Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Guns and Crime

by Jason Stotts


I hate how everything that becomes politicized becomes covered in layers upon layers of lies and deceptions as people try to bend reality to meet their political agendas.  Frankly, I find it disgusting.  Firearms are definitely one of those topics where people let their emotions run roughshod over their reason and attempt to pass feel-good legislation that serves the ends of security theater, but does nothing to help real people stay safer in the real world.

Consider the following two articles:

Gun Crime has Plunged, but Americans Think it’s Up, Says Study (LA Times)

Gun crime has plunged in the United States since its peak in the middle of the 1990s, including gun killings, assaults, robberies and other crimes, two new studies of government data show.

Yet few Americans are aware of the dramatic drop, and more than half believe gun crime has risen, according to a newly released survey by the Pew Research Center.

Media’s Anti-Gun Narrative Destroyed by Justice Dept Report (Breitbart)

Between the years of 1993 and 2011, as the assault weapons ban expired, more Americans purchased guns, the Supreme Court overturned outright gun bans, and individual states not only loosed gun control restrictions but also issued concealed carry permits to private citizens, incidents of gun violence in America collapsed.

Between 1993 and 2011, nonfatal gun crimes plummeted 69%; from 1.5 million to 467,300. Gun-related murders dropped 40%; from 18,253 to 11,101. Gun-related murders for black Americans plummeted by 51%.

The report also shows that the media-created hysteria over school shootings is wildly misleading. Between ’93 and ’11, the murder rate in schools dropped by almost a third; from 29 to 20.

It bothers me that the media’s selective reporting has completely distorted the truth about what’s happening with gun use in the US and whether are kids are safe in school (they’re much safer now than when I was in school in the 90’s).

Guns are not evil. Neither are they good.  They are simply tools that can be used for good or bad ends.  To ban guns in an attempt to reduce crime is just misguided.  People who want to hurt each other will always find new and creative ways to do so: like “glassing” in the UK.

This reminds me of a conversation I had the other day with a friend who was praising the idea of gun buy-back programs where police “buy” guns from citizens in order to “get them off the streets.”  This, at first, sounds like it might be a good idea, except:

– The guns turned in are not going to be the ones used to commit crimes.  Criminals are not going to turn in their guns voluntarily.

– The people who are going to be turning in guns are poor people who need the money.  Yet, the amount of money the programs pay is much less than the market price, thus cheating people of the money they could get elsewhere

– There have been reports that criminals have used the gun buyback programs to get paid to have the police destroy evidence of their crimes.  The programs accept the guns without questions, so this is a perfect solution for the criminals.

Thus, these programs accomplish nothing at all except waste taxpayer dollars on feel good programs.  This kind of thing has got to stop.

We need to look always for the facts and not try to impose our uninformed emotional reactions on others via the law.  Guns might be “scary,” but that’s no reason to try to prevent law-abiding citizens from owning them.

The Obama Administration and the Path to Tyranny

by Jason Stotts

With all the scandals and terrible policies of the Obama administration, I think it’s about time for a good old fashioned IMPEACHMENT!

“They’ll warn that tyranny is always lurking just around the corner.” Barack Obama 

– Either failed to act or prevented military action in Benghazi. Caused the death of a US ambassador and members of US military.

– NDAA and the indefinite detentions of American citizens without trial (ACLU). VIOLATES 6th AMENDMENT

Fast and Furious scandal. Resulted in the death of American and Mexican citizens.

– IRS Scandal #1: IRS used as a political weapon against conservative groups in an election year to silence opposition. VIOLATES 1st AMENDMENT

– IRS scandal #2: IRS illegally seized medical records of 10,000,000 people. VIOLATES RIGHT TO PRIVACY.

– AP News scandal: illegally tapped reporters phones and stole records from the Associated Press. VIOLATES 1st AMENDMENT

If you’re not upset about the president, you should really consider the precedents he’s setting and that tyranny never arrives all at once.  We must demand freedom in all areas of life: not just personal freedom, not just economic freedom, not just the freedom to have an abortion, to carry a gun, or to invest our money how we wish, but the freedom of a free people whose government’s only role is the protection of rights.

