Skip to main content

Sex as a Weapon

Posted in

Author: Dr. Wassil Nowicky
Published in „Ukraina Moloda“ (Young Ukraine) 19.11.1998

For more than a year the mass-media have been claiming, and forcing the opinion on American society, that the president does not have a right to be a gentleman.

European public opinion was outraged and shocked, not so much about what Mr. Clinton did but much more about how appallingly the so-called moralists have been enjoying the story. Obviously America has no other problems and concerns. Perhaps the question of whether oral sex is real sex is really more important than social injustice, rising crime levels and natural disasters.

John F. Kennedy is now America's national hero and streets and squares are named after him. He has received a whole series of awards. At the time he narrowed the catastrophic gap between rich and poor in America. However, there were also people who were irritated by this. After all, it is much easier to rob the poor and oppressed than the prosperous and self-confident.

In Kennedy's time – the time of student demonstrations on the eve of the sexual revolution – the president's love affairs could not have been sufficient reason for his removal from office. They would not have stirred up the necessary public reaction for his enemies. Thus a different method was chosen – he was simply assassinated. However, experience has shown that assassination causes too many problems for its instigators. A tried and tested method has demonstrated itself to be much better: to manipulate people with the help of sex. In order to be able to use this weapon one must first stop the liberalisation of sex. One must explain to people that sex is not a natural feeling and source of joy, but rather something obscene and demonic. Naturally in every society there is a group of people for whom the feeling of sexual pleasure is alien. The dominance of double moral standards is introduced into society with the active support of such groups. In this way, people who should otherwise only inspire pity are stylised into role models and even almost heroes and those who do not only have exceptional intelligence but also above-average sexuality find themselves in a bitter conflict with double standards. Those of them who cannot give in to aggressive Puritanism and double moral standards frequently end up in psychiatric institutions.

The manipulation of human consciousness has always been one of the most important features of totalitarian regimes. It is most successful when a basic natural instinct, the sex drive, is exploited. In the USA the laws and social rules are gradually being changed and in the view of the American mass-media sex is now the greatest crime, a real taboo. Paying a compliment to a pretty woman is categorised as sexual harassment. A friendly gesture such as laying a hand on a woman's shoulder has already cost some men millions in compensation "for moral damages inflicted".

Like his great predecessor John F. Kennedy, President Clinton is also continuing the policy of political and economic progress. He is also making an effort to combat poverty in his country. This obviously does not please everybody. There is no doubt that somebody wanted to take over power and destroy President Clinton as a political figure.

Is it ethically justifiable to force a gentleman to divulge details of his intimate relationship with a woman in public? If Clinton had given in to the demands made by the powerful of the world, nobody would have found out the origin of the stain on Lewinsky's dress. The careful planning of the whole affair is striking even for someone who has no insight behind the scenes of events.

The author of this article has often been in the USA and discussed this topic with many people. Also those who did not vote for Clinton in the presidential elections were shocked by the dirty campaign waged against him. However, all efforts of the author to have a letter on the subject published in the American press have been to no avail. 

Perhaps this only concerns Europeans and Americans are of a different opinion? If not, then perhaps they simply do not dare to publish their opinion in the mass-media. If this is also not the case and it is simply due to the American newspapers which are not prepared to publish the letters of citizens who do not share their opinion, what is then going on with the American press? Is this whole dirty story not evidence of the real condition of press freedom in the USA?