Do you know what is more important than the state stealing more of your freedom every day? Do you know what topic trumps your worries about excessive government regulation, increased taxation, and destruction of the medium of exchange? Sex. Sex! SEX! According to the current libertarians on self-proclaimed “commentary” websites, sex is the most important topic in the entire universe! There is no need to care about the government bureaucracy invading every single aspect of your life, no, the real problem today has to do with people’s personal opinions on SEX!

A few female libertarians have become obnoxiously obsessed with writing about their sex lives.  These women feel the need to share it all, bragging about their personal sex lives to the entire internet. Then, they try to pass off descriptions of their indiscretions as libertarian commentary, rather than attempts at becoming the new erotic writer for Cosmopolitan.

Adolescent behavior,  like gloating about your sex life on the internet, serves as a reminder of why people should at least reach emotional maturity before having sex. Remarks about how much someone loves being polyamorous or how casual sex is cool have nothing, at all, to do with libertarianism. The only libertarian element is that libertarians do not advocate for the government to ban or regulate these activities.

These women, however, feel as if it is somehow not libertarian if someone has a moral or even pragmatic objection to polyamory or casual sex. One can’t logically employ the rational argument of “X is wrong, and Y is why” to try to persuade others to see the error of their ways. Reasoning, according to these anti-logic people, is “shaming.” Funny, I thought human beings were superior to animals simply because of their ability to reason—and to control their impulses.

These women have stated that they do not care about attracting conservatives to libertarianism due to conservatives having “narrow-minded” views on sex and advocating for “shaming”: apparently, having any opinion other than “sexual promiscuity is awesome and monogamy is awful”, and explaining to others why this is so, is a sign of being narrow-minded. Stating that any objection to promiscuity and polyamory somehow renders an individual incompatible with libertarianism, however, is not “shaming” or being “narrow-minded.” It’s strange how that works.

It’s disheartening that people believe that people who hold morally conservative (or even moderate) views—and apologetically argue for them—cannot be libertarian. It’s even more upsetting that people believe that in order to be a libertarian, one must be a moral relativist. It’s downright disgusting and degrading to libertarianism for people to claim one of the most important issues of the times is what people personally feel about sex and that it requires column, after column, after column, after column, after column, to address.

Perhaps these libertarian women think the only way they’re able to convert people to libertarianism is to use sex as a tool (since, we all know, conservatives are clearly not able to be libertarians). If that’s true, that’s really a sad state of affairs. Libertarianism should be held to a higher standard than trying to attract people with the sort of sexualized advertisements you’d find on CollegeHumor.

18 thoughts on “SEX! SEX! SEX!

  1. Uh. Wow. It is very obvious you’ve done zero research into this. As someone who is part of the bdsm community of often reads about others having sex… We are generally excepting of all relationship types. Furthermore, most of the stuff I read is for educational purposes, and yeah sometimes because they want the reader to pop a boner. I do not see why you have a problem with that, and do not care to speculate.

  2. Nicely written.

    Whats sad is that those who abstained from messing up their lives (and those they’ve coupled with) will end up picking up the tab (via all the taxes spent on the Democrat Social Programs) to rehabilitate and prop up these soon to be shambling basket cases.

  3. I sincerely wonder if you have actually read the blog posts to which you’re responding. If you have, you’re most certainly straw manning the argument.

    First of all, you’re right that there is a lot of work to do in terms of fighting regulation. I do not know any libertarian who is going to fight you on that argument. The thing is, Thoughts on Liberty is not just another run-of-the-mill libertarian blog that tows the libertarian line on every libertarian problem. TOL also fights for cultural acceptance. Don’t think this is a libertarian problem? Familiarize yourself with Hayek’s knowledge problem. You don’t know how to run someone else’s life. It’s fair to offer an alternative, even when it comes to sex.

    Secondly, the blog never made a claim that sex is more important than any other given issue. After going through the posts, 80% in the past two weeks have not been about sex. In fact, sex has only recently become popular since this winter. Familiarize yourself with the blog before criticizing it.

    Thirdly, read the post. Gina writes, “It’s not that I don’t want conservatives to be libertarians. I do. I want everyone to be advocates for freedom. But you might want to look for someone else to bring in those folks… They attempt to ‘persuade’—and by that I mean shame—others away from the peaceful ways they choose to live their lives, from loving people of the same gender to loving more than one person to choosing to not love or live at all. They try and back this up with ‘science’ and ‘reasoning,’ but any amount of pressure shows that these reasons are just smoke screens for what they are really after: Making people behave the same way they do.” She is writing about the purpose of Thoughts on Liberty, the blog in which she is editor-in-chief. You can have all the conservatives you want over here. I agree with Gina that I’m not crazy about other people trying to tell me how to run my life, through social coercion or the government.

