How You Helped Academics Justify Sex With Children

It is remarkable that persons most likely to screech at you about “believing in” evolution are apt to say things like “Trans women are women” or speak of “pregnant people”, and to support things like (the deadly sin of) “Pride” parades and gmarriage; i.e. government-defined marriage, by which I mean such things as the non-marriages of two or three or more men and so forth.

Three? Here is a story: “For the first time, 3 men in a polyamorous relationship have been allowed to adopt.” Canada, of course.

We’re not here per se interested in theories of biological change, but it is notable that (most) accounts of evolution and the judgement non-procreative sexual activities are good are mutually contradictory. Yet both are simultaneously believed.

You get to believe only one—or neither.
Of course, the more intelligent in this set realize this, and so invent for themselves myriad “evolutionary psychology” theories which explain why the two guys in the sociology department who cavort as furries and sodomize each other to earn bacon treats from their dungeon master are “really” promoting the evolutionary success of relatives. “Look at my implied fitness equations!”. These theories are so preposterous and asinine only an academic can pretend to believe them.

Continued below.