This is from a comments page [unlinkable holoscan] at Parablemania back in December.
The subject was one of those studies or a set of those studies, that prove the appropriateness of some moral taboo by the incidence of negative effects on those who break it. In the case of teenage sex it would be the incidence of STD's and emotional pathologies. The paragraph that tipped it for me:
The fact that teenagers are driven into artificial sex-paddocks and kept there by social punishments, or some are, while the rest are turned loose by parents who were themselves raised in moral free-fall, because the sexual morality of the dominant culture was so obviously perverted and dysfunctional, having a choice between puritanical sadism or rampant mindless hedonism take-your-pick; and the fact that sexual education and medical treatment-availability for teenagers in America is abysmally under-provided, well don't confuse the issue with facts.
At the time, rather than get all tedious on the thing, I talked about incest. 'Cause that's more interesting:
-
Unnaturalness as wrongness is the given. But much of what was once natural here is gone. Humans inhabit a world of artifice and un-nature. The problem is harm and the assessment of harm. There would appear to be harm, in the sense of teratology, caused by incest. What's still taboo to mention is the 'line breeding' aspect, the genetic fact of incest also possibly, in some cases, cementing the dominance of desirable genes. With no proof whatsoever I submit that live-birth incest is much more common than most believe.
Reducing moral distinction to observable risks has a downside as well, though. The same that the original taboos were constructed to avoid. Unseen danger.
Trying to explain to people who thought the moon and the sun were the same size, that their chromosomes would probably though not certainly combine in such a way that their child would be deformed or stillborn, would not work.
There may be risks we aren't aware of, in homosexuality, in adultery, in the eating of shellfish.
The problem is the institutions and authorities who have assumed the charge of our moral guidance have shown themselves to be misguided at best, and morally bankrupt in the main. [And provably damaging, through neglect and misleading inaccuracy]
The absurdity of mainstream religious leaders attempting to levy sexual morality on anyone would be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic.
The harsh moralists who pronounce same-sex coitus an abomination also deem the nursing breast an obscene sight.
They may be right. I'll risk my soul they're not.
__________________________
And here we are at Electrolite, back in mid-December, frothing around about politics again:
Which of the candidates could whup Bush's butt in a fair fight?
Is it a fair fight now? When did that happen?
The change I mean.
Last time I looked he got to the White House on the back of a snake. Did the snake die?
Is it realistic to think whatever machine Dick Cheney sits in the cockpit of is just going to step back [on its robot feet] and 'let the best man win'?
Is it simply about winning the 2004 election?
Or are we discussing a corrupt plutocratic oligarchy, ready and willing to do whatever it takes to maintain its power base, including subvert the most successful experiment in democracy the world's ever seen? Not to mention callously increasing the death, suffering, and chronic misery of multitudes of the undeserving.
I don't want to sound overly pessimistic, but there seems to be a Pollyanna-ish expectation that that whole Florida thing was an aberration, and that Cheney and W and all them will just head on back to their respective haciendas and ranchos, once the good guys re-win the presidency fair and square.
Maybe so.
It'd sure be nice, I'll say that.
The subject was one of those studies or a set of those studies, that prove the appropriateness of some moral taboo by the incidence of negative effects on those who break it. In the case of teenage sex it would be the incidence of STD's and emotional pathologies. The paragraph that tipped it for me:
These recent studies lead me to wonder whether there's now clear evidence (even aside from issues related to STDs, pregnancy, and abortion) that teenage sex and any old non-marital sex leads to harm. Even without the possible revisions to the liberal view (having to do with unnaturalness and incest), it seems the standard liberal view has reasons to oppose teenage sexual activity because of the significant chance of harm.The correlative fallacy is at work there of course. The idea that having black skin is a precursor to criminal activity comes to mind as a close parallel. Because, simple-head, we measured all the crimes and all the different-colored people and more blacks ended up in prison, therefore...
The fact that teenagers are driven into artificial sex-paddocks and kept there by social punishments, or some are, while the rest are turned loose by parents who were themselves raised in moral free-fall, because the sexual morality of the dominant culture was so obviously perverted and dysfunctional, having a choice between puritanical sadism or rampant mindless hedonism take-your-pick; and the fact that sexual education and medical treatment-availability for teenagers in America is abysmally under-provided, well don't confuse the issue with facts.
At the time, rather than get all tedious on the thing, I talked about incest. 'Cause that's more interesting:
-
Unnaturalness as wrongness is the given. But much of what was once natural here is gone. Humans inhabit a world of artifice and un-nature. The problem is harm and the assessment of harm. There would appear to be harm, in the sense of teratology, caused by incest. What's still taboo to mention is the 'line breeding' aspect, the genetic fact of incest also possibly, in some cases, cementing the dominance of desirable genes. With no proof whatsoever I submit that live-birth incest is much more common than most believe.
Reducing moral distinction to observable risks has a downside as well, though. The same that the original taboos were constructed to avoid. Unseen danger.
Trying to explain to people who thought the moon and the sun were the same size, that their chromosomes would probably though not certainly combine in such a way that their child would be deformed or stillborn, would not work.
There may be risks we aren't aware of, in homosexuality, in adultery, in the eating of shellfish.
The problem is the institutions and authorities who have assumed the charge of our moral guidance have shown themselves to be misguided at best, and morally bankrupt in the main. [And provably damaging, through neglect and misleading inaccuracy]
The absurdity of mainstream religious leaders attempting to levy sexual morality on anyone would be amusing, if it wasn't so tragic.
The harsh moralists who pronounce same-sex coitus an abomination also deem the nursing breast an obscene sight.
They may be right. I'll risk my soul they're not.
__________________________
And here we are at Electrolite, back in mid-December, frothing around about politics again:
Which of the candidates could whup Bush's butt in a fair fight?
Is it a fair fight now? When did that happen?
The change I mean.
Last time I looked he got to the White House on the back of a snake. Did the snake die?
Is it realistic to think whatever machine Dick Cheney sits in the cockpit of is just going to step back [on its robot feet] and 'let the best man win'?
Is it simply about winning the 2004 election?
Or are we discussing a corrupt plutocratic oligarchy, ready and willing to do whatever it takes to maintain its power base, including subvert the most successful experiment in democracy the world's ever seen? Not to mention callously increasing the death, suffering, and chronic misery of multitudes of the undeserving.
I don't want to sound overly pessimistic, but there seems to be a Pollyanna-ish expectation that that whole Florida thing was an aberration, and that Cheney and W and all them will just head on back to their respective haciendas and ranchos, once the good guys re-win the presidency fair and square.
Maybe so.
It'd sure be nice, I'll say that.
