Tuesday, 23 February 2016

The cost of the sexual revolution; the price of freedom from Christian morality

There is one thing I’m going to personally reject, and that is the mistake of labeling promiscuity as somehow “freedom.” That that is a freedom. Fourth Nephi has a little scripture and it is right after what happens to the people there after Jesus Christ has visited the Americas and then ascended back into heaven. So this is Fourth Nephi 1:16. And it says:

And there were no envyings, no strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God.
And as I studied that scripture, I started asking myself, what would it be like if there were no whoredoms? What would that society be like? So here’s my list:

  • Teenage couples don’t get pregnant and have to get married to the wrong person.
  • Lives don’t get warped and stalled by sexual abuse.
  • There is no fear of rape or violence.
  • There is great security on the streets, there’s no serial killers, there’s no kidnappings.
  • There is no market for prostitutes.
  • There is no sex trade or there is no sexual slavery.
  • Spouses don’t have affairs or commit adultery.
  • Marriages stay intact and children aren’t raised in the insecurity and divided loyalty of divorce.
  • Cities don’t have seedy, creepy neighborhoods that are filled with adult theaters and deviant bookstores.
  • There is no appetite for pornography – it doesn’t degrade the people who make it or who watch it. It doesn’t warp the sexual development of young people and rot the relationship between a husband and a wife.
  • There are no children being raised by a generation of women and painfully wondering where there fathers are.
  • All of the energy and the money that goes into all of those activities above the above, is available for something else.
How is that not more free and not more desirable for women, for men, for children, how is that not?

http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/fair-conferences/2014-fairmormon-conference/womans-church

*

The way to think about this list of bad things, is not to suppose that Christian morality would eliminate these specific bad things durng the foreseeable span of mortal life; but that Christian morality enables us to know that bad things really are bad - which is something that the modern West utterly lacks.

Our problem is not so much that a lot of bad things happen - but that we have lost the ability to discern good and evil: worse that the loss/ explusion of Christianity from public discourse makes it impssible to believe (or even say) that bad things are bad - and creates the most appalling moral nihilism.

Recently, near to where I live, a man was accidentally (so the court ruled) tortured to death by another man during the course of an extreme sado-masochistic sex session. I cannot bring myself to write the details of what happened - but if you think of the worst tortures you have ever read about that it was not far short. Meanwhile, the killer was sharing his ecstatic torture details with a group of like-minded persons via social media.

The killer claimed in court - with was what apparently an aggressive moral self-righteousness - that it was an innocent mistake, and he defended the right of adults to do whatever they wanted to each other in private so long as there was consent.
Legally, consent was here a problem, since the deceased had been dosed with massive amounts of a drug - but it was ruled that the victim, probably, implicitly consented to this. However, as well as being grossly intoxicated, the victim also had his mouth stuffed and lips stapled together - so he was not in a position to express any change of mind.

The principle on which the defense was based was that the killer had a moral and legal right to torture the victim to within an inch of death by the most horrific means he could devise - so long as there was consent, and so long as he did not actually cross that inch-line and actually kill him. And if, as happened, he did kill the other man, then this was just an unfortunate accident, something regretted all round, and not murder; because there was no intent to kill him but merely to inflict the greatest imaginable extreme of possible human suffering.

Implicitly, all this is both morally and legally permissible; indeed it is now treated as a vital human right; because (and this was mentioned in court) this is a sexual preference of a minority, which should be logically treated, and legally treated, as a personally sexual identity. And we all know how sacred sexual identities are to modernity since the sexual revolution. And that whatever you most want to do sexually just-is your sexual identity; the thwarting of which is to deny a primary human right.

In sum, it is not merely legally and permissible to torture another in the most 'extreme' (favoured word) fashion to within an inch of death for sexual pleasure - but this is a officially (albeit implicitly, at the moment) a positive expression of human rights expressed within a persecuted minority.
My point is that in the reported summary of the judge accepted this framing of the situation. The killer was convicted of manslaughter, but the judge accepted that if the death had not occurred, then there had been no wrongdoing.

The legal situation, as it stands, is that ultimate torture is a protected human right - and cannot be stopped so long as it is done for sexual reasons - unless it can be demonstrated that consent was lacking or imperfect.

If you knew for certain that regular extreme torture to within an inch of life sessions were happening in a neighboring house, or the room next door - you would be breaking the law if you intervened to stop it. After all, almost certainly the authorities know of many instances of such activity going on - and they don't stop it. They can't. It is not now officially regarded as something which should be stopped. It is a human right.

And this incredible (in the literal sense of the word) extremity of moral inversion - of relabelling evil as good - is not imagined for some future dystopia in some outlandish culture - but the law I live under, right now, in the place where I live.

How has this arisen? Because without religion there is no objective morality; and without objective morality we 'cannot say' that torturing another person to almost-death for pleasure is an evil thing as such - but only when it is done without their consent.

If then (and why not? - it could happen, it could happen next year) sexual torture becomes common, if it becomes normalized, if it becomes positively encouraged by government campaigns and taught in schools as a valid lifestyle option - then this is something we must (under dominant modernity) simply accept as the price of sexual freedom and identity.

This - here and now - is the extremity to which we have been brought by leftism and its major strategic weapon: the sexual revolution. But such is the nihilistic poverty of the secular West that we cannot (and do not) even object to the situation we are already in.

We merely, collectively, shrug and say (perhaps with hint of nostalgic regret, a twinge of residual disgust): Why Not?