Wednesday, January 09, 2013

The March of Sexual Liberation

Update: More on this from Rush Limbaugh and National Review.

In this article about how to deal with pedophilia (or, in English, paedophilia), there are some suggestions that make sense (e.g. trying to help people with pedophilic desires not act on them).

However, also mentioned in the article is the people who are arguing for pedophilia's normalization. And really, in a modern sexually liberated society, why not? The entire concept of sexual morality for a liberal revolves around consent. Not that I am saying that consent is not necessary for sex to be licit. However, the sexual liberal also argues that consent is sufficient, and that consensual sexual relations can never be immoral.

That is the entirety of the liberal test for whether or not sex is licit. This means that any sex they feel uncomfortable with they simply define as non-consensual in order to justify their sudden bout of atypical puritanism. It gives them cover for the unprincipled exceptions they make to their liberation. This covers pedophilic sex, bestiality, and to some extent any moral issues they may have with adultery (essentially adultery is bad because it lacks a third party consent, that is, it violates the agreement made with the spouse - of course, I don't think that most liberals argue from this that adultery needs to have any practical legal consequences, e.g. in the terms of a divorce or custody settlement; and of course, if the adultery is agreed upon, e.g. swinging, it is fine).

Still, ultimately, other than forcible rape, I don't see how this can stand. Condemning bestiality on the grounds of consent is ludicrous when we do not require consent for forcible breeding of livestock or for killing and eating them. Without conservative concepts that make bestiality wrong because it is a total perversion of the purposes and practice of sex, it must now be accepted as another form of pleasure-seeking condoned by the primacy of hedonism.

Even for pedophilia, denying children the autonomy to make sexual decisions flies in the face of liberal doctrine regarding sexuality. Unless you look at sex as something that is dangerous, and that if not used correctly becomes incredibly socially corrosive, the concept that we must protect people who are not old enough to appreciate their decision from getting sexually involved is rather ridiculous. It is the position that would be labeled "sex-negative" by sexual liberationists in any other context.

In the article, one comment is telling:

"The reason a child cannot give informed consent is that a child cannot know what is being asked of them. They cannot fully understand the nature of a sex act, not its possible consequences, nor its social significance. "

What a sex-negative attitude!

On the other hand, how true - but can sexual liberationists argue this truth much longer, or will the weight of their philosophy crush it?

That is all.


Anonymous said...

Your argument here is essentially against a strawman, is it not? I have never seen liberals claim that simple consent is the only criterion for the legality of sexual intercourse.

On the contrary, the current liberal meme is to rail against such a position in defense of their rather broad, neo-Victorian definition of "rape" (essentially, that consent while inebriated does not qualify if a woman would not have consented while sober).

As for pedophilia, it is obvious that children under a certain age have little understanding of sex and are vulnerable to manipulation due to the power imbalances between a child and an adult. Therefore, even a statement of consent by a child can be considered suspect.

I assume the actual point you were getting at was to suggest a reintroduction of sodomy laws. The fact is, consensual sexual acts between informed adults does not do you or any other third party any material harm whatsoever. Whether you like it or not, "sodomy" is even now and *always has been* going on in the navy, at the YMCA, in Turkish prisons, in the dorms of all-female liberal arts colleges, and quite possibly in your neighbor's bedroom. It's quite something that people be thrown in prison merely for something you or other people find distasteful.

Glaivester said...

On the contrary, the current liberal meme is to rail against such a position in defense of their rather broad, neo-Victorian definition of "rape" (essentially, that consent while inebriated does not qualify if a woman would not have consented while sober).

I never said "simple consent," I said "consent." The fact of the matter is, in the case you mention, liberal objection to such sex comes down to them defining it as non-consensual.

I'm not really talking about making homosexuality illegal. I'm talking about the current liberal push to make it taboo for anyone to disapprove of homosexuality, and to criticize people for disapproving of promiscuity (aka being against "slut-shaming").

Increasingly, the goal is not simply to allow people to do their own thing without government interference, but to force everyone to approve of everyone else's sex life.