Age discrimination as a transcultural phenomenon needs to become far better understood and especially so considering the huge cost for economies due to structural age discrimination which is just as irrational as other forms of discrimination.
- Discrimination of Age
- Cost of Discrimination
- Anthropology of Age
- Teleology of Patriarchy
- Spectrum of Desire
- Objectification in Age
- Bondage of Childhood
- Law and Obedience
- Sociology of Crypto-Sexuality
1. Discrimination of Age
Discrimination on the basis of age is considered as socially acceptable as once discrimination of the basis of intimate anatomy, gender or racialization of fellow human beings. Why is this so? The answer is that prejudice is typically considered legitimate until publicly scandalized. Yet public scandalization tends to be insufficient as discrimination typically continues to remain a pervasive behavioral structure even after this type of prejudice has been publicly de-legitimized.
For example is it in many European countries considered worse to accuse someone of anti-Jewish prejudice than actually expressing such prejudice or at least so if expression of such prejudice is discursively veiled to some degree. While few employers in liberal-democratic Europe would dare to overtly express racism against fellow human beings is pervasive discrimination in hiring policies on the basis of structural racialization of human beings the norm in most of Europe. Indeed, all forms of discrimination in hiring policy are hegemonic and normative in Europe in thus seriously hampering those very economies.
What is needed therefore is to train employers in non-discriminatory hiring practicing. It is unfortunately impractical to expect employers to rise beyond socially hegemonic, structural prejudice unless specifically individually trained to do so. Mere condemnation and shaming do not magically make discrimination disappear and that certainly includes age discrimination in hiring policies.
There are essentially in terms of law three types of discrimination; i.e. 1) discrimination that is tolerated under law, 2) discrimination that is proscribed by law and 3) discrimination that is required by law. Age discrimination is found in all three categories. For example is it in Sweden legally permitted to discriminate against left-handed human beings, human beings with unseemly faces without diagnosed pathology, humans with red hair and humans speaking low status dialects of Swedish as these categories of persons are not protected categories under Sweden’s anti-discrimination legislation. While it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender or gendered sexualiy is it in contrast not illegal to discriminate against fetishists and members of the BDSM community. It is thus perfectly legal in purportedly “progressive” Sweden to fire an employee merely for being part of the BDSM or fetishist communities.
This certainly absurd state of things is due to lack of protection against discrimination generally in either constitutional or international law. What is lacking thus is an international convention against discrimination generally no matter for which shibboleth of discrimination. As there is no protection against discrimination generally irrespective of shibboleth of discrimination in Swedish constitutional law is it therefore impossible to appeal and subsequently legally invalidate discriminatory legislation.
Discrimination on the basis of age being socially accepted to varying degrees is thus no exception to other forms of discrimination which indeed are socially accepted to varying degrees in various human societies. What is therefore needed is protection in international/constitutional law against discrimination generally, including especially against discriminatory legislation that either permits or requires discrimination. For example is it typically considered completely normal to discriminate someone for being “too young” or “too old”. What does this mean? Is it discriminatory to refuse to hire an infant person or a severely senile person? Of course not, it is however discriminatory to refuse to hire someone suitable for a job position due to that person’s chronological age. Swedish legislation thus only protects against discriminatory termination of employment if the human person is below the age of 67. A human person above the age of 67 is thus not protected at all against discriminatory firing policies and irrespectively so on what grounds whether due to age, gender, ethnicity, intimate anatomy and so one.
Age discrimination is thus the social norm not only in Sweden but in many other societies around the world and legislation proscribing some forms of age discrimination are therefore exceptions to the ageist norm, namely that of ageist physionomism.
2. Cost of Discrimination
Employers’ organizations typically complain about what they consider high taxes no matter the level of taxation although it is indeed true that relatively speaking excessive taxes are indeed detrimental to economic growth.
However what they rarely consider is their own contribution to the level of those taxes as discriminated categories of persons no matter how taxonomized and on the basis of what shibboleth of discrimination – need to be financially supported by the government in generous welfare states. Employers’ organizations should rather look at how their members discriminate in hiring/firing policy on the basis of so many shibboleths of discrimination and irrespectively of whether or not those categories of persons are legally protected against discrimination or not.
This means that the government/state as funded through taxation in practice has to pay for the consequences of structural discrimination in hiring/firing policy. Employers thus in effect pay for their own discrimination. Indeed, if they did not discriminate in hiring/firing and through their lobby groups even supporting the continued existence of discriminatory legislation with regard to hiring/firing of junior/senior persons very much capable of specific usuful labor in employment – would they certainly not to have to pay as high taxes as is currently the case. Employers and employers’ lobby groups thus simply do not understand that they themselves are the very cause of exorbitant taxation and that they therefore need to undergo training in non-discriminatory hiring/firing and start advocating for the abolition and criminalization of all forms of discrimination no matter irrespective of shibboleth of discrimination.
Employers’ organizations seeking lower taxation therefore need to support universal emancipation and evidence-based legislation as discrimination specifically and unethical practices generally are simply bad for the business community. Unethical practices such as enslavement, exploitation, torment, incarceration, rape and mass murder of victimized non-human persons simply give the business community a bad reputation and so what is needed is blanket ethics legislation that outlaws unethical practices generally whether in employment, business, marketing, trade or production. In fact, structural discrimination on the basis of chronological age causes more taxation than does any other shibboleth of discrimination.
3. Anthropology of Age
Sexists and inter-human racists infamously confer imaginary group cognitive profiles on presumed collectives of cognitively unique individual persons. Yet the practice of ageists doing the same is considered perfectly normal. Age is typically considered an homogenous concept when in fact there are parallel measurements of age including psychological age, anatomical age, genetic age, sexual age, educational age, mental age, medical age and of course finally the arbitrary chronological age which many assume is the only form of measurement of age.
However the question is why age needs to be measured at all outside of specific context where such specific measurements are strictly relevant? Why is it that the same stereotypical thinking that is considered repugnant with respect to intimate anatomy and racialization are considered legitimate with regard to the arbitrary concept of chronological age? Why is that this very parallel structure is not recognized when it comes to age?
How can it be that truly primitive notions of semiotic contamination which have never been proven to be anything than coincidental correlation have been permitted to perpetuate macabre practices of Eurocentric honor culture where hundreds of thousands of legally mostly innocent persons worldwide have been jailed for years on the basis of usually by normal legal standards individually unproven accusations? And typically so as emotional vengeance on the basis of epistemological privilege such as a psychopathic stepdaughter either wanting to “get rid of” her mother’s boyfriend or her filing an emotionally vengeful police complaint against him after the mother’s boyfriend repeatedly refuses to have sex with her. Why is it that those voicing dissent in this regard will become potentially “suspected” of being potential or actual sex criminals and seen having particular sexual preferences? Where is the civic courage in this regard? How can it be that a reign of fear has been allowed to overshadow an essential public discussion with respect to the need for evidence-based legislation generally? The Pirate Party movement in Europe informally functions as a forum for those who understand the monumental miscarriage of justice which are the sexual age of consent laws worldwide. Yet, peculiarly enough although this is not exactly a secret has the mass media remained mum even on this point. This very reign of fear has thus continued to silence legitimate public debate in this regard in the mass media even concerning implicitly politically consensual positions in this respect within the Pirate Party movement.
