This is just an impression I’ve got–no evidence–but what are blogs for but to throw out new ideas?
There’s a stereotype out there, created by we conservatives, that Leftists are a bunch of lechers who have decided to tear down the moral patrimony of our civilization just so they can more easily gratify their own carnal cravings. Listening to them, though, I more often get the impression that Leftists are people with unusually weak sex drives. Don’t get me wrong: I’m sure they get laid more often than conservatives, but that’s not for trying harder. It’s because chicks dig Leftist radicals.
Here are some of the things that give me the impression that powerful lusts are more often absent in the Leftist constitution:
- As I said in an earlier post, they seem to have a hard time imagining that immodestly dressed women and indecent pictures in public places might make it harder for young men to be chaste. We always hear from them “Women have a right to dress however they want! Men have a duty to not notice!” A semi-dressed woman should be able to walk up to a man, basically throw her boobs in his face, and he must not only not look, he must treat her precisely the same way he would treat a woman in a nun’s habit. They even think it silly to imagine that a man’s concentration on work might suffer in the presence of exposed female flesh. I ask you, are these they expectations of ordinary men?
- They’re always politicizing sex, as if that’s the only way they can make it interesting for themselves. Feminist academics going on about their lesbianism are a particularly obvious case. One gets the distinct impression that sticking it to the patriarchy, rather than any mere corporeal pleasure, is the main motive for lesbian activity. Sexual radicals like Wilhelm Reich saw promiscuity as the easy rode to communism, and I expect that’s the main reason Leftists could be bothered engineering a sexual revolution.
- Even among heterosexual progressives, and the culture that reflects their influence, they’re always pushing transgression as something needed to make sex exciting. Anything sex-related is peppered with words like “naughty” or “forbidden” even when the act in question is morally licit (for married couples). Again, it seems like, for our progressive brethren, the act of coitus itself is a dull affair. It’s only interesting if it can be related to a revolutionary project: flouting established moral norms and that sort of thing. I myself have often enough wanted to indulge in sex acts that would have been immoral for one reason or another, but I’ve never wanted to do anything because it was forbidden. I would have rather the act not been immoral, so that I could have licitly indulged myself. For the transgressive crowd, that would take away all the fun.
- Use of weirdly trivializing words to describe sex, like saying that it should be “fun”.
- The urge to trivialize sex. “It’s just sex. It doesn’t mean anything”, or at least it doesn’t mean anything to those of us who are “grown up”. Now, it shouldn’t take an active sex drive for one to appreciate the sublimity of the conjugal act. However, it may be that having powerful urges that one has difficulty controlling helps one to appreciate that this is a sphere that one must take seriously. This is especially the case if, as Burke imagined, the sublime is connected to danger and power. The ordinary non-Leftist, learning to take sex seriously, is more likely to sense that the licit expression of this powerful force must be a holy thing. When he sees how it channels the divine act of creation, he becomes sure of it.
- The use of Satanic words to describe sex, like “empowering”.
- The vices they project onto us vs. the vices we project onto them. Conservatives imagine that liberals are promoting promiscuity and perversion because of their own lust, projecting our own horniness onto them. Leftists accuse patriarchal conservatives of using sex as a weapon to establish domination, projecting their own obsessions with power, their own libido dominandi, onto us. According to them, men have sex with their wives to maintain our power over them. Why else would we do it, after all?
- Their tendency to call consensual sex that they don’t like (e.g. marital intercourse) “rape”.
- The way they make far-reaching policies on sexual harassment that basically prohibit any unwanted expression of romantic interest (and how can one know if it’s wanted until it’s been expressed?) without bothering to provide protocol whereby a gentleman may properly express interest in a lady. They simply don’t care about his predicament. “Why is he so interested in women anyway? Doesn’t he know that there are more interesting things to spend his time on, like the Revolution?”
- The tendency to turn sex (but not gender–heaven forbid!) into an identity-forming characteristic. For example, gay men see it as their ticket out of the “white oppressor” category up the victimization hierarchy. Here group membership is brought into the mix to make sex seem interesting.