There is only one thing American’s love more than violence, and that is sex. And I’m not talking about “lovemaking” like some sissified European, but hard core, pornographic, kinky sex with as many women or men (depending on your proclivities) as they can possibly convince to do it with them. In fact the main reason American’s are so violent is because they do not have nearly enough sex. At least, not nearly as much as they think they should be having, and want to have. This leads to yet another DeMarco rule of life, let’s call it #69. The violence inherent in any given society is inversely proportional to the amount of sex that societies people are having on a regular basis. Sometimes expressed as its simplified inverse. Violence is directly proportional to sexual repression. My sexual hypothesis has great explanatory power particularly when applied to the violence theory espoused in this essay. For instance, Umair says that “Americans choose the violent option over the nonviolent one because they are maximizing what might be called positional suffering. The long-term suffering of those lower than them in social hierarchies.” He posits that we derive a net psychological gain from this suffering but his explanation of why this is the case is weak. I would suggest that we maximizing positional suffering in this way because we ourselves are suffering from a lack of (sexual) positional variety. We believe others in lower positional hierarchies are getting it on in every possible position imaginable while we (in whatever our class might be) are stuck in missionary or maybe, if we’re lucky, woman on top mode for our entire depressing lives.
Umair also says that the reason we do not, for example, “drop nuclear bombs on ghettoes” is “not because it’s inherently wrong, but because it wouldn’t involve enough true long-term suffering…. What’s the point if nobody suffers? The other person, the weaker one, has to suffer more than you….How else will you know they’re weaker…and you’re stronger? I think my sexual repression hypothesis provides a more reasonable explanation. If we dropped bombs on ghettoes who would make our pornos? We know that we need those in the lower classes (than ours) who are having tons and tons of dirty, nasty sex to provide the prurient materials for our sick minds to get off too. Obviously we are not getting off with our boring, ugly, and fat significant others. They are about as adventurous in the sack as a baptist preachers wife. We need the sex crazed underclasses to show us all the amazing things we are missing out on. So, even though we hate, and our jealous of them for having all that mindblowing sex we know we need them or our own suffering would be even greater.
I think it is obvious that I could go on and on. I will leave it to others to carry on the work I have only laid the foundation for here. The sexual repression hypothesis may one day be recognized as the brilliant insight of a razor sharp mind it so clearly is, but for now it will have to languish in obscurity as the insane ramblings of a mad man it so clearly is not. Definitely less insane then that violence thing though. That is just plain nuts.