It is the plight of the Real Libertarian to argue from principle, on which most will agree, to a conclusion, by sound logic, which, yet, they do not. That said, I am always happy to take up an opponents principles themselves and argue, by sound logic, to a conclusion which they themselves should have to accept, provided it nevertheless supports Real Libertarian policy. It is in this latter spirit I wish here to point out the hypocrisy among our more militant “equality” mongers, who often care less about equality than they do about social control. I am always happy to take such fellows to task along the high road they see themselves as traveling, when in fact, that road is not so soundly leading to the conclusions, which are their real motive.
It is important to point out that ‘the problem’ of gender and sexual equality is and never was a problem for the Real Libertarian. If one says ‘live and let live’, and means it, why would one care what people do in private or public, as long as no damage is done? And it bears repeating the obvious: exposure to different ways of life is no real damage. It may be so perceived by those in need of travel, and I hate to burst a cultural bubble, but I wish to set ‘them’ free.
Some things are so secular-sacred that they are held as the Sacraments themselves – and with equivalent faith-based justification. To a Real Libertarian, such is no part of governance, even should the right to practice your life with such faith-based justifications be fine, provided you allow they are not a constraint on Liberties for the purpose of the Law. To the matter at hand, the Real Libertarian has to date cornered the market on arguments for freeing ‘them’. It could not be more obvious that people – even if they don’t care to look at my hairy physique – should nevertheless appreciate my right to play the hand I was dealt, without worrying for those who would rather I cloister and conduct myself alone or with a single mate, with insense or marajuana, the Bible or Netflix, wine or craft cocktails…
General arguments for exposing ‘them’ obviously come from our innate understanding that this persistent fashion of covering up is, in fact, little more than a matter of which side of the plate a knife and fork belong in a proper place setting; that ‘acting appropriate’ is little more than being forced to switch the fork to the right hand when you wish to consume the cut food rather than admire it; and our good fashion ‘tastes’, a matter of being relegated to one lump or two, as we take our mandatory afternoon tea. Of course, this appears less clear to the strictly fiscal libertarian, who comes home from their government-networked corporate job to dress in a suit and tie for a steak dinner, only to ironically complain about taxes in the name of more ‘liberty’ to have delicious and formerly sentient slaughtered swine to eat. But to the Real Libertarian, so much convention was constructed to reconsider.
The argument presented here, therefore, will not somehow rest on a pillar of Real Libertarian theory. It will be that even supposed egalitarian practitioners should admit an overhaul of a cherished secular-sacred principle is in order; the Real Libertarian has, of course, taken this as obvious all along, and there has not been much resistance to such covering for our relatively prosperous economic sedation. But the recent movement toward gender-sexual continuity begs us to force the question on our more authoritarian than egalitarian friends, whether they must concede where they wish not.
In the current milieu, where – at least in principle – hetero, polyamourous, bisexual, transgenders, are all fighting for the same companionship with possibly on-the-fence mates, it is clearly not fair to anyone that a man like me with nice nipples (all be them a little hairy) gets to show them off to prospecitve mates while others on the sidelines are bound by law to keep theirs to themselves. Any reasonable egalitarian, with a sense of fairness – which is supposed to be their thing – must admit the time is right to free the nips!
I have to admit, I am not really a nipple guy. There are exceptions, but by-n-large, I am unphased and unimpressed by the nipple. Nevertheless, there are exceptions, and a particularly attentive pair may, in our new world, be the deal maker. Very generally, it is anti-egalitarian that some (usually men) are allowed sway over a person, for their nipple preferences, and some (generally women) are not. This is in addition to the obvious, that enforcing sex-based-discrimination against Transgenders is a losing proposition, and therefore, the matter is in need of a simple and concise solution. We lance the knot.
This stance is considered an advance for sexual acceptance and equality. The forthcoming technicalities around soreness rubbing and quasi-suggestive behavior need adjudication, but are no more challenging than bathroom rights and playing Nicky Minaj in public. One may argue that such rights are for adults only – given possible perversions brought on by a society enforcing cover-up; and this suggests that the Authoritarian Left will nudge their friends on the Right to start outrage with a fire and brimstone passion against the moral degradation of America. But I would respond: like most things in the media which really get the populace riled up, the nips, too, don’t F’n matter. Women, chafe no more!