Why it is so important to be discriminating

I have started this blog with the idea of putting down on the Web many of the nice little observations I have about life and, more particularly, morality. I have chosen the name "Discriminating morals" because I consider discrimination (in the old sense of the word, i.e., as the activity of a discriminating mind) as key to good moral sense.

On the great moral issues, there is disagreement as to answers. There are those who assert that unselfishness is stupid in an effort to make their selfishness seem smart. And there are those who assert that stupidity is unselfish in an effort to encourage stupidity in others. Thus, whenever some unselfish attitude resembles some stupid attitude, the group of people trying to berate the former and the group of people trying to praise the latter will encourage others to confuse the two.

Take sexual morality.

Certain elements of the right (and feminist groups) would have people believe that if a girl has sex without marriage and commitment, it is depraved or stupid. But what is commitment but a promise of resources? Why would a girl be depraved for loving a male without first receiving a guarantee of resources? Might it not often be expected to happen that a girl loves a male who (e.g., because he loves someone else more) does not love her sufficiently in return to want to marry her? Why shouldn't she please him by having sex with him? It's not like a man's having sex with another female is likely going to hurt a woman to whom he is married or otherwise commited. The simple truth is that a girl being willing to have sex outside marriage is unselfishness. In fact, the most important way for a female to be unselfish is for her to be more willing when in love to have sex without male commitment. Mostly, females should love through sex. Outlawing sex outside marriage or legally requiring (by creation of common-law marriages) commitment of a male makes the most important way females have of loving impossible, so to believe females having sex without commitment are depraved is a dreadful mistake.

What is also a mistake, however, is to react by pretending that nothing is depraved. There are those who assert that all moral beliefs about sex are just superstitions foisted on us by prudish people. After all, the belief in the sinfulness of females having sex without obtaining commitment really is that (or worse). In particular, it is claimed that sodomy is innocuous. (By sodomy, I mean behavior that allows semen to enter the digestive system.) But I am convinced sodomy is an evil addiction. Not in any religious superstitious sense as some might suspect because people who hate sodomy are often portrayed that way, but in the everyday sense of the word addiction. Semen contains addictive and terror-causing chemicals capable of being absorbed by the digestive system (whose purpose is digestion, after all), but not by the reproductive system. Here is another reason discrimination is so very important. Sodomizers profit by encouraging confusion between sodomy and sex. Oral sodomy is called "oral sex" and rectal sodomy too is called "sex".

So there you have it, self-serving right-wingers criticize both depravity and female sexual love while self-serving left-wingers praise them both. Neither opinion has much force against the truth because they cancel each other out. Indeed, most people probably believe something in the middle: be intermediate in sexuality between a prude and a slut. But where the self-serving agree is that female sexual love and depravity are both basically the same thing. This is the widespread terrible delusion. Females can and should be blatantly sexual when in love. Moreover, they can and should be clean as snow. The two are not mutually incompatible! The truth is not a muddled compromise. Virtue in a female does not imply "sort of being willing to fuck or get fucked". "Fuck" has (at least) two meanings bad people are united in encouraging the confusion of (and no, it is not the dictionaries that matter). On the one hand, "fuck" means sex without male caring and commitment. A good female is good mainly because she is extra willing to get fucked in that sense if she should be in love. On the other hand, "fuck" means to get sodomized to sodomize. Smart girls aren't willing to do that allow that to be done to them. So then, discrimination is not just good for the general reason that I mentioned to begin with, discrimination is good because to distinguish sex from sodomy is of fundamental significance, and it's literally just a black-and-white matter of one hole vs. another.

Here it is shortly before the election, and my choices disappoint me. I can take the party arguing that unselfishness is stupid (the Republicans) or I can choose the party arguing that stupidity is unselfish (the Democrats). I sit back and observe that the end result of the campaign will be to further encourage people to view stupidity and unselfishness as indiscriminately the same.

My opinions are much too numerous to post in a few posts. I'll see where people's comments lie, and go from there. E.g., I can further criticize the evil of indiscriminately identifying "free" sex with depravity, or I can move on to another way in which too many are indiscriminate.