Why Caesar Supports the Sexual Revolution

“Nobody has really discussed the alternative to the Family. The only obvious alternative is the State.… The frightful punishment of mere sex emancipation is not anarchy but bureaucracy.” – GK Chesterton, Once Again Explaining it All For You

The credo of 60′s by which we still live is “Do Your Own Thing” or, as I put it, “Consent is the Sole Criterion of the Good”.  “Do your own thing”, being translated, means “Every Man for Himself” and this is simply another way of saying “Divide and Conquer”.

  • http://www.subcreators.com/blog Lori Pieper

    I keep telling everyone: Read Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. He predicted the history of this happening in the 20th century with uncanny accuracy. Interesting that he wrote it in 1931, the year after the Lambeth conference authorized artificial contraception for the first time in a Christian church.

    Birth control (backed up by the abortuary in the “pink glass tower”), the destruction of the family, reproduction through technology, children reared by the state; even the sexual emancipation is actually planned and regimented. Freedom is slavery — oh, wait, that was another book. But the same message. Everyone reads the book – how many actually get it?

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      Seriously, everyone reads 1984 like it was in serious danger of happening. (And maybe it was in danger of happening, once.) But Brave New World absolutely is happening right now.

      • B.E. Ward

        Which is why I gasped and laughed the first time I saw a sign for this:

        http://wearesoma.com/

        • Andy, Bad Person

          Ugh. My eyes are bleeding from all the nonsense jargon.

          Good news is, their “churches” page shows a blank map of the world.

      • Mariana Baca

        1984 did happen. You should read Gulag Archipelago. No big tvs everywhere, but it wasn’t needed. People do great surveillance all on their own.

    • Newp Ort

      Anybody seen the very underrated Demolition Man? Has aspects of a lighter, more humorous treatment of Brave New World.
      Sylvester Stallone as a cop transported to the future is propositioned by Sandra Bullock, also a cop, but OF the future.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k80UQWWUIYs

      she puts helmets on their heads and sits down at the opposite end of the bed. They start having “vir-sex,” which she is enjoying until he rips the helmet off, baffled and somewhat terrified. Some abridged dialogue:

      bullock: “I thought you wanted to make love…”
      stallone: “Is that what you call this!? Can’t we just do it the old fashioned way?”
      bullock: EEEEWW! you mean *fluid transfer*?
      to him, her version is a (literally) dry simulacrum, but to her, his idea of sex is disgustingly real.
      more interestingly soft pedaled is his willingness to hop into bed (presumably no-strings-attached) – looks like the potential commitment or responsibilities sometimes associated with sex are a little too real for him.

      • Newp Ort

        one can see how technology could facilitate this and worse:

        -elimination of real sex partners. real person on the other end is embarassingly intimate, plus they won’t necessarily do whatever your heart desires. current level pr0n production/consumption, yeah, the actors are (ostensibly) real but might as well be CGI for all the intimacy. At least my hand is attached to my arm.

        -if direct brain stimulation virt reality (yaknow like all those 90s movies) never happens, ROBOTS! ROBOTS! ROBOTS! wait til that stepford wife is even hotter than the original. My C3P-ho is so much more convenient and satisfying, why even bother with the old ball and chain?

        -no necessity for contraception/abortion with no “fluid transfer,” now to completely free women from the unfair burden of pregnancy and birth – artificial wombs!

        thing is I can see decent arguments for all these things to exist, but taken as a whole…sex is eliminated all but for a faint shadow of the real thing.

        like mom used to say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

        and like grandma used to say, why buy the cow when you can get the sex for free?

      • entonces_99

        Woody Allen portrayed much the same thing with his “orgasmatron,” in his 1973 movie, “Sleeper.”

        • Newp Ort

          Oh yes I love that movie. A love story about two people who hate each other, 200 years in the future.

          Gotta stroke some orb before you get in that orgasmatron.

  • Dr. Eric

    What does consent have to do with it?

    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

      If you can get someone to consent to it, then it’s okay to do it to/with them.

      • Andy, Bad Person

        I believe Dr. Eric is being facetious here, indicating that “consent” is going to be the next thing to go.

