🔥 Introduction: When Blankets Fail and Power Desires Innocence

There comes a time in a man’s life—no matter how great—when warmth deserts the bones; not even the richest wool nor the softest silk can mend the cold creeping from within. King David, the lion of Judah, the slayer of Goliath, the psalmist of Israel, found himself wrapped not in glory, but in a strange and silent frost.

The Bible tells us in 1 Kings 1:14 that “King David was old and stricken in years, and they covered him with clothes, but he got no heat.” And so, a young virgin—Abishag the Shunammite, was brought to lie beside the king, not for pleasure, the text insists, but to “minister unto him”. To warm him.

But what sort of warmth can a virgin offer that no cloak, no fire, no concubine could?

This was not a medical solution. It was political theatre. The choice of a young, beautiful, untouched woman to lie with a dying monarch was more than just a search for heat. It was symbolism, test, and succession strategy—a whisper to the court that David’s virility, and therefore legitimacy, had not entirely perished.

Yet Scripture carefully adds, “But the king knew her not.” Why this emphasis?

❝Is abstinence here a mark of holiness—or the cruel irony that even kings cannot escape the impotence of time?❞

But the deeper enigma lies not in what David didn’t do but in what came after. Abishag the Shunammite—young, loyal, and beautiful—was never married. Her presence in the king’s bed became a sacred claim, a political symbol so potent that when David’s son, Adonijah, later requested to marry her, it was seen by Solomon as an act of treason. In royal protocol, to inherit the king’s concubine was to claim his crown.

And so Adonijah was executed.

❝What began as a gesture of warmth became a throne of death.❞

Why was Abishag forbidden love? Why did her virginity become a national secret, her touch a crown’s claim, and her presence in David’s bed, a bridge between kingdoms and coffins?

This is the tragedy of politicised desire: where innocence becomes property, where youth is both a remedy and a curse, and where power weaponises warmth.

In the courtroom of history, Abishag is not a woman—she is evidence.

A body that proved a king could still summon beauty and a body that doomed a prince who dared to touch what had once touched sovereignty.

THIS IS A FICTIONAL courtroom monologue titled:

“The People vs. The Warmth That Killed a Prince”?

Courtroom: The Supreme Tribunal of Human Nature and Moral Philosophy

Judge: Hon. Lady Justice Conscientia.

Prosecution: Ms Ethica Moralstein, Counsel for The People

Defence: Mr Lucius Veritas, Advocate for Human Biology and Evolutionary Psychology

Witnesses: Dr Libido von Naturalis (Biologist), Prof. Sophia Cortex (Neuroscientist), Mr Adam Grey (Age 62), Ms Iris Bloom (Age 23)

Clerk of Court: Reason

Case Number: 001/2025—The People vs. Biology on the Claim That Young Women Provide the Best Sexual Gratification for Older Men

⚖ Opening Statements

Ms Moralstein (Prosecution):

"My Lady Justice, we are here to challenge a dangerous myth—one that has been used to justify manipulation, gendered power imbalance, and psychological harm. The claim that young women provide the best sexual gratification for older men is not only ethically questionable, but is a social construct masked in pseudo-science. We will prove that this narrative exploits youth, masks insecurity, and threatens the dignity of intergenerational relations."

Mr Veritas (Defence):

"My Lady, while morality weaves the fabric of society, biology spins the thread of desire. We do not deny abuse exists, but this court is not prosecuting crime—it is prosecuting nature itself. We shall show, with evidence, that the sexual gratification older men report with younger women is scientifically demonstrable, neurologically explainable, and psychologically valid. The court must not confuse discomfort with deception."

🧬 Witness 1: Dr Libido von Naturalis—Expert in Evolutionary Biology

Defence: “Doctor, is there an evolutionary basis for older male attraction to younger females?”

