UPDATED: The Intimacy “Debate”
By The Wizard Mandragora
January 23, 2021
There’s an idiot lawyer who apparently broke into a woman’s house while she was sleeping and allegedly “sexually assaulted” her. He was at the time apparently awaiting a trial for previous alleged crimes of a sexual nature. Now I consider this guy plainly an idiot, and presumably someone who causes women discomfort, and worse. But there is a massive divide between what he’s purported to have done, and actual true intimacy with a woman.
This to me speaks to a recreation of actual intimacy in an attempt to criminalize…
I’ve certainly played games with women where I startled them or outright scared them, only for them to realize it’s me, and to enjoy the experience of shock turning to dripping sexual intimacy. It’s erotic, and speaks to a level of intimacy between consenting adults that is heightened beyond the typical amateur machinations of “polite” society. This is a hallmark of those who have a relationship with each other. Or where the woman has displayed consent, complicity, or engaged in past sexual activities. I published an account of a woman whose house I entered where I’d told her I was coming, when I wanted. She responded. And I did what I said I was going to do. She adored me, she wanted me in that way, she’d given herself to me in that way. Women are looking for someone to entrust that level of intimacy to.
It’s past permission. It’s certainly consent, but it’s the true intimacy that underlies sexuality. You have to make her want you. To hold her, hunt her, put on grand display your interpretations of your desire for her, to make her the object of your sexual prowess and desires. This is past the bounds of “verbal consent”, a machination of lawyers and those with not enough talent or experience to be able to tell the difference. Or for “noncitizens” who don’t speak the language and need “legal recourse” and defining characteristics to impose their third-world country’s utter lack of women’s rights, and human rights. Because if they can base it on something as flimsy as spoken “consent”, then they can ignore EVERYTHING ELSE from a woman. And that is the REAL danger. That’s the trick.
In actuality the real goals of these legalist ploys are to attempt to turn intimacy into a capitalist enterprise. But it’s not capitalism it’s cannibalism. Because in so doing, they will turn intimacy into prostitution, and thus destroy it. Because there’s no other way to define this as it’s now become a power struggle. Its inevitable conclusion is for “intimacy” to be bought and paid for. And lawyers have been attempting to make this happen for quite awhile. In fact Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a known political opponent of such machinations, having publicly stated that to criminalize intimate actions based on a woman having repealed or withdrawn consent was absolutely ridiculous, purely a legal machination designed to criminalize and entrap.. everyone.
I’ve gone to bed with women that had no intentions of sleeping with me. And so it did not happen. I’ve had women remove their clothing all the way down to their panties, and writhe and dance around in my arms. And nothing else. It’s of course incredibly titillating and arousing, and quite fulfilling in its own right, but there’s no sexual consummation. And any attempts to take things farther are rebuffed. And such is the manner of such things. I am to be content with it or it is not to continue.
Addendum 1-24-21: There is currently a news story circulating in the media regarding a leading male actor who has been accused by a former girlfriend of entertaining sexual dialogue that makes it sound like he wants to dine on her. I don’t believe it. She’s an actress and is presumably just acting. There’s also reports of this man insisting women call him “sir” and “daddy”. Whether this is one of his proclivities or not is his business and the business of those whom he engages in sexual activity with, but I can say personally that any sort of aggressive sexuality, or playing with a girl and startling her before engaging in sex, represents a small fraction of my sexual activity. Maybe 5%? Or less. It is okay and fun and even seductive to engage in such activities, but it certainly does not represent the full breadth of sexual expression. To attempt to turn it into an MO would become boring and tiresome and totally unhealthy. Most sex is loving and endearing and healing. I have had women call me daddy plenty of times.. because they wanted to. I’ve had some call me sir- but this was not attractive to me. I’ve had women come up with all sorts of strange names, so be it.
I’ve gone to bed with women where in the middle of the night I’ve woken them to tussling and wrestling and grabbing their bodies and pulling them in to me, nuzzling them. But any attempts to take things past that she didn’t allow. They were waiting for another time to let things progress. So be it
But this is their manner. This is their permission. Any attempt to criminalize such is preying on intimacy between men and women. And this is the point of the socialist legalist agenda of those that would hope to criminalize intimacy, so as to control it for purposes of making money.
Intimacy and relationships are supremely hard enough without introducing such legalist nonsense. Marilyn Monroe stated it quite eloquently. And you better be fast. And effective. Or you will miss out on some of the greatest experiences this life has to offer. Women are essential for happiness.
Women want to experience something new and fresh, and be able to slow it down or desist if they want. But to criminalize something they simply changed their minds about later, or were influenced to change their minds on, is purely a power ploy.
And this is why legalists and lawyers commune so well with socialists and communists, those that control and subjugate their societies. We need to stop being “flat earth” political scientists, and understand how the axis turns on the wheel of freedom versus tyranny.
This is the trap that Western Civilization escaped from. This is the trap of agrarian, pre-industrial societies, the ownership of children, parents owning their children to do with as they wished. And government and governance mirroring this exact setup. In Greek mythology Cronos swallowed all his children and kept them in his stomach. Zeus fought him and released his brothers and sisters.
But we have something much more powerful now, the New Testament, the doing away of the old legal machinations of the law, and the creation of a personal relationship with God. To personally seek out and attempt to convene with the Divine.
Those old-fashioned countries still in the thralls of such have this to glean from Western Civilization. These countries are still learning, and that’s fine. I have certainly held nothing back, taught their young people everything I knew. So be it. There’s much more to come