Roland Dürre
Sunday January 13th, 2019


For me – and I believe for many other people as well – the secret of Eros is a huge riddle. And as always, you are well advised to look into the ancient Greek theories. On Eros, I found a little book by the poet and philosopher Platon: Symposion – or the Banquet of Love.

Roman copy of a Greek Platon portrait, probably by Silanion and put up in the Academy after Platon’s death, Glyptothek München.

In the Symposion, Platon, Socrates, Aritsophanes and their friends met for a spree. These symposions were regular events.

Each time, the symposion deals with a certain topic. Today, says Platon at the beginning of his book, the symposion is about Eros.

Who or what exactly is it?

Platon introduces us to six men who all want to win the prize for the best oratory on the great God Eros:

Phaidros, Pausanias, Eryximachos, Aristophanes, Agathon and Socrates.

Aristophanes tells the story of Eros as the power of longing between people. It is the story of the ball person, which Platon invented.



Canova: Amor and Psyche, 1793, Louvre

The ball person was a creature that was both male and female. This person was so powerful that the Gods feared it could surpass them in power and wisdom.

Consequently, they sought a way to get rid of this unwanted God-Competition. A God-like human being cannot be allowed. So they separated the two parts of the ball person by force.

Ever since then, the two separated halves of the ball person that actually used to be one creature are looking for each other.



The article contains parts of Eros. If you want to read more, just click here.

(Translated by EG)

I took both pictures from Wikipedia.

Roland Dürre
Sunday November 26th, 2017

Dear Evil Sexual Drive.

My road. On a narrow path. On a dangerous route.

Currently, I sometimes write about sex. And electric bikes. Today, it is again about sex.

For me, this is not about sex as such. It is more because it makes me rather sad to see how this is a topic where there is so much hypocrisy and moralizing. And how people lie to themselves, perhaps because they are afraid of their own urges and sub-conscious wishes.

As I see it, we could live better lives if we did not damage our own lives and the lives of the “others” by installing unnecessary taboos and morals.

If, these days, my articles are breaking patterns, then it is certainly not because I want to hurt or insult anybody. It is only because I want to promote a little thoughtfulness and questioning of your own habits.

There was quite a bit of headwind coming my way after my article on “meetoo“ (meetoo). Basically, there were two statements:

(1) “Men, too, should be able to control themselves, no matter what they are currently doing“
(2) “No matter in which situation, we always have to respect another person’s right to self-determination”.

Well, both of these arguments sound nice to me. And actually, I try to live by them. And I also believe both should be true for all people and all sexes, not just for men
(note: incidentally, we now have three sexes. When it comes to sexuality, the bit now has three values – informatics insider).

But then let us take a close look at (1). What does “men, too” mean? Men in the same way as women? As children? Or as pets? Or as car-drivers? Is there anyone who should not be able to control himself/herself?

On reading (2) with diligence and time, my first idea is “wow, what a nice sentence”. But then, is it not utopia, or just a phrase? What do we see in reality, where we were socialized and where we socialize our children? In my life, it happened to often that I experienced the opposite of statement (2).

It would have been so nice if other people had respected my right to self-determination! Especially those in charge of my education and upbringing!
Is there any law that protects our self-determination? I am afraid there is none. Can I deduce the right to self-determination from the guarantee of human dignity? After all, freedom also means to “live your own life in self-responsibility”. And is that not frequently limited whenever someone says they “want to protect me”? From myself!

🙂 The only self-determination I know is the self-determination as far as my data are concerned. …

My “self-determination” suffered under more powerful people or issues all the time. I could give you an endless list of experiences in life from my childhood home, school, the army, my college education, my professional life, in special situations such as for instance traffic and the “shared” everyday life. My stories would fill many pages.

However, this does not concern me alone. In the public environment, I see almost constantly how people do not respect the right to self-determination of others at all. It happens in all the dimensions we share when living. And the most harmless kind is still “moralizing”, which can easily become mobbing.

Regardless, I try to live by (2). And by (1). However, living by (1) is not so easy, either. Is it really a good thing for me to always practice self-discipline? And why should I condemn, persecute and punish others just because they are courageous enough to do things I am not courageous enough to do? For instance if they take the liberty of telling another person that they think he/she is beautiful. For fear of being called sexist, I do not dare saying such a thing. Should I condemn them because I envy them their courage and their freedom? And should it annoy me that they will then get a positive reaction to their “outrageous behaviour”?

