Sex and the Religious-Left

[Harbal]

There's not enough sex to go around, when a small number of men can claim a large group of women as mates. And it's furthermore a lie that sex is "Free", or that it is not an active, on-going, ever-present competition.

I get it now, you are one of those incel people.

I thought I was only joking before, when I said you were just bitter because you couldn't get sex. Many a true word spoken in jest, as they say.

Free to...perform drag shows in front of children, with a sign "It Isn't Going To Lick Itself", and Hairball stepping in, claiming it means "ice cream".

Then he calls others "Sinister", without failing to realize his irony, his psychological projection.

I think it is time to clear this matter up. When and where was this event with the slogan, "It Isn't Going To Lick Itself", on display? Let's see if we can get to the bottom of it, so to speak.

[Wizard22]

Your illiteracy is not my problem. Anybody who actually followed this thread, and can read, or watch the video clip I posted, can see for themselves.

If you are here to make jokes, your general approach to "Philosophy", then you may well, or certainly in your case, end up being the joke.

[Harbal]

Your illiteracy is not my problem. Anybody who actually followed this thread, and can read, or watch the video clip I posted, can see for themselves.

If you are here to make jokes, your general approach to "Philosophy", then you may well, or certainly in your case, end up being the joke.

It is nothing to do with my literacy. You posted an image of men in drag, appearing to be putting on some sort of performance in the presence of children. Behind one of the men there was a partially visible slogan that appeared to say, "It Isn't Going To Lick Itself", which you claim is a reference to a sexual act, and I claim very probably isn't. You have since referred back several times to the matter, saying that I am lying, or pretending not to know the truth, so you obviously attach some significance to the situation. Well if you are going to throw accusations about, you should be prepared to back them up, so let's get it sorted out. Where and when was that photograph taken?

[Alexis Jacobi]

They weren't that. If there are hierarchies and the criterion is the production of children, those are valid questions. So far, it would in fact entail that childless heterosexual couples would be tolerated also, but considered less ideal. Parents with two children or, horrors, one child, also tolerated but not ideal. Even though the population keeps going up regardless. Protestantism would be tolerated, since we are tolerant despite them tending to have less children than Catholic families. Non-theists like Wizard would be tolerated, even though they tend to have less children. And if Wizard has only one child, well, we'll tolerate him more than we tolerate the childless and the gays, unless the gays have more children than he does. Values don't just lead to one level in a hierarchy, if they value hierarchies, they lead to many levels.

There is a natural tendency to want less children when health care improves and starvation is reduced. Toss in urbanization, and the tendency is even stronger, regardless of prior culture/religion - there will be differences, but nearly all groups will have less children. They don't need the child labor. They know it is very unlikely they will lose half or some signification portion of their children.

And, then, again, what is the reason we have to increase the population at the same rate we have in earlier decades? Isn't increase enough?

I think your defense of Harbal is misplaced. But everyone knows what I think about his orientation. My opinion or assessment hasn't changed.

What I have endeavored to communicate, and the starting premises I work from, originally, is that I believe, and with conviction, that the Sexual Revolution of the Sixties has done a great deal of harm to the family and to heterosexual unions as well as harm to a cultural ethic, and a civilizational ethic, in which the family is elevated and as a result strengthened. My conclusion, which is also an impression, is that the family in our culture has suffered. But the *suffering* is complex and there is a good deal of dimension to it.

I began by stating that in my view cultural displays like Pride Parades and similar expositions should, in a society I envision as "sane" (or saner) discourage such displays. That is, advocate for their suppression. I think I would say *For the sake of what children see and are exposed to*. If we expose children to perverted options it is likely that perverted options will be considered, experimented, enacted.

Yet I do realize that if I do say this I will, immediately, arouse opposition. "On what basis can you or do you make these normative claims? What right do you have?" Yes, those who press this angle do, in a way, put my queen in check. Because I can only respond by clarifying a general position of conservative, restraining values. In *their* eyes I have to present a compelling case that would convince *them* to see things as I do.

My position is that once one has crossed an inner barrier -- from what I could call the established normative to the outrageous and alternative possibility, and here I am talking of sexual passion and obsession -- one is then captured by that desire which overrides *sound reasoning*. And this is how I see our culture generally. As having come under the spell of a sort of addiction-obsession around sexual expression. This provokes reaction.

In regard to what you wrote above I would suggest that you see my position in this expanded way.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Your illiteracy is not my problem. Anybody who actually followed this thread, and can read, or watch the video clip I posted, can see for themselves.

If you are here to make jokes, your general approach to "Philosophy", then you may well, or certainly in your case, end up being the joke.

