Our country is based on individual liberty, meaning people can interact as they will. As long as a chosen act doesn’t compromise our neighbor’s liberty our actions remain our personal choice. That includes what two people may deem proper behind closed doors. Gay activists, seemingly, would welcome such a concept. But that’s seldom the case. Cultural norms must yield to accommodate homosexuality.
Gay activists experience problems with the subject of privacy, for they generally aren’t content to interact privately. Gay activists prefer flaunting their sexuality and forcing others to accept and support their sexual decisions. Oppose their lifestyle and you’re instantly equated to the white-robbed segregationists from the early 20th Century. However, open homosexuality presents cultural problems extending beyond questions of right and wrong. These issues will come to a head in our military when “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” becomes “Don’t Ask, Do Tell.”
Politicians, bureaucrats and military leaders have weighed in on both sides of open homosexuality. These high-level dialogues focused primarily on military preparedness and unit cohesiveness under such a policy. While such discussions are valid, they ignored fundamental issues that affect both qualities. Lest we forget amidst the swirl of self-congratulatory open-mindedness, heterosexual and homosexual service members must now interact openly on a daily basis.
Men and women don’t share living quarters, showers and other personal facilities for several reasons, chiefly sexual privacy and cultural morals. Integrating men and women in intimate situations is an invitation to sexual advances, including those of the unwelcome variety. Can anyone believe that similar indiscretions won’t occur between gay or lesbian and straight service members?
Yes, there are methods for dealing with unwanted sexual attention. But such rules can also govern current heterosexual conduct. Therefore, if it’s sensible for straight men to shower and bunk with gay men, and straight women likewise with lesbian women, shouldn’t heterosexual men and women shower and bunk together, too? Isn’t segregating them according to their heterosexuality a form of discrimination? Besides, think of the recruitment campaign we could create.
Integrating straights and gays is a unique dilemma. Can the Pentagon keep everyone free from sexual harassment while simultaneously preserving modesty and privacy? Ordering straight men to room with gay men is equivalent to ordering women to room with men in general. The same holds for rooming straight women with lesbians. Bunking lesbians with straight men won’t work either. Men and women would still be integrated in intimate conditions even though the women, being lesbians, wouldn’t be interested in the men.
Another possible solution is to have gay men shower and bunk with straight women. No, that’s totally unworkable. Women could feel threatened (perhaps aroused?) by the gay men’s presence. Another downside to this proposal is the number of straight servicemen who might suddenly declare their homosexuality so they could join the straight women in the shower. Or, we may have straight women declaring lesbianism so they can shower with the straight men. Each scenario is downright confusing.
Regardless of an individual’s gender or their sexual attraction there invariably exists the possibility of feeling vulnerable, uncomfortable, compromised, intimidated, threatened, or violated from the opposite sex’s presence in personal situations. Every relationship, every interaction, is muddled when time-honored gender and sexual boundaries are erased. And we haven’t even considered the affect bisexual and transgender personnel will have on the aforementioned interactions.
Is there an option that will satisfy everyone? The Pentagon can provide separate facilities for each gender and sexuality. Or, all personnel can exist in one communal environment where accommodations resemble Roman bathhouses. Men, women and transsexuals, heterosexuals, homosexuals and bisexuals can shower to the rhythmic refrain of the Village People’s In the Navy.
Pandora’s Box is open wide. The potential outcome is an abundance of fraternization and sexual harassment charges from and toward all genders and sexual preferences. Only one bet is safe: I’ll wager that gay activists will dismiss any sexual harassment complaint lodged against a gay service member as baseless homophobia on the part of an intolerant heterosexual. Any takers?
Showing posts with label perversity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label perversity. Show all posts
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Sunday, December 5, 2010
The Pedophile’s Guide is another sign of our moral decline
A novice sailor will notice when a large vessel veers drastically from its charted course. But even experienced seamen may not realize the change when course deviations are slight. Societies react to cultural variations in similar fashion. People will balk when the moral code is abruptly altered. But when the transition is slow, over several generations, the original course is lost before the change is perceived.