And as far as moralizing is concerned, let me – for a change – cite the new testament (only roughly, because you cannot do it in any other way). 
Let those who are free of fault throw the first stone!

After all, we must never forget that, when all is said and done, “humans” (we all) are just mammals. Sometimes more sympathetic and sometimes less so. Once in a while, we are full of enmity, and then again full of friendliness/humanity! To be sure, we are mammals who have a moral cerebellum, but it is still only the small part of the brain. And it makes people believe they are ever so wise, strong and free. Regardless of the fact that the really relevant memories and experiences are saved in the sub-conscious.

How do the Bavarians pay tribute to their Franz-Josef (Strauß):
“Well, he was quite a number, wasn’t he?“.

There is so much information (almost all of it) that we cannot consciously access. Basically and de-facto, the subconscious makes and prepares all decisions. We are not the noble, god-like race, without flesh and only made of soul that is so different from animals. Consequently, we should not try to pretend or, even worse, to become such a different species.

Basically, we have no un-influenced and conscious will. Which means that our criminal responsibility, too is only very limited and very artificially constructed. This (scientifically proven by modern neurology) highly probable reality is not something we like to hear. With many (most of the) people, it will usually trigger outrage and a strong counter-reaction. The consequence is that, for instance, a prison sentence given for wrong (socially detrimental) behaviour is no longer punishment but instead a measure that wishes to prevent things from happening again.

What I ask myself is: does it make sense and is it legitimate (in the sense of truthful) if I lift myself over “culprits” or even speak in terms of “culprit categories” by condemning them? What social advantage is there in me or us becoming part of a witch hunt and also, for instance, ignoring legal facts like, in such a case, the limitation period?

Thesis (1) – not being capable of self-discipline – is something especially men are accused of all the time. I am a man and do not know the “instinct urge situation” of women. Some women told me they also knew “urge-like situations”. I believe what they said, because it matches my own personal experience. Sexual drive is part of being human (or of being an animal?). To be sure, the intensity can differ, depending on the socialization or even the genetic predisposition. Perhaps even down to the zero set.

And I am sure you can lie to yourself by just pushing the sexual drive away. Perhaps in some cases even successfully. Or perhaps doing a lot of damage to yourself in the process. The very upright but latently homosexual citizen in the piece “Orpheus steps down” by Tennessee Williams comes to mind. He hates and prosecutes homosexuals with extreme vigour. Perhaps because he secretly feels that he himself is also homosexual – but in the upright-citizen-milieu of the quiet and well-organized small Dixie town, this is unthinkable! A stranger comes – and the witch hunt starts. It is a play I saw in the Kammerspiele and it really gave me pause.

So far, they have not really found out how the brains work in this respect, and consequently, I do not know it either. But I assume that the person who hates homosexuals and kills them because he is or might himself be homosexual suffers maximum unhappiness. As is so often the case when culprit and victim are the same.

What annoys me most about discussions like the one we currently have about sexism is that groups are severely criticized. For instance single mothers. I really have all the respect in the world for them.

I know people who actually discredit them. If they do not outright call them prostitutes, they at least accuse them of having carelessly become pregnant. After all, their cerebellum could have been watchful when the sexual drive came. After all, today everybody knows how you become pregnant. The physics teacher taught us all the poem for memorizing the words concave and convex: 
If the girl behaves, her stomach remains concave, but if she has sex, it will be convex.

Other – particularly virtuous – moralists say they should have said NO. Which indicates a failure in the sense of (1) “Women, too, should actually be capable of a little self-discipline, no matter what they are currently doing.“ 
And then there are the very strict moralists who say: “It is their own fault, why didn’t they have an abortion?“.

Of course, a pregnancy has something to do with sex, and it changes the life of a woman considerably. There are women who “chose the right method of contraception” and still became pregnant. For instance because they used a product like the “copper spiral” that has the characteristic “unreliable” even written in its product description (Pearl-Index). And it was developed from men for women.

Others have become pregnant because they were weak for a total of eleven minutes. It was a huge awakening for all parties concerned. Some corrected the error and had an abortion. They were often supported and encouraged by their social environment. That is also an area where I think nobody has the right to judge these people morally. That also goes for the men involved during conception because they could not control their sexual drive?