It is nothing to do with my literacy. You posted an image of men in drag, appearing to be putting on some sort of performance in the presence of children. Behind one of the men there was a partially visible slogan that appeared to say, "It Isn't Going To Lick Itself", which you claim is a reference to a sexual act, and I claim very probably isn't. You have since referred back several times to the matter, saying that I am lying, or pretending not to know the truth, so you obviously attach some significance to the situation. Well if you are going to throw accusations about, you should be prepared to back them up, so let's get it sorted out. Where and when was that photograph taken?

It certainly has to do with your familiarity with current events and current debates. In the first minute of this Timcast video he explains it.

His assertion: It is obvious for anyone to see.

Except poor Harbal of course: a man completely on the outside of contemporary issues and who has no interest whatever in them!

[Iwannaplato]

What I have endeavored to communicate, and the starting premises I work from, originally, is that I believe, and with conviction, that the Sexual Revolution of the Sixties has done a great deal of harm to the family and to heterosexual unions as well as harm to a cultural ethic, and a civilizational ethic, in which the family is elevated and as a result strengthened. My conclusion, which is also an impression, is that the family in our culture has suffered. But the *suffering* is complex and there is a good deal of dimension to it.

I began by stating that in my view cultural displays like Pride Parades and similar expositions should, in a society I envision as "sane" (or saner) discourage such displays. That is, advocate for their suppression. I think I would say *For the sake of what children see and are exposed to*. If we expose children to perverted options it is likely that perverted options will be considered, experimented, enacted.

One reason to ask the questions I asked and Harbal asked is to see what is actually going on. I have forgotten whether you or Wizard or both asserted that it had to do with sex being for procreation. If this is the foundational value here, they it seems like our questions will get answers where there are other family patterns that are tolerated and perhaps should be suppressed. A TV show about an older couple who chose to never have children should be suppressed, for example, it would seem. There are a few reasons to ask these questions: is the person presenting a consistant position? Is the person giving their real motives and values? If the answers are not as one might expect, given the reasoning for the other suppression, why not? So, there is an exploratory aspect also. I, at least, don't know what those answers will be.

Further once we get a sense how a core values or goal is used to evaluate something in your schema, we can then see if this kind of pattern holds in other areas, for you. IOW related to other conservative values or liberal values you have. Any values.

Yet I do realize that if I do say this I will, immediately, arouse opposition. "On what basis can you or do you make these normative claims? What right do you have?"

Sure, that happens when anyone asserts any normative values.

If a liberal or anyone asserts that we should allow consenting adults to have the sex they want to have, some conservatives will challenge that normative claim. You have said you would tolerate this, other conservatives will say we shouldn't. Other normative claims by liberals or progressives will be challenged. This is the situation anyone is in today and certainly in any online discussion forum. Assert a value and opposite to that value will come on many grounds: some ontological, some moral, some epistemological, some just an outpouring of emotion.

Yes, those who press this angle do, in a way, put my queen in check. Because I can only respond by clarifying a general position of conservative, restraining values. In *their* eyes I have to present a compelling case that would convince *them* to see things as I do.

Again, that's the position anyone is in in discussion forums. But yes, people you also.

My position is that once one has crossed an inner barrier -- from what I could call the established normative to the outrageous and alternative possibility, and here I am talking of sexual passion and obsession -- one is then captured by that desire which overrides *sound reasoning*. And this is how I see our culture generally. As having come under the spell of a sort of addiction-obsession around sexual expression. This provokes reaction.

The conservative position was once the an alternative position and it was often enforced with shunning, violence and even murder. Pagans and indigenous groups were treated rather harshly when the then radical new formats were imposed. And however conservative you and Wizard are, my guess would be that conservatives in the 1800s would have found your ideas about even sex and certainly things like what women were capable of or should be allowed to do would have been consider liberal if not radical.

There's no *the tradition'. Which does not mean that we are infinitely malleable or that we don't have tendencies, either along sex lines or in general as humans. I think people tend the thrive with certain ways of living better than others, in general. I think there is a lot of flexibility - so many cultural behaviors, traditions, roles can work fairly well. I also think that we need to make room, as it seems you do, for people who thrive in less usual ways, given that we are the most flexible species on earth, with the most neuroplastic brains, or to put it a third way, with the most possible ways we can be affected by experience and also the most flexible tools/modes of behavior. Lions will never, regardless of experience and curiosity, end up with the kinds of behavioral diversity and ability to thrive in different ways. They are more hardwired.

I would, in general, prefer that we don't suppress that which we allow. I am happy to suppress rape, it's not allowed and I want it to not be allowed.

I also don't want things, in general, to be promoted. I don't need pro or con propaganda, both of which show a lack of faith in humans in a core way.