Philip R. Greaves’ book, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover’s Code of Conduct, indicates another subtle change in America’s moral bearing. It should shout “Warning!” at the top of its lungs, for it illustrates how a society can adapt to moral degeneration. The first step is to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible until deviant behavior is mainstreamed. Greaves is willing to give it a whirl. He claims his book doesn’t endorse pedophilia, but establishes guidelines for pedophile relationships. Injurious acts are off limits and certain principles must be adopted to ensure safety for the child. Greaves explained, “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals.”
Apparently, since pedophilia undeniably occurs, it should be woven into our cultural fabric. Notice the change? Child molesters are no longer twisted pedophiles but “pedosexuals.” The word lends legitimacy to the act, similar to how homosexual, bisexual and transsexual have legitimized behaviors once considered immoral.
Even if Greaves’ were correct in assuming that physical injuries common to pedophilia can be eradicated, the psychological traumas linger for years. Furthermore, adults who seek sexual fulfillment from children are exhibiting not only a complete disregard for long-established cultural boundaries but also for plain good sense. If pedophiles were governed by the “better nature” Greaves’ references, they wouldn’t molest kids to begin with.
Granted, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure hasn’t exactly mainstreamed the pedophile. The book was removed from Amazon.com amid a flood of customer complaints and, shall we say, “slow” sales. Still, it should prompt a thorough cultural examination. How did we arrive at the point where a child molester’s guidebook is available via a respected retail outlet? Similar to how ships change course unbeknownst to their crews. The Pedophile’s Guide is but another moral degree that our culture has strayed from its original course.
For instance, marriage was once the sacred domain of a man and a woman, with sexual relations reserved for matrimony. That cultural norm has changed. Four in ten Americans now consider marriage obsolete and “shacking up” is nearly as common as matrimony. The thought of reserving intercourse for marriage is summarily dismissed, as evidenced by the increase[1] in unwed[2] pregnancies over the last 40 years. Such pregnancies are now standard fare where once they were cause for shame.
Homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality--previously shunned as the domain of deviates--are alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality is even considered the superior attraction in some circles. In Hollywood, for example, it’s “in” to be “out.” The thought of same-sex marriage never crossed the mind a generation ago. But it’s rapidly gaining popularity across the societal spectrum, reaching majority status among Americans under age thirty. Anyone who questions the purity in such activities is labeled homophobic, which is almost like being identified as a Klansman.
Moral bearings aren’t lost overnight. It’s the result of incremental course deviations. Bit by bit the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Considering the slight alterations in cultural morality that produced our present state, is it beyond belief that future generations will consider “pedosexuality” an “alternative lifestyle?” We’d be foolish to dismiss the possibility.
Few people believe that mankind has ever practiced perfect virtue, in public or in private. But it’s blatantly naïve to think the deviancies we tolerate today wouldn’t have caused our grandparents to wash our minds out with soap. Humanity’s moral ship is adrift. The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure is the latest deviation toward a wayward destination.
This column first appeared at American Thinker.
[1] National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2006, With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Hyattsville, MD: 2006, p. 145, Table 10 (pdf file, p. 162)
[2] Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2007. National vital statistics reports, Web release; vol 57 no 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Released March 18, 2009, p.6, Table 1.
Philip R. Greaves’ book, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: A Child-lover’s Code of Conduct, indicates another subtle change in America’s moral bearing. It should shout “Warning!” at the top of its lungs, for it illustrates how a society can adapt to moral degeneration. The first step is to rationalize the irrational and defend the indefensible until deviant behavior is mainstreamed. Greaves is willing to give it a whirl. He claims his book doesn’t endorse pedophilia, but establishes guidelines for pedophile relationships. Injurious acts are off limits and certain principles must be adopted to ensure safety for the child. Greaves explained, “I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals.”
Apparently, since pedophilia undeniably occurs, it should be woven into our cultural fabric. Notice the change? Child molesters are no longer twisted pedophiles but “pedosexuals.” The word lends legitimacy to the act, similar to how homosexual, bisexual and transsexual have legitimized behaviors once considered immoral.
Even if Greaves’ were correct in assuming that physical injuries common to pedophilia can be eradicated, the psychological traumas linger for years. Furthermore, adults who seek sexual fulfillment from children are exhibiting not only a complete disregard for long-established cultural boundaries but also for plain good sense. If pedophiles were governed by the “better nature” Greaves’ references, they wouldn’t molest kids to begin with.
