It is rather amusing and bewildering all at the same time how a basic statement like “we must choose the lesser of two evils” can survive in a nation that legitimately has no idea how to discern good from evil to begin with. Take the latest Trump fiasco, for example: people have lambasted a man (rightfully so) for his lewd, crude, and downright nasty comments toward women – yet were some of the very same 125 million ilk that purchased the erotica, Fifty Shades of Grey.
Yet this even erotica pales against the statistics of pornography – which has been clearly linked to sex trafficking, rape, and abuse, all under the guise of adult entertainment. Cue this up with the same people that can’t tell the difference between a healthy sexual ethic and a devious one; so long as the idea of “consent” is inherent to the discussion (or feigned in an industry like pornography and prostitution) – it must mean that this expression of sexual conduct is not only perfectly normal, but also, is actually good.
The sad part is that the above statements must come with the following qualifications:
- No, nothing deserves sexual deviancy or misconduct, whether that comes through the most heinous form of assault, or merely through the foolish speech that often comes from men who haven’t been properly taught to cherish and respect women.
- No, saying that there is an inherent disconnect in an American populous that condemns the words of Trump from five years ago, yet love depictions of violent sexuality on screen and in amateur literature (if it even qualifies as literature) – is not a sanction of Trump.
- No, saying I don’t support Trump does not indicate that I support Hillary either. Good ol’ Billy-boy has his fair share of sexually deviant skeletons in the closet, which Hillary masterfully silenced for political expediency.
- No, saying that the idea of “consent” does not automatically dictate healthy sexual conduct does not mean that non-consensual sexual activity is good in any form (it obviously is not).
- No, calling out this hypocrisy is not advocating that we haven’t the right (or that it is inappropriate) to be disgusted by Trump’s comments.
There will likely be some qualifications I missed here, but I digress from the main point: we live in a culture that literally cannot even possibly begin to discern good from evil – and the outcry over Trump’s words only further demonstrates this reality because America’s sexual ethic created him.
Make Trump’s comments into song lyrics and add metrical rhythm, and it would be downloaded ad nauseam by hormonal teens with angst. Turn it into a series of dirty limericks and older generations would giggle and guffaw at it. Put the story in narrative and it becomes an all-time best seller. Film it and people regularly watch it and become aroused by it. But hear it from a man, which this same set of ideals created – and all hell breaks loose.
I am merely trying to express that we have lost the moral framework by which this logical conclusion is deduced from. It is not that we’ve simply embraced a faulty sexual ethic for years – but that we first found ourselves entertained by it. We’ve so inundated our culture with improper sexual ethics that the culture itself is now defined by issues of sexuality rather than a sense of ethic. We’ve actually confused the two, so as to say that unconstrained sexual expression in all its raw forms is an ethic.
Unbridled sexual activity is not a sexual ethic; a sexual ethic has constraints upon it. While one might convincingly argue that sexuality still has constraints upon it because certain practices are not sanctioned (i.e. rape, pedophilia, bestiality), the truth is that you can still have no true sexual ethic while certain activities are frowned upon. The reason being: people will still invariably restrict certain actions on the basis of subjective reasoning – yet a gradual erosion of that subjective reasoning happens, and standards loosen. Seldom do people accept a radical, over-night change in issues of morality; those standards must be gradually torn down so as to bring effectual change. This is precisely what leaders of the LGTB(ETC) movement have said since the late 70’s.
Historically, this has been proven time and again – simply look at how homosexuality and trangenderism was viewed 30 years ago and compare that to today. Look at how adultery was viewed 60 years ago and compare this to today as well. Look at the progression of Roman society and how their sexual practices developed. While we may not, as a society, enjoin our sexual practices with cultic practices, we nonetheless can deduce a common trajectory based on the normalization of practices that were once “taboo.”
The logical next steps are for people to push the boundaries further under the auspices of “love,” which again is not actually love at all, but lust. This is already happening with cases of incestuous relations (if the only harm is the potential baby – problem solved! Just abort!), polyamorous and polygamous relationships, the mutilation of consenting adults and even children is lauded (gender reassignment), and others from top universities have been calling for the stigma surrounding pedophilia to be surrendered.
The very simple point being: yes, you should be outraged by the comments of Trump. However, you should be equally outraged at the blatant hypocrisy bound in enjoying this same lack of ethical principles in another candidate’s husband (and her covering it up), through graphic depictions on the big-screen or a trashy novel, the expressions of a “hook up” culture, etc. Our nation has built its identity largely on a faulty sexuality that depicts sexuality to be the same exact sentiments of a classless Trump. Unbridled autonomy with respect to the sexual ethic is no ethic at all; it is a lack thereof. Are we really that surprised to hear these types of comments from a man that has not only demonstrated this type of behavior continually – but in a culture that glorifies in similarly perverse sexual ideals?
Featured Image: Strip Club Downtown San Francisco by Franco Folini; CC 2.0