[Harbal]

Your illiteracy is not my problem. Anybody who actually followed this thread, and can read, or watch the video clip I posted, can see for themselves.

If you are here to make jokes, your general approach to "Philosophy", then you may well, or certainly in your case, end up being the joke.

It is nothing to do with my literacy. You posted an image of men in drag, appearing to be putting on some sort of performance in the presence of children. Behind one of the men there was a partially visible slogan that appeared to say, "It Isn't Going To Lick Itself", which you claim is a reference to a sexual act, and I claim very probably isn't. You have since referred back several times to the matter, saying that I am lying, or pretending not to know the truth, so you obviously attach some significance to the situation. Well if you are going to throw accusations about, you should be prepared to back them up, so let's get it sorted out. Where and when was that photograph taken?

It certainly has to do with your familiarity with current events and current debates. In the first minute of this Timcast video he explains it.

His assertion: It is obvious for anyone to see.

Except poor Harbal of course: a man completely on the outside of contemporary issues and who has no interest whatever in them!

Okay, we have some reactionary loud mouth in a woolly hat -can he not afford to turn the heating on?- spouting his interpretation of what happened at the event in question. Firstly, it appears that the parents of the children took them to the event, and witnessed the proceedings, so that immediately suggests to me that nothing too outrageous occurred. As for the sign that read, "it won't lick itself", it could mean any number of things other than the woolly hatted Youtuber's guess at what it meant. Has anybody actually asked the people who staged the event what it meant? Have you or the idiot known as Wizard seen a video recording of the event itself, so that you are in a position to know exactly what happened?

There's some footage of the show in this clip, and I didn't see anything that made me fall off my chair in shock.

https://youtu.be/VIR7Xk52jLY

[Gary Childress]

And what's to be done about unauthorised erections, may I ask?

Please fill out this ten-page request form declaring why you should have one.

One to three months confirmation time required.

Now that is hilarious!

[Alexiev]

What is the "Natural" Consequence of your or anybody's sex drive?

To have children, to successfully reproduce.


But that's just the beginning. Nature is about Competition. And it's a type of competition that nobody can ignore. You reproduce, or your genes/genetics go extinct. In Nature, male vs male competition is the Norm. Examine any and every Mammalian specie, and male conflict about mating-rites and rituals are commonplace. They're easy to observe. Yet, when it comes to Human Mammals, all of a sudden, Liberal-Leftists either pretend to think "the rules" (Nature) don't apply to them anymore, or worse, they know it does and they're lying about their positions. Or, they're simply stupid and ignorant. They don't know themselves. And they don't know nature. These ignorant types cannot really be 'helped', because they are more akin to Animal than Human. They're certainly not Philosophical or capable of learning, about themselves or Nature.

Speaking of "ignorant", you appear ignorant of basic genetic theory. The unit that is passed from one generation to the next is the gene. This being the case, let's posit a hypothetical:

A gay man has one brother. Because he doesn't get married and have children, he and his parents offer support to his brother and his brother's family, which, since they are Muslims, includes 3 wives and 12 children. The straight brother is able to support the wives and children with his parents' and gay brother's financial support.

Another set of two brothers each gets married and has two children. Who has passed more of his genes to the next generation? The gay man, or the two straight brothers? Let's do the math. 2 children, each has 50% of the father's genes = 1 mini me. 2 nephews or nieces, each has 25% of their uncles genes = 50% of a mini me. The gay man has 12 nephews and nieces, each with 25% of his genes. That's twice as many genes passed on.

Remind me: whose genes are being more successfully propagated? Who -- without reproducing -- is less likely to have his "genes go extinct"?

Another question: who is ignorant about genetics? The Liberal-Leftists? Or you?

One more thing: my hypothetical may very well relate to human practices. Families (in the European past) often destined third sons or daughters to the priesthood or nunnery, so that they could put more of their resources into supporting the heirs. This seems counterproductive to the genetic success of the line. But it may not be. In general humans have fewer children than, say, rabbits. But they put more resources into each one. By concentrating family resources, it is possible that families are promoting genetic "success". It's certainly true that homosexuality exists. Isn't it possible that it is also genetically beneficial -- or, at least, not harmful? If it were a genetic dead end, wouldn't it have disappeared?

[Alexis Jacobi]

One reason to ask the questions I asked and Harbal asked is to see what is actually going on. I have forgotten whether you or Wizard or both asserted that it had to do with sex being for procreation.

That is not quite right. In all fairness, Harbal asks questions for reasons of seeking entertainment, or passing the time, or for the sake of argument, or perhaps because he is bored and seeking stimulation.

There is another possibility for how those who participate in a forum like this might employ these discussions: as a way to get clear about their own values, about the philosophical hills that they are willing to die on; but really about who and what in the present day they will support and defend and encourage, and who they will not. These are topical, current-event type conversations but the ideal is that they be handled in a becoming, philosophical way.

