Tuesday, July 19, 2005

The money post

Over at AmbivaBlog, Amba takes on... pornography (and quotes me in the process). See here. Once again, she shows that she's one of the most thoughtful contributors to the blogosphere. On this one, I suspect that I'm more of a cultural liberal than she is, and I do think there's more to pornography than she allows in her analysis, but, overall, she raises some excellent points.

If you're already tired of all the Roberts talk, her post is a good... release. (Sorry. That was lame.)

Bookmark and Share


  • A side topic of interest. Sasha, the sex columnist of the Montreal weekly, the Mirror, recently responded to a question about beastiality. http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/063005/sasha.html.
    Rather than lambast the questioner for proposing something that is (in my mind) utterly repugnant and reprehensible, what I would categorize as akin to sex with children or other inapporpiate partners, Sasha in fact provides guidance on beastiality. A second column appeared this week in which she writes the following statement: "children and women are not dogs, and equating their sexual abuse to the sexual use of a willing canine is appalling. If dogs unequivocally deserve the same consideration as humans in this matter, should I then consider every horny dog’s unwanted sexual advances on me to be abuse as well?"
    Does anyone else find this attitude chilling?

    The link: http://www.montrealmirror.com/2005/071405/sasha.html

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:50 AM  

  • Rachelllll,

    I think it's an idiotic non-sequitur. The issue of equating one thing to another is silly. I don't "equate" murder with shoplifting but they are both wrong and I don't do them. Whether or not sexual abuse of animals is equivalent to sexual abuse of women and children is similar to saying whether beating your dog is as bad as beating your children. What difference does it make if they are equivalent--you shouldn't do either.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:02 AM  

  • I hope you are not implying that it is idiotic to call attention to Sasha's column, but instead are trying to state that the content of her column is idiotic. The column tackles a statement made by another blogger that porn is okay as long as there is consent, then points out some of the issues of religion, cultural morals, and biology. I see a link -- many of the arguments that defend pornography can also be used to defend beastiality. While I place the focus of my question on sexuality on who or what is protected and to what extent that protection should go, others are obviously still asking why we need protection in the first place.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:49 AM  

  • I'm not sure what Marc meant, but I realize that you weren't making such a claim. I think it's absolutely atrocious to validate something as reprehensible as bestiality. I realize that one of the difficulties with liberalism is that it's not always clear where liberty ends, but I think consent needs to be a foundation for the relations between human beings. A child cannot consent to sex, for example. As for animals, I think we can draw the line well before inter-species sex.

    Thanks for the link to Sasha's column, Rachel. I may post about it soon.

    By Blogger Michael J.W. Stickings, at 4:10 PM  

  • Rachellll,

    I was absolutely not referring to you and I am sorry if I wrote in a way that implied that. I was trying to say that I thought it was stupid of Sasha to say that bestiality could not be condemned on the ground that to do so would be equating animals with women and children. Two things can be wrong with necessarily implying that they are equivalent.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:40 PM  

  • By Blogger haydar, at 10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home