetic problem, he can say: I passed.
    Sexology would have us believe that its atomization of sexuality is a response to a methodology. But since that method arises frommoral presuppositions, obscures the interpretation of phenomena, censors what produces them and denies what links them together, it is scientifically nonviable. The sex specialists, however, insist upon it, since changing their method would mean changing their ideology, which they don’t want to do. From the hands of the moral Order, they receive an object of study that has been cut into slices and stacked hierarchically like the circles of Hell; sometimes they change the position of one or another of these slices (for example, masturbation has been “pushed up” and is becoming “good”), but they’re very careful not to challenge the slicing-up itself. On the other hand, they increase the discriminations, the subtle differences, and infinitely fragment the data about the sexual experience. This tactic allows them to ignore in particular the socio-economic determinants of this experience and to allow psychological determinants only if they can submit to the biologism of the medical mind.
    It’s clear that sexology in its social aspect is the exercise of an abusive power. The discourse on sexuality is—even more than the discourse on mankind, art, civilization—the cultural privilege of the class in power. In France, the physicians’ Conseil de l’Ordre, as we know, brings together members of the upper middle class who adhere openly to a conservative agenda, and who disown those practitioners whose professional behavior is dissident (for example, those who perform “illicit abortions” that are not very profitable, or spread sex information that is not very repressive). In our country, the institutional right to talk sex serves to crush a sexuality that has been condemned to silence. All scientific discourse that focuses exclusively on sex implies that the sex is censored. The medical source can lie, fake, falsify the knowledge that he dispenses as he pleases: because it isn’t to his fellow citizens that he’s accountable, but to the repression of the State.
    In this way, the absence of a collective sexual discourse, of freedom of sexual practice, gets endorsed, and what’s prohibited is intensified by sexuality being presented as a highly technical field, into which it’s risky and forbidden to venture without a guide, and which the ignorant person can only approach after having subscribed to the abstract, regulated knowledge