Student Zone

Guerrilla warfare is when a smaller army usually on their home turf takes advantage of their situation and attacks the enemy. The war tactics used are manipulative. They use the camoflauge and knowledge of the terrain in there defense.

As for guerilla scholarship I would assume it is the same idea. A reader is caught unaware on Paglia’s turf allowing the authoe to ambush the reader with her vast amount of knowledge. To someone that is not as well educated as her they are slowed down by her words even before the reader is able to comprehend her ideas. And for someone who understands the language Paglia is still able to catch them off guard by coming out of left field with her well- developed and yet radical ideals.

Being a woman author you would expect a certain mind-set from Paglia. This mind-set would be soemthing to the tune of - men and woman should be treated as equals, woman are capable of doing anything a man can. But this is not what she says. She illustrates the idea of natural inequality. Perpetuating a sort of necessary balance; man being the hunter and provider and woman his the reason for this. At first it may seem that she is in favor of a return to the 1950's. On the contrary, from this I received the message that this is the way it must be for our species to survive. In order for men to hunt and gather they needed a reason to do this, other wise they would have roamed the earth fighting and scavenging when as it suited them. The same is true of the woman. It is often said that if women were left to rule the world there would be no crime. While this may be true, their would also be very little technological advancement, if any at all. This is because there would be no need for it. Women would be content in their position and not see the need for change. However together men and women complement each other. Man is able to protect woman and woman is able to care for man. As I said earlier it does sound a bit old fashioned for the politically correct and the pro-feminist minds of today, but I can’t completely disagree with it. Because she is not saying that the woman’s place is in the home. Women still are allowed the same freedoms. It’s just that she is saying the role of a woman in society would not be as forward thinking if it weren’t for man’s need for progressive change. And man’s need for progressive change would not be needed if it weren’t for woman’s forward thinking.

In “American Psycho” Bateman is a vain and superficial man of the 80's. It was a decade of excess and an affluent lifestyle. Bateman’s life is filled with mundane things of making dinner reservations and explaining proper etiquette when it comes to clothing. On some level he tires of this and desires more excitement. Or perhaps he is simply curious to see just how much the rich and famous are truly allowed to get away with. Either way he tries everything under the sun. Infidelity, drugs, and murder are his weapons of choice. No matter what he does he isn’t caught. He becomes lost in a web of more lies and deceit. He suffers from anxiety attacks. People in his circle are always mistaken for someone else, and they are always mistaking others to be someone else. Life is a big game and no one is really winning. But as long as they look like they are then its ok.

As for Paglia’s quote “Literature ‘s endless murders and disasters are there for contemplative pleasure, not moral lesson.... The ritual of art is the cruel law of pain made pleasure” This alludes to the idea of beauty in death. Really death is a horrible thing but over time it has become romanticized. As with “American Psycho” This book is littered with moment after moment of immoral decisions, yet we don’t turn away in disgust; instead we continue reading at a faster pace curious to see what happens next. Readers don’t desire to be entertained by people that lead a happy life, simple life, some pain must be experienced, sadness must be endured. It may seem a bit twisted but we do gain enjoyment on some level in seeing the suffering of others in a fictional world. And since it brings us pleasure we call this art.

I agree with some of the other responses. I, too, felt a bit confused and exhausted after reading Paglia. I think it was confusing because she throws out all this academic information to support her theories and it is hard to cipher through it. When I think of the term “guerilla,” I think of a form of marketing. “Guerilla marketing” is the unconventional use of tactics to advertise. I have used “guerilla-marketing” tactics to promote new artists, DJs and yes, rave parties. So does the type of unconventional way of doing things apply to this writer? According the website www.sas.org The Society for Amateur Scientist, the director Sheldon Greaves, Ph.D. defines "guerilla scholarship" as "the use of unconventional methods to help independent scholars and scientists gain access to tools and resources normally available only to academicians." When applying this to the context of Paglia’s work “Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art,” I think she is eccentric in her argument about attitudes towards sex and nature. Paglia presents a theory on Western Culture and the influences of art and sexuality in nature. “In the beginning was nature. The background from which and against which our ideas of God were formed, nature remains the supreme moral problem. We cannot hope to understand sex and gender until we clarify our attitude toward nature. Sex is the subset to nature. Sex is the natural in man.” I agree that nature is the root of all living things and sex is just an element in nature, but her argument does not support a feminist view. Paglia says that the female sex is too weak to be the prominent in the world of nature. She states that men have been the innovators of high art, philosophy, athletics and politics. She further states, “every human being must wrestle with nature, but nature’s burden falls heavily on one sex.” (Paglia 3) That is the male sex.