Why this reign of fear has been perpetuated is thus an essential question indeed that certainly needs not only be answered but indeed more profoundly understood. The psychological mechanisms behind this reign of fear within and beyond open societies thus needs to become far better understood in order to become ultimately unraveled. Would it be undue to compare with the silence in culturally Christian majority society in Nazi-ruled Germany during the 1930s? There are of course important differences between Nazi Germany and contemporary liberal-democratic open societies – but is it possible that this conspiracy of silence is the very same mass psychological mechanism of public fear? Indeed there was long a similar conspiracy of silence with respect to humanist mass crimes against non-human persons as the mass media in open societies would typically not afford space for public debate about those very mass crimes that are still taking place on a gargantuan scale worldwide.
Indeed, there is still a similar conspiracy of silence with regard to LGBTQI issues in many countries around the world. Legislative issues pertaining to intergenerational sexual relations has long split the LGBTQI organized community that is known for harboring much internal intolerance between its constituent subcommunities. There are three streams of thought in this regard in the LGBTQI movement. 1) The first stream knows that there is a mass miscarriage of justice but believes that the time is not yet ready for openly dealing with legislation pertaining to intergenerational sexual relations and so believes that the LGBTQI movement should currently remain officially mum on this issue. 2) The second stream disagrees and believes that the sexual liberation movement should not be limited to sexual emancipation as strictly pertaining to gender alone but should encompass other oppressed, purported minorities of desire, including with respect to intergenerational relations. 3) The third stream believes that the sexual liberation movement should remain limited to gendersexual issues above the local age of consent and tends also to believe the pervasive public libels of scientifically unproven mythological semiotic contamination in Eurocentric honor culture.
There is thus a) a conspiracy of silence as based on a reign of fear, b) quantitatively unproven allegations of mythological semiotic contamination as well as 3) an honor culture as built around this very mythological notion of semiotic contamination. It is not that scientists have not repeatedly tried to purely quantitatively prove this culturally hegemonic myth but rather that such studies have remained unpublished due to the results not at all supporting this hegemonic myth. At one point did the US Congress even issue an official condemnation of the very legitimacy of research on this issue by reference to public morality.
What is needed therefore is not some identity politics of any purported minority of desire but rather more public discussion and more scientific research that crucially needs not only be conducted but importantly subsequently published as well. Research must however not be limited to issues of aethiology, the science studying causation as specifically here with regard to the continually unproven claim that illegal normal intergenerational sexual contact causes semiotic contamination as referred to as purported, yet consistently quantitatively scientifically unproven “traumatization” in Eurocentric honor culture. In addition needs there crucially be comparative cross-cultural research on how human social phenomena such as conspiracies of silence, semiotic contamination, honor culture and so on are differently socially constructed in various human cultures on the basis of varying shibboleths of discrimination. The appropriate response to ignorance and prejudice are therefore more research, more knowledge and more awareness.
4. Teleology of Patriarchy
Patriarchy is the reign of fear, shame and power on the basis of gender and age. The phenomenon of patriarchy cannot truly be understood and therefore also not effectively deliberately unravelled unless it is understood that patriarchy everywhere is founded on the social intersection of the mythological shibboleths of gender and age.
Feminism has thus typically only challenged one of two central aspects of patriarchy which is the gender dimension while almost consistently ignoring the age dimension. This is no doubt due to women exercising privileges of epistemology and power over girls. However, patriarchy will also no doubt remain in place unless the socially constructed age dichotomy of adult/non-adult is challenged no less than the socially constructed gender dichtomy of male/non-male. Indeed the phrase “women and children” survive from an era when women had a legal status similar to those of the legal status of children at time.
It is no secret that humans are born far more helpless than are other major mammals and one important reason for this is the increasing average cranial size in the pre-historic evolution of the homo genus. As cranial size increased did also childbirth take place increasingly earlier and so humans are the only mammals who are all born prematurely as the human mother otherwise would die from too large infant cranial size at the time of childbirth. The functional helplessness of young human children which increasingly lessens with increasing age thus necessitated the emergence of the patriarchal regime. In order to ensure survival of human children until reaching reproductive age at the onset of puberty did a mother typically apparently need the support of a reproductive-age male and she therefore typically provided permanent prostitution services to him as reimbursement for maintaining this socio-economic protection racket. Human culture thus became the social institutionalization of human reproductive prostitution.
Indeed, the socially constructed adult/non-adult dichotomy is an ideological fiction and illusory social construction no less than the socially constructed male/non-male dichotomy. Ending both social fictions is thus essential indeed for ending patriarchy itself. This is not to say that medical facts such as date of birth and various aspects of infant anatomy should not be medically recorded but ought only be strictly used for medical and reproductive purposes. Just as the relevance of intimate anatomy in various social contexts certainly needs to be questioned so does the relevance of measurement of age be questioned in various social contexts no less than the measurement of of human taxa. Turning those perceived or actual measurements of anatomy with their in reality extremely limited functional relevance into shibboleths of discrimination and shibboleths of segregation is therefore entirely unacceptable as expressive of utterly repugnant physionomism.
Even feminism itself has long been defined as the women’s movement, the movement of women rather than the movement of human females, including girls. Feminism has therefore unfortunately long been committed to the perpetuation of adult supremacism whereby rather than aiding young persons to become social rebels, innovators and entrepreneurs rather sadly collaborate in the ideological perpetuation of hierarchic ageism and therefore also the tragic structural repression of infantile polymorphous sexuality under the guise of “childraising”.
Feminism therefore needs to attack age oppression head-on whether social, sexual, ideological, religious or economical age oppression. What is needed therefore is precisely destroying the notion of the semiotically masculine adult subject in favor of a more playful interpretation of life. Femininity is indeed the retention of this playfulness as femininity deconstructs the adult/non-adult dichotomy which turns playful beings into dogmatic machines as programmed for emotional inertia. Femininity is thus opposition to patriarchy and it is rather so called men who need to rediscover that open mindset of playfulness that they abandoned when involuntarily transitioning from boys to men. Young children are all feminine and males tend to lose this femininity through sexist socio-ideological constructions of adolescence while females typically lose it only after menopause with the typically significant decrease in ideologically perceived heterocultural sexual attractiveness once no longer being or publicly considered fertile.
Feminism therefore needs to work with the LGBTQI movement in socially destroying the physionomistic male/non-male gender dichotomy while at the same time help building an age-inclusive mass movement against the equally physionomistic and no less unfounded adult/non-adult age dichotomy and all other forms of age discrimination. Just as the telos of patriarchy is ultimate death by means of turning playful delicate beings into social brutes so needs feminism instead embrace and promote the playful of life, femininity and intimacy.
Both females and males at different ages undergo brutalizing social experiences of structural masculinization whereby they are socially deprived of their native feminine playfulness and instead turned into socially mechanical brutes. Feminism therefore needs to reject and ideologically destroy the brutal societal processes of age-defined masculinization and strive to supplant brutish “masculine” social norms with sophisticated and socially intelligent feminine social norms for human beings generally and entirely so irrespective of pernicious bureaucratic shibboleths of discrimination such as date of birth or intimate anatomy.
5. Spectrum of Desire
19th century taxonomists created the phallocentric pseudo-science known as “sexology” whereby phallic desire/pleasure was privileged as an epistemological locus and “carnal” desire/pleasure in Para-Christian manner discursively separated from other desire/pleasure. Sexologists believed that human beings should be “taxonomized” and indeed naively in accordance with prevailing Victorian sexual hypocrisy of the time was it impossibly assumed that desire/pleasure could somehow conceivably be taxonomically exclusive in terms of socially constructed typological classification of bodies of persons. These classifications are similar to pigmental taxonomizations of the same historical period as of course both are fundamentally illusory and are as violently Eurocentric social constructions expressive of both social wishes and more or less strong individual tendencies in desire/pleasure despite the fact that it is quite easy and possible and appropriately sensitive conditions to learn to enjoy, appreciate and desire many forms of sexual practice.