Diana Hsieh on Abortion and Parental Consent

by Jason Stotts

Diana Hsieh recently did a really great job discussing the issues surrounding abortion and parental consent.  These are complicated issues and Diana does a great job cutting to their core.   I recommend you take a listen:

Should minor girls be required by law to obtain parental consent for an abortion? Normally, parents are legally empowered to make medical decisions for their minor children, and minors cannot obtain medical procedures without parental consent. How should that apply in the case of pregnancy? Should pregnancy and abortion be treated differently from other medical conditions? Should parents be allowed by law to force a daughter under 18 to carry a pregnancy to term or to abort against her will? [LINK]


Help Save California’s Nude Beaches

by Jason Stotts

Nude beaches in California have been under attack and many historically nude beaches have lost their designation.  The state of California is now wasting taxpayer money patrolling these beaches and citing people for nudity.  This is a travesty.  As I wrote in my essay on nude beaches, being nude in nature, especially on the beach, makes more sense than being clothed.  It is only our shame of our bodies that we get from our christian culture that prevents us from fully enjoying our humanity.  If you’re in California and want to make a difference, see the below and help in the fight to bring nude beaches back to California.


                     NATURIST ACTION COMMITTEE

                           ACTION ALERT




Copyright 2013 by the Naturist Action Committee, which is responsible for its content. Permission is granted for the posting, forwarding or redistribution of this message, provided that it is reproduced in its entirety and without alteration.

DATE: April 28, 2013

SUBJECT: California

TO: Naturists and other concerned citizens


Dear Naturist,


This is an Action Alert from the Naturist Action Committee. NAC is asking for your immediate involvement to support an effort to have the State of California create officially designated areas for clothing-optional recreation in state parks.



1. Attend a meeting of the California Park and Recreation Commission on May 17.


2. Contact the Commission in writing.



The California State Park and Recreation Commission is NOT the same as the State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Under California law, the Commission has specific duties and authorizations, including:

  • the approval of general plans for units of the State Park System,
  • classifying units of the System,
  • establishing general policies for the DPR Director,
  • recommending to the Director a comprehensive recreation policy for the state.

In the wake of last year’s scandal involving the California Department of Parks and Recreation, NAC is looking for the appointed State Park bureaucracy to assert some leadership. The Commission has had the authority and the responsibility all along to establish general policy and to recommend policy to DPR, and that’s what NAC is seeking.



If you’re near the Monterey Bay area of California (or you can arrange to be there), NAC requests that you attend a public meeting of the State Park and Recreation Commission that is scheduled to be held in Santa Cruz on Friday, May 17, 2013.


DATE: Friday, May 17, 2013

TIME: 9:00 a.m.


Forest Conference Center

Hilton Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley

6001 La Madrona Drive

Santa Cruz, California 95060


The official public notice for the meeting may be viewed at:


The Commission’s agenda for the meeting is available at:


The naturist issue is not on the agenda for the meeting. Regardless, we need to let the Commission know of our concerns and our expectations. Members of the public will have an opportunity to give brief statements during the public comment portion of the meeting. Whether you speak or not, your presence at the meeting is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to lend support to the message of naturists. We seek the setting aside of areas for clothing-optional recreation in State Park units.


There are few items on the meeting agenda for May 17, and the meeting is likely to move quickly. Please plan to be at the Hilton Santa Cruz/Scotts Valley in Santa Cruz no later than a half hour before the start of the meeting. Those who wish to speak must sign up to do so before the meeting commences.


The Commission has met infrequently and irregularly for the past four years, but NAC has been at every single one of the Commission’s meetings during that period of time. With your help and participation, we’ll make a significant showing at this meeting, too.


If you’re planning to attend the meeting, please contact:

NAC board member Allen Baylis

[email protected]

(714) 962-0915


or NAC executive director Bob Morton

[email protected]

(512) 282-6621



If you’re unable to attend the meeting, you can still help. NAC asks that you write to the Commission. Send your comments by e-mail, fax or surface mail. Those who will be at the meeting on May 17 are also encouraged to write.



NAC is requesting ALL NATURISTS and other concerned individuals to contact California officials on this important matter, regardless of your place of residence. California understands the importance of out-of-state visitors who come to enjoy the state’s beaches, lakes and streams. The opportunity to provide diverse recreational opportunities applies to those visitors, as well as to California residents. While all are encouraged to make their voices heard, the participation of Californians is, of course, particularly important.


Send a letter, a fax or an e-mail. Phone calls will likely be ineffective in this specific context.


