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.

Not Special Unless Special

Most of the time, the best way to raise a kid is not to raise a kid, it seems, but to raise a person. The child of today is going to spend maybe 10 years being a kid and upwards of 40 years being an adult, God willing. So the question becomes, do you want to raise a big kid, or a person?

When you treat an adult like a kid, it means you're being needlessly suppressive (choosing not to respect them like the people they are). When you treat a kid like a kid, you're being needlessly repressive (choosing not to see them as people to begin with). Treating a kid like a kid is never letting them taste failure. It's excusing their misbehavior, spoiling them into submission by praising their lethargy, and never letting them face rejection--in short, it's about keeping them as far from being human as possible for as long as possible--despite their longings to be. It's about purposely neglecting to preserve or even recognize their dignity because they are supposedly incapable of being dignified. Here they are not being respected for their strengths, they are just having their weaknesses catered to.

On the contrary, treating an adult like a person is how respect is shown, and it should be no different with children. Treating kids like people means recognizing them for the their actual strengths (rather than treating even their weaknesses as if they too were virtues). It's letting them face the real consequences of their own misconduct with discretion (and not just the politically-correct prefabricated ones). It's teaching them how to walk away from rejection without feeling rejected. It's about building them up rather than talking down to them, building them up to be able to respond to the natural ups and downs of living--of personhood. It's a far more healthy way to live one's life.

When you tell a child he's special before he has even done anything worthy or special, you weaken his ability to be anything but average. All he becomes is what he is. Who needs to work to be special if they already are before they even put in the work? If you tell him instead, that he has the ability to one day be special through work, difficulty, and problem solving, and that his actions toward those positive ends are what ensure his being special regardless of the outcome, you strengthen his ability to go beyond himself--to become a better person than he is. Is that not what you want? Is that not what our society demands?

We need not tell a child they are good at something before they have shown themselves to be objectively good at it. We don't do that with adults, so there is no reason to do that with children. On the other hand, we shouldn't then be dismissive of a child's attempts to go beyond themselves, even if they fail in the end. We shouldn't fault a child when they do put in the honest effort and come up short, because that is life, and the same ought to go for adults. Working hard makes you "special." Working hard makes you a person.