From Free Love to Micromanaged Sex

     It has long been the stereotypes that conservatives were sex-hating prudes who wanted the state to rule everyone’s sex lives, while the Left cherished “privacy” and wanted to get the government “out of the bedroom.”  This is the opposite of the truth.

     The “right to privacy” over contraception involved forcing the government to deliver it.  The “right to privacy” over abortion now includes forcing third parties to subsidize it.  The “right to privacy” over sodomy is all about forcing bakers, florists, photographers, and pastors to validate it.  It was never about the “right to privacy,” but the power to use government to support and subsidize these things, and by so doing, normalize anything and everything that wasn’t reproductive coitus for the purpose of having babies.  In other words, the sexual views of the Left are those of the Marquis de Sade.

     The Left have no compunction about violating the “right to privacy” when it suites their end.  In California, there is already a drive to grab the private medical history of not just current porn stars, but former porn stars as well.  Investigating the private sexual lives of one subpopulation is wrong if it is a politically correct subpopulation, but not for a politically incorrect subpopulation.

     The ultimate goal, then, is neither a “right to privacy” nor engaging in any sex one wants free of  “bourgeois” values and norms of coitus being about reproduction and the union of husband and wife, but the destruction of those very norms and values.  If “privacy” or sexuality can be used to destroy those norms and values, then “privacy” is used as the casus belli for that destruction.

     However, if that “privacy” shields people from the increasingly totalitarian nature of the Left’s sexual politics, then it is to be swept aside, with the government invading the bedroom in order to regulate every aspect of a person’s private sex life.

     The “yes means yes” movement is trying to change the definition of rape from one of non-consent, either by inability to consent or explicit consent, to the assumption that all sex is rape unless each and every action, or change thereof, is assumed to be rape, and where consent is automatically considered lost if not explicitly reaffirmed in every exacting detail at least once every ten minutes!

     What is worse, is that the details of just how much minutiae must be verbally and explicitly approved of is vague at best.  A man in good faith could ask continuously or after each vaguely defined initiating “things to another level.”  We are still left with a he said/she said situation, but one where one is innocent until proven guilty to the assumption of guilt.

     Even if exacting standards are met, “it almost certainly wouldn’t hold up in the typical campus adjudication because an accuser could say that she was just giving robotic answers out of fright, and an accused student will probably be told he misread her nonverbal cues, which overrode her literal words.”

     But wouldn’t this affect women who sleep with men who have been drinking, or between same-sex couples?  Maybe, but certainly not at the rate that it will be used against men, as men have been punished even though they were the ones who were sexually assaulted.

     Remember, this is about delegitimizing men engaging in coitus with women, and the pregnancy that comes from that.  This is about delegitimizing the very nature of human beings as a dimorphic species that reproduces, and thus propagates itself, through coital sex.  It is about control, not “privacy” or freedom  Control through abortion and birth control, courtesy of the state.  Control through championing non-reproductive sex with all the benefits and preferences the state can grant.  Ultimately, it is about re-combobulating society to one that is eager to be subject to the “courtesy” of the state.

Tweet