  • Ben @ 2CM

    In the marriage debate, I can generally get people to agree that if marriage has no link to procreation, there is no logical reason to discriminate against platonic couples for marriage rights. To be fair, platonic couples must include close relatives (parents marrying their adult children/ adult siblings, etc.). They normally accept the close relative thing eventually (try it and see), but very reluctantly. Why reluctantly if consent is a golden rule to be proud of?

    The goal is not really “equal rights”, it is to normalize homosexuality. Close relatives getting married seems weird to them (as it should) and their movement should not be associated with anything “weird”.

    • Jakeithus

      This is how my Dad first explain his opposition to same-sex marriage to me, and it has stuck with me ever since.

      I have 2 great aunts,who after losing their husbands, chose to live together and raise their kids together as what basically amounted to a single family unit. Using the criteria and rationalization of supporters of same-sex marriage, there is absolutely no reason that these 2 individuals should not be granted the same legal and state recognition. Of course, although same sex marriage is legal in Canada where I live, they are treated differently than any other same sex couple. (Not that they’d want to be considered married of course)

      You’re absolutely right, the goal is far more about normalizing homosexuality than equal rights. I would be far more supportive of their end goal if it was for the state to grant “marriage” benefits to any two individuals who wished it. Marriage has basically been redefined as a contract between 2 people who have sex with each other, but I dont see why sex should be considered a factor at all.

      A common quote you hear surrounding this debate in Canada is “The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation”. I agree with the quote, but by limiting marriage to 2 people who have sex with each other, they are doing exactly that.

      • Newp Ort

        The state has no business in the bedroom?

        Shit, if Canada was a woman, she’d be welcome in MY bedroom.

        I fuckin love Canada.

  • http://www.parafool.com/ victor

    I, for one, cannot be the only person who hates it when GK Chesterton is right. Someone really ought to shut that guy up before he wrecks everything. :(

  • Ben Govero

    Does this mean that libertarians, who on one hand champion small government, and on the other sexual emancipation, are really just confused, conflicted souls?

    • Mariana Baca

      You can favor the government being small and not making rules about sex but that doesn’t mean you think people should stop speaking (as private individuals and families) about morality.

      • Imp the Vladaler

        Yeah, I can think of a lot better things to spend my tax dollars on than sending cops to keep two dudes from sodomizing each other. Or a man and a woman, for that matter.

        • Newp Ort

          A cop couldn’t find his butt if he had a bell on it.

          • PalaceGuard

            Next time you’re mugged, call a libertarian.

          • ivan_the_mad

            What about a donut?

            • Newp Ort

              Wanna find an outlaw, call an outlaw. Wanna find a Dunkin Donuts, call a cop.

    • Ian Bibby

      Yep. At least socially liberal libertarians are – the ones who think they want “liberation” from both the government *and* the moral pressures exerted by society, and foolishly fail to realize that it’s one or the other.

    • Newp Ort

      I don’t know; do clowns get confused and conflicted?

  • Sven2547

    “Do your own thing”, being translated, means “Every Man for Himself” and this is simply another way of saying “Divide and Conquer”.

    This might be the most embarrassingly childish argument against freedom I have ever seen.

    • B.E. Ward

      Expound……

      • Sven2547

        “Do your own thing” doesn’t mean “every man for himself”, much less “divide and conquer”. Everyone should have the liberty to make their own decisions in life, provided they don’t hurt anyone or anything. It’s the basic principle of living in a free country. Is the basic foundation of American law inherently divisive?

        • kmk1916

          Who defines what hurts others? My SIL divorced my brother and left a whole trail of hurt behind her, but she doesn’t think she’s hurting.

          • Sven2547

            Sorry to hear that. Divorce can be rough, but the downside and harm to banning divorce is generally considered worse.

            • Ian Bibby

              It has to actually *be* worse, not “generally considered worse,” to make your argument. Simply restating the “common wisdom” is no answer to an objection to it.

              • Sven2547

                Divorce is the lesser evil to the marital enslavement of women.

