tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post7679510412048735786..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Necrophiliacs AnonymousDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-65969804264735466442014-10-07T08:37:03.030-07:002014-10-07T08:37:03.030-07:00"Rape can be very evil and heinous and widely..."Rape can be very evil and heinous <i>and</i> widely implicate large portions of the American population."<br /><br />Can we think of other examples of acts that society deems “evil and heinous,” yet are widely practiced? Slavery? Abortion? Executing Jews during the Holocaust? Prostitution? Sodomy? Homosexual sex? Viewing pornography? <br /><br />Yet presumably most/many of the people engaged in these activities did not regard them as evil and heinous at the time. (Although there are obvious exceptions. Jefferson seemed to regard slavery as wrongful, even as he practiced it. Pro-life politicians procure abortions. I recall some commentary on people working at concentration camps who reported finding their duties nauseating, yet felt trapped into performing them. Many homosexuals report feeling conflicted about their sexual encounters. Etc.)<br /><br />Imagine the day that meat-eating is deemed evil and heinous. What judgments should society draw about the character of carnivores living today? <br /><br />These questions are designed to illuminate the term “evil and heinous.” Some might suggest that this term refers to an objective (if ill-defined) test of deviation from a social norm/ethical code/moral code. In contrast, deconstructionists (including Chait?) might argue that the term has no objective meaning; it merely serves to as a psychological tool to rationalize to ourselves the act of drawing arbitrary distinctions on a continuum. <br /><br />But if the size of the population implicated in the evil and heinous act is sufficiently large, can we still derive the psychological benefits of distancing ourselves from <i>those people</i> who engage in <i>that behavior</i>? Perhaps so. That is, perhaps the social capacity for hypocrisy is sufficiently expansive to let us condemn in public the behaviors we practice in private. <br /><br />And it also suggests something about using shame as a tool of behavior modification. I expect we can get most drivers to admit that they speed on the highway; it’s a readily observable fact about the entire herd, even if it isn’t quite as observable with respect to any specific member of the herd. More to the point, this activity is not deemed “evil and heinous.” Yet getting people to admit that they harbor prejudices based on race, gender, etc., is neigh impossible – even if the aggregate effects of prejudice are easily observed. As a tool for counteracting prejudice, we have stigmatized it. And this stigma discourages people from acknowledging their participation in it. So perhaps “undue discrimination” is the archetypical example of a widely-practiced activity that is deemed “evil and heinous.”EWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07704258203202907249noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-32101011006925292432014-10-06T19:45:27.317-07:002014-10-06T19:45:27.317-07:00I can't speak for anyone else, but that change...I can't speak for anyone else, but that change would make a difference to me, especially if it were the rule for "new" sexual partners. Not to be too graphic, but there's a real difference between trying to slip a hand under a shirt without knowing it's welcome, much less trying to initiate kissing, and trying to engage in intercourse without knowing. I'm not sure the narrower rule would do much good, but that's a different question.David Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12672281130425786127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-66279806726491675102014-10-06T19:41:14.703-07:002014-10-06T19:41:14.703-07:00That's a fair point. I'm curious how many ...That's a fair point. I'm curious how many people's minds would change if "affirmative consent" was simply required for (we'll say) oral, anal, or vaginal sex. It seems like, however we feel about the possibility of unclear signals at the kissing stage, they should be pretty much cleared up by then.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-19327396282215943592014-10-06T19:30:40.333-07:002014-10-06T19:30:40.333-07:00David, your post proceeds as if the law requires &...David, your post proceeds as if the law requires "affirmative consent" to sexual intercourse. It in fact requires consent to "sexual activity." I don't think that's defined in the statute, but it's obviously broader than sexual intercourse.David Bernsteinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12672281130425786127noreply@blogger.com