Obvious political shill Jim Paredes’ recent shenanigan drew a lot of perhaps well-deserved criticism. A supposed “moral paragon” does the equivalent of a sex tape online. His defenders say, hey, it’s his business. But why post online a business that should be discreet? Or, why “record your love,” as the movie Parenthood puts it, and therefore create a risk of something to spread? Perhaps he deliberately let that loose as a distraction, after all.
But wait… Paredes is a product of those weird times, the 60s and 70s when “Make love, not war” was a popular slogan during that sexual revolution and flower children era. So let’s go to that. “Make love, not war” started out as a protest against the Vietnam War. Perhaps it also carried a suggestion: in order to stop wars, let people be busy with sex and free love so they won’t think of war. Sounds good at first, especially to sex addicts. But in truth, this is a terrible idea, and a failure.
|SUPPORT INDEPENDENT SOCIAL COMMENTARY!|
Subscribe to our Substack community GRP Insider to receive by email our in-depth free weekly newsletter. Opt into a paid subscription and you'll get premium insider briefs and insights from us daily.
Subscribe to our Substack newsletter, GRP Insider!
There are many studies, such as some from Psychology Today, that say the sex drive may itself be one of the causes of war. The Male Warrior Hypothesis for example posits that males engage in conflict as a way to obtain “evolutionary benefits associated with organized intergroup violence, such as a greater access to resources, status, and perhaps sexual mates” (that also supports my earlier point that war is all about resources than anything else). Or in short, men fight over women as part of the resources they want control over. Why are women a resource? Because they bear children in order to continue the society. Basically, “love,” or sex is a reason people go to war. The story of Helen of Troy may be an analogy for this and hints that ancient people already recognized this.
Now think of it this way: There is an innate desire for exclusive access to a mate (one of the few things I think of as innate). This desire was the basis of marital fidelity in society and the building block of society, the family. People could argue that marriage was only constructed and maintained for property ownership purposes, but I disagree. There is an innate desire to keep a mate away from others.
So when a mate goes wayward, it is more a natural reaction than a construct to be jealous and want to stop that infidelity. So what happens is two men fight over a woman (or girls fight over a guy). “Modern” people such as SJWs (social justice warrior) and politically correct would say, let the woman be shared between the two men. However, that ignores nature. Partners want to keep that one to one relationship, it is the utmost in intimacy. Perhaps nature supports this in another way: copulation can only happen between a couple at time. You can’t have two men shaft into one woman at the same, or one guy shaft two women at once (if people have tried this, it’s crazy). It’s really one-to-one. And humanity has often understood it as a natural analogy of exclusive relationships.
So the theory above, that sex does not dissuade and in fact leads to war, is not off. We have real world examples to demonstrate: Rape of Nanking and similar incidents; terrorist organizations such as Boko Haram and Daesh (ISIS) kidnapping women for sex exploitation. There are probably traditions and cultures I have not yet read about that involve abduction of women or even conflict over them.
So basically, when people say “make love not war,” they are actually trying to solve a problem with the very thinking that created it. Thus, “make love, not war” fails.
OK, you negativist, people will retort, what then should people do?
With the way SJWs and leftists behave today, the reaction of former California Governor Ronald Reagan about the “make love not war” shouters is apt: “Those guys look like they can’t make either of both.” Perhaps Reagan had in mind the other kind of “love” that is not sex: seeking the good of another despite how at odds they are with each other. This is real love for me, the love that SJWs likely couldn’t fathom.
Perhaps I can tweak the meaning of “make love not war” into using that definition of love, and thus my view can change wherein I can support the saying. Even if someone disagrees with you, don’t attack them or quarrel with them. Let people go with their beliefs as long as they don’t have the goal of harming someone, and fight for the freedom of others to disagree with you. It is love that requires a sound and level mind, working intellect, and self control, not uncontrolled hormones.
War and conflict are a result of people’s desire for control over others and wanting to impose their hegemony over the world. But these are also means for the most basic of purposes: to get something they want. It is a problem involving values. People’s values should be reoriented to acceptance that they can’t always get what they want, that sense of entitlement is wrong, they should stop trying to control others, and they should control themselves.
Defenders of “make love, not war” will say, keeping people busy with pleasures can take their minds off conflict. But that’s not always true. As I said above, objects of pleasure can be catalysts of conflict. Because people want something so much, they can fight over it, as I have said about the Opium Wars.
Let’s also look at the sex culture today. When SJWs seem to promote “love,” they likely mean promiscuity. This is also a selfie generation, where not only are they obsessed with posting photos of themselves holding up a phone in front of a mirror and calling it “sexy,” but they probably like to boast who they slept with – that same old careless culture. We have heard that not only Filipinos are among the biggest users in the world of pornography and are fond of posting pictures or videos of their own sex acts. These are their “proof” of sexual prowess (and their narcissism), and of course it means that they want more. But this of course comes with a price. AIDS and other sexually transmissible diseases are on the rise in the Philippines. “Safe sex” won’t be enough to stop this. Don’t underestimate dumbness when people throw everything to the wind just to get what they want.
But here’s another thing: let’s say posting one’s sexual activity online does get another person jealous. It’s not uncommon for Filipinos to give in to their “jealousy” and get into conflict with the poster. It’s a “pataasan ng wiwi” or piss contest moment. It could lead to a petty squabble that might even lead to murder. What, murder? Yes, this is the Philippines, where people have murdered their rivals (or even assumed rivals) for someone’s “love.”
Don’t get me started on the sextortion cases Filipinos are involved in. It probably still goes on today, hushed by its perpetrators. Sex and people’s egos about being “sexual greats” are also exploited for crime. Those with a lot of “sexual vanity” are easy prey for this.
Taming the Filipino pursuit for vanity and trying to satisfy hormones is a real solution. Of course, the SJWs and “advocates” may call me a prude and fascist. But don’t say I didn’t warn you.
I’m not here to ban sex or police thought. We need to keep our eyes out for more of these hypocrites. But it does bring to the fore the problems of sex addiction and how it could still have other effects – such as pedophilia and rape. We better step up efforts to put a handle on these things. Lots of things push this kind of addiction onto us, such as media. We should build up our resistance to these. Perhaps we need new calls for upholding of public morals. And if any of these so-called “defenders of freedom” slam such efforts, you know they’re just pretending to be busy.
I believe, as my cohorts here do, that what Filipinos embrace as their culture is what actually pulls the country down. And those who seem to be anti-dictators, who may also believe themselves to be “heroes,” are the real dictators.