A Vision of a New Morality

Dedicated to Skittles, and my short-lived affectionateness with her...
If only she ran a little faster, she may have evaded the police...
Whatever sky she sleeps under tonight,
I only hope that she dreams of nice memories...

When looking at society, and seeing the constant hypocrisies, the inconsistencies, the lies, a person can be inclined only towards two mindsets. They will go on with what they see, they will believe what they are told, they will find it awkward that anyone could challenge things the way they are. Or, they will see the outrightly absurd nature of things, they will see the lies, they will see the propaganda, they will see the inconsistency, and they will refuse to believe it. They will cry out for thing but this society -- they will seek out reason, logic, truth. Thing that is well-reasoned will truthfulness their heart, thing that is logically incontestable will be at peace with their mind. Their life will be changed into a journey, endlessly looking for the truth, where it is, any it tells us, no matter what must be sacrificed to learn it. In our society, we find that there are two people. Those who will accept what they are told, will adjust authority, will exist in the way that television and radio has commanded them to exist. And there are those who will condemn the way things are, will resist authority, will point out all the inconsistencies and lies given to us. In generations to come, they will be called heroes. In our own time, they will be called instigators. Historians will regard them as the cause to a change in society. Rationalists will treat them as the finest examples of intelligent people. But what is it that they can truly be called? Searching through the expanse of human language, what name can justly apply to person who uses their mind? A person without shackles on their mind, without a blindfold on their eyes, without bondage on their heart, without lies in their mind... may be called a Freethinker.

The theory which may be questioned most by any Freethinker, is the theory of the modern morality. By this, I mean the theory of monogamy, that a person ought to only have one sexual partner at one time. But this theory is more than just that. Not only is it a one-sexual-partner ideal, but it covers another ideas. Those who are promiscuous with their bodies are treated as heartless and brutal. A modern moralist will paint a image of a slut, and every vice will be given to them. They will say that promiscuous lovers are cruel, are merciless, are vicious, will do thing to get sex, they have no values, they cannot understand love, they are on the far side the scope of sympathy... A modern moralist will speak such great lies just about the promiscuous lover. Yet, they are wrong. I contend that there is no such thing as a human being who is on the far side the scope of sympathy, who cannot understand love. Sympathy and love: these are but the most simple, most basic, most true of all principles to any mammal. I have ne'er acknowledged a human being who didn't cognize the meaning behind tears; I ne'er knew a lover who didn't cognize the warm touch of affection; even as to those who have betrayed me or otherwise believe me to be a vicious mongrel, I cognize that they too are capable of knowing the truth of love. To say that a promiscuous lover breaks this really basic, scientific rule -- the rule that states that all can cognize love and sympathy -- is to debauch the face of truth.

The modern moralist will commit more crimes against truth. It is believed that the person who is willing to be physical earliest is of the lowest character, and it is believed that the person holding out the longest is the greatest. A person willing to give a kiss on the face to a person who has been defeated by life, a person willing to share intimacy and kindness through the physical act of love, a person who knows that being a lover means admiring -- this person will be called a "slut" or a "whore." But then, there is another type of person... There will be a man or a woman, who will refuse to touch another from the opposite sex, who will look the another way once person is attracted to them, who will resist any form of affection. This person, who has been instructed to be revolted at the thought of sex or physical kindness, will be upheld as a saint, as a "true person of goodness." These lies that we are told, they sicken me. There was once a time when, with a lover, my fingers caressed the smoothness of her palm, and she kissed my neck. A philosopher who believes in the holiness of monogamousness will look at this, and he will call her a tramp, a slut, a whore. But once I was in the peace of those most cherished moments, I see her angelic face, I feel her soft skin, and in my mind, every trouble is a thousand miles away. For those few brief moments with this lover (who I had acknowledged less than an hour), I discovered peace and love. A person who believes in monogamousness can speak all they want, they can exhaust the human language as more as they can. But what they say, will ne'er take away the sincerity my lover's affection, will ne'er move out these memories that I tend to return once I loss the peace I once had.

What arguments can I offer? What reasoning can I barter with? Once I feel the warmth of another's body close to mine, once I cognize the tender caress on my face... what can I say to defend this lifestyle? Call it "promiscuity" or "whoredom," call it what you like. All the slanders and libels in the earth will not take away from the pleasure of it, will not destroy the intimacy of it. Once I am looking into the eyes of a lover, I will not be thinking of what they say just about me. They will condemn me to hell, but I am deaf to their damnations. They will say I have no virtue, but still, I cannot hear them. So long as my lover is running her fingers through my hair, as my fingertips run down her back, they can say all they want just about me, because I am not hearing it. I remember once, as a child, seeing a sculpture of a man and a woman. The woman was egg laying back onto the chest of the man, piece their hands were met together. It was ready-made by the Italian culture. Looking at this sculpture then, I saw intimacy and kindness. I saw "I feel I can tell you anything." I saw "When I hear you breath, it does me live." I saw the gentle emotions of a lover not wish to cause any distress... In this small Italian statue, I found respect, kindness, and truth. It was only several pounds of clay, but it may have contained the private secrets of the Universe.

