Tradition 1, Gene 0

By -
I was a participant in the "sexual revolution." I don't want to bore you with the gross details, but suffice it to say that I took advantage of many of the new "liberties" declared by sexual revolutionaries, starting... well, there have been waves of such revolutionaries, dating back at least to some Medieval heresies (e.g, the Taborites and the Picards), and continuing to arise in 19th-century anarchist and feminist thought, in utopian socialism, in the early 20th-century free love movements, and reaching a recent crest in the 1960s hippie movement.

In every single case I can recall, exercizing my new "liberty" had bad, and sometimes very bad, effects, and in every case it turned out that following traditional sexual morality would have been better.

Well, well, what do you know? One hundred thousand years of accumulated human wisdom are smarter than me? Shocking!


Comments

  1. Thomas L. Knapp2:08 PM

    Which tradition? There are lots of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah2:54 PM

      Yes there are... and they are all pretty similar on sexual morality. (Yes, you will be able to list some significant differences between Buddhists and Muslims and Confucians, etc., but if we want to do a bifurcation, they will al clearly be together on side A, while modern sexuality will be across a couple of mile wide gulf on side B.

      Delete
    2. Thomas L. Knapp3:11 PM

      Apart from some fringe stuff, e.g. polyamory movement, post-sexual-revolution sexual morality seems to me to be pretty similar to pre-sexual-revolution sexual morality, at least out here in flyover country.

      The monogamy may be more serial, but monogamy still seems to be the prevailing paradigm, and part of the serial thing may be longer lifespans (for some time there, it's not like you had that many years together before someone croaked).

      Marriage seems to have moved back to the pre-1830s standard (move in together with whatever ceremonies your religion calls for -- license? Wazzat?), but I'm not sure that's a necessarily a bad thing.

      Delete
    3. gcallah4:19 PM

      Yes, I suspect Brooklyn is a little different!

      Delete
    4. Thomas L. Knapp4:27 PM

      Maybe I need to visit again :D

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more