    Next, you write, “One can’t logically employ the rational argument of ‘X is wrong, and Y is why’ to try to persuade others to see the error of their ways. Reasoning, according to these anti-logic people, is ‘shaming.’ Funny, I thought human beings were superior to animals simply because of their ability to reason—and to control their impulses.” To date, I personally haven’t heard that many great reasons why monogamy is inherently better than polyamory or casual sex. I believe the reason why Gina called the arguments for monogamy pseudoscience because many tend to rely on religion and iffy data to support their claims. Oh, and comparing the authors of these articles to animals would certainly be considered shaming if not bullying. Control yourself.

    Finally, I think that Robert Kirchoff said it best:

    “I would like to agree with the fellow who said the economy is more important than sex. It is. The economy, after all, covers the bottom rungs of Maslow’s hierarchy, like food, shelter, clothing, protection, etc. In the absence of Maslow’s higher-order attainments, humans simply feel unfulfilled. In the absence of these lower-order ones, they die. Clearly, the economic issues are supreme.

    But so what? The fact is, for the vast majority of Americans, those low-tier problems are actually not serious threats. Much of what we libertarians are fighting for in the economic sphere is essentially more spending cash, which would be used for purposes of fulfillment, not survival. That said, sex is among the single most fulfilling activities you can engage in on a regular basis. It consistently ranks in competition with income as a prime indicator of relationship stability, and is pretty much universally acknowledged to be more fun than just about anything else.

    If sex, and the state’s absurd role in it, isn’t a legitimate (and tragically under-represented) topic of libertarian discussion, then we need to broaden the base of acceptable talking points.”

    • Exactly. Well stated. Conservative libertarians just HAVE to get weird about people talking about their own personal ideas of sex and give their opinions.

    • This. ^^

      Its tragic that the modern Libertarian thinks that Libertarianism needs to revolve around corporate balance sheets. There are other things to talk about besides taxes and the fed.

      What is important to note, is that things like polyamorous marriage, and to this day, many consenting sexual activities are not just shamed by conservatives, and mislead feminists alike, but they are out and out banned by the state.

      What these women (gasp! with opinions on their own lives!) are offering is the idea that the individual can realize their own wants and desires in their personal lives.

      I for one find it inspiring

  4. I came over here to comment, but see that Rachel Burger already wrote something very similar to what I was planning to write. Basically, people come to the ideas of freedom though very different channels. Some come because they are sick of being taxed to death and others come because they want to be free to marry who they love. These are very different paths but can ultimately lead to the same views: peaceful, voluntary actions and associations make the world a better place.

    Personally, I come to libertarianism because I want to be left alone, not because the thought of social inequality keeps me up at night. However, my best friend (Cathy Reisenwitz) writes for Thoughts on Liberty and has opened my eyes to other aspects of personal freedom that I never thought of before. Although I still have no desire to be in a polyamorous relationship, I can respect someone’s decision to do so. At the end of the day: We just don’t know what is right for every single person.

    Please don’t act like you do.

  5. This articles fails to meet even basic requirements for an argumentative essay, let alone a complete and well considered critical analysis of sexual information sharing in libertarian politics.

    My graduate thesis is about lexicalized sexual metaphor in politics, and how sex plays a major role in our country’s political processes, and I came here to see a considerate, thought provoking argument to the contrary. Instead, I saw someone who dislikes sexual conversation (perhaps personally?) disregard the importance of a subject that is at the forefront of American politics.
    You have a right to believe other things are more important. But, simultaneously, the people you criticize have that same right. Rejecting a dialogue because you happen to believe it is unimportant is both selfish, where you deny others the opportunity to voice their opinions and clumsily silence a voice, and pretentious, where you fail to legitimize the ideas of those you disagree with.

    Ms. Burger’s argument not only renders your (vague and unillustrated) points invalid, but your failure to collect information and warrant your claims (as Ms. Burger pointed out, you are straw manning, misrepresenting a single statement from one person as not only a generalized pattern of ideas in others, but an idea going against the content of the blog post, as well) makes me wonder if you even wish to have a discussion. I’m sincerely disappointed.