     California State Park & Recreation Commission 

     PO Box 942896

     Sacramento, CA 94296

     FAX: (916) 654-6374

     Louis Nastro, Assistant to the Commission

     E-MAIL: [email protected] 


Send a copy to:


     California Department of Natural Resources  

     Natural Resources Agency 

     1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 

     Sacramento, CA 95814 

     FAX: (916) 653-8102

     E-MAIL: [email protected] 


NAC encourages you to send copies of your faxes and paper mail to:

NAC, PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903.

Send copies of your e-mails to: [email protected]




When you write:


a) Be polite.


b) Be known. Give your name and address. If you are a California resident or a frequent visitor to California, be sure to point that out. Anonymous letters have very little impact.


c) Be focused. Keep your correspondence brief and on target.


d) Be positive. Remember that we’re trying to ENCOURAGE the Parks Department to do something. Please do not take a scolding tone.


e) Be clear. Say that you SUPPORT the designation of clothing-optional areas in units of the State Park System.


f) Be sure to make a request that your correspondence (letter, fax, e-mail) be included in the permanent public record of the California Park and Recreation Commission meeting of May 17, 2013.


Additional talking / writing points:


1) On March 25, 2013, a state oversight agency, the Little Hoover Commission, issued a comprehensive review of the California State Park system. Among other conclusions, the report says that DPR lacks the flexibility to be responsive to the diversity of its users and supporters. We must encourage the Commission to respond positively to the deficiencies identified by the report.


2) Our focus is not exclusively on San Onofre State Beach or any other individual park. Although San Onofre was the first State Park unit at which DPR killed its policy for managing clothing-optional recreation, it has not been the last. Ticketing for mere nudity in State Park units has spread throughout the entire state of California. A unified policy that manages FOR a significant group of park users is exactly what the Commission is responsible for creating, but it has not done so for clothing-optional users. The present lack of a comprehensive statewide policy threatens ALL clothing-optional areas in California State Park units.


3) Clothing-optional recreation is a diverse use that’s well supported by the public, yet Parks Department policy against clothing-optional recreation is completely out of sync with public sentiment and the expressed preferences of California residents. A public opinion survey on this topic was commissioned in 2009 by the Naturist Education Foundation and was conducted by the prestigious polling firm of Zogby International. In that statewide poll:


79 percent of Californians believe people should be allowed to enjoy nude sunbathing on a beach or other location that is designated for that purpose.


60 percent of Californians say that they are not offended by the nonsexual nudity of others.


62 percent of Californians agree that the California Department of Parks and Recreation should exercise the legal authority it presently has to designate clothing-optional areas in state parks.


View details of the 2009 NEF California Poll:


4) For thirty years, the Department’s Cahill Policy allowed a means to manage for clothing-optional recreation in units of the State Park system. The nullification of the Cahill Policy has left the department with no statewide policy to address a form of recreation that’s obviously popular with the public. It’s the duty of the Commission to address matters of policy.


5) Some Park and Rec Commission members have suggested that a positive response for those who seek clothing-optional recreation in state parks somehow requires a new legislative solution. That view is incorrect. Title 14, Section 4322 of California Code of Regulations already gives DPR the power and authority to set aside areas for clothing-optional use. What the Department needs NOW is policy guidance from the Commission to do what the Department is already allowed to do TODAY.



Additional information and links are available, along with this NAC Action Alert on the web site of the Naturist Action Committee.


Select “Alerts” and find this NAC Action Alert under Current Alerts, or use this convenient shortcut: Among the material on the NAC site, you’ll find the complete text of the Little Hoover Report.



The Naturist Action Committee is the volunteer nonprofit political adjunct to The Naturist Society. NAC exists to advance and protect the rights and interests of naturists throughout North America. Fighting for the clothing-optional recreational use of public land is expensive. To do its job, NAC relies entirely on the voluntary generosity of supporters like you.


After you’ve made your plans to attend the Commission meeting on May 17 and/or contacted the officials at the Commission and the Natural Resources Agency, please take a moment to send a donation to:



   PO Box 132

   Oshkosh, WI 54903


Or call toll free (800) 886-7230 to donate by phone using your MasterCard, Visa or Discover Card. Or use your credit card to make a convenient online donation: 


Thank you for choosing to make a difference!




