Oct. 3rd, 2006
Okay, anyone who has actually been reading my journal knows where I have to stand on gay rights. But it might not be so obvious, my recent self-introduction notwithstanding, where I stand otherwise.
Let me put this in the negative, then.
- I do not believe that any adult anywhere has the right to touch children in a sexual manner. I define “children” here as “human or otherwise sapient minors as defined legally or not less than seven years after physical maturity, whichever comes last.” Yeah, I said “last.” If “maturity” is legally “12” and a kid hits menarche or wet dreams at 9, leave them be until they’re 16, please. Even if local law says you don’t have to do so. If the kid hits menarche or wet dreams at 16, there’s no harm in leaving her or him be until 23. Give them time to get used to the body!
- I do not believe that anyone has the right to touch nonsapients, even human ones, in a sexual manner. (Artificial insemination of livestock is a problem for me, which I’m studying on.) Whether there is a local law against it or not.
- Cross-generational incest is psychologically damaging to both parties, and particularly to the weaker (the younger, or the frailly elder) party. It should not be permitted; if legal recourse is inadvisable, I would firmly recommend mandatory counseling.
- That all being established, and other coercion being excluded, I see no reason not to legally recognize any union of any number of sapient adults for the emotional and financial support of each other and of affiliated dependents.
- I do not believe men deserve fewer, or more, protections against sexual misconduct than do women. If it would be sexual harassment for a woman, it is sexual harassment for a man. (Thinking here of job “requirements”.) If would be sexual harassment for a man, it is sexual harassment for a woman. (Thinking here of “solicitation” of a stranger for sex – whether money is or is not mentioned should not vary by the gender of the one approached, legally speaking.)
- I do not believe in the forgiving of sexually-motivated violence, regardless of the context. And by “forgiving,” I mean “responding only outside of the legal system.”
- I believe that most ethnic violence, especially that which appears to be religious, is actually sexual at its root: one group attempting to control the sexuality and genetic rights of another. (“Civil,” i.e., racial civil rights: see accusations of the rape of white (or otherwise dominant group) women, and accusations of promiscuity and prostitution.)
- I believe that gender-related violence is sexual at its root: men, sometimes abetted by women, attempting to control the sexuality and genetic rights of others. (“Women’s” civil rights; and “Gay” civil rights: see accusations of promiscuity, prostitution, and solicitation; see also the rage concerning birth control, abortion, and adoption.)
- I believe that the dismissal of the existence of nonstandard physicality and mentality is genetic at its root: attempting to remove such folk from the genome by a form of “exposure,” causing their deaths by neglect and thereby proving their lack of survivability. (“Handicapped” civil rights: see building standards, mental health departments in hospitals, and Reagan’s “community-based care.”)
Countering all this, I believe firmly in the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Most of the country, for most of its history, has firmly ignored this right.
But by Athene, Apollo, Odin, and Freya: it shall not be so forever.
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!
May. 12th, 2006
So, if I’m reading the previous correctly, it goes like this:
1. The highest expression of physical love is the creation of new life within a context where those responsible for creating that life will nurture and raise it.
2. Any physical pleasure which does not meet the above standards dehumanizes the participants, turning at least one of them into a “prostitute” or utility for the convenience of the other.
3. When the possibility of the creation of new life within a context where those responsible for creating that life will nurture and raise it is gone, then those people ought to cease engaging in physical pleasure, whether they are married to each other or not.
This leads to the following conclusions on my part of the logical outcomes of this set of statements:
A. A menopausal woman ought not to have sex with her husband. (Or anyone else.)
B. A man whose wife is menopausal ought not to have sex with her (or anyone else).
C. A woman who is currently pregnant ought not to have sex with her husband (or anyone else).
D. Any infertile person ought never to have sex, and probably ought not to be married.
E. Any unmarried person ought not to have sex at all.
F. No parent should die ever until the youngest offspring is at least 18.
G. Therefore, fertile or not, no one over the age of 50 should have sex, lest they inadvertently die before their offspring are completely raised.
The female participants are being devalued and dehumanized and turned into sex utilities.
I think that’s it.
May. 12th, 2006
Finally I have read a detailed, comprehensible, in-their-own-words explanation of why the Christian Right is reacting to sexuality the way it is. The following is culled from a nine-page article, which you should definitely read in its entirety. It may still be freely available; otherwise, the registration with the New York Times is free and worthwhile.
By RUSSELL SHORTO
Published: May 7, 2006
The New York Times Magazine
Warning: The following story will make no sense if you have not watched a great deal of the Science Fiction Television Series Stargate: Atlantis. Read on at your own risk.
February 20th, 2008, 10:26 am
It was just abruptly borne in on me that a warning for personal history of child-molestation needs to be here.
So I watched it. I watched it after I’d read a bunch of comments, and I watched it twice, and I read a bunch more comments, and read a bunch of tags, and reasons why John argued with his father and never reconciled, and where his mom was and why, and what all this has to do with Nancy, the “best thing he ever did,” and why Nancy – who ought to have known better [as a person involved in top-secret matters herself] – was talking about his secrets that he would never share.
May 19th, 2008, 01:50 pm
Let us begin with this section from Ephesians:
22Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
From a discussion on ISCA.
Sep 19, 1995 09:43 from FtC
I need some advice!
I have a really good friend (we’ve been friends for almost 20 years!) and he is gay, or at least he thinks he may be. The reason he thinks he may be is that he has fantasized about relationships with men, but he has never acted on these fantasies. He asked me a couple of perplexing questions, and I was hoping you may have an answer. First of all, he doesn’t want to be gay, but he says he “just can’t shake these feelings,” and second, he has had sex with a woman, but “it was empty sex – there were no real feelings there.” His questions I couldn’t answer were this:
- Why would God make me homosexual or allow the devil to have this power over me?
- Since I don’t know if I am homosexual for sure [he’s never had sex with a man], should I try it to destroy these fantasies I’m having?