Friday, February 01, 2013

Let's talk about sex!

Specifically, gay sex.

Wait, where's everyone going?

It's a funny thing about the Newfangled people, that though the whole world appears to be totally obsessed with sex, the people at the heart of the Sexual Revolution (MPs) seem to be unable to bring themselves to talk about it. We talk around it. We look at nudie pictures and watch hotsie-totsie videos that imply all sorts of boinking, but the actual physical realities seem to be something none of the Englightened wish to address.

Consider this little point by homosexualist promoter Chris Ashford, writing about the "Gay Marriage" (yes, scarequotes are obligatory, especially now) bill in the UK:

He notes that the bill is actually pretty sweeping, and among other things, removes from the law on marriage the idea that sexual congress is a definitive requirement. "Gay marriages," under the new dispensation, will not need to be consummated in order to be considered valid. This appears on the face of it to be an acknowledgement that they can't be. That "gay sex" is not, in fact, sex at all...
The act of consummation is deemed not applicable as a voidable ground (whereby you essentially argue that a marriage never really existed as you didn’t consummate it with a sexual act) for same-sex marriage but remains in place for different-sex couples.

Why? Well, he says it's because "Civil Servants...just couldn’t figure out how to define the sexual act for same-sex couples."

Mmmm... actually Chris, I think that's probably not it. I think they know, as we all do, what "gay sex" is. It's just that one man sticking his thing into another man's bum, isn't. Sorry, but until very recently, all laws that ever had anything to do with sex, anywhere, ever, knew and acknowledged that sodomy is not sex. Sex, despite what the culture desperately wants to believe, is a biological thing about creating children. It's not about mutual self-gratification, but about physical survival of the species. And that part only works one way.

I think maybe it's time to start talking about what we're talking about. If the drafters of legislation that is proposing to abolish the legal traditions of nine or ten thousand years of human civilisation can't talk about what it's doing, then I think it's time that we stopped being little girls about all this. A man sticking his thing into another man's bum and jiggling it about until orgasm, isn't sex. At most it's a form of self-gratification, using another person as a sex toy that doesn't require batteries.

That in some cases some homosexual men may have genuine warm human emotions towards their sex dolls, is more or less beside the point in marriage law. In fact, wait, it's totally beside the point in marriage law, the same way laws regulating fishing quotas are beside the point in marriage law.

So far the entire argument has been "But we weally wuv each other!" and cries of "It's not FAIR!" But marriage law, sadly, has never had anything to do with love. It has never been interested in the question of how spouses feel about each other. That's because, until the Global Temper Tantrum, the law wasn't about feeeewings. It was about rather more hard-nosed things like biological reality, money, property and taxes. Things that are pretty relevant when you're making laws that pertain to children.

I don't know whether it is a good sign or a bad one that the UK's legislation drafters couldn't bring themselves to talk about the gruesome nitty gritty of homosexuality, but it seems certain it's a sign of something. Perhaps that, though the Sexual Revolution, shortly to be codified in law in Britain, is determined to continue not to believe it, and apparently to force everyone else to pretend it's not true, marriage is about sex and sex is about procreation. And rubbing your bits against another object, whether that object is another person or not, and whatever your feelings about the act or about the other person, doesn't make it sex.

Perhaps, and here's me going out on a wildly thrashing limb in a high wind, there was just enough of a grip left on reality by the bill's drafters to stop them from coming out and actually saying, "Why yes. Sticking your thing into another man's bum is exactly the same as natural procreative sex."

It has been noted elsewhere, here and there, that the Sexual Revolution has had some odd long-term side effects that weren't perhaps what everyone expected. It's being documented lately that people, though more saturated than ever by sexy stuff in the media, are actually having way less sex. Married women in some countries are just giving it up as pointless (since they're mostly contracepting, this seems merely sensible, actually). Men, in increasingly large numbers are giving it up as a bad risk (don't conceive and she'll start manipulating you; conceive and you'll find yourself in court and losing everything). I don't know about gay men, but I'll take a wild guess and say that the bath house parties are losing their cachet.

And the SR seems to have had the odd effect on legislators of turning them into even bigger prudes than our Victorian ancestors. At least we could be sure that Queen Victoria, Shelley and Lord Byron knew what sex was. And all without the benefit of Marie Stopes bringing them condoms to fit on bananas in their schoolroom.

~ * ~

An interesting side-note: Chris Ashford also says that the only place in the bill where "gay sex" does actually get a mention is in the bit that "allows for a marriage to be voidable if a partner was suffering from a communicable venereal disease". Reality biting a little hard there?



BillyHW said...

It doesn't take a genius to figure out which parts go together and which parts don't.

Louise said...

I never use the word "gay" when I mean homosexual. It only repeats and reinforces the lie as well as ceding the grounds for framing the debate.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad that someone else has noticed how decidedly unerotic it is to hear modern progressives talk about sex. Catholic websites are chock-full of discussions about remaining chaste, but their pointers are limited to "Go for a run," and never include the good stuff like "Spend fifteen minutes listening to Sandra Fluke talk about getting it on."


Billy said...

When the Legislature in Arizona (where I live) was debating repealing the anti-sodomy laws, they had to explain to one of the representatives the meaning of the phrase "the infamous crime against nature." That explanation caused the delay of the repeal for a year. As I recall, that statute was as old as Arizona - 1912. People have been skittish about talking about homosexual acts for reasons of modesty for a long time. Maybe this more recent occurrence of skittishness is to be applauded.

Still, it is surprising that people in government with fine educations seem not to know the words that can be used to more or less politely describe these acts. It's even more surprising they should seem not to want to use them. Were they not required to take Women’s Studies or Queer Studies? Maybe this shocking failure of the education system is to be applauded as well.

As members of the Left, they have missed an opportunity. There's no need for big words or graphic descriptions. Per noted feminist Catherine Mackinnon, all sex is rape. So, why not close the circle and just define consummation with the same words as rape, which is, in the old definition, "penetration in the least degree." Or, is it only heteronormative acts that are rape?

Given what must be the skittishness that still exists in postmodern Britain (let alone the US), it would be hilarious to watch people testify in open court about what they thought was or was not sex in order to void their "marriage" on grounds of non-consummation. Hilarious, if not for the offense to modesty.

Anonymous said...

ew - Karen

Mrs. Pinkerton said...

Brilliant. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Public life is the pretense that there is no telos to life, so Power need not be constrained by anything outside its will.

A man depositing his genetic material into the bowel of another man is as fruitless, sterile and self enclosed as our entire secularist political/anti-cultural system.

Our problem isn't that they have chosen death, its that they know it and must steal treasure and children to keep the morbid carnival going. They are gunning for us, and next is human nature itself with biotech and molecular biology. You will be conscripted similarly. Very soon it will be other words somewhere someone loves God and is a threat to the state cult. That's the banal logic of Power, there must be communal purpose in order to rule over a mass of people. Easy enough eventually to unite against Christianity. They of course will "know not what they do".