In the story, American Psycho, Patrick Bateman tells the story through a series of internal monologues. He talks about how he stares at his reflection, admiring his handsome, chiseled body and face. He is highly educated in academics as well as, modern male culture. He has an obsession with hot women, designer clothes and murder. He is a man who likes to feel superior and in control. So if Paglia is saying the burden of nature falls on one sex, Patrick Bateman is an example of an egotistical male hierarchy in nature. Consequently, his character can be compared to other tragic literary characters like “Bill Lee” from Naked Lunch and Sylvia Plath’s “the Misfit.” Female roles in tragedy are rare, although their have been a few dominating portrayals like Lady Macbeth who says, “unsex me here” as she helps convince her husband to murder for the crown of Scotland. In Paglia’s statement "Literature's endless murders and disasters are there for contemplative pleasure, not moral lesson.” Paglia says that people read fiction because they often take pleasure in another’s pain, and stories are not written to teach morality. “The ritual of art is the cruel law of pain made pleasure." (Paglia 29-30) I think she is talking about how curious people are with their ideas of pleasure and how it can be derived from pain. The idea that we are a masked society says that people often hide their true feelings behind this masked persona. Bateman does this in American Psycho. A really hungry audience will enjoy the detailed expression of his sadomasochistic sexuality. That is what I think Paglia is trying to do with her writing. I believe she is pushing the envelope as far as she can and if it falls on the floor, people will watch it fall. That means they are paying attention to her. Isn’t that the point, to stand out from everyone else, more importantly, her male contemporaries?

I suppose what guerrilla scholarship means is, an ambush on society and the Apollonian views of western culture and civilization an over powering or a forcefull approach to the subject.
Her thesis in this excerpt is of laws of nature, sex, mortality and how gods will is imposed differently by religons. While explaining the different roles plaid by man and women, how the roles meet and interact. Also the repressive fears of women from men and how man created culture because of his fears of womens powers. In the story she writes of the inequalities of men and women in the west and compares them to the east examining the pros and cons from culture to culture. The story starts by explaining the rebirth of Rousseau theory's through the developing of feminism. This story is about sexual freedom Eroticism, feminism, liberalism and its roles as good and bad. "This book shows how much culture goes against our best wishes." (p 3) She mentions all of the anxieties created by our encounters with sexuality, and our attempts to controll and understand something which is beyond our comprehension. The story also explains were western culture derived from and how it represses nature by viewing it in a chthonian manner. Aesthetics and western science is in a form a blocking out of the bad horrible evils and focus on the good to keep our sense of purity and good intensions."In Greek tragedy, comedy always had the last word. Modern crticism has projected a Victorian and, I feel, Protestant high seriousness upon pagan culture that still blankets teaching of the humanities. Paradoxically, assent to savage chthonian realities leads not to gloom but to humor."

I do agree with the story our society as we know it does have a begining and can be traced with maticulous research and study. So what we say and do has risen from what has been said and done in the past.

This quote to me is explaining the love to kill, the pleasure from pain, and the ability of humans to lose all rational thought and replace it with pyshcotic behavior, spur of the moment fascinations with life and death, power and control. As present in the story the cruel intensions to meet a hot chick and kill her as if this is a normal incarnation.

“I’m on the verge of tears by the time we arrive at Pastels since I’m positive we won’t get seated but the table is good, and relief that is almost tidal in scope washes over me in an awesome wave. (my emphasis)” ––Patrick Bateman

In the “guerilla scholarship” of Camille Paglia’s work, I found an unending severity with a hyper-educated emphasis on decadence. Claiming society to be an “artificial construction” in shadow of nature’s omnipotent grasp on the planet, she says, “Civilized life requires a state of illusion. Her thesis is the joined ideas that,” Art is contemplation and conceptualization, the ritual exhibitionism of primal mysteries,” adding, “The weakness in radical critiques of sex and society is that they fail to recognize that sex needs ritual binding to control its daemonism and secondly that society’s repressions increase sexual pleasure” finishing with, “Desire is intensified by ritual limitations. Hence the mask, harness, and chains of sadomasochism.”

