Home > Political Ranting > Global Orgasm

Global Orgasm

November 26th, 2006

You know how peace activists are always being stereotyped as hippies, conspiracy theorists, hedonists, crazies, or New Age nuts? Well here are all of those stereotypes rolled into one: it’s called Global Orgasm. The idea is for as many people as possible to have sex and come to orgasm on December 22, so as to “effect positive change in the energy field of the Earth through input of the largest possible surge of human energy a Synchronized Global Orgasm,” and in so doing stop “two more US fleets heading for the Persian Gulf with anti-submarine equipment that can only be for use against Iran.”

Now, on the one hand, I can totally get behind this movement. I certainly see little functional downside to it (aside from unreasonable expectations for world peace, and, if you’re anti-population-explosion, the blip in the birth rate next August), and it could be fun. I know a few people who believe in this sort of energy having a real effect on things, though if I were of that persuasion, I would try to get as many people to have their orgasms at the exact same time–probably early morning Pacific Standard Time, say 6 to 7 am–on December 17th (it might be too hard to excuse the kiddies on Christmas Eve), when most of the world is awake, and it’s Sunday, so those awake at mid-day have a chance to find some private time. Let’s face it, if people are having orgasms along a 24-hour period, that’s hardly “synchronized.”Peaceinportland

On the other hand, this kind of plays into the hands of those who belittle the peace movement. I don’t think that I really need to explain how. This is being carried out by the same people who organized “Baring Witness,” a group (run by Paul Reffell, 55, and Donna Sheehan, 76, no relation to Cindy Sheehan) that gets people to shed their clothes and form human anti-war signage, as seen at right. (That’s a very well-formed and tastefully executed Chinese character for “peace,” by the way.)

While the premise might sound nutty, the concerns over war are not. Two months ago, Time Magazine reported that a submarine and minsweeping vessels were to be deployed–with the Persian Gulf the only place in the world these ships would be needed, and Iran the only logical enemy. This year, there has been a buildup of forces in the region, mostly naval, that would appear to be primed for an Iran conflict. So it’s not nutty; instead, it is eerily familiar to the days leading up to the Iraq War, though this time the pieces are moving even more quietly.

I have no problem with millions of people having scheduled sex, and I believe the concerns are valid and vastly underreported in the media. (Drat that liberal media yet again!) My only problem is that this kind of movement tends to bring scorn and levity to a deathly-serious topic, and, in a way, gives the media and the proponents of militarization a way to trivialize protests and the legitimate claims that our country is yet again being led into another disastrous war.

Categories: Political Ranting Tags: by
Comments are closed.