Love and Sexual Deviancy

 

I’m old-fashioned. I prefer to stick with the formerly accepted meaning of words, let alone pronouns. When asked what my preferred pronouns are, I answer, “the correct ones.” When we talk about “sexual deviancy,” we’re not necessarily making a moral assessment of its practitioners (although let’s continue to hold pedophiles, pederasts, and rapists in contempt, please). To practice “deviancy” of any sort means to deviate from the norm.

Even the Catholic Church has softened the language to describe homosexual acts as “disordered” rather than “deviant.” And in the age of the tyranny of relativism, it’s run straight into the problem of explaining what is “properly ordered” versus “disordered” to people who don’t hold to objective truth to begin with. Which is why I prefer “deviant.” This is a scientific, statistical term. You can graph it as a bell curve and see that homosexuality and all the recent innovations in sexuality summed up in the alphabet soup LGBTQIIA++-whatever fall out on the shallow ends of the curve.

Now let’s do “love.” Love is not love. What an idiotic, circular formulation. Love is willing the good of the other even if it costs you. From a Christian perspective, especially if it costs you (picture Christ on the Cross). Let’s say it costs you sexual gratification to forgo sodomy, for example, because it’s not “good” for the other person, even if he desires it himself. It isn’t “good” to misuse one’s reproductive faculties in a manner exploiting someone’s digestive anatomy, and vice versa. And “exploitative” is the correct terminology for sexual deviancy. Exploitation is not love. It’s the inverse. It is literally not caring for the good of the other as long as your own desires are met.

Similarly, the abortion regime is about sexual exploitation. It’s a misuse of sexual faculties for gratification while negating the reproductive results of sex. So-called “feminist” pro-abort women should buy a clue. As Dennis Prager notes:

In feminist Newspeak (Orwell’s term for the totalitarian redefining of language), when applied to women, “strong” means “easily offended,” and “perceiving oneself as a victim.”

It’s no wonder feminists are so miserable. They’ve bought into the lie that having sex and then killing your offspring isn’t sexual exploitation by non-committal, irresponsible men, yet if some man tells a joke about women being either bisexual or bipolar, feminists have been “victimized” by their male oppressors. Pathetic.

Finally, I’d like to address the “T” in the alphabet soup of sexual deviancy and the Fox News segment promoting the family who started transitioning their daughter at five years old! I’ve only read about the segment and haven’t watched it, but I absolutely hate that this child is being exploited twice. First by her California (of course) family and now by Fox News. And I hate that any criticism of the segment might be construed as criticism of the child, who I consider to be a complete innocent and victim of her terrible “progressive” (one presumes) parents.

Does anyone believe that the child communicated that she was a boy before she could speak? Or that she was “constantly told she’s a girl” and would scream in reply that she’s “a boy?” And why is the phenomenon so much more prevalent among progressive parents (like the family across the street from us) and in places like California rather than rural, conservative families in Ohio, for example? (Hat tip to Bill Maher.)

If you’ve watched the Daily Wire documentary, What Is a Woman?, you know that the rate of suicides among transgendered individuals peaks at about seven years post-surgery! Yet we’re supposed to believe that this is a “loving,” Christian family who just wants “a live transgender son rather than a dead daughter.” And that every masculine girl who doesn’t like “wearing feminine clothes” is really a boy.

How about this for love? How about if your child is a girl with masculine traits or a boy with feminine traits, you allow for appropriate expressions of the same in how they dress and what hobbies they take up? How about not insisting that your masculine daughter wear pink dresses and let her dress in jeans and t-shirts and play rough sports (field hockey comes to mind and my shins remember the bruises)? And how about letting your feminine son collect colorful gemstones and read romantic epics? Does every girl have to like pink dresses and every boy have to play with trucks? Does any loving, conservative parent believe that?

And if the child’s gender confusion persists and worsens into extremes — like the desire to take hormone blockers or have surgery — isn’t the loving thing to do to seek psychological (and maybe psychiatric) help for them, rather than mutilating them chemically or physically? Likely significantly shortening their lives because you’ve allowed them to live an extremely unloving lie that their taste in clothing or hobbies means they’re in the wrong body?