I firmly agree in her assessment of sex and violence, nature and art. Our society’s general disobedience, or rather lack of humility in the eyes sex, of women, brings a bout the worst in us. Paglia writes, “Everything sacred and inviolable provokes profanation and violation. Every crime that can be committed will be.” I think men and women need to respect the power in sex to further understand each other. The notion of both sexes hammering down an “ideological template” is absurd. For the males, our origins and violent births forever-connect us non-laterally with women; this is nature, and shouldn’t be ignored. Paglia reaffirms this by stating, “For men, sex is a struggle for identity. In sex, the male is consumed and released again by the toothed power that bore him…”

Paglia’s reference to art as a “scandal” and our “sadomasochistic sensuality” reacting to it simply repeats the pagan ethos: worshipping the nature we cannot possible understand. The goal, the drive to capture the searing power of nature must have a proper conduit. This in turn, is a major refute to the feminist movement, and correlates deeply with Brett Easton Ellis’ “American Psycho”.

In describing Patrick Bateman, rather than delving into personality traits I’ll quote Paglia once again, “Desire is besieged on all sides by anxiety and doubt. Beauty, an ecstasy of the eye, drugs us and allows us to act.” Relating Paglia’s quote about literature to Ellis’ “American Psycho”, Bateman and company’s jet-set lifestyle combining educated youth with substantial wealth is the perfect setup. Ellis is in no way condemning or challenging the reader to strive for good upon reading. He is using the story and all nightmarish visions included to explore ideas and theme. In the first chapter “April Fools” Bateman’s closest friend Timothy Price casually counts the homeless as they travel via taxi. Paging through the newspaper, he explodes in disgust for the “sty” of a city they reside in, spouting off every disease, crime and disaster imaginable. On a different angle, Patrick’s speech over the dinner table involving our country’s domestic problems is used solely for personal propaganda, with no real care for the issues mentioned. His “script” would leave any strangers or passers-by extremely impressed by his empathy, but he’s just using these real atrocities for social gain. There is nothing moral in his actions. The darkest example of Paglia’s quote stems from Patrick’s meeting with the homeless man Al. In his overtly-sadistic, theatrical performance of torturing Al, I will deem Bateman a true artist. As aforementioned Paglia says, “Art is contemplation and conceptualization.” His meticulously crafted evil is so honed and precise it leaves him, “…as if I’d just worked out and endorphins are flooding my nervous system, or just embraced that first line of cocaine, inhaled the first puff of a fine cigar, sipped that first glass of Cristal.”

QUESTION: Does Patrick find more release from material things and the best seats in the best restaurants? Or does he derive more life from killing?

*I was a little confused by the essay as well as questions. I'm sure that its just me. But if I'm off, you'll understand why. Can't wait to talk about it in class.*

Camille Paglia’s essay “Sex and Violence or Nature and Art” suggests that the things which we deem erotic and violent are the same as those which we find in art or nature. In agreement with Thomas Hobbes, Paglia also believes that man is naturally violent and erotic; art is to violence as sex is to nature, and society is a structure which loosely supports Paglia’s proponents. The way in which we structure society has an effect of the outcome that ultimately resolves itself through nature and art. For example, men and women are different according to Paglia simply by sex, and it is by trying to structure a society that diminishes a difference between the sexes, that causes an influx of violence and sex crimes.
I suppose that readers might refer to Paglia’s work as a guerilla scholarship because it a small piece which harasses the tradition of literature. It takes on a subject such as art and nature and proceeds to discuss the validity of sex and violence in a way which literary critics alike have seemed to disagree on. Through Paglia’s essay, there is constant reference to the validity to sex and violence, and it like a stain on the literary world, because, really, how could such rubbish possibly grace the literary world as art or projection of nature. I tend to agree with Paglia on this point because we simply can’t have art without violence, just as there is no story without conflict. “Art is a temenos, a sacred place. It is ritually clean, a swept floor, the threshing floor that was the first site of theater” (p 29). Thereby, that which is written to reflect nature is art.
In consideration with the quote on pages twenty and thirty, I also tend to agree with Paglia. “Literature’s endless disasters [truly] are there for contemplative pleasure.” I think of White Noise and think of the family watching television and being mesmerized by the violence, and in which White Noise also reflects the nature of human beings to engage in the pleasure of watching. There is no moral in doing so. There is only response, just as American Psycho or William Burroughs asks of their readers. American Psycho is art because it attracts its readers with the corruption and the violence of society; the natural inversion of a perfect citizen (Batemen) turned misfit (“a fucking evil psychopath” p 20). It’s so seemingly postmodern as well.
I also think of the great works in literature such as Hamlet or any other Shakespearean play and wonder if it were something of the postmodern world would it be considered art? It most definitely is today and the bard himself didn’t hold back any lude or crude comments, or the violence of it. Think of the play Romeo and Juliet-lots of sex, lots of violence, and the audience is fascinated by it.

