Patricia Evangelista devotes a column to a store selling sex toys and, like clockwork, some guy complains, calling it "crass." It hardly is. In fact it was written pretty tastefully as far as columns go. The guy says the article belongs in a cheap tabloid but as a guy who reads everything I'm pretty sure it doesn't (he should take a look at what's in tabloids). Evangelista knows what she is doing.
Two things befuddle me whenever some social conservative writes a letter to the editor complaining about something "immoral."
First is the assumption that the Inquirer, or any other newspaper, is supposed to follow "Christian teachings." They are not. Nowhere does it say in the paper that they espouse any brand of Christianity and it is extremely presumptuous for anyone to believe so.
Second is the obsession about sex. Why does writing about any aspect of sex automatically render an article "crass?" The letter writer even demonstrates his ignorance by saying "Rapists and pedophiles may now rest assured that what they do is merely living out their healthy sexual lifestyle," lumping together patrons of the store with criminals. The article mentions nothing of rapists and pedophiles, just a woman who owns a sex shop.
Then he wonders why the paper saw fit to print such a column. It's to educate people like you, buddy.
6 comments:
From Wiktionary:
Adjective
crass (comparative crasser, superlative crassest)
1. coarse; crude; not refined or sensible
I haven't read the column yet, but I agree with you that a newspaper column about sex toys need not be "crass". After all, being "refined" has nothing to do with what someone says but with how someone behaves and expresses himself. I am sure, for example, that a hedonistic, homicidal cannibal could be perfectly tasteful as he discusses the finer points of skull-slicing to a refined, gentlemanly group of sadists and suicidal masochists. Not that I have anything against cannibals, sadists, and masochists, for as long as they don't forcefully impose their views on others, you know... I only use them as an example because they, like our dildo-using brethren, have been so unjustly accused of being crass and barbaric (Armin Meiwes, anyone?), when all they ever wanted is to enhance their lives, develop their tastes, and experience different sensual pleasures, which, as we all know, is all the real happiness that can possibly be hoped for by us puny temporal bits of star-scum.
It is unfortunate that this guy who responded to the column is so blind not to see that his cosmic philosophy applies only to himself and not, for example, to the whole cosmos. I suppose his tendency to assume that moral laws should objectively apply to all moral beings is but another sad symptom of the disease called "Christianity", including the tendency to see human life (including human sexuality) beyond materialistic explanations, whatever that means. I'm afraid that he might have forgotten those enlightened discoveries such as that sex toys are a vital part of one's education and, more importantly, that people can do anything they want for as long as everyone involved has consented to it.
Personally, I blame the fracking crackers he worships and eats at the same time (talk about crass, eh?). I bet they put something mentally-retarding in those things...
Analogy fail. Cannibals commit crimes because they kill people. Refined or not they should be arrested and tried. People who use sex toys are not doing anything illegal and are not hurting anyone (unless they're into that ;) ).
"...people can do anything they want for as long as everyone involved has consented to it."
Yes, exactly the point of secularism. Sarcasm fail.
Boo. I expected something better Francis :))
Aw, don't be so hard on cannibals, Sir Pat. Not all of them are heartless killers, ya know? If you bothered to read about Armin Meiwes, you'd know that he found a perfectly refined way of eating human flesh. None of that crude forced-killings, and definitely no need to scavenge for unwanted corpses (like, ewww...). No, a sensible, humanistic, utterly Bright cannibal can just search for a willing partner for a very delightful feast (let us call him, say, them the "feaster" and the "feastee"). It's just like how lots of kinky sex happens, right? Enlightened people searching each other out on the Net without having to be noticed by dumb religionists.
Now, since the feastee has consented to being eaten, all the feaster needs to do is ensure that the whole process is painless and even pleasurable for the feastee, and this is easily done with the help of drugs and some really fine drinks in a date-like environment. Which is, again, exactly like how the free-spirited sex-experts of today use drugs (among other things) to enhance the sexual experience and remove any unwanted side-effects (e.g. the creation of loud, drooling, economy-destroying parasites).
And since we all know that the exact point of secularism (oh, that rational and true philosophy!) is that Goodness only comes from consent, then we know that a cannibalistic feast that has been done with consent from all involved must be perfectly Good. Of course it is! No question about it!
So you see, just as in the past when people with specific sexual needs could not fulfill those needs easily and openly because narrow-minded Christian bigots are too obsessed with brainwashing girls with their Medieval morality (forcing them to rape and sometimes kill people), the only reason cannibals have been pitifully forced to murder their dinner is because the same bigoted Christians insist that people's bodies are "sacred" gifts from some weird bearded man in the clouds and that one does not have the right to give consent for this own butchering. Without that crap getting in the way, then it's pretty easy to spread the truth to the millions of sad people in the world: about how dying isn't so bad, especially if you'll help feed the hungry and help decrease the surplus population in the process. And you'll get free drugs and booze, too!
The Truth, as we all know, is that human bodies are nothing but particularly complex bits of machinery made from clumps of goop. Whatever the goopy gunks want, whatever their needs or desired, whatever their accomplishments or failures, are all in the end meaningless in the face of the vast amoral unthinking cosmos, so we might as well experience all the pleasure we can and enable others to do so as well while our futile, meaningless lives last.
Am I right, or am I right? Of course I'm right! I've followed Enlightened Logic from the start!
***
> Yes, exactly the point of secularism. Sarcasm fail.
Oh well, I tried. If this discussion lasts longer, then I'm not finished, yet! More opportunities for improvement! :P
If they both consent, then morally there's nothing wrong with it. Of course the law of the particular country that they're living in might pose problems.
"Whatever the goopy gunks want, whatever their needs or desired, whatever their accomplishments or failures, are all in the end meaningless in the face of the vast amoral unthinking cosmos, so we might as well experience all the pleasure we can and enable others to do so as well while our futile, meaningless lives last."
Ah, but we make our own meaning. Your entire post seems to say "if god isn't there, then what are we here for?" Exercise a little imagination will ya, the guys who made up the major religions did and they managed to fool billions. :))
But seriously, people are coming up with secular philosophies based on observable facts (check out daylightatheism.org). We need not live in fear of a being in heaven in order to come up with a rational moral code. Unless of course you find anything we do meaningless unless some guy from above dictates it.
Ah, finally you've conceded that our cannibalistic brethren do have a place in the High and Enlightened Society of Brights. Now it'd be easy to convince you that such things as consensual homicide (not just for cannibalism, ya know?), consensual pedophilia, and consensual incest are all perfectly fine. You should also agree that people who for some reason cannot give or deny consent are beyond our moral code, and therefore need not be protected. One could appreciate how great such a system would be. Clearly, the only moral code worth having is one which puts consent above everything else, so we agree with that, also.
But, Sir, here's what I'd like to refute:
"Your entire post seems to say 'if god isn't there, then what are we here for?'"
Now, now, you're making me sound like an ignorant fundie, Sir Pat. What my post was saying is that we *do* have something to be "here for", and that is to experience as much pleasure as possible before the end of our insignificant existence. Our goal is to shove lots of endorphins into our bloodstream before the careless, unthinking, infinitely powerful universe swallows us into oblivion. That is the only Good News, isn't it, Sir Pat? The only Gospel is that our doom is nigh, and we should at least be smiling when it happens...not that it'd be of any significance if we smile or not when black-cloaked Death slashes our life-threads, but, well, at least we'd be smiling, right?!
If all rapists and pedophiles were to buy sex toys and keep their perversions to themselves (and the unfortunate fleshlights), then why complain? I say let's have a sex shop in every street corner.
Post a Comment