Matt Walsh has a moving conversation with a Canadian father who was jailed for using the “wrong” pronouns with his daughter who was seeking to transition. He did everything to stop it but failed. His daughter is taking hormone blockers and likely will receive “affirming” transition surgery at some point. He’s lost his daughter but he did everything he could to save her from this wicked ideology and, as he said, he kept a conscience he could live with, God bless him. That’s love. Putting your life on the line for the other, up to and including going to jail.

I don’t believe the Fox News California family knows what love is.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 39 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. She Member
    She
    @She

    I think my baseline is this:  If your self-actualization cannot be achieved without surgery, hormones, operational plasticity, or any other sort of artificial altering of your physicality, hormonality, or overriding of your obvious sex-at-birth, then–whatever you say you are–isn’t real.  I know that.  I suspect that–underneath it all–you do too.

    If you–as an adult–still want to go for it, then please do.  But don’t prompt, bully, threaten, peer-pressure, or otherwise tempt uncertain and  bewildered children into such things.

    As far as the Fox News story goes–the title is very clever:  I Would Rather Have a Living Son Than a Dead Daughter.  

    Wouldn’t we all?

    Yeah.  Mr. She ended up with two dead sons, both of whom, I’m pretty sure, he’d have wished to live.  And the deaths of both, I’m pretty sure, hastened his own.

    One of them died as a result of a couple of catastrophic accidents.  The other as a result of decades of malfeasance when it comes to the treatment of a mentally ill person–including their gender dysphoria issues.

    The moronic driveling by the parents in this story about how the child–even before she/he could speak–managed to convey her/his distress about having to wear clothing which corresponded with her/his biological sex, is riveting ridiculous. Glory be.

    Love.

    Love yourself.

    Love how you were born.

    Insist that others do too.

    And all else will follow as the day the night.

    • #1
  2. Stina Member
    Stina
    @CM

    Amen.

    • #2
  3. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    The mother got a book out of it, plus the admiration and respect of all their woke friends in California.

    • #3
  4. MWD B612 "Dawg" Member
    MWD B612 "Dawg"
    @danok1

    Western Chauvinist: And if the child’s gender confusion persists and worsens into extremes — like the desire to take hormone blockers or have surgery — isn’t the loving thing to do to seek psychological (and maybe psychiatric) help for them, rather than mutilating them chemically or physically?

    Unfortunately the likely outcome will be the psychologist/psychiatrist saying, “Yep, you’re ‘transgender.’ Here are a bunch of puberty blockers. Let me know if your parents object and we’ll get them re-educated.”

    • #4
  5. Vance Richards Member
    Vance Richards
    @VanceRichards

    Western Chauvinist:

    I don’t believe the FOX News California family knows what love is.

    Any parent should know that love isn’t agreeing with and affirming everything your child wants. Love often means saying no and showing them the better way.

    • #5
  6. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    The Fox News segment featured a photo of the “boy” dressed as a toddler in a frilly black dress, sucking on a pacifier. Frankly, I’m surprised the kid isn’t still sucking on the pacifier. 

    Setting boundaries – meal-time, bed-time, bath-time – and standards, of behavior and dress, are such important aspects of parenting that I don’t understand how the parenting methods of these people aren’t questioned or probed at all. 

    Also, the Fox story opens with the idea that this is a totally unremarkable American  family. So, okay, then why are they on the news? Fox explains it’s because they can inspire and help others like them. But again, if they’re no different, then why all the fuss? They have to know that they’re full of **it.

    • #6
  7. Red Herring Coolidge
    Red Herring
    @EHerring

    Munchhausen. And this from @She 👇

    I think my baseline is this:  If your self-actualization cannot be achieved without surgery, hormones, operational plasticity, or any other sort of artificial altering of your physicality, hormonality, or overriding of your obvious sex-at-birth, then–whatever you say you are–isn’t real.  I know that.  I suspect that–underneath it all–you do too.

