All Human Sexuality is Perverse

People shouldn't be kept from having sex, lest we subject all people to the same oppressive rule we forcefully subject children to, but there just isn't any point to sexual intercourse and sexuality, whether done by children or adults. Those among us who are swayed by the "sexual revolution" may be tempted to say that sex and sexuality has a purpose, and that it's for "procreation," but since when is that the case anymore? The ability to procreate is meaningless. Unless all these pornographic websites and films out there are celebrating the act of impregnation, including the homosexual ones, and all these strip clubs are established to celebrate the bearing of children, we're forced to contend that "propagation of the species" factors little.

The sexual revolution in the 20th century had nothing to do with procreation, and everything to do with making promiscuity guiltless and consequence free--meaning, making sex unnatural. Any observation of unprotected promiscuous sex shows us that is that it has consequences, for everyone who partakes in it, if not biologically, then socially. All the "sexual revolutionaries" succeeded in doing was to make unnatural promiscuity seem normal, which is a dangerous illusion. And how do we know? Because we still restrict children access to such acts. Anything we can't stomach teaching to children for fear that it would destroy them has failed the litmus test for acceptability, for everyone, as far as I'm concerned.

So I merely advise rather than demand, not only that adults not have sex with children or that children have sex with other children, but that "consenting adults" not have sex with each other either. They should all spend that time showing love and kindness to one another instead. Maybe at such time a real sexual revolution will take place in humanity, one that favors brotherly love before bodily pleasure. But still people may ask, is not love and sex the same thing? Let's reason about this. Love is about personal sacrifice. Sex is about being personally narcissistic. There's that part of sex that is obviously about self-love (using the other person for pleasure), but even the part that is so-called "selfless" (for the enjoyment of the other person), even that is selfish, particularly if one is pleasing oneself based on having pleased the other person. There is a philosophical argument that humans always act out of self-interest (egoism), whether in charity or in sex, but these are two different self-interests being looked after.

The self-love involved in pleasing someone sexually is different than the self-love involved in benefiting someone charitably or sacrificially, which is to say "spiritually." It may not be something our society often thinks about, since we have become so taken up with the "sex is good" sexual revolution propaganda, but if anyone lives by a creed other than sex, they can testify to the quality of their life, especially respective to those who live under that creed alone. The idea that pleasure is innately good or moral is Epicurean, and if a human wishes to live that way, they ought to be free to do so, so long as they no longer wish to live in this consequential human society with its "laws," "ethics," and "responsibilities." In the same manner, how often are children told that if they want to act like animals, they should go live with them?

There are further differences though. When benefiting someone emotionally, charitably, kindly, and respectfully, you're edifying their spirit of thankfulness, human respect, strength of will, and generosity. When pleasing someone sexually, you are merely giving into their self-love and edifying their selfishness. These are two different positions, one of inward love of self, and one of outward love of humanity. Nothing about sex encourages charity or kindness, for it is about control, pleasure, and being weak-willed.

Sacrifice, which is what love is, is a matter of encouraging and strengthening the will, while sex is about tearing it down and being a slave to desire. The will is of strength and character, while desire is of weakness and animal passion without restraint, for restraint is an imposition of the will. Why else would we encourage the weakening of wills (in sex), unless we had a society that benefited from having a whole group of people in it with a weakness of willpower, or lack of "sales resistance," more accurately? Because sex is profitable and kindness is not, we've been told, and sold, that "sex is love," and that sex has no consequences.

But what good comes from being pleased sexually? Does it make you want to go donate money, volunteer, clean up the environment, and respect other people? Or does it make you ego-centered, engaging in self-love about your own body and its ability to bring those selfish qualities out in another person? Consider what people find sexually arousing to answer that question. Surely, a life spent under the impression that sex creates anything beneficial for "society" is a life spent building earthly treasures in a world where time and nature corrupts all things, instead of storing up for humanity treasures such as willpower, kindness, construction, and love, that time and nature can not corrupt.

That is to say, sex leads to a lowering of the human spirit on its own, while love, on its own, leads to a lifting up of it. Because of the sexual revolution, I'm even tempted to think all sexual acts, even those in marriage, are wrong and perverse, in this age where sex is recreation and procreation is proctored by geneticists more and more. All humans are born out of an activity that commences with a lowering of the spirit necessarily. Now the species perpetuates itself in spite of sex, and not because of it, and that kind of unnatural perversity has consequences.

Loving Children

There is nothing wrong with loving a child. Children deserve love because they exist, from anyone willing to give it, and they deserve to be allowed to show love to anyone who will receive it. It is only wrong to deny them love and attention, and only right to give it to them. It is wrong to spurn their attempts to show love, and only right to receive them warmly. Society is wrong when it works to separate adults and children on a pretense of fear, and only right when it allows them to coexist in peace and harmony, guided by pure love and care. Children deserve love even when their parents are unwilling or unable to give it, just as those who give it are deserving of receiving it. Their love is human love, and humans need love like they need air, water, and food. Children are no different from human.