                • Ian Bibby

                  Again, you’ve just restated the very talking point that’s being objected to. And note how you’re the only person who brought up women in particular (and simply begged the question that marriage is tantamount to slavery and dissolving it tantamount to freedom), giving away that you’re just regurgitating feminist ideology here.

                  • kmk1916

                    Let’s have a discussion—it’s good to know the “whys” of that kind of statement.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      I can guarantee you that he won’t be able to back any of this up with anything more than bare assertions. If he could, he would’ve.

                    • kmk1916

                      Yes, but let’s back up these discussions with charity. WHo cares who wins the word sword battle?!

                    • Dillon T. McCameron

                      The not-dead guy?

                      …I get your point though, I think: it’s Charity that wins the war?

                    • kmk1916

                      Yes! and it’s not a fair fight, so why try to get extraneous unkind jabs in when the Lord has conquered by His suffering and death on a Cross? It’s all about relationships, Sven, and the fact that for all of us, the hardest thing is to accept and know that the Lord God LOVES us unconditionally, personally, and we are each precious (though not always pleasing!) in His sight. May you find people in your life who will bring you to His healing love.

                  • Sven2547

                    you’re just regurgitating feminist ideology here.

                    Given that feminism is just the crazy idea that women are equals to men, I guess I’m guilty as charged.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      And yet, you focus on how unilateral divorce with no justification prevents the “enslavement” of women. Whether it hurts or helps men and children isn’t even in consideration, which gives away the ruse that the ideology at work is really about “equality.”

                    • Sven2547

                      Divorce done right causes minimal harm, if any, to children. In fact, it often HELPS them by getting them out of abusive, unsafe, or unwholesome situations.

                      A good friend of mine had a deadbeat, irresponsible, alcoholic father. His mom divorced him, kept custody of the kids, and his step-dad was a better father to him than his biological dad ever was. This happens a lot.

                      Likewise, it can also help men (albeit it happens less frequently) get out of bad relationships. My uncle was beaten by his wife.

                      Also, you are badly strawmaning no-fault divorce by saying “with no justification”. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Divorce done right causes minimal harm, if any, to children

                      Again, support this statement. I can bury you in research demonstrating the massively negative effects of divorce on children in general, if you wish.

                      Furthermore, I must remind you that you’ve taken the side of no-fault divorce, and so you must defend that, not just so-called “divorce done right.”

                    • Sven2547

                      I qualified “divorce done right” because some people are idiots. Some people are scum. Some people put the needs of their children last. Banning divorce doesn’t change that, but it does hide the problem.

                      My folks divorced, but they put the kids first. They made every effort to make it easier on us, and they were successful. It’s divorce done right.

                      Some people are idiots behind the wheel of a car. That doesn’t mean we should ban driving. Driving done right is an useful means of transportation.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Apparently it’s quite a few more than “some people” who are scum and divorce “the wrong way” then, otherwise you wouldn’t have these sorts of statistics:

                      effects of divorce on violent crime (including rape and murder):
                      http://www.divorcereform.org/crime.html

                      depression and suicide:
                      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/24/divorce-and-suicidal-idea_n_812456.html
                      http://psychcentral.com/news/2011/01/20/higher-risk-of-suicidal-thoughts-for-children-of-divorce/22807.html

                      academic success:
                      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1946827

                      Banning divorce doesn’t change that, but it does hide the problem.

                      Sure it changes it. Children in low-conflict marriages are better off if their parents don’t divorce than if they do, and most divorces end low-conflict marriages. So it would absolutely be beneficial to the needs of the children if they couldn’t divorce: http://www.divorcereform.org/fights.html

                      “Some people are idiots behind the wheel of a car. That doesn’t mean we should ban driving. Driving done right is an useful means of transportation.”

                      That’s irrelevant. You’re trying to defend no-fault divorce, not just your vaguely-defined “divorce done right,” so that’s what you must defend. So please tell us why people should be allowed to drive however they want without ever having their licenses revoked.

