The Erotic Comedies (Vassi Collection Volume XI)

by Marco Vassi

  Finally, our breathing synchronized. Our inhalations and exhalations magnified so that each breath had the power of three, increasing the energy available to us to a superhuman capacity.

  We did something that went even further to nourish the metamorphosis. I lay on my back, him sucking me while I kissed her. It was as though I were delineated at the waist. My lower part was male and my upper part was female. I kissed her as a woman kisses a woman and she caressed my breasts while he sucked me as a man sucks a man. A sudden shift, and I was a man from the waist up while a woman below. Now I was a man kissing a woman while feeling the sweet melting of my woman's body to his male mouth.

  With a buzzing connection, the male and female inside me began to undulate in a series of sine waves. I lost my sexual identity and became a sexual entity. Yet, there was none of the out-of-focus loss of sense of self that often accompanies experiences of that kind. On the physical plane, I had a sure awareness of myself as a gen-itally male animal; I knew my name; I remembered the nature of things. Reality was pervasive.

  Then, a sense of urgency, a quickening of the life force, a deeper pulsation. Inside, male and female had fused; outside, male and female pressed upon me. We all crept in closer, we began to make sounds, we wept at the scope of the orgasm that swept toward us.

  During the ensuing ecstasy, all the centers of my being operated independently and harmoniously. The instinctual brain moved my body, as the emotive core sent bolts of yearning through my system; I raised my arms to the heavens. The intellectual center was caught in a state of wordless wonder at the fact of existence, and the higher faculties spun mighty mandalas of meaning.

  Through it all, my eyes opened and looked upon the brute truth of the actual room we lay in, saw the flickering shadows on the ceiling thrown by the candle next to the bed, and I heard from the stereo at the far corner of the room, the Beatles singing, "In my life I loved you more."

  III

  Sex is a key to doorways of knowing. For me it has been a yoga through which new qualities of self evolved. Like the alchemist who works with a potion for decades and in the process brings about a transmutation of his essence, I spent all my conscious life since the age of eight mixing elements in the crucible of sex, sifting enormous amounts of material to produce a few grams of pure substance. I had fucked or been fucked by over five hundred different women, and twice that many men, in circumstances ranging from brief gaspings in alleys and whorehouses to lengthy relationships. I had gone through all the possible scenarios. And with the suddenness of total change, I became a different kind of person.

  At the far edge of bisexuality I realized that all that had gone before was but the task of perfecting the instrument, the mindbody that is myself. My adventures had served a single purpose: to exhaust all the subjective aspects of the sexual act. The many modes, which had been challenges, areas of exploration, were now my tools—homosexuality, heterosexuality, bisexuality, abstruse psychosexual states and practices, the so-called perversions, the many masks of libidinal displacement . . . these were now at my command, to be used the way a director uses a cast of characters to realize a vision.

  Having no term which encompassed the totality of my erotic awareness and function, I found it necessary to coin a new word, and thus formulated the concept: METASEXUALITY.

  IV

  Metasexual consciousness is born once one has healed the internal male-female duality. Strictly speaking, only those who have attained that state are capable of understanding it. But in the same way that the Buddha nature inheres in every living thing, and enlightenment is simply a waking up to what we have been all along, metasexuality is manifested in all human beings whether they know it or not. But to see this involves at least an intellectual effort, that of making the distinction between metasex and sex itself.

  Sex is that activity which takes places between one man and one woman who are fucking to make a baby. Metasex is everything else. This is gone into in full detail in The Metasexual Manifesto, so I won't elaborate here. In this essay, I would like only to suggest some of what is uncovered once that crucial distinction is made. For once we cease applying the laws of sex to metasex, metasex reveals itself as a rich and unexplored territory.

  The most blatant example of confusion between the two vehicles lies at the core of every historical civilization—and a metasexual awakening challenges this principle head on—and consists of the prejudice that two is the natural number for the erotic encounter. This is obviously valid for the sexual realm but proves completely erroneous in the metasexual worldview. The assumption that two allows the most perfect erotic union is a misconception rooted in primitive bisexual consciousness.

  When one transcends male-female dualism, eroticism becomes suceptible of a more subtle mathematical understanding. For each number, there is a different and unique quality of consciousness, and no one is intrinsically superior to any of the others.

  One, the single point, metasex of no dimension. This is the realm of masturbation, that poorly understood activity, usually considered to be an aberration, but actually a powerful vehicle in its own right. To masturbate to full orgasm (not merely ejaculation or clitoral twitching, but full vegetative release) is a sublime and solitary act, requiring capacity for fear and awe. To bring about one's own orgasm, without the company of others, without fantasies to mask the facticity of the deed, requires great inner resources.

  One has certain shadings, for a person can masturbate in the presence of others and vary the nature of the experience. Masturbating while another assists, giving positive reinforcement, kissing, stroking, speaking, is a profound means of grasping the reality of self and other. How many couples, thinking themselves uninhibited, are unable to masturbate in one another's presence? It is not going too far to suggest that unless an individual has come to terms with one, he or she will lack full capability in the higher numbers.