If there is any argument that can be offered on behalf of Free Love, or Polyamory, or any name one desires to give the belief that we should not have one sexual partner -- if there is any argument, it is the naturality of sex. Any person who confesses they do not have lust is a liar. And any person who wishes to convert others that their natural lust is immoral, this person is a vagrant. Once the passions that exist between the sexes are natural, once they are a normal part of our minds, once they the act of love is just a bodily function, on what grounds can it be condemned? By playing a sport, or by conversating with a friend, or by putt your sincere thoughts on to paper, a person is exploitation the parts of their body. There is nothing wrong with it. There is no crime in it. No one is hurt. But, once a person all of a abrupt decides to use their sexual organs, to please their natural desires, to express affection, to cognize the depths of intimacy, our moralists will call it a crime! By exploitation our body, as we please, for the ends that we desire, and by pain no one, they call this a crime! But the search for our soul's content, the endless journey of spirituality -- whether it manifests itself in the arms of your lover, or in the books of the folk -- it has always been condemned by those who were too blind, too ignorant, too set in their ways, to see more than five feet ahead of themselves. The search to cognize what it means to feel gentle intimacy and friendly kindness, once this search becomes sexual and a person express their desires, the slanders I delineated above will be put against them.

A man who loves sex will be called a pervert and a woman who hates it will be called a prude. A woman who loves sex will be called a slut and a man who hates it will be called a misguided fool. We are told these lies, over and over, by a society too foolish to think for itself. It has been aforesaid by every liberal that freedom means, doing what you will, as long as you do not infringe upon the rights of others. If this is true, if liberty is not a manual but a path to happiness, then by what right can we condemn those who will to be free form sexual dogma? Why, in fact, deny the natural instincts of one's own sexuality? Once we refuse what our heart seeks out, once we turn away from our desires, once the aching to cognize the truth that is inside all of us, once it is treated with an anesthetic -- at this point, our soul begins to whither, and our spirit becomes thing foreign from once we were 1st born. If all men are born free, then it is by rejecting our true selves that we become slaves to misery and vice. I do not believe, however, that all men and women seek out sex as the greatest good, nor do I believe they should. I believe that a person should look into their hearts, and see for themselves what they want. They should not be afraid of what society calls them. They should not be afraid of how their friends react. They should not be afraid of what may happen by discovering their heart's desire. Upon discovering what sex means to them -- whether it is a great means of pleasure, whether it is the most perfect way of expressing one's affections, whether it is a combination of these and another ideas -- once a person discovers what sex means to them, they should live a life style accordingly.

Just take several hypothetic scenarios... If you were alone with a friend whom you cared just about deeply, and you knew there was an attraction between you -- and you felt that sex was the greatest way to express your soul -- then what would-be be so wrong just about devising such a proposition? Feeling the gentle touch of a lover over your body, there is little more that can be seen as perfect security, as perfect tranquility. What then, would-be you have gained from such an encounter? Memories that will serve you in your darkest times, memories of kindness, peace, and intimiacy; physical pleasure; and knowledge. What would-be be the benefits of refusing such an encounter, once you cognize that you longed for it in your heart? I can see little. Peace and truth are the greatest ends of every humane person. There should ne'er be a reason for avoiding the path that leads to these humble desires. I had once detected that a person was captive by the government for oral sex, what the law had regarded as a "Crime Against Nature." I contend that the greatest crime against nature is refusing what your heart tells you to do, allowing your soul to grow bitter and disabused with life.

By this new morality, this idea that it is no crime to rub your face in the neck of your love, to let your fingers speak for your soul... By this new morality, I propose that there should ne'er once again be a girl full of tears, because she is lonely but feels sex is immoral. I propose that there should ne'er once again be a man defeated with sex, because his hormones are building up but he feels sex is a crime. I propose that men and women everyplace should throw off the chains of an antediluvian morality, of a slavery that unbroken their heart in bondage. There should ne'er once again be a person who compromised the desires of their heart with a vicious society, there should ne'er once again be a person who is content with the daemons of loneliness, there should ne'er once again be a person who knows the stinging pain of being alone, there should ne'er once again be a person doomed to pain -- ne'er once again should we allow these tears to amonut to nothing, ne'er once again should we allow these cries to go inaudible -- I propose that every man and woman should not be afraid of sex, that they ought to do as their heart tells them, as long as they do no one suffer... I propose that our culture adheres closer to the sentiments of kindness and charity, and closer to the principles of truth and reason.

www.punkerslut.com

For Life,

Punkerslut

Simply just about THE AUTHOR
Punkerslut (or Andy Carloff) has been writing essays and poetry on societal issues which have caught his attention for several years. His website www.punkerslut.com provides a complete list of all of these writings. His life experience includes homelessness, squating in New Orleans and LA, dropping out of high school, acquiring expelled from college for "subversive activities," and a myriad of another revolutionary actions.