Sunday, December 01, 2019

The difference between "indecent" and "sexualized"

Here I want to explore the depths of depravity in the current antisex hysteria via the different words used for sex crimes before and after feminist reforms. The shift from religiously connotated words like "indecent" or "lewd" to ostensibly neutral descriptions like "sex act" (or descriptions thereof) is not yet complete in all jurisdictions, but you get the idea. In Norway the transformation has been most complete, from words like "utuktig omgang/skrift" to "seksuell omgang" or "fremstillinger som seksualiserer barn." This transition is more significant than it might seem at first glance, and far less convincing than the reformers had hoped, for the same reasons.

There is a tendency to assume that the new laws carry forth the same abuse concepts, but they don't really. Even I didn't notice for many years that the new laws don't just expand, but radically transform the concept of sexual abuse. The reformers themselves probably think they have merely modernized the language, but in reality they have exposed a gaping hole in the new sexual morality.

Even when the laws mostly apply to the same things, the philosophical grounding is entirely different, to the point of non-existence. For example, the concept of "indecent/utuktig" did not make the claim that minors are asexual. What might be "indecent" in some contexts under the old morality could be perfectly okay within marriage, so it's not sex acts themselves that are problematic, but something more consequential in the scheme of things, at least if one believes in the larger value system in which these prescriptions are situated.

If something is "indecent," then okey dokey, it must be indecent because higher morality and probably God says so given that you believe in that worldview. I ain't smart enough to understand how that works and won't opine before going to divinity school first. But if something is simply a "sex act," or "sexualized," how do you jump to the conclusion that it is wrong and should be criminal? The new laws leave a gaping hole now filled mostly by pseudoscience like the nocebo nonsense of the abuse industry, if at all.

We are to believe that something is wrong because "sex," period. Which is a non sequitur. If you want to make that leap without a concept of the "decent" and "indecent," or some other higher-power framework, you would need to justify it from the ground up in humanistic, rational terms (I wrote a post once showing how it could be done, but it didn't go over well because it puts a damper on abuse hysteria).

What we have is a new supernatural framework masquerading as rationality. Sometimes it is also comedy gold. I mean, how did the Norwegian lawmakers come up with a concept as retarded as the crime of narratives that "sexualize children [under 18]" without considering if the "children" where asexual in the first place? Which if you think about it for two seconds is sheer nonsense, an assumption that the old concept of "indecency" wisely avoided.

It is most instructive to consider how the victimless laws are justified. There is always a maximally exaggerated violation when there is a "victim," but what is being violated when there is no victim, and also no indecency/utuktighet to ground it in? What is being blasphemed against, exactly, in a fictional narrative which "sexualizes children"? Can it literally be something as retarded as the lie that everyone under 18 is asexual and not sexually attractive to normal people?

I suppose the reformers could appeal to the "public morals" and claim that as an ultimate basis for their laws. But this is a vague concept in the extreme. Where do I find justification for the secular public morals? Is it the view promoted by national public broadcasting? Is it whoever screams loudest on Twitter or perhaps alternative media like Before or after moderation, and if after, why do the moderators get to decide what the pubic thinks? Is it evidence-based in any way, and if not, isn't that a problem when use to make criminal laws? And don't even get me started on the female sex offender charade...

The feminists have undermined their own agenda by switching to a clear language of sexual abuse, because this also brought clarity to the lack of justification for their sex laws. They need to come up with actual, credible justification if they want to be taken seriously as other than a display of brute force against sexuality. Or conversely, if they want to be accepted on faith alone, they need to revert to a mystical language which obscures a source of morality that can't be falsified so easily or at all.

The new sex laws rest on a belief in the metaphysical badness of sex, divorced from any larger value system and grounded in nothing but this metaphysical belief itself. To gloss over how philosophically flimsy it is they always postulate a "victim," and to my horror this strategy has been 100% successful to date, even when the "victim" does not exist or identifies as anything but. We can only hope that one day people will wise up to the vacuity of the current antisex bigotry and do our best to expose it.


