This may be similar to some positions of Mircea Eliade or maybe remind
Foucault: any religious statement is in its basis a sexual statement,
since Religion has to do with the Afterlife and Life, Life and the
Afterlife, and Death, which are all inextricably linked (like a real
three threaded golden bough) with the basic act of sexuality to Life,
in a now eternal circular argument, that of the egg and the hen (or the
hen and the egg?). A simultaneous equation solving all variables at the
same time!
Onanism is most peculiar (don't confuse with homosexuality, sexual
arousing with individuals of the same sex, or self-penetration, sexual
experimentation with your _own_ body) since it actually turns into a
*sin* avoiding sexual relations with a woman who is not a wife! It has
a very procreation-oriented intention in an epoch when birth rights and
parenthood were essential to the economical state of things, as
distribution through the market was limited at the time, but it also
recognized, more subconsciouly than consciously maybe, that once a
couple is formed as it comes to gene spreading sisters are as good as
the orignal wife, as gene combinations (babies) will be quite similar!
ONly few differences actually, once a couple decides to mix genes. Why
not brothers? It certainly has to do with economic intergenerational
distribution of goods passing from generation to generation within the
lines of a patriarchal society. But in our times the simple idea of a
man having as sexual partners the sisters of his wife sounds as almost
a matter of revenge and drama if not of tragedy! LOts f conflicts would
have been avoided by men of the era by NOT engaging in onanism... And
yet today this holy book is still guide to many...
Danilo J Bonsignore then Fabrizio J Bonsignore again Danilo J Bonsignore