A 'Culture' of Inverted Sexuality

CERC ^ | Patrick Fagan

[tacticalogic]

Pedantry has vocal protectors in the ACLU and MBLA.

Careful there. FR has it's fair share of pedants, IMHO.

[Jim Noble]

>>Why can I not have multiple wives if "Joe and Hank" can pretend to be some kind of cohesive family unit?<<

Not much experience with women, eh?

[colorado tanker]

For later reading.

[Cobra Scott]

I'm all for competition :D

[Jim Noble]

>>I'm all for competition<<

LOL

Payback's a motherf*****, though.

[Cobra Scott]

Seriously, though, it is amazing how many people I have encountered who support homosexual relationships, but frown on polygamy, mixed marriages, extreme differences in ages of spouses, you name it. I have to wonder, what is wrong with that picture?

[Mortimer Snavely]

It strikes me that the notion that sex is moral only if used for reproduction accomplishes the same thing that libertinism does: it tends to devalue and perhaps, consider ultimately as sinful, the bonding and increased intimacy that sex elicits. In both cases sex and love are disconnected, and love becomes a problem.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

The issue I present is a secular Achilles' heel for the advocates of homosexual monogamy. Religious folks need to make more argument based upon these secular positions so they cannot be labeled as religious fanatics...

[RLK]

It strikes me that the notion that sex is moral only if used for reproduction accomplishes the same thing that libertinism does: it tends to devalue and perhaps, consider ultimately as sinful, the bonding and increased intimacy that sex elicits. In both cases sex and love are disconnected, and love becomes a problem.

---------------------------

Now, we are getting toward one of my areas of concern and ane of the areas that produces alienation from conservative/religious types. Sex emphasized primarily as a reproductive process imposes a stern sterile and somewhat drab utilitarian air about the area that is off-putting to the argument. In this sense, as you have pointed out, the separation between sex and a type of bonding and intimacy becomes common to an axis within conservatism/religion and emotionally sterile libertarianism/liberalism. As has been pointed out to me elsewhere, many people on the political cultural right have problems relating to closeness and intimacy --as do many on the political cultural left. This has tainted, I think with some justification, the image of the political/cultural right. It's a killer when talking about responsible sexuality.

[The Giant Apricots]

Thanks for the "ping"!

I agree, sexuality and procreation should be linked; de-linking them is one of the sources of cultural degeneration that America has kneeled before over the last 3-4 decades of this worst of eras.

Question: how to reverse the trend? I'd say decentralize everything.

[RLK]

It strikes me that the notion that sex is moral only if used for reproduction accomplishes the same thing that libertinism does:

---------------------

What also happens when some repressed and repressive clown comes upon the scene shouting that kind of sterile angry morality is that people start scrambling out windows and doors. It doesn't detail a a desperately needed suitable alternative.

[Ronaldus Magnus]

I agree, sexuality and procreation should be linked; de-linking them is one of the sources of cultural degeneration that America has kneeled before over the last 3-4 decades of this worst of eras.

Question: how to reverse the trend?

The trend is already reversing. The sex-for-sex's-sake crowd who scrambles out of doors and windows when the societal consequences of their actions are discussed are graciously removing themselves from the gene pool. Population growth rates throughout the developed world are falling precipitously and are being replaced by people's with more "repressive" sexual moralities. The populations of most European nations (all but Albania) would be declining if it were not for (a primarily Muslim) immigration. The U.S. is beginning to follow the same trend with predominately Hispanic immigration. In a few generations this problem should take care of itself.

[JMJ333]

You have answered others, but I am still waiting for your explanation in regard to irrelevance and alienation. Thanks.

[RLK]

The answer to you is the same as the other posts I have placed here, particularly to Mortimer Snavely. The steril concept drives people out the door. It's one that people who are stuck for an explanation have put together and now sieze upon. Have you read my work published elsewhere?

[JMJ333]

I reject the notion that stopping the use of contraception creates alienation, and hardly seems irrelevant since it has direct links to abortion. Prior to the advent of contraception, the focus was on responsibility to family and life had more value. After the invention we see a slippery slope that took us to concepts of "free sex" on down until life has been devalued to the point where I am not sure we as a nation can get it back.

I suppose you think that if contraception isn't used then people won't be able to have sex without consequences and that for many is unacceptable . Well, I support natural family planning, and have found that people can still have sex without fear of an unwanted pregnancy if they are aware of how their bodies function and can read the signs of when they are fertile or not. They may have to abstain for 1 or 2 days out of the month, but if a person can't abstain for that small amount of time then they have serious problems. Contraception is wrong and immoral, and I will continue to voice my concerns against it.

[Mortimer Snavely]

I hate abortion and homosexuality as much as any here and oppose it whenever the opportunity presents itself, but I have to say that until conservatives can defend and promote eroticism, as eroticism, (and I'm certainly not talking about dirty magazines, addled teenagers looking to score, or pecker heads and floozies shacking up together) as an inherently good thing outside of making babies, until the bonding and intimacy from such eroticism referred to earlier is looked upon as an inherently good thing, promoted, defended, and asserted as a primary motivating cause for the conservative frame of mind and world view, the Left is going to continue to command the field in the ideological conflict.

Contraceptives are a good thing in the hands of responsible people. In the hands of nutcases, libertines, and the lunatic lifestyle left, contraception fuses ideologically with abortion. This is a deliberate deception, but until conservatives can properly address sexuality as A Reason to Go On Living and Why This Is So, people will continue to be perceive the siren song of countercultural madness as the only valid view of sexuality, not being able to ultimately see the difference between abortion and the pill.

[JMJ333]

Wrong. Contraception is immoral and has lead directly to the devaluing of life. Its outlined as clear as crystal in the article. If you need more evidence see the post on the front page by polycarp.

If a single date could be identified as marking the historical break from the Christian consensus on traditional, natural-law principles of sexual morality — if one desired to highlight the West's very first official step down the slippery slope — then August 15,1930 must be chosen as that unhappy date. That was the day when the Lambeth Conference of the Church of England, by a vote of 193 to 67, approved a resolution which read in part:

Where there is a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipleship and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless, in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception-control for motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience." [emphasis added] With that vote, the traditional moral unity of Christendom on this issue was broken.

[Mortimer Snavely]

The USA is a nation designed for sane, rational people who want to live happily in this world. A satisfying sex life with one's husband or wife is necessary for that happiness. When the sole purpose of sex is procreation, love and intimacy, because they tend to culminate in sex for its own sake, become problematic, as does the happiness which results from that love and intimacy. This is not a good thing, and as it detracts from individual happiness, is morally wrong. Contraception changes that. A religious argument which posits that taking the pill is the first step on a slippery slope to abortion as contraception requires faith to convince, that is, belief in the absence of sufficient evidence, and only persuades those who belong to the particular religious sect which espouses it.

[JMJ333]

Do you even bother to read? I stated already that you can have a satisfying sex life without the use of contraception. All one has to do is understand how the female body works and be able to recognize the two days a month when she is fertile. Are you saying that one can't be sexually satisfied unless you get to have sex every day? You mean you can't abstain for two lousy days? You're a case, mortimer.

[Mortimer Snavely]

"I stated already that you can have a satisfying sex life without the use of contraception. All one has to do is understand how the female body works and be able to recognize the two days a month when she is fertile."

My observations, as well as the observations of many others, are profoundly different. These observations must take precedence over everything else, including what others wish that I have observed.