Dr Libido:

“Yes. Males across mammalian species are drawn to indicators of fertility—youth, symmetry, unblemished skin, and oestrogenic signals. In humans, older men have reduced testosterone but often seek youthful partners as a biological compensation for vitality loss. This is not predatory—its evolutionary preservation.”

Prosecution:

“Are you saying biology excuses preference?”

Dr Libido:

“Not excuses—explanations. Morality governs behaviour. Biology governs desire.”

🧠 Witness 2: Prof. Sophia Cortex—Neuroscientist

Defence: “Professor, what happens in the male brain when exposed to younger female cues?”

Prof. Cortex:

“Neuroimaging reveals heightened activity in the ventral tegmental area and nucleus accumbens—the brain’s reward circuits. For older men, these regions light up more in response to younger female features due to dopaminergic and testosterone reactivation. This creates more intense pleasure anticipation.”

Prosecution:

“But isn’t that mere fantasy?”

Prof. Cortex:

“It’s measurable neural stimulation. Sexual gratification is rooted in neural reward. Biology doesn’t lie—even if society is uncomfortable with the result.”

👤 Witness 3: Mr Adam Grey (62)—Retired Engineer

Defence:

“Mr Grey, describe your experience dating a younger partner.”

Adam Grey:

“It was like being plugged back into the grid. I felt alive, desired, and powerful—not because I wanted to dominate, but because she rekindled something, my age mates could not. We laughed, danced, and explored life—and yes, our intimacy was more electric than anything I’d known in years.”

Prosecution:

“Was that love—or lust and ego?”

Adam Grey:

“Even if it began with lust, what’s wrong with that? She consented. I consented. Isn’t adult choice sacred?”

👩 Witness 4: Ms Iris Bloom (23)—Entrepreneur

Defence:

“Ms Bloom, were you exploited?”

Iris Bloom:

“Not. I pursued him. Older men listen. They cherish. And sexually, they are patient, grateful, and attentive. I felt more satisfied with him than with boys who were fast and selfish. This wasn’t power imbalance—it was power alignment.”

Prosecution:

“But didn’t you feel objectified?”

Iris:

“No. I felt adored. There’s a difference.”

🔨 Closing Argument

Prosecution—Ms Moralstein:

“This case is not about denying chemistry but questioning what we glorify. Society romanticises older men with younger women but hides the psychological consequences of the young. We ask this court to reject biological determinism as justification for indulgence. Sex is not only chemistry—it is context.”

Defence—Mr Veritas:

“My Lady, let us not turn truth into taboo. Sexual gratification is not a press release—it is a private neurochemical transaction. We cannot criminalise desire simply because it offends the sensibilities of social orthodoxy. If consent exists, if pleasure exists, then let biology breathe.”

⚖ Judgment by Lady Justice Conscientia

“This court recognises that sexual gratification is both a personal experience and a social phenomenon. While exploitation must be condemned, the court finds no moral or scientific falsehood in the claim that older men often experience heightened sexual gratification with younger women. The discomfort lies not in biology, but in society’s failure to distinguish consensual desire from coercive power. Case dismissed, but reflection recommended.”

❝Let man not be judged for what his neurons fire, but for how his actions align with honour, consent, and compassion.❞

Part Two

We now proceed to Part II of this intellectual courtroom drama—this time from a sharper moral lens.

⚖ THE PEOPLE vs. PATRIARCHY: WHEN BIOLOGY BECOMES A SHIELD FOR MANIPULATION

Courtroom: The Supreme Tribunal of Ethics and Power

Judge: Hon. Justice Equitas Lumina.

Prosecution: Ms Trutha Ndugu, Senior Advocate for Human Dignity

Defence: Mr Lucius Veritas, Counsel for Natural Desire (Returning)

Expert Witnesses: Dr Karma Wekesa (Sociologist), Ms Zaria Nambi (Survivor), Prof. Tendo Arocha (Gender Psychologist)

Clerk of Court: Justice-in-Context

Case Number: 002/2025—The People vs. Patriarchy: When Biology Crosses the Line into Exploitation

⚔ Opening Statements

Ms Trutha Ndugu (Prosecution):

"My Lord, we come not to criminalise biology but to cross-examine the uses to which biology is put. Patriarchy is not simply a social order; it is a system that weaponises biological instinct to mask manipulation, grooming, and generational exploitation. We are here to ask: When does preference become power abuse? When does sexual desire become a cloak for control?"