I admit that the temptation to postulate a moral demand such as “you must be able to say NO” is huge. Both in sex and corruption. Except, as I said above: “Who has the right to throw the first stone?” Why don’t we offer all people respect, instead of morally condemning them?

Mind you, there were times when it was even worse than now. I remember times when it was amoral for a woman to have an orgasm. Because sex included a sacred mandate to multiply and not meant for satisfying your lust. If a woman enjoyed sex, she was a harlot. And, as I already wrote, the men sought the harlot and wanted the saint at the same time.

Poor stupid, in this case male, cerebellum!

Let me say it again: using violence against other people is an absolute #nogo. It is totally irrelevant to what end you apply it. There is no justification. Here is a final provocation – which is not meant as it sounds, but only as an inspiration and impulse for another thought process:
Violence and the application of violence in the context of sexual urges is severely criticized and enthusiastically prosecuted.
That is OK!

The most brutal violence against people is tolerated, promoted and actively supported or organized. By the same people and the same society!
That is not at all OK!

(Translated by EG)

In our society, contraception is in the hands of the woman as a matter of course. I think that is rather disrespectful towards WOMAN. It is another facet of the morals in our society that I would call sexism.

Realized as “sex app” on blockchain basis. Great Features!

Terrible age: in the middle of puberty and still without sex contract.

Trendsetter USA.

We have “God’s own country“. The government of which still considers itself the world police – regardless of the fact that they have not been number 1 in the world for a long time. They lost the right to “moral leadership” (if there can even be such a thing) a long time ago.

In that country, it happens almost every week that an amok shooter (mostly male) kills a dozen people. Just like that. Regardless of the fact that (or perhaps more: because) this country always has had a high affinity to punishment and revenge. That is also why their prisons are as full as nowhere else in the world. Filled to the brim, especially with coloured men.

Now, the very same country announced that it will fight sexism with all its might. And consequently, they now, for instance, cut out actors from film scenes. The sexism wave rolls through the world, many men are massively accused of having behaved sexist or of still behaving sexist.

Sexual violence in power-based systems.

In the European Parliament, too, women now hold up the “#MeToo“ posters for the men (who actually do not even attend such parliamentary sessions) to see. Because in the Parliament, too, just like in Hollywood, women (mostly, but sometimes also men) have been or are sexually molested or pressure is put on them or they are cheated and thus made to act sexually and even abused and raped.

Sexual violence in the public domain.

At the same time, I hear that sexual violence cannot only be found on streets and plazas (especially in front of railway stations), as well as around religious and other institutions of this world, but particularly often in the home environment and inside marriages.

Sexual violence at home.

It is said that husbands often demand what is allegedly their right by using force. If that is so, then something should probably be done by the executive. Why not regulate the marital sex with a separate contract, like a “Nuptial Contract II”? Just like the “Nuptial Contract I” regulates everything about the property and the additions to same during the marriage.

You can regulate the sexual side in a separate marriage contract (as they already do it in the sadist-masochist environment).

A report in the “Zeit“ confirms that my idea is a good one. You can read that sadist-masochist practices are reported on TV (which means this makes them socially acceptable). You can also read that, before they interact in sadist-masochist sexual ways, these couples or groups sign a written “letter of intent” where they agree which practices are desired, which are borderline and from where the red line that must not be crossed is reached.

An old joke for problem solution.

These protocols remind me of a joke we boys told each other when we were 14. Let me call it “sewing machine”. It is about an elderly couple who have agreed upon the following:

A married couple designed a protocol that had proved reliable through their entire marriage. They had defined the term “sewing machine” as a code word for “sexual desire”. In those days (just like today), nobody would have dared to say these things out loud.

This is how it was done: If one of the partners desired sex, they were allowed to say “sewing machine”. The partner could either comply or refuse. And the other party had to accept the refuse without frustration or accusations. This was the mutual agreement.

The couple lived happily for many decades and their relationship was characterized by mutual respect. However, “sewing machine” came less and less often as the years went by.

One evening, the already elderly husband took heart and said the magic word “sewing machine” to his beloved wife. His no longer very young spouse was tired and refused. After some time, however, she made up her mind and said “sewing machine” to her husband. He replied sadly: “What a pity, now I sewed the few stitches I needed by hand”.

