Puritanism plus feminist sexism have created fascist sex laws defying reality and vilifying man’s sexuality. A 17-year old is legally mis-identified as a child when it comes to sexual activity. The intended consequence – if she has sex with a man more than two years older than her, he is put to trial for “sexual abuse of a child”. If he is her teacher he is guilty of a second offense. He is a double statutary rapist, once for using his age-power over her, second for using his position-power. The penalties for those socalled sexual crimes then are set by law to heights above manslaughter or armed robbery or even murder, as many cases of women killing their children or killing their husbands have shown. At the same token, female teachers ever so often get away with probation or a couple of years in prison for the same acts, even if their socalled victims are much younger than 17.
And – all of this is coming to Europe, soon. Thanks to the UN, thanks to the EU. Therefore it is not enough to say, well this is American puritanism or bible-belt mentality at its worst. It may be termed a hysteria, an insanity, a hypocrisy, a moral corruption or whatever. The point is, it is spread like a pandemic to all countries giving in to the US’ political pressure, exactly as the police-state controls of international travellers to which the European countries have surrendered.
The german-speaking societies for sex research have warned against the irreal legal treatment of teenagers as if they were equal in immaturity to prepuberty age children, but as up until today there is no public outrage or even discussion of the policies going to be effective in the near future.
Therefore, soon we will see the same atrocities here in Europe which in the past we have shuddered and shrugged when reading about their infliction to American men and boys, who are made into criminals and put to prison for what has forever been the most natural and spontaneous constellation of mutual erotic attraction, namely between a younger woman and a man at least a few years older. The statistical difference in the age of marriage, for example, is approximately 4 years.
To remember: 14 is the legal age of consent to sexual intercourse in Austria or Germany. Statistically speaking, a 17 year old girl would feel naturally attracted the most by a 21 year old man. And, by the way, but highly significant to mention, men of all ages feel the strongest sexual attraction to teenage girls.
Without going any further into the matter, consensual sex among physically mature people must not ever be criminalized. This includes sexual relations between students and teachers, which might be problematic and causing difficulties but can be dealt with on the level of conflict management or disciplinary regulations if need be. Yet there is absolutely no justification for a categorical moralistic, social or even legal condemnation. Which does not exclude the adequacy of a good portion of critical observation and a fundamental scepticism as towards the relative “purity” of the motives of both of the players. Whereby raw sexual lust would count as pure. Manipulation for better grades as dirty.
The preoccupation with power, control, use and abuse is out of place altogether, it rests on a false assumption of sex which is never really expressed as such. And that is the puritan victorian proper: Women do not like sex, they get nothing worthwile from it, thus they do not want to do it for the fun of it but only agree to it as a means for an exchange. She gives(!) sex to him in order to be given back something worthwile to her, like love, money, jewelry, services, support, status, power a.s.o. The marriage contract of old, sex for financial support, social status and personal security. Besides the raising of children.
When the idea is proposed, someone with less social power, be it from younger age or lesser rank or organizational dependency cannot consent by free will, we have arrived in a fictional idealistic terrain which never ever has existed or could exist for human relations.
Free will is always the pre-given, it is up to the secretary to use her perception of the seductive power of her miniskirt, as it is the free will of the boss to make use of the seductive power of his authority, and as much as it is wrong to say of her she cannot be held responsible for using her means to get what she wants, it is wrong to say the same of him.
On the contrary, things are almost set out in the opposite way, authority is a major aphrodisiacum for women and bare thighs are a major aphrodisiacum for men. Especially and ordinarily combined with his majority and her minority of age.
Blaming a woman for using the natural aphrodisiac effect of her youth and smooth skin is absurd. Equally absurd it is to blame a man for using that of his seniority and status. As an ideal of ethical behavior one might propose both should care to let the personal charms prevail over the physical and statutory, but then that is tricky as both areas of charm are not independent of each other insofar as erotic attraction is concerned. That she is there to serve him is an erotic aspect of the professional relation to him and that he is there to command her services is such to her.
Here instinctive anthropological givens are touched and active, and to abstain from their presence and activity is not only practically impossible but anthropologically wrong. Ideology, however serene or idealistic, cannot and should not be applied to counter instinctive connections and sensibilities fundamentally inherent to human relations.
That puritanism and its contemporary form of feminist sexism have twisted the intuitive and pragmatic understanding of the instinctive basis of human relations and especially of sexual relations insofar as power differentials and complementary social roles are concerned, is a malaise of our times, a decadent obstruction of individual personal sensibility and common sense. The statutory dimensions of the sexes’ erotic and sexual relations do not need normative or legal interference and these cannot put up with it without becoming debased, disoriented and dysfunctional.
In other terms, sex is private, not political. And, of course, no, the private is not political nor public but private. The regulatory functionality of social relations and communities is effective enough to deal with sexual relations that transgress social norms. The parents, the families as well as the peer groups of the two proponents can deal with them well enough, there is absolutely no need for the state to interfere.
Which applies to institutions like schools or corporations or any workplaces as well. The state, the legislators are the transgressors if they make laws concerning statutory definitions of legitimate or illegitimate sexual relations.
They are to be rebuked and have to abolish that kind of laws in order to end the oppression and repression of human sexual nature, especially of male sexuality, which has been vilified, demonized and criminalized by those laws.
In short, from a commenter on MensRights.Reddit.com:
I hope to celebrate 2011-09/11 with the Palestinians, you dumb fucking American feminists are drugging us down, we should bring WWIII to your fucking continent, seriously.
FUCK YOU ‘MERICA