  Two is the official sexual model of our civilization, entrenched in our archtypal mind. It is, however, from a metasexual viewpoint, nothing more than the metasex of a single line, the metasex of one dimension: it is totally flexible since a line can assume an infinity of curves, but it always remains in one dimension.

  image:image1.png

  With two accepted as the ideal, the "natural" way of doing things, the other numbers get relegated to the categories of sin, crime, perversion, or diversion. Even many sophisticates measure their orgies against an unconscious norm. Again, this is because they have not dealt with the internal bisexual split.

  The enforced exclusivity of the number even damages the couple-form itself. As people try to squeeze all erotic exploration into that single format, it suffers from a fatal overload. It is as though, with the integral calculus available to us, a law was passed forbidding us to do anything but count on our fingers and toes.

  Two has its uses, its value, and its delights, as well as its limitation. Biologically, it is the vehicle of procreation. And it possesses a certain classic purity of line which makes it attractive to radicals as well as traditionists. Perhaps its major appeal lies in its comparative simplicity.

  Three is the first number in the metasex of two dimensions, metasex of the plane. Three must be understood as more than the addition of one more to the basic two. It involves a whole new quality of consciousness, something which cannot come about with people who are still thinking in male-female terms.

  The fact of the new dimension becomes clear when one sees that within a triangle, the twosome is but one element of the greater vehicle. In a triangle, in fact, there are seven elementary constituent parts:

  image:image2.png

  individuals: A, B, C; couples: AB, AC, BC; and the overall form: ABC.

  In theory, the triangle is equilateral; in practice, there are many functional variations. For example, using the situation with Robert and Diane, with Robert as A, Diane as B, and myself as C, Robert and Diane, a mated pair-bond, represent a stronger energy than either Robert and myself or Diane and myself; thus, A
B will be shorter than either AC or BC. But that is only within one category. Since Diane and I are in a pair-formation situation in terms of our biological sexuality, our metasex will have an intensity greater than what happens between her and Robert in the pair-maintenance situation. In this triangle, BC will be shorter than either AB or AC. In a third context, since Robert and I have cocks and Diane a cunt, the AC bond will possess an idiosyncratic quality which neither AB or BC can manifest, thus giving yet another shape to the basic triangle.

  It is possible to go on, showing how differences in body type, ages, astronomical factors, genetic determinations, and so forth, each produce a new triangle. It is the constant tension between the complexity of human dynamics and the inherent properties of a given number which gives the metasexual act its defining nature. The amount of energy available gives it its scope. This can be stated as a general principle: any metasexual act is a function of energy, personality, and geometry.

  Four is a difficult number. From one angle, it is two squared. Thus, many couples attempting different numbers before having come to terms with the bisexual split, go to four, where they do nothing more than intensify their basic dualistic bias.

  In another sense, four is the next two-dimensional figure after three, having one more side than a triangle. As such, it offers fifteen elementary units! As follows:

  image:image3.png

  individuals: A, B, C, D; couples: AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD; triangles: ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD; and the overall form: ABCD. The richness of this structure is grasped when one realizes that not only are all of these sub-units operating simultaneously, but all personality components are functioning, and at the high energy level four people can generate. This gives a strong, continually changing, multi-levelled reality which only a very few are capable of experiencing and integrating.

  But further, four is the first number which yields three dimensions.:

  image:image4.png

  a pyramid with a triangular base. To answer the question as to what makes the difference in any given group of four between a plane with four sides and this pyramid is outside the scope of this article. But one can see that the reality of a metasexual fourth dimension, a spacetime of Einsteinian eroticism, would be the next step in this direction.

  I am not personally qualified to discuss the numbers from five upward since I have not experienced them, except in gatherings of swingers who had not yet realized their metasexual nature and were piling on bodies without changing the essential consciousness of the act.

  It is also fascinating to wonder at zero, or metacel-ibacy seen not as a renunciation, but as an embrace of, all metasex.

  V

  There was a time when it seemed to people that the sun revolved around the earth, a view enshrined in the Ptolemaic model of the solar system. Now, with a less parochial view, we have developed a new understanding, signalled by the introduction of the Copernican model.

  The introduction of the metasexual paradigm is no less a shift in the history of our evolving understanding. The vast majority of the species has not seen past the conditioned strictures of the number two. And even those in the vanguard, having their orgies, still operate from the standpoint of a male-female dualism. The most sophisticated among them proclaim themselves bisexuals, not aware that this is the dead-end of that particular tunnel vision. The only way out is to go within to heal the internal split. A monad has no gender.

  The question now presents itself: what form does the metasexual life style take?

  I won't presume an answer. As for myself, I currently allow circumstances to guide me. Having no prejudices, no preconceptions, I am open to whatever is possible, to whoever wants to dance with me. Yet, if this is a genuine satori, as I practice the living awareness of it, a specific form may evolve. It is possible that I might one day accept a simple pattern to express my true nature: perhaps an uncomplicated heterosexual linear bond, or perhaps a gay threesome, or a life of introspective masturbation. For, if one has subsumed all forms, then one is free to manifest in any form whatsoever.

