Even basic biology and sexual dimorphism is somehow controversial now.Originally Posted by Tahuyaman
This is what makes Utopianism basically impossible. What they want is to make reality into a physically impossible subset of itself, effectively denying human nature. It's a sentiment that does appeal a lot to sexual deviants, among others.Originally Posted by zelmo1234
I think it goes much deeper than that, and I don't think it has so much to do with the so-called intelligentsia and secret police--people addicted to government paychecks and groupthink. One of the things I've noted is that the effort to push acceptance of sexual deviance is to assert that such people are born that way. This is a remarkable assertion from leftists from the standpoint that it is basically a rejection of Locke and the liberal idea that humans are born tabula rasa. Much of the political argument around issues like homosexual marriage are a wholesale lie; specifically, that marriage is about love. That's utter nonsense, and anyone with an understanding of history knows this; yet, we were subjected to the most torrential downpour of BS from Justice Kennedy in Obergefell that I could no longer take the court seriously. Liberals frequently assert that you can teach away any undersired behavior, with the new exception for sexually deviant behavior. Get a DUI? You must go to alcohol class. Tell a cop to go F himself? You must go to anger management class. Get a job in a major corporation? You must go to sexual harassment training. Everything can be solved by education, except homosexuality. So today's liberal is saying that some behaviors are innate and can't be changed. Some behaviors are as innate and immutable as being born with a certain skin color or a certain gender. Now, if you make an assertion about race and crime, then you are a racist even if you have plenty of evidence to support your argument--so clearly, these people are not interested in intellectual consistency.Originally Posted by zelmo1234
Radical egalitarians who know the history of marriage know perfectly well why the oppose it: women were chattel of their fathers until they became the chattel property of their husbands. This was quite true until about 100 years ago. I remember being in Dubai in 2019 and marvelling at their embrace of modern accoutrements of Western society, but more or less a rejection of Western moral decadence. It struck me at that point that the current ethos of men and women being political equals has only been around in the West for roughly 100 years. Where I think the intelligentsia was involved there is that the Communist revolution of 1917 pushed that ethos of women voting, and the Western imperial powers were fearful of women becoming a fifth column of the communists.
While I understand the sentiments of people trapped in loveless marriages, I do think the modern liberal ethos does not address humans in their animal nature. For edification:
Harry Harlow and the Nature of Affection
Harlow developed an evidentiary-based attachment theory during experiments on Rhesus monkeys--using methods that are considered unethical today.
It's fairly obvious now why children born to single parent families tend to struggle much more than children from two-parent families. Yet, that is contrary to the Sexual Revolution and Women's Liberation. It has had disastrous effects on many people.
So who is going to build this Utopia with the modern left? The homeless? The alcoholic and drug addicted? The mentally ill? Pretty much any well-adjusted person wants nothing to do with leftist Utopianism, which makes them so angry at people from healthy families.
This is also why Women's Liberation and the Sexual Revolution has had it's counter-revolution in the form of #MeToo--primarily women past their sexual prime lamenting the behavior of some men during their sexual prime, when they seemingly rarely complained about it to law enforcement. Men and women are fundamentally different, and they are different sexually as well. If you provided a man the opportunity to impregnate 20 women with no attachments, probably he would end up with a sore back after a few months of activity. Yet, the women have to go through 9 months of pregnancy, something that was potentially life-threatening before modern medicine. Hence, men are generally more likely to be "pigs" as women might call them in frustration, and women are more likely to be "frigid" as men might characterize them. "I'm so hot for her, and she's so cold" as Mick Jagger put it.
The Sexual Revolution has also put the West into demographic decline. Today's intelligentsia would be horrified if you suggested cancelling high school education for poor people, yet they are delighted to import people with few or no skills, functionally illiterate in their native language, and unable to speak the language of the countries to which they emigrate. I see no chance of Utopians ever getting their way, because they are their own worst enemies.