Granted, the Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure hasn’t exactly mainstreamed the pedophile. The book was removed from Amazon.com amid a flood of customer complaints and, shall we say, “slow” sales. Still, it should prompt a thorough cultural examination. How did we arrive at the point where a child molester’s guidebook is available via a respected retail outlet? Similar to how ships change course unbeknownst to their crews. The Pedophile’s Guide is but another moral degree that our culture has strayed from its original course.
For instance, marriage was once the sacred domain of a man and a woman, with sexual relations reserved for matrimony. That cultural norm has changed. Four in ten Americans now consider marriage obsolete and “shacking up” is nearly as common as matrimony. The thought of reserving intercourse for marriage is summarily dismissed, as evidenced by the increase[1] in unwed[2] pregnancies over the last 40 years. Such pregnancies are now standard fare where once they were cause for shame.
Homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality--previously shunned as the domain of deviates--are alternative lifestyles. Homosexuality is even considered the superior attraction in some circles. In Hollywood, for example, it’s “in” to be “out.” The thought of same-sex marriage never crossed the mind a generation ago. But it’s rapidly gaining popularity across the societal spectrum, reaching majority status among Americans under age thirty. Anyone who questions the purity in such activities is labeled homophobic, which is almost like being identified as a Klansman.
Moral bearings aren’t lost overnight. It’s the result of incremental course deviations. Bit by bit the unthinkable becomes commonplace. Considering the slight alterations in cultural morality that produced our present state, is it beyond belief that future generations will consider “pedosexuality” an “alternative lifestyle?” We’d be foolish to dismiss the possibility.
Few people believe that mankind has ever practiced perfect virtue, in public or in private. But it’s blatantly naïve to think the deviancies we tolerate today wouldn’t have caused our grandparents to wash our minds out with soap. Humanity’s moral ship is adrift. The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure is the latest deviation toward a wayward destination.
This column first appeared at American Thinker.
[1] National Center for Health Statistics, Health, United States, 2006, With Chartbook on Trends in the Health of Americans, Hyattsville, MD: 2006, p. 145, Table 10 (pdf file, p. 162)
[2] Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Ventura SJ. Births: Preliminary data for 2007. National vital statistics reports, Web release; vol 57 no 12. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. Released March 18, 2009, p.6, Table 1.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Stupidity and perversion go hand-in-hand
If you read my columns regularly you now that I don’t toot my own horn very often. But I recently wrote an editorial about how the sexual relationship has been devalued. I can now bolster my claim, with the added bonus that perversity is exceeded only by stupidity.
When I first heard about a man hiring someone to rape his wife I thought it was a tasteless joke. At least hiring someone to kill your wife makes some sense. But why hire someone to rape your wife? That’s even more pointless than it is cracked.
When it became obvious that the event took place my first thought was of some twisted fantasy in which the wife was involved. Then, when the fantasy became reality the wife realized that it wasn’t erotically invigorating and changed her story.
I know what you’re thinking. But such warped role play isn’t as uncommon as we might hope.
There was a story several years ago about a married couple’s mutually agreed “rape fantasy”. The wife was to leave the door unlocked upon going to bed. The husband would leave work on the specified night, conceal his identity and “rape” his wife. To each their own, I suppose.
On the big night the woman awoke to a hooded man standing over her. She struggled and protested initially, then submitted to her “attacker”, fully enjoying the simulated assault. When all was through the attacker left as planned.
The husband returned later, causing her to question why he was still in costume. Guess what? He hadn’t been home that evening. It seems he had bragged about what he and his wife had planned and one of his buddies beat him to the punch.
That’s not funny, although you sometimes get what you ask for. But it turns out that the woman in the current episode was truly unaware of her husband’s plans.
This woman--God bless her--became the unwitting victim of her husband’s twisted perversion. He hired a strange man to come to his home and sexually assault his wife, in his bed, while he watched. There’s nothing understandable or redeeming about it.
However, as nefarious as this act was, the stupidity exceeds even the perversity.
