Sexual morals are a difficult topic.
If we discuss morals from a purely logical perspective, anything but a
nihilistic evaluation doesn't make sense.
From a nihilistic perspective, all moral values are perceived values.
They are highly arbitrary. From a nihilistic perspective, the moral
values of current democratic societies are no more correct than the moral
values of slave-holding ancient Rome, or of a cannibal Melanesian
society 200 years ago. They are just different.
Furthermore, if we take a scientific, a logical view of our lives, we
will arrive at the conclusion that only optimal orgasms and a gentle
death are aspects that genuinely count.
Unfortunately, the synthesis of the above two paragraphs leads
ultimately to scenarios which have been described in many of the books of the
Marquis de Sade.
If moral values are arbitrary, and if only optimal sexual adventures
are something we logically can strive for, is it, then, justified to
torture and murder other beings to satisfy our lust?
Unfortunately, again, we get nowhere if we attempt to argue against de
Sade-inspired scenarios on logical grounds.
But I don't want to suffer. I also don't want my children to suffer.
And I don't want people to suffer for whom I have positive feelings. I
also don't like to see animals suffer. And I wish for a gentle death for
all of the above.
So, I prefer a gentle society for me and all of those for whom I care.
To justify this wish, I do not have to draw on ethics. I do not wish
for such a society because such a society would be morally correct, but
because it suits me.
I am a kind man. I am aware that there are also cruel men. Whether a
person is kind or cruel are matters of his or her character. We cannot
claim that people are born kind and become cruel because of external
factors. Even young children who are treated kindly can turn extremely
cruel.
I am in favor of a gentle society of gentle people. And while people
can be cruel even when they are treated kindly, one connection is
scientifically well established: sexual satisfaction is generating kind and
gentle people.
I think it is sad that politicians practically everywhere around the
world don't concern themselves with questions of what it would take to
improve the degree of sexual satisfaction of a country's or a city's
population.
They concern themselves with many lesser topics: what it takes to
improve a country's economy, or banalities like what it takes to improve a
country's or city's road networks. Typically, they haven't even thought
about what it would take to improve general sexual satisfaction.
I think that most people in most countries are sexually undersatisfied,
and that it is this what causes much human cruelty. I also think that
more people in most Western countries are sexually undersatisfied now
than the people in the same countries were, for example, in the late
1960s and early 1970s.
Thus, the degree to which the people in certain countries are sexually
satisfied or not does depend on social, political factors (which are
the responsibility of politicians).
There is a clear quantitative dimension to the question of sexual
satisfaction. A higher degree of sexual satisfaction requires a larger
number of sexual contacts. Thus, there ought to be fewer sexual restrictions
(which may be legal, religious, or conventional restrictions).
Often, the term "morals" is understood as "sexual restrictions".
Furthermore, it is often argued that morals are needed to secure a kind
society. However, as argued above, there is no logical foundation for
claiming that one set of moral values is any more correct than any other. But
if we want to preserve, beyond the negation of morals, the aim for a
gentle society in which we, and all those for whom we care, do not
suffer, and will end their lives with a gentle death, than sexual
restrictions are counterproductive.
Cruelty, by and large, is of course more a character expression of
sexually dissatisfied males than of sexually dissatisfied females. But it
is wrong to assume that because there is less female cruelty in today's
and past societies, there would be, or would have been, less female
sexual dissatisfaction.
The most basic parameters of life are the same for men and women: that
optimal orgasms and a gentle death are the only matters we can
logically strive for. All else in life is garnish.
Thus, the main points of female emancipation, or feminism, can
logically only be to emphasize female sexual opportunities. That was what
feminism was about in the 1960s and 1970s, before it was highjacked by
man-haters.
Man-haters, under the disguise of feminism and female emancipation,
have since propagated a public view of all men as potential rapists and
child abusers, and effected sexual morals that have become ever more
restrictive.
But this kind of "morals" will not lead to what we all want: a society,
optimized for sexual satisfaction, in which we ourselves, and the
people we care for, will not suffer and end life with a gentle death.
Strange as this may sound, I do, in order to establish better societies
in the future, advocate a political movement that will express itself
in a political party which shall aim to provide strong government.
Strong government by a single party which is ideologically highly motivated,
and not Western-style democracy, is the best possible guarantor for
personal freedom in a country, as well as a sexually tolerant society.
Through both, political action and scientific education, such a party, if
it forms a strong government, could even do what no government in a
current Western-style democracy could never do: concern itself directly
with the two most important aspects in every citizen’s life, optimal
orgasms and a gentle death.