                    • Sven2547

                      I’m defending the legal policy of no-fault divorce. It does not logically follow that I am defending any and all divorces. You can either accept that and rephrase your questioning, or this conversation is over. I will not sit here and have my position misrepresented so dishonestly.

                    • Ron Van Wegen

                      “Divorce done right causes minimal harm, if any, to children.”
                      You lost me right here.
                      I’m off to read something else.

                    • wlinden

                      Hogwash. “Feminism” can mean anything from equal pay for equal work to lesbian separatism.

                • kmk1916

                  In all sincerity, I am very sorry that you think that. I have been married 23 years and have 7 children and while we struggle with the normal “rhythms” of life as all do, it is a sweet burden, a light yoke, a chance to build a true, lasting relationship. I would far rather be “enslaved” to this type of sweet sacrifice than sit behind a desk and push papers (or a keyboard) all day. (Although it would be helpful if I knew how to take off the darn italics!)
                  Sven, I will pray for you as I sit in the DMV. Seriously, no sarcasm, I will ask the Blessed Mother to intercede and begin to heal any wounds you have experienced in your experience with marriage.

            • kmk1916

              Thank you–it is still rough, especially on their children. HOw can banning divorce be worse? Governor Ronald Reagan signed “no-fault divorce” into law in California in 1961, I believe. Has the state of families, or indeed, any aspect of relationships in this country, been worse or better (obviously, civil rights for minorities are better, but the African-American family is in absolute shambles.
              Years later, Reagan wrote about he regretted signing that law.

              • Sven2547

                You’re really overreaching if you think “no-fault divorce” is responsible for “any aspect of relationships in this country”.

                You may strongly disagree, but I think it has been getting better. Women now have the freedom to leave bad relationships, instead of being shackled to them. In fact, it’s one of the best things to happen to women this century, along with women’s suffrage (also initially opposed by Catholics) and Roe v Wade. Come to think of it, anything involving women’s freedoms has been opposed by Catholics for the last hundred years….

                • Ian Bibby

                  Yeah, but nobody cares what you “think.” Telling us about your ideology (an ideology with which we’re already familiar), isn’t an argument for that ideology.

                  • Sven2547

                    You asked me if things were getting better.
                    I said I think the answer is yes.
                    “Nobody cares what you think”

                    Hey pal, you asked. Grow up.

                • kmk1916

                  Sigh… I have to go, but would appreciate proof. Catholic Christendom –Christ–did more to liberate women than any other ism on earth. The Church –I am not speaking of all individuals in the Church, we are a hospital full of sinners, priests and bishops and popes included–has always told women that they don’t have to stay in a bad relationship.
                  Again, I will pray for you. Gotta go, it’s gonna be a long afternoon of bureaucracy!

                  • Sven2547

                    Catholic Christendom –Christ–did more to liberate women than any other ism on earth.

                    Aaaahahahahaha, right!
                    There are four countries where women have inferior voting rights to men. Four.
                    Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican.

                    • SteveP

                      Hmmm . . . it would seem, at least evidenced by recent
                      history in the US, voting is a “feel-good” exercise whereas money to influence the legislature or press a suit into SCOTUS is where the real power lies.

                    • Rosemarie

                      +J.M.J+

                      >>>There are four countries where women have inferior voting rights to men. Four.
                      Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Vatican.

                      Vatican City is not a democracy; it doesn’t have a popular vote at all. The *only* election that goes on there is for the Pope, so I guess this is a pot shot at the cardinals all being male (of course, all the priests, deacons, bishops, Swiss Guard, etc. who live in the Vatican are also male but they can’t vote for the pope, either. No suffrage for them! Moreover, the majority of cardinals who vote in the conclave live elsewhere, so we’re talking about a quite different situation here).

                      The conclave is not a political exercise like a popular vote. Indeed, the Church has exerted a lot of energy trying to keep politics *out* of the process as much as possible. So your comparison is apples and oranges.

                • Ian Bibby

                  You’re really overreaching if you think “no-fault divorce” is responsible for “any aspect of relationships in this country”.

                  So you don’t believe that no-fault divorce increases the divorce rate?

                  • Sven2547

                    I was quoting kmk1916. His question was “Has the state of… any aspect of relationships in this country, been worse or better.”

