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.

What to Do About School Shootings

How about not much? There are so few school shootings and so few people killed this way that I question the need to create any large-scale proposals in order to stop the killing. I think that allowing some teachers to be armed would not be a bad thing, but ultimately, policies should not be determined by vanishingly rare events, unless they would produce a societal catastrophe (e.g. something along the lines of a major city getting destroyed by a bomb). That is all.

Dreaming of a White Christmas Tree

Here's a picture of my Christmas tree, in the light and in the dark. If you had asked me when I was little, I could not have imagined other than a green Christmas tree. Then, in 2006, I saw a white tree with blue lights and it caught my eye. So I bought one, covered it with blue and silver, and wrapped a number of boxes to use as fake presents for decoration (I lived on my own but celebrated Christmas at my parents' house, so there would be no real presents under my tree). I have used it on and off since then. So here it is. That is all.

Thoughts on Susan Rice

Ultimately, from a policy standpoint, it doesn't matter much. But I am glad that she dropped out, because for her to be nominated after the Ben-Ghazi incident would basically cement that this administration can get away with absolutely anything, and that being black and female insulates you from any mistakes. In short, it isn't much of a victory, but it is the avoidance of an intolerable loss. What do I think about Kerry for Secretary of State? He would not be my choice, but I don't know that we could get much better under Obama, and I doubt that the GOP has anything to gain, either policy-wise or politics-wise, by opposing him. He isn't a completely offensive choice in the way that Susan "Cover-Up" Rice is. That is all.

Join NUMBERSUSA to Defeat Amnesty

I encourage any Glaivester reader who has not done so to go to NumbersUSA and to sign up for Action Alerts. NumbersUSA is an immigration restriction allows you to use your computer to send pre-written faxes to your legislators, and gives you alerts to make phone calls or take other actions to fight unrestricted immigration.

With a big amnesty battle brewing next year, everyone against amnesty needs to get involved!

That is all.

Thoughts on Jovan Belcher

I sort of like the animated series The Boondocks (I never read the comic strip much, so I am primarily qualified only to comment on the series). It shows a high level of self-awareness as to the problems of today's black culture, and is surprisingly less mean-spirited toward whites than one might expect (and in many cases, whites are satirized largely as SWPLs or as shallow rather than as racist).

I thought that this clip from the show probably offers actual insight into the process that likely fueled Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide.

I suppose one could be offended by dealing with a stupid, senseless murder like this using humor, but I think that some of the best humor comes from a sense of bitterness and anger at things that are just wrong; and the humor used in this piece is, I think, very appropriate to the situation. That is all.

An Interesting Article on the "Fast and Furious" Operation

According to this, the Obama Administration leaked information to the press blaming gun dealers involved in the "Fast and Furious" operation for selling guns that went south of the border.

This certainly lends credence to the theory that "Fast and Furious" was an attempt to create a justification for more gun control.

But of course, we are supposed to think that this is nothing but a crazy conspiracy theory.

That is all.