However, sexual taxonomy is not only premised on the discursive privileging of phallus over non-phallus but also on the privileging of the social construction that is “adult desire” over what Sigmund Freud described as infantile polymorphous perversity, that is sexuality as ideologically uncontained by ideological taxonomy, meaning pre-taxonomic sexuality. For some reason did sexologists not even bother to taxonomize pre-pubescent sexualities. This is similar to the heterosexist view according to which lesbian sexualities are purportedly “innocent” and even “mostly non-sexual”. Although no one in psychology actually seriously believes that pre-pubescent persons are devoid of sexuality has it become normative and pervasive indeed in Para-Christian society to socially pretend as if pre-pubescent sexualities somehow implausibly do not even exist (sic!).
The Freudian notion of infantile polymorphous perversion is however problematic in the sense as being socially constructed as a sort of amorphous tabula rasa (Latin meaning “blank slate”) of desire/pleasure without individual differentiation. It is therefore essential to venture into this essential topic. First, most so called “children” are sexually attracted to fellow so called “children” and not only to “children” of the same age bracket but to “children” of other ages as well. In other words did virtually all former children (so called “adults”) grow up as what is indeed pejoratively referred to as so called “pedophiles”. The question therefore that needs to be posed is what happens to this desire once a person undergoes the socially constructed cultural and bodily transformations known as puberty? Does this once “same-generation” desire magically disappear with the onset of puberty? There is of course no basis whatsoever for supporting that assumption and this desire is instead partially reconfigured through socially constructed sexual repression known as “culture” and this pervasive pre-adolescent expression of desire is indeed largely sublimated into intense emotional desire for parenthood as adults are typically not shy at all about their experiencing social, emotional and physical attraction to human persons below the age of consent of their respective jurisdiction.
There is pervasive social attaction, emotional attraction, physical attraction and less openly also sexual attraction involved in cultural practices of what is known as so called “parenthood”. A new human being is produced and conditioned through what is at best forms of enlightened slavery. The notion of this infantile often same-age desire/pleasure being transformed into phallic monstruousity is a pervasive late Victorian fantasy that has retained its spell in contemporary patriarchal (i.e. age-gender based) Eurocentric honor culture. The fact is rather that social, emotional and physical attraction to pre-pubescent human persons is completely openly socially expressed in still distinctly Victorian Eurocentric civilization. This is similar to those human beings who openly adore Kitties and Puppies as “cuties” on social media and elsewhere without ever even needing to fear being sexually taxonomized by anyone.
Just as “legal adults” have more or less strong tendencies in desire/pleasure so have “legal minors” no less. For example, many gay former children report having experienced pervasive “same-sex” orientation in “same-age” desire/pleasure when so called “children”. Indeed, pre-pubescent persons experience intimate desire/pleasure, fall in love, have boyfriends/girlfriends and commonly engage in sexual relations and primarily so with fellow “legal minors” of the same generation but also commonly initiate, develop and maintain sexual relationships with both – what should perhaps be described as – “legal majors” and non-human persons.
The notion that same-age desire/attraction at the time of puberty is mystically transferred to an imaginary minority of desire/pleasure is not only laughable but importantly also objectively absurd. The hegemonic phallocentric conception of so called “sexuality” as “different” from other forms of desire/pleasure as premised on a patriarchal ideology of ejaculation that discursively subordinates female sexualities and pre-pubescent sexualities is a tragic misconception of White Man that only serves the perpetuation of ideological distortions of desire and pleasure.
The notion of adult “sexuality” (including performative sexological taxonomization of persons) therefore needs to undergo strategic erasure. There is no such thing as “adult sexuality”, it simply does not exist as a natural phenomenon as this is an ideological social construction as premised on masculinist/phallocentric subordination of female sexualites and hypocritically pretending that pre-pubescent sexualities somehow do not even exist in the presumed but not actual absence of ejaculation in pre-pubescent anatomical males.
What is needed therefore is a feminist science of pleasure that does not ideologically privilege ejaculation over other forms of pleasure/desire and does not absurdly discursively separate sexual attraction from social attraction, emotional attraction and physical attraction but rather recognizes and embraces the continuum of attraction as a unified natural phenomenon albeit one that as so many other psychometric properties constitutes a psychological spectrum indeed.
The Eurocentrically hegemonic, patriarchal conception of so called “sexuality” is psychologically violent, socially intrusive and serves to tragically perpetuate the social marginalization of personal expressions of sexualities of women, girls and boys in both discourse and social space. Ideologies of ejaculation whether as taboo sexuality, sexual taxonomization, sexist pornography or the phallogocentric pseudo-science of “sexology” must become comprehensively discredited as pernicious masculinism, sexism, phallocentrism and ageism. Desire/pleasure instead needs to be reappropriated and reconceptualized as an indeterminate locus of emotions and social interaction, indeed a social arena of emotion certainly requiring universal feminist etiquette.
6. Objectification in Age
The practice of performatively reducing a person to a collective shibboleth of discrimination is central to objectification which can be sexualized, partly/entirely subconsciously sexualized or abjectively de-sexualized. The sexologist innovation of taxonomic sexualities in the 19th century brought the idea that “legal majors” could somehow be classified into sexual races. This involved the invention and social construction of many different purportedly collective sexual predispositions including those constructed upon the bureaucratic construct of chronological age including paedophilia (towards pre-pubescent humans), hebephilia (towards pubescent humans), ephebophilia (towards post-pubescent humans) and gerontophilia (towards so called “elderly” humans).
Of course chronological age is a mythological concept as seen in Sweden where it has proven practically impossible with any certainty or scientific basis to determine the so called “actual age” (i.e. chronological age) of “lonecoming refugee children” (Swedish ensamkommande flyktingbarn) many of whom are “legal majors” claiming to be legal minors so as to be able to remain in Sweden on humanitarian grounds. Chronological age is thus not a biological, genetic or otherwise scientific concept in any manner or shape whatsoever but simply a politicized bureaucratic shibboleth of discrimination. It is interestingly almost impossible to actually accurately enforce the sexual age of consent and other bureaucratic conceptions of “legal age” with respect to ensamkommande flyktingbarn as the bureaucratic conception of “legal age” biologically and genetically speaking simply does not exist at all as it cannot be biologically, genetically or psychometrically measured and simply has no actual scientific basis whatsoever.
There is double objectification involved in the social construction of sexual races, first are those thus “classified” performatively objectified and second are their purported “sexualities” socially constructed as performatively objectifying by normatively expecting them to be so. The social construction of taxonomic sexuality thus objectifies intimate desire and those who naively believe in the ideology of taxonomic sexuality tend to themselves engage in sexual objectification of persons and primarily so due to effectively being socially conditioned to do so by notions, expectations and social structures of what is known as so called “culture”, namely imitative zoological behavior.
What is mythologically known as so called “paedophilia” therefore represents a certain sexualization of a general structure of social objectification of legal minors in Eurocentric culture in terms of systematically denying them legal emancipation, social freedom and civil rights. The structural objectification is already there in society at large and indeed available for anyone to sexualize indeed. The social invention and social construction of so called “paedophilia” therefore represents a certain sexualization of ageist (i.e. of ageist physionomism) similar to how the social invention and social construction of so called “heterosexuality” represents a certain sexualization of sexism (i.e. of sexist physionomism).
