There is one form of cuisine that has been easily and often overlooked by the average erotic enthusiasts. The gastric g-spot is among the hardest, yet also the most rewarding to stimulate. Followers of this culinary tradition are renowned for their secretive behaviour, as the art of sexually stimulating another human being through food is little known and practitioners until now have preferred keeping it that way.
Experienced by both males and females, the gastrorgasm is controlled by the involuntary, or autonomic gastric system and is accompanied by quick cycles of muscle contraction in the lower intestine. Gastrorgasms are often associated with other involuntary actions, including muscular spasms in multiple areas of the body, a warm, fuzzy sensation in both the abdomen and brain, and an inability to think straight.
In some cases, women, or less often men, manage to achieve multiple gastorgasms over a shorter period of time. Within the fold of gastrorgasmic underground movements, these individuals are spoken of in whispers, as if they were only mythical beings rarely found by anyone, but the most accomplished chefs.
Anatomically, a number of key areas along the abdominal tract can be sensitive to arousal. It cannot be emphasised enough that abuse of gastrorgasmic cookery can lead to severe addiction, the drive to eat anything in the hope for quick satisfaction and obesity. Scientists are still squabbling over the simplest methods of causing a gastrorgasm, but contrary to vaginal or clitoral orgasms, a gastrorgasm cannot be attained through mechanical stimulation.
Traditional aphrodisiac and gastrorgasmic food
The traditions of what does and does not increase the sexual drive of an individual are widely disputed. However what few seem to understand is that an aphrodisiac dish is intended to increase the sexual drive of the individual, while gastrorgasmic cuisine aims to coitus while eating and digesting the food.
Some newer followers of the gastrorgasmic movement still mix these terms up, which has caused the onslaught of misinformed media representatives attacking gastrorgasmic tantric groups as criminal, even abusive towards its members. With Julia Roberts' recent statements of having "dabbled in food orgies", with picnics on Satanic altars splattered with tomato sauce, the gastrorgasm-practising community has begun making statements correcting these misconceptions.
Aphrodisiacs affect the mind and body by stimulating through scent and appearances, which often have some form of resemblance to sexual organs. Orchids are sadly among the things mistaken for aphrodisiac foods, but as most beginning aficionados find out, also highly toxic. Gastroragmic foods again depend strongly on their texture and flavour, and the variations in temperature, consistency and Scoville scale to produce stimulation along the gastric tract. This clear difference is easy to grasp, but the media is still convinced it is all about food orgies, which also involve wasting good food by smearing them on other people and licking it off of their naughty bits.
Dangers of Gastroorgasmic cuisine
Recent studies have shown an increasing number of issues pertaining to Gastrorgasmic Cuisine, including psychological illnesses, obsessive behaviour and dangerous medical procedures. A number of people, known as "Feeders", are known to gain sexual gratification from inducing gastrorgasms in others and have on occasion pushed partners into practices that may be detrimental to their health.
Some individuals have been known to become so obsessed with stimulating the gastric g-spot that they actually overface themselves and risk choking, or in extreme cases exploding. A number of celebrity gastrorgasm addicts are thought to include Oprah Winfrey, Mama Cass and Elizabeth Taylor.
Despite the frequent toting of risks by the media, there is a growing sub-culture within the main gastric aficionado group, where it has become a self-fulfilling goal of cramming as much pudding past the gastric tract without proper care for the pleasure every swallow should bring. As in porn, this has become a hardcore phenomenon, where the only thing that matters is the instant gratification, the illusion of pleasure it brings, not the sensual pleasure.
Continuing from last week's subject of being tolerant of intolerance, I no longer see moral absolutes; I only see moral dilemmas. I think of honesty, generosity, tolerance, and other seemingly monolithic virtues as questions, not answers.
I have a new litmus test by which to judge candidate moral absolutes: if you can make an inescapably self-contradictory or hypocritical statement out of them then they can’t be moral absolutes.
- Even if honestly you need to lie, always be honest
- Do not be generous with yourself about your failures of generosity
- Be tolerant of intolerance
With any of these, you can honour one or the other mention of the virtue, but not both. If you should always be honest and you honestly need to lie, then honour your honest preference by lying, but then you’re not being honest.
So honesty is not a moral absolute.
If generosity were a moral absolute, then you should be generous no matter what, even if you were surrounded by ungenerous people taking everything away from you. Destitute, of course, you might consider being generous to yourself in self-preservation, but that would be ungenerous to others – which is unacceptable.
So generosity is not a moral absolute.
If tolerance were a moral absolute, then you should be intolerant of intolerance, including, of course, your intolerance of intolerance.
So tolerance cannot be a moral absolute.
In pure form, faith is commitment to a belief regarding some matter of consequence, no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. If all the evidence disconfirmed the belief and none of the evidence confirmed it, the faithful would hold to the belief anyway. Of course, evidence rarely weighs in decisively, so faith always has some grey areas. How much evidence should dissuade someone? Some say insanity is sticking to a strategy that repeatedly fails. On the other hand, if at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.
In practice faith is certainly trying and trying again despite overwhelming evidence. One needs motivation to persist against overwhelming odds, and so faith tends to accumulate various motivators: Declarations of 100% confidence, denials of any counter evidence, pledges to never modify beliefs, belligerence toward challengers, self-certainty touted as moral absolute. Faith itself depends on a degree of intolerance.
In response to this all too human tendency toward intolerant self-certainty, many liberal minded, less confident types argue for tolerance of faith, simply because it’s bad to be intolerant. After all, intolerance (often religious) has caused too much damage already.
Tolerance is seldom contagious.
It’s rarely contagious with the highly intolerant such as fundamentalists of all dogma. It’s a very rare fundamentalist who takes your tolerance as an indication of any need to be tolerant of you. More often fundamentalists view your tolerance as a vindication of their position, gaining ground if not potential converts. To what extent does your tolerance encourage others to be tolerant? To what extent does it merely encourage them?
We (western civilization) have, through our rampant enthusiasm to be tolerant, unwittingly nurtured a level of tolerance that renders us incapable of defending our culture. The intolerant are intolerant of our tolerance and make the best of the situation to further their fight to annihilate our system.
It’s an age old battle, one that we are sure to lose by just being tolerant of intolerance.