  Beyond bisexuality, externals take on a different meaning than when one is caught in the male-female duality. Even the most stereotyped act is permeated with a brilliant awareness that transforms the perception of reality. To paraphrase the Zen masters:

  Sucking cock,

  Fucking cunt,

  Empty and marvelous!

  The Metasexual Manifesto

  I

  Metasexuality, as a concept, was first used to describe the condition of a person who had subsumed the fragmentary aspects of the erotic manifestation into a unitary appreciation. Since coining the term, however, I have come to view it rather as a category of behavior, to delineate erotic activity as such, irregardless of the consciousness of those involved. Metasexuality, properly understood, is the shadow of sexuality, a distinct modality of being not to be confused with sex per se.

  Sex is, as the traditionalists have it, a vehicle for making babies, and nothing else. Sex, qua sex, is for the propogation of the species, and for no other reason. I hold this definition to be correct. However, there is a vast realm of erotic behavior which falls outside this stricture, and for that I have designated the term metasex.

  This birfurcation in terminology, which reflects a real split in the use of our energy, requires a third term to connote the matrix which embraces both sex and metasex, and for this I employ the word eroticum. The eroticum is divided into two categories, sex and metasex, the distinction between which is crucial to a sane understanding of our erotic deportment.

  Sex is biological; metasex is psychophysical. Sex, the biological eroticum, is for procreation and for no other reason; metasex, the psychophysical eroticum, is for any other reason whatsoever. Sex involves the continuation of the species, and is a relatively rare activity; it has to do with the entire problem of culture and civilization, and might be labelled "work eroticum". Metasex is for pleasure, for expressing affection, for exchanging energy, for money, for communication and explotation, for meditation, etc., and it might be labelled "play eroticum".

  The conditions of sex are imposed by the requirements of biology; it involves a male and a female, penetration by penis into vagina, and ejaculation at the period of fertility. The conditions of metasex, on the other hand, are widely variegated, and are not concerned with the details of the act, whether it be among men and women, among men, among women, or whether it is among people who have known one another for some time or among strangers, or whether it is a function of mutual caring or done dispassionately, or whether it involves more or less than two people, or whether it is physically conventional or partakes of extreme forms.

  Sex and metasex also each have a different quality of tone or texture. With sex, reverence and responsibility are the guiding attitudes; for not only the act itself is relevant, but one must be aware of the full dimension of the consequences. To create another human being is the highest act we are capable of and to engage in it lightly is, unfortunately, a malpractice of epidemic proportions. Also, through sex, one's vision extends to questions of survival, relationship, culture, education; for these are the legacies we bequeath to our children. With metasex, the necessary quality is compassion. Since the circumstances of metasex are so flexible and range over the full spectrum of human behavior, it is all the more essential that the participants do not lose sight of one another's humanity. This means that there be no exploitation, no lying, no damage.

  Making proper distinctions has been called the first step in wisdom, and Confucius has stressed the importance of "rectifying the names". It soon became obvious to me that the failure to distinguish between sex and metasex lay at the very core of all our erotic difficulties, and by extension, into the trenchant problems of our civilization. The basic error in all erotic thinking lies in muddying the aesthetic of metasex with the moral contingencies of sex, and of subverting the mystery and grandeur of sex with the relativistic values of metasex.

  Using this method of differentiation
, we come upon an immediate difficulty. How are we to think and talk about the eroticum if our entire vocabulary is based on the failure to make the distinction between sex and metasex? Our terms are based on outmoded models, and we are burdened with concepts such as homosexual, bisexual, perversion, and all the lists of anatomical details. This is the result of viewing metasex from the standpoint of sexual requirements. Sexually, of course, there is only one way to do it: male and female in genital intercourse; and from that perspective the index of Krafft-Ebing makes sense. But once we see that within the metasexual purview these sub-categories are meaningless, we must find a new way to articulate our erotic experiences.

  One may ask: why talk about the eroticum at all? And from an ideal aspect, we ought not to talk at all. Yet, until the time when we are all so enlightened that there is nothing more to say, sex and metasex will form a part of our discourse. To provide a vehicle for grasping and communicating erotic behavior and feeling, then, I came to the concept of mode, which is the paradigmatic mood within which the activity takes place. It is intended to displace all questions of detail, number, and gender, and put sex and metasex in a more fluid context.

  Using this model, we will more closely approximate the reality of the erotic condition. For with the rubric of mode, sex finds its proper tone, and metasex is given its full freedom of expression. Metasexually. There is no real difference between what two men do in bed, from what three women might do in bed, nor from what a man and a woman do in bed. To label the action homosexual or bisexual or heterosexual is divisive, alienating us from one another as human beings first and foremost. The old criteria, seen in the light of the new paradigm, are primitive and wasteful. We should be adult enough to discard false standards of categorization, no matter how historically hallowed they are.