About ten percent of adult males and very few adult females meet the diagnostic criteria for so called “paedophilia” as diagnostically defined as being directed towards humans below the chronological age of thirteen and so ten percent of adult males whom you meet in the streets are what are mythologically known as so called “paedophiles”. Nearly all adult human beings experience social, emotional and physical if not necessarily consciously sexual attraction towards legal minors, including to pre-pubescent humans.
The mythological notions of “heterosexuality” and “paedophilia” must be rejected as scientifically unsupportable and constituting oppressive physionomistic structures in discursively normalizing the sexual objectification of structurally oppressed categories of persons. Just as there is much hatred against heterocultural men for objectifying women is there much hatred against paedocultural men due to structurally oppressive practices of involuntary sexual objectification against fellow human beings such as commonly in the form of so called “child pornography”.
While persons naively identifying as so called “paedophiles” are indeed structurally oppressed in society do they themselves typically participate in structural oppression in society against fellow human beings through sexual objectification. Demanding universal emancipation including for legal minors therefore must not embrace the socially constructed oppressive notion and practice of so called “paedophilia” but should rather critique it in a far more intelligent manner, indeed in the same manner that we critique so called “heterosexuality”. Both heteroculture and paedoculture must therefore be rejected as ideologically invented oppressive patriarchal, structural sexual objectification of fellow human beings.
Patriarchy is the practice of social, emotional, physical and sexual objectification whereby inter-personal attraction (whether mutual or not) is oppressively sublimated into imposed informal/formal performative ownership. The state of objectification is the performative reduction of a person into the social, legal, religious, pseudo-scientific, ideological, political, philosophical or other social status of a purported subperson. Sexual objectification can however literally target anyone. A person whether a non-human person, a cisfemale, a transfemale, a transmale, a person below the sexual age of consent or indeed anyone may therefore become involuntarily subjected to sexual objectification as known among heterocultural females as “creepiness” and in the pickup/seduction community as “neediness”.
Sexual objectification is therefore the practice of reducing individual personhood to the status of performative subpersonhood by means of socially imposed sexualization against the will of another person thus subjected to sexual objectification. Rather than attraction to individual personhood does objectification involve attraction to only exterior aspects such as e.g. appearance and ideological categories of age, race, sex etc. While there are no doubt and legitimately so individual tendencies in social, emotional, physical and sexual attraction should interpersonal attraction be to personhood – not only to exterior but to interior as well – as it otherwise constitutes performative objectification. If you don’t actually like a person from whatever you can gather about that person at certain position in time and space then you have no acceptable ethical ground for expressing social, emotional, physical and/or sexual interest in that fellow person.
Those who disagree with current sexual legislation should irrespective of individual sexual orientations organize themselves politically without the folly of identity politics and demand evidence-based legislation and no one of any sexual orientation should perform or promote the performance of sexual acts that in legal terms create victims of crime. To point out that current sexual legislation with respect to mythological notions of chronological age are insufficient, inappropriate and indeed physionomistic does not simply mean abolishing those laws without introducing different legal safeguards against sexual abuse as sexual abuse unfortunately does very much exist and is certainly not limited to illegal sexual relations as most forms of sexual abuse occur as part of non-criminalized sexualized relations, indeed mostly so as part of hegemonic heteroculture in sexist patriarchy.
Very different legislation is needed that in terms of international/constitutional law will protect the inviolable idiosyncracy of individual personhood whether socially, emotionally, physically or sexually so. Human beings importantly need to be trained through Social Behavioral Training (SBT) in no more objectifying fellow persons whether human or non-human and a universal feminist sexual revolution is therefore very much needed that will ridicule, discursively discredit and therefore effectively abolish sexual identities as indeed based on the nefarious physionomistic ideology of taxonomic/sexual objectification.
The notion that intimacy is fully subordinate to reproduction is central to ideologies of patriarchy in many cultures, including in major civilizations of so called world religions. Thus is both intimacy between mother and child and intimacy between wife and husband traditionally perceived as fully subordinate to human reproduction. The notion that sexual intimacy ought to be between persons of “the same age” is a further derivation of the heteronormative notion that sexual intimacy is fully subordinate to reproduction. This is however not a universal notion since it is common in many cultures including many of those in Islamdom for males to marry relatively younger females, yet there is certainly expression of structural repronormativity at play there as well.
There is of course a connection between reproduction and intimacy in terms of human history that is typically “naturalized” by cosmologies such as religions, ideologies, cultures and so on. Yet the undeniable role of reproduction in human history does not mean that interpersonal intimacy whether sexual or otherwise is somehow a derivative of and/or subordinate to reproduction.
Shulamith Firestone (1945-2012), the intellectual mother of radical feminism, described natural childbirth as “shitting a pumpkin” and as constituting “barbary”. She therefore advocated for the Talmudic idea of artificial uteri, machines in which gestation of embryos/fetuses would take place.
Sexuality has long since not been subordinate to reproduction in secular/modern culture and so the notion that sexuality should be exclusively between age peers has in itself been discursively disconnected from reproduction although ideologies of reproduction are central indeed to repronormativity in secular/modern culture, the social norm according to which sexual intimacy must exclusively take place between age peers or at least that the perceived so called “age gap” must be what is known as “not too large”.
Of course, there is no reason whatsoever why a “larger” so called “age gap” would somehow be mystically detrimental as compared to a “smaller age gap”. Of course mythological notions of “age gaps” are at least in secular/modern culture premised on the historico-bureaucratic and otherwise scientifically void conception of chronological aid which has no genetic or biological scientific basis whatsoever. Chronological age is thus assigned similarly to other bureaucratically assigned shibboleths of discrimination such as sex, gender, diagnosis, citizenship, exclusionary defined legal personhood and in some jurisdictions also ethnicity/nationality, race and religion/denomination.
Since there are many different measurements and conceptions of age (including educational age, developmental age, medical age, genetic age, gendered age, appearance age, behavioral age and so on) must not the wider notion of age become subsumed to the historico-bureaucratic social construct of chronological age as all those different conceptions of age are different in measurement/interpretation of age as compared to the historico-mythological conception of chronological age.
Repronormativity however in the sense as a legal social construct is premised on the notion of chronological age whereby in many jurisdictions teenagers discriminatorily risk prosecution for engaging in sexual intimacy with each other although some jurisdictions are relatively more “forgiving” if the so called “age gap” is considered what is known as “not too large”. A 25-year old female having fully informed and consensual sexual intercourse with a 14-year old male is thus automatically considered severe “sexual abuse” by the legal system in France (age of consent is 15) but not by the legal system in Germany (age of consent is 14) where such a relationship is fully legal indeed. The age of consent is however considered at least in part inapplicable in Sweden (age of consent 15) if a couple have been wed in a country with a culture seen as sufficiently “different” such as a an 18-year old male being married to a 14-year old female and having been wed in a “traditional” (i.e. more sexually patriarchal) Muslim country.
