I just watched a video on YouTube:
Open affection between men was normal in the 1940s. – Why did things change?
And reading the comments I shook my head in disbelief: How can people discussing the problem of human sexuality (which happens to be the root cause of all other problems) focus on a period of less than a century and genuinely believe in arriving at relevant conclusions?
Since modern humans are far more than 100,000 years old, looking at a century is like trying to understand the life of a seventy-year-old by looking at a snippet of one week. In fact, to find out what has changed, one would have to go back to the beginning of human history, which unfortunately is impossible (although the findings of some ethnologists and anthropologists point in a very interesting direction).
However, what about an entirely different approach: Just leave all sorts of feelings aside and use strict and sober logic. (If you ask yourself what kind of person could come up with such an approach, let's say an incurably gay chess pro would be perfectly capable of that.) And this approach is amazingly simple, as all you need are two indisputable facts and the willingness to draw indisputable logical conclusions from them.
Fact #1: The most significant difference between humans and animals is absolute freedom of action.
Fact #2: The greatest source of human joy is sexuality.
Acknowledging that both facts are nature's work and not invented by man, a first conclusion can be drawn: Nature has given man not only the desire for lots of sex (makes sense since skin has a damn short memory), but also the ability to satisfy that desire.
And this simple conclusion leads to the key question: What would happen if the same nature that wanted human beings to be this way and no other – had planned them to be strictly straight? What would that design flaw inevitably lead to? Yes exactly: strict heterosexuality inevitably leads to overpopulation (which happens to be the root cause of all other problems).
If Mother Nature had planned human beings to be strictly straight it would mean that she had done something extremely stupid. However, the fact that one will search in vain for anything even slightly stupid in Mother Nature's work suggests that she is absolutely incapable of doing anything stupid at all (leaving this privilege to humans instead).
And what conclusion does all this reasoning lead to?
Freedom of sexual action does not only concern its quantity, but also its quality. And this includes the freedom of choice before all, as freedom with limits would be no freedom at all. – And when it comes to overpopulation, ignorance does not protect from punishment.
Want to discuss or learn more? Contact niko_schach@yahoo.com
Open affection between men was normal in the 1940s. – Why did things change?
And reading the comments I shook my head in disbelief: How can people discussing the problem of human sexuality (which happens to be the root cause of all other problems) focus on a period of less than a century and genuinely believe in arriving at relevant conclusions?
Since modern humans are far more than 100,000 years old, looking at a century is like trying to understand the life of a seventy-year-old by looking at a snippet of one week. In fact, to find out what has changed, one would have to go back to the beginning of human history, which unfortunately is impossible (although the findings of some ethnologists and anthropologists point in a very interesting direction).
However, what about an entirely different approach: Just leave all sorts of feelings aside and use strict and sober logic. (If you ask yourself what kind of person could come up with such an approach, let's say an incurably gay chess pro would be perfectly capable of that.) And this approach is amazingly simple, as all you need are two indisputable facts and the willingness to draw indisputable logical conclusions from them.
Fact #1: The most significant difference between humans and animals is absolute freedom of action.
Fact #2: The greatest source of human joy is sexuality.
Acknowledging that both facts are nature's work and not invented by man, a first conclusion can be drawn: Nature has given man not only the desire for lots of sex (makes sense since skin has a damn short memory), but also the ability to satisfy that desire.
And this simple conclusion leads to the key question: What would happen if the same nature that wanted human beings to be this way and no other – had planned them to be strictly straight? What would that design flaw inevitably lead to? Yes exactly: strict heterosexuality inevitably leads to overpopulation (which happens to be the root cause of all other problems).
If Mother Nature had planned human beings to be strictly straight it would mean that she had done something extremely stupid. However, the fact that one will search in vain for anything even slightly stupid in Mother Nature's work suggests that she is absolutely incapable of doing anything stupid at all (leaving this privilege to humans instead).
And what conclusion does all this reasoning lead to?
Freedom of sexual action does not only concern its quantity, but also its quality. And this includes the freedom of choice before all, as freedom with limits would be no freedom at all. – And when it comes to overpopulation, ignorance does not protect from punishment.
Want to discuss or learn more? Contact niko_schach@yahoo.com