When someone answers an Internet ad like this one it makes reasonable people wonder how dumb our neighbors are. We don’t need to address what a creep the husband is; that’s evident. But he never considered the danger someone so twisted as to answer his ad could pose? Please!
The hired rapist could have robbed the home. He could’ve killed the husband, wife and the children, who were home at the time. What if he had pulled a gun and decided to take a turn at the husband? What would hubby have thought of the “rape fantasy” then?
The alleged assailant, Rodney Liverman, is just as bad if not worse. Even if he was told that the wife would be a willing participant could he not see his own danger? Suppose the husband became jealous; what defense could Liverman offer?
Liverman was in a stranger’s home, doing a stranger’s wife while wearing a hood and holding a knife. Hubby could’ve filled him with lead, and unless the wife spilled the beans no jury in America would’ve convicted him. Furthermore, how stupid must he be not to realize that the wife wasn’t in on the game once it began? And Liverman himself could’ve been setup for robbery or rape.
Political correctness has taught that one person can’t judge another’s actions, especially when it comes to sex. Thus we’ve become desensitized to the level of degeneracy that surrounds us. Small wonder our decadence has reached the point where a man hires his wife’s rapist.
We needn’t address this matter’s depravity. It is obvious. Unfortunately, it’s not surprising. What’s surprising, and perhaps more frightening, is that people so stupid walk among us.
When I first heard about a man hiring someone to rape his wife I thought it was a tasteless joke. At least hiring someone to kill your wife makes some sense. But why hire someone to rape your wife? That’s even more pointless than it is cracked.
When it became obvious that the event took place my first thought was of some twisted fantasy in which the wife was involved. Then, when the fantasy became reality the wife realized that it wasn’t erotically invigorating and changed her story.
I know what you’re thinking. But such warped role play isn’t as uncommon as we might hope.
There was a story several years ago about a married couple’s mutually agreed “rape fantasy”. The wife was to leave the door unlocked upon going to bed. The husband would leave work on the specified night, conceal his identity and “rape” his wife. To each their own, I suppose.
On the big night the woman awoke to a hooded man standing over her. She struggled and protested initially, then submitted to her “attacker”, fully enjoying the simulated assault. When all was through the attacker left as planned.
The husband returned later, causing her to question why he was still in costume. Guess what? He hadn’t been home that evening. It seems he had bragged about what he and his wife had planned and one of his buddies beat him to the punch.
That’s not funny, although you sometimes get what you ask for. But it turns out that the woman in the current episode was truly unaware of her husband’s plans.
This woman--God bless her--became the unwitting victim of her husband’s twisted perversion. He hired a strange man to come to his home and sexually assault his wife, in his bed, while he watched. There’s nothing understandable or redeeming about it.
However, as nefarious as this act was, the stupidity exceeds even the perversity.
When someone answers an Internet ad like this one it makes reasonable people wonder how dumb our neighbors are. We don’t need to address what a creep the husband is; that’s evident. But he never considered the danger someone so twisted as to answer his ad could pose? Please!
The hired rapist could have robbed the home. He could’ve killed the husband, wife and the children, who were home at the time. What if he had pulled a gun and decided to take a turn at the husband? What would hubby have thought of the “rape fantasy” then?
The alleged assailant, Rodney Liverman, is just as bad if not worse. Even if he was told that the wife would be a willing participant could he not see his own danger? Suppose the husband became jealous; what defense could Liverman offer?
Liverman was in a stranger’s home, doing a stranger’s wife while wearing a hood and holding a knife. Hubby could’ve filled him with lead, and unless the wife spilled the beans no jury in America would’ve convicted him. Furthermore, how stupid must he be not to realize that the wife wasn’t in on the game once it began? And Liverman himself could’ve been setup for robbery or rape.
Political correctness has taught that one person can’t judge another’s actions, especially when it comes to sex. Thus we’ve become desensitized to the level of degeneracy that surrounds us. Small wonder our decadence has reached the point where a man hires his wife’s rapist.
We needn’t address this matter’s depravity. It is obvious. Unfortunately, it’s not surprising. What’s surprising, and perhaps more frightening, is that people so stupid walk among us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
