Further Thoughts on SodomybyCal Y. Pygia©
First comes the attraction, which, for many, is enough in itself, and need not occasion understanding. However, thinking men and women are wont to know the wherefores of attraction. They're apt to want to know why they're attracted to eyes, lips, breasts, legs, buttocks, and genitals.
I'm an ass man myself. Second place among milady's assets, for me, are her boobs. Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn about a woman's twat. (A fine, upstanding cock and a pair of balls, especially inside a tight, risen scrotum, is another matter altogether, though!)
A woman's ass, if it's shapely and sleek, makes me smile, inside if not outside, and a man's ass, if it's firm and compact, can make me hard. Not many parts of the human anatomy, male or female, are round. Bodies are given more to rectangles and cylinders than to spheres. Therefore, their shape alone attracts the eye to breasts and buttocks.
I'm more interested in the latter than in the former, because buttocks, unlike breasts, have depth to them. There's a whole secret inner dimension to them--the rectum, which is reachable through the hidden portal of the anus. Breasts, by contrast, are pretty to look at (and they can even be fucked, in a manner of speaking), but they don't really take a man anywhere.
Buttocks take a guy inside a woman, where all is warm and tight. Buttocks are not superficial; they deliver. (A man's ass can accomplish the same sort of magical transport, albeit with the difference that butt-fucking between two men obviously introduces a homosexual context.)
The ass, in other words, is the gateway to sodomy.
It's also a promise. Buttocks are broad and deep. They're plump, but firm. They're sleek and tight. They jiggle, and they wiggle. They invite. A beautiful pair of buttocks all but demand to be touched, fondled, squeezed, and pinched. They proclaim that the woman (or man) who possesses them has ample assets, that she (or he) is generous and giving. Beautiful buttocks are also spankable. They invite violence and cruelty, because they symbolize submission. If not to signal derision, then to bare one's buttocks is to exhibit vulnerability, and nothing attracts the sadist as quickly as vulnerability.
To have beautiful buttocks is to be desirable. To seek beautiful buttocks is to desire vulnerability (and generosity in giving). The vulnerable, generous giver--isn't that phrase the very definition of the masochist? Is it too much of a stretch, then, to suggest that a woman (or a man) who has a beautiful ass is seen as being masochistic and submissive? I think not, because a beautiful pair of buttocks invites sodomy. What man sees a fabulous fanny and doesn't entertain the thought of either spanking it or fucking it? None. Indeed, some women also want to fuck a fine pair of men's or women's buttocks.
An ass is sexual without being reproductive. There's no danger of impregnating a rectum, after all. Therefore, an ass represents pure pleasure--sexual bliss without the risk of pregnancy. An anus is tighter than a vagina, too. In addition, the buttocks cushion thrusts, bouncing between the fucker and the fucked as the former drives his cock home. Neither a pussy nor a pair of tits has or can do all these things. A lovely, tight, bouncy ass is a hedonist's wet dream come true.
Ultimately, sodomy is about more than just a lovely pair of buttocks, though; it's about dominance. Think about it. To fuck an ass, a cock not only has to be stiff, but it has to penetrate the anus. Simply by listing synonyms for "penetrate," we can see the forcefulness of performing the "active" role in such an act: pierce, stab, prick, puncture.
Once a cock has penetrated the anus, the bowels are "occupied," as if they were enemy territory, fallen into the hands of an invading army.
Then, the fucker assaults the occupied rectum, thrusting, shoving, driving, forcing, plunging, and heaving while also jamming, cramming, filling, and packing the bowels.
Finally, the ejaculation of sperm can be described in terms of natural catastrophe, as an eruption or a flood, or in terms of technological aggression, as a launch, a volley, a shooting, a jetting, or an explosion, and the splatter of the seed itself can be likened to a branding.
Sex symbolizes violence. Since it is a symbol, rather than the thing itself, sex as violence is acceptable. But violence is directed by a victimizer at a victim. By making someone else--or his or her bowels, at least--a victim, the victimizer empowers himself (or, if a woman avails herself of a strap-on dildo, herself).
