Free sex and environmenal catastrophy.

Sex and environmental destruction.



I once had a man justify his actions by the statement that he was "only creating" that he was "not destroying."

-----------

I once read about a person who released a life. They didn't even realize it. They just released a piece of seaweed into the sea. That's where seaweed belongs, isn't it? That seaweed just made a home. Then the seaweed just created, it didn't destroy. In fact it was very good at creating. So very good, in fact, that it out created everything around it.

------------

There was a person who thought they were just creating good feelings between them and a friend. They thought this creation was okay. They weren't bringing anyone else into it. They specifically fabricated this "love" creation to be incapable of even conceiving another life or being observable by any other life. They were "safe" in their interactions. They did all they knew had to be done to keep harm from coming to anyone or anything. Sadly they didn't see that piece of seaweed slip into the wrong sea.

They didn't fathom that there were consequences beyond immediate hurt or destruction. They were like the classic anorexic or bulimic. They had convinced themselves that what they did to themselves had no real affect on others. Besides it was their right, their body. They felt certain they could control it enough. And if they couldn't they'd only really be hurting themselves. And where's the crime in that? They were creating "love." Weren't they?

Often times our society will take the cascading creations that emanate from unsanctioned acts of creation, or even the mere actions of such cut short--to bring pleasure without the actual consummation of any 'creation.' Like the bulimic ensnared so many of us think to consume the food and then expel it before nature has run it's course.

Yet if you were to take "Caulerpa taxifolia" the 'alien' sea weed now ravaging many of the worlds eco systems and were to toll it around with you, even if it were in several dense and strong layers of plastic baggies, and you pulled it behind you in your boat as you cruised around the coast most would label you an insane person set on ecological terrorism. Even if you did all you could in your power to ensure that the weed in the baggy was secured. Yet we live in a culture where sex is the catch phrase for everything.

No doubt we’re designed to be biologically drawn to sex, and not so much drawn to carrying around catastrophically dangerous alien species (though some do seem to enjoy it).

But we are also drawn to food, even more strongly than to sex. Yet I've very rarely seen open condoning of bulimia. Certainly it is practiced. But fathom how much more it would be practiced among the attention hungry youth (and the 'young at heart') if there were great programs trumpeting the use of 'safe bulimia' rather than just 'safe sex'. We are taught by the more 'progressive' in our culture that abstinence is a ridiculous single tier approach to the problems endemic to sexual promiscuity. We are mocked when we are so 'close minded' to be beyond preaching a self-contradictory doctrine. So why do they stop short of endorsing 'safe bulimia'? I'm beyond certain that we could make the practice as 'safe' as 'safe sex' is. And probably more people would be accepting of seemingly safe gluttony. So why do we draw the line? Why is it taken that one is unstoppable so a 'pragmatic' approach is the 'only' 'tenable' approach? Yet with the other we cannot at all give the signal that it is something desirable to practice with societies sanction. Both are as certain to occur in our society. We are both attention hungry and sex hungry. Are we not?

--Find the Hive