If your partner is not being fulfilled in bed, and they are sure it’s not because they don’t have feelings for you, then the weight falls elsewhere it falls on them. There is only way to bring this out and fulfil your partner: communication.

 ———

I am convinced beyond reproach that all sexual problems are problems of communication. The problems of communication however are much too diverse to determine and fix easily. Sometimes it’s just more than a matter of “I would like you to do this rather than that”. Sometimes a person just doesn’t like anything, or their body is to a certain degree what I call ‘cold’. This is where the situation gets tricky, this is where the sex isn’t the problem. This is where sex becomes perplexing and the matter diverges so much that a human mind finds it difficult to stay with it.  

The cold body problem is a matter of an emotion counteracting another, an impulse combating another, and this battle is internal, always. This impulse takes many forms and harbours a few fascinating designations: trust, love, guilt, rapport, surrender… etc… Not one word can indefinitely establish and determine what exactly is the source of the cold body other than a clash of impulses. The only thing we can do is to court communication, it is speech and to a certain degree of emotional proximity. What meagre and reliable tools, but it’s better that than nothing, especially if we care for our lovers. All the designations perhaps converge on one point: a person’s relationship to their own body and themselves — this inner conflict is mediated by either the body’s constitution and the person’s upbringing. Quite simply, cold body is not a partner’s issue, it is an issue of self, it is an issue of one’s relationship to themselves, to their own body.

Fascinatingly, the cold body seems to have a general continuity amongst race and upbringing, so the factors are perhaps much too diverse to determine, but there’s only one way to begin: speech, communication.

… to understand one thing and one thing only, if not anything, else that the human body must accumulate and expound energy. The more it accumulates, the more it needs to expound, the more it needs to discharge. The more humanity grows, the more it accumulates and the more it can and must discharge. As millenia go by, new and different forms of expenditure are necessary, for the forms of accumulation are all the same and they concern the body. The human body is an energy-discharge machine, and this is the most beautiful thing about it. It accounts for all art and the higher aspects of life we call the sciences. Maybe even consciousness itself was brought into play by the body such that it may, through its function, find and establish new forms of discharge.

Don’t listen to them, my humble readers, even when they say unto you ” love is not about being guarded and building a fortress, you can’t fall in love if you’re so guarded”. “Stop being so guarded, let down your arms” they shout, and you must smile, nod and walk away from them. They don’t know, they are foolish these clowns, these drifters and decaying bodies. Build the biggest guard possible, just make sure you’ve left out a space for a door somewhere. Even the mightiest castle and fortress conceivable needs a door, a door for your own escape, and that door is all one needs for love. Don’t listen to them, my humble readers, they would much rather have you fight with them until the last breath, these clowns, than love you. They are comical, these fools, they make for great jest. But, do not hate them my humble readers, have empathy for them, they do not know, they are foolish. Life has been unfair to them, it has not given them enough strength to love. They condemn life, and they condemn you, but do not repay them with the same treatment. Life knows not about fair and unfair, these distinctions are much too anthropomorphic to be applied to life. Life both equalizes and favours at the same time, don’t forget that my humble readers; life is unconscious.

And if they disappoint you and place you on the corner, do not fret, you are not alone, love is with you, it will shine forth from your bosom and your smile. You need no God for this, and you need no after-life and heaven, don’t listen to or be fearful of their hell either; for it is in their bosom and on their shoulders — it need not be on yours too. That is justice. You have all you need: yourself and your ground. In these moments you can proclaim to them, “love needs a door, a way in, that is all”. And if they be sceptical, these weaklings and clowns, bestow onto them, “my dear fools, don’t confuse a way in with a way through, or a way past”.

“All you need do, is ask.”

… if not fully, characterized by our incessant chasing of excitation of nerve-endings. Everything we do is aimed at some sort of excitement of the nerves. To be human is to wish to excite oneself, to raise oneself to a state other than that of rest, not to bring oneself back to rest… there is no bigger fallacy than the view that permits of the human a constant state of excitation in which the state of rest, or equilibrium, is where the goal of the individual lays. To give a drive to becoming that is aimed at equilibrium is the biggest mistake in the interpretation of becoming, the very interpretation implies an error in the interpretive organ, or body. It is in the absence of excitation, they say, that we find ourselves and our ultimate goal, that we find happiness. But what is this if not death or a morbid state — a state of decay to the body? How much can such a theory hate the body; how far does this hate go?

This view is broken and indicative of a life of anxiety and torment as its natural state of being, as the being in becoming, or as its normal state; but is every life like that, or is it only the broken life, a particular life, that is like that? Indeed excitation implies both torment and exhiliration, but not all excitation is only one or the other. In no way is the natural state one of excitation whose qualification is torment, or the equilibrium, the bringing back to null of that qualification; exhiliration is then not even included in this picture. They (torment and exhiliation) are both excitations, and the normal state is indeed itself an excitation, but there are degrees of excitation, the normal state is that of a weak excitation of the nerves. The higher this rises in the appropriate places and in the appropriate way for the body, the more a certain qualification of an excitation is made apparent. There are only degrees of excitation and each harbours a qualification; the absence of excitation is either a stupid linguistic and formal anomaly, or what we call death, the decay of the body.