                    Implicit in his question was that All aspects of relationships in this country have gotten worse. And I’m saying that blaming divorce for all aspects of relationships in this country is silly.

                    Yes, of course the divorce rate has gone up. I will note that the rate of lousy marriages has gone down just as far. Lowering the divorce rate is a goal we both share, but let’s do it by improving relationships instead of banning divorce (there is a very strong parallel to abortion here, by the way).

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Implicit in his question was that All aspects of relationships in this country have gotten worse. And I’m saying that blaming divorce for all aspects of relationships in this country is silly.

                      No, it was a question, and nothing was implicit in it. He asked you if any aspect of relationships has been improved by divorce. The question doesn’t imply that divorce has worsened all aspects, though your inability to answer it might weakly suggest it.

                      I will note that the rate of lousy marriages has gone down just as far.

                      Oh? Please provide evidence of this claim.

                    • Ian Bibby

                      Oh, and by the way, while I know you’re not going to be able to provide evidence that “the rate of lousy marriages has gone down just as far,” there is evidence of the opposite.

                      Namely, the subsequent marriages of people who are previously divorced are much more likely to fall apart than their first marriages. In general, people who divorce go on to create more bad marriages.

                      I also pointed out below that children in “low-conflict” marriages that stay together are better off than children of low-conflict marriages that divorce, and that most divorces are low-conflict. These are marriages that were good enough that they shouldn’t have been dissolved.

                      It would seem that easy divorce causes people to lower the bar on what they consider “bad” enough marriages to leave in the first place, and causes them to approach it more selfishly from the outset, poisoning the relationship and ending ones where they should’ve stuck it out.

                  • Imp the Vladaler

                    So you don’t believe that no-fault divorce increases the divorce rate?

                    It probably doesn’t. New York only adopted no-fault divorce very recently, and I don’t think the divorce rates there were worse than in any other area of the country. Causes for divorce are easy to manufacture.

        • SteveP

          “Everyone should have the liberty to make their own decisions in life, provided they don’t hurt anyone or anything.” So, because there is no direct correlation between Edith Winsdor’s estate tax refund and SNAP underfunding, there is no harm in shifting a tax burden. Do I follow your argument correctly?

        • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

          Everyone should have the liberty to make their own decisions in life, provided they don’t hurt anyone or anything.

          So people should have the right to deny gay people their photographic/catering/cake-making/hall-rental services for so-called “weddings”? How is that possibly “hurting” anyone?

          • Sven2547

            How does discriminating against people and treating them like second-class citizens harm them? Gosh, I wonder…

            • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

              No, actually, I want a reply from you, not just sarcastic hand-waving. How does it actually harm them?

              • Sven2547

                Discrimination is a form of harm. It harms the people discriminated against, and it poisons society. It burdens them with taking their business elsewhere, but in a society where anyone can discriminate against them at will, there might not even be an “elsewhere”.

                Just as it’s wrong, unlawful, and unAmerican to discriminate against Catholics or blacks or women for who they are it’s no more moral or lawful or American to discriminate against homosexuals.

                If I may quote a lawmaker from my state:

                So, what to say to those who claim that religion requires them to discriminate? I’ll tell you what I’d say: ‘Get thee to a nunnery!’ And live there then. Go live a monastic life away from modern society, away from people you can’t see as equals to yourself. Away from the stream of commerce where you may have to serve them or employ them or rent banquet halls to them. Go some place and be as judgmental as you like. Go inside your church, establish separate water fountains in there if you want, but don’t claim that free exercise of religion requires the state of Colorado to establish separate water fountains for her citizens.

                • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                  Once again, you didn’t actually answer the question. You just said in a hundred words: “Discrimination is bad.” I want to know why discrimination harms people. All you’re doing is obfuscating.

                  • Sven2547

                    Because it deprives a person of their right to pursue happiness. When we discriminate, we make a social exclusivity that causes others to feel alienated, disconnected or cut-off. This causes them different things such us loneliness, lack of self-esteem, anti-social behavior, depression, just to name a few.

