American Clarity Add us on facebook:

14. September 2010

Sexual capitalism

Filed under: philosophy — admin @ 15:34

As it was intended, capitalism was to be the most liberating form of capital exchange in existence.  With the government leaving most forms of coercion out of the buying process (except in the prohibition of vices and other immoral/dangerous transactions), the value of products and labor was to be determined by the people, prices set not by an official with the threat of violence or monopoly of an entire supply, but by free peoples acting with their own money, determining exactly how much something was to be worth, and whether or not prices would have to be lowered or raised.  Supply and demand–the peoples’ wallets and the democratic votes which they theoretically represented–would guide the market into full production and a new kind of populism, one which rewarded those who benefited their customers most, spurning entrepreneurs who failed to live up to standards of public satisfaction.

This same kind of monetary liberty now angers most liberals, who are not content with allowing people to engage in business without governmental direction.  These days, it’s common to see politicians talk of supporting certain kinds of businesses, and bailing other ones out; of protecting certain kinds of consumers, and letting others suffer; of forcing banks into business with certain kinds of buyers, while denying the unfavored majority the same advantages.  And while this shift has taken place primarily for the failed attempt to relieve suffering and end a falsely labeled “injustice,” the Left has placed the elective power of the people in the hands of government officials, not only reducing the efficiency of our economy, but essentially promoting corruption through the forceful management of public capital into the hands of those who secure their votes.  Goodbye, liberated, populist, democratic ownership of capital; hello corruption.

Strikingly in contrast, Leftists and Conservatives have taken almost the opposite stance in terms of sexuality.  While conservatives favor a sober regulation of sexuality, Leftists are entirely interested in reducing sexual exchange to capitalistic methods. While a true conservative would opt to ban not just homosexuality, but also divorce, adultery, promiscuity, abortion, commercial pornography, and cohabitation (I must remind the reader, that cohabitation has only been legal for 40 years), Leftists seek to almost entirely deregulate sexuality, not only liberating their constituents from sexual decency, but actively prohibiting discrimination against unpopular sexual behaviors.

Interestingly enough, while Leftists will not allow people to determine the value of products and services when money is involved (see: Energy Star tax credits, minimum wage), the exchange of sex is held to a capitalistic standard.   Instead of regulating sexual relationships through the legal maintenance of monogamous, life-long male-female relationships, they seek a sort of sexual market populism, with relationships only valuable according to the “buyer,” and value assigned to the valuables–in this case, the valuables being people–solely according to the kind of sexual and emotional utility they serve.  In this modern world, while Leftists decry the moral insensitivities of capitalism, they feel that the basic utilitarian principles of capitalism are perfectly applicable in terms of relationships, as though people are tools to be used and exchanged according to their sexual value, and disposable when they fail to live up to expectation.

While women comprise a “minority” more worthy of governmental protection than other groups according to Leftists, it is an irrefutable fact that women suffer greatly under sexual capitalism, yet Leftists seem unconcerned about the welfare of women when regulation threatens the party.  Instead of a woman being appreciated from youth, married to a noble man who waited for her and sincerely takes her emotional welfare into his hands, the promiscuous woman is tossed about from man to man, her expectations for romance trampled under the stampede of horny, boyish sub-humans whose short-term thinking originates solely from their genitals.  Instead of a life-long commitment, she gets a flood of quickly vanishing, decreasingly satisfying stimulations, her youth disappearing with every glance into the mirror, her anger increasing as she’s forced to compete for sexual legitimacy with younger, increasingly better-looking and easily-manipulated dispensables.  Ironically, the end of woman’s pursuit leaves her lonelier and oftentimes poorer than at the beginning.  Have we even ever used the term, “deadbeat mom”?  And yet, despite the unnecessary and purposeless suffering of women, deregulation remains sacrosanct.

Is it any wonder, then, that men and women don’t get along anymore?  Is it any wonder that our families have dissolved, leaving hordes of unfathered, trouble-prone children in their wakes?  Is anyone surprised when the World Health Organization reports that suicide rates amongst women have almost doubled in the past 60 years?  Are we actually shocked that treating people as sexually-disposable tools might have some negative effects on both the consumed and the consumer?

Lastly, if we make the case that Leftists should act in consistency, regulating sexuality as capital exchange, we should expect some to ask why conservatives shouldn’t be consistent with deregulation of both sexuality and economy.  It is important to note that while Christian conservatives have cultural and theological reasons for regulating sexuality and economy differently, Leftists have no such fall-back option, as true American humanistic liberalism (hypocritically) opposes both theological and cultural foundations for government.  So it is entirely fair to ask why, if Leftists are so concerned that utilitarianism ruins people’s ability to make moral exchanges, that they hold sexual exchanges to different standards.  After all, to those who have moral standards, an exclusion of money from an exchange doesn’t necessarily excuse participants from moral law and regulation.  Does it?

No Comments

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress