The American Anti-Sex League: The Early Years
The Modern King of Gonzo, Stacy McCain, has up, over at his joint, a post that should be required reading for any person under the age of thirty.
In it, he quotes from a Feminist [ie: one of the many, dullard Leftist Apparatchiks who spend every waking minute of the day seeking to wreck horrid havoc in the Culture]. Her name is Lane Moore and she, in the end, wants males and females to have less sex [not 'less sex in the end' IYKWIMAITYD — which seems to be the 'in thing' these days]. In fact, one could make a good case that, ultimately, she’d like sex to be abolished — at least that appears to be the undertone of those who hold her kind of opinions and engage in such crabbed and abnormal thinking.
Please do read the whole thing [as usual with Stace, it's an insightful and fun ride].
A few highlights:
… Lane Moore isn’t really helping: Therein lies the problem exactly. She knows she didn’t consent, she knows she didn’t say yes, she knows she only had sex with him because she thought he wouldn’t stop anyway, but she didn’t want it. That’s still rape. But because so many people still consider “no means no” the standard, there are many sexual assault victims who didn’t say no, but didn’t say yes, and they’re left feeling like they have only themselves to blame for not fighting back harder.
There has been some initial success with California’s “yes means yes” law enacted in 2014. A March Cosmopolitan article interviewed UCLA students about how it was going: “Freshman year we were like, ‘I guess it was my fault. I never really said no, so you can’t get mad at him,’” Morgan, a senior, said. “Now we’re a lot more aware that unless we’re saying we want to do this, then it’s not OK for it to happen.”
Exactly what is going on here?…
…Must every hook-up now be negotiated like a spending bill in the House Ways and Means Committee?…
Where is all of this Leftist-induced Chaos in male/female relationships leading?
It is all part of a bigger plan.
Methinks, George Orwell is the Prophet to consult here [re-paragraphing and emphasis mine]:
…Sexual intercourse was to be looked on as a slightly disgusting minor operation, like having an enema. This again was never put into plain words, but in an indirect way it was rubbed into every Party member from childhood onwards. There were even organizations such as the Junior Anti-Sex League, which advocated complete celibacy for both sexes.
All children were to be begotten by artificial insemination (artsem, it was called in Newspeak) and brought up in public institutions. This, Winston was aware, was not meant altogether seriously, but somehow it fitted in with the general ideology of the Party.
The Party was trying to kill the sex instinct, or, if it could not be killed, then to distort it and dirty it. He did not know why this was so, but it seemed natural that it should be so. And as far as the women were concerned, the Party’s efforts were largely successful.
…He paused, and for a moment assumed again his air of a schoolmaster questioning a promising pupil: ‘How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation. Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.
Do you begin to see, then, what kind of world we are creating? It is the exact opposite of the stupid hedonistic Utopias that the old reformers imagined. A world of fear and treachery is torment, a world of trampling and being trampled upon, a world which will grow not less but more merciless as it refines itself.
Progress in our world will be progress towards more pain. The old civilizations claimed that they were founded on love or justice. Ours is founded upon hatred. In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self-abasement. Everything else we shall destroy — everything.
Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the links between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen.
The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card.
We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now.
There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science.
There will be no distinction between beauty and ugliness. There will be no curiosity, no enjoyment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But always — do not forget this, Winston — always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face — for ever.’
Lane Moore: Pioneer of the American Anti-Sex League.
If you think I am being irrational and melodramatic, I ask you then to think of those practices that were considered unacceptable by our Society thirty or forty years ago and are now considered perfectly Normal, and to compare the health of our Society in those two time periods.
You turn a deaf ear to what is happening, what these Nihilists are relentlessly preaching, at the peril of your Freedom, your Liberty, and, most importantly, your own Soul.