Well, the simple protocol as related in this joke (application – acceptance or refusal) is, of course, too simple for modern standards. After all, we live in times of total regulation and want precise rules.

Nuptial Contract II for Marriages.

A good Nuptial Contract II for regulating the sexual transactions in a marriage that meets modern expectations will certainly be a little more complex than the aforementioned agreement. It would be a little like the modern patient’s provision. You have to imagine quite a few potential future scenarios and clearly say what you want to happen in all cases. I certainly would not wish to list in detail all the many things that need to be considered. You would also have to state how violations by a partner are to be punished in order to document the offenses in a legally accepted way. But I am sure that the ingenious and sexually experienced solicitors will gladly provide you with wonderful and lengthy model contracts.

In modern times, sex does not only happen between married couples, but more and more also in free life. But this, too, needs to be regulated. You cannot just go ahead and have sex without before having agreed upon the following questions: What is desired and what is not desired? What is permitted and what is not permitted? How do you signal opposition? Whose fault is it if suddenly matters get out of control? …

No responsible legislation can just look the other way and leave such a strong legal uncertainty. After all, you have to protect the people from their own activities. Just imagine how many people could be falsely accused and the accused persons have no way of proving the lies? But those lies can destroy entire lives.

An app for free extra-marital intercourse.

In this case, I would offer an app. After all, the sexual partners wish to remain anonymous and it is a “peer2peer“ agreement (I am sure a man-in-the-middle would not be welcome in this context). The IT based solution would have to be based on block chain technology.

This kind of app has many advantages. Since it is in possession of the sex profiles of both partners, it can quite easily and quickly draw up a clear contract: with a single click, the partners can set the average of sexual variants for bot (or, if so desired, even more) partners.

Great Features!

Additionally, this app might provide considerable added value. Besides giving contractual certainty in an uncertain sexual world, it could also extend the libretto (like a cooking recipe) for the planned sexual interaction by recommendations that, for instance, are preferred by other sexual partners who have similar profiles. Or it might also include suggestions from the Kamasutra – quasi as suggestions for improvement and then initiate a contentment feedback for both partners. And then the contract could be extended based on said feedback.

You must not forget the contract termination!

Of course, a very important part of the app is that the sex contract is properly terminated or its end mutually agreed upon after the relationship is finished. It would probably be most user-friendly if such contracts are always limited in time (between one and a maximum of five years). If necessary, they might include an optional extension. Before the regular contract time is up, such a contract would have an integrated retrospective and offer support for contract modification to the partners in case of extension (change management).

Integration of the functionality into a speed dating mechanism.

The functionality could also be integrated into the software for speed dating portals or apps (for instance Münchner-Single or Tinder), which means the entire process (life cycle management) from the first meeting to the separation could be offered from one service. An automatic switch to Njuptial Contract II would have to be included.

Legal security by means of precise documentation.

What a wonderful new sexual world such a technological progress would bring! And what makes it even better: if you document the actual behaviour during the sexual interaction at all times by recording videos with your smart phone, you could guarantee even more legal security. The video tape could be used as a neutral proof if, for instance, one of the partners has violated a prior agreement. Naturally, this means of proof, just like the entire app, would be strictly data protected and it would have to be deleted after both partners have agreed to destroy it.

At Google they already have all of this for normal life.

For all those who refuse to take what I wrote seriously, I want to remind you that this is how, in many dimensions, the network already works. For those who take me seriously, I have a word of comfort. This article is meant to be more cynical than anything else. And if there is ever such an app, then you can try it. But that does not mean you have to try it.

However, I am quite serious about one thing: there is no solution to the sexism problem. The only thing that helps is a violence free communication at eye-level between humans in general and, of course, also between men and women. And a fair and considerate treatment of each other based on mutual respect and appreciation.

Nor do I wish to make a secret of the fact that this current wave of collective hypocrisy on sexism is something I find extremely repelling. Unfortunately, you have to take it seriously – some of it reminds me very much of the witch hunt we had in earlier epochs. When all is said and done, it is always about using power in order to satisfy your own greed, be it sexual greed, material greed or other greed.

In the man-woman-sex model, we are talking both directions:
Man uses power in order to get sex. Woman uses sex in order to get power.

