The Limits of Using the Male As the Source of »Truth« About Female Reality

And so ends the erotic discourse. It dies out in a cry of anguish, the anguish of not being up to the omnisexual task: the pursuit of the orgasm of an insatiable female. This anxiety about failure, this threat of endogenous castration is the just punishment for an unpardonable lapse in behavior — that of the heretic who indulges in the most blasphemous act possible against Islam, polytheism, the act of setting up other gods than Allah as objects of a cult. But even more serious, in this erotic lapse, is the fact that the fuqahas, impelled by a diabolical curiosity, are on the side of female desire, of the female will to reconstruct the world. In the erotic discourse, men of good faith, pious imams and shayks, animated by an authentic desire to strengthen the community, committed a mortal sin: probing female desire. It was an aberration that led them along unknown paths.
The erotic discourse is heretical in that it is animated by the desire to explore the inferior, the subordinated, the oppressed, the repressed, the excluded. Orthodox legal methodology prescribes investigating only the will of God, the will of the master, never that of slaves. The Imams Nefzawi and Ibn Sulayman disregarded Allah's limits; they overstepped the boundaries that restrict human curiosity and limit what may be subjects of interest, investigation, and knowledge. They took an illegitimate subject as their subject of study, and, just as dumbfounded as their readers, they exhumed from the depths of repressed memory the fossilized traces of the jahaliya (the period of pre-Islamic barbarism), a world of reversed values and upset equilibriums, where women slaves were masters and their masters were slaves. They evoke a universe shaped to the rhythm of female desire, where man is fragile and women strong. They evoke a universe where the vagina is the center of incessantly renewed energy, and the penis is weak and powerless. It is the man who is dying of penis envy, a female penis such as the omnisexual woman wants.
The Muslim men of science, Shaykh Sidi Muhammad Nefzawi and the »savant of the century, unique in his time,« Mawla Ahmad Ibn Sulayman, probably did not realize that in embarking headfirst (or phallus-first) upon the exploration of female desire, they were going to come out castrated. The man who makes the erotic voyage with them comes out with a problematic penis that has to be nourished, fattened, and smeared with energizing balms to keep it in a state of permanent erection, the one and only position fit for a man in the presence of the omnisexual woman. Any other position, any other posture of the phallus is a complete and total failure. A man is a phallus in constant erection or he is not a man.
Pleasure, the temple of peace and quiet, idleness, and relaxation, becomes a genital prison where man, reduced to his sexual organ, can exist only when it is in a state of erection and able to satisfy a woman who is herself reduced to being a vampire-vagina. Having entered the temple of desire to find pleasure, our savants came out mutilated, and their mutilation is genital. For in real life there doesn't exist a man, especially after a certain age, having a phallus in constant erection, except in the realm of fantasy. Furthermore, in order to achieve this phallus-man, it is necessary not only to reduce man to his genital organ, but also to reduce all of reality to genital existence. This is the fundamental characteristic of the erotic discourse: Human beings who parade through that universe are deprived of their political and economic dimension; they are not seen confronting nature to extract its vital wealth and oversee the distribution of it in order to insure the survival of a group. The »reality« of the erotic universe is a »reality« reduced to the genital dimension, where men and women invest their energy in and are animated by one sole objective, genital pleasure in the narrowest meaning of the term; namely, a series of almost mechanical contacts between two fetishized bodies reduced to their material dimension of limbs, breasts, vagina, and phallus, where orgasm, the crowning result, revolves around and is linked to a process itself mechanical: erection. The dictionary defines mechanical as an adjective relating to or concerned with machinery or tools (the opposite of thinking, of intelligence).
The erotic discourse then has two kinds of destructive impacts. The first is on the environment, and the second on the human body, since the body and its environment are inevitably linked and mirror each other. In the human environment, the erotic discourse wipes out all the areas of life that link an individual to his environment (particularly the political area, the quest for power over others) in order to constrain and imprison that individual in one sole area, the sexual area. But this sexual area, which should include a gamut of human interchanges, especially intellectual, affective, and bodily interchanges, is reduced to simple genital manipulation through the elimination of other potentialities of the human body.
The woman and the man who are the subjects of the erotic discourse are beings whose initial bodily makeup, characterized by a multiplicity of elements and faculties, has been cruelly betrayed and reduced to its genital apparatus in the narrowest sense, for the citizens of the erotic universe are sterile. In no case do they concern themselves with reproduction, pleasure being their one and only objective and end. But this end, this pleasure, although it claims to be an investigation, an exploration of female desire, is an exclusively male endeavor and experience. The erotic discourse is female desire as mirrored in men's thought. It is the idea of female desire and pleasure formed by Shaykh Nefzawi and Mawla Ahmad Ibn Sulayman, which they take as the point of departure of their investigation for depicting the man desired by woman. This male exploration of the female world becomes an invasion, since the person inhabiting that world, woman, is violated in her humanity and reduced by the force of conquering male knowledge to a sterile but omniscient genital apparatus. The male explorer, conquering by the very method of investigation that he has chosen, namely, projection on another and not communication with her, has set himself up as conqueror. This projective method replaces the will and opinion of the person being investigated with that of the investigator. The information gathered by Nefzawi and Ibn Sulayman described desire and pleasure as they directly experi- enced it or as it was recounted to them by a male transmission belt, even when the source was female. Is it because the Muslim savants, who decided to investigate desire and pleasure, deliberately locked themselves into male subjectivity that the erotic world they created and the beings that people it are mutilated, reduced, impoverished, and suffering from cruel amputation of their faculties? Not only the person investigated but also the investigator ends up fatally mutilated as a result of this kind of investigation, based on projecting the male vision onto the world and human beings, instead of communicating and listening, which would have produced a multiplicity of visions, or at least a duality of visions, a female vision and a male vision.
From the world of desire seen exclusively through male subjectivity spring a man and a woman with deformed and cruelly disfigured bodily makeups, reduced to being automatic vagina and phallus, where the human is liquidated in favor of a solely genital organism.
It will now be interesting to compare these vagina-women and phallus-men, citizens of the world of pleasure as conceived by the Muslim savants of erotic science, with the citizens of the universe of legal Islam, orthodox Islam, the universe of law and power, which has as its objective, laid down as a sacred end, the development of spirituality, the expansion of the sacred, whether in the world or in human beings.