How You Helped Academics Justify Sex With Children

It is remarkable that persons most likely to screech at you about “believing in” evolution are apt to say things like “Trans women are women” or speak of “pregnant people”, and to support things like (the deadly sin of) “Pride” parades and gmarriage; i.e. government-defined marriage, by which I mean such things as the non-marriages of two or three or more men and so forth.

Three? Here is a story: “For the first time, 3 men in a polyamorous relationship have been allowed to adopt.” Canada, of course.

We’re not here per se interested in theories of biological change, but it is notable that (most) accounts of evolution and the judgement non-procreative sexual activities are good are mutually contradictory. Yet both are simultaneously believed.

You get to believe only one—or neither.

Of course, the more intelligent in this set realize this, and so invent for themselves myriad “evolutionary psychology” theories which explain why the two guys in the sociology department who cavort as furries and sodomize each other to earn bacon treats from their dungeon master are “really” promoting the evolutionary success of relatives. “Look at my implied fitness equations!”. These theories are so preposterous and asinine only an academic can pretend to believe them.

Non-procreative sexual activities are as dysgenic—which is to say, anti-evolutionary, desultory, corrupted with respect to ways and manners of spreading one’s genes, i.e. creating ancestors. In a way, suicide is less dysgenic than non-procreative sexual activities (NPSAs), because the poor soul who kills himself, or has his remunerated doctor do it for him, at least isn’t spreading disease as he does the act. Whereas those who engage in NPSAs happily invent new diseases. Hello, monkey pox. Sodomy is well verified to be among the worst possible ways to treat two bodies. Do not look up “anal prolapse”.

The drug’s name is PrEP, for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis. Something one takes before sodomy or injecting certain debilitating dysgenic drugs to lessen the chance the acts will kill you. The site linked belongs to the USA government. Amusingly, on that site they ask themselves “Is PrEP safe?” and in their answer there is no hint that, if one were truly interested in safety, it would be better not to engage in the activities which bring about disease.

The government, celebrities (our true leaders), Experts, rulers of various stripe, and indeed most commoners are not prepared to say sodomy is bad. There are many in this same set who even say it is good. By which, of course, they cannot mean good for one’s health, or good for one’s chance of reproducing. They use the word in a different sense. What?

The point is this: if you say sodomy, and other NPSAs are good, then you must be prepared to accept the consequences of that judgement.

I have made this argument many times, but it is time for a reminder. For yet another shocked academic has come across yet more academics calling for sex with kiddies. The peer-reviewed paper is “Childhood Sexualities: On Pleasure and Meaning from the Margins” by Deevia Bhana and Stefan Lucke in Sex & Sexualities.

According to the shocked academic’s correct assessment, “the piece calls for nothing less than the elimination of the idea of childhood sexual innocence and the ethical taboos against children engaging in sex acts.”

This is the logical conclusion of the invention of “sexual orientations” or “identities”. The story has been told before, but quickly, around a century ago the words “homosexual” and “heterosexual” first came into regular use, but as terms to describe people too interested in sexual activities.

We next stepped to believing there were such creatures as “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals”, a first in human history. Before, it was well accepted men and women got up to all sorts of antics, tolerated or condemned to various degree, but here was an new invention, made from pure will. People didn’t engage in acts because of desire, but because that was who they were. Like how a frog eats flies, even though it is disgusting to (most) people, you wouldn’t condemn or punish the frog for doing disgusting things, recognizing it was following its nature.

Only there are no such creatures as “homosexuals” and “heterosexuals”. A dog born with a fifth leg is seen as it is: an aberration, the unnatural fifth leg caused by who knows what error. If we see a five-legged dog, we do not invent a class of (let us call them) fivers, news kinds of dogs entirely. We know the nature of dogs, which is to have four legs, and no other number. A dog with five legs is unnatural, according to that use of the word which means “against its nature”.

So that even if a man is born desiring NPSAs, it is an aberrational desire, it is as unnatural as a man born without arms. It is a departure from his quiddity, or essence. Something has gone wrong in both cases. Of course, most and maybe even none are “born that way”, as identical twin studies confirm. Most, or all, who come to enjoy NPSAs are introduced to the hobby by recruitment.

Unless you want to say furries are “born that way.” Necrophiliacs are “born that way”. You can try to say a man who enjoys pretending he is a woman is “born that way” and is “really” a female, but he was born (and conceived) a male, so that’s out the window. And anyway, even if per impossible somebody was born destined to be a furry, it is still unnatural (in the sense I’m using the word).

None of this, so far, is a moral judgement. (Except for the jokes, which are provided at no charge.) It is not a moral failing of the dog to be born five-legged. It is not a moral failing in the child–the boy, rather–adopted by two perverts (who are excessively praised by “conservatives”) for later developing a fondness for NPSAs. Temptation is never a sin.

The acts, though. Those can be morally wrong, and not just bad in any evolutionary sense. Suppose, like most, you do not think they are. Very well. Then they are good. Not for health or reproduction, but in some other way. Then it is not wrong to show the kiddies in kindergarten two men enjoying the fruits of their NPSAs. I don’t mean you show them the acts, like we do not show them how moms and dads made them. But we tell the kiddies it is normal and good that these men call themselves gmarried, and the kids imply the rest.

This state between two men (or women) becomes something for the kids to aspire to. Because aspiring to good things is a virtue we teach kids. This encourages them later into experimentation. Which increases the number of “orientations”, which also increases the chances of recruitment since the number of people claiming “orientations” increases. You cannot say any of this is bad, or unwanted. You wanted it when you said two men can be gmarried.

And if there are “orientations” of two men or two women, why not “orientations” of a man pretending to be a woman, and vice versa? Why not an “orientation” of dressing like an animal? Why not 187 “genders” or whatever number we are up to? Why not polycules? Why not jail people who claim men and women are different?

Once you abandon nature—essence or quiddity—you have lost any way of saying no to new “orientations”. Disgust isn’t an argument. I’m disgusted by sodomy, but the fellows enjoying it aren’t buying that. They aren’t disgusted. Not with themselves, only with me. Not only do they not take seriously my disgust, they call me a bad person for admitting it.

You may be disgusted by academics wanting to diddle or mutilate or drug kids. Those academics aren’t disgusted. Who can take your disgust seriously anyway? You gave up that path when you said the unnatural (against health, reproduction, essence or quiddity) sodomy was good. Best you can do is say “Draw a line at age X”, but that X is wholly arbitrary and at last indefensible. It’s just your opinion, one not shared by these academics. Who wins?

What’s that? You think tradition is a good counter argument? There is no tradition of academics diddling kids, or pretending boys were “really” girls, therefore it is wrong? Sorry. You gave up tradition, and culture, as counter arguments when you invented gmarriage.

We have watched “orientations” flourish, its natural result. I have reminded us many times that bestiality is legal in many localities. Where it isn’t it’s usually because people argue animals might get hurt. Ecosexuals make a mess with dirt (yes, really). People do things with couches it is improper here to describe. Even necrophilia has its champions. This will only expand.

Our inability to say no has disarmed us utterly.

Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. Or use PayPal. Or use the paid subscription at Substack. Cash App: \$WilliamMBriggs. For Zelle, use my email: matt@wmbriggs.com, and please include yours so I know who to thank. BUY ME A COFFEE.