Love doesn't have to be unrealistically selfless and overly simplistic, for discipline, when authoritatively enforced, is a function of love (whether adults are disciplining children or children disciplining adults), it just needs to be felt that way. To deprive someone discipline is to be depriving them of love, just as to neglect is to deprive, and to abuse is to keep depraved--none of these are expressions of love. Children deserve to be loved by society as much as they need to be cared for by it. When a child is loved by an adult, and it is purely expressed, the child will love back. To gain the child's love in return for love: this is the only legitimately hallowed co-relation between adult and child that can exist, and the most noble arrangement a man, woman, boy, or girl can be blessed with. The truth is often plain and usually simple.

There's nothing wrong with a child loving an adult. Adult-to-child love and child-to-adult love is human love, and human love expressed tenderly in private and charitably in public is an expression of God's love. Children are not only capable of receiving their parents' love or solely capable of showing love toward their parents, but are capable of accepting kindness from anyone, young and old, who is willing to give it, and giving it to whoever is willing, young and old, to accept it. This is the meaning of "good will toward all."

The parental responsibility over their children is only there to be the gatekeeper deciding who may enter and who can not, as is their right to keep their child safe, but children deserve love even from their gatekeepers, and even from those incapable of keeping the gate and are still tasked to do so. If they are unable to receive it from their primary gatekeepers (their parents), then they both need someone else to fill that responsibility and extend to them the warm embrace of love and guidance. Parents love their children because they have to, by nature. Childlovers love children because they want to, by choice. True childlovers are never out to replace parents, but to supplement them. They are not there to strip a child off their family, but to be an extension of child's family. They are not there to further suppress the child, or to spoil them into subservience, but to act as role models working through legitimate channels of outreach acceptable to all capable of accepting love.

Childlovers love children as an adult lover might for their own lover, but the love of the childlover is purer, because it is felt almost exclusively out of interpersonal connection, selflessness, and devotion to allowing the child complete freedom. Adult love relationships, by contrast, are often compounded with expectations of monogamy and sex, but such things would be unthinkably selfish, and potentally hazardous, in a childlove relationship. The childlover never seeks to gain the child solely for themselves for "all eternity" as the primarily self-motivated adult relationships often do as an institution (marriage). The childlover instead only seeks to impart to a child the kindness and charity they are deserving of as human beings, and lets the child alone to live their own lives and pay that love forward to whoever they wish. That is the difference that makes all the difference!

The adult should only be someone the child knows personally for one reason or another, someone his or her parents know and trust, and someone from whom the relationship develops naturally and gradually out of friendship and trust. And because true love is never forced, coerced, or manipulated out of someone, whether adult or child, that which is isn't love and doesn't have any legitimate reason for existing. This is as much true for a child's non-parental lovers as it is for their legal guardians. Anyone who can not love a child genuinely (selflessly, harmlessly, charitably) has no business around them. Those who can will prove themselves worthy if their heart is pure. Psalms were written to celebrate such a love as that!

In Love with a Child

We expect and demand of love eternal loyalty to one person, a binding social contract, something so definite, absolute, and flimsy, it's a wonder how anyone is successful at upholding its universal ideal. One man is supposed to devote all his love to one woman every day of his life, and she him, and their legal and social bond is supposed to even outlast time itself once the oath is given in marriage. Yet it can and is so easily all torn asunder the moment either one spreads their love to those outside the dyad. We only expect love to be shared among the human race in pairs, it seems, with eternal bonds of matrimony, and then forget to share the common two-minute kindness needed from us by everyone, every day, which requires no binding legal contract to make it legitimate. We trade real love for showy love.

This is to say that the western world upholds on the most high the hardest and most impossible form of love to maintain, and systematically ignores at best and abhors at worst its simplest and most common expressions. Grand spectacles of symbolic matrimony are performed at great cost to announce a man and woman's love for one another, no matter how genuine it is, but the one simple act of kindness on the street toward one's fellow man, woman, or child, goes unnoticed. And sometimes, particularly when it is extended toward children, it may even be fundamentally shamed.

What civilization loves instead is pomp and circumstance over genuine affection, costly displays of idealized romance over genuine devotion, and contractual obligation over personal loyalty. What civilization loves is the essence of the thing called love, all the fairy tale parts, without having the stomach for the whole fruit. If genuine love was the thing being valued in all this ceremony, then we wouldn't need to limit its expression to pairs of one man and one woman. If true love was the thing being valued, all genuine expressions of it shared between human beings would be celebrated equally. It wouldn't matter if the target of one's affections are men, women, boys, or girls. It wouldn't be so controversial for a man to admit to being in love with another man, or with a child, any more than it currently is if he is in love with a woman.

The question of sexuality in regards to the appropriateness of one's love interests is moot. Sexuality is a biological and social assignment, but even if was a choice, it would still be moot. Sex and love are two, often mutually exclusive, things--there can exist sex without love and love without sex, as John Lennon put it. If the object of your affections is a male human, and you're a male human, there is no reason why you can not be heterosexual at the same time. Likewise, if the object of your affections is a child, and you are an adult, there is no reason why you can not be a teleiophile, and be sexually attracted to other adults. The same formulations can be made for any combination of sexuality and love interest, so long as the affections are genuine. There is no reason then to assume that one's sexuality is determined by the characteristics of whom one chooses to love. Sometimes it is the case, but not all the time.