The body pushes for a higher degree of excitation, at every possible opportunity where its energies afford it. It does not however, wish to maintain that degree, on the contrary, it wishes to tend towards it, little by little, but not maintain it in its qualification. The body wishes its natural state to tend towards an excitation with every expounding of energy towards that excitation, but not maintain the peak of that excitation; rather it attempts to subtly alter its natural state. Those who hate the body thought that because excitations always go back to the natural state, it must be the natural state that is where pleasure to the body comes from. It is the dropping back to the natural state that made the body feel good, and the excitation just made it feel bad, the excitation was a torment, it is never the rising of the degree of excitation. Foolish thinkers and haters of the body. If the whole body is always in a degree of excitation, whence arises this feeling of pleasure at going back to that degree after deviating from it, and whence arises the constant and incessant movement towards a higher degree? The body doesn’t hate itself, it just wants more of itself, it wants to increase itself. The body is invested in itself and its rising in degrees of excitation, it shows it strength, vigour and good health. A health body is an active and excited body, not a numb and borderline comatose body.

These doctrines that preach the numbing of the nerves will make of humans nothing but simulacra of living things, it will make us machines. 

I reject a philosophy of death and numbness from the start. If your Philosophy smells of death, take it with you and be on your way.

… plays dice, even if God doesn’t. She plays two dice. One she calls philosophers, the other she calls philosophers. Both dice invalid but cherished by her immensely, so much so that all retribution she bestows on their souls, it comes with a mother’s gentle touch, kiss and hug…

… as rewarding to a life as wanting to be the best at what you do, no matter what that is. This form of life is constantly overflowing with anxiety and anger, but its rewards are so fruitful, for both one and all. The biggest danger with such a life is always the imminent promise of hate and anxiety towards others. This is where this kind of life finds its two most fascinating fruits: the fruit of scarcity and the fruit of abundance. A life that is sick in this manner is much more interesting if it stems from an abundance as opposed to scarcity. Scarcity is the worst fruit of any tree. I wonder if every tree reserves and expends the most of its energy on that one fruit, the fruit that justifies it? The tree of life harbours many fruits, but what does the fruit that justifies the tree look like? What shoot does it stem from?

Sex is not a function, it’s not even a form of leisure, neither is it a special union, or a union of any sort. Sex can mean one of a myriad of things, or even ‘all’ at once and none at any particular time. To reduce sex to one meaning and educate children on that one meaning, such that that meaning becomes the social norm, the way people communicate about it, is to destroy an experience. It is in this sense the most decrepit form of robbery. Sex has no particular meaning, it can mean anything you want it to mean, set the meaning to it yourself in your encounters and communications. But, always realize that its form can always change. Words and experiences concerning people are more formal than they are material.

The responsibility falls on you to create your own environment: man and woman alike.

… like fire, it consumes everything it can digest and makes it a part of itself. All else cause it to die and force it into silence; but, look how much fire can digest.

Thought in language is like a simulation. It is distinct from activity, of movement in the sense of the body. Thoughts within language open up possible movements or possible activities, but nothing more. It must be distinct from activity. Activity is other than thought, even if preceded by it. 

Look at how many distinct forms of simulation there are. To simulate is to establish boundaries and rules for possible action. The moment that action is acted, or actualized, the fleeting nature of the action itself is revealed and the boundary holds only if the rules hold, and further if the actions hold. The boundary doesn’t fully determine the action while it is acted, some may find it soothing to say it doesn’t even determine it before the action in thought. The action rather determines and generates the boundary anew with each actualization, with each movement. It does this or it destroys it with a movement contrary to the boundaries, whose possibility is always implied. There can be no boundary big enough to encapsulate all possible action, because possible actions contradict each other or render each other superfluous. Thus, any complete theory of possible action is incomplete by virtue of its project and the means to it. Actions are limitless, not in thought, but in action — they are temporally bound. Thought can bring out this temporal boundary, which is no boundary at all, and in so doing reveal the lack of limit in an action. A limit can be drawn, but the temporal quality of actions rubs off all limits.

Language only organizes action, but it does not more. Action itself either maintains that organization or not.

… have a vested interest in language, because we seem to believe that without it we cannot speak, and without it we cannot think. We aggrandize language to such a degree that it becomes cancerous to us. It moves so far away from living and acting that we might as well be sitting on a chair for the rest of our lives with a pen to table scribbling things that will never be applicable to our world, things that would have no immediate effect on our surroundings. Such a philosophy is a con and brings out the mode of life that is decaying, philosophy in this moment is a doctrine of invalidity that prolongs invalidity instead of offering something else instead. A culture where language is the main form of communication, or even the centre of being, is a culture at the heart of an imminent ruin, or an impending transformation. Only philosophers can do this to a culture, only they can rape experience to the point where they become raped by it as if by accident. We betray our incapacity to live with our love for language and its mode of thought; it’s reproductive, preservative and ultimately useless mode of thought.

… harbour a direct correlation with the notion of capacity, of an answer to the question: “can I or can I not?” This principle’s affluence in experience is fascinating. Happiness arises out of I can, I am able; out of capacity and capability. Unhappiness out of incapacity and incapability, suffering falls on the latter. This principle can’t be ‘proven’ or explained but it can be put to bear upon experience.

Nietzsche termed this principle as the feeling of power increasing or decreasing.