Bob Morton

Executive Director

Naturist Action Committee



Naturist Action Committee (NAC) – PO Box 132, Oshkosh, WI 54903

Executive Dir. Bob Morton       – [email protected]

Board Member Allen Baylis      – [email protected]

Board Member Charles Harris    – [email protected]

Online Rep. Dennis Kirkpatrick  – [email protected]




Ignorance and Myopia

by Jason Stotts

When I first started studying philosophy, I was surprised at how committed I was to beliefs that I had never really considered.  In fact, I seemed to be trapped in a web of ideas that I had obtained through the culture through a kind of mental osmosis.  I was committed to this and that, but had never considered the issues and whether I was right to be so committed.  Now, some of the beliefs I stayed committed to after reflection, like my beliefs in the sovereignty of the individual, the value of capitalism, and the ethics of egoism.  With these views, I came to understand them at a much better level and in a clearer way.  I no longer believed them merely because I had believed them at one time, I had reasons for my beliefs and arguments to support them.

Other beliefs, I shed completely.  I was never a religious person: I had always questioned the existence of any sort of god, but I still thought that there was a possibility that there might be one.  Moreover, I thought of religion as a benevolent force and as something that, while I didn’t participate in it, was a force for good in the world.  This, obviously, I have seen past to the true nature of misanthropic nature of religion (especially the Abrahamic religions).

Another belief that I used to hold, and which may surprise some of my readers, is that there was something wrong with “the homosexuals.”  I didn’t know many gay people growing up and had this vague idea that they were somehow “broken” in some way.  Of course, how could I not think this, since they were living in a violation of nature and flatly flaunting the biological functions of their bodies?  Yet, once I learned even just a little about human anatomy and psychology, I quickly realized how silly and ignorant homophobia really is.

Unfortunately, few people ever question their beliefs and I think one reason is that they are afraid to see how little justification they really had for them to begin with and how ignorantly they had actually been living their lives.  However, ignorance (lacking knowledge) is not necessarily a moral failure.  While there are some things that a person can reasonably be expected to know, and evasion of things that one should know is a moral failure, one cannot be expected to know everything.  The moral obligation a person does have is to be constantly learning and growing as a person and to not evade looking into issues that will impact their lives.

I preamble like this to set the context for this: one of my major realizations as I started to study sex in a serious way was how little I actually knew about it. The more I learn about sex, the more I realize I didn’t know and how much of what I did “know” was actually just wrong.  Not only that, but my thinking about sex was locked into our cultural assumptions and a very definite conception about what sex is and should be.

I think the ignorance that surrounds sex is absolutely astounding.  People tend to think that the way we think about and view sex here in our culture and time is the way it’s always been and the way it has to be.  That’s just silly.  For example, did you know that:

– In ancient Greece, males were the symbols of beauty and females were not?

– There are cultures where the family name passes through the female line, because any child of the woman is definitely in the genetic family whereas a child of a man may or may not be (this solves the problem of lineage).

– Biologically our bodies evolved to be polysexual (non-monogamous) and the evidence for this is overwhelming (cf: the coronal ridge of the human penis, the size of the human testicles, the different functions of sperm, the cervical crypts in the vagina, the signaling function of breasts, etc).

– Men who do not orgasm frequently enough are much more likely to die of prostate cancer?

– Men have not always been the more sexually aggressive sex?  In some cultures (including our own), women were the more sexually active sex and the sexual aggressors.

– That in ancient Greece, a man who only had sex with women or only had attractions to women would have been a cultural outcast?

I think that people who don’t consider sex from a broader perspective are simply being ridiculous.  How can you claim any sort of legitimacy about a sexual position when all you understand is your own culture in your own time and place?

Consider this article by Alyssa GoldsteinWhen Women Wanted Sex Much More Than Men: And how the stereotype flipped.

In the 1600s, a man named James Mattock was expelled from the First Church of Boston. His crime? It wasn’t using lewd language or smiling on the sabbath or anything else that we might think the Puritans had disapproved of. Rather, James Mattock had refused to have sex with his wife for two years. Though Mattock’s community clearly saw his self-deprivation as improper, it is quite possible that they had his wife’s suffering in mind when they decided to shun him. The Puritans believed that sexual desire was a normal and natural part of human life for both men and women (as long as it was heterosexual and confined to marriage), but that women wanted and needed sex more than men. A man could choose to give up sex with relatively little trouble, but for a woman to be so deprived would be much more difficult for her.