Anonymous said...

It is the lie of “consent”

Old hags can’t keep up with young pussy, so they need to whine, and pretend that a 13 year old isn’t getting wet fingering her pussy to her favorite pop star. When biology proves them wrong, they make the 13 year old into a non-thinking blob called a victim, who supposedly doesn’t understand anything about sex, even though they force the same 13 year old to start preparing for complex things like college and work.

Since more and more old hags exist as a proportion of society in current year, in fact the most old hags in all of human history, the laws will keep changing as much as the hags keep whining and voting to suppress youth sexuality and its huge threat to their power.

Right wingers love this lie of “consent” too because it keeps their daughters “innocent”. More control of morality = more control of people. The right is hell bent on control, the left hell bent on preventing youth power from replacing them.

Fuck Mike Pence, universal scumbag and closet homo.

Eivind Berge said...

Yup, "consent" is a big part of the new pseudomorality. It has taken on a pseudoreligious significance akin to what holy matrimony used to be. But even if you buy into this incredibly complex and difficult-to-understand concept that supposedly no one under 25 can fathom, it doesn't quite explain all the "abuse." How come their parents can't consent for minors, like they do with medical care, which really does require informed consent? If that were treated the same way, one would have to abstain from any kind of treatment or vaccines etc. until 18 or better yet 25 because they can't consent and parents don’t have a say either.

And it doesn’t justify the female sex offender charade, where consent is irrelevant because there is no potential downside to speak of for the “victims.” Nor does it explain why fictional characters need to consent to be sexualized, and what metaphysical plane is holding that back exactly?

The antisex bigots have a lot of explaining to do, if people were interested in such explanations, which sadly they are not at this time.

Anonymous said...

They would say because medicine is curing the child but sex is hurting the child, so stronger consent rules are necessary. Then you could cite for them the numerous studies that show adolescent sex is overwhelmingly beneficial, and you could even hear from the few people honest enough to speak positively of their early sexual experiences. You could show them the word 'child' is a legal term of art that has nothing to do with the biological definition of 'child', just as the law defines an 'infant' as being anyone under 18, yet we don't put 17 year olds in diapers.

Then they would respond by simply calling you a dirty pedophile who deserves mutilation, since people are kept generally unhappy by their government, yet ironically they vent these frustrations by abusing you with the approval of their government. At that point, the only thing you can do is call them what they are: Nazis. Does anyone win at that point? I'm not sure.

btw it seems Amos Yee deleted all his new content. Looks to me like someone powerful got to talking in his ear about his speech as an asylum seeker...

Eivind Berge said...

Doctors are supposed to live by the principle of "primum non nocere" (first do no harm), but then they happily circumcise baby boys, so how does that fit in? Anyway, even when the intent is curative, there is always risk of harm and sometimes the harm is highly likely to outweigh the benefits. How long do you try to cure cancer, for example, by all sorts of barbaric poisons instead of just palliating? Somehow these decisions get made for children with surprisingly little fuss, compared to the other kind of "consent" that is so mystified that it can't possibly be given at all.

Eivind Berge said...

The Antifeminist's latest post inspired me to write down my own lessons drawn from the Epstein affair:

- How profoundly different I am from the rest of society (i.e., how most people sincerely hate me, given that I fully, egosyntonically identify with what is now universally condemned and feel that anything they did to Epstein and friends, they did to me).

- That normal male sexuality is more hated than pedophilia by those who understand the distinction, and confused with pedophilia by the rest.

- How readily women turn on you and redefine their role to "abused" when encouraged by society, and how unanimously society conspires to treat this lie as the truth.

- That the mutual hatred between society and male sexuality is absolute, total, and infinite; but literally only a handful of us publicly identify as real men and thus requite it. This is the same as the first item, but can't be emphasized enough.