NOTE:
I'm curiuos what everyone else got from American Psycho. I thought that some of it was hillariuos, and other parts completely disturbing. Is this in relation to the primal fear and archaic night in which humans are not enforced by society?

Paglia’s thesis is that western culture, which was created by men, is a reaction against women and the power they hold over men. Paglia argues that western culture has created an “alternate” reality defined by mathematics and science to escape the painful reality of nature, which men believe is represented by women. Paglia has a Freudian view of men’s relationship with their mother. She believes men are trying to find their own identity independent of women, which has led them to create western culture. A fear of women has been the catalyst for the triumphs of western culture, “Reunion with the mother is a siren call haunting our imagination”.
I agree with the statement that Paglia is carrying out “guerilla scholarship” because she takes on deep questions like the role of women in society but doesn’t back it up with anything but her own observations, like “animals do not fear sexual fear, because they are not rational beings.” . I don’t think she has the scientific authority to makes these kinds of statements, but she makes them anyway. Throughout the piece she is loose on facts and makes unfair generalizations about feminists, mainly that they believe the outlawing of pornography will bring an end to rape. Her reliance on her own observations as a way to support her conclusions is a reminder of the do it yourself attitude of guerilla fighters.
Paglia’s quote means that literature isn’t there to teach moral lessons. Literature is there to provide the reader pleasure from looking at someone else’s world and gaining pleasure from their misfortune. This is especially true in American Psycho where the lead character is a tormented yuppie.

In "Sexual Personae" Paglia claims that sex and aggression in nature find their reflection in art. Additionally, the author claims that human beings are essentially thinking animals whose instincts still dominate and dwell in their subconsciousness; modern civilizations, religions, and social dynamics are just illusions that cover the ugly truth of the cruel, unsentimental nature of the universe and human substance. I think that Paglia's work can be called scholarship because she attempts to educate the reader on certain issues; it is a "guerilla" scholarship because she engages in the irregular independent warfare with the widely accepted Western values, concepts, and beliefs. The war-like content of her work has also to do with the fact that she talks about sex, power, instinct and nature; specifically, she focuses on the struggle between the uncivilized or animalistic and civilized or humane. Although I value Paglia's insight into the connection between human psyche, natural forces, and modern culture, I don't agree with her entirely, and I find some flaws in her reasoning. She's too naive or blind in trying to be so cold, unsentimental, and allegedly down to earth with her theories. What she forgets about is that the intellect is also a part of nature, and that it is not an illusion or artifical creation. After all, she uses her intellect to build her arguments, and yet she claims that everything is sexual, raw, and animalistic. In my opinion she exaggerates the the role of the instincts and misplaces the origins of the intellect or human mind in general. The adjustment of human species and their development of social structures and universal values as a part of their identity is also a process of nature and a result of evolution. Thus, the view of humans as disparate from animals is not against nature but rather with it.
In "American Psycho", Patrick is a young, well to do urban professional of the 1980's decade. Material obsession and raw hatred of his fellow human beings seem to dominate his world. The only reason he gets along with others on daily basis is the necessity of playing "the game" according to the rules; he does so not only to avoid being eliminated, but also because it represents a challenge and stimulates his interest. This element of alternate involvement and withdrawal is paralles to Paglia's argument on male strife for identity. Also, Patrick's aggressive attitude may reflect not only the animalistic instinct within him but also the desire to find himself in the matrix of life and environment that he does not fully understand and fears. When I think of the role of literature in general, I must acknowledge that its "murders and disasters" don't always have to exist in order to teach us a moral lesson; literature is supposed to expand our consciousness and make us contemplate the mysteries of human motivation without necessarily making any value judgments. If I relate the "contemplative pleasure" to Paglia's argument that Western genres' structure is analogous to the climax of sexual intercourse, however, then I can interpret is a reminiscent of any bodily pleasure including the one of sexual character. Referring to the quote of "The ritual of art is the cruel law of pain made pleasure", I think that, to some degree, humans still like to play "rough" and so they experiment with sensual experience to find the point of where the pleasure ends and the pain begins. Since, as Paglia claims, we'll never fully know the origins of life, or the essence of the universe, the only way of "feeding" our curiosity and easing our anxiety is to play the "seek and hide" game that, unfortunately, for some of us sometimes gets out of control (as is the case in "American Psycho"). Also, the quote may refer to the fact that, due to the helpless human ignorance, fear has to be transformed into more acceptable, recognizable form; one way of doing it is to reshape fear and cruelty into beauty that produces more pleasure rather than pain. Hence, in this view, the art literally becomes the "pain made pleasure".
QUESTION: I DISAGREE WITH PAGLIA, AND THINK THAT THE ORIGIN OF HUMAN ENDEAVORS IS REALLY LESS ABOUT THE WILL FOR POWER AND MORE ABOUT THE ANNIHILATION OF FEAR. DO YOU AGREE?

