There are three consecutive themes to be explored. Money, sex and commitment underpin society. They are what makes or breaks society. All exploitation stems from the abuse of either. It is an abuse which starts at birth. For a significant period of our lives we are slaves without rights. Law makers heeding commercial interests eventually grant adult society rights. The “crop” is now ready to be processed. Therefore that development is a transition from slavery without rights to enslavement with rights. The cornerstone of repression is sex. Due to the power of marketing, a fictitious standard of purity has been based on virginity. It subtly infers that ignorance is everything noble and experience is bad as that leads to sin (no comments please!). Therefore under this false protocol, to remain pure, children must neither have sex nor be encouraged to do so. To overstate their insistence lawmakers have put some of the most draconian and savage laws in place to persuade those branded children and adults to comply. Thus far, their initiatives have failed dismally. This is because human nature is far stronger than any synthetic law.
Though the focus of this post is not the child sex debate (a debate that has not been freely aired due to jurisdictional censorship), the many articles that appear discrediting Islam due to the death of young brides are, as always, misrepresentative both in terms of factual analysis and wider parallels. The most recent case of an eight year old Yemeni girl, who allegedly died of genital tears and internal bleeding, perfectly enhanced the mainstream crusade. Nothing has been printed about parallel successful relationships, for instance. Nevertheless, referring to literatures written in a time of less prejudice, the consensus of expert findings claimed while full sex between adult males and prepubescent girls was possible, it required patience and understanding. A turn of the 19th century British (?) post card featured a ten year old prostitute who (at the time) was four months pregnant to raise the issue of the plight of the street urchin. The complex interplays defining teen relationships have been reduced to the same Edwardian problem-reaction-solution treatment. Loving sex has been redefined as consensual rape (when the use of the term “rape” is farcicle). Sex has become the great prize for adulthood with no children allowed. Currently one minute before the eighteenth birthday the child morphs into adulthood and in the space of two minutes the fledgling process is complete. The only development change is one is permitted to have restricted sex whereas the other is forbidden.
Brand childhood conditions brand adulthood. There is a window of opportunity for you, the individual, to break the law. Yes, criminal behaviour is serious, but most will be let off with a warning for most things. You are told, for the most part of your upbringing, that sex is evil and should be avoided like the plague. Those that are not told that are informed that sex is either dangerous or we, the adults, are too frightened to explore it for fear of reprisal. We the adults could be brand paedophile for merely supporting antipathy. You are processed by an indoctrination methodology called the education system, which insists you conform to the whims of commercial government. Those who perfectly mimic these wishes make the top of the class. Those who chose innovation and free thought more often come a cropper. In the meantime, family structures make the financial value of the support mechanism crystal clear. This happens in one of three ways. Either the bread winners lecture those that receive support that they should be grateful of this support, financial issues fracture the support relationship, or external parties impose superficial advice. What commercial government produces are brainwashed slaves who understand only that they need money to survive and the greatest prize of all is sex.
It is no wonder that the core values of marriages or other cooperative relationship based on love, are none other than extensions of will to survive (greed), lust (sex) or compliance (fear of change)? Females, in particular, have a preference for partners who measure up to their fathers. Lesbians tend to have deeply flawed fathers, whether physically disfigured or with character issues. Gay men are often the product of overbearing or unfair mothers. Ironically, deeply flawed fathers also contribute to males forming gay identities. Those who have happy upbringings with solid parental guides tend to replicate what they had. They become the next generation of “normal” society. Therefore, one of the challenging questions people have not sufficiently addressed is, “is love infatuation?” Or rather, can love be anything more than infatuation?
Generosity is an interesting theme to consider. Is there any real generosity? Families support out of perceived obligation and when there is no perceived obligation there is no support (unless enforced). Altruistic gifts are given to those that are liked. Charities, even, merely heed corporate edict and most were established to enable crusades built on principles of revenge. If there was truly such a thing as unconditional love, would that not materialise in support of the hated? For instance, a corporation up against a truly detested impoverished individual offering and paying their prosecutor’s legal bills would demonstrate true love. That is philanthropy. Their reward of an unscheduled bonus to the defence teams merely reinforces infatuation and the will to win at any cost. The same is with marriage. Is not the greatest love between those who find a way to co-exist even though they are repulsed by the existence of the other?
Ultimately does not that define value? In this self-serving world what is the value of loving those that repulse? What is the ultimate cost of repulsion?