It’s a short overview of some of the ways in which our Western views about the nature of sexuality have changed in the last couple of hundred years.  There are lots of books about this kind of thing like Sex at Dawn.  There are also lots of books about changes in human physiology and cultures like Sperm Wars, Dover’s Greek Homosexuality, etc.

The problem, though, is that people who are woefully ignorant of sex, nonetheless feel entitled to talk at great length about it as though they were experts.  These people often can’t name the parts of the body involved in sex and don’t even understand basic bodily functions like reproduction (like those idiot christians who think that a woman who is raped can’t get pregnant, because their god would never go down into that tainted uterus to deliver a soul).  Nevertheless, these ignorant people feel entitled to opine about the morality of sex.

Morality does not come from an imaginary sky-friend.  Morality is about helping people live the best kinds of life open to them and this involves understanding human nature and the facts surrounding it.  Unless someone understands the physiology of sex, the psychology of sex, the history of sex, and even the philosophical implications of sex, then they shouldn’t be trying to construct a system of sexual ethics.  Yet, this is precisely what is going on.  These…”experts” can’t even understand their own urges and bodies and yet, try to tell us how to live our lives.  They can’t understand that sex has changed throughout the ages and think it has always been the same.  Their ignorance leads them to have a particularly pernicious kind of myopia where they can’t see that their simple-minded views are not necessarily true.

The point I’m trying to get at is that ignorance, not knowing things, leads you to not see the broader picture as you often cannot see what you don’t understand.  In sex, this is particularly problematic as people try to reason from the way things are right now to human nature and try to posit immutable laws on little to no evidence.  This is just completely intolerable.

So, ward yourself against the myopia from ignorance by trying to learn as much as you can and challenging your beliefs and making sure you understand the reasons why you believe things.  Especially with regards to sex.  Just because things are a certain way in our culture right now does not mean they have always been this way or that this is the best way to live.  You need to look at sex throughout time and different places and then decide what works best in your life.

Bailey Amendment to Remove Unconstitutional Laws

by Jason Stotts

I recently listened to Diana Hsieh’s interview of Stephen Bailey on Limiting Government by Constitutional Amendment, which I recommend you listen to.  The topic of the show was Bailey’s idea to amend the constitution to allow challenges of any law on constitutional grounds to come from any citizen, obviating the onerous conditions under which a person can prove “standing.”

I reached out to Stephen and he’s graciously permitted me to republish the full text of the amendment:

The right of the people to annul unconstitutional law shall not be infringed.

Any person may bring suit challenging the constitutionality of any legislation, regulation, or rule enacted or promulgated by any government within the State of Colorado, except items consisting solely of appropriations.

Any person subject to the challenged legislation shall have standing to bring such a suit in a court within the governing jurisdiction of the law and that court shall have jurisdiction to hear the suit.

Such suits shall be heard by a jury composed of twelve jurors, randomly selected from the eligible electors residing in the judicial district in which the suit is brought. Jurors shall be disqualified and may only be disqualified due to demonstrated conflict of interest.

Unless two-thirds of a jury shall find the law a necessary and proper exercise of power delegated by this Constitution, and not infringing unalienable individual rights protected by this Constitution or the Constitution of the United States, the law shall be annulled.

Any appeal of a jury annulment shall comply with the requirements specified herein.

All convictions under a nullified law shall be immediately voided.

The jury may separately find, through a simple majority vote, that the public officials who enacted an annulled law wantonly violated their oath to protect and defend this constitution and, therefore, are ineligible to hold elective or appointed public office in the State of Colorado. This disability shall be effective upon completion of the term of a currently held elected public office, or immediately if not currently holding an elected public office. No public official shall be held accountable for approving or enacting a law, regulation or rule prior to the ratification of this amendment.

Obviously this was written as a state amendment, but I think this kind of thing is absolutely vital to have at every level of government.

No matter your political orientation, we all agree that there are lots of terrible laws on the books. Lots of old laws, lots of pernicious laws, lots of laws whose only function was to oppress a group or deny rights to a group.  These kinds of laws need to go.  The problem is, though that once they make it onto the books, they’re nearly impossible to get rid of.  No legislator wants to do it.  But often these laws still affect people and hurt their lives; for example, that it is illegal even today to sell “sex toys” in Texas.

