I just finished reading the introduction to the new translation of The 120 Days of Sodom by Marque De Sade. I found myself smiling a lot at the stories of his actual life, he was a wrongfully persecuted hero of sexual desire. A man with such passion, leading such an interesting life, only deserves praise. Even spending large amounts of time in jail; narrowly escaping death, writing enduring works of fiction to last throughout centuries, and living a life of sexual excess; he’s out lived most of the people who would ever live. His work surviving today, overcoming the dogma of moralists who try to ban it, is proof of it’s influence on sexually liberating the society as we see it today. No less being published in a time when homosexual sodomy was considered a “capital offense”. You wonder when these conservative dip shits will realize they’ve been going back against the tide for eons.

I find on my own terms, aside from these works of fiction, that the attitude towards sexuality in society is abhorrent. Look at the way that people respond to sexual fetishes, like the ABDL community, the furry community, fandoms of pony shows, scat lovers. All of these are very valid forms of sexual expression, they all give their participants sexual satisfaction. While people may not be actively morally crusading against these sorts of things, there is still an inherent “shock value”. People look at these sorts of works with disgust. I’m going to shift for a second from argument to rant. These people who feel disgust at things which immediately make them uncomfortable, are displaying conservative attitudes, which disgust me. You dip shits who cast your judgment on others simply because you don’t share the same pleasures as someone else, fail to reconcile with human nature.

It offends me that human nature can become “taboo”. Why do we cover up parts of our society, and act like they don’t exist? We do this by banning books, we do this by putting people on trial in the court of public opinion. That aforementioned conservative feeling of disgust, is the precursor to this collective condemnation of any - not just sexual - acts deemed socially unacceptable. The same thing is happening right now with transgender people as it’s been happening for hundreds of years with homosexuals. The public is ignorant and stupid, they base their conjectures off of erroneous ideas, such as the idea that pornography, music, video games, literature, or movies can corrupt the minds of people; or that homosexuality is a “sin”, or that god exists; all of the concepts of religion fall into this category as well.

You will not eliminate sexual desire by trying to eliminate traces of it from human nature, because it is innate in our nature. Just look at priests who copulate with little boys or have homosexual intercourse while preaching about how these things are sinful, only to turn around and say they’ve repented for what they’ve done. I believe that the church plays a large role in this dogma of human nature. While the church may be only a reflection, ironically, of man’s own innate tendency to make those aforementioned erroneous conjectures, it is an institution of it’s own, whose purpose is not to understand the nature of man, but to control it. It’s this ignorance which I believe is a damaging idea to the nature of humanity, and I believe only on conjecture, that years of this institutionalization of the denial and dogma of human nature, has become pervasive and a socially ingrained phenomena.

It’s the reason why people feel this inherent revulsion. Perhaps young children not exposed to these ideas of prejudice wouldn’t feel these prejudices as adults, when they’re old enough to make up their own minds about the world. That is one of the ways that religion gets people to become religious, is through centuries of societal ingraining, brainwashing children at a young age when they’re susceptible to believe lies and santa clause, believing in these things because it’s socially acceptable to believe in it, and it was told to them when they were children, and there’s a fear of not believing in it instilled into them. This same fear and dogma is evident in the way that people feel towards sexual “perversions”, or “anything that’s not vanilla sex”. Even if it isn’t an institutional persecution of these acts, through the exercising of power through law enforcement, it’s shown in people’s inherent gut reactions to these things. The societal fear and ingraining which makes people act out of collective consciousness, instead of individual

Furthermore, I fantasize of a world, where people aren’t influenced by societal dogma, and accept things purely as human nature. I’ve been neglecting until now to mention groups of people who I have defended throughout many of my writings; pedophiles, rapists, murderers. These are also classes of human nature, which I must in order to be intellectually consistent, also defend. These are also aspects of human nature, which moralists can’t account for. Supposedly, in a world where the supposed “causes” of these phenomena are eliminated; whether it be through banning music, movies, video games, pornography, books; they conclude that they will eliminate these things from society itself. Not so. These are also parts of human nature, the parts of human nature that no one wants to admit is a part of human nature. Even though the methods of murder become justified, when it’s soldiers doing it over seas. When it’s seen as something that effects another group, not our own, then it’s justifiable. Hence why we think it’s okay to kill murderers, another example of this in group, out group dichotomy. Hypocrisy.

All forms of punishment are examples of tribalism, of this in group, out group dichotomy. Of course, intellectuals realize this and understand that they can behave independently on their own jurisdiction, not partaking in acts that they feel themselves are morally reprehensible, such as copulating with children, or murdering people, or raping people. Empathetic intellectuals realizes that they can read works like the 120 days of sodom, and not go and do all of the things entailed in that book, they can watch horror movies and not go murdering people, they can listen to rap music and not go selling drugs; the empathetic intellectuals realize they can sympathize with people and not hate them because they’re “supposed to” who commit socially atrocious crimes, and not be criminals themselves. This is the point that I hope stays with you most strongly. I do not have to love the things that people do, but to make a judgment on the indifferent, moral vacuum of human nature, where your morals are barred by their arbitrariness, and indifference of the cosmos itself; you’re essentially wasting your energy.

It’s funny, how society seems to embrace ideas of hatred as morally justifiable. As we hypocritically kill people over seas from America, and execute prisoners for the crime of killing another human being from our group; we adopt the philosophy of the Ku Klux Klan, in hating our fellow human beings in ways that we see as morally justifiable. Funny, how even in movies like star wars idea that embracing feelings of hatred is embracing the dark side, it would seem that there’s many cultural signs that have tried to warn us about embracing hatred. All of these things which we try to condemn as a society, in the vast cosmic plane, there is moral indifference. We are responsible for all of the morals that we construct. Whether it be innocuous things, which harm no one, like a sexual fetish, or a sexual orientation, or a different gender identity, or a race; to things that are actually harmful like murdering people, pedophilia, and raping; we should accept all of these aspects as simply human, and reject the dogma of human nature.

I agree. I should be able to buy as many Child McSoldiers™  from the local McWarlords as I can afford to take back my harem of pregnant, fourteen year old, Vietnamese sex slaves from the damn neighbor who hired a bunch of lizard men to disable my recreational nukes and steal my slaves so that he could sell the babies for a profit.

Not a one damn thing in that scenario should be considered morally reprehensible.

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on February 07, 2017, 02:01:01 PM

I agree. I should be able to buy as many Child McSoldiers™  from the local McWarlords as I can afford to take back my harem of pregnant, fourteen year old, Vietnamese sex slaves from the damn neighbor who hired a bunch of lizard men to disable my recreational nukes and steal my slaves so that he could sell the babies for a profit.

Not a one damn thing in that scenario should be considered morally reprehensible.

No, there's really not. Whether or not you think it's reprehensible is arbitrary, because they have their own rules that they abide by, in which your rules do not apply. Unfortunately your mind can't be in two places at once, and you can't accuse someone of at the same time being conscious of your rules, and then accuse them of not following those rules. Every person operates as the main character in their own life, in which you are just a back drop. Your desire to impose your morals on others is egotistical and myopic.

Yes, we're getting somewhere here. Morality is arbitrary and laws should not be passed based upon them as a concept. There is only one constant in life, the NAP, which is universal and godlike in its blind approach to justice.