It will probably not be possible to solve the problem that those who have power will always want more power by installing new laws or new punishment. After all, the powerful assume that he can bend the law to his own will. I find it rather sad that, regardless of all the sexual enlightenment, even today there is probably no other area where there is so much hypocrisy as when people talk sex.

My next articles about “SEX“
will be less cynical than this one. They will also be more serious. There are enough topics I would like to write about. Here is a small outlook:

  • What made it possible that it was the women who were given all the social responsibility for contraception? It makes infertility quasi a social obligation! And to top it all, society celebrates the process as the “liberation of women”! Is that not also some kind of rape? And what consequences does it have?
  • Motivated by the current sexism wave, I started thinking about if and when I experienced the use of sexism and power at InterFace Connection GmbH / InterFace AG, which is the enterprise I founded a long time ago. And how did I myself treat such symptoms? I will relate the result of my thinking process as part of my entrepreneurial diary in this blog.
  • It also strikes me that there are interesting parallels between sexism and corruption. The sexual enrichment of your life by using power does not really differ too much from the material enrichment by using power. There are numerous temptations. You can give in to them – but you do not have to. I will write about this in one of my next articles.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre
Tuesday November 7th, 2017


The following article is based on personal experience and ideas such as:

Even in public domains, I often witness situations where one person truly “makes minced meat” of another person. What I mean is ugly insults, often even ending in physical violence, noisy accusations and thus an incredible way in which someone is made to look small and vulnerable. Mostly these scenes are very emotional and for me they are often rather hard to understand. They often happen between people who apparently know each other quite well.

I always find it atrocious. It does not matter if we are talking a man and a woman (his wife), a “German” and an immigrant, a white person and a coloured person, a father and a son, or a lady and her elderly mother. Or vice versa. The problem is always that one person dresses down another person. It is totally independent of the sex or the relationship between the two persons concerned.


As Playboy and marriage swindler on the MS EUROPA 🙂

Sorry, but the #MeToo discussion is really something that annoys me. Using violence against other persons is a bad thing and definitely not allowed – and it does not matter at all if it is directed against men or women (or, even worse: children). It is totally irrelevant why violence happens.

But the current discussion that has been going on for years already is – as so often when we moralize and are being ethical – far too short-sighted. Let me try to describe the general situation. Naturally, it is no different in the sexual sector than in our social life.

Even when we play as small children, we are trained to win. You either have to throw someone out or you have to take someone else’s toy bricks. It is always about cheating someone out of something and eventually destroying him/her.

The result is clear:
One will win, the others will lose. And consequently, everyone wants to be the winner.

Here is a small story:

A short time ago, a lady who is looking after refugees on a voluntary basis told us how surprised she had been that
“she had to teach the Massai parlour games in order to keep them occupied. They do not even know such parlour games as ludo!”

It seems that the Massai, unlike us, have not grown up with destructive parlour games. I often feel that this is really easy to see. And that they are special in that the way they think and act differ from ours.

We, on the other hand, always must (or want to) be the most beautiful, fastest, best, most attractive,… It is the principle “The winner takes it all”. Our society wants eager consumers. Consumption is our hobby. And even in the earliest parlour games stage, the methods you may use are subtle. The only thing you must not do is cheat. Mind you, “not cheating” mainly means “getting away with it”.

This is how, from early on, we learn to think and feel, this is how we are socialized. In our lives, everything – from the outset – is about advancement, power, career, money, material advantages, positions, ownership and the many conveniences of our cultural world. The natural world is “out”, the cultural world is “in”.

Everything is about how we can, by manipulating other people and our environment, gain some advantages. When doing this, it is important that we look innocent. That includes when we shove others out of the way or accumulate property and goods. What does that mean? My house, my car, my boat, my bike, my family, my husband, my wife, my dog, my cat,…

The problem is that communication becomes violence-oriented. We generally learn to use it to our advantage. Women and men are not too different in that respect. How often was I, as a child, manipulated by adults (of both sexes) towards doing something I did not want to do and yet eventually did? Occasionally, such behaviour caused quite a bit of damage.

Except: what does this knowledge help if we are not prepared to be honest and change our communication to become violence-free?

So the first problem is that we all – men and women – were socialized in this way and that our children and grandchildren are still socialized in exactly the same way. For instance, we believe that our happiness is dependent on our sitting on the throne over others. We want the biggest slice of the cake on our plate; we want the biggest car and the nicest living room. Otherwise we will be unhappy.

