Sunday, May 03, 2015

Consent: the last taboo

From what I've read, people who support alternative lifestyles (e.g. the homosexual/transgender cause) usually make consent a criterion to distinguish acceptable from unacceptable activities. We could examine that from various angles, but let's consider the issue of consistency.

In my observation, the same kinds of people who support the homosexual/transgender movement oppose smokers. Yet tobacco smoking is a consensual activity. More generally, you have the food Nazis. 

Perhaps they'd say that's different because that involves dangerous consensual activity. So they'd add another criterion.

Problem is, they defend homosexual activity, which is dangerous. Consider all the health-risks associated with homosexual activity, viz. AIDS, STDs, colon cancer, colectomies. Believe it or not, anal sex, rimming, fisting, scat, &c. just isn't very healthy. Who knew? In fact, bloodletting parties are the chic new thing in S&M circles:

Likewise, it's my impression that the same kinds of people who support the homosexual/transgender movement oppose high school football because they think it's hazardous (i.e. risk of brain damage, spinal cord injury). Yet that's a consensual activity.

Perhaps they'd say that involves minors, so we have a right to tell minors what to do. Yet these are the same people who ridicule abstinence-only programs as unrealistic. Teenagers are going to have sex anyway, so might as well supply them with free contraceptives (and abortion access). But, of course, teenagers are going to practice unsafe sex, too. 

What it comes down to is that people who support alternative lifestyles don't begin with criteria, then determine what alternatives lifestyles are acceptable according to their criteria. Rather, they begin with whatever lifestyle liberal opinion-makers champion at the moment, then determine the criteria according to the lifestyle.   

For instance, there's a push to mainstream pedophilia.

Of course, once pedophilia is reclassified as just another "sexual orientation," you can guess what the next step will be. The age of consent will be revisited. 


  1. It's ironic that these groups are staunchly in favor of allowing teens and even young children express their "perceived gender" with draconian consequences for any adult who dares to offer correction instead of adulation, yet they're equally staunchly opposed to those who perceive their gender dysphoria to be a misperception and seek help, such as reparative therapy or other resources, even going so far as to consider legislation to prevent it.

    It makes the homosexual lifestyle like the old Roach Motel advertisements, they can check in, but they can't check out. Or like organized crime, you're not allowed to leave once you've been on the inside, you know too much.

  2. Now if they take consent down to pre-birth...

    Of course, then they would assert that abortion is still okay, but that the pre-born could conceivably be transgender and warrant an operation to change their gender before they are born. The assertion already is that they were born that way.