The act of being in love with a child is given such a negative connotation though in spite of this--even just expressing kindness and affection toward children will bring the word "pedophile" down upon you--as if expressing kindness and affection are to be reserved strictly for adults because children are unworthy of these niceties. Children are not deemed worthy of an adult's love, unless it is also bestowed with such honorific titles of circumstance like "mother's love" and (to a lesser extent these post-feminist days) "father's love." All others who may express or feel genuine love are treated to a private property sign or even mistakenly thought to be pedophiles. This is an arbitrary fence.

Kindness may be ignored and shamed among adults, and romantic love given such high and lofty worship, but the exact opposite is true for what is expected of children. In the same way that adult friends are to withhold their love for the child, so too is the child expected to withhold love for their benevolent friends, mentors, and non-parent associations. Children are taught that they may only express love in the form of deference to some official authority, unless that authority encourages otherwise, and this is more or less seen as a kindness. They are not even expected to express genuine love for anyone of any age for which there is not some biological necessity being fulfilled, but only platitudes of kindness--only what is expected from those "pure, perfect, angelic, little darlings." Adults view the close in age love relationship between two children or teens as they do the adult/child relationship--as threatening to the more hallowed "mother's love" or "father's love," and so they work to suppress it should it blossom beyond a mere crush.

It is true though that what we expect from children is different from love or affection, simply because kindness has its differences from love. Kindness describes a momentary act that is done for someone else's benefit, and this we teach children to strive for. Love describes an on-going appreciation of someone else's existence, similar to being a fan, or a follower. It may or may not drive someone to be kind toward the target individual, and that uncertainty is unbecoming of children. Just as sex and love are not always causally linked, love and kindness may not always be causally linked. As the old expression goes, "you only hurt the ones you love." Therefore, it is possible that the minute expression of love we expect from children and not from adults is indeed a purer form of love after all, as the nature of the romantic so-called "adult love" of celebrated matrimony often proves so fickle.

If that is the case, then why does the adult get the suspicious glare after the fact when he reciprocates a child's kindness? It is but an example of how love expression is indeed shackled to arbitrary social acceptability rather than genuine feeling. I suppose that's nothing we didn't already know.

Let's Be Friends

Warmer weather makes me positive. It awakens my compassion to see people about in the sunshine after so long stranded to the confines of our homes. Human beings were not meant to be held up in the dwelling, the car, the store, but to be out amid one another. When we are bundled and brisking through the cold air, we become so internally focused and brash with others, but when we are able to fully flex ourselves in the warmth, we become more open, friendlier, and less inhibited--which is a truer and happier expression of our nature.

The cold affects our perspectives, we focus on our antagonizers because we are essentially couped up with them and have no refuge in the cold. The warmth affects us in the opposite way, as we begin to focus more on those who deserve our sympathies, respect, and love, because even in the face of our adversary, we're able to find refuge in the warmth of nature and others. We begin to recognize that none are beyond redemption in our own eyes except those who refuse to be.

Some children do not ask for, want, or need our attention, and therefore, we only do them a disservice by trying to hover around them, even if we have the best intentions. By the same token, adults are the same way. It is our duty as human beings existing in a society to make sure we extend the olive branch of peace, love, tolerance, and respect to as many of our fellow beings--men, women, girls, and boys--as will receive it, and live and let live with everyone else.

There are those who do not think a child, no matter how respectful or indignant, ought to be extended this olive branch of fellowship because they do not regard children worthy of receiving it. They'd wish to reserve all best-wishes and civility towards children for those they deem worthy of giving it. These are the people in the park who have let the grip of stranger-danger pervert their good nature, and one can only hope they could eventually be reasoned with. If a child is being disrespectful and they are with a respectful and dignified parent, to refuse to show compassion toward their parent in a friendly hello is to be placing the child's tantrum above the respect for the parent. Everyone generally believes this is true. When not given, it is why parents feel ashamed when they are in public with disorderly children--they naturally fear judgement, and children are no doubt aware of that.

Just as much though, I say that if the parent of a child is unwilling to receive the good tidings and respect of a stranger, and the child is open towards such cordiality, then to deprive the child of the dignity of a friendly hello is to position the disrespect of the parent over the openness of the child. Children are never off-limits to the well-wishes and respect of an honest stranger just because their parent hasn't deemed him worthy to be dignifying their child with a friendly hello. We can all agree that it is only when the stranger aggressively pursues his momentary acquaintances that he has crossed the line of acceptable conduct, but none of that is implied from the friendly hello on its own, so therefore, there is no reason to deny one being given.

I would rather anger a disrespectful parent with a cordial child in tow by choosing to greet them both with a friendly hello as I pass them on the street, then ignore the dignity of one for the bad behavior of the other. There is no harm in a friendly hello. Such a thing when given freely and genuinely, is an expression of human love--the reinforcement that binds our society from collapse.