We have to be the big winners and have all the power. We are trained to win. We want other people to do what we say. Otherwise we will make them look smaller.

We want to rise in the hierarchy and have others serving under us. The principle is: “Kiss up, kick down”. Very early, we also learn, practice and develop methods and strategies that we apply successfully in all areas. And if it is successful in the job, why not also in our sexual lives? How can anybody expect us to show behaviour between the sexes that is different from our behaviour in “normal life”?

Greed is perhaps inherited or acquired, and it can certainly become maniacal. However, sex is an instinct and thus beyond ratio. If “normal greed” is already a strong driver towards evil behaviour, then what will sexual desire make us do? Or in other words: if someone is already a pig in normal life, how can you expect him to be an angel in his sexual life?

On the other hand, sexuality was and still is something evil and abominable in our moralizing society. It is considered some kind of sinful behaviour that needs to be controlled by the cerebellum according to the moral code. Because humans assume that they are totally responsible for what they do and consequently have to manage “leading an honourable life and stand above instincts” (as I see it, it has been neurologically proved that this is utter nonsense).

And then comes the instinct. Let me cite Brecht and his: Ballade von der sexuellen Hörigkeit. And “over and out” for morals and ethics. In some cultures, they try to solve the problem by forcing all females to cover their entire bodies. Well, perhaps this helps men, but does that mean it is a solution?

Now here is what I suspect: due to the biological difference between men and women (woman can become pregnant, men cannot), a sexual cultural imprint of men and women evolved over the millennia in our western cultural sphere. Social norms lived by men and women seem to have developed rather independent of each other.
Statistically spoken, I would say that the sexuality of the sexes developed asymmetrically over the millennia – which is not only true for the development of morals, but also for how people think and feel. More and more, women were made to become those who say no and refuse. After all, the interaction between man and woman has a lot more consequences for a woman than for a man, and that is not only because they can become pregnant.

Maybe there are also some genetic differences between the sexes, but that is something I leave to the psychologists and anthropologists to discuss. I do not think it is very relevant.

The social rules and regulations around a woman’s pregnancy varied. Not long ago, it was strictly forbidden for a woman to announce who was the father of her illegitimate child in France (in order to protect the man’s marriage)! Incidentally, this was in total contrast to German law. Here, the mother of an illegitimate child was obliged to announce who the father of her child was (in order to make sure the illegitimate child was not going to starve)! The catholic church even introduced celibacy because the pregnancies caused by their priests became too expensive. In those days, priests were rather popular among the woman, because they had a high social status, many were quite well off and they always had enough to eat.

Consequently, man became more and more the minstrel who wooed the aristocratic (and understandably hesitant) lady. The woman became the “god-like creature” who had to be conquered. She was stuck between being a saint and a harlot, was supposed to be both. Man, as the provider of the family, became the patriarch and the woman became the guardian of the family.

For women, it was virtuous not to have sex – whereas for men it was great to have conquered as many women as possible. Even for sheer numerical reasons, this development must lead to a paradoxical situation. The number of “men looking for sex” is higher than the number of “women prepared to have sex”.

Probably as a logical consequence of this discrepancy, prostitution developed. Sexual satisfaction is granted for money – based on clear service level agreements. They call it the world’s oldest business model, because it is so normal that it must always have existed.

The asymmetry is particularly pronounced if we are talking sexual practices that have the reputation of being “perverse”. For instance, if a man needs sexual and other debasement as part of his instinct, then he will see the Domina (and pay for it). If a woman looks for debasement, she can come to a gang-bang event (and carry quite a bit of money home in the bargain).

Prostitution is something that exists in many dimensions. If I do not earn enough building automobiles in the day shift and consequently apply for the night shift (which will ruin my health) in order to earn more, is that not prostitution? If I take an additional job as garage assistant because I do not earn enough money as a policeman, then what is that? Aren’t many modern work models nothing other than prostitution?

I founded my own enterprise because I wanted nobody else to tell me where I need to work. While employed as a “dependent worker”, it happened all the time that I had to spend five days every week away from my family. On business trips. Wasn’t that, too, prostitution? What is worse: selling my time or selling my body?

Topics like these are still taboo in our society and therefore they document our hypocrisy. And we continue to lie! When it comes to sex, the very things that are otherwise quite normal are suddenly evil!