From what I’ve read of Paglia there seems to be a sense of anger behind her work, especially as it pertains to religion, Christianity specifically. To be honest with you she did so much academic name-dropping that I was caught somewhat off guard. However one name I did catch was Sade whom we talked about in class, which I’m sure, is no coincidence. The idea of her work being, “guerilla scholarship,” seems to be right on. The scholarship part is evident, this is a woman that clearly knows her stuff, and the guerilla moniker is clear, she seems to be rather abrasive and almost to a fault. When reading her I felt as if I was being talked down to rather than informed. That being said the term seems to be demeaning. If she were a man would her work then simply be called scholarship?
I identified her thesis as being, “Sex is the natural in man,” our closest relation to that which is natural. I look at this as being completely true. Sex has, through time, has been involved in all of humanities actions. By our nature and our simple creation we are all of and about sex. I believe Paglia is right on in her assessment.
As Paglia writes, "Literature's endless murders and disasters are there for contemplative pleasure, not moral lesson. ... The ritual of art is the cruel law of pain made pleasure" I don’t know if I agree with the above statement however I do say this. Had American Psycho been my sole reference in literature this statement would most certainly be true. The characters in the book clearly take pleasure in all others pain. The scariest part of the book is how easily they dismiss the pain. Whether it be constantly dangling money in front of a bum, or telling a Haitian cabbie their financial issues, or how easily they dismiss Aids. Evelyn knew that stash had Aids and was possibly going to infect Vanden with it, yet said nothing. In the Conversation where she tells Bateman about Stash, it all just seemed so secondary to the items that were on the “Home Shopping Network.” Furthermore, Ellis does an amazing job of name-dropping, product after product, almost as if he was going down a list. He also used music perfectly to help date the story, one reference after another. He set a perfect tone for the decadence that took place in the eighties.
As a side note I have a couple of questions. Why does he constantly mention, Les Miserable? What’s the significance? Also, I picked up a copy of the book and the title was spelled, Ameri-can Psycho. It’s the vintage contemporary copy of the book. If you’re familiar with this I curious to know what it is about. The only connection I could see is that Ameri could somehow be related to Amorous, but I could be reaching on that.