The age of consent in Spain, Malta and the Netherlands was long 12 although no longer so (Spain subsequently for many years had age 13 as its age of consent) and the age of consent in Ireland is 17. The federal age of sexual consent remains age 12 in Mexico. Many European countries also have age 16 as their legal age of consent. Some jurisdictions globally have different ages of consent depending on whether it is classified as “heterosexual” or same-sex. The age of consent in places as sexually culturally different as California and Turkey are age 18. The age of consent was long 21 in Tunisia. The gulf monarchies don’t even have legal ages of consent as persons of different legally assigned genders can marry irrespective of age even in the absence of consent for marriage as in accordance with respective interpretations of sharia law and as determined by local sharia courts for family law. The Mexican state of Nayarit in Mexico have legally set having entered puberty as the lower legal limit for having sexual intercourse with those having already entered puberty.
Although in each jurisdiction with a legislated age of consent is its chronological age naturalized in the minds of the general public (as are typically legislation generally) is the concept of chronological age a biologically/genetically scientifically unfounded historico-bureaucratic social construct as genealogically derived from the Hebrew Bible with its pedantic yet typically hugely inaccurate measurements of proto-chronological age and especially so in the biblical Book of Genesis (Hebrew Sefer Bereshit) where mythological personalities in its historiographical narrative are described as having lived for hundreds of years.
Yet the great diversity in ages of consent worldwide clearly shows that these are completely and fully arbitrary indeed and that the naturalization of local ages of consent are precisely ethnocentric in nature as it is peculiar indeed how many cultures experience a patriarchal social “need” to control sexualities of females during adolescence. The age of consent is thus a mere variation on the cross-cultural theme of socially “protecting” female purported so called “virgins” from their own desire for interpersonal intimacy. This very extremely sexually attractive female author e.g. always rejects approaching 13-year old girls and approaching 14-year old girls who hit on the author and she does that sometimes explicitly so by reference to the Swedish legal age of sexual consent of 15.
Repronormativity can also be seen in society’s attitude towards sex workers in that patriarchal society feels a need to involuntarily “protect” empowered and self-sufficient female sex workers who continue to freely choose to make a living this way while there is no worry about male sex workers who of course are merely regarded as making a living by having fun. The police in contrast in most jurisdictions abandon prostitutes (entirely or partly involuntary sex workers) as the police typically gain access to free sexual services from prostitutes in return for ignoring pimps sexually enslaving and economically exploiting the typically female (whether cisfemale or transfemale) prostitutes.
Repronormativity is also found in legislated privileges such as “maternity leave” which in many jurisdictions are granted to mothers only. Even in Sweden as famous for its purportedly advanced gender equality is child custody preferentially granted to mothers although certainly so not by legislation, yet in many other countries is child custody (especially by state sharia courts) preferentially granted to fathers so as it seems underline the actually insignificant cismale role in reproduction
Repronormativity underlies patriarchal ideologies such as sexual phallocentrism (e.g. in the form of the pseudo-science of sexology) and heteronormativity whereby females are socially subjected to patriarchy by individual subordination to repronormativity whether socially constructed as nominally “elective” or socially compulsory indeed. It is common for urban males in Middle Eastern countries to live as functionally bisexual as long as they do not abandon their culturally compulsory reproductive obligations by shunning reproductive marriage in which case they can be severely socially and legally sanctioned as gays. Galsex between females in Western European majority societies is similarly usually considered fully socially acceptable as long as not involving non-reproductive cohabitation by means of a lesbian lifestyle in which case they risk severe social sanction. It is interesting to observe indeed how same-sex relations are more socially accepted in Western European societies the older the persons involved are provided of course that they are considered “same-age” or at least “sufficiently” aged by the patriarchal gaze.
The social disconnect between sexuality and reproduction has already been achieved in secular/modern culture in that the subordination of sexuality to reproduction has been reversed by reproduction having effectively become subordinated to sexuality. Yet repronormativity, heteronormativity and sexual phallocentrism remain premised on a discursively privileged ideological relationship between sexuality and reproduction. Of course there is no connection whatsoever between sexuality and reproduction in same-sex sexual relations and the reason many societies experience a socially constructed collective patriarchal “need” to varying degrees to control and suppress individual and relational expression of sexualities of prepubescent females is indeed the very non-reproductive nature of those relationships. Sexual relations between human animals and non-human persons (which may or not be exploitative/abusive depending on context) is similarly stigmatized and often but not necessarily so by legislation and in this case also due to the intrinsically non-reproductive nature of those sexual relationships.
Repronormativity is a central ideological component of patriarchy in most human cultures and must as such become thoroughly discursively discredited and publicly ridiculed indeed and so legislated expressions of repronormativity must therefore become repealed and supplanted by legislation as not premised on shibboleths of discrimination but rather legally supporting and socially enhancing the uniqueness of individual personhood as truly worthy of profound respect and interpersonal appreciation indeed.
Let’s be very clear-eyed about the severely prejudicial nature of repronormativity as part and parcel of organized patriarchy and also extremely open-eyed about the political reality that overturning patriarchy requires discrediting and discarding all its constituent social ideologies of prejudice. No matter how socially uncomfortable it may be to question inter-generationally transmitted social perceptions of prejudice (whether relating to repronormativity or otherwise) is this a most necessary task indeed for feminism and other political/intellectual movements opposing physionomism. Repronormativity is indeed a form of physionomism and need become dismantled no less than yet other forms of structural oppression. Telling truth is a very essential element of every wave of emancipation no matter how uncomfortable or socially impractical this may be seen as considering that phasing out oppressive structures of prejudice also requires educating the public indeed as every sub-ideology of patriarchy certainly needs to be comprehensively dismantled indeed.
8. Bondage of Childhood
Childhood is often retroactively fetished by legal adults as a sort of paradise when in fact being a legal minor is legally speaking a state of servitude as ranging on a spectrum from the comparatively benign (which is actually not benign at all) to the severely malign. Psychological abuse to varying degrees is in fact structurally part of the upbringing of nearly every child as human culture (which is also falsely idealized) is about repressive sublimation of what Sigmund Freud described as infantile polymorphous perversion into purportedly “non-sexual” social behaviors known as so called “culture”.
Culture as similar to race in the past is fetishized as something pure, primeval, original and even described as more fundamental than the human body itself, similar indeed to how race was once conceptualized in Eurocentric culture as being primeval to personhood.
The idealization/fetishization of legal minors is in fact similar to the parallel idealization/fetishization of females, including in both cases but far from limited to pornography as this idealization/fetishization is prominent indeed in advertisement and generally in Eurocentric cultural expression. The dominant classes (males and legal adults respectively) tend indeed to take a view of females and legal minors as sort of paradisical objects from which they feel entitled to non-consensually derive social pleasure.
Although every psychologist knows that both females and legal minors have indeed individual sexualities is it the patriarchal fantasy according to which both “types” of human persons are somehow phantasmatically devoid of sexualities which makes us seem suitable as targets for patriarchal projective desire; in other words public fetishization/idealization through the subjecting patriarchal gaze.
The patriarchal gaze is indeed central to patriarchy as the patriarchal gaze is about reducing fellow persons to objects of visual, audial and tactile pleasure and in the case of victimized non-human persons also sensorial pleasure as related to cannibalistic consumption of murdered fellow persons as well as excretions from their structurally victimized bodies. Parents and indeed most legal adults experience more or less intense social, emotional, physical and to varying degrees sublimated sexual attraction to legal minors and childhood is thus typically a state of structural sexual exploitation since social relationships between legal adults and legal minors are virtually always involuntary in character. Legal minors are e.g. universally denied the opportunity to deselect existing parent(s) and select new parent(s) no matter how abusive current parent(s) is/are.
