After having reviewed a number of manifestations of gender-related exism, we should now x some forms of sexualism which can be subsumed under erotic exclusivism (X.583). At least three types of erotic exism can, then, be distinguished: activity-based, relational and orientational sexualism.

Activity-based sexualism (X.2333) is exism re one or more kinds of sexual activities in which a human or anthropically conceived being is sexually aroused or satisfied. Relational sexualism (X.2334) is exism re the (number and/or type of) sexual relation(s) or contact(s) of such a being (while the 'type' is not a question of gender or sexuality in itself). And orientational sexualism (X.2335) is exism re its sexual orientation.

These are all manifestations of compositional erotic exism (X.583.1) which are compositional themselves. The sentimental aggrandizemental expression of unitary erotic exism (X.583.0) is obsession or sentimental preoccupation with the erotic, that is, with sexuality in general. Its evaluative opposite (sentimental abnegational) is uneasiness, inhibition or ignorance with respect to sexuality in general.

Activity-based sexualism is either autoerotic or socioerotic. Autoerotic exclusivism (X.4666) is a unitary exism of which the object is autoerotic masturbation, that is, sexual stimulation of oneself by oneself. Especially children have been the victim of the autoerotic exclusionism of parents and priests; no child has ever been the victim of autoerotic masturbation itself. Supernaturalist seers have eagerly exploited the credulity of children by telling them that they would become blind and get all sorts of other diseases by doing 'it'. (That is, if they were not smart enough to stop before their glasses got too thick.) In exceedingly exclusivistic milieus some children even killed, or attempted to kill, themselves, because they had the godless urge to masturbate at least as frequently on their own as their parents would 'make god' together. (That is, if their parents were smart enough to put their God is Love doctrine into practise.) Moreover, as a sexual activity autoerotic masturbation has never been looked down upon in isolation.

The kinds of socioerotic activities, in addition to autoerotic masturbation, which have played, or still play, a role in the sexualist theater are too numerous to be named when we consider both the aggrandizemental and the abnegational, both the active and the sentimental components of erotic sexualism. But at least two of them should be mentioned here because of the special religious, sociobiological, political and juridical interest they have enjoyed, or still enjoy. They are vaginal and anal copulation. (A phrase like sexual intercourse is too vague to indicate what the sexualists in question, and we, are talking about or thinking of.) There have been, or still are, countries or states in which the first kind of sexual activity was, or is, the only sexual activity between human beings sanctioned by law; there also have been, or still are, countries or states in which the second kind of sexual activity was, or is, the only one illegalized between human beings, or between male human beings (regardless of whether those involved have a steady relationship or not). Altho in these two examples the sexual statism is aggrandizemental with respect to vaginal copulation and abnegational with respect to anal copulation, the lingual operations of both forms of erotic exclusivism seem to be abnegational. Thus both fuck(ing) (denoting vaginal copulation or copulation in general) and bugger(y) (denoting anal copulation) are also used in the traditional variant of this language as vulgar or coarse terms to express annoyance or disapproval.

The pathology of the usage of the word buggery is quite peculiar. In this word anal-copulation-centered exism is historically allied, firstly, to racialism or ethnical exclusionism (since the word bugger derives from the name of a certain people or nation looked on as inferior); secondly, to religious exclusionism (as the word was once used to refer to heretics, thus suggesting that all of them and only they would engage in anal intercourse); and thirdly, to antihomosexualism (by way of the illusion that all those engaging in anal intercourse would be homosexual, or that all male homosexuals would engage in anal intercourse). This historical process of lingual operations illustrates but too well how seemingly 'completely different' types of discrimination or exclusivism, such as sexualism and ethnical and ideological exclusionism always have lent, or still do lend, each other support.

When saying that relational exclusivism concerns both the number and the type of sexual relations or contacts, type does not refer to the sexual activities of the partners involved (or lack thereof), nor to the gender of the partners involved. It does not refer either to what someone may or may not have promised his or her partner. Promises are important, and breaking a vow can be very serious indeed, but it is, then, not the principle of relevance which is at stake, but rather the principle of truth (besides happiness-catenary considerations). When talking of "the type of sexual relation", it is in this context things like the duration or durability of a relation which are factors, and, for but too many exclusivists, also the question of whether one of the partners involved receives money for sexual services rendered. In the latter case the (often sterile) members of the exclusionist colony watching the comings (and goings) will be ready to speak of "prostitution" and to denounce the (often sexually overdeveloped) workers as "whores".

When people have to sell their bodies because they must in order to survive, or against their will, this certainly is a debasement, but this applies to everyone who has to sell 'er body (or parts of it) or 'er physical capacities in some way. Most of all it applies to people whose ideals are debased by their interest in money and the protection of those who have most of it. What some of the sexual totalitarians who would like to forbid all prostitution tend to conveniently forget, is that those who ask money for sexual acts, may receive less of it altogether than those who are 'happily married' to a rich person, but would never have loved and married 'im, or stayed with 'im, if 'e had not been wealthy. It may now be argued that it is not only the money but the number of different contacts a prostitute is involved in that counts. If this argument were valid, it would not apply to prostitutes with one or a limited number of (perhaps very rich) clients, and it would equally apply to the clients themselves and to others with two or a limited number of relations or contacts -- a line of reasoning which may even be appealing to out-and-out 'moral' theoreticians.

The unitary manifestation of relational sexualism of which the object is the number of sexual relations or contacts a human or anthropically conceived being has, has had or is allowed to have, is quantitative relational sexualism (X.4669). Dimensional manifestations of it are, for example: (a) exism re a person who has no sexual contacts or re the quality of not having any sexual contacts (whether with prostitutes or nonprostitutes); and (b) exism re a person with more than one sexual relation or the quality of having more than one sexual relation at the same time or in the same period. (An obsession with 'scoring as many lays as possible', or something quantitative of that kind, is, strictly speaking, not a manifestation of exclusivism, but of extremism.)

To determine whether an attitude towards the number of sexual relations or contacts (with prostitutes or nonprostitutes) is exclusivistic or not, it is not sufficient to establish that there is a difference in attitude towards having no sexual contact, only one relation, or more relations or contacts. Thus, in a region and time of an epidemic outbreak of a disease, or when there is a relatively great chance of contracting a disease which cannot (yet) be cured, there may be good reasons --even if there are or were no other reasons-- to prefer only one or no sexual relation to several or many relations or contacts, or the one type of sexual activity to the other. If the chance involved is significantly greater than, for example, the chance of being mutilated or killed in a car accident, then the distinction made could be relevant to a legitimate goal (one's physical health).

It is especially when combined with gender-based sexualism and quantitative matrimonial exclusivism that quantitative relational sexualism becomes interesting. In certain sexist societies and subcultures it was, or still is, 'normal' that men have (had) any number of sexual contacts (again, with prostitutes or nonprostitutes), whereas girls or women are supposed to abstain from sex, and to remain virgins, until meeting the one boy or man they are to spend their whole lives with (and who will take care that they will not have sexual contacts with any other human or male human being). Once more this double standard of morals towards boys and men on the one hand, and girls and women on the other, demonstrates but too clearly the extremely intimate connections between the different members of the school of sexual irrelevantism. A formalization of this double standard in the institution of marriage will be discussed in the next division.