On Unregulated Sex

"Unregulated capitalism is good for the same reason unregulated sex is good."

So what I'm saying is that neither is best unregulated.

 

I thought of this matter when considering a complaint against my Catholic upbringing. I think that was inspired by a meme in which some snowflake was triggered by the fact that the 'Coexist' bumper sticker only signifies two genders, male and female. So I considered why I thought that was funny - it is because so many people take the idea of sexual freedom for granted that they wish to elevate every possible intersection of identity into equality with the presumption of the evil of those who would suppress such expression.

 

So what is the problem with pre-marital, of extra-marital sex, of non-heteronormative sex? It is the lack of a sense of the value of chastity. We expect that passion and desire should not be regulated.

 

Now I defer to the words of Marcus Aurelius.

 

"In comparing crimes together, as, according to the common idea, they may be compared, Theophrastus makes the true philosophical distinction, that those committed from motives of pleasure are more heinous than those which are due to anger. For he who is a prey to passion is clearly turned away from reason by some spasm and convulsion that takes him unawares. But he who sins from desire is conquered by pleasure, and so seems more incontinent and more effeminate in his vice. Justly then, and in a truly philosophical spirit, he says that sin, for pleasure's sake, is more wicked than sin which is due to pain. For the latter sinner was sinned against, and so driven to anger by his wrongs, while the former set out to sin of his own motion, and was led into ill-doing by his own lust."

 

So here we consider #MeToo. Why is it that the American woman does not feel comfortable in raising the alarm when she is sexually assaulted? It is because she has every reason to suspect that her chastity is not respected in the general population and that her sexual desire is and should be expressed outside of such regulation. If her body is no one's but her own, as if my money is no one's but my own, then she alone is responsible for the definition and defense of its borders. She alone decides without recourse to the regulation of the general public whether or not she is violated.

 

And so what is the 'nasty woman'? She is a transgressive against the expectations of the public. She is alone.

 

We do not fully understand the implications of unregulated sex, but perhaps we should imagine it in these terms. If one can imagine evils of unregulated capitalism, then one should be able to recognize evils of unregulated sex. Consequently, as we understand the temptation of elevating the status of those purveyors of arcane complex unusual financial arrangements without regard to their risks, we too should understand the risk in elevating arcane, complex and unusual sexual arrangements. This is in the public interest.

 

What, therefore is the practicality of sex outside of irrational passions and desires, and how does its common practice affect the common person? We should meditate on this and consider that to be a standard from which we risk much by deviation.

 

I should add that it is not immediately clear to me precisely what Aurelius implies by 'incontinent and more effeminate' vice as I am not clear on his definition of manliness. But I expect that his take would not be far from the archetypes of masculine order and feminine chaos. To be conquered by pleasure thus would be unmanly.

 

(the whole thing)