Free Northerner’s recent “Order And Freedom” (Read it, it’s a great summary of something that our underlies our thinking on the right, but is rarely articulated) got me thinking on a tangent. The fact that order allows trust and that trust reduces transaction costs makes everyone socially and literally richer. On the other hand, cheating and breaking trust reduce practical freedom, and even reduce social mobility, so ironically, more de-jure freedom results in a de-facto less-free society. Intelligent liberals (not leftists, mind you, but true liberals) often understand but misinterpret this dynamic. FN points out, “Social trust is destroyed through negative interactions. If just once my friend stiffed me, I’d probably never loan to him again.” In an economic situation, transgressions between parties effect the relations between those parties and those around them. There are other spheres, however, where a single transgression (or even the imagined possibility of one) can shatter trust far and wide.

A friend of mine once asked me what was inherently wrong with homosexuality. This is a far less common question than “should it be legal?” or “Is homosexuality a good idea?” I had to think about it for a minute. The answer I came up with (and I realize others have thought of it, but this was my epiphany) was that homosexuality casts a pall of suspicion over normal, healthy intimacy between males who are not homosexual. We discussed this further and realized how much we in the West had lost by introducing this suspicion into male friendship. We have since refered to this pehnomenon as “The Specter of Butt-Sex.” Not only does this hurt any two straight men who now assume the transaction costs of clarifying their intentions  (even if only to observers), but the bonds of groups of men, once the enforcers of all society’s rules, whether formal or informal, are weakened. There are those on the left who like to gleefully point out that men in some cultures hold hands when they are friends, or that men involved in athletics slap each others’ asses after a successful play, the implication being that male friendship and sports are, somehow, secretly gay. On the contrary, these are the spheres where, until very recently, intimacy was not haunted by the specter of butt-sex because homosexuality was not tolerated. At first glance, it looks like irony, but on closer examination, it is obvious. The societies in which sodomites are thrown from buildings are precisely the ones in which two men can hold hands without suspicion. I am not really arguing that two men should be holding hands here, but it seems to elucidate a principle that we can apply to the latest front in the culture wars: pedo-acceptance.

Even if pedo-acceptance never increases the chance of children being abused (which is hard to imagine) and it somehow stops at the part of the slippery-slope where the desire is acknowledged but not acted on (it won’t), we are still building a world where every uncle, every clergyman, and every little league coach is constantly under a cloud of suspicion and eventually, no-one will want to interact with any child who isn’t their own. It is already incredibly suspect to interact with children because of the very existence of these perverts, just imagine when they are a legitimate orientation. Will we even trust fathers alone with their sons? Teachers already avoid being alone with their students. Pedophile priests are already fodder for cheap humor. Community has already been permanently scarred by the notion that their might be perverts around. Imagine how much worse it can get.

There are other defective mechanisms that kick in when trust is undermined as well. Consider how heterosexual interactions have been shaped by rape and harassment hysteria. Slavoj Zizek writes in The Fragile Absolute (a Marxist and Freudian defense of what he calls “the Christian Legacy”) that “the heterosexual seduction procedure in our Politically Correct times” takes on the mechanics of a Stalinist show-trial:

The two sets, the set of PC behaviour and the set of seduction do not actually intersect anywhere; that there is no seduction which is not in a way and ‘incorrect’ intrusion or harassment – at some point, one has to expose oneself and ‘make a pass’. So does this mean that every seduction is incorrect harassment through and through? No, and that is the catch: when you make a pass, you expose yourself to the Other (the potential partner) and she decides retroactively, by her reaction, whether what you have done is harassment or a successful act of seduction – and there is no way to tell in advance what her reaction will be. This is why assertive women often despise ‘weak’ men – because the fear to expose themselves and take the necessary risk. And perhaps this is even more true in our PC times: are not PC prohibitions rules which, in one way or another, are to be violated in the seduction process? Is not the seducer’s art to accomplish this violation properly – so that afterwards, by its acceptance, its harassing aspect will be retroactively canceled?

It’s worth noting that this man is a darling of the ultra-left, not a manosphere blogger. Here we have a similar situation to the above, but heterosexual interaction is something we cannot afford to give up, even for ideology, so we give up logic instead. Logic is often the first causality of the left’s traumatic collisions with reality. Once that was merely comical. Lately, it has become dangerous. Now, the mechanism of order and enforcement is not a distant power that the left resents, but an omnipresent force that the left has been able to subvert and control. There is a quest for freedom, but freedom of a kind that is not free.  There is no freedom from metaphysical givens.  The search for such freedom leads, inevitably, to tyranny.  It has hurt male relationships, it will destroy families, and it is already at work shredding logic itself.

Advertisements