Sexual Ethics in the Age of the Immoralist

I am posting this to help women who need to know the raw and unfiltered truth about sexual immorality.  As such, I represent the problem in its basic sexual dynamism, as being played out in my mind as introspection.  I have not given in to lust, as it might seem to interested men who are looking for principles that explain a man’s fitting entreaties to gain a woman’s confidence. I have the highest regard for sexual purity, but I have noticed that most men do not, and I want the women to know how this works so as not to be seduced by a deceitful man, or a deceitful woman gaining a temporary advantage over a man who gives her his entreaty, but does greatest damage to both of them.

Women seem to me to define lust as “becoming the phallus.”  It is the man’s truth about her truth, compared to that other man’s truth about that other and more flirtatious woman.  Becoming the meat puppet will consume a woman or a man. If a woman is not a believer in a book of truth, she lacks the whip on a man’s phallic truth.  If a woman is not a believer, why does she not use the whip with impunity as a believer?  What is wrong with using a book of truth as a whip for Christ, even though Christ is a fairy tale?  If the shoe fits, wear it.

Is being untruthful as a woman gainful of men?  Men seem to define prudence as lust.  This is untrue to women, who all know it that prudence is a man’s sexual interest in some other and more flirtatious woman.  The world seems to mess being a class in sexual ethics, about sexual immorality and sexual purity, about the truths pertinent to sexual interest on the one hand, and the moral advantage of love on the other.