It is particularly bad in war. During my childhood, I had quite a few relatives who had been injured in the war. They were people whose bodies had been wounded and often also their souls. These people who were crippled as a consequence of violence in war did not need “MeToo” posters. They were a living accusation. The message was part of their body:

Look at me, and you will see that I, too, lost a leg, an arm or an eye in the war.

These injuries, too, were caused by the mania in our society where violence is accepted and legitimized as a means towards an end, even in super-industrial dimensions. We improve armament and build mass-destruction devices. And we hope that those weapons, like war itself, will be exported, rather than used at home. Which is probably an illusion.

But we could not care less. Instead of opposing and fighting violence, we get worked up about men mostly having the problem of wanting sex while women mostly have the problem of wishing to avoid it.

The solution is simple: men are said to have a much “stronger sexual desire” than woman between the legs. The moral accusation is that they have no self-discipline. And that they use their power. But then: is there anyone who does not use their power?

The defamation continues. They have even come up with pathological terms: Satyriasis for men (allegedly quite common) and Nymphomania (said to be the exception in women). And both are defined as illness. You can find them in the medical lexicon of bad deceases that need to be treated.

Well, if that is how you look at it, then most men need a therapy. There are some “nice” men who deny their sexual appetence. They complain about the majority of their politically incorrect gender. Some of them even believe in their own denials. They are just the worst of them. They remind me of homosexuals who do not wish to or cannot accept their (as they themselves see it: wrong) sexual orientation and then are particularly ruthless in their arguments against homosexuals.

Thus, the man-woman-model we live has a lusty man’s side that desperately looks for sex. And those evil devils will then (naturally) apply the very same patterns that have proved to be a success when sexually conquering the virtuous women.

And now, again, they start crucifying, condemning and lying. Regardless of the fact that it is actually quite simple. The less violence we have in the social frame, the less sexual abuse will we have. In a peaceful society, there will be no rape. And the more violence determines the social framework, the more rape there will be. In war, where we have the maximum of violence, it becomes a matter of course.
Here is the message of my article:

Let us build a violence-free society. Then you will have no sexual violence, either!   
Using accusations, discrediting, even more joy in punishment and revenge and the old strategies for promoting individual and collective interests, you will not improve anything. Instead, you will only create new frontiers and moralism.

Thus, it is easy to explain that, in a social world and in social systems where success is mainly realized through using power, position, violence and intrigue/trick-oriented communication and material promises, sexual success, too, will naturally be sought and realized with exactly these same strategies.

This is naturally true for political and church-oriented systems. It is no surprise that those are the places where sexual abuse is most abundant. Just like we now seem to witness it in the EU parliament. What exactly are the methods a simple party member needs to apply in order to manage the leap from the district party association to the European Parliament or into the Federal Cabinet?

How is the lonely representative in Strassbourgh or Brussels or Bonn or Berlin – far from home – supposed to satisfy his sexual hunger? Due to the workload of a representative, it all also has to be done extremely efficiently – i.e., with minimum time. There are only two ways to get sex:
Either pay or use your position and power!

Besides, I am not sure if you need to feel too sympathetic towards all the “victims” who now put “MeToo” stickers on their desks. To me, it seems quite possible that some ladies might have done quite some diligent weighing of priorities Perhaps some actually took this absolutely legitimate (not forbidden) path towards personal advantage and power quite deliberately.

And with such a sticker on your desk, you can also again draw a little attention to yourself – which, after all, is quite an important currency in politics.
However, I hope you will not now want to punish the women who quite deliberately and willingly made use of the “sexual dependency” of men for their own purposes? For instance because this is unrighteous behaviour against the competing men? Even if the idea might actually seem justifiable, such measures would really drive me over the top…

Back to what this is about:    
Apparently, the more the system is determined by power structures, the more sexual abuse there is. That sounds logical. Then it is only natural that successful strategies that were applied in normal life over many years and decades (for instance if you wanted a party career) are also applied when there is “sexual interest”. Especially if the pressure to succeed, due to the instinct, is even bigger in the sexual area than in the normal area of greed. Well, we apply what we learned …

As I see it, this will naturally not be restricted to the hetero-sexual area (where certainly the majority of victims are women, which I truly regret), but also in homosexual and paedophiliac sectors. And then, men and children will also be the victims. And I feel even more sympathy for the children than for the men and women. Because children mostly have absolutely no way to protect themselves against such violence. For me, taking advantage of someone who is absolutely helpless is quite criminal.