Mr Veritas (Defence):

"My Lord, this case threatens to turn human desire into a political hostage. We shall prove that attraction to youth is not inherently patriarchal. Patriarchy may abuse biology, but biology itself is not the enemy. It is the foundation of our species. Let us not punish the flame for what men do with the fire."

🧠 Witness 1: Dr Karma Wekesa—Sociologist, Makerere University

Prosecution: “Dr Wekesa, what do your findings reveal about power and age in sexual relationships?”

Dr Wekesa:

“Our field studies in Uganda and Kenya found that in most relationships between older men and younger women, economic coercion and emotional grooming were present. What’s termed ‘consensual’ is often the result of structural inequality. Young women comply not out of desire, but dependency.”

Defence:

“Isn’t it possible for desire and dependency to coexist?”

Dr Wekesa:

“Yes, but only when power is balanced. In most cases I studied, men were not partners—they were puppet masters in a velvet cloak.”

🎓 Witness 2: Prof. Tendo Arocha—Gender Psychologist

Prosecution:

“Professor, when does biological attraction become manipulation?”

Prof. Arocha:

“When the age gap is coupled with economic disparity, social pressure, or emotional immaturity, desire stops being mutual and becomes transactional domination. The older party often sets the pace, tone, and exit clauses of the relationship. That is not desire—it is design.”

Defence:

“But if the young woman consents, is it still manipulation?”

Prof. Arocha:

“When consent is crafted in a context of need, ignorance, or flattery, it is not consent—it is surrender. And gratification drawn from surrender is a moral grey zone.”

🧍 Witness 3: Ms Zaria Nambi (26)—Former “Sugar Baby”, Survivor & Activist

Prosecution:

“Zaria, tell us your story.”

Zaria:

“At 19, I dated a 55-year-old man. He gave me money, affection, and approval—but I was a project to him. My body was his dopamine; my silence was his security. I thought I was special, but I was one of many. When I started speaking up, he dumped me and moved on to someone even younger.”

“It wasn’t sex—it was systematic emotional seduction. I now know: I was prey wrapped in pearls.”

Defence:

“But didn’t you benefit financially?”

Zaria:

“Yes. So does a bribe taker. It doesn’t make it right.”

🧾 Closing Argument

Prosecution—Ms Ndugu:

"We are not here to ban desire—we are here to interrogate the architecture behind its fulfilment. When older men repeatedly seek youth not for companionship but for silence, admiration, and control, they are not making love—they are maintaining patriarchal continuity. If biology is a spark, let it not be used to burn down the dignity of the young.”

Defence—Mr Veritas:

"We must draw a line between corruption and construction. Yes, power can taint desire—but not all desire is corrupt. Let us not crucify instinct for the sins of insecure men. Biology must be managed, not banished."

👩‍⚖ Final Judgment by Justice Equitas Lumina

“This court acknowledges the dual reality: biology is natural, but so is power. When biology is used to exploit vulnerability, it ceases to be innocent. Therefore, while sexual gratification with younger women may be neurologically valid, its moral validity depends on the ecosystem of consent—economic, emotional, and intellectual. Genuine desire requires not just arousal but equilibrium.”

✅ “The court concludes: Biology is admissible—but patriarchy is not. Let those who desire also discern.”

🔄 Moral of the Trial Series

Case I affirmed the neurochemical truth: sexual gratification between older men and younger women is biologically credible.

Case II demanded ethical accountability: that gratification must not be purchased through power, poverty, or psychological grooming.