    • #7
  8. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Red Herring (View Comment):

    Munchhausen. And this from @ She 👇

    I think my baseline is this: If your self-actualization cannot be achieved without surgery, hormones, operational plasticity, or any other sort of artificial altering of your physicality, hormonality, or overriding of your obvious sex-at-birth, then–whatever you say you are–isn’t real. I know that. I suspect that–underneath it all–you do too.

    The new term is “Transhausen by proxy.” That’s what bites. These parents are using these children to increase their social status among their progressive peers. It’s a fad to have a transgender child. The latest thing. The word “exploitation” applies again.

    • #8
  9. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    Western Chauvinist: Even the Catholic church has softened the language to describe homosexual acts as “disordered” rather than “deviant.”

    Sounds Augustiney and Thomistic enough for me.

    • #9
  10. Western Chauvinist Member
    Western Chauvinist
    @WesternChauvinist

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    Western Chauvinist: Even the Catholic church has softened the language to describe homosexual acts as “disordered” rather than “deviant.”

    Sounds Augustiney and Thomistic enough for me.

    Yeah, I don’t really mind. I was trying to make a point about the audience being un-Augustiney and un-Thomastic enough not to un-derstand. 

    • #10
  11. Lilly B Coolidge
    Lilly B
    @LillyB

    This is not written by a conservative, but it seems to reflect that you don’t have to be conservative to understand the problem with kids “choosing” their gender:

    https://unherd.com/2022/06/are-the-kids-alright/

    • #11
  12. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Here’s my take:

    Being heterosexual is normal.  Being something else is not abnormal, it’s merely not normal.  Something being not normal is not necessarily a bad thing.

    For example, my getting a four-pack of my favorite beer is a good thing, but it’s not normal.

    However, getting that four-pack, sticking it in everyone’s face demanding they agree it’s the best beer in the world is not only abnormal, it’s obnoxious.  Likewise, being gay is not normal, but being a man with breasts twerking the crowd in a Gay “Pride” parade is abnormal and obnoxious.  This behavior makes it difficult to practice “live and let live” . . .

    • #12
  13. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot) Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patriot)
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Stad (View Comment):

    Here’s my take:

    Being heterosexual is normal. Being something else is not abnormal, it’s merely not normal. Something being not normal is not necessarily a bad thing.

    For example, my getting a four-pack of my favorite beer is a good thing, but it’s not normal.

    However, getting that four-pack, sticking it in everyone’s face demanding they agree it’s the best beer in the world is not only abnormal, it’s obnoxious. Likewise, being gay is not normal, but being a man with breasts twerking the crowd in a Gay “Pride” parade is abnormal and obnoxious. This behavior makes it difficult to practice “live and let live” . . .

    Here’s my take:

    This is what you get for taking a “live and let live” attitude toward perversion.  I don’t like it, and it appears that you don’t like it either.

    I don’t think that sodomy is the equivalent of a four-pack of beer.  If we want to use a beverage analogy, it’s more like a six-pack of urine.

    • #13
  14. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    Lilly B (View Comment):

    This is not written by a conservative, but it seems to reflect that you don’t have to be conservative to understand the problem with kids “choosing” their gender:

    https://unherd.com/2022/06/are-the-kids-alright/

    Good article, including this line:  “It turned out that my babies were even more clueless than me about how they should be raised.”

    I had to look at the comments to see that it was a fairly new article. No word on whether the author is still alive.  

    • #14
  15. Keith Lowery Coolidge
    Keith Lowery
    @keithlowery

    @westernchauvinist

    I’ve written on a different site that I wonder whether sexual sins are, with very few exceptions, predatory.

    In essence, they always seem to involve damaging one’s partner – spiritually and sometimes physically – for your own gratification.  As you allude to, even in the case of a willing partner you damage them by encouraging/enticing their participation in something harmful to everyone involved.

    I suspect – don’t know – that the destiny for those who engage in moral predation is more grim than for those who are merely self-destructive. I have in mind Jesus’ observation that it’s better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea than to cause a child to sin. I assume such a statement on his part was to distinguish between being morally predatory and otherwise just self-destructive. If his statement wasn’t to make a distinction regarding predation I’m not sure why he would have even brought it up.

