Saturday, February 15, 2014

Abstinence until adulthood!

Understanding that opposition to bestiality or pederasty is scarcely any more logically defensible than opposition to homosexuality is a worthy exercise in comprehending how human morality expresses itself. Many of the moral positions people hold are a natural outgrowth of their innate personalities. A commenter named Stephen asserted otherwise, writing:
Pederasty is wrong because a child doesn't have the mental faculties to give consent to sex. It's a huge fucking difference between that and something that takes place between consenting adults. I happen to find it disgusting as well, but that is irrelevant. What is relevant is the harm done to children. I thought you were better than bringing that into the mix.
Just as logically consistent opposition to bestiality necessitates vegetarianism (and arguably veganism), so should opposition to pederasty necessitate opposition to underage sex, even among two willing young people. If a teenage youth does not have the mental faculties to consent to sex, then it's difficult to argue that two young teenagers--neither of whom putatively have said necessarily mental faculties--should be permitted to confirm their lust.

What if the two stripling lovers are especially precocious? What if the adult in an adult-child relationship is emotionally stunted? There should presumably be lots of exceptions. There are 12 year-olds who have more mental maturity and emotional stability than people twice their age do.

I'm stating neither a political nor a moral position on homosexuality, bestiality, or pederasty here. To reiterate, the point of this post and previous ones in a similar vein is to show how many moral positions are 'merely' personal preferences rooted in personality differences. They are no more correct or incorrect than extroversion or introversion are.

I am directing the thrust of these posts at the contemporary left, though, since it is they who often insinuate moral superiority in the positions they hold, the corollary often being that those who disagree with them are parochial, bigoted, evil, etc.

Indeed, the idea of relative morality is more generally associated with the progressive left than it is with conservatives or traditionalists. Rightly so, as the Establishment left's greater personal emphasis on abortion rights than on opposition to pedophilia demonstrates. Jack Cashill has done a ton of reporting on as much. And I'm not just talking about circling the wagons to protect their own a la Roman Polanski.

The current head of HHS, Kathleen Sebelius, was propelled forward into national politics largely on the financial backing of the abortion industry within my home state of Kansas. Her office resisted former Kansas AG Phil Kline at every turn as he exposed two abortion clinics in the state for refusing to report multiple instances of active pedophilia the resulted in pregnancies and the subsequent terminations of those pregnancies. The story got a bit of national play on Fox News and other mainstream right outlets, but the Cathedral's national media organs ignored it almost entirely while local leftist media viciously savaged Kline and his supporters, who were eventually defeated when Kline was replaced and subsequent state AGs chose not to continue the prosecutorial pushing Kline had started and let the issue die.

11 comments:

Greg said...

Interesting thought about vegetarianism. I hadn't thought of that and it makes sense. If we're willing to kill unconsenting animals all the time, why is raping animals verboten?

I guess you could argue that raping the animal causes a lasting pain, while a quick death does not. I'm not convinced by that argument though.

Greg said...

About your point about abstinence until adulthood.

I think most people on the left would agree that kids should not have sex before age 16. So two 14-15 year olds having sex is bad. But criminalizing such sex would not help the situation much. Both individuals are victims and perpetrators of the crime. You're not helping the victims by sending them both to jail.

Audacious Epigone said...

Greg,

Re: the lasting pain versus a quick death, it's an even more difficult sell if the victim is human. Should punishment for rape be more severe than punishment for homicide?

silly girl said...

Sebelius shredded the documents so that the next AG couldn't pursue the cases. She then pretended that it was an error. Talent like that couldn't be overlooked by Washington democrats.

JMSmith said...

I don't think that the historic condemnation of bestiality was rooted in pity for the suffering beast. It was rooted in disgust with human degradation. The idea was that, by engaging in certain acts, a human disgraced the species, rather in the way that misbehaving policeman and military personnel are said to "disgrace the uniform." Sodomy and masturbation were similarly condemned as offenses against the dignity of man.

Liberalism eschews this sort of moral argument--in fact it will at times praise deviant sexuality as a noble expression of human freedom--but it remains potent for many conservatives. Philip Rief described this as a horror of "lowering."

Prohibition of adolescent sexual activity was largely a response to the fact that humans are able to sire children before they are able to support them, but here again I detect concern to assert the dignity of man. Sexual abstinence is a gesture that asserts human exceptionalism. We are not, it declares, like the beasts.

Anonymous said...

Liberalism eschews this sort of moral argument

I think it's difficult to distinguish this from adopting the same sort of moral argument but framing it differently.

For instance, are we so sure that Liberals, when it comes to homosexuality, are not simply emphasizing that, unlike the beasts, humans have the capacity to love without reproductive viability, and are unchained from their evolutionary imperatives?

Anonymous said...

Interesting point.

This is the first time I've heard of pederasty, so I may be unclear on the definition. I'm assuming it's among children post-puberty, approximately 13 to 18.

Let's begin with the position that consent is necessary, because otherwise we'd have to be pro-rape. So one's ability to demonstrate they are mentally capable of giving consent seems to be the requirement here. Who says it's at age 18? Having sex with some people (eg. mentally challenged) is then never moral. A license to have sex seems to be in order, lol.

As for the logical consistency of beastiality and vegetarianism, that one was obviously correct the first time I heard it. This seems so as well. I will track down the girl from my teenage years, so we can simultaneously scold one another.

Anonymous said...

What about consent to learn to ride a bicycle or consent to learn to play basketball? Why is sexuality treated like the sacred cow -- particularly in the age of prophylactics, contraceptives, abortion on demand, and modern medicine?

Teens are given driver's licenses at age 16, and allowed to pursue any number of other dangerous activities without sending a feminized society into hysterics.

Leftists do not object to homosexual sex with underage children. Nor do they generally wail to the heavens over woman to boy sexual encounters.

panjoomby said...

hey, we're in the same state! i feel better about KS knowing the audacious epigone is here:)

Audacious Epigone said...

Panjoomby,

Where?

Anonymous said...

"I'm assuming it's among children post-puberty, approximately 13 to 18."


By definition, post puberty they are not children. To be sure some youths aged 13-18 are still in the puberty process and therefore not post puberty.