First sex doll brothel opens in Germany

The ethical framework that has been pressed upon mass society, and repeated by those under its thought control, is the mathematical idea of equality.

It even applies to the realm of sex.

The line that is repeated by these Stepford masses, the homunculi whose moral judgement has been beaten to the ground by equality, is that ‘anyone can have sex with anyone (or anything) so long as ‘consent’ is given.’  This is not only true of the population in general, but of the courts.  However lurid the act, however degrading, however devastated an individual might be by the act committed upon them, if the victim’s ‘consent’ can be determined, then the act is considered legal.

This does not mean that the act is moral.  What it does mean is that the law has rendered morality irrelevant.  Because it has regarded every act indiscriminately, the law, blinded by its commitment to equality, is satisfied it has done its task.

Consent is the fundamental premise of the sex-ed curricula now being foisted on children throughout the Western world.  It is an adult concept that has been imposed on children in the name of equality.

Any consideration of how different children are to adults ought to make it clear how inappropriate the teaching of consent is.  In the court of law, children are understood to be minors, and are judged by a different standard than adults, not because they are smaller, but because their capacity for moral responsibility is still unformed.

The defenders of these curriculum state that they are giving children the tools to identify whether they have been violated.  But that is a disingenuous claim.  The children might understand consent if what we mean by it is if they understand ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but if we mean that they can understand the moral consequences of their actions, or others’ acts upon them, the teaching of societies throughout history has been a decided ‘no.’

Asking children to employ an undeveloped faculty of responsibility before they are sexually and morally mature (as consent requires) is an indication of a perverse generation of adults.  The wickedness of their indiscriminate judgment arises directly from the principle of equality they use to guide their judgment.

The full perversity of individual consent as an ethical barometer – as if sex and procreation were not a matter that concerned the entire human community – is evident in the mass appeal of sadomasochism among women, such as is evident in the popularity of the misogynistic Fifty Shades novels (and films).

‘Consent’ is plainly bankrupt as a social ethic, precisely because it treats every sexual act indiscriminately by considering them all equally valid.  Refusing to acknowledge distinctions between men and women, adults and children, or people and objects, is simply dehumanizing.

It is fundamentally degrading, and in particular towards women.  Yet there are few protests from the feminists of our day.

Post-feminism is just posthumanism.  The idea that human nature is plastic, amenable to our creative impulses (as it is expressed in the concept of gender identity) is manifested here in the futility and perversity of sex with dolls.

Read the full article in the Independent