Sovereign Synthesis

People who state that a particular sexual behavior is morally wrong are stating a belief. Why should I or anyone else with at least a shred of skepticism take them at their word?

I could just as easily say that because of “overpopulation,” everyone should stop procreating. (This is just for the sake of argument; I don’t really believe that!) Or I could say that everyone should stop procreating, because some children are bound to be “molested,” and in order to avoid this risk it is better that children never be born. (Or that either.) In either case why should anyone take me at my word? Sure, you can simply take a belief on faith if you’re not a very skeptical person. But if you’re going to believe that child prostitution is wrong “because it is wrong” then why not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or competent politicians if it feels “right?”

There is a glaring lack of evidence for objective moral right and wrong. Sure, it is possible there is some objective moral code floating ’round somewhere in the ether, but people can’t agree on what that might be. Some people feel sex outside marriage is wrong. Some feel the same about eating meat. Does that mean we should sit back and let them force their beliefs on everyone else through State power?

We let people under a certain age ride in automobiles (usually far more dangerous than sex); we let people under a certain age receive risky vaccinations and surgeries; we let people under a certain age be indoctrinated in the name of education, yet involvement in a sexual relationship is suddenly beyond the pale? The fact that large numbers of people believe just that hardly makes it true. If you’re an atheist, should you believe in God just because the majority of people do? To be blunt, let’s not let the moralists out there set the rules. The problem isn’t sex, even when it involves people of the “wrong” ages. The problem is certain bigotries and prejudices being forced onto everyone by the monopoly power of the State.

The matter of consent is nowhere near as black-and-white as do-gooder busybodies make it out to be.

For example: One day she says yes to sex; the next she feels guilty, retroactively changes her mind, and subsequently files sexual assault charges. In the ensuing environment of hysteria, her ‘rapist’ is convicted and sentenced to years in prison. It can happen!

Sexuality is not politically correct. Contrary to the victim-feminist party line, females do often say no when they mean yes. If treated like fragile pieces of china, they’re more likely to get bored silly than anything else. “Consent” is cut-and-dry only to people knee-deep in what Robert Anton Wilson called Ideal Platonic Horseshit. In the real world, no pain, no gain will often apply in practically every worthwhile endeavor one can name; there’s no reason sexual activities would be exceptional in this regard. Many, perhaps most, of the most fulfilling and pleasurable activities require at least an initial push, and often discomfort.

The State has no business telling us when, where, or how to have sex. Centrally planned moralities are just as prone to failure as centrally planned economies! Even if busybodies were largely altruistic true believers, they’d always fuck up, because real, living, breathing human beings are never so simple and straightforward as their hyper-autistic* social engineering formulas would indicate.

*May as well use one of the therapeutic state’s invented disorders against it.