Once upon a time gay people… homosexuals… were shunned, punished, and even beaten by the police. Horrible things to be sure, but they happened quite a lot.
Likewise women were locked into societal roles. If you wanted to be a housewife, that was fine, but most any other avenue was closed to you, or at least barricaded fairly well. That’s awfully nasty too, but it also happened a lot and for a long time.
And just to be clear, you should understand that everything above was either prescribed by law or tacitly accepted by “the law of the land.”
These things and things like them were what we can call “compulsory sexual ethics.” Unfortunately, they are to be found all through human history. And they are always wrong, for the simple reason that we’re not all the same. (And because no one has a right to tell us how to live.)
A small percentage of us, for example, are homosexually inclined, but so long as these people don’t harm others along the way, they ought to be free to live as they wish. Any of us majority types who seek to punish them are simply being barbarians.
Likewise, our second example: Being a mom and raising children appeals to many women, and there’s not a thing wrong with it. But the woman who doesn’t want children or who doesn’t want to marry or whatever… she should be free to live her way as well. Anyone trying to punish her or compel her is likewise a barbarian.
And as I say, such things used to happen a lot, and it was a real problem.
My baby boom generation is composed of millions of people, so what I’ll say here doesn’t apply to all of us, but it’s a fairly reasonable generalization.
On one hand, we get credit for defending gays and women who wanted to live differently. That was the right thing to do, and millions of us did it.
But on the other hand, the political types among us have taken things way over the edge in the opposite direction. To the point where they’re coercing people into embracing unusual sexual inclinations. They are, in fact, imposing a reversed sexual ethic.
A lust for power has led these baby boomers into the roles of previous leaders they hated. And doing nasty things in the opposite direction makes those things no better.
It’s important to understand how this works:
Political boomers gained control of the educational systems of America (and most of the West). From that base, they sought to push the world into their ideals. Not to simply convince people of their ideas – that would be fine – but to coerce, which is, again, barbaric((Remember that schooling is compulsory. Escape from it is punished with government force, and a parent’s disagreement with policy matters not at all.)). Such were the people who pushed homosexual-themed books into public schools. (Then followed by more, and now by transgender-themed)
This worked because the people of the West are suckers for guilt. I explained why in a previous article, but the seekers of political power learned the trick and have been using it nonstop. Most people are intimidated by it and go along, fearing that they’ll look bad… that people will say nasty things about them. And that is simply coercion.
The coercion mentioned above is usually a breath away from the word “racism,” because that’s a hook that digs deeply into people. Understand, please, that noticing race and even pulling back from people who look markedly different from us is built in. Hating and hurting are not, but a small (and temporary((This pulling back vanishes, by the way, after four minutes of contact with a “different” person. So, it is very short lived.))) pulling back is built into most of us.
This pulling back has been portrayed as a type of original sin. To feel it, or now to feel any instinctive pulling back, has become a powerful political weapon. And so, if homosexuality rubs you the wrong way, you are guilty, guilty, guilty, even if you never do anything bad to any homosexual.
And that is a harsh sexual ethic. Those who impose it are barbarians.
The End of the Line?
This reverse sexual ethic of the political boomers may be reaching the end of its line with their new sin, discomfort with transsexualism. What someone does with their genitals is no one else’s business. But political types aren’t asking kids to leave transsexuals alone, they’re insisting that they be comfortable with transsexualism. They teach these children that their thinking, “Chopping up my genitals is gross,” makes them degenerate.
There are no more than a tiny fraction of one percent of people who want to surgically modify their genitals, trying to approximate the opposite sex. Once these kids discover that almost everyone feels like they do… that they’ve been coerced into calling themselves “degenerate”… they’ll become very angry. Then they may (though hopefully not) start calling transgenders and transsexuals “degenerates,” and the pendulum will swing back the other way.
This is part of what’s fueling the alt-right movement. If the power-seekers keep driving that way (and they don’t have much else), they’re probably going to get a lot more pushback.
And so, if this thing turns again, let’s remember to defend the people who stand to suffer under it… like gays and especially those few who choose to become transsexuals. Their choice may strike most of us as self-destructive, but it’s their life, their body, and their choice to make.
We have every right to defend ourselves from guilt and coercion, but we must also defend people making choices that we wouldn’t. If they don’t hurt anyone, they can do whatever they want. We must draw a line there.
* * * * *
The novel that helped put the crypto revolution into high gear.
Comments from readers:
“Of the twenty five or so people I worked with last fall, all of them revered A Lodging of Wayfaring Men as a bible. They referred to the house and their community effort as a Lodge. We all felt it was modeled on the Free Souls.”
“Actually, I am somewhat at a loss as to how I might explain how I feel about this book other than to say what a great mind to write such an awesome story!”
“I’m an Old guy and find that Rosenberg has captured many Real-World truths in this novel. I wish the Millennial Generation would read this novel and consider the concepts and rationale presented here.”
* * * * *