Can you really say that *Harbal wants to see what is going on?* (in our culture, outside and beyond his village, outside and beyond his local community, outside and beyond his nation? etc.) I do not think that you can. And that is why I have taken, and will continue to take the tack I do in relation to him: because what I say is true. He does not actually care.

We must realize that until very very recently sexual activity would likely have the result of pregnancy. Up till very recently no one could engage in intercourse without the realization that a pregnancy, and a child, would result. I am sure that you are aware that the contraceptive pill changed everything. But we do have to start from the historical proposition that sex is for procreation. Although now sexuality has been liberated from the obligations of pregnancy, birth and child-rearing.

My view, or my position, is not (I suspect) quite what you think it is. My general position, my interest if you will, is in seeking out and trying to see how it is that our present has come to be and taken its shape. I am one of those, like many today, who is concerned and critical of what is going on generally in my own culture. In the simplest of terms I would describe that as social decay. Do I have to spell all this out to you? Surely you are aware enough of topical issues to understand what is being debated and argued today among those different, often opposed factions. You know: the Culture Wars.

If this is the foundational value here, they it seems like our questions will get answers where there are other family patterns that are tolerated and perhaps should be suppressed.

I would say that as it pertains to the Culture Wars in the US today (my primary interest) that sexuality is one among a wide set of topics that is under examination. And since my interest is in *seeing* these social and ideological struggles in the fullest light, I will say that the sexuality question is one part of a larger issue and dynamic.

A TV show about an older couple who chose to never have children should be suppressed, for example, it would seem.

I do not think you are focusing on the right thing. The *right thing* in my view is a wider and more general ethics.

What I will say is that in our own time, and in our own nations, there are civil conflicts that are developing. In the US for example the term *civil war* has come up. Meaning I guess irreconcilable differences about what sort of polity differing groups want to live in.

The Radical Left, for example, has shown itself capable of burning cities if it believes it is not getting its demands met. What I mean is only that *violence* and *shunning* are part of political struggle. I do not advocate for this, I only try to point out that when it comes to crucial questions of value that people in a given culture or nation will go to battle on different planes, not excluding those that involve violence.

[Alexis Jacobi]

....

At least now you are aware that there are people, and many of them, who are concerned about these sorts of events (they regard them as *grooming* events). And you might also now be able to understand that many parents are concerned about the sort of materials that their children are being exposed to in public schools and by state institutions.

Though you won't of course, you could do further research into the issue, and then you'd begin to understand even more.

BTW Tim Pool is really quite moderate. He is a centrist, liberal democrat.

[Harbal]

One reason to ask the questions I asked and Harbal asked is to see what is actually going on. I have forgotten whether you or Wizard or both asserted that it had to do with sex being for procreation.

That is not quite right. In all fairness, Harbal asks questions for reasons of seeking entertainment, or passing the time, or for the sake of argument, or perhaps because he is bored and seeking stimulation.

That's not quite right, either. I asked these questions to show that you haven't thought your proposals through, or worse still, you have thought them through and think it wise not to mention the detail. It seems you and Wizard have yet another thing in common; avoiding answering awkward questions.

[Harbal]

....

At least now you are aware that there are people, and many of them, who are concerned about these sorts of events

I'm aware that there are people who only have to hear the words "drag show" and "children" mentioned in the same sentence and their imaginations go into overdrive. Most of these people probably don't have a clue what is actually happening; they've just been fired up by Sky News and shady Youtube videos.

And you might also now be able to understand that many parents are concerned about the sort of materials that their children are being exposed to in public schools and by state institutions.

I also get the impression that there are parents who aren't concerned. I imagine the concerned parents are concerned that their kids might grow up to be more tolerant and less bigoted than they are.

Though you won't of course, you could do further research into the issue, and then you'd begin to understand even more.

What, so I can learn things like how guns are great, but men in dresses are very dangerous?

BTW Tim Pool is really quite moderate. He is a centrist, liberal democrat.

What's that got to do with anything?

[Wizard22]

Hairball, the Anglo-Puritan, needs some help with terminology:

Blowjob

Rimjob

"Harry Johnson"

"Mike Hawk"

[Alexis Jacobi]

I'm aware that there are people who only have to hear the words "drag show" and "children" mentioned in the same sentence and their imaginations go into overdrive.

You have deliberately missed the point, because you are completely unfamiliar with the social debate and conflict going on.

The same for the issue of materials presented in state schools.

Unless you did devote time to a more expansive study you and I would have no basis for any conversation. And since you will not I suggest we close this particular conversation. You have made your points, I understand them.