Consensual sex between responsible individuals is none of my business, nor is it any of your business. Unless someone involved chooses to make it your business, but even in that case, you have no "authority" to enforce your moral code on other people, nor to decide for someone else whether they are "responsible enough". I can't understand the notion that sex is fair game for busy-bodies to pry into.

Silence is not necessarily "consent". In order to consent, there must be no coercion and all participating individuals must agree to the activity.

If you are the recipient of unwanted sexual advances, say "no". As long as it stops there, there is no need to get violent or hateful. Forced sex is never right and you have every right to defend yourself against it with as much force as it takes to stop the threat.

"Age of consent" is strictly a governmental notion which, in America, has fluctuated wildly between 10 and 18 years of age, depending on the era. One size does not fit all, because biology is not constrained by "law". Sexual activity IS constrained by biology, however, so children are always off-limits.

Most people are decent, and whether they are homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, polyamorous, or asexual does not change that fact.

If you wish to rent or trade your sexual favors, that is your business (literally).

Discrimination based on a person's sex life is stupid and wrong, but there should not be "laws" punishing discrimination. Stupidity is not, or should not be, "illegal".

For those who are concerned about the Constitution, nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it suggest that these Rights apply to "everyone except ____________ ". Violate the rights of another person, and you are guilty. Sexual lifestyle does not figure into the equation anywhere.

If marriage (of any kind) is your desire, do it without seeking third party permission. You do not need it. No one else has any say in that area unless you willingly give it to them.

Engineering "Sexual Dysfunction"

With the crackdown on little kids hugging or touching, it seems the control freaks will not be satisfied until everyone is a bundle of neuroses. How will this trend affect future teens and future adults? Certainly not in a good way. Will responsible parents be forced to hold "hug and touch orgies" for their toddlers to allow them to develop normally? It seems there are plenty of sexually frustrated and repressed people already. Using the excuse of "sexual harassment", the "compassionate bullies" are destroying a new generation like never before.

There is legitimate "sexual harassment". I am certainly not dismissing that. What I am dismissing, completely and absolutely, is the bogus idea that 4 or 5 year-olds are hugging or touching their friends for sexual thrills. At 6 years old I knew girls were strangely fascinating to me, but I was not sure why. Some people get that feeling about people of their own sex. No one needs to be crippled with guilt over their feelings.

It is natural and necessary for children and adolescents to engage in sexual play and exploration of increasing intensity as they grow into healthy adults. No one matures and becomes a sexually functional adult in a vacuum. Children and adolescents are being taught that any body contact, such as slapping the rear ends of their friends in a friendly way, is sexual and somehow bad. The control freaks will not be satisfied until every adult is completely neurotic.


1 comment:

  1. Wow. I agree with this 100%. It's frustrating for me to see all touch banned at school. How are they ever supposed to learn appropriate touch if all touch is banned? They're not, and you're right, it will not be good when they get older.