As for the ”guerrilla scholarship” I am not really sure how to apply in her work. I don’t know of any scholarships Paglia might have gotten, but a ”guerrilla scholarship” makes no sense to me. I checked the meaning of the word guerrilla in the online thesaurus. It gave me a lot of synonyms:
adversary, agent, antagonist, archenemy, asperser, assailant, assassin, attacker, backbiter, bad guy, bandit, betrayer, calumniator, competitor, contender, criminal, crip, defamer, defiler, detractor, disputant, emulator, falsifier, fifth column, foe, informer, inquisitor, invader, meat, murderer, opponent, opposition, other side, prosecutor, rebel, revolutionary, rival, saboteur, seditionist, slanderer, spy, terrorist, traducer, traitor, vilifier, villain. How can I apply this to her work? I do agree with most of the ideas she brought up in the book about women being proxy to the nature, women being more dependend upon nature, and the origins of male aggression versus female delicacy. There are many scientific evidence that woul back up Paglia’s theories. In my eyes the author is very literate, intelligent, and bright. I believe that western world has emerged with some ideas, made most of the natural processes a taboo, and created a huge division between a male and a female for socio-political reasons. I also agree that sex is art, and we shouldn’t hide it, but show all it’s forms as beauty and nature within what we call art.
I was impressed by the book ”Sex and Violence, or Nature and Art.” I don’t know any other piece of literature that would cover so many different ideas simultaneously, plus making it a whole. Can’t believe that one person could have taken so many different approches and research to come out with that sex is violence, and nature is art. Maybe then the ”guerrilla scholarship” means that Camille Paglia had revolutionised the whole feminist approach. She had changed maybe even diminished modern feminism into more natural and impossible to hide nor change human nature, or nature in general. She does not believe in equality between men and women, unless they are going to be of one gender. Paglia brought up examples of stereotypes, and utopian approaches to what would be called gender revolution, or eqality between the two sexes. I am amazed for how much work was put to create such research, for I take this text as a research enframed in literature. It is not yet a scientific material, but in my opinion very close to become one. I wouldn’t call it a ”guerrilla scholarship”, I would rather think of this text as revolutionary way of letting both men and women know a little more about themselves, let them think more, and come to their own conclusions on who we are, how we are, what is violence, why, what is sex etc. I appreciate the work a lot.
QUESTION: Critics call it guerrilla, I don’t. For me this text made sense, there was nothing unusual or shocking in it. Do you think if we read more of literature of this type, we would be more open and prone to accept the nature as it is, and maybe find some better ways to ”fight” violence?

"Literature's endless murders and disasters are there for contemplative pleasure, not moral lesson. ... The ritual of art is the cruel law of pain made pleasure" (Paglia 29-30). I think this quote may be applied to American Psycho and Naked Lunch as well. I think we generally like reading about someone’s failures. I think it turns people on. And yes, it does not teach morality, for how you can find morality in something that is considered not moral, yet it gives you pleasure? Both pieces mentioned above include scenes of people’s lives. These scenes are pure. They don’t hide nothing from the reader. The characters do and say what they want, and how they want. I believe most people would say that these books are violent, brutal, maybe even repulsive. But I wonder how many people would still like to read these books to the end. I think majority, because the reader won’t find so much purity in most of literature. I think this type of reading help them, th readers cry out and scream out their own passiona and fears. I think they can redeem the reppression society puts on them.
QUESTION: Do you think this type of literature is helpful?

“ Nature is waiting at society’s gates to dissolve us in her chthonian bosom” sums up Paglia’s writing. Paglia seeks to demonstrate how feminists, religion, and society as a whole have misinterpreted human nature. Especially western culture with its ideals of what’s moral, normal, and acceptable. Paglia states “ society is a system of inherited forms reducing our humiliating passivity to nature”. I agree with Paglia “modern liberalism suffers unresolved contradictions”. Western culture prides itself on freedom and individuality, but we expect as Paglia says the government to “behave as (a) nurturant mother”. Her comments on feminists I especially agree with in terms of sexual freedom. If sex is looked act naturally instead of a political oppressor, women have the upper hand. “ The male has to will his sexual authority before the woman who is a shadow of his mother and all women. Women also have a better understanding of human nature. Women know “there is no free will” and “menstrual cycle is a alarming clock that cannot be stopped until nature wills it”. Woman have come to terms with nature at an early age, “centrality gives her a stability of identity”. Unlike our male companions. At the least Camille Paglia’s work is “guerrilla scholarship”. She’s a member of an irregular force; a woman pointing out the flaws in a feminist movement. She sabotages our ideas on violence and sex. “The rapist is not created by bad social influence but by a failure of social conditioning. Feminists, seeking to drive power relations out of sex, have set themselves against nature”.
“ Art has nothing to do with morality”. That statement I feel is true but exaggerated. Plagia herself say’s that “art, no matter how minimalist, is never simply design. It is always a ritualistic reordering of reality”. Although the American Psych doesn’t read like a after school special that are some themes and points being made. Ugliness and violence as Plagia would say “reflect the ugliness and violence in nature” and “it’s violations are a protest against the violations of our freedom by nature.”

Plaglia says that “society’s repression increase sexual pleasure”. Could this be why despite the government’s efforts teen pregnancy, Aids and other disease are still on the rise?