Youth villages were first created in pre-state Israel as a certain historical synthesis between the kibbutz and the European boarding school. Israel’s about 60 youth villages are indeed specialized to cater for legal minors from familial environments not deemed sufficient for the legal minor; including for legal minors from struggling immigrant families, legal minors with parents with severe social problems such as drug abuse and also extremely talented legal minors from poor homes where parents have a low level of education and thus presumably a limited ability to intellectually stimulate their offspring.
Youth villages have since spread to many other countries, including in Africa. Youth villages provide social environments where legal minors typically suffer much less socio-sexual fetishization than in regular families. This is not to say that legal minors just like legal majors do not need emotional support and emotional intimacy but rather that the typically involuntary nature of social relationships between legal minors and legal majors makes these relationships at least partially structurally abusive indeed.
Since regular families are structurally abusive environments need legal minors generally become emancipated from the so called “family” and indeed removed from this inherently oppressive patriarchal institution. The nuclear family has its own insufficiencies as has indeed other types of families as hegemonic in different human cultures, yet the fact is that the family is part and parcel of patriarchy and so the question is therefore what should come in its stead?
Whether actually freely and fairly elected by legal adults or not are legislators all legal adults who as the ruling class in ageist supremacist society imposes their ideologically tainted oppressively patriarchal preconceptions onto the oppressed class. Therefore can the oppressing class be expected to emancipate the oppressed class? Youth emancipation of course requires political struggle and building alliances of victims of structural ageism (i.e. ageist physionomism) as well as aligning with feminism to end patriarchy in both legal and social terms. Legal minors therefore need to become legally emancipated indeed. Rather than continuing to let the ruling class define the terms of emancipation as in preceding nominally but merely partly successful waves of historical emancipation need adulthood itself (which in philosophy is known as “the subject”) as a patriarchal construct become deconstructed and subsequently legally and socially dismantled indeed.
What does this entail? First we need to reduce the proportion of male births to about 5% of all human births since the de facto vast social and sexual surplus of males in the human population produces socially constructed sexual urges in males to engage in coercive social domination through the ideological fiction that is the so called “family”. Humans are herd animals and so what is known as “the family” is a certain social anomaly as indeed contrary to the zoological nature of most human beings. This is not the only zoological anomaly which has emerged as a result the parasitical turn in the social evolution of the human anatomic herbivore. We need to identify those zoological anomalies involving the human turn to parasitism and legally, socially and sexually abolish those very inherently oppressive practices. Human parasitism can be observed in all spheres of modern society and rather than reject the body itself on the basis of barely secularized forms of Christian metaphysics as remains popular in Critical Theory need we reappropriate human natures which means living in vegan herds in forests. This is not intended to that infer that we ought somehow reject advanced technology but rather that although there is no such thing as ‘human nature’ are there multiple human natures, indeed a unique human nature inside every human being and this means that technology instead needs to be harvested and empowered for the purpose of re-appropriating human natures from the parasitical turn in the social (but not biological) evolution in human so called “culture”.
Patriarchal society thus needs to be supplanted by feminist polygynous families whereby a male on average would be married to about twenty females. A feminist youth village would thus raise the offspring of multiple polygynous families as living adjacent to the youth village in an extensively reforested environment. Feminist youth villages should be committed to ending patriarchy generally by raising young persons into becoming owners of their respective individual agency in realizing their own dreams as opposed to stereotypical expectations of yet others and indeed delearning any and all acquired structurally oppressive behaviors without of course unnecessarily stigmatizing affected individuals for that. Structural oppression typically seeks to erase personal agency by subordinating personhood to oppressive ideologies of stereotypical expectation.
In discursively destroying the phallogocentric phantasy of the subject needs one recover and reappropriate the individual agency of idiosyncratic personhood and so children need to be raised towards becoming owners of their own futures rather than becoming socially conditioned for effective bondage in various typically psychologically harmful stereotypical social roles of age, class, ethnicity, gender, race, profession, religion, sexuality and so on and so forth. These social roles may be nominally voluntary to some degree yet are in fact usually socially imposed through various coercive social frameworks such as education, work and family.
Abolishing the legal state of ‘adulthood’ thus also requires socially abolishing the patriarchal subject itself whereby males and legal adults structurally oppress females and legal minors respectively and of course also themselves by subjecting themselves and others to oppressively stereotypical social expectations. Notions of gender equality that recognize the sexist dimension of patriarchy to the exclusion of the ageist dimension of patriarchy are unsurprisingly in practice relatively politically unsuccessful in mistakenly accepting male norms in merely demanding the privileges of men for women to the exclusion of girls and boys.
Youth emancipation need thus involve very substantial legal change whereby the artificial legal dichotomy between “legal minor” and “legal adult” is abolished indeed. Just as females ought mostly set the social norm for males so ought legal minors mostly set the social norm form legal majors, including for the purpose of reinventing what is so narrowly socially constructed as carno-phallogocentric so called “sexuality”. Abolishing the subject in legal terms thus involves ending the ideological fictions of “legal minor” and “legal adult” in terms of the canonic literature of law which itself need to be abolished indeed.
The modern state claims to serve its exclusively human citizens, yet the reality is that legal minors are second class citizens and the state is an apparatus of systematic social repression, a constantly expanding amoeba of structural oppression indeed. Critical theory thus needs to question the state itself and its hypocritically repressive claims to benevolency. The state needs to shift paradigm from molding persons through oppressive social matrices to instead enabling persons to individually realize their benevolent dreams indeed. Existing/developing advanced technologies such as virtual reality (VR) means that machines can largely take over the public sector no less than the private sector and so with the disappearance of mass professions need we focus on helping each human person optimize their respective individual cognitive capacity in realizing their own visions, dreams and ambitions of personhood in life rather than mindlessly adhering to oppressively stereotypical expectations. This must become the task of the feminist youth village which needs be staffed by some professionals but mostly by so called “parents” serving in part-time volunteer positions in the youth village as part of their commitment to help raise a feminist humanity as committed to the elimination of structural oppression generally whether statist, economic, social or otherwise.
9. Law and Obedience
Why should law be obeyed? This is an essential question that certainly needs to be addressed. What is after all the difference between religious law and so called “secular” law in terms of the expected “obedience”? Yet, the fact is that law is performative in the sense that a human subject of law may relate individually differently with respect to particular legislation. Is democratically legislated law then simply the tyranny of the purported (or actual) majority over the purported (or actual) minority?
This leads us to the question of the telos of democracy for democracy without ethical telos is simply sheer demagoguery and oppressive state bureaucracy indeed. The telos of pan-liberalism (as spanning from democratic socialists to democratic conservatives) is threefold: namely 1) freedom, i.e. elimination of tyranny, 2) representative governance, i.e. participatory decision-making and 3) emancipation, i.e. elimination of structural oppression including emancipation from structural oppression of law.
Law is performative in the sense that many human subjects of law choose to abide by law and often so out of fear of consequences rather than due to a sense of perceived or actual righteousness. If law and its obedience are simply performative tyranny, then how is law compatible with democracy, part of whose telos is the universal abolition of tyranny? This is an important question that must not be disregarded as ostensibly constituting a mere aporia (purportedly irresolvable dilemma). Imagine then if the question of the disobedience of law was itself legislated in constitutional/international law in terms of permitting and even requiring the breaking of law in particular situations? Sometimes must law not only be disregarded but actively ethico-politically resisted by indeed refusing to abide by it. But then will there not be chaos if everyone chooses for herself if and when to abide by law? That is already the situation practically speaking virtually everywhere as law nominally offers a performative individual choice between obedience and refusal of adhering to particular interpretation of law whether overtly or not.