Dominance is an exhibition of power, just as violence is power's avatar. Therefore, sodomy (that is, anal intercourse) is an exhibition of power for he (or she) who penetrates and of powerlessness for she (or he) who is penetrated. Sodomy, like rape, is not primarily about sex (for sex is primarily about procreation); sodomy is about dominance, and dominance represents, or symbolizes, power. Those who prey upon others, using their asses, assholes, and rectums as vehicles of their own empowerment, are the strong; those upon whom they prey are weak.
But there is something else about sodomy that few people ever think and fewer ever express, something both unthinkable and unutterable to most. The Marquis de Sade is one of the few who both understands and articulates this knowledge. I have come to understand it on my own, although I recall having read (but not appreciated) Sade's earlier exposition of the truth. For those who have not thought or been able to articulate this understanding, let me be so bold as to make it clear.
From a Judeo-Christian point of view, sodomy is sinful. It is unnatural. It is immoral.
Jews and Christians alike believe there is a God and that God created the universe, including humanity. They also believe that the deity said to Adam and Eve, "Be fruitful and multiply" and "replenish the earth." From a Judeo-Christian perspective, sex, in other words, has, as its primary (and, some argue, sole) purpose, reproduction.
Obviously, anal intercourse cannot engender children. It's a strictly sterile proposition which is all about dominance and the assertion of power rather than impregnation that leads to childbirth. Therefore, sodomy is a thumbing of the nose, as it were, at the Creator who not only sanctions penile-vaginal intercourse but who also forbids anal intercourse, whether between a man and a woman, two men, two women, or any other combination or permutation thereof. For this reason, sodomy is referred to, in the Bible, as an "abomination" to God.
The sodomite and the catamite are both guilty of a sinful and, yes, blasphemous disobedience to the divine will. So is tit fucking, though, and masturbation, and any other form of non-reproductive sex, so we are all sinners, in one way or another.
In The 120 Days of Sodom, one of Sade's characters, a libertine himself, characterizes his kind as "beings of a profound and recognized criminality, who have no god but their lubricity, no laws but their depravity, no care but for their debauch, godless, unprincipled, unbelieving profligates, of whom the least criminal is soiled by more infamies than you could number."
This is patently untrue, one who admires a firm, round feminine ass or a tight, compact pair of male buttocks might object. There is nothing blasphemous in admiring such beautiful parts of the human anatomy. After all, did not the famous British poet William Blake remark that "The nakedness of woman is the work of God"? Perhaps--if one is content merely to look and not to touch. But, of course, no one is content to do so, and, bye and bye, looking will lead to touching, touching to fondling, fondling to kissing, perhaps, and, eventually, he (or she) who admires a splendid pair of buttocks will seek to claim them, to penetrate and occupy them, to possess them for him- (or herself).
Therefore, to look upon a pair of buttocks with aesthetic intent and bliss will become, sooner or later, to look upon them with lust. When lust leads to intercourse, or sodomy, the sodomite (and, indeed, the catamite) put themselves at odds against God, who is thereby both disobeyed and blasphemed.
But what greater power can the creature assert than to defy his (or her) Creator, and is sodomy not about dominance and power?
The act of sodomy, visible in the admiration of a part instead of the whole or a means rather than the true end, whether the part is a mouth, a hand, a pair of breasts, a cock, a pair of balls, or the buttocks, and whether the means is empowerment or pleasure or both, is an act of heresy, of perversity, and of sin. We are all sinners, perhaps, but our sinfulness damns, rather than saves, us, setting us apart from the one and only One who is sinless. We know this on some level, which is why, initially, at least, we feel it wrong to flaunt our nakedness and to act upon the lusts of the flesh, and, so, we are without excuse.
Repentance may lead to absolution and to forgiveness, and we are tempted to turn from our sins, to turn to God, and to renounce the flesh. . . but, then we spy a woman (or a man) with the best-looking, most gorgeous, absolutely perfect ass we ever saw in our lives, and our damnable heart quickens, our hellish blood rises, and our powerful and defiant cocks or clitorises stand.