Consider that this could be used to repeal laws like:

– prohibition on victimless crimes (like marijuana, prostution, gambling, etc)

– prohibitions on abortion

– prohibitions on stem cell research

– unfair “progressive” taxes

– prohibitions on lawful carry of firearms

– political corporate cronyism and special interest warfare

– “blue laws” against the sale of alcohol

There are at least two problems I see and they both relate to the scope of the amendment.

First, the amendment doesn’t go far enough in that it would still leave the people powerless before misuse of the power of the executive branch and all of the regulatory mess that is the “ABC organizations.”  Now, it may just be that those things should be dealt with by a different amendment, but they seem at least somewhat similar.

Second, the amendment goes too far.  Some laws are right and necessary:  we don’t want anarchy.  Government is necessary to secure rights.  Obviously, the amendment has some protection here for good laws, but I wonder if there shouldn’t be some class of law that was beyond the ability of a challenge?  Of course, if there was, then that law could then be made to do exactly the kind of thing this amendment is trying to prevent.  I guess my worry here is whether the people can really be trusted.  I guess if they can’t then we have more serious problems than a simple bad law.

Overall, though, I think this amendment is a wonderful idea and I’m interested to see how Bailey further develops it.  I’d love for it to become a force in politics and make its way into law.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Supreme Court

by Jason Stotts


I’ve been busy getting the podcast together and getting ready for another interview with Radically Candid today.  However, I want everyone to know (like you wouldn’t already know this), that Erosophia fully supports same-sex marriage and will continue to fight the philosophical battles related to same-sex marriage and just gays being treated like real people with real rights.

We’ve come a long way, but there is still a long battle ahead (no matter which way SCOTUS rules).

Polysexuality and Cultural Acceptability

by Jason Stotts

I linked to an article the other day on Scientific American that said:

On Valentine’s Day, images of couples are everywhere. They’re buying each other diamond rings, making eyes over expensive restaurant meals and canoodling over chocolate-covered strawberries and champagne. But two-by-two isn’t the only way to go through life. In fact, an estimated 4 to 5 percent of Americans are looking outside their relationship for love and sex — with their partner’s full permission.

Think about that for just a minute. Let’s focus on just this part: “an estimated 4 to 5 percent of Americans [are polysexual].”  Four or five percent.  The current US population (according to the US Census for July 2012) is 313,914,040 people, 313 million people.  So, that means there are 12,556,562 to 15,695,702 people who are actively polysexual in the United States!  And that number is sure to be dramatically underreported as fears about privacy and shame keep people from honestly reporting.  If you put all those polysexual people in one state it would be the 5th most populated state in the US.

You know what’s a shame?  That those 5% of the US population, those 1 in 20 people feel ashamed at their desires and feel like they will be rejected by society at large.  They feel like they need to hide their real selves and their real desires so as not to be shunned by our society.  What’s really a shame is that these 5% of people are the ones acting most naturally according to our human nature.  We are a naturally polysexual species and if it weren’t for the judeo-islamic-christian hatred of the body, then more people would feel free to be themselves and act according to their nature.

Consider a contrast case.  Most estimates put the homosexual population of the US around 3.5%.  Think about that for a minute.  What was life like in the US for the gay population in the 50’s?  What is it like now?  What’s the difference between the gay population now and the polysexual population now?  There are more polysexuals, so it’s not that.  The difference is that some brave gays stood up and fought to be recognized as real people.  They fought against the religious hatred and mysticism and fought to be recognized as a normal and natural sexual orientation (which it is).

Why not the polysexuals?  There are more polysexuals than gay people (although, admittedly  there is definitely overlap between the populations).  Why can’t the polysexual population stand up and say: “We are not ashamed of our sexuality!”  All the movement needs is a charismatic leader who is willing to be the face of the movement and who can argue clearly why polysexual is both natural and normal and nothing to be ashamed about.

Frankly, I think it’s time that polysexual people stop hiding in their closets and come out to their friends and families about their lifestyles.  If 1 in 20 people came out, there would be no stopping the movement.  Even if you don’t think you know someone who is polysexual, if you know more than 20 people, the you definitely do.  It’s time that we end this crazy puritanical fear about sex and started living our lives in whatever way works best for us without any fear or shame.

A world where people can sexually be themselves is a world I want to live in.


See also my related essay: Sexuality and Privacy