The question of when to refuse to obey the tyranny of law is not an easy one as the consequences for an individual citizen refusing law may become quite severe indeed. At least two questions need to be asked. 1) Is the action of breaking the law ethical such as avoiding harming the bodily integrity of others? 2) Is this politically helpful with respect to ultimately changing the oppressive legislation needing to be overturned? This is not to say of course that those two questions necessarily provide conclusive answers or that further questions must not be posed.
The question of sexual legislation is one that has yet to be comprehensively addressed through constitutional/international law. What is sexual abuse and how can it be distinguished from non-abuse in interpersonal intimacy? Merely claiming that a sexual act is purportedly or actually widely disliked is certainly not sufficient ground for criminalizing it. Furthermore need we begin ponder the question of how feminist legislation would actually look like.
Sexual abuse exists indeed in all formal types of sexual relations as articulated by the taxonomizing pseudo-science of sexology in 19th century Europe. What if indeed sexual relations were no longer discursively separated from other forms of interpersonal intimacy? What if the discursive focus was no more on typology of sexual taxonomy but rather on conceptually creating ethics of interpersonal intimacy in supplanting current moralistic nonsense?
The legislative question with respect to interpersonal intimacy ought therefore not be on which taxonomic types and configurations of sexual relations to outlaw but rather on feminist ethics indeed by understanding that much of current sexuality morality is not only utterly redundant but blatantly unethical indeed. What if legislation of interpersonal intimacy instead were focused on positive ethical requirements such as respect for emotions of others as expressed through concern, affection and care for fellow others? What if legislation focused on protecting personhood (i.e. embodied cognition) and bodily integrity irrespective of classification of bodies? What if taxonomic classification of bodies were made irrelevant in constitutional/international law with respect to interpersonal intimacy? What if the notion of “sexuality” itself was removed from legal discourse and instead supplanted by positive requirements with respect to interpersonal intimacy?
How then to resist the tyranny of law? Should not gays in Uganda continue to resist the tyranny of homophobic legislation by making love despite the risk of capital punishment? There is no question that it would be far more effective if LGBTQI persons in Uganda were to focus on changing the law rather than merely privately breaking it. It is of course easier in Uganda to break the law in secrecy than opposing it publicly as Uganda certainly is no liberal democracy. The problem of course is that those who break the law if even slightly in practice cannot publicly endeavor to change those laws for fear of prosecution if there indeed is a realistic risk of prosecution.
There is a certain perception that those who break laws limiting intergenerational intimacy between persons all belong to a certain sexual race of sexologist taxonomy when in fact interpersonal desire cannot even hypothetically be contained by taxonomy. Sexual law typically allows for substantial interpersonal intimacy and typically only outlaws certain acts deemed “sexual” by the the sick phallogocentric mind. Engaging in legally permitted interpersonal intimacy in public space such as hugging activism, kissing activism and/or making-out activism in interpersonal configurations where this is legal may indeed be highly conducive to changing public perceptions of sexual morality.
What is needed therefore is endeavoring to erase the very phallogocentric construct of “sexuality” as a naturalizing ideological project of patriarchy so that what is known as “sexuality” will instead be more appropriately understood as social construction which as social construction generally has zoological basis for social construction is performed for and by living, sentient and conscious bodies indeed. If “we” were indeed to speak more about interpersonal intimacy then can the discussion of so called “sexuality” be broadened from one of configurations of bodies to one of ethics and aesthics of interpersonal intimacy generally whether deemed “sexual” or not. What is needed thus is to broaden the discursive focus from the 19th century European phallocentric social construct of so called “sexuality” to the question of feminist ethics & aesthetics of interpersonal intimacy regardless of how participating bodies may be objectified by physionomistic, carno-phallogocentric ideologies of superficial, yet certainly most demeaning classification and reduction of persons into mere ideologically perceived appearance.
Innovative discourse on feminist ethics and aesthetics of interpersonal intimacy and urge thereof would discursively include that which is currently socially constructed as “belonging” to the realm of the “sexual”. What is needed thus is the feminist reappropriation of pre-adolescent perceptions of interpersonal intimacy whereby the discursive centrality of hypothetically reproductive relations is subversively interrupted, politically ridiculed and publicly discredited indeed. Why after all should hypothetically reproductive acts remain discursively central to non-reproductive interpersonal intimacy? This patriarchal/phallocentric discursive fixation must be deconstructed and ultimately erased by means of educating the public in rediscovering the organs of interpersonal intimacy known as erogenous zones as indeed already existing throughout the body. Reproductive acts of interpersonal intimacy are of course essential where reproduction is intended but the fact is that acts of carnal intimacy are only very rarely reproductive in secular/modern culture and so the sexist fixation on hypothetically reproductive acts in pornography, in monogamous home prostitution, in so called “one-night stands”, in sex work and elsewhere must not only be deconstructed but subversively ridiculed and utterly discredited indeed.
Persons above the age of of consent with a persistent and predominant interest in interpersonal intimacy with persons below the age of consent ought irrespective of the phantasmatic “size” of the bureaucratically measured unscientific illusion of chronological “age span” engage in non-proscribed acts of interpersonal intimacy, including in public space so as to manifest the utter harmlessness and indeed benevolent and precisely helpful nature of such legally permitted acts of interpersonal fellowship in public space. They should not be afraid to overtly form and manifest such relationships provided of course that they always strictly abide by law in those relationships and indeed so for as long as those laws remain in place.
Abiding by law in a subversive manner is therefore in many situations far more politically effective than mere simplistically breaking the law whether secretly or overtly so. If we focus on what law permits rather than prohibits in terms of designing and redesigning Foucauldian semiotic warfare in public space will we find that law as it currently is gives us at least some leeway in subversively undermining the discursive cultural hegemony of the tyranny of physionomistic law. Semiotic warfare in public space by means of subversive law-abidance is therefore a highly effective means towards interrupting and discrediting the ideologically nefarious dichotomy and socially invented discursive binary between interpersonal intimacy as purportedly forming part of an imaginary phallic realm and interpersonal intimacy as relegated to the implicitly perceived maternal realm of interpersonal intimacy; i.e. most forms of interpersonal intimacy perceived as “non-sexual”.
Performance of particular acts of interpersonal intimacy in public space whether or not socially implicitly perceived as semiotically belonging to an imaginary maternal realm may or may not be legal in terms of how law is actually interpreted in a particular jurisdiction but irrespective is it essential to focus on politically performing subversive ethico-political acts of interpersonal intimacy in public space that are indeed not only in theory but also in practice legal in that particular jurisdiction.
The question of law and its obedience is therefore not a mere binary between submission to law and refusal to abide by law but is furthermore strategically a matter of subversively undermining the cultural hegemony of tyranny and structural oppression as masquerading as ostensible “justice”. If the dichotomy between slave behavior and lawbreaking is deconstructed can we therefore rediscover that there is indeed space for strategically designed semiotic warfare as intended to overturn to tyranny of structural oppression as barely hidden by the fig leaf of state sexual repression.
Discursively moving towards supplanting physionomistic legislation thus requires first reimagining and indeed subsequently reinventing law through inclusively feminist innovation, including crucially in terms of the relegated, yet mostly legally tolerated imaginary maternal realm of interpersonal intimacy. We thus need to re-politicize the perceived maternal realm and ultimately destroy the dichotomy between the phallic realm and the maternal realm upon which most sex laws are founded and hence re-inaugurate the realm of ethico-aesthetic interpersonal intimacy in inclusively feminist terms and indeed so without physionomistic dichotomies of shibboleths of discrimination.