    At any rate and my own speculations aside,  this is a really really good post and thanks for writing it.

    • #15
  16. EJHill Podcaster
    EJHill
    @EJHill

    Disordered?

    Do heterosexual acts have an order? Dinner, drinks, foreplay?

    What happens if you skip a step? 

    • #16
  17. Percival Thatcher
    Percival
    @Percival

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Disordered?

    Do heterosexual acts have an order? Dinner, drinks, foreplay?

    What happens if you skip a step?

    The father of the bride accessorizes with a Remington 870.

    • #17
  18. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    She (View Comm

     

    Love how you were born.

     

    What if I am born a pedophile who is genetically inclined to believe in zero-sum economics?

    • #18
  19. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    Let the record state that approve of sodomy. 

    • #19
  20. HeavyWater Reagan
    HeavyWater
    @HeavyWater

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Let the record state that approve of sodomy.

    I think sodomy is fine too, as long as it is between consenting adults.  

    • #20
  21. TBA Coolidge
    TBA
    @RobtGilsdorf

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Let the record state that approve of sodomy.

    I think sodomy is fine too, as long as it is between consenting adults.

    Sodomy is physically dangerous and spiritually questionable. 

    Other people’s sodomy is not my concern. 

    Encouraging sodomy in children is. 

    • #21
  22. The Reticulator Member
    The Reticulator
    @TheReticulator

    TBA (View Comment):

    HeavyWater (View Comment):

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    Let the record state that approve of sodomy.

    I think sodomy is fine too, as long as it is between consenting adults.

    Sodomy is physically dangerous and spiritually questionable.

    Other people’s sodomy is not my concern.

    Actually they are is, but we have to draw the line somewhere as to where our concerns are actionable by the government.

    Encouraging sodomy in children is.

    Definitely inside that line.

    • #22
  23. Cassandro Coolidge
    Cassandro
    @Flicker

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Disordered?

    Do heterosexual acts have an order? Dinner, drinks, foreplay?

    What happens if you skip a step?

    Manly men don’t skip.

    • #23
  24. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    @ westernchauvinist

    I’ve written on a different site that I wonder whether sexual sins are, with very few exceptions, predatory.

    In essence, they always seem to involve damaging one’s partner – spiritually and sometimes physically – for your own gratification. As you allude to, even in the case of a willing partner you damage them by encouraging/enticing their participation in something harmful to everyone involved.

    I suspect – don’t know – that the destiny for those who engage in moral predation is more grim than for those who are merely self-destructive. I have in mind Jesus’ observation that it’s better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea than to cause a child to sin. I assume such a statement on his part was to distinguish between being morally predatory and otherwise just self-destructive. If his statement wasn’t to make a distinction regarding predation I’m not sure why he would have even brought it up.

    At any rate and my own speculations aside, this is a really really good post and thanks for writing it.

    Damaging your partner for THEIR gratification isn’t right either.

    • #24
  25. Henry Castaigne Member
    Henry Castaigne
    @HenryCastaigne

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    @ westernchauvinist

    I’ve written on a different site that I wonder whether sexual sins are, with very few exceptions, predatory.

    In essence, they always seem to involve damaging one’s partner – spiritually and sometimes physically – for your own gratification. As you allude to, even in the case of a willing partner you damage them by encouraging/enticing their participation in something harmful to everyone involved.

    I suspect – don’t know – that the destiny for those who engage in moral predation is more grim than for those who are merely self-destructive. I have in mind Jesus’ observation that it’s better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea than to cause a child to sin. I assume such a statement on his part was to distinguish between being morally predatory and otherwise just self-destructive. If his statement wasn’t to make a distinction regarding predation I’m not sure why he would have even brought it up.

    At any rate and my own speculations aside, this is a really really good post and thanks for writing it.

    Damaging your partner for THEIR gratification isn’t right either.

    They should both be into it.