Now let me turn my thesis around:    
If MeToo means that, by means of evil threat, using positions of power, violence-oriented communication, threatening of negative consequences in case of denial and rewards in case of acceptance, some people have been made to do things they would otherwise not willingly have done, then everybody should probably wear quite a few MeToo stickers. This is true for all sectors of life – not just for the sexual sphere.

I, too, could easily put a few MeToo stickers on my desk. For things – totally outside the sexual sector – I was forced to do (or where this is how it felt to me) and for which, even if I am not ashamed of them, I still feel slightly angry about. In those cases, it annoys me how I have been made to bend my will and how I fell victim to the evil method that was successfully used on me.

Let me emphasize that, with this article, I do not at all want to justify or belittle “sexual abuse” (the use of emotional or physical power for sexual ends). All I want to do is remind you that, in our lives, we are constantly made to do things we do not wish to do through the use of violence. Some of our really important decisions and activities that we do not approve of are still forced on us through pressure or threats from the outside (the powerful) as a matter of course in this country. So: we are all #MeToo!

And, first and foremost, we must remove this common violence structure from our lives in order to become violence-free in our sexual interactions, as well. For instance by violence-free communication. Let us start with utopia and let it become a real option!

It might be a totally different question if
“the ideal of a harmonic cooperation between the sexes is possible and desirable at all”.
But that is a totally different topic.

At least, I cannot think of any sincere procedure or practicable process that would, with the current mental concepts, guarantee such cooperation. How can sexual interaction – for instance in the socially legitimate environments of a marriage – be organized in an ethically perfect way? I can imagine that things that seem quite possible in a business relationship concerning sexual services is not quite as easy in an actual partnership.

But now I moved long enough on thin ice and will continue to write about men and women in a later article. I could also formulate a proposition that supports the “harmonious cooperation” in a marriage by introducing “formal processes. “The sexual interaction as a general marriage contract like a partnership declaration” could be the title of a wonderfully cynical article.

But first, I will again write about electronic bikes… or some other harmless topic. And after that perhaps about sex. There are more than enough topics ldft to write about.

(Translated by EG)

Roland Dürre

Sex and Electricity

At the height of my Catholic-Christian career!

On electronic bikes and #MeToo.

Some IF blog friends asked me why I do not write about new and more important topics.
They suggested that I write about e-bikes. After all, they said it was an interesting and relevant topic.

That is true!

So I will do it. Now that I have some e-bike experience, I understand even less than before why anybody would want to drive a car.

Or, to express it more refined: why does anybody punish him-/herself and drive a car? We are apparently a nation of masochists  (I almost wrote maso-christians).

Which brings me to the second topic I was asked to write about: our sexual hypocrisy.
Some of my readers asked me tell them my position on it. For instance, I got the following tweet:

…If you are perfectly honest, my dear @RolandDuerre
I assume all this sexism debate is something that annoys you, isn’t it?

Yes, it is true! It does annoy me.

As soon as anybody talks sexuality, hypocrisy blooms. Both among men and women. They all start campaigns that, in my opinion, simply ignore the real problem in our society. Or even worse: they deflect from the real problem. Because in all discussions, evil men violate and exploit nice women. And because, allegedly, when it comes to sex, our society forgets “to accept borders”. Well, if it were only in connection with sex that we forget those borders, and if we were not constantly doing it in our everyday lives …

With increasing enthusiasm, they demand that these borders be restored as fast as possible. The sheer joy in punishment increases. Except that, when all is said and done, this behaviour deflects from the fact that, for millennia, power has been the valid substitution strategy and the common behavioural principle when it came to suppressing and manipulating people. And consequently, it would certainly be strange if this rule from “normal life” were to be invalid when it comes to sexuality, which, after all, is rooted in “instinct”, rather than “greed.

So up from now, I will also occasionally write about the e-bike (as a very normal topic) and about sexuality (in order to break a few taboos). I will establish two new IF Blog categories: eBike and Sexuality.

So far, they are both empty. But the next thing I will write is about #MeToo. And then I will start with the e-Bikes.

(Translated by Evelyn)