I aanother era, this would have been a reductio ad absurdum argument against sexual permissivess.
--- Peter Hart Ward <pward at peterhartward.com> wrote:
> "In Defense of Dogs Giving Blowjobs"
>
> Although it ought to be implicit from what follows,
> I feel that if I
> don't make an apology at the outset I will be
> setting myself up for a
> torrent of unfair accusations. I am not arguing in
> favor of rape, or
> pedophilia (though I think our responses to both
> raise serious
> criticism, a topic for another discussion). Nor am I
> arguing for any
> form of sexual activity (assuming all participants
> are human) were
> all involved are not both fully "consensual" but
> also not fully
> competent to give consent (by "competent" I mean
> sober, mentally fit
> and adult). I should also note that this is not
> intended as satire--I
> take these issues as seriously as I take any--
>
> It seems to me that we are just, or nearly at any
> rate, as bigoted
> with respect to sexual "perversions" as ever. All
> that has changed is
> what was once tolerated is no longer tolerated and
> vice versa. In
> particular, modern bigotry is aimed at those who
> have sex with
> animals, those who commit incest and those who have
> multiple sexual
> partners who wish to enter marriage. If "bestiality"
> can be proved to
> be harmful animals then clearly it ought to be
> objected to for this
> reason (provided we also stop other actions, such as
> buying leather
> and eating meat, that, unlike fucking them or being
> fucked by them*,
> are patently harmful to animals). But if we're
> honest, no one really
> objects to bestiality for this reason--they do so
> for the exact same
> reasons many object to homosexuality.
>
> The case seems the same with polygamy, polyandry and
> other
> "unconventional" arraignments. It is true that
> existing forms
> polygamy happen to be the product of profoundly
> patriarchal cultures
> such as the LDS Church, but I do no think that
> polygamy is
> necessarily patriarchal, assuming all involved do so
> fully
> voluntarily. Besides, monogamous marriage (as we
> understand it) is
> itself a deeply patriarchal institution.
>
> As of the other two, a shallow scientific/rational
> rationale is
> provided in argument against incest**--that it
> increases the chances
> of birth defects where a child is conceived. In this
> case I agree
> that it is irresponsible for two who are closely
> related to beget
> offspring (or risk doing so accidently)***; however,
> no valid
> argument comes to mind against homosexual incest.
>
> In this respect as in many others I think we should
> careful not to be
> too quick to pat ourselves on the back about our
> supposedly
> "enlightened values"; not only is the smugness of it
> unattractive,
> worse, it prevents us from tackling very real
> problems left to be
> dealt with.
>
> *In a documentary--unfortunately I have forgotten
> the title--that
> aired on Channel 4 (UK) several women variously
> describe being humped
> and given head by various male animals, including
> dogs and horses. In
> these cases it is clear the animal in question was a
> more-than-
> willing participant.
>
> **Prejudice against incest runs deep in the academic
> community, where
> is cloaked in fancy psychoanalytic jargon such as
> "oedipal complex".
> Mutations aside, it may turn out there are valid
> psychological
> reasons for the avoidance of incest. My suspicion is
> that this is the
> case. However, psychology is too poorly developed at
> this stage to
> honestly assert this claim with any confidence and
> even if in the
> future it becomes able to this fact would hardly
> justify kind of
> abuse those who commit incest are commonly subject
> to.
>
> **I will admit the it is curious how religious
> morality often appears
> to anticipate genuine scientific discoveries. For
> example, moralists
> have had in for smokers probably since tobacco was
> discovered to
> Westerners and it turns out in fact smoking is a bad
> idea for
> perfectly valid scientific reasons. In spite of this
> fact I am not
> prepared to defend groundless superstitions that
> infringe on liberty
> on the basis that those peddling them might
> accidentally be correct.
>
> Peter
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