    • #25
  26. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Henry Castaigne (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Keith Lowery (View Comment):

    @ westernchauvinist

    I’ve written on a different site that I wonder whether sexual sins are, with very few exceptions, predatory.

    In essence, they always seem to involve damaging one’s partner – spiritually and sometimes physically – for your own gratification. As you allude to, even in the case of a willing partner you damage them by encouraging/enticing their participation in something harmful to everyone involved.

    I suspect – don’t know – that the destiny for those who engage in moral predation is more grim than for those who are merely self-destructive. I have in mind Jesus’ observation that it’s better to have a millstone tied around your neck and cast into the sea than to cause a child to sin. I assume such a statement on his part was to distinguish between being morally predatory and otherwise just self-destructive. If his statement wasn’t to make a distinction regarding predation I’m not sure why he would have even brought it up.

    At any rate and my own speculations aside, this is a really really good post and thanks for writing it.

    Damaging your partner for THEIR gratification isn’t right either.

    They should both be into it.

    Not my point.

    Calling damaging behavior “love” or even just “sex” even if it’s what both claim to want, is still damaging.

    • #26
  27. Saint Augustine Member
    Saint Augustine
    @SaintAugustine

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Disordered?

    Do heterosexual acts have an order? Dinner, drinks, foreplay?

    What happens if you skip a step?

    That’s not the sense of “order” used here. It’s about teleology. It’s about things having proper functions.

    • #27
  28. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Saint Augustine (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Disordered?

    Do heterosexual acts have an order? Dinner, drinks, foreplay?

    What happens if you skip a step?

    That’s not the sense of “order” used here. It’s about teleology. It’s about things having proper functions.

    Indeed.  An “ordered” universe does not mean the same as “first comes love, then comes marriage, then comes baby in a baby carriage.”

    • #28
  29. Full Size Tabby Member
    Full Size Tabby
    @FullSizeTabby

    Western Chauvinist:

    And if the child’s gender confusion persists and worsens into extremes — like the desire to take hormone blockers or have surgery — isn’t the loving thing to do to seek psychological (and maybe psychiatric) help for them, rather than mutilating them chemically or physically? Likely significantly shortening their lives because you’ve allowed them to live an extremely unloving lie that their taste in clothing or hobbies means they’re in the wrong body?

     

    Possibly somewhat off topic because it deals mostly with the physica, but I cannot think of a single area other than “transgender” in which society approves of altering a child’s body because of something that child says he or she thinks. I hope no one would seriously consider amputating a child’s functional legs because the child says he thinks he’d be happier as a paraplegic. Society doesn’t permit a girl to be surgically altered just because the girl is so convinced she is overweight that she exhibits anorexic behavior.

    Even further afield, I can’t believe that a sub-teen child (and probably even a teen) has any idea what it “feels” like to be a particular sex different from the child’s actual physical body. I don’t think adults do either, but for now I focus on children. I keep thinking of how disgusted most children are if they are told what mom did with dad to create the child. For his or her entire life, the child has known mom as the primary example of what a “woman” is. Children are almost universally horrified to be told that Mom is a sexual creature who “did the deed” with Dad. Ugh! They had no idea that is part of being a “woman.” Which means children do not understand what it means to be a “woman” or a “man.” 

    • #29
  30. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Full Size Tabby (View Comment):
    Even further afield, I can’t believe that a sub-teen child (and probably even a teen) has any idea what it “feels” like to be a particular sex different from the child’s actual physical body. I don’t think adults do either, but for now I focus on children. I keep thinking of how disgusted most children are if they are told what mom did with dad to create the child. For his or her entire life, the child has known mom as the primary example of what a “woman” is. Children are almost universally horrified to be told that Mom is a sexual creature who “did the deed” with Dad. Ugh! They had no idea that is part of being a “woman.” Which means children do not understand what it means to be a “woman” or a “man.” 

    That’s been one of my points for the longest time.  Nobody can know that they “should” be the opposite gender, because nobody really knows what that “feels like.”  All they can know is that they don’t “feel right” the way they are, and that sounds to me like one of the loudest possible cries for psychiatric help/intervention.

    • #30
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.