from disgust to reason

The trouble with Martha Nussbaum’s analogy between revulsion at “taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement”, and discarded disgust-based policies, from India’s denigration of its “untouchables” to the Nazi view of Jews, to a legally sanctioned regime of separate swimming pools and water fountains in the Jim Crow South, is that only the first moral sentiment has a sound basis in physiology. Any sort of anal penetration is intrinsically harmful, even when it gets done by a proctologist, just as any sort of radiation exposure is harmful, even when it is administered for therapeutic or diagnostic purposes. The physical effects of anal penetration, precipitated by the concomitant trauma to the connecting tissue, are analogous to injecting raw sewage into the recipient’s bloodstream. Incontinence is another common and well-documented effect of receptive anal intercourse. By contrast, no health liabilities inhere in being a Jew or a Dalit, or mixing different races at a common water supply. If in doubt, consult your doctor.

14 thoughts on “from disgust to reason”

    1. Re: Inter faeces et urinam

      Regardless of its rectitude, the missionary position nowise depends on my defense. In the instant matter I agree with Plato in Laws 636c and Atistotle in Nicomachean Ethics 1148b27-30.

  1. By contrast, no health liabilities inhere in being a Jew

    As an argument about rights and wrongs, that’s bogus on so many levels. What if some do ? Actually:

    Many recessive genetic disorders are found at a higher incidence in people of Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) descent than in the general population.

        1. The studies referenced in the above link relate to the mortality rates concomitant with homosexual behavior. Are you saying that this is not a matter of choice?

          1. No, I am saying that

            The trouble with Martha Nussbaum’s analogy between revulsion at “taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wriggling it around in excrement”, and discarded disgust-based policies, from India’s denigration of its “untouchables” to the Nazi view of Jews, to a legally sanctioned regime of separate swimming pools and water fountains in the Jim Crow South, is that only the first moral sentiment has a sound basis in physiology

            identifies the trouble in the wrong place. The trouble is that the analogy compares something that is a matter of choice with something that isn’t.

  2. Ice cream is not good for us but that doesn’t quite matter to many. Certainly it is more healthy to have vaginal intercourse, though it is also certain that there is still some sort of defense mechanism as one -is- being PENETRATED. I believe that women, even with the place of the g-spot in a man, can enjoy anal sex much more, for they are more geared toward, and have learned all their life, that they are to enjoy penetration. Getting fucked in the ass is much -more- of a penetration. Certainly, as I’ve said and fully agree with, anal sex isn’t as physiologically healthy as vaginal, though think of my first example. It does not matter if ice cream or anal sex is bad for us in the moment, and seemingly the things that are worse for us we come to enjoy even more. The eyes cannot perceive a real curved line. Only in distortion can we perceive the circle. And circles are quite interesting to us as humans, aren’t they? I can go a lot further with this, but I’d rather halt here and ask you why you wish to speak against something so unimportant?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *