keskiviikko 24. kesäkuuta 2015

Random Notes on Debauchery



You think the modern Western culture is over-sexualized, hedonist, individualist? First, don’t make me laugh with that “over-sexualized” stuff. Have you ever actually studied any other periods and/or cultures? And second, bad news: I’m doing anything I can to make our culture even more hedonist and individualist.

Hedonism: the only rational approach to life.

If you believe in the value of the subject, the individual, then you also believe in infinite sexual freedom, of everyone.

Note: the freedom to not have sex is part of that freedom, too. Rape in its many forms is an attack towards this and therefore the true immorality. “Involuntary celibacy” is something no-one has a right to whine about.

Our culture is plagued with a bizarrely ambiguous approach to sex. It’s either naughty and sinful, or the meaning of life. It’s never just something fun to do and not make a big fuss of.

This isn’t about celebrating “forbidden” for forbidden’s sake. This is about getting over rules that have no point. There’s always some Reactionary moron who squeals “But should everything be accepted?” Absolutely not. But I haven’t yet heard a relevant argument against sexual freedom.

The heterosexual date culture of today: a playfield of double standards and unwritten manuscripts. And on the bottom of everything there is lying the assumption that all this will or should lead to a Serious Relationship. (“Oh yes, it’s perfectly okay to experiment a bit before you find The One and settle down.”)


The only place where you can find a trace of sexual liberation today is the subculture of men-loving men. You meet, you have sex in the closest bush or bathroom, you separate. And that’s that. Honest pleasure for pleasure’s sake. No duties, no dependency. 

And of course, that’s not what you see in the politically correct picture of the sexual minorities. The touchstone of respectability seems to be whether you’re willing to “commit”, that is, submit to being owned by someone else.

Marriage (be it sanctified by the state or church, or just a “relationship”) is a form of slavery. Always has been, and will be as far as “committing” mean restricting your freedom (for example, to have sex with anyone willing) just because your partner doesn’t like it. This counts even if you just have to “ask their permission”.

Of course, if someone really and truly decides they want to be obliged to someone this way, it’s their choice. After all, people can, say, whip themselves every day if they want to. The problem is how it is currently expected from all people, and everyone who has no interest in it is labelled “selfish” or “not a full-developed personality”.

Jealousy is just an emotion, and it can be unlearnt. It’s not some mystical “natural” that should not be touched – and besides, since when “natural” has meant “good”?

Some idiots call casual sex “mutual abuse”. How is it abuse if both sides know what they’re doing and want it?

I know better than you what you want and what is good for you – the root of all modern oppression. The same phrase is at the core of contemporary credos such as “Everyone needs a partner/ x amount of sex to be happy” or “Love is the true meaning of life”. Unfortunately, some people make self-fulfilling prophecies of these myths.

Love is intense friendship, no more, no less – why it should be treated as if it was essentially something else, in a sphere of its own?

Having someone in your life just because you “should” have – what a respect towards them as an individual. (Yes, I’m talking to you, desperate heterosexualists who see people of the “opposite” sex as trophies to hunt.)

Obviously concepts like “slut” must die.

All that quarrelling about what gives a person certain sexual preferences – whether people are “born that way” or not – take away the attention from much more important question: why is it supposed to be so wrong to play with someone from your own gender?

Similarly, the obsession in a sharp distinction between “gay” and “straight” does more harm than good. “That’s gay”, “But I’m not gay” – so long as these phrases mean something, sexual equality doesn’t mean anything. Sexuality is an act. Not anyone’s deepest essence.

Have a great Pride week in Finland, and remember to think beyond "love" and "tolerance"!

3 kommenttia:

  1. The lack of outer obstacles sometimes means only this: the servile will proceeds.
    The will of a spider- like person, for example, a razor that cuts its way freely. Servile will of the bourgeoise τέχνη-Mench, or a criminal, can indeed be "liberated" in fulfilling its desires, but that would not yet make it free. I'm not asking, should everything be accepted, but: even if everything was accepted, would it follow that everyone is free? On this point you could be more clear, eventhough you have pretty much covered everything else with great intelligence.

    By the way, just to make a substantially insignificant, but in my opinion an interesting etymologico-grammatical point, there can be no – or rather there is only – talk of "individualism", since the individual is not something that is "talked about" and which can eventually become passé as "the public opinion" moves on like a hurricane... Like in hedonism (ἡδονισμός), -ism (-ισμός) is a suffix that forms abstract nouns of action, that is, what ever becomes an "-ism", has already become a rootlessy drifting, idle and harmless "thing" in the public opinion and not something which needs to be ever again made and produced by the individual will. This grammatical point actually tells us, how people who call something an "-ism" usually think about, or rather around everything potentially substantial in it.

    VastaaPoista
  2. Blogin hallinnoija on poistanut tämän kommentin.

    VastaaPoista
  3. In classical hedonism, all pleasure is to be found from "moderate" and easy, whereas anything "limitless" is considered vain because it is HARD.
    One is supposed to be dependent in the outer organization of society only on subjective ”individual” grounds, which means here a choosing in the multiplicity of wanting subjects with their opportunities and limitations. ”Free” is accepting of a contract in a certain state of affairs; a mutual limiting of desires for ”the security of a quiet private life withdrawn from the multitude”. The end of all actions is supposed to be living free from FEAR and PAIN.
    As proof that pleasure is the end is adduced the fact that living things, so soon as they are born, are well content with pleasure and are at enmity with pain.
    The want of security, freedom from fear, is so pervading in classical hedonism, that it is considered useless to provide security against other persons, so long as we are alarmed by other occurrences – like DEATH. The hedonist is adviced to take away the YEARNING after immortality, so that the ”TEMPEST of the soul is laid; seeing that the living creature has no need to go in search of something that is LACKING”, like limitless time. This is done by diligently deliberating the "limit" fixed by nature, which transfers desire to things which can be easily had. So the hedonist is free from the fear of death.

    VastaaPoista