  6. – A person talking about a topic that interests them doesn’t mean that that topic is, to them, the most important thing in the world. It may simply be something that isn’t talked about as much, or that holds a special interest to them for a myriad of reasons.
    – Governments have & do make laws governing people’s sex lives; until very recently, such laws made polyamory & homosexuality illegal in the U.S., & homosexuality & adultery (including being a rape victim) is punished with death in Iran. Prostitution is still illegal in most states in the U.S., which leads to many women and men coming to harm & unjust imprisonment, which is very important to those people. Not to mention that rape victims are still routinely shamed for being raped in the U.S. & thus don’t always get the help they need, sometimes young girls are bullied to suicide for being a victim. So this is very much an issue that is relevant & important to the liberty movement – if the movement is to concern itself with the liberty of all people.
    – The first article sited did not say that the author thought monogamy was bad, she clearly stated that she is a libertarian precisely because she does not know what is best for everyone, and “skepticism over whether there is one best way, and whether anyone knows what it is, underpins why libertarianism and social liberalism are, for me, inextricably intertwined”.
    – The same is true of the woman who talked about how it’s OK to like sex as an older woman & the woman who says she enjoys being a web cam girl- they are merely responding to social pressures that tell them these things are wrong & telling us of their own experiences, they aren’t advocating forcing their ideals on anyone in so doing, just asking for our understanding & acceptance. Is it so hard to put your moral presumptions on hold for a moment & hear them out objectively?
    – Ultimately it’s not our job to hide who we are in the hopes of tricking some anti-sex conservative into joining us. We are not required to throw some things we care about under the bus to court those people. We are not required to tailor every communication to someone else’s moral standard. We are allowed to talk about sex if we like it. That doesn’t mean we can’t talk about other things, too. It doesn’t mean we’re imposing our will. It doesn’t mean we can’t try to attract conservatives. It just means we’re letting everyone say what they want to say in the free marketplace of ideas, in the hopes that by talking about these issues we will have more freedoms.
    – Libertarianism, after all, holds that it’s up to society to make changes by will, not by the government. In order to accomplish that, we have to talk about everything that’s important to us. & sex is important – without it, none of us would even be alive & a lot of us would be a whole lot less happy.

    • TL;DR = Some Sex IS illegal, Sex IS important, we don’t need to pretend we don’t care about it to court conservatives, & talking about it doesn’t mean someone is imposing their will on you.

  7. Rachel Burger and Kourtney Maison already said what I wanted to offer in rebuttal, so I will instead ask a question or two. Let’s assume your premise that certain bloggers–namely Cathy Reisenwitz since you linked to her several times in your article–are indeed “obsessed” about sex. I don’t think you ably proved that premise, but again, let’s assume it is true. Why would this be a bad thing? Why would it be a bad thing for a libertarian to blog about sex almost exclusively? I suppose you could argue it would be somewhat narrow in scope, but I’m having a hard time seeing how this would be such an egregious effort. Indeed, sex fits rather nicely into social libertarianism since state and federal encroachment on the sexual lives of individuals is a very real thing.

    I understand that you are adverse to the liberal use of the term “shaming” to describe certain articles, but you paint certain bloggers as sexual deviants who use a political ideology to legitimatize their, as you call them, “indiscretions.” These are bold claims that require bold evidence. Instead, you assume your premises as being true and offer links to articles that are generally well written; they do not come off as Cosmopolitan-esque smut masquerading as intellectualism. In other words, your “evidence” further invalidates your premises, weakening your argument substantially. You also treat these issue as if it were endemic, yet only link to two bloggers who both write under the auspice of Thoughts on Liberty. What you write does come off as shaming since your evidence is practically non-existent or greatly exaggerated. You can own it or rebut it as you please, but as my father was fond was saying, don’t piss on my boot and tell me it is raining.

  8. By all means, let’s continually be divided (Conservatives vs. Libertarians). No, really, it helped LAST election cycle. Oh, wait… The Communist won. Crap. These “Desperate House Wives” are not real Libertarians. And I’ll have a go at anyone (including Libertarians) that say they are.

    Come on, Conservatives. This division isn’t helping.

  9. Pingback: Who is more sex-obsessed, liberals or conservatives?

  10. new to this website, someone in my facebook linked to this article, but I have considered myself a bit of a libertarian for some time. I don’t see the point that the author is trying to make, sounds like she has a stick up her butt over nothing. Some people like sex and want to talk about it. Who cares? Also it seems really weird that there is a mentality of trying to ‘convert’ conservatives over to libertarianism. That has got to be one of the most annoying and irritating things I have ever heard of, like those fundamentalist Christians that go out trying to convert people and tell them about Jesus. Heaven forbid that someone read an article and *disagree* with it! Because it really matters what those darn conservatives might think about us libertarians if they see that some of us like sex..

  11. Pingback: On Sex, Liberty, and Prudence | Liberty Without Apologies

  12. Pingback: “Not Really About Sex” Sex Column | After the Cherry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s