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.
|This content is not yet available over encrypted connections.|