10. Sociology of Crypto-Sexuality
The social hegemony and social terror of heteroculture is socially constructed as a certain culture of secrecy whereby so called “sexuality” is structurally hidden from public view, yet sublimated through socially diverse cultural expression. Most human cultural expressions are actually expressive of repressed sexuality as sexual repression became an evolutionary vehicle for environmental adaptation and especially as the homo genus spread to regions of this planet which for most of the year are unsuitable for nude human habitation indeed.
Repressed sexuality is therefore literally everywhere in human society, including through clothes, organization and various stereotypical social roles. Patriarchy is thus sublimated male homoeroticism, feminism is sublimated female homoeroticism, childrearing is sublimated adult pedoeroticism, binary gender roles are sublimated desire for domination/submission, keeping “beloved” pet persons as privileged slave persons is sublimated zoophilia, clothing is sublimated fetishism, reverence for the elderly is sublimated gerontophilia, coitus-fixation is sublimated desire for rape, beach fashion is sublimated exhibitionism, nominally reproductive marriage is sublimated desire for sexual parasitism, pornography is sublimated voyeurism, commercial pop culture is sublimated Ephebophilia, primping is sublimated social expression of hidden intimate anatomy and so on and so forth.
Just as clothes sublimate interpersonal desire by keeping the body partially secret do organizations in producing bonding through shibboleths of discrimination sublimate repressed human desires for interpersonal intimacy. It is therefore essential to understand how shibboleths of discrimination (pigmentation, gender, age, ethnicity etc.) are culturally produced as sublimation of sexual repression indeed. Then what are those social constructs which are known as “sexualities”? So called “sexuality” was historically invented by physionomistic taxonomists in the 19th century who invented imaginary sexual races on the model of the prior historical innovation of pigment races which of course in both cases are mere figments/pigments of sheer imagination. What are known as “sexualities” under the reign of fear of heteroculture therefore are the culture of eroticization of secrecy whereby repressed desire for interpersonal intimacy is sublimated into sexual secrecy whether in the ideological seclusion of the home or elsewhere in some other ideological seclusion whether horizontal, vertical or otherwise phantasmatic indeed.
Enforcing phantasmatic seclusion in sexual practice is thus structurally central to the hegemonic social order of sexual repression under the reign of fear of heteroculture and so explicit sexual expression is supposed to be limited to sin centers (brothels, nightclubs, pubs etc.) as having historically emerged in medieval Europe as “sinful” equivalents of cloisters, indeed cloisters of sin. LGBTQI Pride parades are a certain Para-Christian continuation of medieval Para-Christian carnivals in Christendom in which it specifically was permitted to engage in parody, blasphemy and publically sinful expression for humorous effect for a day as a temporal phantasmatic seclusion in a society otherwise under the social terror of sexual repression.
The imaginary social construct of chronological age in hegemonic heteroculture is therefore not merely just another socially constructed shibboleth as expressive of structurally repressed sexuality but indeed the collective process of sexual grooming to teach young persons to repress what Freud referred to as infantile polymorphous perversion and sublimate this into sexualities of ideological seclusion. Childrearing in heteroculture is thus a form of structural child abuse as functionally and in purpose similar indeed to both FGM (female genital mutilation) as practiced in an anthropological belt from West Asia to West Africa and to gendered cultures of honor & shame in a similar belt from South Europe to South Asia.
The police as a certain historical European invention and social construction now in every country around the world sees itself as entitled to engage in social terror against sexual expression which it does not like irrespective of such expression being legal or not. Police and intelligence services constitute in the historical trajectory of organizations particular functional continuations of the Catholic inquisition. Much as the always sexually hypocritical Catholic church in medieval times saw it as their designated ideological purpose to impose Christian anti-intimate conceptions of what is now known as “sexuality” onto other human beings by means of religious social terror so does the police in virtually every country see itself as somehow ideologically entitled to commit sex crimes and/or other crimes in enforcing the public social terror of sexual repression. The police also have social codes of honor & shame as similar indeed to those of organized crime.
The police therefore are a central part of the particular social construct of the specific culture of honor & shame that is modernity and so the hegemonically perverse sexual grooming of children into sexuality of seclusion – i.e. the outcome of the social terror of sexual repression in heteroculture – thus are a certain reign of fear whereby desire for interpersonal intimacy is variously expressed whether structurally and culturally considered social or antisocial, moral or immoral, normal or deviant, pathological or salutogenic, beneficial or dangerous, pious or blasphemous, good or bad, religious or antireligious and so on and so forth. Needless to say are those perceptions typically completely arbitrary and so discussing the nature of those neo-medieval social dichotomies is generally considered taboo in open society although the sex workers’ movement has importantly attained legal emancipation in Germany and the Netherlands and the LGBTQI movement has indeed attained legal emancipation in some high-profile respects such as same-sex marriage in many liberal democracies.
What is socially known and ideologically naturalized as so called “sexuality” in heteroculture is therefore the outcome of hegemonic practices of child abuse whereby polymorphous perversion is coercively compartmentalized into functionally specialized cultures of sexual seclusion, as based indeed on upon performance of the particular culture of honor & shame that is modernity indeed.
The notion that emancipation of oppressed social groups is best achieved through identity politics has been thoroughly discredited in critical theory and now the understanding is that working in social coalitions is far more effective indeed. Anyone seriously interested in ending the reign of fear that is the social terror of sexual repression needs however help end practices of childrearing whose practices constitute sexual repression. This means that the family in the sense as an institution for childrearing needs to end and become supplanted by feminist youth villages as largely staffed by parents. This is the right, appropriate and effective way to end the tyranny of the ideology of taxonomic sexual seclusion and its social terror indeed. How after all can patriarchy be abolished unless its sub-ideologies are discredited, including the very hegemonic ideology of sexual apartheid as expressed in informally imposed segregation on the basis gender, age and cultures of seclusion of intimacy – the illusory purpose of which is to perpetuate the patriarchal present and so implicitly prevent the arrival of the feminist future indeed.
Many other legal and social changes are obviously needed including legalizing public nudity, criminalizing all forms of irrational discrimination whether in legislation and/or otherwise, including requiring evidence-based legislation . Yet the universal abolition of the ageist family as a variously socially constructed physionomistic patriarchal or patriarchal-style social institution in different human cultures and as ideologically devised for structurally abusive childrearing and spousal sexual exploitation and so universally replacing that very nefariously oppressive human social institution with feminist youth villages are an absolutely essential part of the global feminist revolution to overturn patriarchy indeed.
Subversively interrupting and transformatively discrediting a culture of honor & shame can be done in various ways and by various means but is in modernity typically done by a reverse discourse of honor & shame whereby one paradigm of honor & shame replaces another as a certain structure of barely secularized supersessionism – replacement ideology indeed – and so “we” need to consider how we can and should indeed fight structural DOLP generally and physionomism specifically without in the process merely updating and replicating the very social structure and cultural paradigm of honor & shame.
What is needed in the meantime therefore is social/conceptual innovation of increasingly multifaceted Foucauldian semiotic warfare in public space so as to subversively disrupt the public illusion that is the performative naturalization and social terror of culturally hegemonic physionomism whether nominally religious or ostensibly “secular” .