oliticians use sex as a tool for shaming their opponent or a specific class of people. They never come right out and say that of course, it’s under the banner of "protecting the children" or "standards of decency". The voters respond by choosing one side over another, never considering for a moment there could actually be an alternative solution.

The favored tool for smearing any opponent is the implication of nefarious debauchery. From the antics of JFK to William Jefferson Clinton, illicit sex has been used as a way to divert attention away from the business of fleecing their constituents. Of course, this is not just limited to political campaigns. From the time of the Marquis De Sade to Julian Assange, anyone who might attempt to expose the states looting will be defamed with allegations of sexual misconduct.

 The sexual liberation movements of the 60's and 70's gave birth to politicians who use sex to sell themselves. The dark locks of Sarah Palin give her a solid footing to sway the southern blue collar votes. Her nasally, hair salon voice is a siren's song that distracts the voters from actually seeing the destructive nature of her proposed policies. But Palin is by no means the first to use virility as an election gimmick; Strom Thurmond, married a woman half his age, and after being questioned by the press, demonstrated his endurance and stamina by doing handstands.

When politicians or governments try to speak about sex of any type, it is to repress it in some manner. The Bush Administration's abstinence only policy has kept sex from being discussed in any sort of honest manner. The Obama administration has failed to live up to any sex-positive expectations. The government is currently considering legislation that will blur the lines even further as to what constitutes decency, giving the government even more power to incarcerate it citizens for sex related offenses.

 The Constitution guarantees us specific freedoms. We have the right to speak, to associate freely, and be secure in our homes, and property.

During the early days of our country, there were communities who lived in coexistence with others through peaceful trade. The Puritans did not approve of the native peoples lifestyle, but they still bought meat from them.

The framers of our Constitution understood the desire of the individual to live their life by their own morals. Early America was a society of varying different beliefs who respected each other’s right to interact with any one they chose on a voluntary basis. As long as you were not committing an act of coercion or aggression against someone you were free to prosper.

It is self evident that people by and large are not hell bent on robbing or murdering other people. If you allowed people to voluntarily exchange services, and have competition for services, there would be means for those who want to offer their services a safe way to do so. It would then be up to the profitability of the market to judge its value.  We need to remove the moral judgments that have misguided the American electorate.

In the end I see the pervasive sex negativity as a defeat of intellectual determination. The lack of awareness of the Constitution in sex activist circles is startling.  The illusion of social justice has permeated the American body like a disease, devouring the principals embodied in the constitution.

More at www.f2btied.com