                    Ever ask yourself why there is such a high suicide rate among homosexuals?

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      What limits does this right to “pursue happiness” have? Can two homosexuals pursue happiness if in order to do it they have to discriminate against people who think their behavior is wrong?

                      Can you call me a bigot? Put me into that category? Demean my way of life and my firmly held beliefs and say they’re worthless and evil?

                    • Sven2547

                      Can two homosexuals pursue happiness if in order to do it they have to discriminate against people who think their behavior is wrong?

                      Nope. Fortunately, nobody’s proposing that. And spare me the bollocks that some florists and caterers and photographers are being “discriminated against”. Here’s the thing: if your business is required to do the same thing as every other business, then that’s not discrimination, that’s equality.

                      Can you call me a bigot? Put me into that category? Demean my way of life and my firmly held beliefs and say they’re worthless and evil?

                      Depends. I don’t know you very well. Should I?

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      You’re missing the point. If you call me a bigot you discriminate against me. Is that allowed?

                    • Sven2547

                      Calling you a bigot isn’t a discriminatory refusal of services. You are moving the goalposts and completely disregarding the fact that we’ve been talking about businesses discriminating against paying customers.

                    • http://www.likelierthings.com/ Jon W

                      Let me ask it this way: would a Jew or an African-American photographer be required to serve a Neo-Nazi group that hired them to take pictures of their revels?

                    • Sven2547

                      I think they probably should, although I’m not sure there is any current legal obligation. It would be discriminatory not to.
                      How about you answer one of my questions, for a change: should businesses have the right to refuse Catholics, women, or blacks?

    • Roki

      You say here:

      Everyone should have the liberty to make their own decisions in life, provided they don’t hurt anyone or anything.

      But “provided they don’t hurt anyone or anything” is exactly a limit on freedom. It is the very point that Mark was trying to make: if there are no limits on freedom, if we don’t prohibit harming others, then we are in a tooth-and-claw might-makes-right free-for-all.

      In other words, freedom is not the highest possible moral value. The good of persons is.

      Now, we may disagree about what constitutes the good of persons, but that’s another debate.

      • Sven2547

        Except Mark makes no mention whatsoever of harming others being the limit of “freedom”. His quote cites “sexual emancipation”.

        • Roki

          Sven2547, you were the one who claimed Mark’s argument was against freedom – and in the sense of elevating individual liberty above the common goods, you are correct. What Chesterton calls “sexual emancipation” is one form of elevating individual liberty (in the arena of sexual behavior and relations) above the common goods of human sexuality.

      • chezami

        This is where the whole “Everything is moral as long as you don’t hurt anybody” thing turns to empty wind. What advocates of no fault divorce really mean is “Kids are resilient (from the immense damage I mean to do them when I ditch mom for the trophy. And the worn out old bitch will just have to deal. I’m gonna do what I need to do for me.” Same deal with the Eat Pray Love female who blows off the pain they inflict on others to go Find Themselves. Clowns like Sven really mean “If I’m not hurting I can afford to blow off the pain I inflict on others in my selfishness.” It”s an empty ethos.

  • Scott Nguyen

    Ah, yes, freedom is little more than getting to choose between 31 flavors, even if you are lactose intolerant.

    It is little wonder the rest of us despise westerners.

  • Pavel Chichikov
  • ivan_the_mad

    It is the very opposite of solidarity. Polish solidarity defeated a great tyranny; American narcissism will only create one.

  • hotboogers

    Read “The Communist Manifesto.” The State’s dismemberment of the traditional family is explicitly discussed therein.

  • Ronald King

    The dynamics of the ’60′s is much more complicated than the superficial depiction of “Do your own thing.” It was a rebellion against an already narcissistic and rigid ruling class with a history of violence and social injustice. To present a more complete and more truthful account of that time one must go beyond what is being presented here.

  • wlinden

    This whole interminable back-and-forth proves Mark’s point. Someone asserts that anything goes “as long as you don’t hurt anyone”…. and then defines “harm” to include everything HE wants to forbid and exclude everything he wants to allow.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X