Open Letter to John C. Wright

Aug. 13th, 2009

In his post More Diversity And More Perversity In The Future, johncwright wrote, in part:

The Sci-Fi Channel (I cannot bring myself to type the phonetic/stupitastic new version of their name) has recoiled in craven fear and trembling when lectured by homosex activists, who gave the SF channel an “F” rating on their political correctness. Alas, the thoughtcrime! Not enough perverts on TV! The children have to be indoctrinated!

He goes on to a bitter and, in my opinion, unreasoned and ad-hominem attack on gays and on the Left.

Following is the full version of my response to Mr. Wright’s post, which I was forced to edit for length. No meaningful cuts were made; but they are not identical.

“What argument can be given to outlaw incest that cannot be given with even more logic to outlaw homosexuality? ‘Gee, I dunno, why don’t you ask a victim of incest? I’ve heard plenty of such people describe EXACTLY how much difference there is’.

You do not even seem to notice the fact that you are not giving me an argument: you are merely expressing the hope that such an argument exists, somewhere.

This is not very far down the very long list; perhaps someone else has already given you the answer for which you asked. In which case this may be redundant.

I will not speak to the damage caused by sibling incest. I am insufficiently familiar with it to know, so I leave it to others to define.

However, with intergenerational incest I am perfectly and personally familiar, and so will speak to it.

Intergenerational incest on the instigation of the elder damages the younger person. It does so by betraying the trust that the younger person has that the elder person is committed to the younger’s welfare, and will not act against it. It does so by removing the choice of whether and when and with whom to have the initial sexual experience (and all subsequent sexual experiences) from a matter of negotiation between the participants into a matter of command by one of the participants.

Let me repeat the core of that. Any sexual situation that happens at the command of one person without the full and enthusiastic consent of the other person is a damaging situation, and the cause of identifiable neuroses from sleep disorders and eating disorders to memory lapses and the inability properly to deal with authority. I have years of therapy, plus hundreds of studies, to support that claim.

Any situation in which one party is unable to consent to the proceedings, whether through being underaged, or being normally in the control of the other person, or through being mentally incompetent either temporarily or permanently, damages the person who is unable to consent.

Polygamy, if defined in such a way that the wives are powerless in the relationship – by being underage, or at the control of the men in the community, or both – would be similarly nonconsensual and therefore damaging.

However, when polygamy is defined so that all the participants are of full age and are fully and enthusiastically consenting to the situation, it is not damaging.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, does not cause damage to the participants.

Let me repeat that: the act of having sexual relations with a person of the same gender does not have any psychological effects on the participants in and of itself.

I have tested this proposition, and personally avow it to be true.

Having sexual relations with another person on any basis other than the full and enthusiastic participation of both (or all) parties causes damage; therefore rape causes damage, regardless of the genders or ages of the people involved.

Having multiple sexual encounters with strangers is damaging, not on the basis of consent, but to the extent that it may confirm a pre-existing feeling of worthlessness, and insofar as it exposes the individual to more opportunities for the spread of various diseases. This issue is common to all people who have multiple encounters with strangers, and is not predicated on the gender of the participants.

Neither corpses nor animals are capable of offering consent, let alone enthusiastic consent, and the fact of desires toward such partners indicates the same kind of mental disease that is present in all those who prefer partners who do not or cannot consent. It does not cause such disease; it indicates such disease, and does so regardless of the genders of the corpses, animals, or rapees in question.

Adults who are willing to commit to the long-term sexual, emotional, and financial support of each other are not perverted, regardless of the gender, number, or legal documents involved.

Adults who are happy to cause distress to others for their own sexual, emotional, or financial gratification are perverted, regardless of the gender, number, or legal documents involved.

Homosexuality has not destroyed my life. A long-term, loving, and supportive relationship with the woman who is brave enough to take on my issues has allowed me to make a thorough repair of the life that was nearly destroyed by heterosexual pederasty/incest.

Tuppence in the change bowl.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s